Wrthi'n llwytho
Bu'r pwyllgor yn edrych ar dri chynnig ym maes gofal a thai. Roedd dau yn enghreifftiau o graffu cyn penderfynu, sy'n golygu bod aelodau wedi rhoi sylwadau cyn i'r Cabinet benderfynu ar 17 Medi: darparu llecynnau parhaol i Sipsiwn a Theithwyr ym Mharc Gwyrdd Pengam, ac ailgomisiynu lleoliadau cartrefi gofal i bobl hŷn. Roedd y trydydd yn olwg gynnar ar sut y dylid ailgomisiynu gofal cartref. Ar bob un, cytunodd y pwyllgor y byddai'r Cadeirydd yn ysgrifennu at yr Aelod Cabinet gyda sylwadau'r pwyllgor. Cytunodd hefyd ar ei flaenraglen waith ddrafft ar gyfer 2026/27.
Apologies were received from Cllr De’Ath (Cabinet Member for Climate Change, Strategic Planning & Transport) and Stuart Williams (Group Leader, Strategic Policy).
Cllr Owen declared a personal interest in item 5 as he worked for the NHS Wales Shared Services Partnership. Cllr Ahmed noted during item 4 that he was a member of the Planning Committee.
The minutes of the 13th July meeting were approved and signed as a correct record.
Y penderfyniad fel y'i cofnodwyd
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 Cabinet report titled ‘Pengam Green Masterplan Phase 1 – Gypsy Traveller Provision’ to aid their scrutiny before the report was considered by Cabinet on 17th September. For this item, the Chair welcomed: Cllr Lynda Thorne Cabinet Member for Housing & Communities (Housing & Homelessness) Sarah McGill Corporate Director, People & Communities Simon Gilbert Head of Planning Matthew Evans OM Specialist Accommodation & Support The Cabinet Member was invited to make an opening statement, in which she explained that the report provided an update on the progress of the masterplan to deliver new Gypsy Traveller (GT) accommodation. A range of technical surveys and assessments were required and a full design team would be appointed ahead of submission to Planning early next year. Consultation with residents at Rover Way had been mainly positive, with a focus on improved facilities, safer living conditions and enhanced infrastructure, though there had been concerns about the emotional impact of relocating and practical questions about the transition process. It was important to ensure the site met the needs of current and future generations, and additional reports would come to Cabinet as it progressed. Officers gave a presentation providing further detail, explaining that Cabinet had approved the acquisition of the Pengam Green site in Tremorfa, including the commission of the masterplan, in July 2025. This included approval for the development of proposals for a temporary GT site to alleviate overcrowding on the existing Rover Way site, to return to Cabinet for approval. There were two phases: first to develop the GT site and address Local Development Plan examination concerns, and second to masterplan the overall development, with significant site investigation work required. Officers noted that when the previous report came to scrutiny, concerns were raised about the road being a key access point to the city with heavy traffic. The existing site was designed with 21 pitches but currently accommodated 33 households and was very overcrowded. It provided poor access to Rover Way and schools, and it was difficult to provide facilities. The masterplan prioritised planning for the new site to meet residents’ needs, and to allow additional provision and meet demand for pitches. The findings of the Gypsy Traveller Accommodation Assessment (GTAA) informed the Replacement LDP, which was required to allocate sites to meet need over the plan period to 2036. Officers added that the RLDP examination was ongoing, and the Planning Inspectorate had concluded it had to make additional provision for 54 permanent pitches in order to be sound. Inspectors had also set targets including the completion of 73 pitches to meet immediate need by the end of 2027, 10 transit pitches by the end of 2027, and 113 pitches by the end of 2030. A response was required by the end of the month, and if not compliant the RLDP might not be considered sound. The key new proposal in light of the Planning Inspectorate’s comments was that the site be designated as permanent. Members were invited to ask questions and make comments; the discussion is summarised below. Members welcomed the change of approach to a permanent site and highlighted the importance of engaging with the GT community and partners, in particular on issues such as children’s play provision. Members noted that the consultation referred to in the report were not dated, and heard that this had taken place in 2025 when the previous Cabinet report came forward. The project would also be subject to the full Planning process including a public consultation, as it constituted major development. Members asked whether the standard minimum requirements for space used in social housing would apply, and heard that contractors would be provided with Welsh government guidance. Members asked how overcrowding was managed, and heard that this was currently done through risk assessments, but should be alleviated going forward by the new Allocations Policy. The overcrowding at Rover Way had stemmed from families growing and more pitches being allowed so that these families could stay together. The new site would make pitch allocations and caravan requirements especially clear to prevent this happening again. Members requested more specific information about the minimum requirements. Members queried the provision of transit pitches and heard that these were for people who were passing through the city, and that the need had been identified for 10 such pitches. Members explored the financing of the scheme and heard that GT provision was funded through the General Fund rather than the HRA. It was very reliant on Welsh government funding, but officers were confident of continuing support, and a business case would be put together in the same way as it would be for an HRA project. Members noted that it had taken a long time to identify a suitable site, and heard that extensive site assessments were being undertaken, with opportunities to focus on smaller potential sites. Around a hundred sites across the city had been assessed during the last GTAA, and though it was difficult to find somewhere that met all their needs, sites could be re-evaluated based on planning need. Officers emphasised that for 80 pitches identified on a single site was very significant, and nothing else of that magnitude had previously been done in Wales. Members asked to be provided with a projected timeline and a shortlist of possible sites, as well as updates on the progress of the development. Members noted that some aspects of community infrastructure had fallen behind schedule, and asked whether this would be ready when the first pitches went in. Officers explained that the pedestrian infrastructure that was currently lacking at Rover Way would be provided at the new site, although it was a busy road and crossings were a matter for Highways. The second part of the proposal would include the redevelopment of Rover Way and allow them to focus on the pedestrian infrastructure there. 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.
Y penderfyniad fel y'i cofnodwyd
RESOLVED – That the public be excluded from the meeting at this point during consideration of this item as the Committee discussed exempt information of the description contained in paragraphs 14 and 16 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Action 1972. The public may be excluded from the meeting by resolution of the Committee pursuant to Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 during discussion of this item. 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 Cabinet report titled ‘Recommissioning of Care Home Placements for Older People’ to aid their scrutiny before the report was considered by Cabinet on 17th September. The Chair advised Members that appendices B, C, F and G were exempt under paragraphs 14 and 16 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972, and any discussion relating to them would have to take place in closed session. For this item, the Chair welcomed: Cllr Norma Mackie Cabinet Member for Social Services (Adult Services and Public Health) Jane Thomas Director of Adults, Housing & Communities Louise Bassett Assistant Director, Adult Services The Cabinet Member was invited to make an opening statement, in which she noted that the Committee had fed into the report at the policy development stage, and these proposals were substantially the same. The report sought to replace the current dynamic purchasing system with a new framework that provided greater security and clarity for providers, bringing in clearly defined care categories to make costs more predictable. It would increase costs in the short term but reduce them in the longer term. She added that extensive consultation had been undertaken with service users, carers and families, which had been taken into consideration. The new approach sought to ensure that Cardiff had a sustainable, high-quality care home market capable of meeting further need. Members were invited to ask questions and make comments; the discussion is summarised below. Members noted the importance of the Home Office proposals relating to migrant workers’ status, with 50% of the domiciliary care workforce relying on sponsorship, and asked if there had been any indication of changes in the pipeline. The Cabinet Member responded that work was being done behind the scenes, but it was early days. Officers explained that it was a central government issue that was affecting all UK authorities, and while the Leader of the Council had written to the PM on this, he had not yet received a response. Members asked about the progress of Cardiff Cares Academy and heard that it hadn’t been hugely successful so far in recruiting domestic care workers. Care providers were also struggling to take on new workers at the moment as they still had migrant workers in place at the moment. It was a significant issue for the service, and a key risk over which they had very little control. Members discussed the possibility of arranging work placements and apprenticeships for students, and advocated collaboration between the council and Shared Services to identify staff who might be temporarily available via the Student Streamlining service, which officers were happy to look into. Members noted that published rates for residential care historically tended to be well below what was actually charged, and heard that a key intention of the new arrangement was to bring rates in line with the real costs. Members queried a reference in Appendix D to the socioeconomic impact of having fewer providers, and heard that this impact should be relatively minor, as the individuals affected would be receiving means tested care anyway. RESOLVED – That the public be excluded from the meeting at this point during consideration of this item as the Committee discussed exempt information of the description contained in paragraphs 14 and 16 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Action 1972. The public may be excluded from the meeting by resolution of the Committee pursuant to Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 during discussion of this item. 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.
Y penderfyniad fel y'i cofnodwyd
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 context to aid their policy development scrutiny of the recommissioning of domiciliary care. For this item, the Chair welcomed: Cllr Norma Mackie Cabinet Member for Social Services (Adult Services and Public Health) Jane Thomas Director of Adults, Housing & Communities Louise Bassett Assistant Director, Adult Services The Cabinet Member was invited to make an opening statement, in which she described domiciliary care as one of the most important services the council commissioned, as it helped thousands of residents to continue living at home. The current system, based on individual care packages, delivered flexibility but created challenges. Many providers were competing for a limited number of packages, leading to fragmented and unstable care services. The approach to recommissioning sought to deliver better outcomes and greater stability, with a stronger foundation for future service delivery. Officers gave a presentation providing further detail, noting that the proposals were still under development. Domiciliary care was currently commissioned through a Dynamic Purchasing System (DPS), with each care package put out to the market individually and awarded based on a combination of price and a provider quality score. New providers could join the DPS at any time through the contract term, and 74 providers were currently registered, although not all actively bid. This led to overcapacity, with too many providers, high competition and no guarantee of work, and 66% of providers ultimately won less than 5% of bids they submitted. Low bid prices impacted the sustainability of the market, and providers often accepted new packages that didn’t align with existing care runs, increasing travel and waiting time. High competition also prevented providers working collaboratively, both with the council and with other providers. Officers added that demand remained high, with Cardiff North and Cardiff West being the hotspots. 51% of the domiciliary care workforce were migrant workers, and with all sponsorships from overseas ending in July 2028, this would leave a huge gap in the workforce if providers could not recruit staff. Recruitment of domestic staff was challenging, and while the current DPS had successfully secured care provision and controlled costs, there were concerns about the sustainability of the market. They sought to move to a framework approach to give both the council and providers more certainty, and build a more sustainable care market built on a strong locality model and a collaborative approach. They wanted fewer but stronger care providers, making the care market more resilient and with an increased focus on quality and outcomes, embedding a preventive and reablement-first approach and preventing unnecessary care. Officers outlined the approach under consideration, which was for the six current neighbourhood areas to be combined into 3 localities: the first being Cardiff North; the second Cardiff East, South-East, City & South; and the third covering Cardiff West and South-West. At present, Cardiff North had 10,157 hours of care on its own, with the second locality currently totalling 11,000 and the third 9,000. The proposed localities were balanced in terms of commissioned hours, package numbers and provider availability, and would support provider sustainability and workforce stability. The intention was to support a diverse market without excessive concentration, reducing fragmentation and preserving locality identity and community connections, while still being able to respond to urgent need. Officers added that the locality approach had been modelled with a mix of five ‘anchor’ providers and 15 ‘supporting’ providers in each locality, with providers permitted to operate in a maximum of two. They emphasised that this proposal was at an early stage, and there would be plenty of time to gather views before it went to Cabinet in November. Consideration was being given to introducing a single standard rate for all packages, rather than the floor and ceiling level, providing greater financial certainty and reducing the administrative burden. Fees would be reviewed annually, and a small number of packages might require exceptional pricing arrangements due to specific user needs. Officers concluded by outlining the new Locality Coordinator role, which had been introduced as part of reshaping the service. This was a multi-functional post that acted as a response and resolution point, enhancing community connections and monitoring care quality, and providing a designated point of contact for providers. Trial models had been successful and providers were supportive, and it would be a key part of an outcomes-focused and reablement-led approach that promoted independence. More consultation would be needed with service users to inform the tender documents, and they had allowed a long time for implementation. Members were invited to ask questions and make comments; the discussion is summarised below. Members asked whether there was a risk of transition issues for service users, and whether the ‘anchor’ status requirement could hamper providers with a footprint across the city. Officers acknowledged the potential for transition issues with any changes to care provision, and suggested that if necessary packages could be left with providers, or providers could be permitted to work in all three localities with more anchor providers in each one. The Cabinet Member added that there had to be some control over providers’ geographical spread in order to reduce travel times. Members asked that officers look closely at how the transition period would affect service users when the plan was more developed, and provide more information on the potential unintended consequences of the new model. Members asked whether providers that failed to pay for travel or training costs could be penalised when it came to recommissioning, and heard that requirements relating to fair working practices would be written into contracts. Members also asked how providers were held to account for exploiting vulnerable workers and those with no recourse to public funds, and heard that providers could have their licences revoked if they failed to comply with the requirements of their sponsorship agreements. Members requested more information about how the contract requirements would work in practice, and whether non-compliant providers in Cardiff would continue to be used. Members explored the Locality Coordinator role and heard that a few of these were already in place, having been working on pilot projects. This existing provision would be reconfigured and was partly already grant-funded. Officers added that it would align with changes to the front door team, ensuring that locality workers were close to their area. Members asked whether the framework would align with other local provision such as housing, and heard that this was the intention, as different areas of the city had different needs. Members queried whether providers would lose out on work if they were based on an area with less need, and heard that this would be the case. Providers would only be allowed to apply for packages in two of the three localities, reducing the number of providers and leading to a better balance. Members asked how anchor providers would be prevented from dominating the market, and heard that changes in providers could be relatively complex so it was not ideal to have to do it regularly. There was no cap on contract length but the framework was for eight years, which would hopefully provide a balance. Officers also clarified that sub-contracting would not be permitted within the framework. Members queried whether children’s care used a similar approach, and heard that Children’s Services used the same DPS but with more direct awards, and with a greater focus on support services rather than domiciliary care. Members noted difficulties in recruitment and asked how this would be mitigated. Officers felt that a locality approach would make it easier for workers, and care work could be flexible, with individuals working for both an anchor provider and a supporting provider. However, it was a difficult and responsible job where you had to work towards qualification, and it was common not to be paid for travel, which the new approach sort to mitigate. Members asked whether any modelling had been done of bringing work in-house rather than using external providers, and heard that while there was an in-house CRT service, it was a great deal more expensive than going out to private providers, partly due to pension arrangements. Members asked whether cultural changes such as families becoming more spread out were taken into account, and heard that this was difficult to prevent. Members asked how price and quality were balanced in the current arrangements, and heard that the cost-quality split was assessed in every package of care, and the exact percentage balance would be provided. Providers were generally assessed before they joined the framework. Officers explained that high quality providers had to provide care at a very low cost in order to win bids due to the level of competition in the market, and the new approach sought to fix this. 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.
Y penderfyniad fel y'i cofnodwyd
RESOLVED: To agree the draft timetable of areas of work set out in Appendix 1 and Appendix 2, with further suggestions to be considered and prioritised.
Members were asked to agree an approved Work Programme for 2026/2027 and to prioritise agenda items. The Principal Scrutiny Officer asked if Members had any views on the draft programme which had been circulated. Members discussed possible Task and Finish groups, one of which had been proposed by the Chair, relating to services for vulnerable adults in hot weather. This was considered to be a gap in provision as there was a policy in place for cold weather but not extreme heat. Members discussed alternative proposals, including a Task & Finish group on antisocial behaviour, or on disabled facilities adaptations too. It was agreed that the Principal Scrutiny Officer would put together scoping documents on hot weather and disabled facilities adaptations, with ASB to be partly covered by the police’s report in November and an Environmental Scrutiny Committee item that Members were invited to. Members noted the number of items that came at very short notice, following the Performance Panel’s recommendation in 2025 to reduce reliance on pre-decision scrutiny, and were in agreement that policy development scrutiny like the Domiciliary Care item were a more productive use of the Committee’s time. RESOLVED: To agree the draft timetable of areas of work set out in Appendix 1 and Appendix 2, with further suggestions to be considered and prioritised.
There were none.
Monday 12th October at 4:30pm.
Rhaid i gynghorwyr ddweud pan fydd ganddyn nhw gysylltiad personol â rhywbeth sy'n cael ei drafod, fel swydd, eiddo neu aelod o'r teulu. Mae buddiant sy'n rhagfarnu yn ddigon cryf i'r cynghorydd adael yr ystafell fel arfer a pheidio â chymryd rhan.
Owen: Buddiant personol ar Recommissioning of Residential Care
Mae'n gweithio i Bartneriaeth Gwasanaethau A Rennir GIG Cymru.
Ahmed: Buddiant ar Pengam Green Masterplan Phase 1 - Gypsy Traveller Provision
Nododd yn ystod yr eitem ei fod yn aelod o'r Pwyllgor Cynllunio.
Yn rhestru cynghorwyr presennol y cyngor yn unig. Nid yw aelodau cyfetholedig, swyddogion a chyn-gynghorwyr yn cael eu dangos.