Hart Borough Council Overview and Scrutiny Committee Meeting

The minutes of 14 November 2023 were confirmed and signed as a correct record.

Apologies had been received from Councillor Dorn – Councillor Forster attended as substitute.

Councillors Engström and Davies joined the meeting virtually.

No declarations made.

No announcements.

None.

The Committee received the minutes from the Multi Agency Flood Forum of 26 September 2023.

Ms Jenkins left the room at this point as she is a director of Butterwood Homes.

Councillor Smith introduced the Butterwood Homes Scrutiny Panel Report confirming that the financial information that had not been provided previously had been received and did not cause the panel any concerns.

A member added that the financial elements had been reviewed and the panel were satisfied, the frequency of the panel meetings will be reviewed at the next meeting.  It was highlighted that Hart do receive a payment annually from Butterwood Homes as lease repayment, plus yield, plus recharge of resources. This payment due in early 2024 is estimated to be approximately £230K. 

This committee received and noted the report.

The Chair of the CCTV Task and Finish Group introduced the report outlining the recommendations to Cabinet and noting synergy between this report and the Review of CCTV provision report.

An amendment to the recommendation to allocate 10K to the 2024/25 capital programme to fund three additional deployable (mobile) CCTV cameras was made.

The recommendation was to amend to £12K to fund two additional cameras following updated information on costings.

Members queried the reasons behind the recommendation that a budget of £70k is allocated to the council’s capital programme over a 3-year period commencing in 2024/25 to fund a rolling replacement of the Councils CCTV camera stock (£10K in 2024/25, £30K in 2025/6, £30K in 2026/7).

It was stated that the recommendation came from a recognition of previous low maintenance, current line issues with some existing cameras, limited lifespans and technological advancements.

Members questioned the recommendation to extend the CCTV network by two sites specifically around the criteria to be used to choose the locations. It was explained that this was just a starting point and that parish councils had suggested various locations, and that a procedure will be necessary to identify and prioritise actual locations.  The officer report details the need for a clear process to be developed for consideration of any new camera requests.

Members asked for clarification on the type of mobile cameras referred to in the report.  It was confirmed that they have the same specification of the fixed cameras but can be moved to different locations. They have an installation and de-installation cost and require a data contract, this costs approximately £1K a year. It was confirmed that the costs in the recommendation would cover the capital costs. The costs for moving cameras are included in the officer report.

The direct connection for access to the police was queried. Firstly, the connected terminal will be installed in the office by the end of December and training will be provided with the system up and running by the end of January. This enables the police to log on the cameras live and review recorded data. Secondly, the other link Runneymede have is with Surrey police to their live link incident reporting system. This is a matter for Hampshire Constabulary, the Community Safety Manager has raised this issue with them.

Concerns were raised over previous statements by the Portfolio Holder for Community Safety and Planning Policy that there were no issues with the CCTV service, it was suggested that the report showed the reverse. A request was made for the Portfolio Holder to apologise for misleading residents and members.

A motion was proposed by Councillor Forster and seconded by Councillor Butcher.

That this committee request that the Cabinet Member responsible should make an apology for the misleading information previously stated about the CCTV service.

The motion was debated. Key areas for discussion were:

·         The need to determine if comments had been misleading

·         The linking of the motion to the Task and Finish Group report and the O&S meeting

·         The role of the committee in scrutinising the Executive

·         The timeline of when information relating to the service was known to members.

A recorded vote was held on the Motion:

For: Butcher, Coburn, Farmer, Forster.

Against: Butler, Harward, Smith, Thomas, Vernon.

The motion was NOT CARRIED.

A member queried the installation of the mobile CCTV cameras. It was confirmed that they do have specific fixing and location criteria and can only be relocated by Highways Electrical Registration Scheme accredited contractors.

A member asked for additional information on the KPI outcomes, stating residents want to know if there have been identifiable crimes, that have led to prosecutions and whether the independent review would be considering this and if it could be regularly reported on.

The use of mobile CCTV cameras and trail cameras in relation to rural crime was discussed.

Councillor Bailey arrived at 19.42.

The new process for the location of new cameras, and a review of the current sites, with a view to possible relocations was discussed.

The Committee noted the report including the amended recommendation to be passed to cabinet. 

Ms Jenkins gave a brief introduction to the officer report on the three-month review commissioned by the Portfolio Holder for Community Safety and Development Management.  The main findings were that the move to Runneymede Control Room had been a positive one and that several recommendations have been made to improve the service.

A member queried the KPI’s chosen and that there was not enough focus on outcomes, they questioned whether they showed to residents if CCTV identified crimes, were being a deterrent to crime or being successfully used in prosecutions.  It was explained that Hart has no access to information that would show the success rates of prosecutions that used CCTV evidence. It was suggested that O&S could perhaps take this request via the Community Safety team to Hampshire Constabulary to provide a closed loop.

The public availability of crime and anti-social behaviour data was questioned, it was confirmed that this data is readily available via police.co.uk.

A member asked if a new CCTV camera due to be installed in early December was now operational. It was explained that due to an unforeseen electrical issue at the location, installation had been delayed but it would be operational by the end of December.

A member queried the hotspot data map for Hook in comparison to urban areas. It was clarified that the nature of rural crime and the larger distances between incidents made the maps look significantly different to maps in urban areas. It is mostly acquisitional crime in this location.

A further discussion with Hampshire Constabulary regarding establishing a link to the live incident reporting system is required, to bring Hart into line with the arrangements in place in Surrey.

The Committee noted the report.

Members received an update on the Settlement Capacity and Intensification Study.  A demonstration of the scope of the newly procured Placemaker software was given. 

Members were informed that:

·         the software uses the latest technology to explore potential within settlements

·         it does not provide single answers but scenarios that show possibilities

·         a helpful start for further work

·         Cabinet will consider a report in January 2024. 

Members discussed what was being required from O&S. Members acknowledged the software was impressive but as the cabinet report was not submitted for consideration, that they would reserve judgement.  Members noted that the committee could request the January document for consideration by O&S if deemed necessary.

It was explained that the software package has been purchased for a one-year period. The next steps for the study are dependent on future secondary legislation and what housing methodology is to be used. Any further purchases will follow procurement procedures.

Members received the draft Authority Monitoring Report for 2022/23.

Members were informed that although a backwards looking report there were a number of key changes to highlight:

·         The Levelling-Up and Regeneration Bill 2023 received Royal Assent in October and signals major changes to the planning system including the plan making process through secondary legislation

·         The new National Planning Policy Framework has now been published

·         Elements of the Environment Act 2021, specifically net gain, biodiversity, net gain and local nature recovery are now starting to be implemented

Members discussed the mandatory report. A query was raised regarding potential implications of a Traveller Development Plan not being submitted which rendered policy H5 out of date.

Mr Jaggard explained that:

·         a plan had not been submitted as it was necessary to have an identified site and Hart had none

·         This had been discussed with parish councils and power is within any Neighbourhood Plan to allocate a site if required

·         The Chief Executive will be meeting with the Gypsy and Traveller Task and Finish Group in early 2024 to move this forward

·         The type of criteria that would be used to assess a location is similar to the national planning policy framework and so we are not in a weak position.

Councillor Forster declared a non-prejudicial, non-pecuniary, non-personal interest in relation to the Library in Minute 89 as the Hampshire County Councillor responsible for the library service and as being an employee of a company that provides EV charging in the Church Road car park.

Mr Clarke introduced the Climate Change Update report.

Members questioned:

·         the proposed projects and spend on decarbonisation of Hart owned premises, asking if Fleet Library and The Harlington had also been considered. It was confirmed that a bid for external funding for boiler upgrades for the Civic offices, Frogmore leisure Centre and The Harlington had been submitted. The outcome of the application will be known in January 2024.

·         the overspend detailed for Solar EV budget was £35k and the actual spend was £88K. A written answer will be provided to O&S.

·         whether the EV fast/slow charging at the Civic Offices are connected to the solar PV and what Hart are currently paying per kilowatt. A written answer will be provided to O&S.

·         the initial EV charging project cost which showed an overspend. It was explained that external funding from one of the tenants was provided so although the overall spend was higher it resulted in a lesser spend of £17K on Hart’s budget instead of the planned £25K.

·         that thermal imaging cameras project was due to be rolled out this winter, following an evaluation of the pilot. Concern was raised that any further delay in this would mean the period when the cameras were of practical use would be missed for this winter. The Portfolio Holder for Climate Change stated that the pilot scheme is due to be debated by the Climate Change Stakeholder Group in January to decide how to take it forward with the parish councils.

·         Whether the impact of the actions not happening could be shown in the plan, for example if external funding is not forthcoming.

Ms Jenkins introduced the report, the first of several projects to be funded from the Housing Capital Fund. The report requests funding to engage a specialist technical project resource to facilitate scoping the remodelling of Heathland’s Court.

Members asked if bidders would be given an estimate of the budget available for the works. It was confirmed that this was the case.

Members queried if the option of fully redeveloping the site to provide purpose-built provision, which could potentially provide more units and greater support net zero ambitions was being considered. It was stated this the report will provide a number of options for consideration.

The Cabinet work programme was noted.

The Overview and Scrutiny work programme was noted.