Hampshire County Council
Councillors:
78
Wards:
76
Committees:
49
Meetings (2026):
57
Meetings (2025):
155
Meeting
Universal Services Select Committee - Hampshire
Meeting Times
Scheduled Time
Start:
Monday, 23rd June 2025
11:00 AM
Monday, 23rd June 2025
11:00 AM
End:
Monday, 23rd June 2025
3:00 PM
Monday, 23rd June 2025
3:00 PM
Meeting Status
Status:
Confirmed
Confirmed
Date:
23 Jun 2025
23 Jun 2025
Location:
Ashburton Hall, Elizabeth II Court, The Castle, Winchester
Ashburton Hall, Elizabeth II Court, The Castle, Winchester
Meeting Attendees
Committee Member
Chairman of the Council
Liberal Democrats Spokesperson
Independent Group Deputy
Independent Group Deputy
Vice Chairman of the Council
Agenda
1
Apologies for absence
To receive any apologies for absence.
Minutes
Apologies were noted from Councillors Rod Cooper, Barry Dunning, Micheal Ford, Wayne Irish, Sarah Pankhurst and Jacky Tustain.
The Chairman welcomed Councillors Pamela Bryant and Graham Burgess, in attendance as the Conservative substitute Members and Councillor Malcom Wallace as the substitute Member for the Independent Group.
The Chairman welcomed Councillors Pamela Bryant and Graham Burgess, in attendance as the Conservative substitute Members and Councillor Malcom 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, 28/04/2025 Universal Services Select Committee 13 Jun 2025
Minutes
The minutes of the last meeting were reviewed and agreed.
4
Deputations
To receive any deputations notified under Standing Order 12.
Minutes
No deputations were recived by the Select Committee on this occasion.
5
Chairman's Announcements
To receive any announcements the Chairman may wish to make.
Minutes
There were no formal announcements.
6
Update on the revised 20mph Policy
To receive an update on the first 12 months of progress following approval of the revised 20mph speed limit policy and community funded application process.
Attachments:
- Document 12 month Update on the revised 20mph Policy 13 Jun 2025
- Document Presentation - 20mph update 13 Jun 2025
Minutes
The Committee received an update on the first 12 months of progress following approval of the revised 20mph speed limit policy in January 2024 and community funded application process.
Members received a presentation from the Assistant Highway Manager (Traffic Management) through which it was heard that:
· A dedicated webpage had been launched in April 2024, which had been positively received, with guidance and self-assessment tools for town and parish councils.
· There had been significant interest in the scheme from town and parish Councils across Hampshire and seven applications had been taken forward for consideration to date.
· High implementation costs, including funding initial speed surveys and an inability to provide evidence of funding had proved a challenge to applicants in taking forward expressions of interest in 20mph speed limit introductions.
In response to Members questions it was heard that:
· All relevant data was considered as part of an application, including community speedwatch data. It was noted that one of the current applications in process had been supported by evidence from auto speedwatch camera recordings and SID/SLR devices.
· The directorate would undertake analysis of the quality of data from Speedwatch cameras vs that produced from the use of SID/SLR, with a view to providing greater guidance to town and parish councils on the best devices to invest in.
· S106 funding and developer funding, if available, could be used towards the cost of implementing 20mph speed limits.
· Officers would review the information on the website for applicants, to ensure that it makes clear the intention, limitations and requirements of the scheme, including providing case studies of new schemes once implemented.
· The revised policy also made provision for signage and flashing amber lights to draw attention to speed limit restrictions around schools.
· The scheme was focussed upon offering value for money and streamlining processes. The scheme was operated under a cost recovery model to make the scheme as accessible as possible to town and parish councils.
· The guidance cost for the introduction of a speed limit was set at £30,000, but this would vary depending on the requirements of each individual scheme.
· Members felt it important that the council had the ability to influence speed limits and road development within housing developments, at an early planning stage, to prevent speeding risks being built into new developments. It was understood this was a particular challenge for unadopted roads, which were outside of the authority’s influence.
· Should the volume of applications increase, sufficient capacity would be made available to, either internally or through the use of external consultants, to progress these through the scheme.
The Executive Member for Highways and Public Transport was invited to comment and recognised the efforts of officers in supporting town and parish councils to navigate the application process and improving the scheme guidance.
RESOLVED:
The Committee noted the Update on the revised 20mph policy
Councillor Kryle left the meeting at this point.
Members received a presentation from the Assistant Highway Manager (Traffic Management) through which it was heard that:
· A dedicated webpage had been launched in April 2024, which had been positively received, with guidance and self-assessment tools for town and parish councils.
· There had been significant interest in the scheme from town and parish Councils across Hampshire and seven applications had been taken forward for consideration to date.
· High implementation costs, including funding initial speed surveys and an inability to provide evidence of funding had proved a challenge to applicants in taking forward expressions of interest in 20mph speed limit introductions.
In response to Members questions it was heard that:
· All relevant data was considered as part of an application, including community speedwatch data. It was noted that one of the current applications in process had been supported by evidence from auto speedwatch camera recordings and SID/SLR devices.
· The directorate would undertake analysis of the quality of data from Speedwatch cameras vs that produced from the use of SID/SLR, with a view to providing greater guidance to town and parish councils on the best devices to invest in.
· S106 funding and developer funding, if available, could be used towards the cost of implementing 20mph speed limits.
· Officers would review the information on the website for applicants, to ensure that it makes clear the intention, limitations and requirements of the scheme, including providing case studies of new schemes once implemented.
· The revised policy also made provision for signage and flashing amber lights to draw attention to speed limit restrictions around schools.
· The scheme was focussed upon offering value for money and streamlining processes. The scheme was operated under a cost recovery model to make the scheme as accessible as possible to town and parish councils.
· The guidance cost for the introduction of a speed limit was set at £30,000, but this would vary depending on the requirements of each individual scheme.
· Members felt it important that the council had the ability to influence speed limits and road development within housing developments, at an early planning stage, to prevent speeding risks being built into new developments. It was understood this was a particular challenge for unadopted roads, which were outside of the authority’s influence.
· Should the volume of applications increase, sufficient capacity would be made available to, either internally or through the use of external consultants, to progress these through the scheme.
The Executive Member for Highways and Public Transport was invited to comment and recognised the efforts of officers in supporting town and parish councils to navigate the application process and improving the scheme guidance.
RESOLVED:
The Committee noted the Update on the revised 20mph policy
Councillor Kryle left the meeting at this point.
7
Definitive Map Modification Orders (DMMOs)
To pre-scrutinise proposals relating to the existing policy for prioritising applications for Definitive Map Modification Orders under s 53(5) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (adopted in 2019), which needs amending, due to be considered at the ELMUS Decision Day meeting at 3.30pm on 23 June 2025.
Attachments:
- Document Definitive Map Modification Orders 13 Jun 2025
- Document Definitive Map Modification Orders (DMMOs) 13 Jun 2025
- Document Definitive Map Modification Orders (DMMOs) - Appendix 1 13 Jun 2025
- Document Definitive Map Modification Orders (DMMOs) - Appendix 2 13 Jun 2025
Minutes
The Committee pre-scrutinised proposals relating to the existing policy for prioritising applications for Definitive Map Modification Orders (DMMOs) under s 53(5) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (adopted in 2019), which required
amending, prior to consideration by the Executive Lead Member for Universal Services
The Committee received a verbal overview of the process and requirements from Definitive Map Team Manager, through which it was heard that:
· Applications for DMMO’s required a significant amount of work, including engagement with stakeholders. Should the application receive an objection from the land owner, the Council is required to refer the request to the Planning Inspectorate for a public enquiry, whom also had a backlog in processing requests.
· Incoming applications, at a rate of 60-80 per annum exceeded the rate at which they could be processed.
· Currently the backlog sat at approximately 190 applications, across four separate waiting lists, with volumes having risen significantly following an awareness raising campaign by the Ramblers several years ago. It was noted that the backlog level was consistent with other local authorities across the country and that Hampshire did not feature in the top ten of those with the highest backlog.
· It was proposed to consolidate the four waiting lists to one chronological list and instead offer greater flexibility to take applications out of turn, where for example there was no objection and the application could be processed quickly, where there would be a substantial detriment to the applicant in any delay or where the application would support the County Council’s strategic objectives.
· It was expected that this would be only in exceptional circumstances, and that the majority of applications would be processed in chronological order.
· Engagement with stakeholders had not resulted in objection to the proposals.
In response to Members questions it was heard that:
· Approximately 10-15 DMMO’s were determined each year by the Council under the current process.
· It was not expected that there would be a significant number of applications which would be fast-tracked, but it was hoped that the proposed process would prevent applications being held for several years which could receive a swift response. Around 10-15 applications from the backlog had been identified which would be eligible for fast track should the new process be approved.
· Application levels were showing signs of diminishing, following an announcement by central government to remove the deadline for closure of applications under DMMO.
· The ability to make a DMMO application was a public right, and there was no opportunity to seek cost recovery.
The Executive Lead Member for Universal Services was invited to speak and thanked officers for providing the overview and seeking an opportunity for the matter to be aired with the Select Committee.
RESOLVED:
That the Universal Services Select Committee supports the recommendations being proposed to the Executive Lead Member for Universal Services.
amending, prior to consideration by the Executive Lead Member for Universal Services
The Committee received a verbal overview of the process and requirements from Definitive Map Team Manager, through which it was heard that:
· Applications for DMMO’s required a significant amount of work, including engagement with stakeholders. Should the application receive an objection from the land owner, the Council is required to refer the request to the Planning Inspectorate for a public enquiry, whom also had a backlog in processing requests.
· Incoming applications, at a rate of 60-80 per annum exceeded the rate at which they could be processed.
· Currently the backlog sat at approximately 190 applications, across four separate waiting lists, with volumes having risen significantly following an awareness raising campaign by the Ramblers several years ago. It was noted that the backlog level was consistent with other local authorities across the country and that Hampshire did not feature in the top ten of those with the highest backlog.
· It was proposed to consolidate the four waiting lists to one chronological list and instead offer greater flexibility to take applications out of turn, where for example there was no objection and the application could be processed quickly, where there would be a substantial detriment to the applicant in any delay or where the application would support the County Council’s strategic objectives.
· It was expected that this would be only in exceptional circumstances, and that the majority of applications would be processed in chronological order.
· Engagement with stakeholders had not resulted in objection to the proposals.
In response to Members questions it was heard that:
· Approximately 10-15 DMMO’s were determined each year by the Council under the current process.
· It was not expected that there would be a significant number of applications which would be fast-tracked, but it was hoped that the proposed process would prevent applications being held for several years which could receive a swift response. Around 10-15 applications from the backlog had been identified which would be eligible for fast track should the new process be approved.
· Application levels were showing signs of diminishing, following an announcement by central government to remove the deadline for closure of applications under DMMO.
· The ability to make a DMMO application was a public right, and there was no opportunity to seek cost recovery.
The Executive Lead Member for Universal Services was invited to speak and thanked officers for providing the overview and seeking an opportunity for the matter to be aired with the Select Committee.
RESOLVED:
That the Universal Services Select Committee supports the recommendations being proposed to the Executive Lead Member for Universal Services.
8
Work Programme
To review the current work programme for the Universal Services Select Committee.
Attachments:
- Document USSC Work Programme 13 Jun 2025
Minutes
The Committee considered their forthcoming work programme.
It was proposed at the meeting in October the Select Committee would review a decision to introduce lane rental charging, parking management, which would be holistic update on parking arrangements across the County and receive an update on byways policy and operating procedure.
It was agreed that an item on Carbon management would be brought forward this year and date added to the programme, before the next meeting.
To support cost efficiency and protect officer capacity it was agreed that, before the next meeting, consideration would be given to whether any of the unscheduled items would be better heard through the Member Briefing programme.
RESOLVED:
That the Universal Services Select Committee discuss and agree potential items for the work programme that can be prioritised and allocated by the Chairman of the Universal Services.
It was proposed at the meeting in October the Select Committee would review a decision to introduce lane rental charging, parking management, which would be holistic update on parking arrangements across the County and receive an update on byways policy and operating procedure.
It was agreed that an item on Carbon management would be brought forward this year and date added to the programme, before the next meeting.
To support cost efficiency and protect officer capacity it was agreed that, before the next meeting, consideration would be given to whether any of the unscheduled items would be better heard through the Member Briefing programme.
RESOLVED:
That the Universal Services Select Committee discuss and agree potential items for the work programme that can be prioritised and allocated by the Chairman of the Universal Services.
Previous Meetings
Future Meetings
Join the Discussion
You need to be signed in to comment.
Sign in