Wrthi'n llwytho
Does dim crynodeb o'r cyfarfod hwn eto. Caiff crynodebau eu hysgrifennu pan fydd y cyngor yn cyhoeddi'r cofnodion, sef ei gofnod swyddogol o'r hyn a benderfynodd cyfarfod. Maen nhw fel arfer yn ymddangos ychydig wythnosau ar ôl y cyfarfod.
Apologies for absence were received from Cabinet Members, County Councillors: Jake Berriman, Richard Church, David Thomas, Sandra Davies and James Gibson Watt and Officers Diane Reynolds and Daniel Burgess.
There were no Declarations of Interest from Members relating to items to be considered on the agenda.
The Committee did not receive any disclosures of prohibited party whips which a Member had been given in relation to the meeting in accordance with Section 78(3) of the Local Government Measure 2011.
Points raised by the Committee: Responses received from Officers or Cabinet Members: Contractual Obligations, Repairs and Maintenance Members queried the distinction between Options B and C and whether the additional investment proposed under Option C represented discretionary improvements rather than contractual requirements. Cabinet Member clarified that the Council’s legal obligations would be met through Option B, which focused on statutory compliance and health and safety works. Option C went beyond this by including additional investment to improve accessibility and participation. Who was responsible for repairs and maintenance under the lease and did this extend beyond emergency works. It was confirmed that the Council retained responsibility for major capital elements and compliance. Services had managed pressures through repairs in recent years, but this approach was no longer sustainable due to the need for significant replacement works. Had all emergency works been completed and had non-emergency repairs been deferred, potentially allowing facilities to deteriorate. Officers explained that services had maintained operations through repairs and no centres had closed. However, some capital works had been deferred, and major investment was now required. Did the cost estimates under Option C include both essential works and additional improvement works. It was confirmed that the programme included essential statutory works alongside additional investment to improve participation and accessibility. Why did Option A propose a lower level of investment if contractual obligations applied across all centres. It was explained that Option A would not meet contractual obligations across all facilities and would require variation of the contract, which was not being proposed. Did a detailed list of planned capital improvement or replacement works exist and could it be shared. Officers confirmed that a capital programme existed but was not publicly available due to the need to remain flexible. Officers explained that the programme needed to remain dynamic to respond to unforeseen issues across the estate and that publishing a fixed list could create unrealistic expectations if priorities changed. Capital Investment, Funding and Affordability Had funding for energy efficiency measures been secured and was it guaranteed. Officers advised that some investment had already been delivered and further measures were planned. External grant funding had been sought, but the Council would deliver works if necessary. What level of borrowing was required and what were the associated long-term costs. The Cabinet Member acknowledged borrowing implications but described the investment as supporting health and wellbeing, noting that decisions required balancing priorities across services. Was there a funding shortfall between available capital funding and the amount required to bring the estate into good repair. Officers confirmed that not all asset needs could be met within existing resources and that prioritisation across services was required. Did a list exist identifying works that would not be delivered due to funding constraints. It was acknowledged that not all backlog maintenance could be addressed within the current programme, with remaining needs to be considered through the wider review. Backlog Maintenance and Long-Term Investment Needs How much of the identified backlog maintenance would be addressed through the proposed investment. Officers advised that investment would significantly reduce the backlog, although a residual liability would remain. It was clarified that backlog maintenance had been estimated at £16.8m over a 10-year period and that, even with planned investment, a residual backlog would remain and require future consideration. Would all necessary repairs be completed or only partially addressed. It was clarified that the current investment represented an initial phase to stabilise the estate, with further work to be considered through the wider review. Energy Efficiency, Net Zero and Carbon Reduction Did projected savings from energy efficiency measures remain achievable. Officers advised that estimated savings would be realised once all planned measures were implemented. Was detailed data on actual energy savings and reductions in usage available. It was acknowledged that full data had not yet been collated, although further information could be obtained. What was the estimated cost of achieving operational net zero and was there a clear payback period. Officers explained that some measures offered short payback periods, particularly where grant-funded, while others could have long or negative payback periods. HMRC VAT Changes and Reinvestment Had all additional income arising from HMRC VAT changes been reinvested in leisure facilities. The Cabinet Member clarified that changes generated additional income rather than savings, which had been shared and partly reinvested, with some supporting the wider Council budget. Was further income available for reinvestment beyond that already allocated. It was confirmed that further income would continue to be generated over time, creating opportunities for reinvestment. Scope of the Leisure Review and Provision Were school-based and community-run leisure facilities included within the review. It was stated that the review would consider all provision across the county, although capital investment proposals applied only to facilities within the leisure portfolio. Community Engagement and Consultation What would the planned community engagement exercise involve. It was confirmed that a two-stage approach would be undertaken, including locality-based engagement followed by wider consultation using both in-person and online methods. It was clarified that the purpose of the engagement was to shape future provision rather than to retain existing facilities. Were sufficient resources in place to ensure meaningful and effective engagement. Officers acknowledged that details were still being developed but confirmed that meaningful engagement would be prioritised. Would councillors and the leisure operator be involved in engagement activity. The Cabinet Member confirmed that engagement with councillors and opportunities to involve the operator would be strengthened. Governance, Delivery Models and Review Process Could a cross-party leisure review group be maintained to support ongoing scrutiny. The Cabinet Member expressed support for maintaining a cross-party group to ensure transparency and Member involvement. Would alternative delivery models, including in-house provision, be fully explored. It was confirmed that all delivery options would be considered as part of the review, supported by additional capacity and expertise. Service Sustainability and Future Provision Could the leisure operator assume control of facilities independently of the Council. The Cabinet Member confirmed that facilities remained in Council ownership and the operator acted purely as a contracted provider. Health, Wellbeing and Prevention Did data exist to quantify cost avoidance or savings from preventative health benefits. Officers confirmed that while benefits were clear, quantified financial data was currently limited but would be developed as part of the review. Swimming Pools and High-Cost Facilities How many swimming pools could realistically be supported in the future. The Cabinet Member advised that this would be determined through the review process and emphasised the importance of swimming provision. Partnerships and Preventative Services What partnership work was being undertaken with health services and other partners. Officers outlined ongoing work, including the exercise referral scheme and collaboration with health partners, noting strong demand and positive outcomes.
Scrutiny made the following observations: The Committee endorsed that; • The proposed approach to undertake essential compliance and health and safety works across all leisure centres had been necessary to fulfil contractual obligations. • The longer-term review and re-tender process towards 2030 had provided a structured and appropriate framework for developing a sustainable leisure offer. • Investment in leisure facilities had been recognised as an investment in residents’ health and wellbeing, offering preventative benefits and potential cost avoidance. • The continuation of capital investment to maintain service continuity and avoid unplanned closures had been justified. The Committee welcomed that; • No immediate plans had been made to close leisure centres and services had been maintained successfully over recent years despite limited investment. • Over £1 million had already been invested in energy efficiency measures, with further improvements planned to reduce costs and carbon emissions. • The leisure review would include wider provision beyond the current contract, including community and school-based facilities. • The “Let’s Go Powys” platform and community-based provision had been positively received as a complementary approach to leisure centre provision. • Strong partnership working with health services, including the National Exercise Referral Scheme, had been delivering positive outcomes for residents. The Committee requested that; • Further clarity be provided on the detail and prioritisation of capital investment projects within the programme. • Additional data be supplied on energy savings, cost reductions and wider benefits arising from investment in leisure facilities. • Opportunities had been explored to ring-fence HMRC-related additional income for reinvestment into leisure services. • A Leisure Review Group (or equivalent) be re-established to ensure ongoing member oversight and engagement. • Meaningful community engagement arrangements be clearly defined, adequately resourced and shared with Members prior to implementation. • Consideration be given to all future delivery models, including in-house provision and alternative contract arrangements. The Committee remained unconvinced of; • Whether the proposed capital investment programme would be sufficient to address the full backlog maintenance liability across the estate. • The affordability and long-term sustainability of maintaining the current estate without significant additional funding. • The extent to which projected energy savings and cost reductions would be realised without further supporting evidence. • The clarity of distinction between contractual obligations and additional improvements proposed under the preferred option. The Committee expressed concern of; • The significant backlog maintenance requirement and the funding gap to bring facilities to a satisfactory standard. • The long-term affordability of investment, including borrowing costs and competing pressures across other Council services. • The potential that some facilities may not be sustainable in future and could face decommissioning following the review. • The limited detail at this stage regarding community engagement processes and whether sufficient time and resource had been allocated. • The growing cost pressures associated with achieving net zero and the uncertainty around payback and funding for decarbonisation works. Scrutiny’s Recommendation Accept (plus Action and timescale) Partially Accept (plus Rationale and Action and timescale) Reject (plus Rationale) 1. That Option C be supported as the preferred approach, recognising that it went beyond minimum contractual requirements by including improvements to participation and accessibility. 2. That opportunities for reinvestment of HMRC-related additional income be explored and maximised within the leisure service, including consideration of ring-fencing funding where feasible. 3. That comprehensive and meaningful engagement with communities be undertaken, ensuring that residents were fully involved in shaping future leisure provision. 4. That a cross-party Leisure Review Group (or equivalent Member forum) be re-established and maintained to provide ongoing oversight, transparency and Member involvement throughout the review process. 5. That all future delivery models were fully explored, including in-house provision as well as contracted arrangements, to ensure the most sustainable and effective option was identified. 6. That formal review points and clear timelines be built into future arrangements, particularly in relation to long-term contracts, to ensure ongoing performance monitoring and flexibility. 7. That the development of a robust evidence base on cost avoidance be prioritised, including the identification and quantification of potential savings arising from improved health and wellbeing outcomes, in order to better inform future investment decisions and the long-term sustainability of leisure provision.
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.
Yn rhestru cynghorwyr presennol y cyngor yn unig. Nid yw aelodau cyfetholedig, swyddogion a chyn-gynghorwyr yn cael eu dangos.