Hampshire County Council
Councillors:
78
Wards:
76
Committees:
49
Meetings (2025):
165
Meetings (2024):
156
Meeting
Universal Services Select Committee - Hampshire
Meeting Times
Scheduled Time
Start:
Monday, 3rd March 2025
10:00 AM
Monday, 3rd March 2025
10:00 AM
End:
Monday, 3rd March 2025
2:00 PM
Monday, 3rd March 2025
2:00 PM
Meeting Status
Status:
Confirmed
Confirmed
Date:
03 Mar 2025
03 Mar 2025
Location:
Ashburton Hall, Elizabeth II Court, The Castle, Winchester
Ashburton Hall, Elizabeth II Court, The Castle, Winchester
Meeting Attendees
Committee Member
Independent Group Spokesperson
Liberal Democrats Deputy
Liberal Democrats Spokesperson
Independent Group Deputy
Vacancy
Not required
Committee Member
Councillor Dominic Hiscock
Present, as expected
Agenda
1
Apologies for absence
To receive any apologies for absence.
Minutes
Apologies were received from Councillors Debbie Curnow-Ford, Wayne Irish and Sarah Pankhurst. The Chairman welcomed Councillor Mark Cooper, in attendance as the Liberal Democrat substitute and Councillor Malcolm Wallace as the substitute Member for the Independent Group.
2
Declarations of interest
All Members who believe they have a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest in any matter to be considered at the meeting must declare that interest and, having regard to Part 3 Paragraph 1.5 of the County Council's Members’ Code of Conduct, leave the meeting while the matter is discussed, save for exercising any right to speak in accordance with Paragraph 1.6 of the Code. Furthermore all Members with a Personal Interest in a matter being considered at the meeting should consider, having regard to Part 5, Paragraph 4 of the Code, whether such interest should be declared, and having regard to Part 5, Paragraph 5 of the Code, consider whether it is appropriate to leave the meeting while the matter is discussed, save for exercising any right to speak in accordance with the Code.
Minutes
Members were mindful that where they believed they had a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest in any matter considered at the meeting they must declare that interest at the time of the relevant debate and, having regard to the circumstances described in Part 3, Paragraph 1.5 of the County Council's Members' Code of Conduct, leave the meeting while the matter was discussed, save for exercising any right to speak in accordance with Paragraph 1.6 of the Code. Furthermore Members were mindful that where they believed they had a Personal Interest in a matter being considered at the meeting they considered whether such interest should be declared, and having regard to Part 5, Paragraph 5 of the Code, considered whether it was appropriate to leave the meeting whilst the matter was discussed, save for exercising any right to speak in accordance with the Code.
No declarations were made.
No declarations were made.
3
Minutes of previous meeting
To confirm the minutes of the previous meeting.
Attachments:
- Document Minutes Public Pack, 20/01/2025 Universal Services Select Committee 21 Feb 2025
Minutes
It was noted within item 84 of the minutes of the previous meeting, Councillor Rupert Kyrle had declared an interest as a local resident of Botley, which was incorrect. Councillor Kyrle had declared a personal interest as the Hampshire County Councillor for Botley & Hedge End North and the Eastleigh Borough Councillor for Botley.
The minutes were otherwise agreed as a true record of the meeting and signed by the Chairman.
The minutes were otherwise agreed as a true record of the meeting and signed by the Chairman.
4
Deputations
To receive any deputations notified under Standing Order 12.
Minutes
The Select Committee received no deputations on this occasion.
5
Chairman's Announcements
To receive any announcements the Chairman may wish to make.
Minutes
There were no formal announcements.
6
Spend Approval Property Term Maintenance Contract
To pre-scrutinise a report to be considered by the Executive Lead Member for Universal Services outlining proposals relating to spend approval to procure a new contract for the delivery of engineering and building fabric reactive work and engineering planned preventative maintenance across the Hampshire County Council and Service Level Agreement (SLA) schools’ estate.
Attachments:
- Document Spend Approval Property Term Maintenance Contract 21 Feb 2025
- Document Spend Approval Property Term Maintenance Contract Report 21 Feb 2025
- Document Item 6 - Presentation 21 Feb 2025
- Document Letter from Chairman of the Universal Service Select Committee 21 Feb 2025
Minutes
The Select Committee pre-scrutinised a report to be considered by the Executive Lead Member for Universal Services, outlining proposals relating to spend approval to procure a new contract for the delivery of engineering and building fabric reactive work and engineering planned preventative maintenance across the Hampshire County Council and Service Level Agreement (SLA) schools’ estate.
Members received a presentation from the Assistant Director Property, Transformation and Business Services and the Head of Property, through which it was heard that:
· The report proposed the Council enter into tender for a contract to the value of up to £250m over a potential 10 year term.
· The scale of the estate required spend to be prioritised and the contractual arrangements proposed flexibility to respond to any emerging concerns.
· Reactive maintenance was a core requirement of the Council in the maintenance of its built estate.
· The current contract would end in July 2026 with no opportunity to extend the contract further and therefore it was business critical to undertake a procurement process in the summer of 2025 to enable continuity of service.
· The decision did not outline a commitment against spend, but agreement to enter into a contract which would cover approximately 5000 of the County Council’s operational and support premises, along with over 480 local schools.
· In accordance with the recommendations of the independent consultants, the report recommended procurement of a flexible and agile single supplier contract, which would be subject to a robust tender process to ensure the contract would deliver the best cost certainty and value for money.
Members raised concerns about impact on innovation and competition in a single supplier model. It was heard that the Council were open to joint ventures, providing there was a single supply route to the council and any provider would be expected to bring their own supply chain of local contractors spread throughout the County. It was further noted that both Highways and Waste were managed through a single contractor and that there were three suppliers within the current arrangement, and it was hoped that a new single supply route for maintenance would reduce risk and deliver cost benefits through economy of scale.
In response to Members questions it was heard that:
· Social value questions would form part of the overall value assessment, along with an assessment of the suppliers ability to innovate in order to deliver the best value through the contract.
· Officers would have regular engagement with the contractors to monitor performance and delivery, and assess their resilience to change including regular senior dialogue to engage and maintain relationship with such a significant supplier.
· Whilst the County Council devolves its maintenance budget to schools, over 95% of schools, along with a large number of aided schools chose to use the County Council’s maintenance contract arrangements. The arrangements were operated on a cost recovery basis and provided comprehensive maintenance, with schools retaining appropriate responsibilities.
· With the deadline for the contract, it was essential for the Council to undertake the tender process in the summer of 2025, before the outcome of the Local Government Review (LGR) would be known, however it was intended to offer a suitable arrangement to be utilised by any new authority/authorities post LGR.
· In order to seek competitive rates it was important to be able to offer a longer term arrangement within the procurement process and therefore a five year contract, with the potential to expand for a further five years on an incremental basis, was felt to offer a balance between securing a contract which was both flexible and offered good value for money.
· The Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy (CIPFA) standards suggested that local authorities should spend 75% on long term planned and preventative maintenance to secure assets for longevity and 25% on reactive maintenance. The County Council were currently spending 66% on reactive maintenance due to budget restraints and it was hoped that officers would be able to work with a new supplier to increase the proportion of spend on planned maintenance.
· A review of assets, and their current condition, had been undertaken to allow any potential bidders to price their offer as accurately as possible.
· Spend was expected to reduce across years six to ten, as it was expected that the value benefits of the new contractual arrangements would be realised by the mid-point of the contract and that there would be a reduction in the number of buildings to be maintained due to estate rationalisation.
· Contractors would be required to monitor their own carbon emission impact and would be expected to be take measures to reduce their carbon footprint, as part of their relationship with the County Council.
· Key performance indicators (KPIs) would form part of the contract and be closely monitored. If performance issues were identified these could be addressed before they become a significant risk, and it was felt that this would be easier to identify with a single supplier.
· Should a future decision be proposed to extend the contract, the appropriate scrutiny committee could chose to bring that decision forward for scrutiny ahead of the decision being taken.
Cllr Rod Cooper left the meeting at this point.
Members questioned why the recommendation at paragraph three of the report to the Executive Lead Member for Universal Services did not require consultation with the head of legal services. Councillor Mocatta proposed an amendment to the recommendations, which was seconded by Councillor Parker:
That the Universal Services Select Committee recommends to the Executive Lead Member for Universal Services, with regards to the proposals set out in the attached report:
· That the Executive Lead Member for Universal Services gives approval to spend and enter into contractual arrangements, in consultation with the Head of Legal Services, for a five year single supplier contract commencing on 1 August 2026 for the delivery of engineering and building fabric reactive maintenance, and engineering planned preventative maintenance, for Hampshire County Council's built estate (including SLA schools), at a value of up to £130million to be drawn from existing repairs and maintenance funding.
· That the Executive Lead Member for Universal Services, in consultation with the Head of Legal Services, approves the option to incrementally extend the contract for a period or periods of up to 5 years, from 1 August 2031 running through to 31 July 2036 and to spend at an additional value of up to £120 million to be drawn from existing repairs and maintenance funding.
The recommendation was agreed unanimously.
RESOLVED:
That the Universal Services Select Committee recommends to the Executive Lead Member for Universal Services, with regards to the proposals set out in the attached report:
· That the Executive Lead Member for Universal Services gives approval to spend and enter into contractual arrangements, in consultation with the Head of Legal Services, for a five year single supplier contract commencing on 1 August 2026 for the delivery of engineering and building fabric reactive maintenance, and engineering planned preventative maintenance, for Hampshire County Council's built estate (including SLA schools), at a value of up to £130million to be drawn from existing repairs and maintenance funding.
· That the Executive Lead Member for Universal Services, in consultation with the Head of Legal Services, approves the option to incrementally extend the contract for a period or periods of up to 5 years, from 1 August 2031 running through to 31 July 2036 and to spend at an additional value of up to £120 million to be drawn from existing repairs and maintenance funding.
Members received a presentation from the Assistant Director Property, Transformation and Business Services and the Head of Property, through which it was heard that:
· The report proposed the Council enter into tender for a contract to the value of up to £250m over a potential 10 year term.
· The scale of the estate required spend to be prioritised and the contractual arrangements proposed flexibility to respond to any emerging concerns.
· Reactive maintenance was a core requirement of the Council in the maintenance of its built estate.
· The current contract would end in July 2026 with no opportunity to extend the contract further and therefore it was business critical to undertake a procurement process in the summer of 2025 to enable continuity of service.
· The decision did not outline a commitment against spend, but agreement to enter into a contract which would cover approximately 5000 of the County Council’s operational and support premises, along with over 480 local schools.
· In accordance with the recommendations of the independent consultants, the report recommended procurement of a flexible and agile single supplier contract, which would be subject to a robust tender process to ensure the contract would deliver the best cost certainty and value for money.
Members raised concerns about impact on innovation and competition in a single supplier model. It was heard that the Council were open to joint ventures, providing there was a single supply route to the council and any provider would be expected to bring their own supply chain of local contractors spread throughout the County. It was further noted that both Highways and Waste were managed through a single contractor and that there were three suppliers within the current arrangement, and it was hoped that a new single supply route for maintenance would reduce risk and deliver cost benefits through economy of scale.
In response to Members questions it was heard that:
· Social value questions would form part of the overall value assessment, along with an assessment of the suppliers ability to innovate in order to deliver the best value through the contract.
· Officers would have regular engagement with the contractors to monitor performance and delivery, and assess their resilience to change including regular senior dialogue to engage and maintain relationship with such a significant supplier.
· Whilst the County Council devolves its maintenance budget to schools, over 95% of schools, along with a large number of aided schools chose to use the County Council’s maintenance contract arrangements. The arrangements were operated on a cost recovery basis and provided comprehensive maintenance, with schools retaining appropriate responsibilities.
· With the deadline for the contract, it was essential for the Council to undertake the tender process in the summer of 2025, before the outcome of the Local Government Review (LGR) would be known, however it was intended to offer a suitable arrangement to be utilised by any new authority/authorities post LGR.
· In order to seek competitive rates it was important to be able to offer a longer term arrangement within the procurement process and therefore a five year contract, with the potential to expand for a further five years on an incremental basis, was felt to offer a balance between securing a contract which was both flexible and offered good value for money.
· The Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy (CIPFA) standards suggested that local authorities should spend 75% on long term planned and preventative maintenance to secure assets for longevity and 25% on reactive maintenance. The County Council were currently spending 66% on reactive maintenance due to budget restraints and it was hoped that officers would be able to work with a new supplier to increase the proportion of spend on planned maintenance.
· A review of assets, and their current condition, had been undertaken to allow any potential bidders to price their offer as accurately as possible.
· Spend was expected to reduce across years six to ten, as it was expected that the value benefits of the new contractual arrangements would be realised by the mid-point of the contract and that there would be a reduction in the number of buildings to be maintained due to estate rationalisation.
· Contractors would be required to monitor their own carbon emission impact and would be expected to be take measures to reduce their carbon footprint, as part of their relationship with the County Council.
· Key performance indicators (KPIs) would form part of the contract and be closely monitored. If performance issues were identified these could be addressed before they become a significant risk, and it was felt that this would be easier to identify with a single supplier.
· Should a future decision be proposed to extend the contract, the appropriate scrutiny committee could chose to bring that decision forward for scrutiny ahead of the decision being taken.
Cllr Rod Cooper left the meeting at this point.
Members questioned why the recommendation at paragraph three of the report to the Executive Lead Member for Universal Services did not require consultation with the head of legal services. Councillor Mocatta proposed an amendment to the recommendations, which was seconded by Councillor Parker:
That the Universal Services Select Committee recommends to the Executive Lead Member for Universal Services, with regards to the proposals set out in the attached report:
· That the Executive Lead Member for Universal Services gives approval to spend and enter into contractual arrangements, in consultation with the Head of Legal Services, for a five year single supplier contract commencing on 1 August 2026 for the delivery of engineering and building fabric reactive maintenance, and engineering planned preventative maintenance, for Hampshire County Council's built estate (including SLA schools), at a value of up to £130million to be drawn from existing repairs and maintenance funding.
· That the Executive Lead Member for Universal Services, in consultation with the Head of Legal Services, approves the option to incrementally extend the contract for a period or periods of up to 5 years, from 1 August 2031 running through to 31 July 2036 and to spend at an additional value of up to £120 million to be drawn from existing repairs and maintenance funding.
The recommendation was agreed unanimously.
RESOLVED:
That the Universal Services Select Committee recommends to the Executive Lead Member for Universal Services, with regards to the proposals set out in the attached report:
· That the Executive Lead Member for Universal Services gives approval to spend and enter into contractual arrangements, in consultation with the Head of Legal Services, for a five year single supplier contract commencing on 1 August 2026 for the delivery of engineering and building fabric reactive maintenance, and engineering planned preventative maintenance, for Hampshire County Council's built estate (including SLA schools), at a value of up to £130million to be drawn from existing repairs and maintenance funding.
· That the Executive Lead Member for Universal Services, in consultation with the Head of Legal Services, approves the option to incrementally extend the contract for a period or periods of up to 5 years, from 1 August 2031 running through to 31 July 2036 and to spend at an additional value of up to £120 million to be drawn from existing repairs and maintenance funding.
7
Work Programme
To review the current work programme for the Universal Services Select Committee.
Attachments:
- Document USSC Work Programme 21 Feb 2025
Minutes
The Select Committee considered its forthcoming work programme.
It was agreed that the following items would be added to the work programme:
· Review of the property maintenance spend contract.
· Update on byways policy and procedure.
RESOLVED:
That the Universal Services Select Committee discussed and agreed potential items for the work programme that can be prioritised and allocated by the Chairman of the Universal Services Select Committee.
It was agreed that the following items would be added to the work programme:
· Review of the property maintenance spend contract.
· Update on byways policy and procedure.
RESOLVED:
That the Universal Services Select Committee discussed and agreed potential items for the work programme that can be prioritised and allocated by the Chairman of the Universal Services Select Committee.
Previous Meetings
Join the Discussion
You need to be signed in to comment.
Sign in