Loading
The committee scrutinised the council's initial revenue estimates for 2026/27, the draft budget before final approval. Officers said the gap between spending pressures and funding stood at £2.847 million after funding assumptions, with savings and other measures under consideration. The committee recommended two steps asking that all members be told in good time about rising risks or budget pressures.
1.1 Chair welcomed Members and Officers to the meeting. 1.2 Apologies were received from Councillors Liam Cowles, & Nathan Yeowell.
2.1 There were no Declarations.
3.1 Cllr Ashley confirmed that he had given apologies for the meeting but they had not been recorded, which was agreed by the Chair to amend. The minutes of the meeting held on 23 October 2025 were confirmed as an accurate record.
4.1 Members noted the action sheet.
5.1 The SDR introduced the report and the HoFS then gave a detailed overview of the report and appendices to Members. The L&EM then added his comments before moving on to questions. 5.2 Members questioned and officers’ responses were as follows: • The HoFS explained that the in-year position showed an adverse variance of £464,000 at month six, which was an improvement on the £624,000 reported at month four. He stated that this context was included to highlight any pressures that might impact the 2026/27 process and confirmed confidence that the year would likely end in a balanced position barring major new pressures. • The HoFS confirmed that the gross pressure over and above the 2025/26 budget was £14.09 million before considering unhypothecated funding. He explained that expected grants of £3.6 million for teachers’ pay, non-teachers’ pay, and National Insurance would likely transfer into the settlement, reducing the gap to £10.438 million. • The HoFS explained that the main drivers were employee-related costs, including a modelled 3% pay award for 2026/27, inflationary pressures, South Wales Fire Levy, contract inflation, and demand for services. He also noted adjustments for pupil numbers, which reflected a reduction for the second consecutive year. • The HoFS responded that capital financing pressures of around £540,000 were included to service previous commitments and anticipated borrowing. He explained that while there was some unallocated capital funding, it was prudent to retain contingency for unforeseen pressures and highlighted that slippage in the capital programme could reduce the figure before final budget approval. • The HoFS confirmed that all savings built into the estimates were intended to be recurring. He explained that if savings were delayed or demand increased, options included using contingency budgets or reserves to maintain a balanced position. • The HoFS explained that after accounting for funding assumptions, the gap stood at £2.847 million. Measures under consideration included schools absorbing non-pay inflation, exploring efficiencies through federation with Blaenau Gwent, using earmarked reserves, and reviewing service pressures. • The HoFS explained that federation savings were modest but included efficiencies such as a shared Chief Executive post and potential shared services where resilience was low. He emphasised that while savings were not large, they delivered practical benefits. • The DCE explained that the Council had redesigned programmes previously reliant on grants to ensure outcomes continued to be delivered. He confirmed that efforts had been made to integrate essential roles into base budgets where possible to reduce reliance on temporary funding. • The HoFS explained that the provisional settlement expected on 24th November 2025 would crystallise assumptions around Welsh Government funding. He noted that while Council Tax decisions would follow later, the settlement would provide the most significant clarity. • The L&EM explained that lobbying was ongoing through the WLGA to urge the Senedd to allocate unallocated sums to local services. He noted that every 0.5% increase in Aggregate External Finance equated to approximately £1 million for the Council. 5.3 The Chair thanked the Officers and the L&EM for their participation, and they then left the meeting. The SO, TLS and TD&MSO remained for the recommendations. 5.4 Recommendations On completion of their scrutiny activity, the Committee concluded by offering the following recommendations and comments for consideration: - Recommendation 1:- With regards to the risks outlined within paragraph 8 of the report, the committee recommended that all members be notified, in a timely manner, should any of these risks become more evident prior to the committee’s next meeting in January 2026, where they would scrutinise the Budget 2026/27. Recommendation 2:- Members were pleased with the progress of the Children’s Social Care placements transition plan; however they outlined the risks attached to this being a demand-led service. As a result, members recommended that all members be notified, in a timely manner, should any significant budgetary pressures emerge in this area. Additional Comments & Observations from the Committee: Members reflected that in previous years they had raised concerns around the potential over-reliance on grant-funded project staff, on temporary contracts; however they were pleased to hear how the restructuring within the Council was enabling functionality to continue whilst reducing risks in this area.
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.
The minutes record no declarations of interest.
6.1 The next meeting would be held Tuesday 27th January 2026 6.2 The meeting ended at 2.55pm.
Lists the council's current councillors only. Co-opted members, officers and former councillors aren't shown.