Agenda and draft minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Jose Afonso.

If a Councillor has a disclosable pecuniary interest in a particular item, whether or not it is entered in the Authority’s register of interests, or any other significant interest which they consider should be declared in the public interest, they should declare the existence and, unless it is a sensitive interest as defined in the Member Code of Conduct, the nature of the interest at the commencement of the consideration of that item or as soon as it becomes apparent.

At meetings where members of the public are allowed to be in attendance and speak, any Councillor with a disclosable pecuniary interest or other significant interest may also make representations, give evidence or answer questions about the matter. The Councillor must then withdraw immediately from the meeting before the matter is discussed and any vote taken.

Where Members of the public are not allowed to be in attendance and speak, then the Councillor with a disclosable pecuniary interest should withdraw from the meeting whilst the matter is under consideration. Councillors who have declared other significant interests should also withdraw from the meeting if they consider their continued participation in the matter would not be reasonable in the circumstances and may give rise to a perception of a conflict of interest.

Councillors are not obliged to withdraw from the meeting where a dispensation to that effect has been obtained from the Standards Committee.

There were no declarations of interest.

To approve the minutes of the previous meeting as an accurate record and note any outstanding actions. An action sheet following the minutes provides updates on actions from previous meetings.

The minutes of the meeting held on 17 September 2025 were agreed as an accurate record.

This paper provides an update on the Council’s governance and adoption of Artificial Intelligence solutions. Building on a strong foundation of digital innovation, the Council is in the early stages of exploring how service ambitions might be translated into practical outcomes. Current work continues to focus on experimentation and learning to inform future improvements in efficiency, service delivery and insight.

Jo McCormick (Director of Procurement, Commercial, and Digital) introduced the item which was an update on the Council’s governance and adoption of Artificial Intelligence solutions. London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham (LBHF) was moving away from isolated AI pilots towards embedding AI into Council processes. An Ethics Board had been put into place to ensure that any AI that was being used by LBHF had been deemed ethical. LBHF was learning from other Councils in London and across the UK regarding scaling, and LBHF was receiving help from the London Office of Technology and Innovation (LOTI). Eddie Copeland (Director of LOTI) and Sarbjit Bakhshi (Digital Best Practice Manager at LOTI) attended the meeting on behalf of LOTI to answer Member questions. Sarbjit Bakshi explained that LBHF was taking a cautious approach to the adoption of AI which included business cases for all procurement, and all cases were done on evidence. He added that this was the best and most well rounded approach.

Councillor Natalia Perez noted that it was good to hear examples of good practice and asked how innovative approaches were being co-produced, how models were being tested, and how residents were being involved in shaping projects. Jo McCormick explained that the Resident Experience Access Programme had led to detailed work with residents, which was feeding into changes being made, alongside wider changes arising from the Digital Inclusion Strategy. Jo McCormick confirmed that pilots referenced in the report were being used to identify necessary changes before considering how technology could enhance services.

The Chair asked about AI being tested in the housing department and how residents were involved in the testing. Jo McCormick stated that the housing trial was currently an internal project focused on streamlining internal processes. The Chair queried what structures existed within housing to allow service user testing, and Jo McCormick confirmed that tenant groups would assist with this. Tara Flood (Head of Co-Production) added that in the new year, the team had been supported in recruiting a wider co-production group, which would be broader and not limited to just disabled residents.

Councillor Rory Vaughan raised questions regarding Co-Pilot, noting that there were many business cases for the full version and asking who within H&F could approve access. Councillor Rory Vaughan also asked what training would be provided for staff using AI and technology. The Chair queried who the 1,200 members of staff who had access to Co-Pilot, referenced in the report, were. Jo McCormick clarified that Co-Pilot was available across the whole organisation for all staff, with business cases required for enhanced versions for more in-depth work, and that expansion of its use was being considered. Umit Jani (Strategic Relationship Manager – Procurement and Commercial) explained that strong business cases would be triaged and, if justified, progressed to the next stage with support to demonstrate efficiency. He confirmed that M365 Co-Pilot was the universal version and that staff were directed there first. He stated that training was provided on prompts and ethical use, ensuring  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

This report sets out the progress made to date on the Council’s commitment to co-production with residents, particularly Disabled residents. This report also includes an analysis of the four reports submitted to the Policy and Accountability Committees, the learning so far and how co-production can be further embedded and widened to include more residents.

Tara Flood (Head of Co-Production) and Geoff Cowart (Strategic Lead for Communications and Communities) introduced the report which gave an update on Co-Production work that was taking place at LBHF. LBHF’s commitment to working in co-production with residents was driven by the aspiration to create a more inclusive, accessible, and equitable borough for all residents. LBHF was always looking at new ways to work with residents to transform local decision making by co-producing policies and services with the community. The council started to embed its commitment to working in co-production by focusing first on Disabled residents, as the Disabled People's Commission (DPC) found that Disabled people, when considering multiple intersectional barriers, were the furthest away from decision-making. However, the DPC were very clear in their report that whilst the work on co-production should start with Disabled residents, the commitment to ‘doing things with residents not to them’ through co-production should be about all H&F residents.

Councillor Natalia Perez said that it was great to see the wide range of working groups throughout co-production. She noted that the changes being seen were positive and that impact was being made.

Councillor Nicole Trehy stated that engaging 150 residents was a significant achievement, as it was very difficult to talk to residents. She added that residents were hard to engage on good news and asked what learnings had been taken from that and how focus and engagement could be improved. Tara Flood explained that many residents joined groups as an opportunity to tell their story, which marked the start of their co-production journey and led to how their story could shape progress. She noted that the Civic Campus group had been running for seven years, describing it as a great result despite a bumpy journey, and confirmed that conversations were taking place around the next iteration of the group. She added that residents would see the change and how their needs had been reflected.

Councillor Nicole Trehy thanked Tara Flood and commented that she used the work of the co-production team as inspiration when women were not being reflected positively.

Councillor Jacolyn Daly highlighted the difference between co-production and consultation, noting the move from listening to shared power. She asked for an example where residents and officers had disagreed, and residents had prevailed. Tara Flood cited the residents’ panel, which had identified the need for planning applications to be available in different formats. Initially, officers had said this was not possible, but training providers were found who could produce accessible application formats, and training opportunities were shared. Tara Flood offered to share more information on this. Councillor Jacolyn Daly said that examples would be useful to show residents the impact.

Councillor Jacolyn Daly noted that the Digital Accessibility Group had challenged on digital inclusion and slowed processes down to be more reflective. Rana Aria (Co-Production Officer) stated that residents looked forward to co-production meetings as they could see the difference compared to consultation and felt like equal partners. She added that even  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

This report provides an update on the work programmes of the Council’s six Policy and Accountability Committees.

The Chair introduced the report which provided the draft work programmes for November 2025 to February 2026.

Councillor Daly mentioned that she had requested an item for Housing and Homelessness PAC on community life and residents safety in the neighbourhood and that this needed to be added to the work programme.

                                                                                                Action: Liam Oliff

RESOLVED

1.     That the Policy and Oversight Board noted and commented on the report.

For the Board to discuss the work programme.

The Board’s draft work programme was presented for discussion and noting.

RESOLVED

1.     The Board noted the draft work programme.

To note the following dates of future meetings:

• 4 February 2026
• 29 April 2026

The dates of future meetings were noted:

· 4 February 2026

· 29 April 2026