Transcript

which is very, very good and I think it's also a reflection of what we can do when we all work cross-party and in different ways to achieve this. Do we have any apologies? I have apologies from Councillors Gidley and Cattel and a number of members have been held up with bad traffic, especially Councillor Warns and Councillor McDonald, Mr Chairman. Good, thank you very much. Is there any conflict of participation? There is none, Mr Chairman. Are there any declarations of interest? Let's see, none. Are there any urgent items? There are none, Mr Chairman. Thank you very much. And could I please now approve the minutes of the final reads of the last meeting on April 24 and I will formally propose the minutes. Is there a second motion? Councillor Carter. All those in favour? All those against? Thank you very much. Are there any calling items? None, Mr Chairman. There have been no urgent decisions taken since the last meeting. Now we come to agenda item number 8, which is appointment of the Vice Chairman. Could we have any proposals for the Vice Chairman? Councillor Matthews. I propose Councillor McDonald. Is there a seconder? Councillor Calvary. Is there any other nominations? All those in favour? Anybody against? The motion is carried. Councillor McDonald is the Vice Chairman. We can tell him when he arrives. Hopefully he'll have changed his mind as well. We do have an agenda item 9, which was to go to Councillor McDonald. I think as he's not here, I will defer that one to a little bit later in the meeting when he has arrived. In that case, can we go to agenda item number 10, which is S106, seal presentation. Can I call upon Graham Smith. Thank you. Chairman, evening members. Ms Alford, I agree with the 106 opposite of our council. We'll talk through the report and the annex, which is the briefing paper. I don't want to deal with any questions you should have afterwards. I think just to start, this is a piece of work that's involved in a number of different offices and services within the council, given the nature of the contributions. I'll hand over to Owen to introduce the report and the annex. Thank you, Graham. So this report follows on from a previous report that was considered at the November 2022 OSCOM meeting. The outcome of that meeting was a recommendation for two action points. A briefing will be circulated to members and that member training was offered following the May 2023 elections. This was reached. So the briefing note has been circulated with this agenda. It is set out in an FAQ style and answers an overview of what is the meeting and what is section 106. This details how it is secured and how it is allocated and spent. Members training was the second action and this was completed in April 2024 with positive feedback from that. Members, welcome to take any comments or questions that you might have. Of course, the member training we had recently gave you the background to the planning process and what goes into seeking developer contributions. And you're familiar with the infrastructure and developer contributions, supplementary planning documents and also, of course, the local plan that sets out that framework for seeking those infrastructure obligations that we seek, both in terms of both of our council but also the county council as well as either educational authority and highway authority and any other organisation as well. What I think also just to highlight as well to members is the sort of time between that initial panel and the recommendations back to OSCOM and undertaking the member training. In part that was due to the May elections but also ensuring that members had the proper training for all other elements of the organisation for them to fulfill their roles. So that was why there was a sort of lag between undertaking that panel, recommending back to OSCOM and actually doing the member training, led by Erwin Ollencraft, the assistant officer, and of course Simon Finch, just head of planning and building. So Chairman, happy to take any comments or queries or questions. There's a question from Councillor Yaffe, Councillor Yaffe. Thank you for the report. I have several questions. I'm not sure how we want to, how we want to ask those questions, whether to do the first one or several questions. So the report follows on it says from the up-group view in Scrutiny committee meeting in November 2022. Where are the findings from the review and how can we check or start to look at the progress that has been made or any challenges that we still might face? Thank you. So just looking back at the original report from November 2022 here in front of me, what you have is the findings of the actual panel referred to how the contributions are sought, the basis for seeking them and how they are then attributed to relevant projects where the borough council are allowing the parish councils to seek some of that funding. The recommendations from that panel included the briefing note and the training session. So in terms of the actual panel outcomes, those have been fulfilled. I think one of the important things is as we go through the process of seeking contributions, it's always a lesson learned process of how we can bring forward development contributions, infrastructure that meets the needs of our residents, but also sits squarely within the planning framework. Some members may recall that the evaluation of new neighborhoods, which is a piece of work that we did last year, which evaluated all the allocations that we have brought forward over the years. And what we can do to improve those contributions, improve seeking those types of contributions and how we can best include that in the forthcoming. Thank you. My interest, particularly in S106, I note that the tariff based allocation for public open space and highway projects was discontinued in favour of still. Are there any remaining tariff based items used for S106? Yes, there are. A good example for that is the ecological mitigations that we seek, predominantly in the south of the borough. New forest mitigation and what's called bird aware. So that's the impact on the solems and the protected species in the solems. So contributions are taken on a tariff based for those examples. Could I just ask, are there any of the other things like the children's play spaces and so on tariff based? So children's play space for all types of public open spaces depends on the scale of development. So if it is a strategic site or significant size site that actually could be provided, a quantum of open space could be provided on site. So there is a tariff based in terms of development contributions, but certainly a quantum would have to be provided as per the policy and the development contributions requirements. The tariff in terms of contributions aren't sought towards the public open space. That would be formed part of the civil requirement. Just talking about the training, I was unfortunately unable to make the training and I think slides were provided. But was that just a one up opportunity for a training session and might there be others planned in the future? And are we satisfied that all councillors might be able to speak given that one up training event? So I'll volunteer Owen and Ollie to provide any training that members require. So if there is any queries about the community instruction levy or section 106 agreements, the officers will be more than happy to have them. Just a quick question, was it a recording of the training that would be circulated? No, I'm afraid not. Thank you. I went to the training and I asked this question of the training. I'll ask it again now because what was said to me was really here. And that's allotments. It doesn't appear to be mentioned here at all. I wonder why because certainly allotments are a statutory commitment for a parish if a community wants it. If there's a big development nearby and nothing set aside, the parish has got no way of finding the funds to purchase such a site. So why don't we mention allotments please? The issue of allotments is one that is common in terms of that request for contributions and what it can be used for. I think we have to go back to the planning principles of when we seek contributions, what's the basis for that? It has to be justified. So at the time of us applying the tariff based approach to public open space, the policy at that time included within the local plan didn't have allotments as a type of open space. You had four other types of open space, you had parklands, you had formal sports grounds, informal open space, so that general sort of grass kick around areas and the children's play equipment. That was the basis for us to see either provision on site or contributions towards improving existing facilities to meet that increased demand. Allotments wasn't one of the policies or typologies within that policy, so we didn't have the planning basis to seek that contribution or that requirement. Now, what we do have in the later editions of the more recent local plan is allotments being recognised as that is an important part of public open space requirements. However, because of the introduction of SIL, it doesn't allow for contributions to be sought on that tariff based process. What it does is provide the hook for when we do bring forward strategic allocations, all those very large rental sites, a requirement for allotments to be provided. I think a good example of that is part of the Picky 20 extension at Middleway, where allotments are provided as that. And also for the southern members, the Ganga Farm sites, it runs in an allotment element as part of that overall obligation for those developments. Now, one of the other things that we need to be mindful of is when we seek the contribution, it's enshrined in a legal document, a section 106 document. And depending on how that document was drafted by external citizens, so by the applicants, is the degree of restriction on how that contribution can be used. It can be incredibly tight, both in terms of the type of open space, I'll stick to open space as an example, the type of open space that it's used for, but also what specific equipment might be provided and also the location. So that's really tightly drawn in terms of the legal agreement that allowed us to originally seek that contribution. Councillor Holmes. Thank you, Chair. Just a couple of questions off 106 and one on the SIL funding. I'm really pleased that you said that with regards to how the actual funding can be spent. That is incredibly frustrating for the parish council where they want to actually spend the money because sometimes it's usually outside what they want to actually do. And there's also no mechanism of being able to utilise that funding for sustainability to repair things or paths and things like that, which they need to do. They see they've got a lot of money, but they can see that it's not where they actually want to need to actually spend that money. Is there any way we can actually influence the legal side of things with regards to making them a little bit more flexible to be able to use that money a bit more widely than what it's like? That's a big concern, which you've rightly pointed out, that's a big, big issue. The other question I've got for this one is one of the big things like we've had in our area, we had a big demand for 106 money allocated. But what we found was the communication to the parish council that were going to use it was very, very poor. They weren't kept updated about when the money was actually going to come through and how it actually worked. Because they need that money to actually invest and put in place all of the infrastructure and various companies to actually do the work that they need to be done. Especially if it's something like drainage, which is what we had a big run for with regards to North Bathersley Ward. The other side of things was can we find out exactly where the silver fundings actually spent with regards to a sort of diagram with regards to where is the major spending on that? Is it something we actually do? Anyway, those are my questions. Thank you very much. There's many points there. Hopefully I'm going to cover them all. I want to pick up the last one. So, in terms of maintenance, absolutely right, you can't use such and such agreements to maintain existing facilities. That could be required anyway, regardless of whether that planning commission was responsible or not. So what we're trying to do is enhance or improve existing facilities that would be impacted by that increase in population. So that's the enhancement, that's the improvement. It's not a domain source. In terms of the contributions sought and can you amend or adapt how that money is spent, technically you can. It's the variation to the section 106 agreement, which is a legal process. It can be done, but it requires all parties that are signatories to that section 106 to agree that variation. If you're a developer or a landowner and you want to use the money for something else, they're quite willing to write to a question whether actually do you need that money, I'd rather have it back. So that's always a risk attached to any of that conversation because that doesn't prevent that conversation from being that bad. To acknowledge the point about the communication with parish councils in terms of the obligations that we have, and that triggered one for receipt and that's something that we're working on. That certainly came out from conversations we've had with members and training sessions, but also the more recent place-based work and the thriving community workshops that you've all been involved with across the borough in various different shapes and forms. And I think that's one of the things that as we work through that process and understanding what each of our communities may want, whether there's 106 monies that will actually help to deliver some of their aspirations for their communities. So we did actually produce a map as part of the member training. We did highlight over the last few years where that money has been spent with the projects listed on it. I'm more than happy to circulate that around to all members after following this meeting. We just have two more questions. Councillor Gregor has got his hand up. Go ahead. So, first of all, I'd like to associate myself with the comments that my fellow Councillor warns me. I mean, I can understand where you're coming from in terms of the sponsors, but I do think there's more room for improvement as it is. Allotments is an issue, and we have discussed this in the past. One of the big problems, and I'm glad that in the local plan we'll move forward, one of the big problems is, and you see that for example in some of the developments, is the allotment sites are actually quite small. And they cost a lot more money to obtain as we look after that. Whilst our friends and colleagues at the moment have had quite a large allotment of sites. And I think from an economic perspective, from a council value for money perspective, we have a larger allotment. I do not know what the best way to do that is, but having plots with 18 or 36 half plots at the long term is not really economical. If you look at some of the other more economical sites that we have, for example, the Glove, they're in the hundreds. And it costs us quite a lot of money to do that. The other one, the other question I've got is over Aufwort. Now, I was quite shocked to hear from Southern Water that Aufwort sets a tariff. And I'm not sure whether it's section 16 or whatever, which is then paid to the water company for them to improve the water system, supply system, or anything like that. I mean, are you aware of this? Do we know how much the tariff is? Because effectively it's very, very much, you know, with the section 16, you know, it's comparable. So, in terms of the legal agreement, section 16 agreement, dealing with the water infrastructure, the Aufwort, and the discussion, the presentation we had from Southern Water, that doesn't get wrapped up in the legal agreement for section 16. And that's that tariff that's so conscious of it. But it's not one thing that the Council's remitting members know that. And we don't intend as officers to get involved in some of that negotiation, understanding of the process and the amount behind that. Our focus is about the infrastructure that falls within that planning range. Now, one of the things that we are, I mentioned, was our obligations and the County Council obligations. But one of the things that is starting to gain more traction in terms of us providing infrastructure or certifying contributions is health. And that's one thing that members have given us a clear steer of ensuring that we seek the right type of contribution or obligation towards helping the health infrastructure or health sector, I should say, for our residents. But in terms of that sort of water infrastructure piece, no, it's not something we can get involved with, in my experience, in one of the sixes involved. On the allotment, I think you get the point about the concept or the size of the scale is making it manageable. One thing is, you always have to go back to what's the requirement for a particular size site, and whether there is scope to join and ensure there's a wide provision is met on a single location. There's the kinds of scale. Scale is one thing, but of course, there's also the infrastructure required to make those allotments work. So more than just life, for example, quality soil, again, for example. So I think that's one of the things that we've taken up through that infrastructure and developed contributions to test these things. [inaudible] So thank you very much. I just have a quick comment. You don't need to be wrong to understand that one of the primary considerations in terms of public health is actually a decent water supply. Okay, one final question. I'll go to Councillor Neill. [inaudible] So section 106 is tied to either a particular area or a particular typology of whatever obligation we're seeking. I suppose in comparison, and again, this is in your annex document or briefing note, the difference between the infrastructure levy is that it's paid into a single pot that is borough wide. So that's why we've always thought to have, in the existing local plan, our large strategic allocations are section 106. They are not SIL, so nil rated for SIL. And the reason being is we make sure that that contribution or those works are focused on those communities that are going to be impacted the most by that strategic development. [inaudible] So in terms of section 106, they're usually different trigger points throughout that legal agreement depending on the scale and the type of infrastructure. So we wouldn't be receiving monies unless they reached a certain trigger point and usually that trigger point is tied to an occupation. Not always, sometimes it's on completion, sometimes it's on the start of development on that site, so that first cut of turf all depends on the nature of the beast. But we would make sure that we would take that contribution at the right time. But if they don't start the works, then we wouldn't be taking them soon. Okay, thank you. If anybody has any questions, I'm sure Greg will be happy to take any questions. We'll now go back to our new chairman. We do need to resolve that, that's quite right. I'd now like to propose the item I set out on page 18. Is there a second for that? Thank you. Is there any debate? All those in favour? All those against? Any exceptions? That is carried. Thank you very much. We'll now go back to item 9, which is the report from the council tech support scheme. I just want to add a few more words onto that recommendation, which is just where the committee will return on the July meeting with a recommendation just to keep you focused on what we will be achieving in that meeting. I'll hand it over to you. Thank you very much. Apologies I was late. I certainly don't want to steal the thunder of the officers who will be available to present the questions, but it was really just to give what I hope is a helpful summary. So the panel was formed in February. Since then we've met three times. The issue or the problem if you like at the moment is that the council tech support scheme is on one hand complex for customers and on the other hand is resource intensive for officers. So the objectives really when reviewing implementation of new plan is very much to simplify it for residents and reduce the administrative billing for officers. I think the sort of the key principles that we are looking to propose and recommend is first of all the bandit scheme, which has the benefit of being not only simple to understand, but it's also widely adopted by other councils. So we're looking to put in place a system which is very much consistent with universal credit, so that we avoid inconsistencies in terms or terms of definitions and so on and so forth, again, to try and make it simpler for residents. The idea is that it will be overall cost neutral, and we're also quite keen to retain the principle that there was a minimum 10% contribution from all working households with very limited exceptions. The idea is really to come back to OSCOMM in July, and then commence what will be a sort of formal public consultation process. And just finally I'd like to personally on behalf of the other panel members, thank Carl, Darren and Wendy for coordinating a really efficient process. It's been three months, we've achieved an awful lot, and we'll be looking to give sort of final recommendation. Thank you. Yes. First of all, thank you very much for the introduction. I'd like to repeat what the council has said, it's just to give you an update on where we are and what our next steps are. So it's a very complex scheme. The other thing we need to take into account is the ongoing migration of legacy benefits to universal credit. That we get updates on a monthly basis. Every time there's a change, good universal credit, potentially there's a change in our customers' counter-tax support. They get a new bill each month, it's very difficult for them to plan ahead. So again, that's another reason why this banded scheme, which the panel is suggesting could work. Depending on the width of those bands, it means that people can plan ahead, they can then jump between different awards of the council and support. We've employed the third party, policy and practice, and they've been taking the information, the suggestions from our panel, and we've used that to model a couple of examples. Some of these schemes, they look at cost, they look at cohorts, household types, working out how many people will benefit or potentially use the support in those schemes. That's what we came back to in our latest panel. Our panel members might believe I need to explain to put into a bit more detail on those, all these principles. But one thing that was seen in those models is that there were a number of people needing support, and quite rightly, our panel wants to minimise that by now looking at what refinements you can make to reduce that, to make sure that there aren't so many losers. Do you want to do that a bit better? Yeah, thank you very much. So as Councillor McDonagh said, we are looking to go into a banding scheme where the only income we will take into consideration is earned income, whether that be from a YE income or self-employed. And for both of those, we will take the income figure as calculated by universal credit. The reason that we are looking to only include earned income is because any unearned income would already be deducted from the customers' Universal Credit Award, which will be the overwhelming majority of our payments by 1875. If we were to include in-house tax support, it would be unfair, and also no longer having earned income disregard, which are labour-intensive and prevent us from alternating caseloads. We removed the non-dependent deductions from our scheme. Currently, we take a £4 flat rate deduction from non-compendents, which are commonly adult children or elderly parents. Those who have no liability for the counter-tax on property, for easing penetration and fairness to our residents, we decided to recommend that that is remained. As Darren said, there were some concerns that the scheme's model for disambiguating residents, what we could do to protect them, so we discussed a range of options, having that ring-bent hardship fund, transitional protection. But before those things were explored further, we have gone back to policy and practice and asked them to model another scheme for us, reducing that number of households that are losing support. It's currently around 100 households, so not a huge number, but absolutely not significant, and we're hoping to have a responsive method in the next week or so about what they can do, and we'll then share that with the panel ahead of the July OSCOM meeting. Thank you very much. We revised our timetable going forward, so next steps after we return will be well in July to OSCOM, we'll hopefully be recommending a scheme to take forward to cabinet. After that, we will be having out an eight-week public consultation with our residents to get that feedback, to build that in when we do our quality impact assessments. Although there's been a bit of a delay, we still are well on track, should we wish to go forward, to get this adopted in for April 2020. Finally, before I open up to any questions, I'd just like to thank our panel, because it is a very complex scheme, they've spent a lot of time with us, and their input has been vital, to be honest, to where we are now, so thank you very much to all. Thank you very much. I don't want to take too many questions, because I'm conscious it will come, we'll be back here in a meeting's time, but I have to take some questions. Council Haslam? Yeah, hopefully, very quick, but I've seen the feedback from the panel, and I know that there has been, I think, as you were already saying, I'm just seeking some clarification around the banding and the universal credit, and particularly for so-called people. And as we all know, being on universal credit, being self-employed, and possibly even with childcare costs, can fluctuate incredibly, depending on when the school holidays are, you know, what you do, put your self-employed at rate level. And as such, you can get some rapidly increasing, decreasing earnings, and I just wanted to clarify, make sure that we really are taking care of those people who are probably some of the most vulnerable. Particularly because they will probably have small children. So that was the clarification question, and the other thing is, and that's probably part of the question is, how much have we taken into account user experience, and have we actually, you know, involved and engaged people who are in receipt of discounts? I think, to get to your first question, your very effect is, even with the banding scheme, there are people who can go from one band to another, and that can have an impact on their involvement, and we've given that some consideration in the panel, before the really good suggestion around actually trying to protect those who are most at risk of that, perhaps those on the lowest incomes, either self-employed or zero-hour comp and actually it's not at all, and we've looked at broadening the width of the first band to take that into account. So accounts to the highest band, the highest entitlement on the lowest incomes is more correct for their income to change without dropping down to another band. So hopefully that's been taken into account. At the moment, we haven't engaged directly with our residents, but we have done work with policy and practice, and our own research with other schemes across the country, looking at best practice. Banding schemes have been around there before, and we've started to push back on the 2013 numbers, haven't we? I'd say, like, 2019 is when I first heard of them being caught in place. We're not jumping at that. We're just learning from the experience of other authorities, which is really useful. There are other authorities in Hampshire that already have adopted a banding scheme. So we're hoping, based on that and feedback from policy accounts as well, market leaders in this, that that does take real-world experience into account. But it would also obviously be the options. We only do our concentration. Councillor Greg Albury, and then off we go. Thank you very much indeed. A very interesting paper. I'd by and large agree with the conclusions, but I'd like to associate myself to the remarks that Councillor Hasselman made. There are issues, and I think it's worthwhile talking to some of the users. The Universal Credit Scheme has been an unmitigated disaster when we actually talked to the users. And there's a danger, then, if we align ourselves too much with some of the lessons learned from that scheme, then we'll just sort of fail. Or make it much more difficult for our residents. But I think we should simplify it. That's probably the key. I notice a lot of the schemes that the Council has launched that can't help residents of the law and the social economic groups, where they fail is because it's too complicated. And if you have to be an accountant to understand these, it's just not going to work. The income bandit scheme, and this is a good question, is you've got option one. And I understand you're doing that, and I would support it. But have you looked at increasing the tolerance for the income bandit scheme? Because the danger is that you still will have a situation where people will get to the end of the band and then will just sort of drop off, if you see what I mean. And the problem is that the whole system then sort of resets. And I don't want to have the same situation as that with universal credit. If you go over the limit or whatever it is, you effectively are in danger of losing five weeks worth of benefits until the clowns and the DWHP, they have worked themselves to be given a system which just doesn't work, reset it, and then people start getting the benefits again. So, you know, I think that's something maybe that's what you're sort of considering. Because if you increase the band side, then you're still going to end up having the problem that people come to, particularly. Can you just finalise and just have that question? That's it. Thank you very much, Councillor. One of the things that we've asked policy and practice to model next for us is having a 10% support band at the bottom that sets immediate earnings on our current caseload with the hope that that will capture a lot of those people who could potentially drop off. At the moment, the lowest guarantee is for 30% of support that we've had modelled. By comparison, our current minimum award is £1, so there could be quite a few people that are affected by that. We're hoping that that won't cost too much more so that we're not losing the time of doing cost neutral, but it will capture a lot of those people. I also haven't worked with housing benefit and council tax support claims since universal credit was introduced, sharing your concerns that it's not a perfect system, I don't think any benefit system is. The idea of aligning with universal credit is that that is an accepted system now, it's a system that our presidents understand if they're always interacting with it. They're not having to provide information to multiple sources which we know can experience is something they don't like doing and it's very difficult to have all of our responsibilities with well written feedback once this has been trialled and we are obviously able to include it this year on the end. Thanks very much. Okay, thank you very much and we look forward to the next meeting and having you back in this one. Okay, so to sum up the... Thanks for the work you've been doing on this and thanks to you and the panel, Councillor, I'm just referring to the specialist support system and what reassurances can you provide that it's working well? It obviously seems like a very complicated system. Are there bugs in the system and how we check in and look if it's going to work properly and any bugs might be fixed if there are any concerns about how the system is working? Thanks. So just to clarify, do you mean how the system is connected with our software? Yes, so it is a, like we said, it is something that is being done by both council's already, some which are in Hampshire and Winchester as well. So we work with our software partners to make sure that everything is built in time. Policy and practice have assured us that anything they suggest they will work with the software providers to make sure that it's actually possible. We also have a very good relationship with colleagues out in Winchester so can learn from them and also get a few helpful hints, but we are making sure that anything does interact with our software that we've got, without any differences necessary. Any other questions? Okay, excellent. In that case then, from the feedback from the member panel relating to the review of the Counterfact Support Scheme for 2025-26, it will be noted that the panel will report back to OSCCON in July with a recommendation which will go on to Cabinet and onto the public consultation. I'd now like to request a seconder. So that's the packet. These are in please. Thank you for the votes, all those in favour? All those against? Any abstentions? Thank you very much everyone. Thank you. Thank you for your time. Okay, I now come to the Chairman's Annual Report. Clearly I can't make too much of a grab on this one as I've heard this is my first meeting, so I'll just... Item 11, progress on the recommendations for the communications review. Thank you Chairman. Obviously I didn't want to miss out. Yes, thank you and good evening all. Just a brief item of introduction for me. As you'll remember, OSCCON had a panel relating to communications review. That panel concluded and finished this in March 2023. The resolution from the Committee at the time was to bring back an update after 12 months, which I duly did in March this year. After a good wide range of discussion at that meeting, members just asked if there could be a further sort of update just to more clearly align the actions that have been taken in relation to the conclusions that the panel had come to back in 2023. In Annex 1, which is on page 29 in your Agenda Pack, I've now sought to hopefully do that piece of work for you, which has demonstrated clearly where work has taken place in relation to those areas that the panel found. Primarily in and around work to refresh our approach to strategic communications, our work around improvements to the website, work around digital communications and what we're doing primarily through the use of our digital newsletter through Dr. Liffley. Work around telephony, particularly in relation to improving the quality of people's experience of phone in the Council and I can recall that a targeted campaign was developed and rolled out across the Council in terms of reminding everybody how to use the system appropriately and effectively. We've hopefully seen some positive steps and results of that, but also the commitments around ongoing work with future telephony systems. Finally, the letters which were discussed, particularly around the three areas, and that work has been concluded as you'll see in the annex. I think members had a quite extensive presentation from the last one, Jim, but very happy to take any questions in relation to the things that are in here. Thank you. I think as this is a bit of summing up, if there's any questions, Councillor Haslam will fill in. Sorry, apologies. As my OSCOM papers arrived, so did a letter from the Citizens' Advisory Bureau, which I assume everybody else has received, and I was reading it with interest. One of the things that seems to be highlighted is actually an increase in digitally excluded residents. And I'm just wondering how that has been taken into account in terms of our communication strategy and how we make sure that those people who do not have access to online sources actually are cabled for. Thanks, Scott. I think it's a really important comment to make, and certainly that is a very active conversation that we have looking at a range of communications we do. So absolutely we want to ensure that digital communications are effective in time to go to the right places, and certainly the feedback that we've had from a range of people is that that's important. At the same time, we have other mechanisms for engagement with people through the way that we communicate, we bring people together a lot face-to-face, we use existing community networks through our parish councils, for example, we offer face-to-face get-togethers. So I think, and obviously we've got in-print material that we send out as well, so I think we have a wide range of material, and we would certainly adopt a position where we're seeking to go wholly digital, because that would be appropriate. But it's about looking across the needs of our community as a whole and understanding how we can support people with that. On the piece around digital exclusion, there's also the flipside of that, which is around proactive steps around digital inclusion as well, and I think that's very much in the forefront of our minds and how we work with our partners, such as CFP and people like that, where we can support people to be able to engage with online activity if they are facing barriers. What are those barriers and how can we get around that? And I think just on that point, if there is anything new that we do want to just bring forward and discuss, we can always confirm this at the away day and put that point of view forward. And Councillor Neill, Councillor Parker? Briefly on the same subject, communications have been lacking in many ways, particularly people who don't have access to the equipment. It's something that I've always said, people say to me, I know nothing about it, I don't have a computer, I don't have a phone, and I think for these people we need to get more paper out. But what I may say is, well done to the panel that did the report, it was an excellent report, and higher life is a lot of good things, and it's just concentrating on getting those people as they're dropping off the exit that don't know what's going on. And people say to me, we didn't know they were gone today, so I think it's something we need to concentrate on. Yeah, I think I hear my previous comments, Councillor Neill really, and I think just to show members is that we held a focus group of residents around communications. Now and in the future, we're learning from that, and the experience is an important part of it, and we'll continue to do that and look for the right networks and right channels to communicate with people. As Councillor Haslam indicated, there will be preferred channels for people, and there will be opportunities to kind of help take people on that journey as well. Councillor Park, and then Councillor Haslam. Thank you. As a member of that panel, I recall we were having discussions about the fact that we shouldn't really be talking about a website, but we were talking about a services hub, where people actually use the hub to access digital services, so more and more services became digital. Not a matter of pumping more information out to people, but providing them a service space, and that in turn raised the question of how do we provide access to online digital services to people who don't have the right equipment or don't have the right skill set. And my question is, have we made any progress on that at all? Have we put any more services digitally online, and have we made any progress towards ensuring that there are access points for people who don't have the equipment and support for people who don't have the equipment to use those digital services? Yeah, from Councillor Parker, I mean the move towards digital services is more in terms of our digital transformation as an organisation as opposed to our communications as an organisation, but I do see the need to cross between the two, and you're absolutely right to make the point that the website is both a front door to the county in terms of access to information, but can also be a place in which you then access services as a result of that, and some of the challenges that people have faced in the past actually haven't been related to the website's digital systems, and that's what we've been working through. Currently, in terms of how you can access digital systems, you're able to pay for things through the council's website, you're able to report things through the council's website using my council's services, and we have supported people around being able to access that, I'm sure. I don't want to inadvertently draw in my colleague at Head of Finance, but in terms of our customer services team, they're very happy and able to provide people with support and guidance around how they can access the services online in the future as well. We certainly sought to do that with access to equipment, but also guidance over the phone, et cetera. We are currently renewing and reviewing our approach to digital services as a lot of local authorities are doing. I think that we're really clear that we shouldn't just be going for the big shiny thing, actually we should be taking an evidence-led approach based on service user experience and what they tell us, and we will absolutely continue to refine what we do. But we do have a range of services from our council services that are available at this stage for people. Can I just ask, do we have a forward plan for actually adding digital services and making sure that we address the problem of digital exclusion? I've heard words about it from when I was on the panel right through to now, but I've not seen a plan, so I don't know where we're going and where we're heading as a council in terms of provision of digital services. That digital strategy, as it is, is in development as we speak. I'm very happy as I've encountered that it's indicated that that's an area that OSCOM would like to get more into and perhaps a discussion for you on the way they thought of the topic. But I can assure members that there is a plan being developed around extending what we do and developing what we do. I wouldn't want members to leave the discussion today in the sense that we don't do digital services because we absolutely do. It's about entertaining and appropriate the services we provide and how people access them. Any other questions? Thank you. It's just a question really about how this committee and how members keep a check on any projects because I was looking at page 27 when it was talking about the panel and some of its conclusions in March 20 to 23. It included the next steps, so there was something about ensuring that content would be consistent by the end of March 20, 24. There were some other next steps as part of the document that was provided. But how can we check those targets have been met and that projects which are ongoing have achieved various stages? So, for example, the one from March 20, 24, did that happen? Are you satisfied that that project is now complete? Thank you. Yes, I'm just trying to refer to specifics, but the principle of accounts is that obviously the panel has completed its work and paid recommendations. I think there was a collective reflection last time when the committee spoke for us to reflect the point that perhaps the recommendations should have gone more directly to Cabinet. I think there's a learning point there and we'll certainly work to support this work in making those recommendations to Cabinet. That is a way in which to then kind of track those. In terms of the subject areas in here, I hope today has given assurance about where we're moving forward on things. But absolutely in terms of, again, through the programme that you set for the year, there are specific items or topics that you're interested in and it's like getting those into the work programme. But in terms of the work of the panel and that being concluded, I think we've met those obligations. But absolutely, if you're interested in digital services or how we get on and things like that, then bring that into the discussion around the work programme. Chancellor Walts, I will ask a very difficult question, which I know you can't tell me the answer to. But I'm really looking forward to being able to test out the new website and see how that works. I understand the complexities of where you're going to get to for the final point. Have you got any idea about when it might be available, maybe before April next year? I think probably what I would say is that the process that we went through is that initially, where perhaps there was a view that a new website system was required, actually that view changed over the course of the work that was done. It was stimulated by this committee, actually, because what was more clear is that there were fundamental flaws in the current site as it was not based on the system, but in terms of our management and coordination of that around content and therefore that was impacting search facilities, etc. So the experience that people were having wasn't as good as it could have been. So actually what you'll see on page 30 is a set out of that story so far around the improvement journey that's been made, reducing content by half as 1400 pages and now full content review as 1400 pages. And also unpicking the search function to be much more clearly aligned to the structure of the website. So the new website search is the existing system, but it's the improvement that's coming through this one. And you'll see in the report, there's an email address and their website at testvalue.gov.uk. The team have been working incredibly hard on this over the last six months and they continue to want to get feedback. So, for example, if the search doesn't work for you when you put a particular word in, send it through that email address, because that's the way that we can continue to refine and ensure that we stay on that improvement journey with that. Go to Anderson. Jane, I know we're on a bad website, but also I think our communication at weekend service on the telephone line is not that good at the moment. It was very good before, but something's happened that it isn't given the information that it used to before. I know we have nothing to do with housing associations, but always it was giving the people where they could go for their housing association. I feel that a bank holiday weekend as well is not a very good communication on the emergency side for us as councillors to be able to have phone numbers or something that we can go to that particular person that's on duty and speak to them to say this is important, it is an emergency, I've been up there to have a look at it, especially if it belongs to our area. I know it's difficult with Hampshire County Council, but if it belongs to our area, we need that kind of service that we can contact somebody and can say no, it's okay, I've been up there, but you can go to them and say this is an emergency. I had that situation a couple of weeks ago, but I was trying to contact somebody. Because I was a councillor, they knew at the other end who I was and I had the list on Monday morning, but the residents don't quite know, they don't feel that they want to give all their details out, so could we sort something out like that kind of communication? I think Councillor Anderson is probably a step away from all this agenda item primarily, but if there's a particular experience that you have, then please let's talk outside of the meeting and give us some views on that and we can work with you on it. I think just as a general statement, I'm sure the Court of Cancer has very clear out of hours procedures in place and provision in place and certainly has an emergency planning arrangements in place as well, so again perhaps we can give you a wider understanding briefing of that outside of the meeting. Okay, any other questions? No, in that case, I'm watching telly as they go from this side to this side. I'm going to have a stiff neck in the next few months. Okay, in that case, thank you, thank you very much, very much appreciated. I'll now propose the recommendations as set out on page 27. Okay, I have a second note for that. Councillor McDonald, thank you very much. Now I'd like to take a vote. All those in favour? All those against? Any abstentions? Now I'd like to come to the Chairman's Annual Report. As I was mentioning before, this wasn't me, so I can't take too much credit for it, but you'll obviously see it on the agenda there. Is there any comments on that at the moment? Councillor Neill, yes? Yeah, I think this is something for the whole Council and not just for the members of OSCON to read through because it covers what we've done for the year and so it's been a long day here, it needs to go out to everyone on the Council. It's going to come to the General. Yeah, the Chairman's Annual Report will go to the full Council in July so all Councillors can see and be upon it. Councillor Yellen? I think the away day was more than a songboard and not Broughton. It mentions that this year the Committee got its away day. Good spot, I think. I've got a good spot. I've spent such a lot of time in beach sports. Thank you, Chair. I'm not too sure whether this question/statement is applicable here or in the Works Programme. What I'm doing is looking back at the round tables on page 37 where we attended the Planning Enforcement Round Table meeting. From that meeting we were told that we would be giving information to specific things which as far as I'm aware we haven't received yet and that was supposed to be received within a month. I might have missed it but like I said I'm not sure whether it should go in here or in the actual Works Programme. First of all, can I say, Councillor, apologies for that, you are correct that it is due to the follow up round table to finalise that work and I briefed the Chairman on that. I've had assurance from the Head of Planning and Building that that will happen as soon as possible so yeah, there is still a complete deal of work to be done there. So is this going to be then resolved in the Works Programme? We can resolve that in the Work Programme as you will acknowledge it as a round table still to be done. Councillor Parker. Yes, I'd make the same comment that I did last time I think that yes, this is an accurate report of meetings we've held and so on. But I think it would be better if as OSCON we could raise our sights a bit and talk about the broader things we want to achieve like how many recommendations have we made to Council? How many policy ideas have we contributed to? Bearing in mind that when we had the training in OSCON some time back it was indicated that the right mix would be about 30% scrutiny and 70% policy development. And I would like to see for your report when you produce it at the end of the year some broader objectives to know whether OSCON is doing what it's supposed to be doing as opposed to just providing a tick off shopping list of meetings we've held. And I think it's an extremely good point Councillor Parker and I think many of us in this room I've spoken to the majority of you individually and I think what you've mentioned is what a lot of people have mentioned as well. And I think hopefully in one year, actually not hopefully, I can assure you that we will certainly have a much more robust, maybe not 70/30, maybe 80/20, maybe slightly less but I'm with you on that, I agree. Any other questions on GEM's annual report? Okay, in the third case, can I have a proposal for that? Councillor Anderson, thank you. Is there a seconder? Councillor Parker. Any debate on that? All in favour? Any against? Any exceptions? Thank you very much. In that case then I'd like to come to the updates on the panels and I think just a first note to make is that obviously at the away day we will be reviewing our panels and where we want to go in the next one year. And we will have a bit of a change of format in terms of how we report back on panels which will hopefully be a bit more focused on what is being done to hopefully get to the point where Councillor Parker is saying we aren't recommending more. So just coming to the budget panel then, Councillor Neill, is there anything you'd like to add extra? No, the budget panel is completed, there won't be another meeting until that point. Okay, thank you very much. And on the regeneration panel, Councillor Gwynne, who was leading that, who is no longer on the committee, has sent in some details on that which is in the agenda. The counter-tax support agreements we've already heard that will be coming back in July and I think that's everything on the panels unless there's anything else to mention. Okay, thank you very much. And then just coming to the program work for the committee, you'll see we have an annex 1, 2, 3 and 4 and 5 with the action trackers and the work programme. I think, as I said, we will have a slightly rigid approach to this which I'm speaking with the officers about already. Is there any comment on that at the moment? Okay, no problem. In that case, one thing to mention on that is the awaiting. It was proposed for this month but due to the general election with people campaigning or being busy with other things, I think I've asked the officers if we can do it after the election which will likely be either the week commencing, I think it's the 8th of July. We'll either have a two evening session starting from 5.30 which will cross over two days or we'll have a Saturday the 13th. I know Caroline is going to send out that information through a poll so if you can fill that as soon as possible, we can book the room in Kingston or Waltham or wherever it may be and we can get as many people there as possible. We are hoping to organise a roundtable on teams in relation to the productivity plan. Members may be aware that there's a recent requirement from the government for local authorities to produce that. We'll be going to cabinet in July so we'll be working with members to see if we can arrange a target for that in the next couple of weeks. Just to make a plea, as a matter of policy, we should assume that all meetings which are not deemed to be public meetings, that have to be met face-to-face, should be hybrid meetings at least or on teams and we should not have to ask for training sessions or roundtables or anything else to be put on teams. It should be a default that they are available online to avoid a lot of unnecessary travel up and down the valley, and also just to try and increase the number of members in general who attend these things by making it easier for them to get to it. I think it should be our default. Meetings should be online or hybrid and only under very special circumstances force them to be face-to-face unless that's a public legislation requirement. Yes, absolutely. I know there's other people who have mentioned that, so where we can have those meetings online we certainly will do to increase the amount of people who can attend and also be a bit more eco-frantic as well as driving up and down will open place. And on the away page we will also clarify on that point as well. Any other questions on that? Councillor Warne. Just a quick one on the meeting that we had with the Environment Agency and Southern Water. Can we get that out to the general public? They don't realise how much work has gone on to solve this problem and people still can be saying, Oh, this flood isn't that flood. But I think if they saw the results of that meeting and how much effort was put in by the Environment Agency and Southern Water, they'd more appreciate what's gone on. Thanks, Councillor. Caroline has clearly drafted a briefing on Southern Water. I think in terms of the presentation slides, I think my understanding is those are circulated to members. I'm not sure they're OK for public consumption, but I will check with Southern Water on that. Any other questions on that? OK. In that case, can I have a proposal for the Future Work Programme? Councillor Jones. Thank you. And Councillor Neill for the second. All those in favour? Any against? Any exceptions? Thank you very much. I now declare that this meeting is now closed. Thank you very much. (BELL RINGS) (INDISTINCT CHATTER) (INDISTINCT CHATTER) (INDISTINCT CHATTER)