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 received: K Lewis, L Rijnenberg, B Davies, C Walsh Absent: B Breeze, Bryn Davies, C Robinson, C Masefield, J Yeomans, S McNicholas
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 had been given in relation to the meeting in accordance with Section 78(3) of the Local Government Measure 2011.
Background: • Follow on meeting from 14 November 2024. • Officers received number of questions after the meeting on the 14 November and answers had been circulated to the Committee members. It was explained that questions had been categorised by theme. • Additional questions by specific committee members would be replied to as soon as possible. Points raised by the Committee: Responses received Officers /Cabinet Members: The breakdown of figures provided a net cost to the Council as £2.3m. It was assumed that the £0.4m was a management fee paid from the council to Freedom Leisure £2.2m was a payment from the Council to Freedom Leisure for the use of facilities wet and dry. With a total cost of £2.6m and a grant of £0.3m. Net cost excluding services to schools to the Council £0.1m Freedom Leisure made £700k surplus last year, it suggested that the contract was operating at a net £600k surplus between the Council and Freedom Leisure. It was stated that Freedom Leisure had only recently moved to a profitable position after deficit since the contract began. An officer explained that the Council made a management fee contribution to Freedom Leisure which put them in a surplus position over the last couple of years which was netting off cumulative deficit that occurred in the first few years, the payment did support schools use of facilities. Delivering services commercially was more affordable and provided better value for money in offering broader leisure services. Centres were designed and operated by services that deliver both the national curriculum and community leisure. Removing the community leisure aspect would still cost the Council £2.2m to deliver the curriculum. It was acknowledged that by having fewer centres the curriculum would be harder to deliver. An officer explained that financial analysis modelling had been conducted. Clarification was requested on whether fewer centres would result in a lower payment to Freedom Leisure. It was confirmed that the report provided an assumption and would need to be negotiated. What were the school options for running centres, and was there budget capacity If schools accepted facilities the Council would need to provide funding for costs including running the centre and utilities. And would not be provided for the schools delegated budget. A question was raised around the allocation of funds through the fair funding formula to schools and how and who would pay the additional cost for the swimming provision in a different facility. It was felt that the figures were incomplete as additional costs had not been considered. An officer explained that the costs of travel and transport to centres had not been included in the report. An observation stated that schools or the fair funding formula would not have the budget available to run centres as the Council as a whole did not have funding to deliver services. The report showed the cost to bring individual centres up to net zero and asked if the Council had considered removing the full cost of net zero delivery figures for each option. The costs of net zero had been included due to the Councils existing policy and the target set of 2030 which was felt unachievable without significant investment into buildings. It was felt that the target should be an aspiration and already changes have been made including solar panels and LED lighting and delivered 30% towards net zero. What was the negative net zero impact for the residents traveling further to access facilities. The measurement had not been taken due to the variety in transport methods and would need to be considered. What work had been done to leverage the existing communities benefit funds from wind farms in proximity of leisure centres. And how could the council leverage potential wind farm development in the future for larger community benefit funds for capital funding towards solar panels, insulation etc. to make centres more sustainable. It was expressed more could be done around this subject as wind farm development was on the increase and would be considered for the consultation and engagement exercise. Concerns were raised that scrutiny was taking place without all the information needed. Clarity would be needed before any option was accepted by Cabinet as information had not been provided and concerns raised regarding escalating cost pressures. And felt that capital over revenue was the bigger issue. An officer explained that the revenue supported capital borrowing and by reducing the number of buildings would reduce ongoing commitment to maintain buildings or deliver net zero. Each option provided decommissioning costings including demolition. Clarification was requested regarding the meaning of decommissioning buildings. The worst-case scenario would be to demolish sites that were not left partially open. The report provided information on decommissioning pools. Repurposing information could not be provided due to the hugely varying costs that would be included, depending on the use to be made of the premises in the future Disappointment was shared within the meeting that questions put to officers and Cabinet Members in advance of the meeting had not been fully answered. A comment was given that it was a statuary obligation to deliver the national curriculum, and facilities were needed to support that, however it was unknown how many facilities were needed. An officer provided information around the curriculum for Wales and the importance of centres to provide physical, mental and social well-being for children. It was not a statutory requirement currently to provide swimming for pupils in key stage 2,3 or 4 but recommended by Swim Wales. For schools to be able to fulfil the curriculum, schools would need access to spaces to deliver a broad range of activities to meet the needs of all learners. The question was stressed if budget was available for schools to run facilities as an option in the report and the affordability for schools. The option to transfer facilities to schools that need facilities as a key part of curriculum delivery was factored into costings and would be delivered through the fair funding formula for schools to run facilities required by the curriculum. Funding would not be provided to schools to open facilities to the community out of school hours and would be considered on a case-by-case basis through the submission of a business case, which may be community based or Freedom Leisure. Public use cannot be funded through the schools’ delegated budgets Frustrations were shared that Sustainable Powys was a whole Council approach and not service specific. It was asked if schools ran facilities would a payment be made by the visiting school if facilities were used. And requested that the saving equivalent to council tax be provided between option 1 status quo and the officers preferred option 2. It was asked if one increase in council tax would be sufficient to deliver investment needed for the next twenty years. The approximate 2.5% council tax increase would be on top of any other budget needs of the Council in whichever year the increase was needed. The public needed to understand the cost of each option and how it would equate to them. Cabinet Member for Finance and Corporate Transformation stressed that each service in the Council was facing pressure and Council tax equations could not be broken down to individual areas. And explained the cost of borrowing was provided in the report. Both revenue and capital costs must be considered together. The Council tried to maintain centres and cover any mitigation measures to determine if a centre closed residents would have access to alternative facilities and asked the Committees to look at the bigger picture and consider each option in order to maintain services. The main driving force behind the leisure review was questioned and asked if it was financial sustainability or net zero. Cabinet Member for a Safer Powys noted the main focus was to enable the Council to offer a financially sustainable leisure service in the long-term. And to bring centres up to a good modern standard which included net zero work. If net zero was a driving force, why had additional factors and impacts not been considered e.g. residents driving further to facilities. Impacts to cease using a building and additional travel would need to be considered but data had not been captured and information unavailable. What were other local authorities in Wales doing to support the sustainability of centres. It was explained that Powys had a greater number of centres compared to many Welsh local authorities. The financial challenges facing Powys identified a need to review the process and the number of centres the Council could afford to operate. Conversations were being held between local authorities in relation to using cross border facilities. It was asked if council taxpayers from outside Powys should be using Powys facilities. Concerns were raised and assurance was sought around the number of hubs in Powys and the centres proposed to stay open were located in the hub towns which were already commercially viable. Ystradgynlais had been added as a fifth hub and intended to be kept open due to the level of deprivation that was acknowledged and considered within the impact assessments. It was confirmed that a formal approach had not been made by other local authorities to use Powys facilities. Would sites be built on or sold if closed. Each centre would be reviewed to determine opportunities within the area and local engagement would determine and identify any opportunities. It was stressed that much of the transport costs for swimming lessons was provided for by parents. It was proposed that both the primary school swimming review and the leisure review be presented to Cabinet jointly. Individual centres were discussed and suggestions made in regard to preference of closing. The engagement exercise would provide an opportunity to review facilities and the standards they hold. Capital funding to build a new leisure centre alongside any new project for a new school that may be built in that area would be required. Clarification was required: Costs included in the report and follow on question-and-answer paper. Plans to remove facilities from schools would have negative impacts. The delivery of leisure within communities was only facilitated due to a commercialised public service. Carbon footprint and carbon impacts for residents travelling further. Environmental impact for the demolition of buildings and carbon embodied levels within buildings to be evidenced. An officer replied to the comment around the cost of demolition, net zero and transport, it was explained until engagement had taken place, and all opportunities and variables had been explored, information could not be provided per centre. The report had only factored in the financial cost of demolition for a comparable assessment across the piece. It was asked why a recommendation had not been put forward. Or a proposal from Cabinet. Cabinet Member for a Safer Powys proposed Option four which was added to the leisure review paper. Cabinet felt it would be better to engage on all options with the public next year and welcomed scrutiny comments. It was commented that public engagement with an option of no change would be selected by the majority and be a meaningless exercise. It was acknowledged and stressed that each option would have clear explanations and costs. How would the public determine how much it would affect their council tax and affect their local area. The report contained costs for all 4 options and information would be considered on how it was provided to the public. Page 22 table showed the costs associated with each of the options for the whole council. It showed options that looked to reduce costs and the equivalent in council tax, but it was not possible to take just one part of the council and correlate it exactly to council tax due to the financial pressure across all services. It was commented that the money paid for schools to swim would not change but an additional cost of transport would be required. Capacity and usage of facilities was raised as a concern and assurance sought that all schools would have the same opportunity. A revised swimming offer had been proposed, and schools had taken different approaches to the swimming offer whilst the service level agreement had not changed since 2013. If changes were made and the swimming offer reduced, the management fee to Freedom Leisure would have to be discussed as part of a variation to the contract. Pools would have capacity. A dual band of charges used to be in place and suggested it be reintroduced for those living in and out of Powys. It was felt deprivation would increase in those areas outside of the five main hubs and asked would additional hubs be introduced. Concerns raised around the distance travelled by residents using public transport due to the poor links that were currently in place. A transport review was underway of all Powys public transport to consider all options within a hub model. Concerns were raised around the importance of how leisure facilities, support the most vulnerable children with additional learning needs and definite needs and the location and approach taken had been ignored. Disabled use of leisure facilities by the whole population needed to be addressed. The adverse impacts were acknowledged by the Cabinet Member for a Caring Powys and a whole system perspective was needed to fit all the different elements of the system together. It was noted that the hub and spoke model was locality based, leisure centres and collaboration was key to a consistent theme. Cabinet Members were asked if they were happy to proceed with the paper to Cabinet next week. Cabinet Member for a Greener Powys explained that more time for officers to reply to questions would have been beneficial and supported the draft recommendation made by the Committees. Cabinet Member for a Safer Powys noted that the draft recommendation would need to be considered alongside all the answers that had been provided and thanked the Committee for conducting scrutiny. A whole Council view was essential. • The Committees acknowledged the significant amount of work undertaken and thanked officers for their time and the wide range of information that had been investigated. • A strategic view was needed with a full council debate. Disappointment was shared that it had been agreed at Informal Cabinet for the process to continue. • Questions had not been fully answered, and financial questions had not been responded to. • The impact assessments were unexplored, unverified and unexplained, and the alternative mitigations and delivery models were only ideas at this stage. • The information was not presented clearly for the public to make informed decisions. • Some recognition of the value of leisure centres on physical and mental health and the value to disabled and senior members of communities was evident, however centres also needed to be seen as valuable tourism and community assets. • It was felt that the cuts to the leisure service would not fill the financial gap of the Council. • Committees were willing to support officers and asked for a more localised element enable everyone to fully understand the purpose of the review. • Sufficient meeting time was needed for such an important agenda item. • More work was needed to: o test the assumptions made for the alternative delivery models o Understand the costs the costs provided for maintenance o know the financial impacts on school budgets and the impact on pupils through loss of facilities and swimming opportunities. o cost and impact on residents' health and well-being and the subsequent long-term increase in cost to social care.
Scrutiny’s Recommendation Accept plus, Action and timescale Partially Accept plus Rationale and Action and timescale Reject Plus, rationale 1 The Scrutiny Committees believe the current leisure review will not resolve Powys County Council's financial issues and more importantly provide adequate services to residents and urge Cabinet to reconsider other options and postpone considering the report. 2 To consider looking at options on a locality basis.
Agenda Item not required.
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.