Loading
The decisions as the council's minutes record them. A plain-language summary follows once it has been written.
RESOLVED: That the Committee note the output from the Play Sufficiency Assessment 2025-28, as set out in the report and Appendix 1.
RESOLVED: That the Chairperson writes to the Cabinet Member on behalf of the Committee expressing their comments and observations captured during the way forward.
RESOLVED: That the Chairperson writes to the Cabinet Member on behalf of the Committee expressing their comments and observations captured during the way forward.
RESOLVED: That the Chairperson writes to the Cabinet Member on behalf of the Committee expressing their comments and observations captured during the way forward.
RESOLVED: That the Chairperson writes to the Cabinet Member on behalf of the Committee expressing their comments and observations captured during the way forward.
Apologies were received from Cllr Ahmed, Cllr De’Ath (Cabinet Member for Climate Change, Strategic Planning & Transport), Emily Gao (Youth Council), Andrew Gregory, Claire Moggridge and Jason Dixon.
Cllrs Boes, Hopkins, Humphreys, Moultrie and Reid-Jones, Patricia Arlotte (Roman Catholic representative) and Carol Cobert (Church in Wales Representative), declared personal interests in items 5, 6 and 8 as school governors. Cllrs Davies and Gunter declared personal interests in item 5 as non-executive directors of Cardiff Bus.
The minutes of the 24th February meeting were approved and signed by the Chair as a correct record.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED: That the Committee note the output from the Play Sufficiency Assessment 2025-28, as set out in the report and Appendix 1.
Members were advised that this item enabled them to note the findings of the Play Sufficiency Assessment (PSA) 2025-28 before it was considered by Cabinet on 20th March. The Chair noted that Members had taken part in two policy development sessions in October and November 2024, and it was agreed that due to their involvement in the assessment, the Committee would not undertake pre-decision scrutiny of its output. Members were assured that progress arising from the PSA Action Plans would be shared with the Committee when appropriate. RESOLVED: That the Committee note the output from the Play Sufficiency Assessment 2025-28, as set out in the report and Appendix 1.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED: That the Chairperson writes to the Cabinet Member on behalf of the Committee expressing their comments and observations captured during the way forward.
Members were advised that this item provided them with the opportunity to consider the extension of the expiry date of the Passenger Transport Dynamic Procurement System (DPS) from 31st August 2025 to 31st March 2028, and the increased delegation of spend authority from £138.8m to £170.8m to the Director of Planning, Transport and Environment, prior to their consideration by Cabinet on 20th March. The Chair noted that the focus of this proposal was the contract extension and increase in spend, rather than policy-related matters such as home to school transport criteria. It had been agreed with officers that this element of school transport would be considered at a later meeting. The Chair welcomed Steve Gerrard (Network Operations Team Leader – Planning, Transport and Environment), who gave a presentation outlining the procurement process which enabled the council to deliver its statutory obligations in relation to home to school transport. The framework was split into seven lots, each of which covered a specific aspect of transport contracts such as wheelchair accessible taxis. He explained that the current framework expired in August, and the Passenger Transport Review had recommended expanding the number of contractors tendering, re-optimising routes and tendering contracts via Reverse eAuction. A new Procurement Act had been in place since 2023, with its regulations coming into effect from February 2025, including requiring a new shared market framework. There had not been enough time to implement this by September, so they were seeking to extend the existing DPS to March 2028, covering the additional cost of the contract values awarded until they expired in August 2032. This approach sought to provide an approved route to market, remove market confusion, enable contracts to be retendered in batches and provide flexibility in timing. Members were invited to ask questions and make comments; the discussion is summarised below: Members asked whether drivers were vetted annually or when roles were replaced, especially when vulnerable individuals or children were being transported. Officers explained that there were a number of safeguarding checks including an enhanced DBS check, while contractors also vetted drivers themselves. In the officer’s experience, the drivers involved tended to form small groups who knew each other well and had experience of working together. Members explored the costs and in particular asked for clarity about whether the extra spend had already been allocated or would need to come from another part of the budget. The officer explained that it was twofold: they could project need going forward within their annual budget, with contracts going up, and before any contracts were awarded they had to go back to that service area or directorate to ensure there was a budget available. There was no existing approval within this report to spend above budget. Members suggested that the Committee be notified if any service areas did go over budget. RESOLVED: That the Chairperson writes to the Cabinet Member on behalf of the Committee expressing their comments and observations captured during the way forward.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED: That the Chairperson writes to the Cabinet Member on behalf of the Committee expressing their comments and observations captured during the way forward.
Members were advised that this item sought to provide them with the opportunity to note the annual consultation process used and changes made to the Admissions Policy for 2026/27 prior to its consideration by Cabinet on 20th March. The Chair welcomed Cllr Sarah Merry (Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Education), Mel Godfrey (Director of Education and Lifelong Learning), Richard Portas (Programme Director, School Organisation Programme) and Brett Andrewartha (SOP Planning Manager). The Cabinet Member was invited to make an opening statement, in which she noted that it was an annual paper which the directorate was required to bring forward. The proposed changes were very minor this year, which was reflected in the lack of responses. Members were invited to ask questions and make comments; the discussion is summarised below: Members queried how specific circumstances such as eviction or fleeing domestic abuse were taken into account when considering changes of address. Officers explained that supporting evidence for this was considered as part of the criteria, and any parent or guardian could make an application at any time to transfer schools, going in the next round of admissions if that were after the closing date. Members discussed the lack of consultation responses and heard that the list of consultees was set out in the admissions code. On occasions like this where the changes were limited, the code required them to consult directly with schools, neighbouring authorities and elected members. If the changes had been more significant – for instance reordering the admission criteria or implementing a feeder school system – then the parents and children affected would have had to be consulted. The consultation went beyond the minimum required and sought to directly ask about people’s views, while also taking into account Welsh language matters. Members asked how date changes were communicated to those affected, and heard that the council was required to communicate a prospectus by 1st October. They engaged with schools to put on more drop-in sessions in areas of Cardiff which tended to see a lower return rate and number of preferences stated. Members noted the acknowledgement in the Single Impact Assessment that some people could not afford to move house, and asked how this linked to recent changes to the council’s homelessness policy. Officers responded that members of the Admissions Forum worked directly with homelessness organisations in order to engage with this key group, and while there were no requests made to amend the policy this year, they would re-engage with the forum going forward to consider adaptations. The Committee noted the lack of major changes to the Admissions Policy and that it was last fully reviewed in 2017. It was suggested that if a review were to take place, then the Committee should be part of this at the policy development stage rather than when it reached pre-decision. RESOLVED: That the Chairperson writes to the Cabinet Member on behalf of the Committee expressing their comments and observations captured during the way forward.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED: That the Chairperson writes to the Cabinet Member on behalf of the Committee expressing their comments and observations captured during the way forward.
Members were advised that this item sought to provide an opportunity to consider and agree for the Council to undertake a consultation exercise on extending the age range of pupils at Ysgol Gymraeg Coed-Y-Gof, prior to its consideration by Cabinet on 20th March. The Chair welcomed Cllr Sarah Merry (Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Education), Mel Godfrey (Director of Education and Lifelong Learning), Richard Portas (Programme Director, School Organisation Programme) and Brett Andrewartha (SOP Planning Manager). The Cabinet Member was invited to make an opening statement, in which she clarified that Cabinet was not making a decision on establishing a nursery, but rather seeking approval go out for consultation. The number of students going into the school had not exceeded 30 in the last few years, and the council believed there was demand for Welsh medium education. Adding a nursery would help to put the school on a more sustainable footing and fulfil the authority’s Welsh language education commitments. Officers added that the local numbers showed sufficient need, and using the existing buildings would be an efficient model. From a school planning perspective, it was not ideal for children to attend a neighbouring English medium primary school and then move over to the Welsh secondary. Members were invited to ask questions and make comments; the discussion is summarised below: Members noted that there were three other schools within walking distance and advocated extensive consultation including all those affected. Officers acknowledged the potential funding impact on neighbouring schools, and noted that nursery places were protected in certain areas across the city. It was difficult to predict exactly how children would come through and any associated staffing impacts. The council would follow the usual thorough consultation process with governing bodies, staff and local schools, engaging with as many parents, community groups and children and young people as possible. Members queried whether the consultation was intended to test the expected demand, and heard that it was not as the demand was already confirmed by the data. It was a chance to boost Welsh medium education locally, aligning with the Welsh in Education Strategic Plan (WESP). The council had assessed the taking up of local nursery places and how it influenced the taking up of Reception places, with a positive impact on Coed Y Gof. It was hard to predict from the admissions data how it might be impacted, but the results would be monitored over time through data-sharing agreements with schools. RESOLVED: That the Chairperson writes to the Cabinet Member on behalf of the Committee expressing their comments and observations captured during the way forward.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED: That the Chairperson writes to the Cabinet Member on behalf of the Committee expressing their comments and observations captured during the way forward.
Members were advised that this item sought to provide them with background information to facilitate their pre-decision scrutiny of the draft report on the Proposed School Improvement Services in Cardiff, prior to its consideration by Cabinet on 20th March. The Chair noted that this item had been called ‘Future of School Improvement in Cardiff’ on the agenda but the report was now entitled ‘Proposed School Improvement Services in Cardiff’. The Chair welcomed Cllr Sarah Merry (Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Education), Mel Godfrey (Director of Education and Lifelong Learning) and Helen Williams (Assistant Director of Education and Lifelong Learning). The Cabinet Member was invited to make an opening statement, in which she reminded the Committee of the Cabinet paper it had considered in November, which set out the principles of how the council would respond to the Welsh government’s mid-tier review. She thanked officers for their work setting out a significant change programme, to be developed over the next three years. The key recommendations included the repatriation of school improvement to the local authority, seeking to develop school-to-school support and extensive engagement with schools. Officers added that the feedback to the Welsh government’s review had emphasised school-to-school support, and advocated a bottom-up approach working closely with headteachers. They outlined the timeline for the change programme, with the return of school improvement partners and the establishment of collaborative learning improvement partnerships in the first year. September onwards would act as a pilot year in order to help manage workloads and reduce turbulence. In terms of capacity, it was good to have school improvement return to the local authority. Members were invited to ask questions and make comments; the discussion is summarised below: Members asked why Rhondda Cynon Taf council was the host for the regional arrangements, and heard that this was due to the pace of change. The Welsh government had set an ambitious timetable and with RCT currently hosting the Central South Consortium arrangements, shifting to another authority would have taken much longer. Members queried the lack of success criteria provided in the report for years 2 and 3, and asked for more insight into the medium- and longer-term expectations. Officers explained that the first year criteria were primarily about formation and structure, the success of which will be fundamental to informing years two and three. The criteria would be set on an annual basis in order to understand the impact of resources as clearly as possible. Members asked whether Cardiff could develop its own benchmarking data, and heard that officers were in the process of establishing what kinds of performance data would be gathered and communicated. Members requested further clarification when it was clear how the benchmarking data would be gathered. Members explored the composition of the collaborative learning partnerships and heard that they could be grouped depending on priorities, using a horizontal approach where primaries worked with primaries and secondaries with secondaries. Headteachers were generally keen to work proactively on this, and to identify and spread best practice, building on the experience of the previous mechanisms. School leaders wanted more focused prioritisation of learning, and school-to-school support was key to moving this forward. Members heard that an amount of funding had been ringfenced by the Welsh government for school improvement services, but there had been an element of savings attached to the new arrangements as some grants had been reduced in order to fund the National Agency. Officers were confident that this would not be to the detriment of existing teams, with the money around Central South protected. As the school improvement service returned to Cardiff, some efficiencies had been found. Members asked whether there were any concerns about some of the grant streams not continuing. Officers acknowledged that there were always concerns when funding was reduced, but they were mitigating against any changes happening too quickly. Members asked that officers provide some further explanation of how the different strands of financing the service would work in practice, for example concerning Cardiff’s contribution to the regional team, and how this compared to the current figures. Members advocated cross-border collaboration between schools, in particular faith schools and Welsh medium schools, and asked about the financial implications of working across regions. Officers noted that the Welsh government wanted the regions to work collaboratively, and the new model did not preclude cross-border or cross-authority work. Cardiff needed to ensure that it wasn’t too inward-looking, and seek best practice with learning and sharing. Members asked how school leaders’ wellbeing was supported and heard that officers were working extensively to ensure that school leaders themselves led the wellbeing agenda. The unions often made the point that workloads were key, and it was important to avoid reintroducing the amount of paperwork headteachers had in the past. Members discussed the composition of school improvement partnerships, noting that they generally had a mix of permanently employed staff, recently retired headteachers and some serving headteachers. Officers envisaged a hybrid model between improvement partners and existing school leaders, which would pick up more accountability over time. Members asked how headteachers would be compensated, and heard that there would be a mixture of professional development and financial contribution. Members discussed how the Committee would receive updates in the future, and suggested that members of the partnership could attend meetings themselves. Officers agreed that this would be helpful, and reminded Members that it was in the Committee’s gift to determine how frequent these updates were. Members agreed that an update in December would be a good starting point, giving the changes three months from September to bed in. RESOLVED: That the Chairperson writes to the Cabinet Member on behalf of the Committee expressing their comments and observations captured during the way forward.
There were none.
Tuesday 8th April at 4:30pm.
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.