Wrthi'n llwytho
Y penderfyniadau fel y mae cofnodion y cyngor yn eu cofnodi. Bydd crynodeb mewn iaith glir yn dilyn pan fydd wedi'i ysgrifennu.
Resolved: - having considered the information contained in the report and representations made during the course of the discussion to: (i) refer the decision back to Cabinet for further consideration seeking it to review its original decision and in doing so have regard to Scrutiny’s observations, undertake a detailed forensic feasibility study and involve the wider elected membership of the Council and other stakeholders; and (ii) consider strongly taking the matter to full Council prior to taking the final decision.
Resolved: subject to the above observations to - (i) receive the report and its contents; (ii) acknowledge the issues and challenges faced by staff, stakeholders, clients, and residents during the implementation of the new Planning IT system; (iii) endorse the lessons learnt from the procurement and implementation of the Planning IT system and recommend that they be incorporated into the Council’s corporate project planning and management arrangements for future key system procurements; and (iv) request that a progress report on the functionality and performance of the new Planning IT system in dealing with planning applications be presented to the Committee in six-months’ time, and that information be contained in the report on the measures taken to strengthen the Council’s project management arrangements for the procurement and management of critical ICT systems resulting from the lessons learnt during the procurement and implementation of the Planning IT system. The Lead Member for Local Development and Planning asked that his gratitude to everybody who had been involved be placed on record. He commended the staff’s perseverance and dedication to delivering quality planning related services to the best of their ability whilst encountering severe challenges and difficulties with the introduction of the new system.
Resolved: (i) to confirm that as part of its consideration it had read, understood, and taken account of the Well-being Impact Assessment (Appendix A to the report); and (ii) subject to the observations provided during the discussion, regard being given to any feedback that will be received from an all-Member Workshop and from each Member Area Group (MAG) on the proposals, to support the proposed increase to parking tariffs and other proposed changes to the structure.
Resolved: (i) subject to the inclusion of the progress report requested during the course of the meeting, and acknowledging the reasons for the Medium-Term Financial Strategy & Plan report along with the Corporate Risk Register Review report being included on the current business agenda for information whilst noting alternative routes by which to pursue queries or concerns, to confirm the Committee’s forward work programme as detailed in Appendix 1 to the report; and (ii) to appoint Councillor James Elson as the Committee’s substitute/deputy representative on the Council’s Capital Scrutiny Group (CSG).
Resolved: to note the reasons for the report being included on the business agenda for information and acknowledge alternative routes by which to pursue queries or concerns on this occasion.
Resolved: to note the reasons for the report being included on the business agenda for information and acknowledge alternative routes by which to pursue queries or concerns on this occasion. Meeting concluded at 2.30pm.
Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Bobby Feeley and from Ann Lloyd, Head of Adult Social Care and Homelessness Service. Apologies had also been received from Councillor Barry Mellor, Lead Member for Environment and Transport (for business item 7).
Councillors Ellie Chard and Gareth Sandilands both declared a personal interest in business item 5, ‘Review of a Cabinet Decision Relating to a Viability Report on Cefndy Healthcare’ in their capacity as members of the Cooperative Party.
No items of an urgent nature had been drawn to the Chair, or the Scrutiny Coordinator’s attention prior to the commencement of the meeting.
The minutes of the Performance Scrutiny Committee held on 18 September 2025 were submitted. Accuracy: Page 8, business item 2, ‘Declarations of Interests’, Councillor Carol Holliday stated that she was no longer a Town/Community Council Governor on the governing body of Ysgol Clawdd Offa, just on the governing body of Ysgol Penmorfa, and requested that this entry in the minutes be amended. The Committee: Resolved: subject to the above amendment, that the minutes of the Performance Scrutiny Committee meeting held on 18 September 2025 be approved as a true and accurate record of the proceedings. No other matters were raised in connection to the contents of the minutes.
Y penderfyniad fel y'i cofnodwyd
Resolved: - having considered the information contained in the report and representations made during the course of the discussion to: (i) refer the decision back to Cabinet for further consideration seeking it to review its original decision and in doing so have regard to Scrutiny’s observations, undertake a detailed forensic feasibility study and involve the wider elected membership of the Council and other stakeholders; and (ii) consider strongly taking the matter to full Council prior to taking the final decision.
The Chair welcomed Councillor Elen Heaton, Lead Member for Health and Social Care, alongside the Corporate Director: Social Services & Education, to the meeting and explained that they were attending at his request to answer members’ questions relating to the decision Cabinet took relating to a viability report on Cefndy healthcare. The Scrutiny Co-ordinator presented the report (previously circulated) which detailed the background to the Cabinet decision called-in for scrutiny and the process adhered to thus far. She also outlined the procedure that would be followed by the Committee during the meeting to examine the decision which would culminate in it determining whether there were grounds or not for it to refer it back to Cabinet for review. It was emphasised that if the Committee determined to refer the decision back to Cabinet seeking it to review it, the grounds, and reasons for undertaking that review needed to be set out clearly. The members who were signatories to the call-in were invited to outline their reasons for calling-in the decision. These members were Councillors Joan Butterfield, James May, Michelle Blakeley-Walker, Will Price, Brian Jones, Ellie Chard, Gareth Sandilands, and Carol Holliday. Councillor Gareth Sandilands, as the Lead Signatory to the Call-in was invited by the Chair to present the signatories’ grounds for calling-in the decision for scrutiny. Councillors Sandilands thanked the Chair for allowing him to speak. He stated that the reason for the call-in was as follows – The decision may have been made without consideration of reasonable alternatives as requested by scrutiny, contrary to the principles of good governance, transparency, and evidence-based decision-making. In particular, failure to fully assess the ‘social enterprise’ and ‘remodelled business’ proposals involving staff, council members and members of the local business community. Councillor Sandilands also added that he had discussed the service/business’ situation with many similar entities and organisations across the UK. The feedback he had received indicated that, in their opinion, not all viable options had been thoroughly investigated before the Cabinet decision was taken. The other signatories to the call each highlighted that the intention was to ensure that all avenues had been extensively explored to secure a positive future for Cefndy and its employees. In addition, they had concerns that insufficient regard had been given to Scrutiny’s recommendations following its pre-decision scrutiny of the Viability Report. Performance Scrutiny Committee members supported this view. Members felt that a transformational approach was required to secure Cefndy’s future; therefore, all potential options put forward should be thoroughly examined, costed, and evaluated before a decision was taken on the Service’s future. Amongst the potential models cited as ones that should be comprehensively examined and evaluated were: • establishment of a social enterprise • community interest company • various employee ownership models • local industry partnership(s) There may also be other models that, with some innovative modifications to current manufacturing methods, could make Cefndy viable and sustainable in the long term. Before responding to points raised by members, the Lead Member for Health and Social Care addressed Cefndy staff members, some of whom were in attendance at the meeting. She emphasised that she understood the challenging situation everyone was in and assured them that neither the discussion or the original decision were a negative reflection on the staff or their skills, and that whatever decision would eventually be taken that the staff would be supported. The Lead Member for Health and Social Care stated that the decision, taken by Cabinet on the 21st October, was a challenging one. It had not been taken lightly. All options had been thoroughly explored and considered, including those put forward by Scrutiny, before the decision had been taken. The issues facing Cefndy were challenges which were being faced across the manufacturing industry across the country. The Corporate Director: Social Services & Education responded to the signatories regarding the alternative models that could be used for Cefndy. These had been explored. However, not all of them manufactured goods as Cefndy did, some provided services and others were co-operatives and would not be able to provide full employment as Cefndy did. Taking over Cefndy as a going concern, which would entail employing its staff under Transfer of Undertakings Protection of Employment (TUPE) regulations would pose significant risk to any organisation. Members were assured that all possible models had been extensively explored. The Chair permitted two individuals external to the Committee and Council membership to address members. They raised the following points - • First speaker was an Organisational Capability Officer: who emphasised that Cefndy had been established on the principles of respect, equality, and diversity. However, she felt that the decision taken by the Council’s Cabinet went directly against these principles and the Council’s own Equality and Diversity plan and its Corporate Plan. It was acknowledged that Cefndy's staff had worked hard during the Covid-19 pandemic to supply much needed equipment to the NHS, care homes, and private individuals in the community. Unlike other similar establishments Cefndy had a small sales team, which made it difficult for it to compete on the open market. She suggested that if the sales team were adequately funded, it could make Cefndy profitable and consolidate its status as an asset to the community. • Unison Trade Union Representative: questioned why Cefndy could not be supported during financial difficulties, like other services within the Council. It was also noted that the timelines for all proposals were extremely tight, which made the situation more tense. He also questioned whether all alternative models for the site had been fully explored, including those submitted by Cefndy staff member. The staff at Cefndy were skilled in their roles. Whilst the model which was currently operating at the site may be outdated, although that was a technical assessment, the facility had the potential and capacity to increase its product base to secure a sustainable future for all who worked there. He pleaded with the Council to work with the staff and invest in Cefndy and to look at alternative methods of operation to maintain the valuable asset that was Cefndy Healthcare. Responding to points raised by the signatories to the call-in, Committee members, other elected members, and the external speakers the Lead Member and Corporate Director - • clarified that there was a misconception that the staff employed at Cefndy were among the county’s most vulnerable citizens. Some staff members at Cefndy had health issues and/or disabilities, but they were highly skilled employees and therefore not regarded as vulnerable individuals. Staff employed at Cefndy were subject to National Joint Council (NJC) employees’ terms and conditions similar to the majority of people employed by the Council. Cefndy was not part of the Council’s work opportunities services. • emphasised that all options presented to Cabinet and the Committee had been extensively explored and revisited. Unfortunately, none of the alternative delivery models were viable. • the Corporate Director reiterated that her door was always open to members, staff and others who had viable proposals to present to secure Cefndy’s future. • confirmed that the costings in the report had been revised. However, Cefndy had struggled to be viable for over 10 years, it had faced significant financial and market-related challenges during this period. These challenges had been referenced in Cefndy’s Annual Reports to Scrutiny over the years, as had its declining sales figures and its increased dependency on a subsidy from the Council. Councillor Feeley acknowledged that all these challenges had been faced during her tenure as Lead Member with responsibility for Cefndy and advised that numerous alternative models had been explored with a view to securing its future sustainability. • acknowledged that Cefndy had undoubtedly improved the lives of individuals who had worked there since its establishment. However, this type of supported employment was now outdated as cited in the ‘Sayce Report’, (Appendix 6 to the Cabinet report). • advised that global market forces meant that the same products could be manufactured in the Far East and imported for approximately £10 per item cheaper than Cefndy could manufacture them. The financial pressures faced by public services across the UK forced them to buy the lowest priced product, therefore this resulted in manufacturers such as Cefndy not being competitive on prices. Product diversification had also been explored but as the latest statistics from the Office of National Statistics (ONS) illustrated the UK’s manufacturing industry was in decline due to external global market forces. • advised that as Cefndy was a service within the Council it was obliged to budget for maintenance and repair costs. It would be irresponsible not to do so and run the risk of higher repair costs due to a lack of maintenance. • confirmed that all information available on the options appraisals undertaken, financial costings, Well-being Impact Assessment (WBIA) and Equality Impact Assessment (EqIA) were included in the agenda pack. • confirmed that as part of its review of Cefndy the Council had approached the Llandrillo Menai Group, who operated Rhyl College, to enquire whether they would be interested in working with the Council on an alternative delivery model (ADM) for Cefndy. The Council had not approached the college group with a view to selling the land from where Cefndy operated. However, the College authorities declined the Council’s offer to work on an ADM and it was at that point that they had registered an interest in purchasing the Cefndy site if in future it became empty and surplus to the Council’s requirements, with a view to facilitating the expansion of the Rhyl College campus. The Cefndy site could not be sold until Cabinet had taken its final decision and members were assured that no sale would occur until a final decision was taken. • advised that as part of the viability review into potential ADMs for Cefndy the Council had been obliged to undertake a number of costing exercises and valuations, including having the site and asset valued, calculations for staff TUPE and redundancy costs etc. External companies had carried out the valuations and costings, not the Council. It was emphasised that the College authorities had never exerted pressure on the Council to sell the site to them. • provided confirmation that the £1.8m figure earmarked as ‘Other’ on the ‘Financial Context’ table in Appendix 1 to the Cabinet report covered a variety of costs, which included Climate Change Levy, computer software licences etc. • advised that the ‘profit’ figure quoted for 2024/25 was slightly misleading as it included the subsidy provided by the Council to Cefndy. The Corporate Director: Governance and Business/Monitoring Officer that the decision relating to Cefndy was one delegated by full Council to the Executive/Cabinet, therefore County Council could not legally take the final decision. He reminded all present that all elected members were permitted to attend Cabinet meetings and to raise any concerns or objections with Cabinet. At the conclusion of an extensive and comprehensive discussion the Committee: Resolved: - having considered the information contained in the report and representations made during the course of the discussion to: (i) refer the decision back to Cabinet for further consideration seeking it to review its original decision and in doing so have regard to Scrutiny’s observations, undertake a detailed forensic feasibility study and involve the wider elected membership of the Council and other stakeholders; and (ii) consider strongly taking the matter to full Council prior to taking the final decision.
Y penderfyniad fel y'i cofnodwyd
Resolved: subject to the above observations to - (i) receive the report and its contents; (ii) acknowledge the issues and challenges faced by staff, stakeholders, clients, and residents during the implementation of the new Planning IT system; (iii) endorse the lessons learnt from the procurement and implementation of the Planning IT system and recommend that they be incorporated into the Council’s corporate project planning and management arrangements for future key system procurements; and (iv) request that a progress report on the functionality and performance of the new Planning IT system in dealing with planning applications be presented to the Committee in six-months’ time, and that information be contained in the report on the measures taken to strengthen the Council’s project management arrangements for the procurement and management of critical ICT systems resulting from the lessons learnt during the procurement and implementation of the Planning IT system. The Lead Member for Local Development and Planning asked that his gratitude to everybody who had been involved be placed on record. He commended the staff’s perseverance and dedication to delivering quality planning related services to the best of their ability whilst encountering severe challenges and difficulties with the introduction of the new system.
Councillor Alan James, Lead Member for Local Development and Planning, alongside the Head of Planning, Public Protection and Countryside Service, Head of Corporate Support Service: Performance, Digital & Assets and the Development Management & Strategic Planning Manager, presented the Procurement and Effectiveness of New Planning IT System report (previously circulated). The report provided information on the procurement, implementation, and subsequent impacts of a new cloud-based IT system for the Planning and Local Land Charges functions. Members were reminded that the processing of planning applications, appeals, land charges searches, and enquiries fall, in the main, to the Council as Local Planning Authority (LPA). Planning applications could range from small household extensions up to shopping parks, schools and other significant developments. The LPA was responsible for receiving planning applications, checking them for validity and determining them either at the Officer level or at the Planning Committee. Likewise, solicitors and others used Denbighshire County Council (DCC) to undertake legal searches on properties and land when transactions were taking place. In 2020, the system, which had been used for planning for over 20 years, became outdated and would eventually become obsolete. There were two key components to the Planning IT system. The Planning team used the case management system to record and manage applications. The planning portal provided the public, other DCC services, statutory consultees, and Councillors with access to view applications and associated documents, and to submit comments. The new case management system went live during the week commencing 15 April 2024. However, the planning portal launch was delayed and did not go live until 3 May 2024. The delay was due to issues identified during user acceptance testing, particularly regarding Welsh language compliance, which needed to be resolved before deployment. This delay caused a backlog of roughly 180 applications. Although most planning application data was successfully migrated from the legacy system to the new system, an additional challenge arose for applications that had been started in the old system but were still undecided at the time of migration. These needed to be closed in the legacy system by the Planning team and manually updated in the new system once decisions were issued. Whilst not a major contributor to the backlog, this was a necessary additional step that required resources. It was noted that the Planning team comprised of Support Officers and professional Planners. They were not IT specialists. DCC’s ICT team provided continual support. Nevertheless, it became apparent that, at a time when resources in the Planning Team were hugely stretched officers within the Planning Team were required to seek solutions working with the supplier to a variety of problems they encountered with the new system. Since April 2024 officers from the Planning and ICT Teams had met with the System Provider on a regular basis to try and resolve the issue encountered. The Provider had encouraged the reporting of problems through its own call logging system; however, this system had proved challenging to use, with calls potentially sitting in a queue for future development or not providing DCC with a satisfactory resolution. The Head of Service and the Development Management & Building Control Manager informed members that the implementation of the new ICT system had been extremely challenging. Whilst they had anticipated some problems during the transition from the former system to the new one the level of disruption encountered in relation to its functionality had not been envisaged, hence the reason that officers had requested the Council’s Internal Audit (IA) Service to undertake a review. Staffing levels within the Service had further compounded the problem, as it meant that a reduced staffing complement was attempting to find solutions to problems caused by the new ICT system whilst also trying to deal with their usual caseloads. Members thanked officers for the report and the data, especially for highlighting the issues. In response to members’ questions the Lead Member and officers: • advised that the system provider had been selected through the Council’s adopted procurement process. However, the technique would be reviewed in future to ensure the Service would receive appropriate corporate project management support when purchasing a new system was purchased. • confirmed that work was ongoing with the provider and with IT to overcome all problems encountered. • advised that there was communication with some authorities in England prior to purchasing the new system. However, many of the issues arose due to the system output not meeting the Council’s Welsh language standards. This had not been anticipated as the same system was used by Gwynedd Council whose business was conducted through the medium of Welsh. Members were assured that the other authorities that used the system had not experienced the same problems as DCC. • clarified that the problem relating to the new system’s reporting capability was being addressed by the provider and that the company had promised to provide training on this function. • advised that whilst initial testing of the new system’s functionality had been undertaken via a dedicated super users’ group, it transpired that the super users’ method approach to test the system was flawed, as it did not allow a full, deep dive into the system. Ideally, more testing should have been conducted before the roll-out. • confirmed that enquiries had been initiated with the Council’s Legal Department to establish whether the Authority had any recourse to clawback any costs incurred from the system provider due to the problems encountered with the system’s implementation. • advised that staff working from home had not contributed towards the problems encountered as the solutions required were down to the provider not the system-user. Planning staff also met up regularly to discuss work-related matters. • confirmed that the re-introduction of the weekly planning reports for their respective wards to elected members was currently under discussion with the system provider. The Lead Member and officers concurred with Committee members that the lessons learned from the process of obtaining this particular ICT system should be applied across all major procurement projects within the Council to prevent similar problems from arising. At the conclusion of an in-depth discussion, the Chair and the Committee thanked officers for an honest and frank report which did not attempt to hide any of the difficulties encountered during the system’s introduction. The Committee: Resolved: subject to the above observations to - (i) receive the report and its contents; (ii) acknowledge the issues and challenges faced by staff, stakeholders, clients, and residents during the implementation of the new Planning IT system; (iii) endorse the lessons learnt from the procurement and implementation of the Planning IT system and recommend that they be incorporated into the Council’s corporate project planning and management arrangements for future key system procurements; and (iv) request that a progress report on the functionality and performance of the new Planning IT system in dealing with planning applications be presented to the Committee in six-months’ time, and that information be contained in the report on the measures taken to strengthen the Council’s project management arrangements for the procurement and management of critical ICT systems resulting from the lessons learnt during the procurement and implementation of the Planning IT system. The Lead Member for Local Development and Planning asked that his gratitude to everybody who had been involved be placed on record. He commended the staff’s perseverance and dedication to delivering quality planning related services to the best of their ability whilst encountering severe challenges and difficulties with the introduction of the new system.
Y penderfyniad fel y'i cofnodwyd
Resolved: (i) to confirm that as part of its consideration it had read, understood, and taken account of the Well-being Impact Assessment (Appendix A to the report); and (ii) subject to the observations provided during the discussion, regard being given to any feedback that will be received from an all-Member Workshop and from each Member Area Group (MAG) on the proposals, to support the proposed increase to parking tariffs and other proposed changes to the structure.
The Head of Planning, Public Protection and Countryside Services and the Traffic, Parking & Road Safety Manager presented the Proposed Car Park Tariff Structure report (previously circulated). During his introduction he explained that the fee charging for the Council’s car parks was delegated to him as Head of Service, but that he wanted to consult widely with elected members on the proposed tariff structure and charges prior to approving any changes. In addition to presenting the proposals to the scrutiny committee he also intend to discuss them will all Member Area Groups (MAGs) and hold a Council Workshop on them. The report detailed a proposed new tariff structure for Denbighshire County Council-operated public car parks. The existing tariff structure had been in place for at least twenty years. The proposed new structure was intended to reflect actual demand for individual car parks better and to set car park tariffs accordingly. The Council operated 39 pay and display public car parks across Denbighshire. These were currently designated as “Short Stay”, “Long Stay” or “Beach” car parks, with tariffs based on that designation. Short Stay and Long Stay car parks served city, town, and village centres. Short Stay car parks were usually located most centrally, therefore offering the greatest level of convenience. The tariffs in Short Stay car parks were also intended to encourage more frequent “turnover” of parking spaces, with shorter stays. Presently, there were no cost difference between Short Stay and Long Stay car parks for either the 30-minute or 1-hour tariff. Furthermore, there was only a 50-pence difference in the 3-hour tariff between the two car park types. This lack of a sufficient pricing differential between Short Stay and Long Stay car parks meant that Short Stay car parks were often oversubscribed, and Long Stay car parks were underutilised. The resulting high demand for short-stay car parks often made it difficult for motorists to find parking at peak times. To balance demand more evenly across the Council’s car parks, it was proposed to introduce a new tariff structure for city, town, and village centre pay-and-display car parks, split into three tariff bands (Band A, Band B and Band C). Band A car parks would be the most expensive, and Band C the least costly. In response to Members’ questions officers – • advised that it was not anticipated that the proposed change in tariff structure by itself would redress the income shortfall in its entirety, but combined with other work such as effective enforcement it should help close the income gap. • agreed that it would be worthwhile to provide illustrated data at the proposed all-member Workshop as this would help members understand current usage and income levels as well as the impact of the new proposals. • advised that whilst an increase in revenue of circa £70K had been projected from charging for parking after 5 pm it was unclear whether this increase had actually been realised. However, in response to members’ concerns on how the extended charging time had impacted some community groups that met during the evenings in towns/villages across the county officers had instigated a review and were exploring options, including potentially permitting free parking during the evening in one car park per town/village with a view to supporting community events and groups, increasing enforcement during the evenings was also under consideration. All options would be discussed with the MAGs in due course. • confirmed that enforcement capacity within the Council to ensure that parking tariffs were paid was a challenge. This aspect of the work was currently being reviewed and whilst it was anticipated that the proposed difference in cost between short and long stay parking would change people’s behaviour going forward other initiatives, such as installation of automatic number plate recognition (ANPR) technology, were also being explored. Communities Scrutiny Committee was due to receive a report in the near future on the ‘Effectiveness of Parking Enforcement Activities’. Information on how enforcement could be strengthened going forward would be included in that report. • advised that Denbighshire had never had a 2-hour parking tariff band. It was felt that this band may have a negative impact on high street businesses i.e. insufficient time to complete shopping and stay for a snack or hot drink. Members agreed that it would be extremely useful for a workshop to be arranged for all members to ensure they had as much information as possible on the proposed new tariff structure and to enable them to reflect and input into the potential impact of the new tariff structure on their wards. Following a comprehensive discussion, the Committee: Resolved: (i) to confirm that as part of its consideration it had read, understood, and taken account of the Well-being Impact Assessment (Appendix A to the report); and (ii) subject to the observations provided during the discussion, regard being given to any feedback that will be received from an all-Member Workshop and from each Member Area Group (MAG) on the proposals, to support the proposed increase to parking tariffs and other proposed changes to the structure.
Y penderfyniad fel y'i cofnodwyd
Resolved: (i) subject to the inclusion of the progress report requested during the course of the meeting, and acknowledging the reasons for the Medium-Term Financial Strategy & Plan report along with the Corporate Risk Register Review report being included on the current business agenda for information whilst noting alternative routes by which to pursue queries or concerns, to confirm the Committee’s forward work programme as detailed in Appendix 1 to the report; and (ii) to appoint Councillor James Elson as the Committee’s substitute/deputy representative on the Council’s Capital Scrutiny Group (CSG).
The Scrutiny Coordinator introduced the report and appendices (previously circulated) seeking members to review the Committee’s Forward Work Programme. During her introduction she explained that two scheduled reports, the ‘Update on the Medium-Term Financial Strategy and Plan for 2026/27 to 2028/29’ and the ‘Corporate Risk Register Review – September 2025’ had both been listed on the agenda as ‘information reports’ rather than as for discussion as originally scheduled. This had been done to facilitate the discussion on the Cabinet decision called-in for review. Both these reports were scheduled for presentation to the Governance and Audit Committee (GAC) at its next meeting and members if they wished could attend that meeting to raise any concerns or questions which they may have in connection to these reports, or alternatively raise them with officers outside of the meeting on this occasion. The next meeting of the Performance Scrutiny Committee was scheduled for the 29 January 2026. There were four agenda items listed for that meeting. The Scrutiny Chairs and Vice-Chairs Group (SCVCG) were meeting on the 10 November 2025 members were reminded that if they wished for any items to be discussed to fill the relevant scrutiny request forms. In response to a question raised she advised that the SCVCG had recently started receiving a quarterly information report on the Council’s Transformation Programme. The Group would use this report to allocate specific transformation projects to the relevant designated scrutiny committee when projects were scrutiny ready. The Scrutiny Coordinator also advised that the Committee required a substitute representative to serve on the Council’s Capital Scrutiny Group (CSG) if the appointed representative was unable to attend. Councillor James Elson was proposed and seconded, the committee agreed to the nomination. Members: Resolved: (i) subject to the inclusion of the progress report requested during the course of the meeting, and acknowledging the reasons for the Medium-Term Financial Strategy & Plan report along with the Corporate Risk Register Review report being included on the current business agenda for information whilst noting alternative routes by which to pursue queries or concerns, to confirm the Committee’s forward work programme as detailed in Appendix 1 to the report; and (ii) to appoint Councillor James Elson as the Committee’s substitute/deputy representative on the Council’s Capital Scrutiny Group (CSG).
None. Members were reminded that the Service Challenge meeting for the Corporate Support Service: People was due to be held the following day.
Y penderfyniad fel y'i cofnodwyd
Resolved: to note the reasons for the report being included on the business agenda for information and acknowledge alternative routes by which to pursue queries or concerns on this occasion.
The Committee: Resolved: to note the reasons for the report being included on the business agenda for information and acknowledge alternative routes by which to pursue queries or concerns on this occasion.
Y penderfyniad fel y'i cofnodwyd
Resolved: to note the reasons for the report being included on the business agenda for information and acknowledge alternative routes by which to pursue queries or concerns on this occasion. Meeting concluded at 2.30pm.
The Committee: Resolved: to note the reasons for the report being included on the business agenda for information and acknowledge alternative routes by which to pursue queries or concerns on this occasion. Meeting concluded at 2.30pm.
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.
Caiff datganiadau eu darllen o'r cofnodion unwaith y byddan nhw wedi'u cyhoeddi.
Dyw'r cyngor ddim wedi cofnodi presenoldeb ar gyfer y cyfarfod hwn.
Yn rhestru cynghorwyr presennol y cyngor yn unig. Nid yw aelodau cyfetholedig, swyddogion a chyn-gynghorwyr yn cael eu dangos.