Loading
The decisions as the council's minutes record them. A plain-language summary follows once it has been written.
RESOLVED to exclude the public for the following item of business on the grounds that there would be disclosure to them of exempt information under category 3 of The Local Authorities (Access to Information) (Variation) (Wales) Order 2007). The Monitoring Officer had determined that category 3 of the Access to Information Procedure Rules applied to the following item. His view on the public interest test (having taken account of the provisions of Rule 14.8 of the Council's Access to Information Rules) was that to make this information public would disclose information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the authority holding that information). These factors in his view outweighed the public interest in disclosing this information. Members were asked to consider these factors when determining the public interest test, which they must decide when considering excluding the public from this part of the meeting.
Apologies for absence were received from Panel Members County Councillors: J Pugh and E Vaughan. Cabinet Members, J Berriman, M Dorrance and J Gibson Watt. Officers – S Powell (Head of Children’s Services), P Bradshaw (Head of People) Matt Perry (Chief Officer Place), and Diane Reynolds (Director of Economic Development and Growth).
There were no Declarations of Interest from Members relating to items to be considered on the agenda.
The Chair was authorised by the Panel Membership to sign off the minutes of the previous meeting held on the 9th July 2025 as a true record of the meeting.
Background The Portfolio Holder gave a brief synopsis of the report. Points raised by the Panel: Responses received from Officers or Cabinet Members. Budget Position and Risk Management • The Panel asked what had caused the £2.2 million underspend and how sustainable it had been. • Members queried whether there had been a risk that the £3 million risk budget would be spent later in the year, thereby eliminating the underspend. • The Panel questioned why the £11 million of potential cost pressures identified at the start of the year had not already been set against the risk budget. • Members enquired what would happen to any underspend at year-end and whether it would be used to reduce Council Tax in the following year. Officers explained that the £2.2 million underspend had resulted from a combination of forecast overspends in three service areas, which had been offset by the £3 million risk budget that had not yet been allocated. They acknowledged that there had always been a risk that the risk budget might be required later in the year, particularly if service pressures materialised. The Panel was reminded that a similar situation had occurred in the previous financial year, when the risk budget had been drawn upon in Quarter 2 to mitigate overspending. At the time of reporting, it had been too early to determine whether the underspend would persist through to year-end or whether it would be absorbed by emerging pressures. In relation to the potential use of any underspend, officers stated that while the current position appeared reasonable, there remained extensive pressures across services, particularly in Adult Social Care and Children’s Services. These pressures could intensify during the winter months. Therefore, it had been premature to conclude whether the underspend would result in a Council Tax reduction in the following year. However, it was noted that any underspend could help offset the budget gap projected for the next financial year. Savings Delivery and Assurance • Members asked why £4 million of savings had not yet been achieved and what assurance had been provided that these would be delivered. • The Panel sought clarification on the underlying causes of the £2.3 million of savings categorised as “unachieved”. • Members asked how confident officers had been that the savings assured but not yet delivered would materialise. • The Panel raised concerns about whether there had been any risks that the savings reported in the transformation programme might not materialise. Officers confirmed that £4 million of savings had already been achieved, with a smaller portion of savings not yet delivered but categorised as assured. They explained that the assured savings had been underpinned by robust joint working arrangements with partners, particularly the Powys Teaching Health Board. These arrangements had focused on ensuring that care packages were funded from the appropriate sources, including continuing healthcare and joint funding streams. A dedicated team had been working on strengths-based reviews to ensure that individuals received the correct level of support, avoiding over-prescription and promoting independence. The Panel was assured that the delivery of these savings had been actively monitored through monthly efficiency tracker meetings. Although the figures reported in Quarter 1 had been slightly below expectations, this had been attributed to ongoing work with finance colleagues to validate data sources. Officers expressed confidence that the assured savings would be delivered by year-end. Service-Specific Overspends and Pressures: Adult Social Care • Members asked what the key components of the £4 million savings target in Adult Social Care had been and how these had been delivered. • The Panel questioned how robust the joint funding arrangements with the Health Board had been and what mechanisms had been in place to resolve disputes. Officers reiterated that the £4 million savings target in Adult Social Care had been supported by two main strategies: securing appropriate funding streams and reviewing care packages. They confirmed that the service had developed strong working relationships with external partners and had established a dispute resolution process, which had rarely been needed due to the maturity of the partnerships. Children’s Services • Members asked what had caused the £1.6 million overspend in Children’s Services. • The Panel queried how previous years’ unachieved savings had been managed alongside current cost pressures. • Members asked whether the increased agency and relief staff costs in residential homes had been expected to continue or whether they had been short-term issues. • The Panel sought reassurance on whether the increase in demand for Children’s Services had been within expected norms or had been out of kilter. Children’s Services had been described as volatile and demand-led, with no certainty around the number of children requiring support. Officers stated that every effort had been made to bring children back into county placements to reduce costs. Agency staffing costs had been reduced, and recruitment into internal residential homes had seen some success. However, due to complex needs and staffing challenges, agency staff had still been required in some settings. The service had been holding weekly meetings to review out-of-county placements and had been actively transitioning children into more cost-effective arrangements. In terms of savings, £845,000 had been rolled forward from previous years, with £145,000 achieved and a further £736,000 assured for delivery by year-end. Officers reported positive progress in Quarter 2 and outlined a range of mitigating actions to meet efficiency targets. School Transport • Members asked what had caused the £280,000 overspend on school transport. • The Panel queried whether the new contracts introduced later in the year would resolve the overspend and whether they had been expected to deliver efficiencies. The overspend of £280,000 in school transport had been attributed to pressures in Additional Learning Needs and interschool transport for A-level provision. Officers anticipated that the introduction of new contracts would result in a different financial picture by Quarter 3, with efficiencies expected across the service. As of August, the school transport budget had been balanced, although it remained a demand-led service subject to change. Cemeteries and Grave Digging • Members asked what had led to the £95,000 overspend on grave digging and how many graves had been dug annually. • The Panel queried what the ongoing costs associated with cemetery maintenance had been and how these had been recovered. • Members asked why income from cemeteries had been falling despite increased charges. The £270,000 drawdown from the corporate risk budget had included £190,000 for highways operations and £95,000 for grave digging. Officers explained that the costs associated with grave digging had exceeded the income generated, despite the Council being one of the highest charging authorities in Wales. Demand for cemetery services had been declining, and income targets had not been met. Maintenance costs included record keeping, repairs to infrastructure such as water taps and gates, and addressing vandalism. Officers confirmed that alternative means of securing income were being explored through planning and regulatory services. Schools and Education Budgets • The Panel asked whether the delegated schools budget deficit could be split between primary and secondary sectors. • Members queried why the delegated schools deficit had been shown below the line in the reserves table and what impact it would have had on the general fund if realised. • The Panel asked what assurance had been provided that the £400,000 drawdown for Estyn-related school improvements would be effective. • Members asked how the £1 million school improvement contingency would be monitored for impact. • The Panel queried whether any of the £400,000 drawdown had been allocated to school site security. Officers confirmed that the delegated schools budget deficit could be split between primary and secondary sectors and undertook to include this breakdown in future reports. They acknowledged that the total deficit, if realised, would have a significant impact on the general fund reserves, as the delegated budget sat outside the general fund. The Panel noted that the presentation of the deficit below the line in the reserves table had raised questions about its visibility and implications. Regarding the £400,000 drawdown for Estyn-related school improvements, officers stated that the funding would directly support schools placed in statutory categories. This included the recruitment of new School Improvement Advisers and the introduction of a Head of Additional Learning Needs and Inclusion to provide strategic oversight. The funding would also support post-inspection action plans for four named schools. It was clarified that the £400,000 drawdown had not been allocated to site security or maintenance, although separate funding had been provided to ensure school safety. Reserves and Contingency Use • Members asked what the rationale had been for the £270,000 drawdown from the corporate risk budget and whether it had been sustainable. • The Panel queried how the £190,000 for highways operations and £95,000 for grave digging had been justified. • Members asked what contingency had been in place for unresolved pay settlements such as Solbury and Youth & Community staff. The £270,000 drawdown from the corporate risk budget had been used to support highways operations and recover costs associated with grave digging. Officers explained that the costs of providing these services had exceeded the income generated, and that the Council had increased fees in an attempt to achieve cost neutrality. However, demand had declined, and income targets had not been met. The service had been exploring alternative funding mechanisms to address the shortfall. In relation to unresolved pay settlements, officers confirmed that all pay awards had been considered collectively and that assumptions in the Medium-Term Financial Strategy were being updated accordingly. A pay reserve had been established in previous years to manage timing differences between budgeting and settlement confirmation, and this reserve remained available to support any additional pressures. Transformation and Cost Avoidance • The Panel asked how cost avoidance figures had been captured and reported alongside actual savings. • Members queried whether the transformation programme had been delivering measurable impact on service users. • The Panel asked whether future reports would track whether expected impacts (e.g. from school closures) had been realised. • Members asked how digital transformation projects had been prioritised, and which had delivered the greatest return on investment. • The Panel queried whether any digital projects had been discontinued due to lack of value. Officers emphasised that the transformation programme had increasingly focused on cost avoidance rather than direct savings. The impact of transformation had been crystallised through reporting that compared expected outcomes with actual results. The programme had included initiatives such as the Edge of Care project, which had reduced the number of children in care, and the 16+ Accommodation project, which had supported care leavers to remain in county. Digital transformation had been highlighted as a key enabler, with projects such as AI-powered meeting notes in social care delivering significant efficiencies. Officers confirmed that projects had been prioritised using a structured tool that assessed cashable and non-cashable savings, legislative requirements, and service improvement potential. Projects that had not demonstrated value for money during the discovery phase had been discontinued. The Panel was assured that transformation efforts had been aligned with the Council’s overall strategy to bridge the budget gap and deliver sustainable services. Housing and Empty Properties • Members asked what mechanisms had been in place to bring empty homes back into use and what incentives had been offered. • The Panel queried how acquisitions of former right-to-buy properties had been prioritised. • Members asked what role developer-led schemes had played in delivering new social housing. Officers reported that 421 homes had been projected for acquisition by 2030 through a combination of purchasing existing properties, developer-led schemes, and bringing empty homes back into use. The Council had offered low-interest and zero-interest loans, largely funded by Welsh Government, to support property owners in making homes habitable. Grant schemes had also been available to assist with owner-occupation. Where voluntary cooperation had not been possible, enforcement powers had been used to make properties safe or carry out works in default. Officers acknowledged that empty properties often involved complex legal and personal circumstances, such as probate issues or family disputes. The Council had also prioritised the acquisition of former right-to-buy properties to support social housing provision.
The Panel noted that • The Council had forecast overspends in three service areas, which had been offset by the £3 million corporate risk budget that had not yet been drawn upon. • A £2.2 million underspend had been reported, although officers had cautioned that this position could change due to demand-led pressures later in the year. • £4 million in savings had already been achieved, with further savings assured through joint working with partners, particularly in adult social care. • The overspend of £280,000 in school transport had been attributed to additional learning needs provision and inter-school A-level transport, with new contracts expected to improve the position by Quarter 3. The Panel welcomed that • Officers had provided assurance that robust working relationships with external partners were helping to deliver savings and manage demand effectively. • The Council had taken steps to recover costs in areas such as grave digging and cemetery maintenance, including increasing fees to move towards cost neutrality. • Agency staffing costs in children’s services had begun to reduce, with internal recruitment efforts showing early signs of success. • The Council had committed to providing a breakdown of delegated school budgets by sector in future reports. The Panel requested that • Further detail be provided on the root causes of overspends, particularly in volatile service areas such as children’s services and school transport. • Information be included on the number of graves dug and the associated costs, to better understand the financial pressures in cemetery services. • Future reports clarify the treatment of delegated school budget deficits and their impact on overall reserves. • The Council continue to monitor the financial risks associated with demand-led services and provide updates as pressures materialise. The Panel remained unconvinced of • The sustainability of the current underspend position, given the potential for increased winter pressures in adult and children’s services. • The ability to meet capital receipt targets without significant asset disposals, which could affect future service delivery and investment. The Panel expressed concern of • The use of the corporate risk budget to mitigate overspends, which could mask underlying financial pressures in key service areas. • The financial viability of cemetery services, where rising costs and declining demand had made income targets difficult to achieve. • The impact of delegated school budget deficits on the Council’s overall financial position, particularly where reserves were being drawn down to support statutory improvement work. • The potential consequences of borrowing to fund capital programmes, including the effect on council tax and long-term financial sustainability. There were no Recommendations made to Cabinet in respect of this report.
Background The Portfolio Holder gave a brief introduction to the report. Points raised by the Panel: Responses received from Officers or Cabinet Members. Capital Receipts and Asset Disposal • The Panel asked what the likelihood had been of achieving the £10 million capital receipts target, given the current position and the consultation on the County Farms Estate. • Members queried whether the £10 million target had been expected to be met primarily through County Farms or other asset disposals. • The Panel questioned whether the split between County Farms and other assets had been defined when the target had been set. • Members asked whether the capital receipts shown in Table 2 had already been achieved or had been projected for the remainder of the financial year. • The Panel sought clarification on whether the shortfall in capital receipts would result in increased borrowing or reduced capital programme delivery. • Members asked whether the £6 million capital receipts shown in the programme had been based on previous years’ receipts or new sales expected in 2025/26. • The Panel asked whether the Council had achieved the £10 million capital receipts target in previous years and what the implications had been if it had not. The Panel had raised concerns about the achievability of the £10 million capital receipts target. Officer(s) confirmed that only £900,000 had been received to date, with a further £1.79 million in agreed sales progressing through legal stages. This left a significant shortfall against the target. Councillor David Thomas, Cabinet Member for Finance, acknowledged that meeting the full target would be increasingly difficult, particularly due to delays caused by the ongoing consultation on the County Farms Estate. He clarified that the £10 million figure had not been split between County Farms and other assets but had instead been set as a strategic target to support the Council’s capital programme. Officers explained that capital receipts were essential to maintaining financial resilience. Without them, the Council would face increased borrowing costs or would need to scale back its capital ambitions. Officers also confirmed that in 2024/25, the Council had received just under £1.8 million in capital receipts. The current year’s programme assumed £6 million in receipts, and if these were not achieved, the Council would need to either increase borrowing or reduce the scope of the capital programme. The strategic outline plan for schools alone required £100 million of Council funding, which would be difficult to sustain without sufficient receipts. Borrowing and Financial Sustainability • Members asked what the implications had been for the revenue budget if the Council had needed to borrow more due to shortfalls in capital receipts. • The Panel queried whether internal borrowing capacity had been exhausted and what options had remained for future capital financing. • Members asked whether the Council’s borrowing strategy had remained prudent and affordable in light of rising interest rates and inflation. • The Panel questioned how the Council had planned to manage the increasing cost of borrowing over the next three years. • Members asked whether the Council had considered rationalising its asset base to reduce borrowing pressures and improve financial resilience. Members had expressed concern about the impact of rising borrowing costs on the revenue budget. Councillor David Thomas explained that approximately £13–14 million in financing costs had already been allocated against the revenue budget, and that this figure was expected to rise as the capital programme expanded over the next three years. He emphasised that without capital receipts, the Council’s ability to manage its borrowing would be severely constrained. Officers confirmed that internal borrowing capacity had been maximised and that further scope for this had been exhausted unless services increased their reserves, which was unlikely given current pressures. The Council’s capital strategy had been deemed prudent and affordable through its prudential indicators but warned that the level of investment required across the Council’s assets far exceeded what could be afforded. Emma Palmer, Chief Executive, reinforced this point, stating that the Council’s financial position was serious and that without capital receipts, the only alternative sources of revenue would be fees, charges, or Council Tax. Grant Funding and Capital Programme Delivery • Members asked whether the Council had projects ready to bid for additional capital grants from Welsh Government and whether it had been maximising opportunities. • The Panel queried whether match funding requirements for capital grants had been placing additional pressure on Council resources. • Members asked whether the Council had been prioritising grant-funded schemes over those requiring borrowing. • The Panel questioned whether the Council had been fully utilising available grants before resorting to borrowing or using reserves. In response to questions about grant funding, Officers confirmed that the Council had been actively bidding for and securing grants from Welsh Government and other sources. Many grants, such as those for active travel and Safe Routes in Communities, were fully funded and tied to specific schemes. Others, like the Local Government Borrowing Initiative (LGBI), allowed the Council to accelerate planned investment. Officer(s) assured the Panel that the Council always sought to maximise grant allocations and used them before resorting to borrowing or reserves. The Panel had asked whether the Council had projects ready to bid for new grants. Officers confirmed that the Council maintained a pipeline of projects and had been proactive in securing funding, particularly for regeneration and highways. They also noted that some grants required match funding, which could place pressure on the Council’s resources if capital receipts were not forthcoming. Climate and Nature Investment • Members asked how climate and nature considerations had been embedded into the capital programme. • The Panel queried whether further investment in retrofitting and insulation of buildings had been planned and whether grant funding had been available for such interventions. • Members asked whether the Council had been using innovative approaches or external platforms to fund climate-related capital works. • The Panel sought assurance that the costed route map for climate and nature investment would be used to guide future capital decisions. Members welcomed the reported savings of £750,000 per year from investments in solar panels and LED lighting. Officers responded that the Council had been developing a costed route map, which would identify the most effective investments and guide future decisions. Councillor Jackie Charlton, Cabinet Member for Climate and Nature, added that while there was no dedicated budget for climate and nature emergencies, the Council had been exploring alternative funding sources, including the Marches Environmental Investment Platform. Councillor Charlton explained that interventions such as retro fitting were difficult to fund directly through the Council’s budget, but that the Council had been preparing to apply for relevant grants from Welsh Government. She confirmed that the route map would help the Council be “grant-ready” and that electric vehicle procurement had already benefited from 50% grant funding. Transformation and Digital Investment • Members asked whether savings from digital transformation projects had been reinvested into further digital initiatives. • The Panel queried whether all digital projects had delivered value for money, and which had provided the greatest return on investment. • Members asked whether any digital projects had been discontinued due to lack of impact or cost-effectiveness. • The Panel questioned how the Council had prioritised digital transformation projects and whether service improvement had been a key criterion. The Panel had asked whether digital transformation projects had delivered value for money and whether savings had been reinvested. Officer(s) explained that the Council used a prioritisation tool to assess projects based on cashable and non-cashable savings, legislative requirements, and service improvement. One example highlighted was the Magic Notes pilot in social care, which had saved nearly £49,000 in six weeks and significantly reduced administrative time for staff. Officer(s) confirmed that the rollout was ongoing and that the system had potential to be used across the organisation. Officers also acknowledged that not all projects delivered the expected benefits. They explained that the Council followed a “fail fast” approach, stopping projects early if they did not meet their objectives. Most digital savings accrued to the service areas themselves, helping them manage demand or reinvest in improvements. Highways and Transport Capital Works • Members asked what the status had been of the £8 million capital grant works in Highways, Transport and Recycling (HTR), and how delivery had been tracked. • The Panel queried whether the resurfacing and surface dressing works had been progressing as planned and whether the reported figures would be updated in the next quarter. • Members asked whether the 26 kilometres of resurfacing had included large patching or continuous surface improvements. • The Panel questioned whether the use of new equipment such as the Pothole Pro had been delivering efficiencies and whether further analysis had been planned. Officers explained that capital programmes often took time to mobilise, but that significant progress had been expected over the summer months. Resurfacing and surface dressing works had been underway, and figures would be updated in the next quarter. Officers clarified that the reported 26 kilometres of resurfacing included both continuous stretches and large patching, with surface dressing measured separately in square metres. Officers added that the Council had trialled new equipment such as the Pothole Pro, which had shown promise in improving efficiency and reducing costs. Further analysis had been planned to assess its suitability for wider use. Housing and Empty Properties • Members asked what mechanisms had been in place to bring empty homes back into use and what incentives had been offered. • The Panel queried how acquisitions of former right-to-buy properties had been prioritised and whether they had supported first-time buyers. • Members asked what role developer-led schemes had played in delivering new social housing and whether package deals had been used to de-risk delivery. • The Panel questioned whether enforcement powers had been used to address long-term empty properties and whether legal barriers had been encountered. Officers explained that the Council used a combination of carrot and stick approaches. On the incentive side, it offered low-interest or zero-interest loans, funded by Welsh Government, and grants to help people buy and renovate empty properties for owner occupation. This approach had been inspired by successful schemes in Gwynedd, Stoke-on-Trent, and Liverpool. Where owners had been uncooperative or properties had posed health and safety risks, the Council had used enforcement powers, including works in default and legal notices. Officers acknowledged that empty properties were often complex, involving probate issues, family disputes, or unregistered ownership. The Council had also been acquiring former right-to-buy properties, particularly those in estates where it already owned most of the housing stock. Regarding developer-led schemes, Officers explained that the Council had been pursuing “package deals” where developers built homes to Council specifications, with guaranteed purchase agreements. The Pen-y-bont scheme had been cited as a successful example. This approach had supplemented, rather than replaced, traditional acquisitions.
The Committee noted that • The capital receipts received to date had been significantly below the £10 million target, with only £900,000 received and £1.79 million in agreed sales progressing through legal stages. • The capital programme had been revised to £114.95 million following the successful award of additional grants and reprofiling of budgets. • Borrowing costs had already placed considerable pressure on the revenue budget, with approximately £13–14 million allocated to financing costs. • Internal borrowing capacity had been fully utilised, and further scope had been limited unless reserves increased. • The Council had continued to bid for and secure capital grants, particularly in areas such as highways, regeneration, and climate-related investment. The Committee welcomed that • The Council had been proactive in securing additional grant funding, including through the Local Government Borrowing Initiative and regeneration programmes. • Investments in solar panels and LED lighting had delivered annual savings of £750,000 and contributed to carbon reduction. • The digital transformation programme had delivered measurable efficiencies, including the successful pilot of Magic Notes in social care. • The Council had trialled innovative equipment such as the Pothole Pro to improve efficiency in highways maintenance. • Developer-led housing schemes and acquisitions of former right-to-buy properties had contributed to the delivery of new social housing. The Committee requested that • Future reports include commentary on whether expected impacts from capital investments, such as school closures or transformation programmes, had been realised. • A clearer breakdown be provided in future reports showing the split between capital receipts already achieved and those projected. • Further information be shared on the number of graves dug annually and the cost recovery model for cemetery services. • The strategic asset disposal plan be clarified, particularly in relation to the County Farms Estate and its contribution to the capital receipts target. • Updates be provided on the delivery status of the £8 million capital grant works in Highways, Transport and Recycling. The Committee remained unconvinced of • The achievability of the £10 million capital receipts target within the current financial year, given the delays in asset disposals and consultation processes. • The sustainability of relying on capital receipts to fund ambitious capital programmes without a clearer pipeline of disposals. The Committee expressed concern of • The increasing reliance on borrowing to fund capital programmes and the associated impact on the revenue budget. • The shortfall in capital receipts and the potential consequences for the delivery of planned capital schemes. • The financial risks posed by inflation, supply chain issues, and rising interest rates on the affordability of capital investment. • The under-recovery of costs in cemetery services, despite increased fees, and the declining demand for traditional burials. • The lack of clarity around the long-term funding arrangements for climate and nature investment. There were no Recommendations made to Cabinet in respect of this report.
The Portfolio Holder provided an overview of the financial position and the Transformation Portfolio Report. The Director of Corporate Services briefly addressed the Panel to reinforce key points. The Director emphasised that while actual savings were important, the avoidance of future costs was equally significant for the Council’s financial sustainability. It was noted that the report had made progress in articulating the impact of transformation on service users and residents—an area that had previously been difficult to capture clearly in reporting. The Director stated that the report represented a step forward in transparency and in demonstrating the value of transformation work across the organisation. Points raised by the Panel: Responses received from Officers or Cabinet Members. Presentation and Impact of the Report • The Panel commented that the actual savings were dwarfed by the reported cost avoidance and asked whether this format made it easier to understand the impact of service changes and improvements. • The Panel noted that the report’s dashboard and hyperlinks provided a user-friendly way to access detailed information but emphasised the importance of tracking expected impacts in future reports to assess whether they had been realised. Panel Members had welcomed the new format of the Transformation Portfolio Report, noting its clarity and accessibility. Councillor David Thomas had commended the summary dashboard for its user-friendly layout and the inclusion of direct links to detailed programme information. Officers had explained that the report aimed to present both actual savings and cost avoidance, with the latter increasingly becoming the more significant measure of transformation success. The Director of Corporate Services had emphasised that the report marked a step forward in articulating the impact of transformation on service users, which had previously been difficult to capture. Members had agreed that the report provided a strong baseline for future scrutiny and monitoring. School Closures and Education Transformation • A Member expressed concern that the narrative around the closure of a school appeared overly positive, given that pupils had only just transitioned and a third had moved to schools in England, thereby losing access to Welsh-medium education. • The Panel suggested that future reports should include commentary comparing expected outcomes with actual impacts, particularly in relation to school closures. • A Member asked whether the Council had a minimum intake size for new high school construction and whether this influenced decisions on school transformation. • The Panel requested that the impact of transformation on learners be monitored and reported, including educational outcomes and wellbeing. In response, officers had acknowledged the sensitivity of the issue and clarified that the report had referred to the expected impacts of the closure rather than definitive outcomes. They had agreed that it was too early to draw firm conclusions and had committed to revisiting the matter in future reports once more robust data on learner outcomes and community impact became available. Officers had welcomed this recommendation and confirmed that it would be incorporated into the reporting framework going forward. Officers had responded by referring to the Welsh Government’s Sustainable Communities for Learning guidance, which did not prescribe a minimum size for new schools. Instead, the guidance required that any proposed development demonstrate robust value for money over a 60-year lifespan. The Council, therefore, assessed each case on its individual merits, taking into account projected pupil numbers, community needs, and long-term sustainability. Officers had confirmed that this was already a priority within the education service. They had explained that the impact of school transformation would be tracked through ongoing engagement with school improvement advisers, headteachers, and governing bodies. This would include both qualitative and quantitative measures, ensuring that the Council remained accountable for the real-world effects of its transformation agenda on children and young people. Housing and Empty Properties • A Member highlighted the projected delivery of 421 social homes by 2031 and asked for clarification on how empty properties were being brought back into use. • The Panel asked what incentives were offered to owners of empty homes and how enforcement powers were being used to address properties in poor condition. • The Panel noted the innovative use of developer-led schemes such as Pen-y-bont and asked whether these were being expanded. Officers had explained that the Council had adopted a mixed approach to tackling empty properties, combining incentives such as low-interest loans and Welsh Government grants with enforcement powers where necessary. They had described the challenges posed by probate issues, unregistered ownership, and family disputes, and had outlined the Council’s acquisition strategy, which included purchasing former right-to-buy properties and engaging developers through package deals. Members had welcomed the proactive and flexible approach, noting its contribution to addressing housing need. Digital Transformation • The Panel asked whether there was significant variation in value for money across the 23 digital projects and requested examples of both successful and less impactful initiatives. • A Member asked whether savings from digital transformation were being reinvested into further digital projects or used to offset service pressures. • The Panel welcomed the use of AI-powered tools such as Magic Notes in social care and noted the potential for wider organisational rollout. Officers had provided an overview of the digital transformation programme, highlighting its role as an enabler across the Council. It was reported that 23 projects had been delivered in the previous year, generating both cashable and non-cashable savings. A notable example had been the pilot of AI-powered meeting notes in social care, which had saved significant staff time and improved record-keeping. It was confirmed that the programme used a prioritisation tool to assess value for money and that projects were discontinued if they failed to deliver expected benefits. Members had recognised the importance of in-house development for flexibility and sustainability and had supported the continued investment in digital innovation. Financial Strategy and Sustainability • The Panel asked whether the transformation programme was fully aligned with the Council’s overall financial strategy and whether it was helping to bridge the medium-term budget gap. • A Member asked whether the Council was learning from other local authorities and whether Powys was sharing its own innovations, such as the fostering framework and 16+ housing model. • The Panel asked whether the Council was considering building homes for first-time buyers as a future revenue stream. The Director of Corporate Services had reiterated that the transformation programme was central to the Council’s financial strategy, helping to bridge the budget gap and manage rising costs. It had been stressed that transformation was not a separate initiative but an integral part of the Council’s planning and prioritisation. Members had discussed the reinvestment of savings, with officers confirming that savings were typically retained within service areas to meet demand or offset pressures, it was noted that most savings had already been taken or were built into future financial plans. Climate and Nature Emergency • A Member asked how climate and nature considerations were being embedded into the capital programme and whether future grants could support retrofitting and insulation of buildings. • The Panel welcomed the development of a costed route map and asked whether it would enable readiness for future Welsh Government funding opportunities. The Head of Service and Councillor Jackie Charlton Portfolio Holder for a Greener Powys had confirmed that a costed route map was being developed and would be presented to Cabinet in the autumn. They had explained that while there was no dedicated budget for climate and nature emergencies, funding was being sought through external platforms such as the Marches Environmental Investment Platform. Members had discussed the potential for retrofitting and insulation projects, and officers had acknowledged the challenges in securing grants for such interventions but confirmed that the Council was preparing to apply for funding where possible. Monitoring and Evaluation • The Panel emphasised the importance of capturing the impact of transformation projects over time and requested that future reports include follow-up commentary on expected outcomes. • A Member asked whether the transformation programme was being monitored for its contribution to service improvement and customer experience, beyond financial metrics. Councillor Pete Roberts had supported the idea of tracking outcomes year-on-year to complete the feedback loop on impact assessments. Officers had confirmed that this recommendation would be taken forward. It was noted that the Education Service was committed to monitoring transformation outcomes for learners, and it was also noted that digital projects were regularly reviewed and adjusted to ensure continued relevance and effectiveness.
The Panel noted that • The actual savings reported within the Transformation Portfolio were significantly outweighed by cost avoidance, which had become a more prominent measure of success in transformation work. • The transformation programme had increasingly focused on improving service delivery and avoiding future costs, rather than delivering immediate financial savings. • AI-powered tools, such as automated meeting notes in social care, had been piloted and were beginning to demonstrate time-saving benefits. • The Council had adopted a flexible approach to housing delivery, including the acquisition of former right-to-buy properties and the use of enforcement powers to bring empty homes back into use. The Panel welcomed that • The Transformation Portfolio Report had been presented in a clearer and more accessible format, with a summary dashboard and links to detailed programme information. • Officers had confirmed that the impact of transformation on learners would be monitored through engagement with school improvement advisers, headteachers, and governors. • The Council had made progress in delivering social housing, with 421 homes projected to be secured through a combination of acquisitions, developer partnerships, and bringing void properties back into use. • The Council had demonstrated a willingness to discontinue digital projects that failed to deliver value for money, following a discovery phase. The Panel requested that • Future reports should include commentary comparing expected outcomes with actual impacts, particularly in relation to school closures and other significant service changes. • The impact of transformation on learners be monitored and reported, including both educational outcomes and wellbeing indicators. • A breakdown of delegated school budgets be provided in future reports, distinguishing between primary and secondary sectors. • The Council continue to explore opportunities to maximise grant funding, particularly in relation to climate and nature emergency projects. The Panel remained unconvinced of • The long-term impact of school closures, such as Ysgol Bro Cynllaith, given that pupils had only recently transitioned and the full effects on educational outcomes and community cohesion had yet to be assessed. • The sustainability of some projected savings, particularly where they relied on assumptions about future demand or service redesigns that were still in early stages. The Panel expressed concern of • The narrative around the closure of Ysgol Bro Cynllaith, which appeared overly positive despite the fact that a third of the pupils had moved to schools in England, thereby losing access to Welsh-medium education. • The financial pressures facing the capital programme, particularly the reliance on achieving £10 million in capital receipts, which if unmet, could significantly constrain future investment. • The increasing costs associated with school transport, particularly in relation to ALN provision and inter-school A-level transport, although officers had indicated that new contracts would help address these pressures. • The potential impact of borrowing on future council tax levels, especially in the context of large-scale capital projects such as school transformation. Panel Recommendations to Cabinet: 1. The Panel recommended that future reports should include commentary comparing expected outcomes with actual impacts, particularly in relation to school closures and other significant transformation projects. 2. The Panel requested that the impact of transformation on learners be monitored and reported, including both educational outcomes and wellbeing indicators.
Points raised by the Panel: Responses received from Officers or Cabinet Members. On Timing and Confirmation of Settlements • A Member asked whether the Council had received confirmation of the public sector pay award settlements and whether the timing of the UK Government’s budget announcement would affect the Welsh Government’s ability to set its own budget and issue local authority settlements. • The Panel queried whether the anticipated earlier receipt of the provisional settlement from Welsh Government would be impacted by the UK Government’s budget being scheduled for late November. Officer confirmed that a 3.2% pay increase had been agreed for staff covered by the NJC for Local Government Services, and this had been applied retrospectively through the August payroll. In relation to teachers, Welsh Government had confirmed a 4% pay award, but the legislative process had not yet been completed due to the summer recess. As a result, the award was expected to be implemented in October, backdated to September. The remaining pay bodies—Solbury and JNC for Youth and Community Workers—had not yet reached agreement, and no timeline had been provided for settlement. In response, an Officer advised that early indications from Welsh Government suggested that the provisional settlement for local authorities might be received earlier than in previous years, potentially by the end of November. This would be several weeks ahead of the timeline experienced in the previous financial year. However, the Officer cautioned that the UK Government’s budget could still have an impact, and the situation would be monitored closely. On Budgetary Impact and Funding Sources • A Member questioned whether the funding for the teachers’ pay award, confirmed by Welsh Government, would be added to the Council’s base budget or provided as a one-off grant. • The Panel asked whether the Council had budgeted adequately for the 3.2% pay increase and how the additional 0.2% above the budgeted figure would be managed. • A Member sought clarification on whether the Council had sufficient reserves to cover the pay awards and what impact this might have on future financial planning. It was explained that the Council had budgeted for a 3% pay award, meaning that the additional 0.2% would be drawn from the Council’s dedicated pay reserve. The total cost of the confirmed pay awards to date, including on-costs, was estimated at £5.4 million, with the additional 0.2% equating to approximately £340,000. The Officer added that Welsh Government had committed to funding the teachers’ pay award, although confirmation was still awaited on whether this would be added to the base budget or provided as a one-off grant. Officers reiterated that the Council had established a pay reserve several years ago to manage the uncertainty surrounding annual pay settlements. It was confirmed that the reserve remained in place and had been used sparingly, with sufficient funds still available to cover the current year’s pressures. The finance team was actively updating assumptions within the Medium-Term Financial Strategy to reflect the confirmed pay awards and to assess whether the current provisions for future years remained adequate. On Contingency Planning and Risk Management • A Member asked what contingency was in place for the unresolved pay negotiations relating to Solbury staff and youth and community workers. • The Panel queried whether the Council had a dedicated pay reserve and whether it remained sufficient to absorb any unexpected increases in pay settlements. Officers confirmed that the Council considered all pay awards collectively and had built contingency into its financial planning. It was explained that while the Solbury and youth pay awards had not yet been agreed, the Council would continue to monitor developments and adjust its budget forecasts accordingly. Assurance was given to the Panel that the Council’s financial planning processes were robust and that any additional pressures would be managed through the Medium-Term Financial Strategy and the existing pay reserve.
Noted.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED to exclude the public for the following item of business on the grounds that there would be disclosure to them of exempt information under category 3 of The Local Authorities (Access to Information) (Variation) (Wales) Order 2007). The Monitoring Officer had determined that category 3 of the Access to Information Procedure Rules applied to the following item. His view on the public interest test (having taken account of the provisions of Rule 14.8 of the Council's Access to Information Rules) was that to make this information public would disclose information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the authority holding that information). These factors in his view outweighed the public interest in disclosing this information. Members were asked to consider these factors when determining the public interest test, which they must decide when considering excluding the public from this part of the meeting.
RESOLVED to exclude the public for the following item of business on the grounds that there would be disclosure to them of exempt information under category 3 of The Local Authorities (Access to Information) (Variation) (Wales) Order 2007). The Monitoring Officer had determined that category 3 of the Access to Information Procedure Rules applied to the following item. His view on the public interest test (having taken account of the provisions of Rule 14.8 of the Council's Access to Information Rules) was that to make this information public would disclose information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the authority holding that information). These factors in his view outweighed the public interest in disclosing this information. Members were asked to consider these factors when determining the public interest test, which they must decide when considering excluding the public from this part of the meeting.
As noted above the discussion was held in confidential session.
Councillors must say when they have a personal link to something being discussed, such as a job, a property or a family member. A prejudicial interest is one strong enough that the councillor usually leaves the room and takes no part.
Declarations are read from the minutes once they are published.
Lists the council's current councillors only. Co-opted members, officers and former councillors aren't shown.