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.
AGREED -That the Work Programme at Appendix 1 be agreed, subject to the above changes.
AGREED - (i) That the committee agreed that, to ensure transparency and accountability, a further report on the transfer of the Cunliffe Centre services to the Acton Community Resource Centre (ARC) be submitted to the September 2026 meeting, or earlier should an extraordinary meeting be convened. The topic was to be scrutinised under Part One regulations. The report would include: a) Confirmation of the position as to whether a decision had been made to repurpose ACRC. If the position was that no decision had been made, an explanation was required as to why ward members and members of the Acton community had been told that a decision had been made to move the Cunliffe Day Centre to Acton, as stated in letters issued by the Council and in press releases such as the one referenced in BBC News. b) A narrative detailing the audit trail of the decision on the service transfer to ACRC, including when authority had been delegated to an officer and the precise nature of the power that had been delegated. c) Copies of all meeting records relating to the decision, including those attending the meetings and those responsible for making the decision. d) A review of the public communication of the decision, and of the failure to consult with those affected prior to the decision. e) A review of the legality of the delegated decision, and whether the Council had adhered to its duties of consultation and public sector equality duties, with guidance from the Monitoring Officer. f) A suitably anonymised and redacted copy of all requests made regarding the decision to move the Cunliffe Day Centre to ACRC, together with the responses issued to those FOIs. g) Confirmation that the date for the return of this issue would be agreed between all parties by close of business on 29 May 2026.That the committee agreed to support the Lead Member for Finance and Asset Management and the Administration in their decision to pause the transfer, and that the pause should remain in place until the report referenced in recommendation 1 had been considered through the scrutiny process. (ii) We support the Lead Member for Finance and Asset Management and the Administration on their decision to pause this transfer and recommend that the pause remains in place until the report referenced in recommendation 1 above has been through the scrutiny process.
AGREED – (i) That the committee thanked the Lead Member and officers for the report and congratulated the department for its work in strengthening the Grow Your Own programme and reducing reliance on agency staff. (ii) That the committee looked forward to receiving an updated report in approximately two years’ time.
AGREED:- that the minutes of the meeting held on 12 May 2026 be signed as a correct record.
Members were reminded of their obligations under Paragraph 11 of the Members’ Code of Conduct to declare any personal interests relating to the business to be considered at the meeting. The following declaration was made: Item 7 –Social Care Recruitment and Retention update. Councillor Krista Childs– Declared a personal interest as she has a family member who works in social services. The Councillor remained in the meeting taking part in the discussion and voting thereon.
Y penderfyniad fel y'i cofnodwyd
AGREED -That the Work Programme at Appendix 1 be agreed, subject to the above changes.
The Chief Officer for Governance and Customer presented report (COGC/36/26), inviting members to consider the draft Work Programme for the Safeguarding, Communities and Wellbeing Scrutiny Committee, as set out in Appendix 1. The Scrutiny Facilitator confirmed that several updates had been required due to the previous meeting being cancelled and new topics being added. As follows: • Budget changes outlined in February had been incorporated into the programme for June, October/November and February/March, with dates being finalised with the Chief Officer for Finance and ICT. • The item on Health and Social Care Winter Outcomes had been moved out of this year’s programme to accommodate the relocation of services item and would be allocated to the 2026–27 programme at the July meeting. • The Safeguarding item had been moved from June and would also be scheduled for the 2026–27 programme in July. • The June meeting would now include the budget item and the rescheduled Elimination of Profit from Care item originally planned for April’s cancelled meeting. • A Work Programme item would be considered in July to support early planning for the 2026–27 programme over the summer, and a draft outline for next year had already been added with initial topics populated. • Members were invited to suggest further topics or request a topic form if they wished to propose additions. • A reminder was given that the information session with BCUHB, local hospital/A&E managers and Wrexham Social Care officers taking place on 3 June, • Members were reminded that topic requests could be submitted through the usual channels via the Chair. AGREED -That the Work Programme at Appendix 1 be agreed, subject to the above changes.
That the Committee noted the Information Report outlining the legal principles relevant to decisions on transferring the use of a community resource centre.
Y penderfyniad fel y'i cofnodwyd
AGREED - (i) That the committee agreed that, to ensure transparency and accountability, a further report on the transfer of the Cunliffe Centre services to the Acton Community Resource Centre (ARC) be submitted to the September 2026 meeting, or earlier should an extraordinary meeting be convened. The topic was to be scrutinised under Part One regulations. The report would include: a) Confirmation of the position as to whether a decision had been made to repurpose ACRC. If the position was that no decision had been made, an explanation was required as to why ward members and members of the Acton community had been told that a decision had been made to move the Cunliffe Day Centre to Acton, as stated in letters issued by the Council and in press releases such as the one referenced in BBC News. b) A narrative detailing the audit trail of the decision on the service transfer to ACRC, including when authority had been delegated to an officer and the precise nature of the power that had been delegated. c) Copies of all meeting records relating to the decision, including those attending the meetings and those responsible for making the decision. d) A review of the public communication of the decision, and of the failure to consult with those affected prior to the decision. e) A review of the legality of the delegated decision, and whether the Council had adhered to its duties of consultation and public sector equality duties, with guidance from the Monitoring Officer. f) A suitably anonymised and redacted copy of all requests made regarding the decision to move the Cunliffe Day Centre to ACRC, together with the responses issued to those FOIs. g) Confirmation that the date for the return of this issue would be agreed between all parties by close of business on 29 May 2026.That the committee agreed to support the Lead Member for Finance and Asset Management and the Administration in their decision to pause the transfer, and that the pause should remain in place until the report referenced in recommendation 1 had been considered through the scrutiny process. (ii) We support the Lead Member for Finance and Asset Management and the Administration on their decision to pause this transfer and recommend that the pause remains in place until the report referenced in recommendation 1 above has been through the scrutiny process.
The Chief Officer for Social Services submitted report COSC/26/26, providing an update on the proposed relocation of the day service. Councillor Corin Jarvis introduced the report, thanked the committee, supported relocating services and redeveloping the Cunliffe Centre, but raised concerns about the process and lack of engagement. She stated she had not been consulted before learning of the proposals on 23 March and highlighted unclear decision‑making, limited scrutiny, and missing funding information. A scrutiny topic request had been submitted and supported a petition of over 700 signatures, noting the later pause should not have been necessary. Officers advised that the Cunliffe Centre supported adults with complex needs but was no longer suitable, and the site was required for social housing with capacity for around 60 homes. An options appraisal had identified Acton Resource Centre as the preferred site based on cost and adaptability, with funding secured for adaptations. Approval had been granted in February under delegated powers to begin engagement, and letters were issued in late March. Officers acknowledged strong local concern: whilst modernisation was supported, there was significant opposition to losing Acton as a community resource. The proposal was paused to allow further review, including potential shared use, and no final decision had been made. The following was discussed: • Members raised concerns about consultation, transparency, accessibility, and the overall impact on service provision. • The Lead Member for Adult Social Care stated that he had not been informed that this decision had been made. • Officers confirmed an options appraisal had been undertaken and that legal advice would be sought on consultation requirements. • Services had shifted towards community‑based delivery since 2015, though centre‑based provision remained necessary. • Users travelled from across Wrexham, raising concerns about access and whether a single centre could meet demand. • Members highlighted inconsistencies in reporting and unclear decision‑making timelines, suggesting they had not been fully informed. • Officers stated no decision had been made in February and there had been no intention to mislead; approval enabled engagement on the Acton Resource Centre as a potential option only. • Letters issued on 23 March indicated Acton was being explored, but engagement generated significant concern due to the perceived lack of consultation. • Members felt communications appeared to confirm a decision rather than invite feedback. • Alternative options had been considered. The Wellbeing Hub at Crown Buildings was discounted due to high usage, and other sites, including new‑build options, remained under review. • Acton Resource Centre was confirmed as a council‑owned facility used by a wide range of groups, with income generated through fees and agreements. • Although alternative venues existed, there was strong preference to retain Acton Resource Centre. • Relocation options had been explored, but feedback strongly supported keeping the facility, contributing to the pause. • A local councillor and community council representative highlighted the size and importance of the Acton community, significant historic investment in the centre, and the lack of consultation with elected members. • A member stated the proposals appeared predetermined with limited clarity on alternatives, undermining trust. • The community felt informed rather than consulted, and strong opposition reflected the value placed on the centre. • A request was made for meaningful engagement. • Members raised concerns that they had not been kept informed following the February meeting and that developments appeared in the press before formal updates. • Community groups had been given insufficient notice to vacate despite long‑standing use. • Members stressed that earlier engagement could have supported a more collaborative approach. • Legal clarification indicated such decisions would normally require Executive Board approval unless properly delegated, with any determination falling to the Monitoring Officer. • Concerns were reiterated about the use of “engagement” rather than formal consultation, unclear decision‑making processes, and limited transparency and stakeholder involvement. • Officers acknowledged that the significance of the 23 March letters had not been clearly communicated. • Members requested copies of correspondence, SLT reports, records of meetings and decisions, and details of legal advice obtained. • Officers confirmed legal advice had been sought later in response to concerns about consultation and governance. • The committee agreed to receive a further report by September (or earlier) including full documentation of decision‑making, governance, consultation, and equality considerations. • The committee supported maintaining the pause pending review of this information and deferred conclusions on consultation. AGREED - (i) That the committee agreed that, to ensure transparency and accountability, a further report on the transfer of the Cunliffe Centre services to the Acton Community Resource Centre (ARC) be submitted to the September 2026 meeting, or earlier should an extraordinary meeting be convened. The topic was to be scrutinised under Part One regulations. The report would include: a) Confirmation of the position as to whether a decision had been made to repurpose ACRC. If the position was that no decision had been made, an explanation was required as to why ward members and members of the Acton community had been told that a decision had been made to move the Cunliffe Day Centre to Acton, as stated in letters issued by the Council and in press releases such as the one referenced in BBC News. b) A narrative detailing the audit trail of the decision on the service transfer to ACRC, including when authority had been delegated to an officer and the precise nature of the power that had been delegated. c) Copies of all meeting records relating to the decision, including those attending the meetings and those responsible for making the decision. d) A review of the public communication of the decision, and of the failure to consult with those affected prior to the decision. e) A review of the legality of the delegated decision, and whether the Council had adhered to its duties of consultation and public sector equality duties, with guidance from the Monitoring Officer. f) A suitably anonymised and redacted copy of all requests made regarding the decision to move the Cunliffe Day Centre to ACRC, together with the responses issued to those FOIs. g) Confirmation that the date for the return of this issue would be agreed between all parties by close of business on 29 May 2026.That the committee agreed to support the Lead Member for Finance and Asset Management and the Administration in their decision to pause the transfer, and that the pause should remain in place until the report referenced in recommendation 1 had been considered through the scrutiny process. (ii) We support the Lead Member for Finance and Asset Management and the Administration on their decision to pause this transfer and recommend that the pause remains in place until the report referenced in recommendation 1 above has been through the scrutiny process.
Y penderfyniad fel y'i cofnodwyd
AGREED – (i) That the committee thanked the Lead Member and officers for the report and congratulated the department for its work in strengthening the Grow Your Own programme and reducing reliance on agency staff. (ii) That the committee looked forward to receiving an updated report in approximately two years’ time.
The Chief Officer for Social Services submitted a report (COSC/24/26) which provided a detailed briefing on the challenges in relation to recruitment and retention for Social Care and the actions that were underway to respond to the challenges, to enable the Safeguarding & Wellbeing Scrutiny Committee to maintain an oversight of the progress being made and awareness of the joint-working approach between HR&OD and social care. The Lead Member for Adult Social Care introduced the report, which updated the committee on recruitment and retention since October 2025. Agency spending had reduced from £7.4 million in 2022–2023 to an estimated £4.2 million for 2025–2026, supported by the Grow Your Own programme, which had enabled 24 social workers and 11 occupational therapists to qualify, with more in training. The recruitment and retention payment scheme supported 20 social workers and had helped reduce turnover. The Chief Officer for Social Care added that adult permanent staffing had risen to 643 in 2025–26 due to the not‑for‑profit children’s residential service being managed within adults, whilst children’s staffing had remained stable. Agency use had reduced from 69.6 to around 39 FTE, with 12% in adults and 88% in frontline children’s teams. Further reductions were expected through upcoming Grow Your Own cohorts, including seven new social workers and two occupational therapists in 2026. Turnover had fallen to 6.4%. The following was discussed: - · Officers confirmed that removing agency use entirely could save over £2.2 million, though many agency workers preferred the flexibility and higher earnings of temporary work. · Officers had been meeting individually with agency workers to encourage permanent employment, but only two had converted so far due to the significant pay gap. · Officers outlined the benefits of permanent roles, including pensions, stability, supervision and career progression within Wrexham Council. · Questions were raised about the Grow Your Own programme, practise educator capacity and the reduction in sponsored places. · Officers clarified that practise educator numbers had not reduced; only the number of sponsored student places had been scaled back due to funding changes and the volume of university‑based students requiring placements. · Newly qualified social workers were excluded from retention payments because recruitment pressures centred on experienced staff. · Officers confirmed that salaries were not fully competitive with neighbouring Welsh and English authorities, which continued to affect recruitment. · Members asked about apprenticeships, and officers explained that social work trainees were existing staff sponsored through the Open University, while the occupational therapy pathway was open to the wider community. · The service continued working with local colleges and universities to expand opportunities, including through the Social Care Academy, to attract young people and support long‑term career pathways into social care. · A member raised concerns about how effectively the council promoted recruitment opportunities online, noting low engagement on posts and asking whether councillors could help share content more widely. · Officers confirmed that recruitment was being promoted across Facebook, LinkedIn and the council website, with targeted campaigns for key roles such as occupational therapists and residential childcare officers. They explained that work was ongoing to improve the style and reach of adverts as part of the recruitment task‑and‑finish group. · Officers also noted that targeted, rolling adverts were being developed for areas with high agency use to support reductions in agency spending. · officers explained that partnerships with Coleg Cambria and local universities provided work experience placements and exposure to a range of social care roles, helping attract new entrants into the sector. · A member asked for an update on vacancy levels. Officers reported vacancy rates of around 6.7% in adults’ services and 17% in children’s services, equating to approximately 43.5 and 46.5 full‑time equivalent posts respectively. · Members requested that future reports include actual vacancy numbers as well as percentages to give clearer context. AGREED – (i) That the committee thanked the Lead Member and officers for the report and congratulated the department for its work in strengthening the Grow Your Own programme and reducing reliance on agency staff. (ii) That the committee looked forward to receiving an updated report in approximately two years’ time.
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.