Loading
The minutes are published. No summary has been written yet.
Apologies for absence were received from County Councillors: Alwyn Evans, Gareth Ratcliffe, Adam Kennerley, Jake Berriman, Matthew Dorrance, Glyn Preston and Raiff Devlin. Officers: Diane Reynolds, Mari Thomas, Matt Perry, Sharon Frewin, Sharon Powell, Paul Bradshaw, Mark Davies, Liz Jones, Richard Batt, Rachel Williams, Judith Hickey and Daniel Burgess
There were no Declarations of Interest from Members relating to items to be considered on the agenda.
The Panel considered the minutes of the previous meeting held on 10 July 2026. Councillor Peter Lewington and Councillor Arwel Jones both expressly confirmed they were content with the minutes. The minutes were approved by general assent of the Panel as an accurate record of proceedings. During consideration of the minutes, a query was raised regarding how actions and requests made during Finance Panel meetings were tracked to ensure they were subsequently reported back to Members. It was agreed that a more formal approach to recording and monitoring actions would be beneficial. The Senior Scrutiny Officer advised that, going forward, a specific actions log could be maintained and incorporated into the minutes to ensure that actions arising from meetings were clearly identified and followed up with the relevant services.
Background: The Portfolio Holder for Corporate Services and Transformation gave a brief synopsis of the report. Director of Corporate Services and S151 Officer outlined the overall forecast revenue position, highlighted the principal service variances and emerging budget pressures, and explained that Quarter 1 represented an early stage in the financial year, with forecasts expected to evolve as further information became available. Particular attention was drawn to the delivery of approved savings, including those identified as not yet achieved or not fully assured, together with the arrangements in place to monitor and address those risks. Background information was also provided on the use of the risk budget and reserves, the impact of additional grant funding received since the budget had been approved, and the reasons why some grants had not been incorporated into the original budget. Members were further directed to the detailed appendices containing service-level financial information and advised that regular monitoring arrangements were in place to manage emerging financial pressures throughout the year. Points raised by the Panel: Responses received from Officers or Cabinet Members. Savings Delivery and Budget Robustness • Questioned why savings agreed during the budget-setting process had been classified as "not yet achieved or assured" only three months into the financial year. • Queried whether some savings should ever have been included in the budget if they could no longer be assured so soon after approval. • Sought explanations as to why concerns now being cited in service commentaries had not been identified when the budget was set. • Challenged the robustness of the budget-setting process where savings had quickly become unachievable. • Questioned whether Members had received sufficient assurance during budget approval that proposed savings were genuinely deliverable. • Asked what accountability arrangements existed where agreed savings were not delivered. • Queried what consequences existed for services where savings targets were missed. • Sought clarification on how undelivered savings carried forward from previous years affected the current year's savings requirement. Cabinet Members and officers advised that the overall delivery of savings at Quarter 1 had been disappointing but stressed that services were aware of the position and were implementing mitigating actions to accelerate delivery. It was explained that the budget-setting process involved identifying savings proposals based on the information available at the time, but circumstances could change between budget approval and implementation, resulting in some savings becoming more difficult or impossible to achieve. The Cabinet Member for Finance stated that budgets were "living" documents and that changes in service circumstances, income levels, demand pressures or operational factors could affect the deliverability of savings during the financial year. Officers advised that some savings proposals carried a higher degree of risk from the outset, and those risks could materialise during the budget cycle. Officers further explained that accountability for delivering savings rested with Heads of Service, supported by Portfolio Holders. Where savings became unachievable, services were expected to identify alternative mitigating actions and replacement savings to ensure budgets remained balanced by year end. Portfolio Holders advised that they met regularly with senior officers to review financial performance, challenge delays and ensure mitigating actions were being pursued. They emphasised that the majority of savings would normally be delivered through active management and alternative measures over the course of the year. Quality of Financial Reporting and Commentary • Highlighted inconsistencies between figures shown in tables and accompanying narrative and requested improved accuracy and consistency in reporting. • Raised concerns that commentary accompanying significant financial variances lacked sufficient detail to understand the causes of issues. • Queried specific instances where financial variances had been identified but no explanation had been provided regarding their cause or mitigation. • Requested that reports clearly explain what unachieved savings related to, why they had failed, and what actions were being taken to address them. • Questioned whether more detailed narrative should accompany significant variances to support effective scrutiny. Officers acknowledged the concerns regarding inconsistencies between figures in tables and narrative sections and accepted that reporting should be clearer and more consistent. The issue of rounding differences was recognised, and it was accepted that figures should be presented consistently throughout reports. In respect of requests for more detailed explanations of variances and unachieved savings, officers agreed that Members required sufficient narrative to understand the underlying causes of financial pressures and the actions being taken to address them. Cabinet Members accepted that in some instances commentary could be expanded to provide greater clarity. Where concerns were raised about the lack of explanation surrounding specific savings variances, officers stated that further detail could be provided where necessary and accepted that some existing commentary may have appeared ambiguous or insufficiently detailed. Information, Transparency and Performance Trends • Requested comparative information from previous years to understand whether service areas had historically operated within budget and to identify emerging trends. • Asked for clearer information showing how individual service areas had performed over successive years. • Queried whether historic budget performance could be presented alongside current forecasting information to improve understanding of recurring issues. • Suggested that information regarding failed savings proposals should include previous performance and expected outcomes. • Sought clearer evidence showing why service areas had moved from previous financial positions into current deficits or pressures. Cabinet Members recognised Members' desire for additional historic information and performance comparisons. It was explained that much of the requested information already existed within annual outturn reports and transformation reporting. Officers indicated that previous years' financial performance could be referenced through existing reporting mechanisms, although they cautioned that producing extensive historical analysis within quarterly monitoring reports could significantly increase their length and complexity. The Cabinet Member for Finance suggested that requests for additional trend analysis and service comparisons could be developed further through scrutiny recommendations and considered as part of future reporting arrangements. Officers also highlighted that the forthcoming Transformation Report would provide information regarding transformation programmes and outcomes within individual services, although it would not provide a complete historic performance analysis. Risk Management and Financial Sustainability • Viewed the report as an early warning mechanism and questioned whether identified risks were being actively managed through medium-term financial planning. • Asked what mitigating actions were being implemented where savings had been classified as unassured. • Queried how lessons learned from previous years were being incorporated into future financial planning. • Sought assurance that strategic risks, including inflation, demographic pressures, service demand and workforce pressures, were being systematically managed. • Questioned how risks identified through quarterly monitoring informed wider financial resilience and long-term sustainability planning. Cabinet Members broadly agreed with the view that quarterly monitoring acted as an early warning system, enabling emerging risks to be identified and addressed before year end. The Cabinet Member for Finance explained that all budgets inherently contained risks and that the Council maintained a risk budget specifically to manage emerging financial pressures. Where savings were identified as being at risk, services were expected to put mitigations in place and seek alternative means of maintaining budgetary control. Officers advised that medium-term financial planning, risk management and budget monitoring operated together to manage pressures arising from inflation, demographic changes, service demand and wider economic conditions. Risks were continually monitored throughout the year, with information feeding into the Medium-Term Financial Strategy and annual budget-setting process. Portfolio Holders further advised that regular meetings with senior officers focused heavily on monitoring performance against savings targets and identifying permanent solutions rather than short-term adjustments wherever possible. Timeliness of Information and Scrutiny Effectiveness • Raised concerns that service commentary had been received late, limiting Members' ability to review and scrutinise information before the meeting. • Requested assurance that all service commentary would be completed and submitted within required timescales in future. • Queried whether effective scrutiny could take place when supporting narrative information was unavailable at publication. • Sought assurance that corporate reporting requirements were being consistently fulfilled across all services. The Section 151 Officer acknowledged concerns regarding the late submission of service commentary and agreed that timely information was essential for effective scrutiny. It was confirmed that responsibility for providing commentary within required timescales rested with Heads of Service. Officers accepted that scrutiny could not be fully effective where supporting narrative information was absent or received late. The Section 151 Officer advised that concerns raised by the Panel would be reported directly to the Senior Leadership Team and reiterated that corporate reporting requirements applied across all services. Assurance was provided that the issue would be raised again through management channels. Grants and Budget Planning • Questioned why £6.1 million of additional grants had not been reflected in the original budget. • Asked whether the authority had anticipated receiving those grants during budget preparation. • Queried whether additional grants brought extra responsibilities and resource requirements. • Asked whether sufficient staffing capacity existed to deliver grant-funded programmes where grants were confirmed after budgets had been agreed. • Queried whether grants would ever be declined if adequate resources were not available to meet associated obligations. • Questioned how the benefits of grant funding were balanced against staffing and delivery capacity risks. • Sought information on whether future reports could identify the duration of grants and whether funding was recurring or time limited. Officers explained that grant funding information available during the budget-setting process was often limited. While broad allocations might be known through Welsh Government settlements, detailed information regarding conditions, funding levels and delivery requirements was frequently unavailable until much later. The Section 151 Officer stated that assumptions could be made regarding potential grants, but incorporating uncertain grant funding into the budget would increase financial risk. For that reason, only grants with a sufficient degree of certainty were normally included within approved budgets. Officers accepted that additional grants could bring extra responsibilities, staffing requirements and delivery obligations. Until grant conditions were known, it was often difficult to determine whether additional staff or resources would be required. The Section 151 Officer advised that grants could theoretically be declined where the costs and resource implications outweighed the benefits; however, this occurred rarely in practice. The majority of grant opportunities were accepted and delivered successfully. Officers also confirmed that services had plans in place to deliver approved grant-funded activity and that lead officers were assigned responsibility for ensuring compliance with grant conditions and expenditure requirements. Following Member feedback, officers agreed that future grant reporting could provide clearer information regarding the duration of grants and whether funding arrangements were recurring or time limited. Risk Budget and Financial Controls • Queried how the risk budget was being utilised and where allocations had been made. • Asked for clearer visibility of risk budget drawdowns and associated mitigation activity. • Questioned whether financial pressures emerging early in the year might ultimately require support from the risk budget. The Section 151 Officer advised that details of risk budget allocations were already included within Appendix A of the report and that drawdowns were reported through existing monitoring arrangements. Officers explained that the risk budget formed an important element of the Council's financial resilience framework and was specifically intended to manage uncertainties arising during the year. The Cabinet Member for Finance confirmed that, whilst no specific inflation-related allocations had yet been made from the risk budget, the provision existed to respond to emerging pressures should they arise later in the financial year. Officers also reiterated that, beyond the risk budget, the Council retained the General Fund Reserve as an additional safeguard against significant unforeseen financial pressures. Service-Specific Financial Pressures Education and School Swimming • Queried why savings associated with school swimming arrangements could no longer be fully achieved. • Requested a clearer explanation of how the savings target had been calculated and why delivery had become challenging. General Housing • Questioned the reasons behind the forecast underspend within the General Housing budget. • Asked whether the underspend indicated that services were not being delivered as originally planned. Cemetery and Grave Digging Services • Queried the continuing financial deficit associated with grave-digging services despite previous discussions on improving financial performance. • Questioned whether the service represented value for money where costs exceeded recoverable charges. • Asked whether the service could be provided more economically through alternative delivery models or external providers. Land Drainage • Queried whether reducing land drainage contracts could create operational or environmental risks, particularly in light of adverse weather forecasts. Governance and Scrutiny • Asked whether Finance Panel Members could receive information on discussions and recommendations arising from Scrutiny Committees considering the same reports. • Queried whether improved sharing of scrutiny outcomes could avoid duplication and strengthen financial challenge. Education and School Swimming Officers explained that savings associated with school swimming arrangements had been partly achieved following detailed work to review service level agreements with Freedom Leisure. The service confirmed that swimming hours had been reassessed against current pupil numbers and school usage, resulting in substantial savings. However, further reductions were proving more difficult to secure, although discussions with the provider remained ongoing. Cabinet Members acknowledged that the complexity of externally contracted services could sometimes affect the achievement of planned savings and agreed that clearer explanations should be provided where such issues arose. General Housing The Section 151 Officer advised that explanatory commentary on the forecast underspend within the General Housing budget was already included within the service narrative. It was suggested that Members review whether the existing explanation provided sufficient context, but officers indicated that further clarification could be provided if required. Cemetery and Grave Digging Services Officers clarified that a typographical error within the service commentary had caused some confusion regarding the scale of the financial pressure. It was explained that grave digging services generated a financial pressure because operating costs exceeded the charges that could realistically be recovered. Officers advised that charges had already been increased significantly and were amongst the highest levels charged elsewhere but attempts to move towards full cost recovery had resulted in some residents seeking alternative providers. The responsible officer confirmed that outsourcing arrangements could potentially be considered but noted that the Council would still retain responsibilities relating to cemetery maintenance. Officers stressed that any changes would require wider consideration of cost, service provision and public expectations. Land Drainage Officers reassured Members that the reported reduction in land drainage expenditure did not represent a reduction in operational flood or drainage activity. The service explained that grant funding was being used to support elements of land drainage work, allowing resources to be redirected elsewhere within the service. Ditching and gulley maintenance activities would continue where required. The Cabinet Member responsible for the service confirmed that similar concerns had been raised previously through scrutiny and that assurances had already been provided that the change presented no operational risk. Governance and Scrutiny Officers confirmed that scrutiny recommendations were publicly available and could be referenced by Finance Panel Members. Whilst acknowledging the practical challenges posed by meeting timetables, officers advised that there was no barrier to Members reviewing recommendations from other scrutiny committees and revisiting matters at future meetings where appropriate. The Section 151 Officer noted that improved awareness of scrutiny outcomes could assist Members in developing a more informed understanding of financial issues and help avoid duplication of scrutiny activity. The following actions were identified for officers or service areas. These were matters that officers agreed to pursue or address: Action Lead Officer / Service Area Timescale / Completion Date Ensure service commentary is submitted within required timescales to support effective scrutiny and financial monitoring. Heads of Service / Senior Leadership Team From Quarter 2 reporting onwards Raise concerns regarding late submission of service commentaries with the Senior Leadership Team and reinforce corporate reporting requirements. Section 151 Officer Following the Finance Panel meeting Review and improve consistency between financial tables and narrative commentary, including figure presentation and rounding. Finance Service Future quarterly financial reports Provide clearer explanatory narrative for significant variances and unachieved savings within monitoring reports. Finance Service and Relevant Service Managers Future quarterly financial reports Continue work to identify mitigating actions and alternative savings where approved savings are not currently assured. Relevant Heads of Service Throughout 2026/27 financial year Continue discussions with Freedom Leisure regarding delivery of the remaining school swimming savings target. Education Service During 2026/27 financial year Monitor delivery of savings proposals through regular performance and budget review meetings. Heads of Service and Portfolio Holders Ongoing throughout 2026/27 Consider enhancing future reporting with additional information on grant duration and whether funding is recurring or time limited. Finance Service Future quarterly reports Continue monitoring service areas reporting financial pressures and identify corrective actions where required. Relevant Service Managers and Finance Business Partners Ongoing throughout 2026/27 Maintain monitoring of land drainage expenditure and ensure service delivery is maintained whilst maximising external grant funding opportunities. Highways and Land Drainage Service Ongoing throughout 2026/27
1. By publication of the Q2 Revenue Forecast Report, all savings identified as Not Yet Achieved, Not Assured or At Risk should be accompanied by commentary outlining: · the original saving proposal; · the reason the saving is not currently deliverable; · the forecast financial impact; · mitigating actions being taken; and · the anticipated timescale for delivery. 2. From the Q2 Revenue Forecast Report onwards, all service commentaries, all figures, percentages and rounding are consistent between tables, appendices and narrative commentary; to be submitted by the agreed corporate deadline to ensure complete monitoring information is available to Members when agenda papers are published. Any late submissions should be reported to the relevant Director and recorded within the report preparation process to ensure Members have sufficient time to scrutinise information before meetings. 3. From the Q2 Revenue Report, services should provide early-warning information for any saving assessed as high risk, including the likelihood of delivery, mitigating actions, and whether alternative savings have been identified. This should support proactive management of Medium-Term Financial Strategy risks. 4. For variances or savings pressures services should provide a brief comparison with the previous financial year's outturn and explain any significant change in performance or budget position, starting with the Q2 Revenue Forecast Report.
Points raised by the Panel: Responses received from Officers or Cabinet Members. Capital Receipts and Asset Disposal • Questioned why the version of the report considered elsewhere contained references to a £10 million capital receipts target, whilst the Finance Panel report did not. • Queried whether any other changes had been made between versions of the report considered by different committees. • Sought clarification on whether the £10 million capital receipts figure represented a target, aspiration or requirement. • Asked what implications would arise if anticipated capital receipts were not achieved. • Queried how much of the forecast £4 million capital receipts for 2026/27 could realistically be regarded as assured. • Questioned whether higher interest rates and market conditions could affect the ability to dispose of assets and achieve planned receipts. • Sought greater transparency regarding assets identified for future disposal. • Asked whether the Council was disposing only of assets which created liabilities and costs, or whether assets were being sold primarily to generate capital funding. • Questioned the long-term sustainability of relying upon asset disposals, noting that assets could only be sold once. • Requested greater clarity on whether projected capital receipt figures represented firm expectations, targets, assumptions or aspirations. The Director of Corporate Services and Section 151 Officer acknowledged Members' concerns regarding the reference to a £10 million capital receipts figure and explained that the figure represented a target identified within the Council's wider Asset Disposal Programme rather than a specific forecast receipt for the current financial year. It was explained that the Q1 Capital Report reflected the most up-to-date position available at the time of reporting, whilst other reports may have referred to broader strategic aspirations associated with the Council's asset management strategy. It was further explained that the forecast capital receipts position for 2026/27 had been prepared using the best available information and reflected receipts considered achievable at that stage. Members were advised that capital receipts remained subject to a range of factors, including market conditions, legal processes and the timing of disposals. Assurance was provided that only assets deemed surplus to operational requirements would ordinarily be considered for disposal and that decisions were taken in accordance with established asset management arrangements. In response to concerns regarding sustainability, Cabinet Members acknowledged that capital receipts could not be relied upon indefinitely and agreed that long-term capital planning needed to balance asset disposals with other funding sources. Affordability of the Capital Programme • Raised concerns regarding the overall affordability of the capital programme given increasing borrowing requirements and wider economic pressures. • Questioned whether the Council could realistically afford all schemes currently included within the capital programme. • Asked whether sufficient consideration had been given to future affordability before additional commitments were made. • Sought assurance that affordability assessments fully considered the impact on future revenue budgets. • Requested clearer reporting on the long-term financial implications of major capital schemes. • Questioned whether affordability considerations were being reviewed quickly enough in response to changing economic circumstances. • Asked whether some schemes may need to be reconsidered, delayed or reprioritised because of economic pressures and borrowing costs. Cabinet Members recognised the concerns raised regarding the affordability of the capital programme and accepted that increasing borrowing costs presented challenges for local authorities. It was explained that affordability assessments formed a fundamental part of capital programme development and that borrowing implications were considered before projects progressed. The officer advised that the programme was subject to ongoing review and that schemes could be reprofiled, delayed or reconsidered if financial circumstances changed significantly. Members were informed that the Council's capital strategy and treasury management processes were designed to ensure that borrowing remained affordable, prudent and sustainable. Assurance was also provided that the impact of capital investment on future revenue budgets, including financing costs and ongoing operational implications, was considered as part of business case development and financial planning. Borrowing, Debt and Treasury Management • Raised concerns regarding the scale of borrowing required to finance the capital programme. • Questioned the risks associated with refinancing significant levels of debt in an environment of rising interest rates. • Asked how much borrowing was due for refinancing over coming years. • Requested a five-year forecast showing borrowing requirements and debt refinancing profiles. • Sought information regarding the long-term borrowing implications of the school capital programme. • Asked how projected borrowing costs had been modelled and incorporated into financial planning. • Queried whether forecasts existed showing the future debt position of the authority over the medium to long term. • Questioned the balance between short-term and long-term borrowing and whether that balance remained appropriate. • Asked whether increasing reliance on short-term borrowing could expose the authority to additional financial risk. • Requested access to information demonstrating how borrowing decisions were being managed over the longer term. • Queried whether refinancing risks should be reported more prominently within the Council's strategic risk framework. Officers acknowledged concerns regarding increasing borrowing requirements and explained that treasury management activity was continuously monitored. Members were advised that refinancing profiles, debt maturity schedules and borrowing forecasts were regularly reviewed as part of treasury management arrangements. It was explained that the Council maintained a balanced approach to borrowing, taking account of prevailing market conditions, interest rates and long-term affordability considerations. Whilst refinancing risk could never be completely eliminated, active treasury management arrangements were in place to manage exposure and to ensure borrowing decisions were informed by professional advice. Cabinet Members agreed that long-term borrowing implications were important considerations and indicated that further information regarding borrowing forecasts and future obligations could be made available through treasury management reporting and future financial planning discussions. Interest Rate Risk • Raised concerns regarding the impact of rising interest rates on the affordability of future borrowing. • Asked what specific mitigations were in place to manage interest rate risk. • Queried whether tools such as interest rate caps, swaps or other treasury management instruments were being considered. • Questioned whether the authority's approach was primarily monitoring interest rate risk rather than actively mitigating it. • Requested clearer information on how interest rate risks were reflected within financial planning assumptions. • Asked whether future budget assumptions adequately reflected the possibility of further interest rate increases. Officers advised that interest rate movements were continually monitored as part of treasury management activity. Whilst acknowledging that increasing interest rates presented a risk to future borrowing costs, it was explained that regular reviews were undertaken to assess market conditions and borrowing strategies. Members were informed that the Council's approach focused on prudent debt management and ongoing monitoring rather than speculative financial instruments. Financial assumptions were regularly reviewed and updated as part of the budget-setting process and Medium-Term Financial Strategy to reflect changing economic conditions. Cabinet Members agreed that interest rate risk remained a significant factor in capital planning and confirmed that it would continue to be monitored closely as part of wider financial management arrangements. Inflation and Construction Costs • Raised concerns regarding the impact of inflation on the delivery costs of the capital programme. • Questioned whether assumptions contained within previous financial planning remained valid in the current economic environment. • Asked whether construction inflation was exceeding assumptions used when schemes were originally approved. • Queried whether rising construction costs could affect the viability or deliverability of certain projects. • Requested clearer information regarding the impact of inflation on both existing and future capital schemes. • Sought assurance that inflationary pressures were being actively managed and monitored across all services. • Asked whether inflation risks could ultimately require support from reserves or risk budgets. It was acknowledged that inflationary pressures had affected capital schemes across the local government sector and accepted that construction costs remained a continuing challenge. Members were advised that project costs were regularly reviewed and updated throughout scheme development and delivery. It was explained that inflation assumptions were incorporated into financial planning wherever possible, although market volatility created uncertainty. Where inflationary pressures affected individual projects, options such as reprofiling expenditure, revising delivery timescales or reviewing funding arrangements were considered. Cabinet Members advised that affordability and inflation risks formed an important part of project governance arrangements and that cost increases were actively monitored throughout the delivery of the capital programme. School Capital Programme and Strategic Prioritisation • Raised concerns regarding the financial implications of the school capital programme over the longer term. • Questioned whether the Council could continue to commit to new school projects without certainty regarding future funding arrangements. • Asked how future school schemes would be prioritised if financial pressures increased. • Requested visibility of longer-term school capital plans. • Queried whether a prioritised programme existed identifying which schemes were essential and which could be deferred if necessary. • Asked how Members could effectively scrutinise long-term commitments without access to wider capital planning information. • Requested a prioritised ten-year capital programme to support future decision-making. • Sought greater clarity regarding the strategic review of school capital projects and future investment priorities. Cabinet Members acknowledged the importance of the school capital investment programme and recognised Members' concerns regarding future commitments. It was explained that individual projects were considered within the context of strategic need, available funding and educational priorities. The officer advised that prioritisation arrangements existed and that future schemes would continue to be assessed against available resources and the Council's strategic objectives. Members were informed that significant school investment programmes required long-term planning and often depended upon external funding support. Reference was made to ongoing work being undertaken through the joint working arrangements involving Finance Panel and Learning and Skills Members. Assurance was provided that future investment priorities would continue to be reviewed as part of the Council's strategic planning processes. Long-Term Financial Planning and Future Risks • Requested a clearer medium and long-term financial outlook for capital investment decisions. • Asked how future borrowing, inflation, pension costs and other liabilities were being modelled over five to ten years. • Queried whether future financial scenarios had been developed to assess the potential impact of worsening economic conditions. • Requested information on how future liabilities could affect the Council's ability to deliver services. • Sought a better understanding of the financial consequences of different policy choices within the capital programme. • Asked whether Members could receive information showing a range of potential future financial outcomes rather than a single forecast position. Officers agreed with Members that long-term financial planning was becoming increasingly important given economic uncertainty and future investment requirements. It was explained that a range of financial assumptions and forecasts informed the Medium-Term Financial Strategy and capital planning arrangements. Members were advised that future borrowing costs, inflation pressures and financing requirements were regularly modelled and assessed. Whilst it was not possible to predict future economic conditions with certainty, scenario planning and risk assessments were used to inform decision-making and identify potential pressures. Cabinet Members supported the principle of providing Members with greater visibility of long-term financial considerations and recognised the value of future discussions around longer-term capital planning. Pension Fund and Financial Sustainability • Requested information regarding future pension fund contribution requirements beyond the current actuarial period. • Asked how future pension fund liabilities were expected to interact with borrowing commitments and capital financing costs. • Queried whether longer-term projections were available showing the potential impact of pension costs on the Council's future finances. • Sought assurance that pension liabilities were being considered alongside other long-term financial commitments. It was explained that pension fund obligations were monitored separately through established actuarial valuation processes and financial planning arrangements. Members were advised that pension contributions formed part of the Council's broader financial planning framework and were taken into account when considering long-term affordability. It was recognised that pension liabilities, borrowing commitments and revenue pressures all formed part of the Council's overall financial sustainability considerations. Assurance was provided that these factors were routinely considered within medium-term financial forecasts. Grants and Capital Funding • Queried the treatment of Welsh Government grant funding received for highways and infrastructure schemes. • Asked how late grant allocations affected capital planning and programme delivery. • Sought clarification regarding whether grant-funded schemes formed part of previously approved capital budgets or represented additional activity. • Questioned how effectively grant funding could be incorporated into long-term capital planning where funding decisions were received late in the financial cycle. Panel were advised that grant funding often became available outside the normal budget-setting cycle and that the timing of grant notifications could create challenges for forward planning. Members were informed that reports incorporated grant-funded schemes as information became available and that adjustments were made through the monitoring process. It was explained that many capital projects were dependent upon external funding support and that services worked closely with funding bodies to maximise available opportunities. Whilst late grant announcements could affect planning assumptions, established monitoring arrangements enabled programmes to be updated as funding decisions were confirmed. Cabinet Members highlighted the importance of external funding in delivering capital investment and recognised the need for flexibility in managing programmes where grant allocations were received after budgets had been approved. Governance and Scrutiny • Questioned why different Scrutiny Committees appeared to have considered different versions of the same report. • Requested greater consistency in reporting across committees. • Asked whether corrections made to reports should be formally highlighted where previous versions had entered the public domain. • Queried whether Finance Panel Members should have access to longer-term capital planning information, potentially in confidential session, to support effective scrutiny. • Requested stronger links between scrutiny activity and long-term financial planning discussions. • Raised concerns regarding the pace of progress of the joint Finance Panel and Learning and Skills working group considering major school capital investment issues Members' concerns were acknowledged regarding apparent differences between reports considered by different committees and advised that any amendments or updates should be clearly communicated wherever possible. Assurance was provided that officers sought to ensure consistency and accuracy in all reports presented to Members. In response to requests for greater access to longer-term planning information, it was recognised that additional discussions on future capital investment priorities could assist effective scrutiny. Members were advised that mechanisms already existed through working groups, scrutiny committees and treasury management reporting to facilitate consideration of strategic financial issues. Cabinet Members welcomed the contribution of Finance Panel Members in challenging and scrutinising the capital programme and agreed that continued engagement on long-term financial planning and capital investment would strengthen future decision-making. Action Lead Officer / Service Area Timescale / Completion Review opportunities to provide additional information on long-term borrowing forecasts, debt maturity profiles and refinancing risks to support Member scrutiny. Director of Corporate Services and Section 151 Officer / Finance Service Future Treasury Management and Financial Planning reports Consider providing enhanced long-term capital affordability information to Members, including the impact of borrowing on future revenue budgets. Finance Service Future capital monitoring and financial planning reports Continue monitoring capital receipts forecasts and asset disposal programme performance against anticipated funding assumptions. Finance Service / Property Services Ongoing throughout 2026/27 Continue reviewing capital programme affordability in light of changing economic conditions, borrowing costs and inflationary pressures. Finance Service Ongoing throughout 2026/27 Maintain regular monitoring of interest rate movements and assess implications for future borrowing requirements. Finance Service Ongoing throughout 2026/27 Continue reviewing project costs to identify and manage inflationary pressures affecting capital schemes. All Service Areas Ongoing throughout 2026/27 Continue to update capital programme forecasts as grant funding announcements are received from external funding bodies. All Service Areas Throughout 2026/27 Progress work through the Finance Panel and Learning and Skills joint arrangements regarding future school capital investment priorities. Working Group Member with Education and Finance Services Ongoing Ensure any future amendments or significant updates to reports considered by different committees are clearly communicated to Members. All Services Areas Future reporting cycles Continue medium-term and long-term financial modelling to assess future borrowing, funding and affordability pressures. Director of Corporate Services and Section 151 Officer / Finance Service Ongoing through budget and financial planning processes
1 That Cabinet provides the Finance Panel with a 10-year Capital Programme forecast, including project prioritisation, estimated costs, funding sources, and affordability assessments, by the commencement of the 2027/28 budget-setting process. 2 That future Capital Monitoring Reports include a five-year borrowing and refinancing profile, showing: • Borrowing due for refinancing each year; • Estimated borrowing costs; • Associated revenue implications; and • Key treasury management risks and mitigations. This should be included from the Q2 Capital Monitoring Report onwards. 3 That future Capital Reports provide: • The value of capital receipts already secured; • The value forecast but not yet realised; • The delivery confidence level (high, medium, low) for major planned receipts; and • Any implications for the capital programme should receipts not materialise. To be introduced from the Q2 Capital Report. 4 That Cabinet provides Members with a schedule of proposed asset disposals during 2026/27, identifying: • Assets proposed for disposal; • Whether they are revenue liabilities or income generating; • Estimated receipt values; and • Strategic justification for disposal. The briefing should be provided before consideration of the next Capital Strategy update. 5 That a report be prepared for Finance Panel within the current financial year showing: • Original estimated costs; • Current estimated costs; and • Percentage cost increases for major capital projects, particularly school schemes, together with an assessment of affordability and funding implications.
Panel Members emphasised the need for the Finance Panel to maintain a forward-looking focus, with greater emphasis on emerging financial challenges and future financial planning alongside routine revenue and capital monitoring. The Chair expressed concern that the Medium-Term Financial Strategy (MTFS) and Financial Resilience work had not been presented to the Panel earlier in the year, limiting opportunities for early scrutiny and engagement before key decisions were taken. Members felt that earlier visibility of budget pressures, financial risks and planning assumptions would improve the Panel's ability to contribute to the budget-setting process. Officers advised that the MTFS was progressing through the Council's governance process and clarified that the Financial Resilience Report had been incorrectly referenced within the work programme. It was confirmed that the End of Year Transformation Report could be considered at the October meeting, whilst the MTFS and Financial Resilience Report might require a separate meeting to allow sufficient scrutiny prior to Cabinet consideration. Members supported receiving draft financial planning information at an earlier stage, including through confidential sessions where appropriate, to improve understanding of future budget challenges and funding gaps. The Director of Corporate Services and Section 151 Officer acknowledged that production of the MTFS had been delayed due to competing priorities, including closure of the accounts, implementation of a new finance system and other statutory responsibilities, and advised that officers would seek to bring such reports forward earlier in future. The Chair also highlighted the importance of greater visibility of longer-term financial planning, including capital programme affordability, borrowing implications and future investment priorities, and stressed the need to link the Panel's work more closely with the MTFS, Treasury Management Strategy and Financial Resilience planning. The Cabinet Member for Finance advised that the End of Year Transformation Report was a substantial document that would require dedicated agenda time and should not be combined with other significant strategic financial reports if Members were to undertake effective scrutiny.
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.