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.
1.1 Chair welcomed Members and Officers to the meeting. 1.2 Apologies were received from Councillors Catherine Bonera, Jason O’Connell, Norma Parrish and Caroline Price.
2.1 There were no declarations made.
3.1 The minutes of the meeting held on 18 November 2025 were confirmed as an accurate record.
4.1 All actions had been completed and Members agreed to note the action sheet.
5.1 The SD-R introduced the item before the HoFS gave a detailed overview of the report, the L&EMSL then praised the budget and the report. 5.2 Members questioned and officers responses were as follows: · Following a question about pay assumptions and the impact if the pay award exceeded the 3% assumption, the HoFS responded that the budget had effectively allowed for a 3.5% pay award on a recurring basis and that the Council also held a pay contingency in earmarked reserves to manage a slightly higher pay award in‑year. He added that if pay costs exceeded assumptions, officers would have sought to manage the pressure in‑year where possible and then would have called on the earmarked reserve, noting that external support for pay awards had been received in recent years but could not be guaranteed. He went on to add that service impacts would have been a last resort and that any higher pay award would have been built into forward financial planning within the medium‑term plan. · In response to a question about grants uncertainty, worst‑case exposure and which services would have been hit first, the SD-R explained that some grants were typically unconfirmed at this stage and the budget was therefore based on assumptions; he stated the overall exposure would have been significant but it was unlikely that all grants would have ceased at once and new grants could also have emerged in‑year. He went on to say that where grants were specific to services, any reduction would have required a discussion about that service, and that reserves would have provided time to reconsider options, which could have included reprioritising services or taking policy decisions. He added that grant conditions did not allow a grant awarded for one purpose to be diverted to other purposes. · When questioned if new investments would reduce demand on high‑cost services rather than add new spending pressures, the HoFS explained that investment proposals had been targeted and were intended to manage or reduce demand; he described the proposed family conflict service as preventative support intended to manage demand and, ideally, to be “invest‑to‑save”. The SD-C&F added that early intervention investment over the previous three years had been associated with a significant reduction in the children‑looked‑after population, improving outcomes and evidencing financial savings as a result of early investment and structural change. The L&EMSL then added that some interventions had a direct, quantifiable “do X saves Y” case, while others required evaluation through evidence on outcomes and demand reduction; he said reserves could support transitional change but should not be used to delay difficult decisions unsustainably. · In answer to a question about Adult Social Care sustainability and what would happen if demand exceeded assumptions and whether capacity remained, the SD-C&F responded that capacity remained within the adult system and stated that adult social care had been reconfigured over the previous 18–24 months to increase the focus on reablement and to keep people out of longer‑term services, with the work still in early stages. He added that investment in early intervention, prevention and reablement was expected to continue impacting demand pressures going forward. · When asked a question about whether reliance on service reserves delayed difficult decisions and when permanent solutions would be seen, the L&EMSL responded that reserves should not be used to defer difficult decisions where that would create an unsustainable position; he said the Council had used transitional funding to support transformation that reduced longer‑term pressures and that this risk should continue to be monitored. · In response to a question about specific grants instability, short timescales and alignment with the Deal and the County Plan, the L&EMSL responded with a three‑stage approach: he said Welsh Government should, where possible, roll grants into the settlement; where that was not possible, grants should be amalgamated into larger sums; and earlier information should be provided to reduce uncertainty and avoid last‑minute delivery pressures. He added that earlier clarity reduced employment insecurity for staff funded through grants, and Members noted that even small grants could be important to communities but administratively burdensome. · When asked whether the budget supported third‑sector/community buildings owned by the Council but run by volunteers, the L&EMSL responded that he wanted the Council to continue supporting third‑sector and community groups with their buildings and said different mechanisms had been used to provide support that he hoped could continue within available resources. The SD-R added that third‑sector delivery supported the locality‑based approach and the Deal and stated that budget provision existed to support those grants while noting the need to manage funding carefully. · There was a question about whether the waste transfer station relied entirely on grants, and the HoFS responded that the scheme was still at an early stage and stated the capital programme already included Council resources and that officers were also looking to utilise recycling‑related resources, but that the project would ultimately require external grant support (including Welsh Government) to complete a funding package. · Following a question about schools and impact assessment on assumptions around non‑pay inflation absorption, the SD-R responded that sinking‑fund approaches were being developed across the wider property portfolio, starting with school IT; he stated an impact assessment had been undertaken with engagement with headteachers and that the Council was not proposing to change the underlying approach used previously. The L&EMSL added that schools had been prioritised in revenue terms and that Torfaen’s position on deficits compared favourably with other areas, while noting continuing capital challenges in parts of the school estate. The SD-C&F added that officers monitored school finances on a medium‑ to longer‑term basis and that lead finance officers worked closely with headteachers to support longer‑term planning. · When asked about reserve levels and the planned drawdown in 2026‑27, the HoFS responded that total reserves at the end of the previous financial year stood at just over £36.5m; he stated planned usage in the current year was around £5m, but that the improved in‑year position could reduce the call on reserves and allow some replenishment at year end. He added that the use of reserves within the 2026‑27 budget was around £1m and was for transitional purposes rather than indefinite budget support, before adding that the Children’s Services transitional plan had reduced year‑on‑year and was ahead of schedule. · In response to a question about how the impact of new investments would be monitored and reported during 2026‑27, the SD-R responded that investment items had been linked to missions within the Deal and stated that progress against those missions would be reported through the normal Cabinet reporting cycle, with updates on progress and impact. · Upon being asked about whether Additional Learning Needs (ALN) and community capacity funding was a one‑off or part of a longer‑term approach, the SD-C&F responded that ALN funding was intended as part of a longer‑term vision because the area was an ongoing demand pressure; he stated work had been undertaken with schools to review ALN budgets and school funding with a longer‑term view to addressing rising need. · In answer to a question about the £400k apprenticeships proposal and the support package to sustain employment, the SD-R responded that the proposal would create a cohort of apprentices not aligned to a single service initially and that apprentices would gain exposure to different Council areas and then be supported to move into areas of interest and apply for vacancies. He added that the support package could include practical support such as bus fares or work clothing, and that an officer would mentor the cohort through the transition into work. The L&EMSL then stated that apprenticeships supported inclusive growth, workforce sustainability and social mobility; he stated the programme would expand further with a focus on under‑represented groups and suggested apprentices could share experiences with Members. · Following a question about whether the in‑year favourable variance reflected one‑off windfalls or underlying performance, the L&EMSL clarified that favourable variances were presented in brackets in the table and that the overall position was a favourable variance of £151k. The SD-R added that the variance was very small relative to the overall budget and reflected cautious assumptions and in‑year management, while acknowledging factors outside Council control. The L&EMSL then added that the Council had a track record over recent years of finishing within a reasonable variance and said this was not a one‑off. The SD-C&F then explained that Children’s Services improvements reflected system redesign and were expected to represent permanent savings rather than one‑off windfalls. · There was a query about whether there was budget provision to respond to citizen priorities that emerged from The Deal engagement, the SD-R responded that consultation activity was ongoing and would inform the final budget report to Council; he stated Members’ Policy Choice reserves could provide opportunities to support priorities identified through these processes. The L&EMSL added that the Council needed flexibility alongside careful planning so that it could meet communities halfway where good ideas emerged. 5.3 The Chair thanked the Officers for their participation, and the HoFS, SD-C&FS, SDR, JSDE&E, GFO & L&EMSL then left the meeting. The TLS, SO & TDMSO remained.
6 Date of Next Meeting 6.1 The next meeting is 17 February 2026. 6.2 The meeting ended at 3.17pm
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.