Loading
The decisions as the council's minutes record them. A plain-language summary follows once it has been written.
AGREED: that the Chairperson, on behalf of the Committee, writes to the Cabinet Member conveying the observations of the Committee when discussing the way forward.
AGREED: that the Chairperson, on behalf of the Committee, writes to the Cabinet Member conveying the observations of the Committee when discussing the way forward.
AGREED: that the Chairperson, on behalf of the Committee, writes to the Cabinet Member conveying the observations of the Committee when discussing the way forward.
Apologies were received from Cllr Boes, as well as from Mel Godfrey (Director of Education & Lifelong Learning), Deborah Driffield (Director of Children’s Services), Karen Mills (AP Cymru) and Katie McAndrew (Allocation and Rehousing Manager). The Chair noted that it was Tegan Griffiths’ last meeting as the committee’s Youth Council representative, and thanked her for her dedication and insight.
The following declarations of interest were received in accordance with the Members’ Code of Conduct. Councillor Item Nature of interest Reason Sue Lent 4 Personal Neurodiverse family member Peter Littlechild 4 Personal Neurodiverse family member, and sits on the ND Group Margaret Lewis 4 Personal Neurodiverse, and sits on the ND Group Bablin Molik 5 Personal Private landlord Ali Ahmed 5 Personal Family members are landlords
The minutes of the 17th November meeting were approved and signed as a correct record.
Decision as recorded
AGREED: that the Chairperson, on behalf of the Committee, writes to the Cabinet Member conveying the observations of the Committee when discussing the way forward.
Members were provided with the opportunity to consider the responses to the consultation on the Neurodivergent Friendly Cardiff Strategy (2025-2030) prior to its consideration by Cabinet on 18th December. Members of the Children & Young People Scrutiny Committee were also invited to take part in the item, having previously joined CASSC in July 2025 to scrutinise the draft strategy. Patricia Arlotte and Bid Corr (Co-Opted Members) and Cllrs Hopkins and Reid-Jones were in attendance. For this item, the Chair welcomed: Cllr Leonora Thomson Cabinet Member for Adult Services and Public Health & Equality Cllr Ash Lister Cabinet Member for Children’s Services, Tackling Poverty and Supporting Young People Cllr Sarah Merry Cabinet Member for Education Jane Thomas Director of Adults, Housing & Communities Nicola Pitman Lead Library & Strategy Manager Helen Williams Assistant Director, Education & Inclusion The Cabinet Members were invited to make opening statements. Cllr Thomson explained that it was an important strategy which sat across various Cabinet areas, and while it was a good start it was only a start. Cllr Merry highlighted its links to the education inclusion strategy published last month, as well as the paper on ALN going to Cabinet on the 18th December, and hoped that those policies would improve the education system for neurodivergent students. Cllr Lister echoed his colleagues’ comments and emphasised the importance of improving support across Cardiff for both neurodivergent young people and adults. Officers gave a presentation outlining the process to date, noting that Council had agreed a motion in 2023 making the commitment. Engagement was kickstarted in 2024 with an event at Cardiff City Stadium and the creation of a ‘have your say’ website, while services and partnership work were mapped out. An eight-week consultation had taken place from July to September 2025, and had incorporated a wide range of partners including the health board, housing, universities, Transport for Wales, Mermaid Quay, the Salvation Army, the Aloud charity and End Youth Homelessness Cymru (EYHC). The strategy revolved around four aims, the first covering inclusion and accessibility and the second education and employment. The third related to the provision of accessible, visible information people could trust, while the fourth was about improving environments for neurodivergent people. Commitments had been secured from various partners, for instance from Llamau, EYHC and the Housing team around the provision of supported housing and reviewing the accessibility of existing accommodation. They noted that among the 809 responses to the consultation, key themes had been the availability of inclusive activities, the importance of education and inclusive school environments, support from employers, visible information, support for families and transparency about how progress would be monitored. On the latter there was a Cabinet Review Group which would report to the Public Service Board. The four aims formed the basis of a five-year action plan, and annual reviews would be published during that time. Members were invited to ask questions and make comments; the discussion is summarised below. Members advocated identifying clear KPIs and ensuring continuity between partners, in particular considering the lack of specific funding behind the strategy. Officers acknowledged this and emphasised the importance of sharing best practice with partners, such as training modules provided by Neurodivergent Wales. This was the approach used with Age Friendly Cardiff and ensured a good baseline of quality training. The Cabinet Member for Adult Services and Public Health & Equality added that while delivering major changes in health and education were expensive, officers had plenty of experience in identifying innovative solutions. The Cabinet Member for Education also added that a lot of work on improving education environments for neurodivergent people had already taken place, and the strategy sought to make these commitments more explicit. Additional learning needs were a key strand of work, and the core underlying principle of inclusive education was that every pupil felt like they belonged in their school. Members queried the definition of some of the terms used, and heard that officers had engaged with the university’s Autism Research Centre early on about the most appropriate definition of ‘neurodivergent’. Debate existed about whether it included conditions like dementia, and while these were not specifically included in the strategy, it sought to help everyone who needed it. Terms like ‘accessible’ and ‘inclusive’, meanwhile, were more broadly about everyone being able to participate, in order to thrive and get what they wanted from their life. Members suggested that specific definitions made assessing progress easier, and requested that these be provided. Members asked why men’s responses were lower down in the survey and heard that this was simply because more women had responded. Men had been less likely to support the strategy overall, and officers were looking into why this was. They clarified that around 40% of the respondents had identified as neurodivergent, although this did not include the 25% of respondents who were unpaid carers completing it on someone else’s behalf. Neurodivergence was a wide-ranging spectrum, but officers were confident that the consultation had had a representative response. Members queried whether the document itself was sufficiently accessible for neurodivergent people, and heard that Learning Disability Wales were producing an easy read version of the strategy. Newsletters would also provide short, digestible updates on progress, with the first one due in Q4. The Committee explored opportunities for older people to access neurodiversity assessments, and heard that this had been a key theme of their responses to the consultation. A lot of neurodivergence-related funding had been diverted towards children’s diagnosis in recent years to alleviate huge waiting lists, but as this situation improved resources could be more evenly distributed. The Cabinet Member for Children’s Services, Tackling Poverty and Supporting Young People emphasised the importance of ensuring everyone had access to support regardless of whether they had a diagnosis. Members suggested that the council could commit to being a neurodivergent-friendly employer, which officers welcomed. It was already an age-friendly employer, and a similar pledge on this topic would be of value. HR were bringing out a new guide to support neurodivergent employees, and they hoped organisations like Neurodivergent Wales would support it too. Members asked about a letter received from AP Cymru referring to uncertainty about their future, and asked how they and other organisations could be reassured. Officers acknowledged the difficulty of finding additional funding but emphasised the importance of advice and guidance, in particular from other third sector organisations through C3SC. Members welcomed the strategy’s ambition and highlighted adaptive teaching methods and support for families as particularly key to ensuring inclusive education. They also noted the challenges embedded within and asked about the expected timescales and opportunities for scrutiny throughout. Officers explained that in addition to the five-year action plan, which would be drawn together after the strategy was approved, there would be annual reports which the Committee could consider, similar to the Age Friendly Strategy. Members looked forward to scrutinising the progress of the strategy when its annual reports were published. Members enquired about the response rate of the consultation, and heard that it had been around 16% overall, although they considered the total number of responses to be reasonably good. They considered the results to be robust, they had provided a steer for how the draft strategy needed to be amended. Officers also noted that previous surveys such as Ask Cardiff had only seen around 10-11% responding, while a consultation with unpaid carers in 2023 had received 600 responses. Members queried provisions for interpretation and translation, and asked whether the consultation gave sufficient insight into the views of ethnic minority communities in Cardiff. Officers explained that they had worked with partners such as Oasis and Diverse Cymru to ensure it was targeted at harder to reach communities, while a focus group had taken place with traveller children. The council’s Community Directory from the pandemic had been useful, and they would soon launch an intergenerational forum with young people and adults. The Committee emphasised the importance of accessible communication across different platforms, and the need to ensure it went to the right place. AGREED: that the Chairperson, on behalf of the Committee, writes to the Cabinet Member conveying the observations of the Committee when discussing the way forward.
Decision as recorded
AGREED: that the Chairperson, on behalf of the Committee, writes to the Cabinet Member conveying the observations of the Committee when discussing the way forward.
Members were provided with background information to enable their pre-decision scrutiny of the report before its consideration by Cabinet on 18th December. For this item, the Chair welcomed: Cllr Lynda Thorne Cabinet Member for Housing & Communities Jane Thomas Director of Adults, Housing & Communities Helen Evans Assistant Director of Adults, Housing & Communities The Cabinet Member was invited to make an opening statement, in which she clarified that while the council set the rent levels, this remained within the guidelines set by the Welsh government. Pressures on the Housing Revenue Account (HRA) remained significant, and even if rents were set at the maximum allowed, there would still be an approximate £2.5m shortfall in the budget based on their modelling. An up to date assessment would be carried out in the next few months and presented as part of the budget. Officers gave a presentation providing further detail, explaining that rent and service charge setting preceded the normal budget setting process in February because tenants had to be notified two months in advance. The council was required to consider value for money, affordability for tenants and possible cost efficiencies, and was limited to 0.5% above the Consumer Price Index (CPI). The CPI stood at 3.8%, meaning that the maximum allowable rent increase was 4.3%. Officers outlined the key pressures on the HRA, which included borrowing to build new homes, increased interest rates on new borrowing, the increased cost of materials and capital works, tenants’ increasingly complex needs, the ongoing demand on responsive repairs, especially damp and mould, and the cost of delivering the new Welsh Housing Quality Standard (WHQS). A service review had been undertaken to see where costs to the HRA could be reduced, and while £96k of savings had been identified, this would not address the whole shortfall. The proposal to apply the maximum 4.3% increase equated to a weekly increase of between £4.73 and £7.58 depending on the type of the property. 88.7% of all tenants were in receipt of housing-related benefit, so any increases will be covered by this. New build net rents could be set at a higher rate because they were constructed to better standards of energy efficiency and benefitted from lower utility bills, so it was proposed that Cardiff charged a higher rent level for new build homes let from 1st April 2026, excluding community living (specialist older persons schemes that already had higher rents due to the service charges). Officers added that service charges were also reviewed annually, and most of them were eligible for housing-related benefits, except for personal heating and water. The general needs charge would go up by between 32p and 78p a week for houses, and 32p and £2.07 a week for flats. For Community Living, the service charge increase was limited to £10 per week, and would be between £7.81 and £10. For new schemes, service charges would reflect the costs of providing services, with an increase of between £4.52 and £4.75 per week. In homeless accommodation, working towards full cost recovery, there would be a maximum increase of £30 per week. Overall, the proposals were anticipated to reduce the £2.5m HRA shortfall to £1.7m, with more information coming as part of the budget process. Officers noted that the consultation with tenants had to take place before the maximum increase was known, which was not ideal. 328 tenants had responded, with 67% saying that their rent was good or very good value for money. 66% agreed that rents should be set in line with the full amount allowed by the Welsh government, as long as it was affordable, while 67% agreed that service charges should reflect the cost of services. Officers emphasised that council rents remained very good value for money when compared to LHA levels (the maximum that could be claimed in benefits, based on the lowest 30% of rents in an area) and market rents. They noted that rents for council flats and council houses had become very similar, so these would be reviewed ahead of next year. All the proposed rents, including new build proposals, were below the Cardiff Living Rent (calculated using the Joseph Rowntree Foundation’s formula) and their homes were very energy efficient compared to others, with an average SAP rating of 88.9 in new builds 72 in existing council houses. The WHQS requirement was 65, but they were working towards 75 by 2030. In terms of additional help, they continued to commit to no evictions due to financial hardship, as long as people engaged with them. 88% of tenants received housing related benefits, and there was a dedicated Welfare Liaison Team. Rent recovery procedures were tenant-focused, and evictions were preceded by panels which sought to find solutions. Members were invited to ask questions and make comments; the discussion is summarised below. Members asked how the relatively small difference between costs for flats and houses would be changed over time, and heard that this would require a full separate proposal. The council would still have to work within the overall rent cap, and the usual affordability and value for money tests would be carried out. Members queried the reference to charges in homeless accommodation rising by up to £30, and heard that this related to additional costs in one specific type of accommodation that was very new. Members explored support for those who were struggling, and heard that welfare liaison and discretionary assistance helped people navigate the system and supported those who fell into arrears, negotiating agreements where they could pay it back over a longer period of time. Their work also included upskilling those in low-paid work and ensuring people were claiming what they were entitled to. Members asked how many more people had needed support as a result of last year’s rent increase, and heard that while welfare liaison had seen a slight increase in enquiries this year, they felt this was more to do with the general cost of living than with last year’s rent increase specifically. Members asked how the disproportionate impact of increased service charges on older people was mitigated, and heard that these increases would be capped at a maximum of £10 across existing older person’s schemes. Welfare liaison officers regularly went into these schemes to provide guidance to tenants, and saw good uptake of their support. The increase also meant some people might become entitled to housing-related benefit they weren’t previously getting. Members enquired how many respondents who had indicated support for the proposals were in receipt of housing-related benefits that would cover the increase, and heard that about 40% of consultees had to pay some or all of their rent. This was a higher figure than in previous consultations, and offered a more balanced picture of tenants’ views. Members queried the response rate in terms of council tenants, and heard that it was almost twice as high as last year. They had emailed a lot more people this year, as well as the usual face-to-face events and support from the advice line, and were satisfied with the scope of the consultation. Members noted that the total number of respondents equated to about 1% of all council tenants, and asked whether there was sufficient support to proceed when a third of them weren’t supportive of the increases. Officers clarified that around 15% didn’t agree and felt it wasn’t good value for money, and about the same amount felt it was neither good nor bad. The Cabinet Member acknowledged that the ‘neither good nor bad’ category could be ambiguous, but suggested that when people didn’t like something in a consultation, they tended to make their views very clear. It was never ideal to have to consult on something when the exact details weren’t clear, but she emphasised that council rents remained very low compared to not only private rents but also the JRF-calculated Cardiff Rent. Members asked about the extra £1.8m allocated to the repairs service and heard that while the majority of this would go towards increased costs, the focus was still on delivery. Members asked whether the impact of new build rent increases had been modelled, and heard that the savings due to energy efficiency were part of the developer specification when the houses were built. The rent was only being put up enough to account for about 25% of these savings, with an increase of £4.73 for a one bed and an extra £3.41 for a new build. AGREED: that the Chairperson, on behalf of the Committee, writes to the Cabinet Member conveying the observations of the Committee when discussing the way forward.
Part of an issue followed across 2 meetings
Decision as recorded
AGREED: that the Chairperson, on behalf of the Committee, writes to the Cabinet Member conveying the observations of the Committee when discussing the way forward.
Members were provided with background information and an overview of the structure of the report to Cabinet to aid their scrutiny prior to its consideration by Cabinet on 18th December. The Chair reminded Members that Appendix 4 contained exempt information pursuant to paragraph 16 of the 1972 Local Government Act, and as such any discussion of that document would have to take place in closed session. For this item, the Chair welcomed: Cllr Lynda Thorne Cabinet Member for Housing & Communities Jane Thomas Director of Adults, Housing & Communities Helen Evans Assistant Director of Adults, Housing & Communities The Cabinet Member was invited to make an opening statement, in which she reminded the Committee that Cardiff was dealing with a housing emergency, with more than 10,000 households on the social housing waiting list. Only around a thousand social housing properties became available each year, and it was important to prioritise those with the greatest need. The Cabinet report sought approval to go out for consultation on changes to the allocation scheme, intended to make best use of council stock and help to manage the high level of demand, which partner housing associations were broadly in favour of. Officers gave a presentation providing further detail, explaining that the council managed the common Cardiff Social Housing Waiting List with a banding system from A to F. There were 26,000 units of social housing across the city, but only a small percentage became available each year to let – between 1,248 and 1,680 over the last three years. The council continued to deliver new high-quality social homes at pace, as well as acquiring properties from the open market, extending and right-sizing homes where they could, but it was not fully addressing the issue. They explained that the current policy was based on one bedroom being allocated to each adult couple; any other adult (16+); any two children of the same sex under 16; any two children under 10; and any other child. A household was considered overcrowded if it had fewer bedrooms than it needed under that criteria. At present, 32% of households on the waiting list were overcrowded, of which 90% were in moderate need (requiring one or two more additional bedrooms) and 10% in significant need (requiring three or more). Only 3% of the council’s housing stock has four or more bedrooms, and there were only 25 five-beds and 7 six-beds available. Officers noted that 51% of households on the list were overcrowded and had one or more additional housing needs. There was currently no compounding impact, so having other housing issues didn’t affect someone’s priority. Officer discretion supported by medical evidence was used to enhance priority in unique or complex circumstances, and there had been 230 discretionary awards on this basis in 2024/25. A new priority band was proposed for those who were overcrowded and had additional complex housing needs. They added that 4,144 council homes had an additional room downstairs, sometimes used as a dining room but separate to living rooms, known as a parlour room. These were viewed as extra space that could function as bedrooms, but rehousing applications didn’t currently consider this additional space, leading to an overcrowded assessment. The parlour room needed to be a certain size for this to be the case, i.e. not just being a through-way. It was proposed that the scheme be amended so additional living spaces were counted as bedrooms for allocation and overcrowding assessments, making better use of the available housing stock and reducing the number on the waiting list. The next proposal was to amend the bedroom entitlement, which was currently aligned with housing benefit size criteria guidance. There was no statutory age limit prohibiting same-sex siblings or household members from sharing a bedroom, and it was proposed that the criteria be raised from 16 years old to 25, again to reduce the number of overcrowded households. Officers added that at the moment, households threatened with homelessness who also had multiple needs (e.g. medical requirements) were included in Band B. These complex prevention cases, subject to a prevention duty under Section 66 of the 2014 Housing (Wales) Act, would be given higher priority following a full assessment confirming that private rented sector accommodation would not be suitable, allowing them to access social housing more quickly by grouping them with the homeless group on the waiting list. The next proposal was to restrict the waiting list to those with an assessed housing need. Currently, anyone could join the waiting list and have their needs assessed, and 25% of those on the list had no identified housing need. These cases were placed in Bands E and F as a result, and nobody had been allocated housing from these bands in the last ten years. The proposal would affect both new applicants and those who were already on the list, reducing unrealistic expectations. Finally, officers outlined the proposal to restrict the waiting list to those with an assessed local connection to Cardiff. This was generally defined as having been living in Cardiff continuously for two years, though other factors were considered too. Guidelines for homeless applicants were set out in legislation, and equated to either 6 or 12 months out of 3 or 5 years. There were currently just over a thousand cases on the waiting list without a local connection, and the 454 cases who also lacked housing need were placed in Band F. All individuals would be contacted to confirm any changes in circumstances, with reasonable timeframes provided for responses before any households were removed from the waiting list, and exceptional circumstances would be taken into account. Members were invited to ask questions and make comments; the discussion is summarised below. Members queried the criteria used for considering parlour rooms as bedrooms, and heard that access to other bedrooms, stairs and bathrooms were taken into account, while the size criteria was based on the requirements of the Welsh Housing Quality Standard. Members asked whether modular extensions were considered as a way to provide extra space, and heard that they were. Members asked how much the waiting list would be reduced if all the proposals were to be applied. Officers explained that there were just over a thousand cases on the list with no local connection, and just over 2,500 with no assessed housing need, leaving around 6,500 on the list. Members queried how many rough sleepers were in Cardiff and heard that there were 28 at the last count, with 50-60% either having no local connection or recourse to public funds. Members asked whether upcoming housing developments were designed with the lack of four-bed accommodation in mind, and heard that the housing team constantly fed into development schemes by assessing the scale and type of need. For instance, a new build might not originally be four-bed, but an attic could be converted to make it one. There was a severe lack of four-bed properties in the council’s stock, and five- and six-beds were even rarer and more expensive. Members explored the status of those who were affected by the increased 16 to 25 threshold, and heard that they would still be considered to have housing need if they were living in an overcrowded household. If the new policy meant this was no longer the case, they would be supported into the private rented sector. Members noted the importance of that age in people’s development, and advocated engaging with them specifically, which officers suggested they would do through the youth service. Officers emphasised that in their experience a lot of young people were already having to share overcrowded rooms with their siblings due to limited stock, and that the proposal sought to use space more effectively. Members asked whether rooms could be split up to ensure privacy, noting that if someone’s living situation was too cramped and unpleasant, they would be more likely to move out and end up on the waiting list themselves as a single person. Members asked whether those in social housing were assessed in terms of who might be able to sustain a private tenancy. Officers explained that this was not done in terms of income, but they did encourage people who were under-occupying their property to join the Beneficial Transfer List so they could be right-sized to release family properties. As an example, the Addison House new build scheme for older people had helped to get nearly 30 family-sized properties available again. The Cabinet Member added that social housing wasn’t just about rent, but also providing security of tenure that tenants could trust and build their life around. Members explored ethnic disparities within the waiting list, noting that only 65% of applicants were white compared to 82% of the population, while black people made up 3% of the population and 12% of applications. Ethnic minority populations were also much more likely to be overcrowded, raising the question of whether their needs were being met. The Cabinet Member suggested that rather than being an issue of discrimination, in her experience larger families were more likely to be from ethnic minority communities and more likely to want to remain in the local area rather than moving away. The requirements of different communities were taken into account when new developments were planned, but it was not always possible to build a lot more housing in a specific place. Members cautioned against over-generalising, noting that the desire to keep family close by was not limited to any particular community. They requested more information on disparities between different parts of Cardiff and different ethnic groups in terms of overcrowding, as well as more information on timelines for those on the waiting list. AGREED: that the Chairperson, on behalf of the Committee, writes to the Cabinet Member conveying the observations of the Committee when discussing the way forward.
There were none.
19th January 2026 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.