Doncaster Metripolitan Council
Councillors:
56
Wards:
22
Committees:
25
Meetings (2025):
95
Meetings (2024):
113
Meeting
Overview and Scrutiny Management Committee - Doncaster
Meeting Times
Scheduled Time
Start:
Thursday, 17th July 2025
10:00 AM
Thursday, 17th July 2025
10:00 AM
End:
Thursday, 17th July 2025
2:00 PM
Thursday, 17th July 2025
2:00 PM
Meeting Status
Status:
Confirmed
Confirmed
Date:
17 Jul 2025
17 Jul 2025
Location:
Council Chamber, Civic Office, Waterdale, Doncaster DN1 3BU
Council Chamber, Civic Office, Waterdale, Doncaster DN1 3BU
Meeting Attendees
Committee Member
Conservative Group Leader
Co-Optee
Antoinette Drinkhill
Church of England Education representative
Apologies
Co-Optee
Bernadette Nesbit
Diocese of Hallam Roman Catholic Church
Absent
Council Staff
AHW_PA
Expected
Agenda
0
A. Reports where the public and press may not be excluded.
1
Apologies for absence.
Minutes
Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Rachel Reed, Councillor Frank Jackson, Councillor Gemma Cobby, and Co-optee Antoinette Drinkhill.
2
To consider the extent, if any, to which the public and press are to be excluded from the meeting.
Minutes
There were no items where the public and press would be excluded from the meeting.
3
Declarations of Interest, if any.
Minutes
There were no declarations of interest declared.
4
Public Statements.
[A period not exceeding 20 minutes for statements from up
to 5 members of the public on matters within the
Committee’s remit, proposing action(s) which may be
considered or contribute towards the future development of
the Committee’s work programme].
to 5 members of the public on matters within the
Committee’s remit, proposing action(s) which may be
considered or contribute towards the future development of
the Committee’s work programme].
Minutes
Mr Merriman attended OSMC and made the following public statement. He made reference to that around Christmas and the New Year the Committee would be considering budget setting for 2026/27 financial year. He commented that this would be in a climate of continual underfunding of local government by central government and that resources would fall well short of service need in all local authorities. He continued to state that one way of constructively addressing budget pressures was for local authorities to review their level of reserves. The last published Accounts (for 2023/24) for Doncaster Council was showing £200 million usable reserves in the balance sheet. He said that a key role of Overview and Scrutiny Management Committee in the next few months was therefore to identify, for each reserve:
• When they were set up
• What movements (in / out) have occurred since set up
• Why they were set up (i.e. Purpose)
• Whether their purpose still exist
He ended by saying that reserves were not a Magic Money Tree, and that during 35 years in Local Government Finance, he had found a low level of knowledge and understanding about Council’s Reserves. He was therefore offering it up for possible inclusion in the Committees work-plan.
The Vice-Chair noted the public statement and that those comments would be taken into consideration going forward.
• When they were set up
• What movements (in / out) have occurred since set up
• Why they were set up (i.e. Purpose)
• Whether their purpose still exist
He ended by saying that reserves were not a Magic Money Tree, and that during 35 years in Local Government Finance, he had found a low level of knowledge and understanding about Council’s Reserves. He was therefore offering it up for possible inclusion in the Committees work-plan.
The Vice-Chair noted the public statement and that those comments would be taken into consideration going forward.
5
Youth Justice Plan 2025/26
Attachments:
- Document Youth Justice Plan report OSMC July final 09 Jul 2025
- Document Youth Justice Plan appendix for OSMC July 2025 09 Jul 2025
Minutes
The Overview and Scrutiny Management Committee considered the Youth Justice Plan 2025/26 prior to its submission to Cabinet and approval by Full Council. The Youth Justice Plan covered the work of the Youth Offending Service (YOS) in Doncaster and was a requirement of the Crime and Disorder Act which must be submitted to the Youth Justice Board for England and Wales on an annual basis.
The Plan identified performance by the YOS for the previous year and outlined actions and timescales for future delivery to improve upon and ensure the best provision for the children and young people of Doncaster.
Following consideration of the report, Members of the Committee were afforded the opportunity to put forward any questions to officers’ present at the meeting. Andy Hood (Strategic Lead, Children, Young People and Families) and Helen Jones (Service Manager) were in attendance in order to respond to any questions posed.
The following areas were discussed.
Expansion of the Hub – Reference was made to the Hub based in the Frenchgate Centre, which was part of a universal offer to children to provide access to educative interventions and supportive services within a fun setting. It was explained that it was opened as part of a pilot during 2022 and now opened on a Thursday, Friday and Saturday at 1pm or 2pm to 8pm or 9pm in the evening, during term-time and every day during school holidays. It was outlined that an average of 60 children accessed the Hub each time it was open. It was added that staff were available on a Tuesday and although this was not a normal opening day, the Hub could be accessed by older children who may have queries around issues such as child sexual harm or drug misuse.
Members heard that there was a focus on reducing anti-social behaviour in the Frenchgate Centre which could have an impact on businesses. Officers explained that they were looking to expand the offer to engage with children within the Frenchgate Centre. There was an aim to open the Hub (during term-time) on a Monday and have enough staff to go into the town centre, engage with children and channel them towards the Hub (in addition to those children that walk in themselves). It was noted that there were plans to fund this support to be implemented after the summer and positively impact youth anti-social behaviour within the town centre.
It was explained that the Hub was purely a “drop-in” facility, and that other work was taking place within communities where there were high incidents of anti-social behaviour or youth crime where children were actively diverted. From this, efforts were made to divert children from the community delivery mechanism into the hub.
Such work was currently taking place in Wheatley with 15/16 children attending each day for most sessions, activities running during the summer holidays and trips taking children outside Wheatley and Doncaster for different activities. It was explained that the normal EPIC deployment was 6 months and there was an expectation to see a gradual reduction in youth anti-social behaviour for age groups across 11 to 15/16.
Clarification was provided on how the service provided police intelligence regarding young people who were at risk or being exploited. It was noted that there were links in place with children’s social care and that a key part of the EPIC offer was its engagement with schools. It was continued that efforts were being made to build relations with community leaders, local shops and schools to form a better understanding of what was considered as normal teenage behaviour. It was added that where there was an issue affecting residents then appropriate police intelligence would be made available and enforcement provided through the relevant mechanisms.
Governance And Oversight – It was explained that the Youth Justice Service Management Board was a statutory requirement of every area in the UK. Members heard that in Doncaster, the Board had an independent Chair, former Doncaster Police Superintendent Neil Thomas, and the board itself was made up of senior leaders from the key partnership. An outline was provided of the different representatives on the board and the introduction of a new Independent Victim Service board member, and it was explained that the Doncaster Youth Justice Service was accountable to the board. A comprehensive performance report was presented to the board which would be subjected to vigorous challenge, and the board would also provide the strategic direction and targets for the service (in addition to any legislative and practice changes required for the service during the following year). Members were told that Youth Justice in England was overseen by an arm’s length management body of the Ministry of Justice (which was the Youth Justice Board) and that the Youth Justice Board Head of Region also attended the management board again to ensure that information provided was rigorous and appropriate, as well as sharing issues of best practice. It was noted that the recent work undertaken around EPIC had been published nationally as a method of best practice on the Base Camp website, used by all Youth Justice Services in the UK to inform best practice.
Harmful Sexual Behaviour – It was reported that Harmful Sexual Behaviour had experienced an increase in reporting as people were more aware and more confident to report incidents. This was partly due to a number of social movements that had taken place over recent years, such as the Me Too movement. The second reason was stated as being a societal and cultural shift which related to how young people communicated through the sending of nude pictures. It was explained that children did not realise that they were committing a crime when taking, sending and receiving a picture. It was explained that the service and South Yorkshire Police took an educative response to raise young people’s awareness and inform them of the risks, dangers and vulnerabilities they were placing themselves within. It was outlined that there was an increase in Harmful Sexual Behaviour particularly from young men. It was seen that this often related to the watching of amateur pornography online, with websites continually being uploaded with recordings, many of which included sexual violence towards women and girls and therefore impacting harmful sexual behaviour.
Reference was made to how numbers coming through the system had increased significantly over the last year, and it was explained that this was not a Doncaster specific issue. Members were informed that during the last year, a harmful sexual behaviour pathway led by a psychologist had been formed. It was explained that the first step was to raise greater professional awareness around this issue, then to ensure that staff in schools (particularly designated safeguarding leads) were aware about those types of issues and understood the language involved. Members heard that there was a universal helpline for the harmful sexual behaviour pathway and the next step was to provide training to parents to make them aware of what children (particularly boys) were watching. Reference was made to Childline, which had experienced its first year of girls asking for advice in relation to this particular area.
Members were informed that EPIC had a virtual reality programme which raised awareness for school age children around violence against women and girls (relating to the issue of upskirting). It was acknowledged that this was a multi-faceted and challenging long-term issue to be addressed. Members were told that adult sites would soon require age verification by Ofcom and it was recognised that it would not resolve the issue but should slow it down.
First Time Entrants (FTEs) – It was noted that the number of First Time Entrants had increased significantly during 2023/24. Members were told that this had been impacted by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), stipulating cases at Court being referred to the Triage panel must receive a Youth Caution or Youth Conditional Caution, and a diversionary alternative could not be offered. This meant that the child became a First Time Entrant and was subject to a formal criminal justice disposal. It was explained that the issue was not just within Doncaster and had been raised with the Youth Justice Board (as the oversight body) and with the Crown Prosecution Youth Lead, as well as being escalated to the Ministry of Justice. Members heard that the advice from the CPS was to make sure that the case did not go to court in the first place, and therefore work was being undertaken with police colleagues who was scrutinising every decision that went through at sergeant level to decide if cases should go to the triage panel, the internal triage panel or to the CPS for charge which should reduce the cases going to court or children being subject to the CPS stipulation. It was explained that issues occurred when the child might give no comment interview and with no admission of guilt, police officers would send the case to CPS for a charging decision, resulting in the outcome problem outlined earlier. It was also stated that work was being undertaken with solicitors to ensure that they were aware of the full range of options for children and impact of certain outcomes for children. Members were told that historically Doncaster had experienced low FTE rates and were now at similar rates to other areas. It was outlined that the service had successfully liaised with the CPS on individual case level basis to have decisions overturned, although this was only in a small minority of cases.
Prevention of Reoffending – It was explained that there were children with outcomes that did not come to the attention of the Youth Offending Service, for example, traffic violations or Fixed Penalty Notices (FPN). This was because the intervention was completed there and then and this formed a small percentage of the cohort. It was noted that the majority of children had directly worked and engaged with the service to some degree. It was outlined that during the last 5 years, there had been a massive change seen both locally and nationally of where children were placed within the system. Members were informed that over time, the legislative landscape and practice of understanding what was effective with children, had both changed. It was explained that more children had been diverted away from statutory outcomes to diversionary outcomes where they received the same offer of support. Members heard that a suite of interventions offered could include a dyslexia screen, a speech, language and communication assessment (and intervention), psychological formulation, cognitive behaviour therapy, dialectical behaviour therapy, intervention for harmful sexual behaviours, direct careers advice, non-invasive STI screening and also substance misuse intervention support, young people’s counselling and systemic family psychotherapy. Reference was made to the successful rates experienced in relation to the prevention of reoffending and felt that this could be better achieved through early intervention. It was felt that this could lead to a smaller cohort of children being placed on criminal justice orders and whose needs were more difficult to meet. It was further explained that within that cohort were Looked After Children who may be placed outside of the city. Members were reminded that in England and Wales, when a child was placed outside their locality then that authority retained overall responsibility of that child’s case (with the other local authority providing a caretaking service as part of day-to-day intervention). This meant that the Council was not always able to implement its offer with children being placed out of the city and could result in that child reoffending. It was noted that this year, a small element of the budget had been allocated for when children were placed out of the city to commission intervention locally that would otherwise not be available.
Members were assured that all children were engaged with as part of a strong relational based practice undertaken by the team. It was noted that this was evidenced through direct quotes from children and parents included in the Youth Justice Plan and was considered the best measure of the work undertaken by the team.
Reference was made to the strong performance in preventing and diverting children from the Criminal Justice System with 98% of children receiving a diversionary outcome, who did not reoffend. Members were informed that efforts were being made to try and divert almost every child, unless the offence was considered to be so serious that they could not be diverted. The victims wish would also be taken into consideration. It was explained that this decision was taken in partnership with South Yorkshire Police. although there were times when it was not appropriate. Members were told that where change could not be supported for a child who had been diverted, and they reoffended again, then that child might need a more intensive approach to affect change.
Child Criminal Exploitation (CCE) – In response to risks around Child Criminal Exploitation, it was explained that this was part of a multi-faceted approach and partnership response. It was explained that every local authority was required to have a MACE (Multi Agency Child Exploitation) Panel who identified what level of risk the child was at. It was outlined that the Panel met weekly and that children were reviewed being given a status of green, amber or red. An explanation was provided of the different status categories alongside the role of the Social Worker and the Police, and reference was made to work around Organised Criminal Gangs (OCGs). Concern was raised around issues that could be faced when Social Workers changed during the time a child was being supported. It was noted that there was greater workforce stability and a reduction in Social Worker vacancies. It was outlined that the model was about Families First and where a child needed greater stability, reference was also made to workforce stability that would be able to offer that where the child needs that continuous connection. It was noted that work was being undertaken with both Child Sexual Exploitation as well as Child Criminal Exploitation. It was stressed that this was everyone’s responsibility and information was provided on work undertaken by other teams within the Council relating to issues such as licensing, for example, taxis drivers and hotels being well equipped to address potential situations when a child might be at risk. It was responded that EPIC was to deliver a virtual reality training programme to make professionals aware of the risks and issues that might impact on a child in terms of exploitation.
Vulnerable Groups (Looked After Children and Special Educational Needs) – There was a discussion around how the service supported vulnerable groups that included Looked After Children and Special Educational Needs. It was explained that there was a strong intervention offer and assessments took place which informed recommendations to schools, colleges and training providers who worked with those who had been assessed. It was explained that the offer was provided at prevention stage as well as at statutory stage. Reference was made to dyslexia screening offered by the in-house Education Coordinator who worked closely with the Speech and Language Therapist and in completing Education, Health and Care Plans paperwork so that children can be assessed for additional support. Members heard that there was also a Careers Team, who offered a bespoke service to children and young people. In terms of Looked After Children, it was outlined that there was a triage panel with an independent Chair who ensured that the child was not being unnecessarily criminalized by offering diversion disposals where appropriate. Members were informed that as a recognised protected characteristic, mechanisms were in place to ensure guaranteed interviews. It was continued that there was an ambitious target to bring offending rates by Looked After Children in line with the 10-17 population who live in familial homes, 0.4% of the 10 to 17 population offend, for Looked After Children this is 2%.
Regarding speech and language support, Members were informed that there were often children and young people who had missed gaps in their education and particularly older children that were needing support at that stage.
A further question was asked whether those children could have a preference of the gender of the person supporting them. Members were informed that the team was made of different genders and ages and that endeavours would always be made to accommodate this where appropriate.
Involvement of Young People and Families in Co-producing Services – The Committee was informed that the service sought formal feedback at the end of the order or disposal, from both children and families (included within the Youth Justice Plan). Reference was made to feedback provided through young people’s groups that included a recently established girls group. As a result of the feedback provided a young person counsellor post has been created. Feedback was also sought on documentation such as intervention plans which had led to the modification of those plans. When recruiting staff to the team, a young person’s panel was used that included young people who had recently closed to us or were still open and wished to participate, to form a part of the interview process. In terms of family, the systemic family therapy team obtained feedback on the efficacy of their service they provided to families through a scoring tool.
RESOLVED that the Overview and Scrutiny Management Committee supports the Youth Justice Plan 2025/26 before it is submitted to Full Council for approval.
The Plan identified performance by the YOS for the previous year and outlined actions and timescales for future delivery to improve upon and ensure the best provision for the children and young people of Doncaster.
Following consideration of the report, Members of the Committee were afforded the opportunity to put forward any questions to officers’ present at the meeting. Andy Hood (Strategic Lead, Children, Young People and Families) and Helen Jones (Service Manager) were in attendance in order to respond to any questions posed.
The following areas were discussed.
Expansion of the Hub – Reference was made to the Hub based in the Frenchgate Centre, which was part of a universal offer to children to provide access to educative interventions and supportive services within a fun setting. It was explained that it was opened as part of a pilot during 2022 and now opened on a Thursday, Friday and Saturday at 1pm or 2pm to 8pm or 9pm in the evening, during term-time and every day during school holidays. It was outlined that an average of 60 children accessed the Hub each time it was open. It was added that staff were available on a Tuesday and although this was not a normal opening day, the Hub could be accessed by older children who may have queries around issues such as child sexual harm or drug misuse.
Members heard that there was a focus on reducing anti-social behaviour in the Frenchgate Centre which could have an impact on businesses. Officers explained that they were looking to expand the offer to engage with children within the Frenchgate Centre. There was an aim to open the Hub (during term-time) on a Monday and have enough staff to go into the town centre, engage with children and channel them towards the Hub (in addition to those children that walk in themselves). It was noted that there were plans to fund this support to be implemented after the summer and positively impact youth anti-social behaviour within the town centre.
It was explained that the Hub was purely a “drop-in” facility, and that other work was taking place within communities where there were high incidents of anti-social behaviour or youth crime where children were actively diverted. From this, efforts were made to divert children from the community delivery mechanism into the hub.
Such work was currently taking place in Wheatley with 15/16 children attending each day for most sessions, activities running during the summer holidays and trips taking children outside Wheatley and Doncaster for different activities. It was explained that the normal EPIC deployment was 6 months and there was an expectation to see a gradual reduction in youth anti-social behaviour for age groups across 11 to 15/16.
Clarification was provided on how the service provided police intelligence regarding young people who were at risk or being exploited. It was noted that there were links in place with children’s social care and that a key part of the EPIC offer was its engagement with schools. It was continued that efforts were being made to build relations with community leaders, local shops and schools to form a better understanding of what was considered as normal teenage behaviour. It was added that where there was an issue affecting residents then appropriate police intelligence would be made available and enforcement provided through the relevant mechanisms.
Governance And Oversight – It was explained that the Youth Justice Service Management Board was a statutory requirement of every area in the UK. Members heard that in Doncaster, the Board had an independent Chair, former Doncaster Police Superintendent Neil Thomas, and the board itself was made up of senior leaders from the key partnership. An outline was provided of the different representatives on the board and the introduction of a new Independent Victim Service board member, and it was explained that the Doncaster Youth Justice Service was accountable to the board. A comprehensive performance report was presented to the board which would be subjected to vigorous challenge, and the board would also provide the strategic direction and targets for the service (in addition to any legislative and practice changes required for the service during the following year). Members were told that Youth Justice in England was overseen by an arm’s length management body of the Ministry of Justice (which was the Youth Justice Board) and that the Youth Justice Board Head of Region also attended the management board again to ensure that information provided was rigorous and appropriate, as well as sharing issues of best practice. It was noted that the recent work undertaken around EPIC had been published nationally as a method of best practice on the Base Camp website, used by all Youth Justice Services in the UK to inform best practice.
Harmful Sexual Behaviour – It was reported that Harmful Sexual Behaviour had experienced an increase in reporting as people were more aware and more confident to report incidents. This was partly due to a number of social movements that had taken place over recent years, such as the Me Too movement. The second reason was stated as being a societal and cultural shift which related to how young people communicated through the sending of nude pictures. It was explained that children did not realise that they were committing a crime when taking, sending and receiving a picture. It was explained that the service and South Yorkshire Police took an educative response to raise young people’s awareness and inform them of the risks, dangers and vulnerabilities they were placing themselves within. It was outlined that there was an increase in Harmful Sexual Behaviour particularly from young men. It was seen that this often related to the watching of amateur pornography online, with websites continually being uploaded with recordings, many of which included sexual violence towards women and girls and therefore impacting harmful sexual behaviour.
Reference was made to how numbers coming through the system had increased significantly over the last year, and it was explained that this was not a Doncaster specific issue. Members were informed that during the last year, a harmful sexual behaviour pathway led by a psychologist had been formed. It was explained that the first step was to raise greater professional awareness around this issue, then to ensure that staff in schools (particularly designated safeguarding leads) were aware about those types of issues and understood the language involved. Members heard that there was a universal helpline for the harmful sexual behaviour pathway and the next step was to provide training to parents to make them aware of what children (particularly boys) were watching. Reference was made to Childline, which had experienced its first year of girls asking for advice in relation to this particular area.
Members were informed that EPIC had a virtual reality programme which raised awareness for school age children around violence against women and girls (relating to the issue of upskirting). It was acknowledged that this was a multi-faceted and challenging long-term issue to be addressed. Members were told that adult sites would soon require age verification by Ofcom and it was recognised that it would not resolve the issue but should slow it down.
First Time Entrants (FTEs) – It was noted that the number of First Time Entrants had increased significantly during 2023/24. Members were told that this had been impacted by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), stipulating cases at Court being referred to the Triage panel must receive a Youth Caution or Youth Conditional Caution, and a diversionary alternative could not be offered. This meant that the child became a First Time Entrant and was subject to a formal criminal justice disposal. It was explained that the issue was not just within Doncaster and had been raised with the Youth Justice Board (as the oversight body) and with the Crown Prosecution Youth Lead, as well as being escalated to the Ministry of Justice. Members heard that the advice from the CPS was to make sure that the case did not go to court in the first place, and therefore work was being undertaken with police colleagues who was scrutinising every decision that went through at sergeant level to decide if cases should go to the triage panel, the internal triage panel or to the CPS for charge which should reduce the cases going to court or children being subject to the CPS stipulation. It was explained that issues occurred when the child might give no comment interview and with no admission of guilt, police officers would send the case to CPS for a charging decision, resulting in the outcome problem outlined earlier. It was also stated that work was being undertaken with solicitors to ensure that they were aware of the full range of options for children and impact of certain outcomes for children. Members were told that historically Doncaster had experienced low FTE rates and were now at similar rates to other areas. It was outlined that the service had successfully liaised with the CPS on individual case level basis to have decisions overturned, although this was only in a small minority of cases.
Prevention of Reoffending – It was explained that there were children with outcomes that did not come to the attention of the Youth Offending Service, for example, traffic violations or Fixed Penalty Notices (FPN). This was because the intervention was completed there and then and this formed a small percentage of the cohort. It was noted that the majority of children had directly worked and engaged with the service to some degree. It was outlined that during the last 5 years, there had been a massive change seen both locally and nationally of where children were placed within the system. Members were informed that over time, the legislative landscape and practice of understanding what was effective with children, had both changed. It was explained that more children had been diverted away from statutory outcomes to diversionary outcomes where they received the same offer of support. Members heard that a suite of interventions offered could include a dyslexia screen, a speech, language and communication assessment (and intervention), psychological formulation, cognitive behaviour therapy, dialectical behaviour therapy, intervention for harmful sexual behaviours, direct careers advice, non-invasive STI screening and also substance misuse intervention support, young people’s counselling and systemic family psychotherapy. Reference was made to the successful rates experienced in relation to the prevention of reoffending and felt that this could be better achieved through early intervention. It was felt that this could lead to a smaller cohort of children being placed on criminal justice orders and whose needs were more difficult to meet. It was further explained that within that cohort were Looked After Children who may be placed outside of the city. Members were reminded that in England and Wales, when a child was placed outside their locality then that authority retained overall responsibility of that child’s case (with the other local authority providing a caretaking service as part of day-to-day intervention). This meant that the Council was not always able to implement its offer with children being placed out of the city and could result in that child reoffending. It was noted that this year, a small element of the budget had been allocated for when children were placed out of the city to commission intervention locally that would otherwise not be available.
Members were assured that all children were engaged with as part of a strong relational based practice undertaken by the team. It was noted that this was evidenced through direct quotes from children and parents included in the Youth Justice Plan and was considered the best measure of the work undertaken by the team.
Reference was made to the strong performance in preventing and diverting children from the Criminal Justice System with 98% of children receiving a diversionary outcome, who did not reoffend. Members were informed that efforts were being made to try and divert almost every child, unless the offence was considered to be so serious that they could not be diverted. The victims wish would also be taken into consideration. It was explained that this decision was taken in partnership with South Yorkshire Police. although there were times when it was not appropriate. Members were told that where change could not be supported for a child who had been diverted, and they reoffended again, then that child might need a more intensive approach to affect change.
Child Criminal Exploitation (CCE) – In response to risks around Child Criminal Exploitation, it was explained that this was part of a multi-faceted approach and partnership response. It was explained that every local authority was required to have a MACE (Multi Agency Child Exploitation) Panel who identified what level of risk the child was at. It was outlined that the Panel met weekly and that children were reviewed being given a status of green, amber or red. An explanation was provided of the different status categories alongside the role of the Social Worker and the Police, and reference was made to work around Organised Criminal Gangs (OCGs). Concern was raised around issues that could be faced when Social Workers changed during the time a child was being supported. It was noted that there was greater workforce stability and a reduction in Social Worker vacancies. It was outlined that the model was about Families First and where a child needed greater stability, reference was also made to workforce stability that would be able to offer that where the child needs that continuous connection. It was noted that work was being undertaken with both Child Sexual Exploitation as well as Child Criminal Exploitation. It was stressed that this was everyone’s responsibility and information was provided on work undertaken by other teams within the Council relating to issues such as licensing, for example, taxis drivers and hotels being well equipped to address potential situations when a child might be at risk. It was responded that EPIC was to deliver a virtual reality training programme to make professionals aware of the risks and issues that might impact on a child in terms of exploitation.
Vulnerable Groups (Looked After Children and Special Educational Needs) – There was a discussion around how the service supported vulnerable groups that included Looked After Children and Special Educational Needs. It was explained that there was a strong intervention offer and assessments took place which informed recommendations to schools, colleges and training providers who worked with those who had been assessed. It was explained that the offer was provided at prevention stage as well as at statutory stage. Reference was made to dyslexia screening offered by the in-house Education Coordinator who worked closely with the Speech and Language Therapist and in completing Education, Health and Care Plans paperwork so that children can be assessed for additional support. Members heard that there was also a Careers Team, who offered a bespoke service to children and young people. In terms of Looked After Children, it was outlined that there was a triage panel with an independent Chair who ensured that the child was not being unnecessarily criminalized by offering diversion disposals where appropriate. Members were informed that as a recognised protected characteristic, mechanisms were in place to ensure guaranteed interviews. It was continued that there was an ambitious target to bring offending rates by Looked After Children in line with the 10-17 population who live in familial homes, 0.4% of the 10 to 17 population offend, for Looked After Children this is 2%.
Regarding speech and language support, Members were informed that there were often children and young people who had missed gaps in their education and particularly older children that were needing support at that stage.
A further question was asked whether those children could have a preference of the gender of the person supporting them. Members were informed that the team was made of different genders and ages and that endeavours would always be made to accommodate this where appropriate.
Involvement of Young People and Families in Co-producing Services – The Committee was informed that the service sought formal feedback at the end of the order or disposal, from both children and families (included within the Youth Justice Plan). Reference was made to feedback provided through young people’s groups that included a recently established girls group. As a result of the feedback provided a young person counsellor post has been created. Feedback was also sought on documentation such as intervention plans which had led to the modification of those plans. When recruiting staff to the team, a young person’s panel was used that included young people who had recently closed to us or were still open and wished to participate, to form a part of the interview process. In terms of family, the systemic family therapy team obtained feedback on the efficacy of their service they provided to families through a scoring tool.
RESOLVED that the Overview and Scrutiny Management Committee supports the Youth Justice Plan 2025/26 before it is submitted to Full Council for approval.
6
Statement of Licensing Policy 2026 - Licensing Act 2003
Attachments:
- Document Licensing cover report osmc 170725 09 Jul 2025
- Document Appendix A - consultation responses licensing osmc 170725 09 Jul 2025
- Document Appendix B - revised policy with tracked changes osmc 170725 09 Jul 2025
- Document Appendix C - summary of changes licensing osmc 170725 09 Jul 2025
Minutes
The Overview and Scrutiny Management Committee considered the Statement of Licensing Policy 2026 - Licensing Act 2003 prior to its submission to Cabinet and approval by Full Council following its 5 yearly review. Following consideration of the report, Members of the Committee were afforded the opportunity to put forward any questions to officers’ present at the meeting. Kellie Hopkin (Service Director of Place) and David Smith (Licensing Offer) were in attendance in order to respond to any questions posed.
The following areas were discussed.
Key Changes - An outline was provided of the key changes that had been put forward, comparing this strategy and the previous one last adopted to be effective in January 2021. Reference was made to Appendix B and C of the report, and it was explained that the changes were largely administrative changes. Reference was also made to the inclusion of “Ask for Angela” and “WAVE (Welfare and Vulnerability Engagement), both safety initiatives, which had now been included to provide applicants and license holders advice around best practice.
It was outlined that changes in response to public consultation included the following.
1. Planning – Amendments made to the policy around planning permissions to provide clarity, update of wording and the inclusion of a website address for applicants to check whether they require planning permission. It was confirmed that both suggestions were taken on board and added to the policy.
2. Safeguarding Children Partnership – It was confirmed that the partnership would support the changes, and no further amendments were offered.
3. Bawtry Town Council – supported the content of the revised policy and asked a question around the Cumulative Impact, which was not a matter for this policy but was something scheduled to be consulted on next year.
Clarification was sought on whether the licensing statement included taxi drivers, and it was confirmed that the policy had no taxi implications. It was explained that the policy had been redrafted and was waiting on consultation and would go through the Licensing Committee and Councillor Cox requested that this came back to OSMC.
Licensing Regulations – A Member asked what was in place for stakeholders to provide further input (after the policy had been agreed), in order to facilitate short and long-term changes. A section was quoted from the Executive Summary section of the policy that demonstrated that there were opportunities for revisions within that 5-year period. The quote stated that “Section 5 of the Licensing Act 2003 (the Act) requires the Licensing Authority to prepare a statement of its licensing policy (the policy) that it is proposed to apply in exercising its functions under the Act”. The policy must therefore be reviewed at least every five years but may be reviewed within that period and revised as appropriate.
Cumulative Impact Assessment (CIA) – Members were informed that there were Cumulative Impact Assessments in Doncaster and reference was made to the summary of CIAs shown within 2 maps (Annex 2 page 123). It was clarified that those CIAs were not subject to consultation or were a part of the policy document being considered. It was clarified that CIAs were consulted on every 3 years and up for review in 2026. A Member commented that there was a great deal of CCTV in Bawtry and asked if there had been any enforcements actions within Bawtry. It was responded that the CCTV in place was not licensing related and it was stressed that any complaints received would be investigated. The idea was that the area had reached saturation point or that there were issues within that area which could be made worse by further licensed premises. Clarification was provided that the responsibility would be on applicant to prove that they would not add to such issues in the area where the application was refused.
Safeguarding – In terms of how safeguarding was covered across all areas of the policy, Members were informed that “Protection of Children from Harm”, was one of 4 statutory objectives and considered as equally important as the others. Members were informed that the Doncaster Children’s Partnership was a responsible authority under the Act which meant that they were a consultee on all applications for premises, licenses and club premises certificates and were able to make representations. It was explained that each application was considered on its own merits
RESOLVED that the Overview and Scrutiny Management Committee supports the reviewed statement of policy – Licensing Act 2003 and note the responses received during the consultation before it is submitted to Full Council for approval.
The following areas were discussed.
Key Changes - An outline was provided of the key changes that had been put forward, comparing this strategy and the previous one last adopted to be effective in January 2021. Reference was made to Appendix B and C of the report, and it was explained that the changes were largely administrative changes. Reference was also made to the inclusion of “Ask for Angela” and “WAVE (Welfare and Vulnerability Engagement), both safety initiatives, which had now been included to provide applicants and license holders advice around best practice.
It was outlined that changes in response to public consultation included the following.
1. Planning – Amendments made to the policy around planning permissions to provide clarity, update of wording and the inclusion of a website address for applicants to check whether they require planning permission. It was confirmed that both suggestions were taken on board and added to the policy.
2. Safeguarding Children Partnership – It was confirmed that the partnership would support the changes, and no further amendments were offered.
3. Bawtry Town Council – supported the content of the revised policy and asked a question around the Cumulative Impact, which was not a matter for this policy but was something scheduled to be consulted on next year.
Clarification was sought on whether the licensing statement included taxi drivers, and it was confirmed that the policy had no taxi implications. It was explained that the policy had been redrafted and was waiting on consultation and would go through the Licensing Committee and Councillor Cox requested that this came back to OSMC.
Licensing Regulations – A Member asked what was in place for stakeholders to provide further input (after the policy had been agreed), in order to facilitate short and long-term changes. A section was quoted from the Executive Summary section of the policy that demonstrated that there were opportunities for revisions within that 5-year period. The quote stated that “Section 5 of the Licensing Act 2003 (the Act) requires the Licensing Authority to prepare a statement of its licensing policy (the policy) that it is proposed to apply in exercising its functions under the Act”. The policy must therefore be reviewed at least every five years but may be reviewed within that period and revised as appropriate.
Cumulative Impact Assessment (CIA) – Members were informed that there were Cumulative Impact Assessments in Doncaster and reference was made to the summary of CIAs shown within 2 maps (Annex 2 page 123). It was clarified that those CIAs were not subject to consultation or were a part of the policy document being considered. It was clarified that CIAs were consulted on every 3 years and up for review in 2026. A Member commented that there was a great deal of CCTV in Bawtry and asked if there had been any enforcements actions within Bawtry. It was responded that the CCTV in place was not licensing related and it was stressed that any complaints received would be investigated. The idea was that the area had reached saturation point or that there were issues within that area which could be made worse by further licensed premises. Clarification was provided that the responsibility would be on applicant to prove that they would not add to such issues in the area where the application was refused.
Safeguarding – In terms of how safeguarding was covered across all areas of the policy, Members were informed that “Protection of Children from Harm”, was one of 4 statutory objectives and considered as equally important as the others. Members were informed that the Doncaster Children’s Partnership was a responsible authority under the Act which meant that they were a consultee on all applications for premises, licenses and club premises certificates and were able to make representations. It was explained that each application was considered on its own merits
RESOLVED that the Overview and Scrutiny Management Committee supports the reviewed statement of policy – Licensing Act 2003 and note the responses received during the consultation before it is submitted to Full Council for approval.
7
Overview and Scrutiny Work Plan and Council's Forward Plan of Key Decisions
Attachments:
- Document MASTER WORK PLAN 202526 approved 09 Jul 2025
- Document Forward Plan for OSMC 09 Jul 2025
Minutes
The Committee gave consideration to the Overview and Scrutiny Work Plan and the Council’s Forward Plan of key decisions.
A request was made that Licensing (Taxi) could be considered by OSMC as part of its workplan. Reference was also made to consider the areas put forward from the public statement.
RESOLVED that the update be noted.
A request was made that Licensing (Taxi) could be considered by OSMC as part of its workplan. Reference was also made to consider the areas put forward from the public statement.
RESOLVED that the update be noted.
Previous Meetings
Future Meetings
Join the Discussion
You need to be signed in to comment.
Sign in