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 to exclude the public for the following item of business on the grounds that there would be disclosure to them of exempt information under category 3 of The Local Authorities (Access to Information) (Variation) (Wales) Order 2007). The Monitoring Officer has determined that category 3 of the Access to Information Procedure Rules applies to the following item. His view on the public interest test (having taken account of the provisions of Rule 14.8 of the Council's Access to Information Rules) was that to make this information public would disclose information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the authority holding that information). These factors in his view outweighed the public interest in disclosing this information. Members were asked to consider these factors when determining the public interest test, which they must decide when considering excluding the public from this part of the meeting. Proposed by Cllr Gareth E Jones and Seconded by Cllr Gwynfor Thomas. This motion was accepted by all to allow the Committee to discuss sensitive school-level financial information without prejudicing individual schools.
Apologies for absence were received from Cllrs: L Roberts, C Robinson and G Morgan.
There were no declarations of interest from Members relating to items for consideration on the agenda.
The Committee did not receive any disclosures of prohibited party whips which a Member has been given in relation to the meeting in accordance with Section 78(3) of the Local Government Measure 2011.
The minutes of the 16th June 2025 were proposed and seconded as a true and accurate record of the meeting with the Committee in agreement for the Chair to sign off.
Noted.
Points raised by the Panel: Responses received from Officers or Cabinet Members. Early Years and Learner Progression • Had the system adequately tracked children from the age of 4/5 through to secondary education. • Were the strengths identified in early years provision being consistently built upon across the county. • Had the authority ensured that the robust early years practice was not lost amidst the focus on secondary improvement. Officers acknowledged the concern that early years provision might be overshadowed by the current focus on secondary education. They reassured Members that early years had been identified as a strength by Estyn and that the Foundation Phase team had been actively supporting and sharing good practice across the county. Officers confirmed that this work was being built upon and that a visit to an early years setting in Llanelwedd had been planned to demonstrate the authority’s continued commitment. They also emphasised that the improvement plan applied to all schools, not just secondary, and that training for the new academic year had been designed to be relevant across all phases. The importance of tracking children’s progress from the start of their education journey was recognised, and officers confirmed that systems were being developed to ensure this continuity. Impact, Evaluation and Estyn Engagement • What was the actual impact of the IBP actions on learners, rather than just on processes. • Had Estyn expressed satisfaction with the authority’s approach and the measures implemented. • Could the authority confidently incorporate Estyn’s suggestions into existing improvement plans. • Was the September 2026 target for improvement overly ambitious. Officers confirmed that Estyn had provided constructive feedback during the recent Improvement Conference. While Estyn had acknowledged several strengths in the IBP, they had also recommended improvements to the success criteria and the use of data. Officers stated that they were confident in their ability to incorporate these suggestions and had already begun revising the plan, which would be resubmitted to Estyn before the end of the academic year. They also confirmed that a monitoring visit had been scheduled for the autumn term. The Cabinet Member for Education added that Estyn had initially challenged the authority’s broader approach but had ultimately accepted the rationale for addressing systemic issues beyond the four formal recommendations. Wellbeing and Morale • How was the wellbeing of children and staff being monitored during the improvement process. • Were there mechanisms in place to ensure that learners were not disadvantaged by the changes. • What evidence existed that school staff were being well supported on the improvement journey. • How was the authority addressing concerns about staff morale and perceptions of insufficient support from the local authority. The Director of Education stressed that learner wellbeing was a top priority. He explained that thriving schools required confident and optimistic learners, and that this depended on strong leadership and a positive school culture. Officers had been delivering clear and consistent messages to school leaders, governors, and stakeholders about priorities and expectations. While acknowledging that some of these messages were challenging, they believed that transparency and clarity were essential to progress. Officers also highlighted the importance of celebrating emerging successes and redefining the relationship between the local authority and schools to ensure the right balance of support and challenge. In terms of monitoring wellbeing, officers explained that individual schools conducted their own wellbeing surveys and had pastoral systems in place. School Improvement Advisers (SIAs) also played a role in evaluating wellbeing provision during visits. At the authority level, surveys such as the Schoen survey were used to gather data, which informed professional learning offers. Additionally, a council-wide youth engagement strategy was being developed to ensure young people had a voice in shaping policy, including wellbeing initiatives. School Improvement and Support Systems • Were the local authorities being used as improvement partners (e.g. Ceredigion, Pembrokeshire, Torfaen) demonstrably successful, and had their outcomes been evaluated. • Why had Powys not achieved similar outcomes to Ceredigion despite a longstanding partnership. • How would the authority know if the new data matrix for identifying schools at risk was effective. • Had the authority ensured that the professional learning offer was aligned with the specific needs of each school. Officers confirmed that the local authorities chosen as improvement partners—Ceredigion, Pembrokeshire, Torfaen, and Newport—had all demonstrated strong performance and had been out of Estyn follow-up for several years. These authorities had been selected for their varied contexts and proven track records. In response to a question about why Powys had not achieved similar outcomes to Ceredigion despite a longstanding partnership, officers explained that Ceredigion’s success stemmed from a seamless alignment between professional learning and school needs. In contrast, Powys had experienced a disconnection between its professional learning offer and the specific needs of schools. This issue had been recognised and was being addressed through new systems that would link school development planning with targeted support. Finance, Delegated Funding and Budget Pressures · Was there sufficient evidence that delegated funding for Welsh-medium education in dual-stream schools was being used appropriately. · Had the authority conducted due diligence on the use of delegated funds in dual-stream schools. · Were schools being held accountable for delivering the curriculum they were funded to provide. · What were the main drivers behind schools’ difficulties in balancing budgets, and had these been analysed. · Were the budget recovery plans submitted by schools realistic and achievable. · Should KPIs be revised to reflect cumulative surplus rather than in-year surplus, given the legitimate use of reserves. · Had the authority considered the impact of post-16 funding on overall school deficits. · Could the authority disaggregate post-16 funding from pre-16 to better understand financial pressures. Officers acknowledged that there had historically been insufficient evidence of how this funding was used. They confirmed that from September, new systems would require schools to account for their provision and pupil numbers in termly meetings. A report on the use of delegated funding in dual-stream schools was expected in the autumn term, with a focus on ensuring equitable provision for both English and Welsh-medium learners. Officers also addressed broader concerns about school budgets. They confirmed that while some schools had large cumulative deficits, others held significant surpluses. The authority was working with schools to ensure that surpluses were used appropriately to benefit current learners. The funding formula had been fully funded by the Cabinet, and a review was planned to address emerging challenges, particularly in small schools and the secondary sector. Officers emphasised that financial recovery was a long-term process and that stabilising in-year positions was a key first step. Data, Outcomes and Strategic Planning · Had the authority linked school size, budget position, and pupil outcomes to assess effectiveness. · Could a chart be produced showing school size, attainment, and financial position to identify trends. · Was there a need for a working group to explore the relationship between funding, outcomes, and curriculum breadth. · Had the authority considered the long-term impact of historical deficits and how long they had persisted. The development of a new data matrix to identify schools at risk was in its early stages. Officers explained that the matrix aimed to consolidate data from various sources into a single, coherent system. While quantitative data was relatively straightforward to manage, the qualitative element required open and transparent conversations with schools. The matrix would be shared with schools from September to support robust discussions about capacity to improve and the level of support required. In response to questions about linking school size, budget, and outcomes, officers agreed that this was an important area for further work. They committed to producing a paper that would match budgets, outcomes, and pupil numbers, and agreed with the suggestion that a joint working group between the Finance Panel and Learning and Skills Committee could support this work. They also acknowledged the need to consider the impact of post-16 provision on school finances and agreed that further analysis was required to understand the extent of cross-subsidisation. Governance, Communication and Stakeholder Engagement · Could regular member development sessions be introduced to ensure all governors were aligned with the new improvement approach. · Were governors being adequately supported to understand and contribute to the improvement journey. · How was the authority ensuring that all stakeholders, including parents and pupils, were engaged in the process. Officers recognised the importance of engaging governors in the improvement journey. They agreed that regular member development sessions would be beneficial, not only for Learning and Skills Committee members but for the full council. These sessions would help ensure that governors, who might only visit schools a few times a year, were aligned with the authority’s goals and understood their role in supporting improvement. Officers also noted that relationships between the local authority and schools had improved significantly over the past year, as acknowledged in the Estyn report. Digital and Behavioural Concerns · Had the authority considered the impact of smartphone use on pupil behaviour, sleep, and learning. · Was there a national or local stance being developed on smartphone restrictions in schools. In response to concerns about the impact of smartphones on pupil behaviour and learning, officers confirmed that the Director of Education was working closely with other directors across Wales and with ADU colleagues to develop a national stance. This work was ongoing and aimed to provide a consistent approach across the country.
Scrutiny made the following observations: PROGRESS AGAINST INTEGRATED BUSINESS PLAN PRIORITIES The Committee noted: • Estyn had identified weaknesses in Powys’ school improvement processes, particularly in the secondary sector. • The Integrated Business Plan (IBP) aimed to address Estyn’s recommendations through six objectives, with Objective 2 focusing on strengthening support and challenge to schools. • The school improvement service had initiated professional learning exchanges with other Welsh authorities such as Ceredigion, Pembrokeshire, Torfaen, and Newport. • The data matrix for identifying schools at risk was in early development, aiming to consolidate data into a central system for improved transparency. • Early years provision had been recognised as a strength by Estyn, with good practice being shared across the county. • The authority had committed to developing a council-wide youth engagement strategy to include young people in decision-making. The Committee welcomed: • A revised version of the IBP would be submitted to Estyn before the end of the academic year. • Schools were being asked to submit development plans earlier to allow for more effective planning and support. • The authority was working with health board colleagues to address the increasing complexity of ALN and health needs in schools. • The school improvement service was actively engaging with schools through lesson observations, learner interviews, and book scrutiny. • The authority was developing a coherent strategy for literacy, numeracy, and digital skills, with input from other local authorities. The Committee requested: • Member development sessions be held regularly for all councillors, not just Learning and Skills members, to ensure clarity on their roles as governors. • A historical overview of school budget balances over the past 3–4 years be included in future reports to identify trends and emerging risks. The Committee remained unconvinced about: • The sustainability of long-term deficit recovery plans for schools with persistent financial challenges. • The robustness of monitoring systems in capturing the full impact of budget pressures on curriculum delivery and standards. The Committee expressed concern about: • Staff morale and the perception among schools that the local authority was not sufficiently supportive during periods of change. • The ambitious target of September 2026 for achieving the objectives of the IBP, given the scale of work still required. Recommendations: 1. The Committee recommended that regular member development sessions be held for all councillors, not just Learning and Skills members, to reinforce understanding of their roles as local authority governors and how to use the new documentation and systems effectively. 2. The Committee recommended that the September 2026 target for delivering improvements be noted as ambitious and monitored for feasibility as implementation progresses.
Points raised by the Panel: Responses received from Officers or Cabinet Members. Financial Discrepancies and Budget Accuracy • Members queried discrepancies between figures presented in the Schools Out-turn Report and those submitted to the Finance Panel, particularly regarding opening balances and in-year use of reserves for primary schools. • Clarification was sought on the unachieved saving of £386,000 from the School Improvement and Learning Service, with questions about whether this had been mitigated or carried forward. • Members asked whether schools’ budget forecasts were realistic and whether there was a process to review the accuracy of past projections against actual outcomes. Officers acknowledged the discrepancies between the figures presented in the Schools Out-turn Report and those submitted to the Finance Panel. One Officer explained that the variation in opening balances and in-year use of reserves, particularly in the primary sector, was likely due to the exclusion of schools that had since closed. Officers provided clarification that closing schools had been taken out of the starting point of the appendix A where individual balances were shown. In response to the unachieved saving of £386,000 from the School Improvement and Learning Service, the Portfolio Holder clarified that this related to the decision not to proceed with the merger of pupil referral units. A virement from reserves had been made to cover part of the shortfall, and the service had worked to mitigate the remainder. Another Officer added that the saving had been removed from the 2025–26 budget but would be reviewed again in future years as part of the ALN strategy, with savings to be found in years 2025/26, 2026/27 and 2027/28. Officers confirmed that schools’ budget forecasts were scrutinised against previous years’ outcomes. Finance officers worked closely with schools to ensure that future projections were realistic and based on accurate pupil numbers. Schools were required to provide explanations for significant year-end variances, and these were followed up in finance meetings. Delegated Funding and Curriculum Offer • Concerns were raised about how delegated funding for Welsh-medium education was being used in dual-stream schools, with a request for a full investigation into its effectiveness and transparency. • It was suggested that this investigation should be broadened to include ALN (Additional Learning Needs), SEN (Special Educational Needs), and post-16 provision across all language mediums. • Members questioned whether schools were delivering the curriculum breadth they were funded for, particularly in dual-stream settings. In response to concerns about the use of delegated funding for Welsh-medium education in dual-stream schools, an Officer confirmed that a report would be brought forward in the autumn term. This report would examine the curriculum offer at Key Stages 4 and 5 and assess whether delegated funds were being used appropriately. They acknowledged that, historically, this area had not received sufficient attention but assured Members that the new system of School Improvement Advisers (SIAs) would provide greater oversight. The Portfolio Holder emphasised that schools had a responsibility to deliver the curriculum they were funded for, and that the authority would seek assurance that dual-stream schools were meeting their obligations to both English and Welsh-medium learners. Officers confirmed that termly finance meetings would now include scrutiny of the breadth of curriculum offer. Long-Term Deficits and Risk to the Authority • Members expressed concern about schools with long-standing cumulative deficits and questioned at what point these became a financial risk to the local authority. • It was suggested that reports should include historical data showing how long deficits had existed to better identify emerging financial distress. • The Committee discussed the impact of post-16 funding on school budgets and whether small sixth forms were sustainable without cross-subsidisation. Officers recognised the concern about long-standing cumulative deficits and the potential risk they posed to the authority. Officers explained that the authority maintained a robust monitoring system, with monthly reviews of school balances and regular engagement with schools in deficit. They confirmed that powers of intervention were available and had been used, including issuing notes of concern and imposing spending restrictions. One Officer cited a secondary school as an example of a school with a historic deficit that had made significant progress. They described the process as “turning a tank around”, noting that the school was now projecting an in-year surplus for the first time in many years. Officers agreed that including historical data on deficits in future reports would help identify emerging risks and provide context for long-term financial challenges. School Size, Outcomes, and Budget Correlation • Members proposed a piece of work to explore the relationship between school size, financial health, and pupil outcomes. • It was suggested that data be collated to show school size, budget position, and attainment levels to assess whether economies of scale were being realised. Officers welcomed the suggestion to explore the relationship between school size, financial health, and pupil outcomes. An Officer confirmed that work was already underway to collate data on school budgets, pupil numbers, and attainment. They committed to presenting this information in the autumn term, allowing Members to assess whether economies of scale were being realised and whether schools with large surpluses were investing sufficiently in pupil outcomes. The Portfolio Holder supported the proposal and suggested that a joint working group between the Finance Panel and Learning and Skills Scrutiny Committee could be established to take this forward. Budget Monitoring and Intervention · Questions were raised about the number of schools with unlicensed budgets and what actions were being taken to address this. · Members asked how robust the local authority’s monitoring systems were and whether schools were being held accountable for recovery plans. · The Committee sought reassurance that the authority was using its powers of intervention effectively, including issuing notes of concern and imposing spending restrictions. Officers confirmed that the number of schools with unlicensed budgets had decreased compared to the previous year. Of the 21 schools in deficit, 10 had been asked to submit further information to explain their financial position. Officers emphasised that the authority was taking a robust approach, with SIAs and finance officers working closely with schools to ensure compliance and accountability. The Committee was informed that schools were required to submit recovery plans and that the authority had the power to impose conditions on schools in deficit, including restrictions on staffing changes and procurement. Officers reiterated that the preferred approach was to work collaboratively with schools but confirmed that formal interventions would be used where necessary. Impact of ALN and Staffing Pressures • Members highlighted the increasing financial pressure caused by the growing number and complexity of ALN pupils. • It was noted that schools were often using ALN funding to cover health-related needs, and concerns were raised about the speed of review processes for ALN pupils. • Questions were asked about the impact of a reported 10% drop in staffing levels on curriculum delivery, particularly at GCSE level. Officers acknowledged that the increasing number and complexity of ALN pupils was placing significant pressure on school budgets. They noted that schools were often using ALN funding to cover health-related needs, which was not always appropriate. The authority was working with the Health Board to address this issue and ensure that funding was used effectively. Officers responded that a paper would be brought forward in the autumn term, detailing the curriculum plans of all schools and linking them to budget allocations. This would allow Members to assess the impact of staffing changes on curriculum delivery and pupil options. Governance and Transparency • Members asked whether financial data for school-run enterprises (e.g. leisure services) were included in the reserves figures and requested a summary of these non-delegated funds. • There was a call for greater transparency in how schools planned to use surpluses and how the authority ensured these were spent appropriately. In response to a question about school-run enterprises, Officers confirmed that the financial figures for such activities were not included in the delegated school budgets. These were recorded under non-delegated functions within the Education Service. A Committee Member requested a summary of these reserves, noting that governing bodies remained ultimately responsible for them. Officers also confirmed that schools with large surpluses were required to submit statements explaining how they intended to use those funds. The authority retained the power to direct schools to spend surpluses exceeding regulatory thresholds, but the preferred approach was to work with schools to ensure funds were used to benefit current learners.
Scrutiny made the following observations: The Committee noted that: • The funding formula had been fully funded by the Cabinet, but challenges remained in achieving balanced budgets across all schools. • The Finance Panel had identified discrepancies in financial reporting between different documents, particularly concerning primary sector reserves. • The authority had issued formal deficit agreements and warning notices to schools in financial distress, in line with Estyn expectations. • 21 schools were in deficit, with 18 operating unlicensed budgets, although this had improved from the previous year. • Some schools with long-standing deficits, such as Brecon High School, had begun to show signs of financial recovery. The Committee welcomed that: • Officers had committed to producing a report on the use of delegated funding in dual-stream schools, with a focus on equitable provision for English and Welsh medium pupils. • A paper was being prepared to analyse the relationship between school size, budget balances, and pupil outcomes. The Committee requested that: · An investigation be undertaken into how funding for Welsh medium education And ALN was being utilised in schools. • The strategic equality KPIs be revised to reflect cumulative surplus rather than in-year surplus as the benchmark for financial health. • The impact of post-16 funding on overall school deficits be analysed, including the feasibility of disaggregating post-16 expenditure. • The authority explore the link between school size, budget position, and pupil attainment to better understand financial and educational outcomes. • A summary of non-delegated reserves (e.g., school-run enterprises) be provided to ensure full visibility and accountability. The Committee remain unconvinced of: • The effectiveness of the current funding formula in meeting the needs of all schools, particularly small primary schools with ALN pressures. The Committee expressed concern of: • The increasing number of schools operating with unlicensed budgets and the potential risk this posed to the authority. • The impact of budget constraints on curriculum breadth, particularly in secondary schools, and the potential loss of subjects. • The lack of clarity around the financial implications of school-run enterprises, i.e., leisure services, and their exclusion from delegated budget reporting. • The slow pace of ALN reviews and the financial strain placed on schools needing to employ additional staff for support. Recommendations: 1. The Committee recommended that a paper be produced analysing the relationship between school size, pupil numbers, staffing levels, budget balances, and pupil outcomes. 2. The Committee recommended that a joint working group be established between the Finance Panel and the Learning and Skills Committee to support the development of this analysis. 3. The Committee recommended that an activity-based costing exercise be undertaken to assess funding versus expenditure, covering Welsh medium, ALN, SEN, and post-16 provision across both language mediums. 4. The Committee recommended that historical budget data (e.g. cumulative balances over the past 3–4 years) be included in future reports to help identify long-term trends and emerging risks. 5. The Committee recommended that the financial implications of school-run enterprises (e.g. leisure services) be summarised and reported alongside delegated budgets to ensure transparency and accountability.
Y penderfyniad fel y'i cofnodwyd
RESOLVED to exclude the public for the following item of business on the grounds that there would be disclosure to them of exempt information under category 3 of The Local Authorities (Access to Information) (Variation) (Wales) Order 2007). The Monitoring Officer has determined that category 3 of the Access to Information Procedure Rules applies to the following item. His view on the public interest test (having taken account of the provisions of Rule 14.8 of the Council's Access to Information Rules) was that to make this information public would disclose information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the authority holding that information). These factors in his view outweighed the public interest in disclosing this information. Members were asked to consider these factors when determining the public interest test, which they must decide when considering excluding the public from this part of the meeting. Proposed by Cllr Gareth E Jones and Seconded by Cllr Gwynfor Thomas. This motion was accepted by all to allow the Committee to discuss sensitive school-level financial information without prejudicing individual schools.
RESOLVED to exclude the public for the following item of business on the grounds that there would be disclosure to them of exempt information under category 3 of The Local Authorities (Access to Information) (Variation) (Wales) Order 2007). The Monitoring Officer has determined that category 3 of the Access to Information Procedure Rules applies to the following item. His view on the public interest test (having taken account of the provisions of Rule 14.8 of the Council's Access to Information Rules) was that to make this information public would disclose information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the authority holding that information). These factors in his view outweighed the public interest in disclosing this information. Members were asked to consider these factors when determining the public interest test, which they must decide when considering excluding the public from this part of the meeting. Proposed by Cllr Gareth E Jones and Seconded by Cllr Gwynfor Thomas. This motion was accepted by all to allow the Committee to discuss sensitive school-level financial information without prejudicing individual schools.
The Chair and the Monitoring Officer having reviewed the Scrutiny observations and recommendations, agreed that the following could be shared with Cabinet in public session on the 15th July 2025. Scrutiny made the following observations: The Committee noted that: · The deep dive reviews, led by Andrew Williams, had been conducted across all secondary and all-age schools, with a few primary and special schools included. · The reviews had examined pupil-teacher ratios, average teacher costs, class sizes, curriculum models, and leadership structures. · Schools had submitted significantly improved budget forecasts between May 2024 and May 2025, attributed to both full formula funding and internal reforms. · The implementation of two-week timetables had improved timetabling efficiency and reduced staffing costs. · Voluntary severance schemes had been used effectively to reduce staffing without compulsory redundancies. · Some schools had not adopted the recommended changes, such as the two-week timetable, and continued to face significant deficits. · The school in focus had achieved over £1 million in savings over three years through staffing and structural changes. · The authority had issued formal deficit agreements to schools in financial deficit, in line with Estyn expectations. The Committee welcomed that: · The external review process had been well-received by schools, with trust built between school leaders and the reviewer. · The authority planned to continue working with Andrew Williams to support long-term capacity building and financial planning. · The reviewed school had managed to retain curriculum breadth despite reductions and had avoided compulsory redundancies. · The school had proactively used part-time contracts and job description redesigns to achieve financial sustainability. · The authority had committed to producing comparative data on budget forecasts across all reviewed schools. The Committee requested that: · A comparative analysis of budget forecasts from May 2024 to May 2025 be provided for all schools involved in the deep dive. · Data be gathered on staffing changes, including full-time equivalent (FTE) figures and the proportion of part-time staff across schools. · Evidence be collected on the impact of staffing and curriculum changes on pupils’ outcomes and standards. · The Authority continue to support schools in implementing the recommendations from the deep dive reviews. The Committee remain unconvinced of: · The consistency of implementation across all schools, with some appearing reluctant to adopt the recommended reforms. · The sufficiency of internal capacity to conduct such reviews without external support, despite the success of the current model. The Committee expressed concern of: · The disproportionate impact of budget cuts on the Welsh Medium stream in some dual-stream schools. · The potential narrowing of curriculum options due to financial constraints, particularly in smaller schools. · The morale of staff during restructuring, especially where long-serving members had been affected. · The sustainability of current staffing models, given the high proportion of part-time contracts in some schools. Recommendations: 1. An investigation into how the money allocated for Welsh Medium Education and ALN was being spent in schools. 2. That the KPIs in the Strategic Equality Plan be revised so that schools aim for a cumulative surplus at the end of the financial year, rather than an in-year surplus. 3. That a paper be created analysing outcomes in relation to pupil numbers, teacher numbers, and other relevant variables. 4. To conduct an activity-based costing exercise comparing funding versus expenditure, extending beyond Welsh Medium to include ALN, SEN, and Post-16 provision across language mediums. 5. That historical information be provided on school balances over the past three to four years. 6. That the approach initiated through the deep dive process be continued and that support for schools be maintained. 7. Committee be provided with a breakdown of part-time staff across schools to better understand staffing structures
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.