Loading
The Economy, Residents and Communities Scrutiny Committee met on 9 September 2026 to review food hygiene and food standards work, the Quarter 1 revenue and capital forecasts, and a delayed flood plan. The Committee made recommendations to Cabinet on food inspection funding and on the Quarter 1 revenue forecast, covering flood preparation, grant income and undelivered savings. No recommendations were made on the capital report, and the minutes record no decision on the flood plan, which will return to the Committee later.
Apologies for absence were received from County Councillors Peter James and Liz Reynenberg, Cabinet Members County Councillors Matthew Dorrance and David Thomas, and officers Diane Reynolds and John Forsey.
County Councillor Gary Mitchell declared an interest in Item 11(Quarter 1 Capital Report 2026/27). County Councillor Chloe Masefield declared an interest in Item 7 (Food Standards and Hygiene Performance Review).
The Committee did not receive any disclosures of prohibited party whips which a Member has been given in relation to the meeting in accordance with Section 78(3) of the Local Government Measure 2011.
The Committee considered the Forward Work Programme. The Chair noted the absence of the Flood Mitigation Action Plan report from the agenda. In response, Matt Perry, Chief Officer, Place, advised that the postponement was attributable to resource pressures within the service and competing priority reports. Members expressed concern regarding the delay to the Flood Mitigation Action Plan and whether it would be available in advance of the autumn and winter period when flooding risks typically increased. It was explained that operational flood response arrangements remained in place and that the delayed report related to longer-term mitigation actions. Assurance was provided that the report would be presented to the Committee following consideration by the Corporate Leadership Team. Clarification was sought regarding whether the Committee would have an opportunity to scrutinise the Flood Mitigation Action Plan before decisions were taken. Officers confirmed that the report would return to the Committee for scrutiny once internal consideration had been completed. Members also suggested that acronyms used within reports should be avoided or clearly explained to improve accessibility and public understanding. The observation was noted.
The minutes of the meetings held on 10 June, 17 June and 8 July 2026 were considered. It was noted that County Councillor Sian Cox had attended the meeting on 10 June 2026 and should be recorded accordingly. Committee Resolution The minutes were approved as a correct record, subject to the amendment to attendance for the meeting held on 10 June 2026.
The Committee considered Cabinet responses to recommendations arising from previous scrutiny reviews including: • Household Recycling Centre Booking Review. • Rural Estate Policy. • Quarter 3 Performance and Risk Report. • Powys Economic Growth Strategy. Points raised by the Panel Responses received from Officers or Cabinet Members Clarification was sought regarding progress with the engagement exercise arising from the Household Recycling Centre Booking Review. Officers advised that an update would be provided regarding progress and the outcomes of the engagement activity. Questions were raised regarding how implementation of accepted scrutiny recommendations would be monitored. It was reported that mechanisms were in place to monitor recommendations accepted by Cabinet and to review progress against agreed actions. Members highlighted the importance of receiving clearer implementation timescales within future Cabinet responses. The observation was acknowledged and would be reflected in future reporting where possible.
The Committee received the Food Standards and Hygiene Performance Review from the Head of Planning and Regulatory Services and the Portfolio Holder for Planning and Property. The report outlined progress made since the Food Standards Agency audit undertaken in 2023. Members were advised that significant progress had been achieved, particularly in higher-risk categories, following additional investment in the service. Remaining compliance challenges were concentrated within lower-risk premises and continued recruitment difficulties remained a significant issue. Points raised by the Panel Responses received from Officers or Cabinet Members Clarification was sought regarding how food hygiene and food standards risk categories were determined and whether the categorisation process was applied consistently across all premises. Officers explained that risk ratings were determined using Food Standards Agency guidance and nationally prescribed criteria. It was reported that factors such as the nature of the food business, compliance history, management confidence and potential risks to public health were considered when determining inspection frequencies and risk categories. Concern was expressed that statutory inspection targets had not been achieved and questions were raised regarding the risks associated with the current position, particularly in relation to public confidence and regulatory compliance. It was reported that available resources had been prioritised towards higher-risk premises in accordance with a risk-based approach. Officers advised that significant progress had been made following the audit findings and that improvement activity remained ongoing. The potential risks associated with non-compliance were acknowledged, however assurance was provided that resources continued to be directed towards premises presenting the greatest risk to public health. Members queried the distinction between food hygiene and food standards inspections and sought clarification regarding the different regulatory requirements. It was explained that food hygiene inspections focused on matters relating to food safety, cleanliness, preparation and handling practices, whereas food standards inspections focused on food authenticity, composition, labelling requirements and the accuracy of information provided to consumers. Questions were raised regarding the additional funding provided to the service, how the funding had been utilised and the outcomes that had been achieved as a result of the investment. Officers advised that the additional investment had enabled significant progress following the Food Standards Agency audit and had increased the service's inspection capacity. It was reported that the funding had supported additional staffing resources, contributed to service recovery and assisted in improving performance against inspection targets. Clarification was sought regarding ongoing recruitment difficulties and the arrangements in place to ensure future service resilience. Members queried how the service intended to address succession planning challenges. It was reported that recruitment and retention challenges were being experienced nationally across environmental health and regulatory services. Officers advised that work was ongoing to develop workforce pipelines through training opportunities, student placements and professional development pathways in order to support longer-term workforce planning and resilience. Questions were raised regarding the continued use of consultants, the associated costs and how the Council's performance compared with that of other authorities. Officers advised that benchmarking information was being gathered from other authorities to inform future service planning and performance assessment. It was reported that consultant support had played an important role in assisting service recovery and maintaining inspection activity whilst efforts continued to recruit and retain permanent staff.
The Scrutiny Committee made the following recommendation: • That Cabinet provide assurance that the additional funding has delivered value for money and measurable benefits for residents, and that future requests for further funding are supported by clear evidence of need and outcomes achieved.
The Committee considered the Quarter 1 Revenue Forecast position. Members were advised that the forecast position at Quarter 1 indicated an overall underspend of approximately £2.1m, although a number of service areas continued to experience budget pressures. Progress against planned savings and financial risks were highlighted within the report. Points raised by the Panel Responses received from Officers or Cabinet Members Members noted that only a small proportion of planned savings had been achieved by Quarter 1 and sought assurance regarding the deliverability of the remaining savings proposals, particularly those categorised as recurring savings. Concern was expressed that performance appeared behind that achieved at the same point in previous years. It was reported that the majority of savings remained categorised as not yet achieved but assured. Officers advised that many savings proposals were expected to be realised later in the financial year and continued to be monitored through established budget monitoring and governance arrangements. Assurance was provided that services remained accountable for delivery and that progress would continue to be reviewed throughout the year. Clarification was sought regarding savings within highways, transport and recycling services, particularly where savings had not yet been achieved or remained subject to uncertainty. Officers advised that savings plans continued to be actively managed through service transformation activity, operational efficiencies and ongoing review of service delivery arrangements. It was reported that some savings remained dependent upon factors such as external funding, income levels and the implementation of planned service changes. Questions were raised regarding preparations for winter pressures, particularly flooding risks, and the availability of resources to respond to severe weather events. Members sought assurance that preventative works were continuing. It was reported that budgets remained available to support flood-related activity and that preventative maintenance work, including drainage maintenance, gully cleansing and other highway-related activity, continued to be undertaken. Assurance was provided that arrangements were in place to respond to adverse weather events and that preventative measures remained a priority. Clarification was sought regarding forecast overspends within highways operations, grave digging services and digital services, together with the potential impact on the Council's overall financial position. Officers provided explanations for the forecast variances and advised that they reflected a combination of operational pressures, service demand and income fluctuations. It was reported that management actions were being taken to mitigate the pressures and that services continued to monitor expenditure closely throughout the year. Questions were raised regarding reserve balances and the assumptions underpinning forecast grant income. Members sought assurance that reserves were being used appropriately and that income forecasts remained robust. It was explained that reserves were held for specific approved purposes and formed an important part of the Council's overall financial resilience. Officers advised that grant income forecasts were reviewed regularly throughout the year and amended where necessary as further information became available from funding bodies. Concern was expressed regarding recurring savings proposals that had not been achieved in previous years and whether sufficient challenge was being applied to savings targets that repeatedly failed to be delivered. Officers outlined the challenge and monitoring arrangements in place through the budget-setting and budget-monitoring process. It was reported that savings proposals were subject to ongoing review by service managers, finance officers, the Corporate Leadership Team and Cabinet, and that delivery was regularly scrutinised to ensure risks were identified and managed at an early stage.
The Committee made the following recommendations: • That Cabinet provide an update on the preventative measures being undertaken to reduce flood risk ahead of the winter period, including gully cleansing, drainage maintenance and ditching programmes, and how these activities are being resourced. • That Cabinet review its approach to forecasting external grant income and report on opportunities to improve the accuracy of budget assumptions, ensuring that anticipated grant funding is reflected in the budget-setting process wherever reasonably possible. • That Cabinet provide a detailed analysis of savings proposals that remain undelivered at Quarter 1, including assurance from the relevant Heads of Service that robust delivery plans, timescales and mitigating actions are in place to ensure the achievement of approved savings by the end of the 2026/27 financial year, together with an assessment of any risks to delivery.
County Councillor Gary Mitchell withdrew from the meeting during consideration of this item due to his previously declared interest. The Committee considered the Quarter 1 Capital Report. Members were advised that the approved Capital Programme had increased from approximately £129m to £160m following grant awards and the reprofiling of budgets from previous years. The report also outlined progress regarding capital receipts and programme funding arrangements. Points raised by the Panel Responses received from Officers or Cabinet Members Clarification was sought regarding the implications of not achieving annual capital receipt targets and whether this would create additional pressure on the Council's financial position. It was reported that capital receipt targets represented approved Council ambitions and were not built into revenue savings assumptions within the Medium-Term Financial Strategy. Officers advised that a shortfall would not directly affect planned revenue savings but could have implications for the funding of future capital investment. Questions were raised regarding the relationship between capital receipts and the future funding of the capital programme, including the extent to which future projects depended upon receipt generation. Officers advised that existing capital receipts were sufficient to support the current approved programme. However, it was reported that lower than anticipated levels of future capital receipts could reduce the Council's investment capacity and increase reliance on alternative funding sources, including borrowing and external grant funding. Clarification was sought regarding the disposal of Council assets, including the future management of the farm estate, and whether additional asset sales would be required to achieve capital receipt ambitions. It was confirmed that existing policy arrangements relating to asset disposals remained unchanged. Officers advised that there had been no change to the Council's agreed approach and that capital receipt ambitions did not require a departure from established policy. Questions were raised regarding the climate and nature implications section within the report and how the capital programme contributed towards the Council's wider environmental objectives. It was explained that capital investment contributed towards decarbonisation and environmental objectives across a range of projects. Officers advised that climate and nature considerations were incorporated into capital planning and that investment decisions supported the Council's longer-term sustainability commitments wherever possible. Members highlighted the importance of maintaining a pipeline of projects capable of attracting external funding and sought assurance that opportunities could be progressed quickly when funding became available. Officers confirmed that a programme of developed and deliverable projects was being maintained to ensure that opportunities could be progressed at short notice. It was reported that maintaining a strong pipeline of projects improved the Council's ability to secure external funding and maximise investment opportunities as they arose.
None received.
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.