Loading
The committee carried out pre-decision scrutiny of the Annual Well-being Report 2025/26 and the Annual Property Plan 2026/27, both due at Cabinet on 17 September 2026. It held a briefing on the Council's relationship with Stonewall and agreed next steps for that review. It approved the draft Scrutiny Annual Report 2025/26 for Full Council on 16 July 2026.
Apologies were received from Cllrs Hinchey, Cllr Ash-Edwards and Sarah McGill (Corporate Director People & Communities).
There were no declarations of interest.
The minutes of the meeting held on 10th June 2026 were approved by the Committee as a correct record and signed by the Chairperson.
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 prior to the report’s consideration by Cabinet.
This item provided Members with an opportunity to undertake a pre-decision scrutiny of the Council’s Annual Well-Being Report 2025/26, reviewing the Council’s end of year performance assessment prior to its consideration by Cabinet on 17 September 2026. The Chair welcomed: Cllr Chris Weaver, Leader of Cardiff Council; Cllr Leo Thomson, Cabinet Member, Finance, Modernisation & Performance; Paul Orders, Chief Executive; Chris Lee, Corporate Director, Resources; Gareth Newell, Director of Strategy, Partnerships & Transformation; and Dylan Owen, Operational Manager, Policy & Improvement, for this item. The Chair reminded Members that the Scrutiny Performance Panel, a sub-committee of this committee, chaired by the Chair and including all scrutiny chairs, engages in informal discussion with the Cabinet on performance at three key points in the year. The Panel met informally to discuss the end of year position a week ago, and as part of the papers, a list of observations made to Cabinet, and the response received, had been circulated. The Chair also reminded Members that as the overview committee for performance, they were welcome to comment on the whole of the Annual Well-being report to ensure that effective performance monitoring and assessment was in place. The Cabinet Member introduced this item after which the Chair opened the floor to questions from the Committee. The Committee considered the funding position for Additional Learning Needs (ALN), including whether any indication had been received from Welsh Government regarding additional funding. Members recognised that education accounted for approximately one third of the Council’s budget and that ALN continued to place increasing financial pressure on the authority. Members noted that discussions with Welsh Government regarding supplementary ALN funding were ongoing and that the WLGA had consistently argued that funding allocations should reflect the actual costs being experienced by local authorities across Wales. The Committee also noted the Council’s position that any supplementary funding received should be directed towards education services to support ALN provision. Whilst sustainable ALN funding had been promised from 2028 onwards, Members agreed that the Council could not wait a further two years for this funding to be confirmed given the scale and immediacy of the financial pressures it faced. The Committee considered the increasing number of rough sleepers in Cardiff, including the factors contributing to this trend and the reasons why the city appeared to be attracting individuals with no previous connection to Cardiff. Members noted that the service area may be able to provide further insight through its outreach work, particularly in relation to the increase in rough sleepers with no local connection to the city. The Committee recognised that rough sleeping would be a priority area for the Community & Adult Services Scrutiny Committee during the coming year. However, Members agreed that this Committee would continue to monitor the financial impact of increasing rough sleeper numbers on the Council’s budget. The Committee acknowledged that sickness absence had been a long-standing challenge and sought clarification on how performance could be improved. Members noted the intention to improve performance in this area and that sickness absence would continue to be managed through current processes, which were comparable with those of benchmark authorities. The Committee also recognised the Council’s ongoing commitment to supporting employees both in and out of work who were experiencing sickness-related issues. Members agreed that the forthcoming refresh of the Workforce Strategy and Wellbeing Plan would be taken into account when developing the Committee’s future work programme. The Committee noted that the customer satisfaction key performance indicator had remained consistently rated red and sought views on how public perceptions of the Council’s performance could be improved. Members accepted that satisfaction levels with individual service areas were generally higher than satisfaction with the Council overall. The Committee also noted that wider factors, including the complexity of the national political landscape and declining levels of trust in public bodies, may have influenced overall perceptions of the Council. Members further noted the additional funding allocated to highways in both the previous and current financial years, which had enabled an increased number of potholes to be repaired. However, they recognised that periods of heavy rainfall had continued to contribute to deterioration across the road network. The Committee also highlighted the higher levels of satisfaction reported amongst Welsh speakers and LGBT groups and queried whether future Ask Cardiff surveys should further explore satisfaction levels within larger demographic groups to support more targeted improvements. Members noted the commitment to ensuring no one was left behind, addressing deprivation, and delivering services for all citizens. The Committee noted that balancing the budget remained a significant challenge in the context of continued uncertainty, increasing demand for services and rising costs. Members welcomed the intention to work constructively with the new Welsh Government to ensure that the needs of local government in Wales were appropriately reflected in future funding settlements. The Committee also emphasised the importance of securing sufficient funding for major service areas, particularly education and social services. Members further recognised that service transformation would continue to play a central role in addressing future budget pressures and welcomed the Council’s track record of delivering savings through changes to service delivery models. The Committee noted that the indoor arena project remained on schedule to open in late 2028 and sought the panel’s views on lessons that could be learned from the successful management of a major infrastructure project, particularly in light of the well-publicised challenges experienced by other high-profile schemes. Members noted the view that the delivery of the indoor arena represented a significant success for Cardiff. The project was expected to generate substantial economic benefits for the city, support employment within the hospitality sector, and contribute to the regeneration of the surrounding area. The Committee further noted that major projects were subject to a range of external factors, including matters beyond the Council’s control. Members acknowledged the Council’s ongoing approach to reviewing and assessing the delivery of major projects and welcomed the confidence expressed in the city’s ability to continue delivering its growth ambitions. RESOLVED: That the Chairperson writes to the Cabinet Member on behalf of the Committee expressing their comments and observations captured during the way forward prior to the report’s consideration by Cabinet.
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 prior to the report’s consideration by Cabinet.
This item provided Members with an opportunity to undertake a pre-decision scrutiny of the Council’s Annual Property Plan for 2026-27 prior to its consideration by Cabinet on 17 September 2026. The Chair welcomed Councillor Leo Thomson, Cabinet Member for Finance, Modernisation & Performance; Donna Jones, Assistant Director County Estates; Giles Parker, Head of Property; and Matt Seymour, Asset Manager, for this item. The Cabinet Member introduced this item and Officers delivered a presentation. The Chair opened the floor to questions from the Committee. The Committee sought clarification on how decisions were made regarding the retention or disposal of Council assets in the current economic climate. Members noted that decisions on asset disposal involved balancing the need to generate capital receipts to support other Council priorities against achieving the best possible market value. The Committee noted that disposal proposals were scrutinised by the Asset Management Board, chaired by the Chief Executive, which considered the benefits and risks of disposal. Members heard that the Board first assessed whether an asset had any operational use within the Council, such as for Social Services or Housing Services, and that disposal was generally considered a last resort. The Committee noted that the Council had a statutory duty to achieve best value from its assets. Members were advised that valuations attached to proposed disposals were indicative and that final sale values often exceeded initial estimates. It was also noted that retaining vacant properties incurred ongoing costs, which formed a significant factor in decision-making, and that the Council sought to use the marketing approach most likely to deliver the best outcome. Members heard that the Council held a substantial investment portfolio comprising assets maintained on a commercial basis to generate rental income. The Committee noted the distinction between the Council’s commercial estate and other landholdings. Whilst the Council aimed to maximise income from commercial assets, it adopted a cautious approach to land management and was not actively engaged in property trading. The Committee noted that the Council took a different approach to land transfers involving housing associations and the Housing Revenue Account (HRA), reflecting its commitment to supporting the delivery of affordable housing. Members also noted that, where retail parades were disposed of through auction, the Council recognised that commercial operators were often better placed to manage and maintain such assets. Following the recent review of potential future uses for Mansion House, the Committee sought clarification on whether the Council was engaged in discussions with the Welsh Government regarding the property. Members noted that informal discussions had taken place with Welsh Government officials and that the Council remained open to further discussions regarding its future use. Members raised concerns regarding the increasingly frequent periods of hot weather and noted the absence of specific references to air conditioning within the Asset Performance Plan (APP). The Committee sought assurance that rising temperatures would not conflict with the objectives of the Plan and that Council buildings could adapt to changing climatic conditions. The Committee noted the relationship between air conditioning, energy consumption and carbon emissions. Members heard that the installation of air source heat pumps at City Hall would also provide cooling during warmer months. The Committee noted officers’ view that the wider implementation of heat pump technology across Council buildings would support the Council’s decarbonisation objectives. The Committee referred to Point 20 of the Cabinet report and sought clarification on whether the Council owed any monies to the Maindy Trust following the recent land swap proposal. Members were advised that no detriment had arisen that would require compensation, as the proposal had not proceeded. The Committee continued its scrutiny of progress towards achieving full statutory compliance. Members welcomed the inclusion of a 90% compliance target within the 2026/27 APP, noting that this reflected a previous recommendation made by the Committee. The Committee noted officers’ explanation that the Council continued to strive for 100% compliance and would address remedial works identified through inspection programmes. However, Members heard that maintaining full compliance remained challenging given the scale of activity undertaken, with approximately 30,000 inspections carried out annually. The Committee noted that even a single inspection becoming overdue could affect the Council’s overall compliance performance. RESOLVED: That the Chairperson writes to the Cabinet Member on behalf of the Committee expressing their comments and observations captured during the way forward prior to the report’s consideration by Cabinet.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED: That the Committee agreed the next steps to take this scrutiny review forward.
This item provided Members with an opportunity to review background papers and the context for scrutiny of the Council’s relationship with Stonewall. The Chair welcomed Cllr Bethan Proctor, Cabinet Member for Social Justice, Cohesion & Digital; Rachael Davies, Chief Human Resources Officer and Craig Jacob, Co-Chair of the LGBTQ+ Network, for this item. The Cabinet Member introduced this item and Officers delivered a presentation. The Chair opened the floor to questions from the Committee. The Committee explored how the Council had ensured that its approach to equality was inclusive, reflected the experiences of all protected characteristics, and incorporated the views of those who were less frequently heard. Members heard that the Council's work with Stonewall had been central to the development of HR policies, benchmarking activities, training provision, and support for the LGBTQ+ staff network, helping to create an inclusive working environment. It was noted that the network collaborated with other staff networks and that significant intersectionality existed across different demographic groups. Members also heard that joint events had been held, with external speakers encouraged to cover a broad range of protected characteristics and share the lived experiences of individuals from diverse communities. The Committee noted that the Council had used its partnership with Stonewall primarily for benchmarking and policy-development purposes. Members welcomed assurances that Stonewall did not advise the Council on policy matters, that the Council did not endorse the organisation's political views, and that appropriate measures had been taken to ensure compliance with relevant legislation. Members sought clarification regarding alternative accreditation providers and were advised that Stonewall was currently the only organisation offering LGBT employer accreditation. It was noted that Stonewall's assessment extended beyond LGBT issues and included consideration of women, ethnic minorities, and intersectionality. Officers advised that identifying a suitable replacement partner would be challenging. The Committee commended the Council's efforts to support LGBT citizens and employees and recognised its achievement as a Proud Employer. However, members expressed concern that where a commitment within the Corporate Plan was linked to approval from a third party, there was potential for unintended incentives and a risk that actions could be influenced by the desire to secure external recognition. Members noted that the Council's aspiration formed part of the Workforce Strategy, with the aim of becoming the highest-ranked local authority in Wales and securing a place within Stonewall's Top 100 Employers. The Committee welcomed clarification that Stonewall's role was principally to verify and assess evidence submitted by the Council, rather than set criteria that directly influenced Council policy. It was further noted that submissions were based on information chosen by the Council and assessed against a broad and open framework. The Committee heard that the framework evaluated activities against Stonewall's view of best practice. While Stonewall might make suggestions for improvement, decisions regarding implementation and suitability for a local authority remained the responsibility of the Council. Members questioned whether ongoing membership of Stonewall was necessary, given the Council's established reputation and experience in promoting best practice. The Chief Officer advised that accreditation under the Proud Employer Scheme was valued by staff and recognised the significant work undertaken to support inclusive practices. Whilst members acknowledged this view, it was noted that there had been no challenge to the suggestion that the Council already possessed substantial expertise and resources in this area. Members were reassured that ending the relationship with Stonewall would not result in the Council becoming less supportive of LGBT employees or service users. Some members therefore concluded that the relationship appeared to be maintained, at least in part, to avoid negative perceptions among staff rather than because of any significant operational dependency on Stonewall. The Committee noted that annual membership of the Stonewall Proud Employer Scheme cost the Council between £5,000 and £6,000. The Cabinet Member considered this to represent good value for money given that it constituted a very small proportion of the Council's overall budget. Members noted that, at the time of the meeting, final non-statutory guidance relating to the Supreme Court judgment remained under parliamentary consideration. The Committee noted confirmation from the panel that none of the Council's HR policies conflicted with the Supreme Court judgment. However, members sought and received clarification that this assurance related only to HR policies and did not confirm compliance across the wider Council estate or service provision. Members noted that this was consistent with a previous statement made by the former Council Leader at a meeting of scrutiny committee chairs, who had advised that the authority was not fully compliant with the Equality Act in this regard. Members expressed concern regarding any potential liabilities that might arise if areas of non-compliance were identified. The Committee noted that these matters were separate from the Council's work with Stonewall in relation to HR benchmarking and sought to understand whether Stonewall had influenced wider Council policy. The Chief Officer advised that she was unable to comment on broader Council policies or equalities matters relating to citizens but confirmed that staff were content with HR's current position. Members further noted that forthcoming guidance was expected to focus on public-facing services, with subsequent guidance in the autumn expected to address employers. Members requested clarification on whether Stonewall's advice had been sought in relation to any policies outside the HR remit that may have been affected by the Supreme Court ruling. The Committee anticipated that the Council would be required to undertake a broader review of compliance following publication of the guidance, in order to assess its implications across Council services and identify any gaps. The Committee therefore requested that the relevant Cabinet Members and officers return to a future meeting to discuss the implications of the Supreme Court ruling for non-HR functions of the Council. The Committee further recommended that the Council accelerate its review of any potential liabilities arising from this matter and publish the findings in the interests of transparency should any breaches of the Equality Act be identified. Members requested that a timeline for completion of the review be provided to enable timely scrutiny of the findings. Members expressed concern regarding the Council's continued association with an organisation whose reputation had been subject to challenge and whose policy campaigning and advice had, in some instances, been found unlawful. The Committee noted that the Cabinet Member disagreed that this had affected her perception of Stonewall or the Council's reputation. Members heard that the Council considered the partnership beneficial in supporting inclusivity and reducing discrimination. The Cabinet Member further advised that withdrawal from the scheme could be interpreted by staff and residents as a signal that the Council no longer wished to have its inclusivity independently assessed. Members noted, however, that such reasoning could make it difficult for the Council to leave the scheme in future, even where there may be legitimate reasons for doing so. The Committee also heard that a number of organisations had ended their association with Stonewall both before and following the Supreme Court ruling, citing concerns relating to reputation and value for money. These organisations included government departments, public bodies, health organisations, professional bodies, universities, police forces, councils, law firms, and the Equality and Human Rights Commission. Members also noted the Council's observation that many organisations, including the Welsh Government, had remained members of Stonewall schemes. RESOLVED: That the Committee agreed the next steps to take this scrutiny review forward.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED: That the Committee agreed to approve the draft Scrutiny Annual Report 2025/26, attached at Appendix A to be laid before Council, subject to amendments noted.
This item provided Members with an opportunity to review and consider approving the combined Scrutiny Annual Report 2025/26, prior to consideration by Full Council on 16 July 2026. There were no questions on this item. RESOLVED: That the Committee agreed to approve the draft Scrutiny Annual Report 2025/26, attached at Appendix A to be laid before Council, subject to amendments noted.
There were none.
9 September 2026, 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.
The minutes record no declarations of interest.
Lists the council's current councillors only. Co-opted members, officers and former councillors aren't shown.