Loading
The committee looked at three items. It scrutinised the October 2026 update of the Medium Term Financial Plan, covering the 2027/28 budget gap, school deficits and reserves. It scrutinised the Planning Service Annual Performance Report before it goes to Welsh Government. It also agreed that members' questions on the Health and Safety Annual Report would be sent to officers for answers outside the meeting.
Cabinet Members Laura Wright and Paul Griffiths. Councillors Clare Werrett and Phil Murphy.
None.
Cabinet Member Ben Callard and Jonathan Davies introduced the report and answered the members’ questions with Peter Davies: What are the principal factors that have reduced the projected 2026-27 budget gap from £13.6 million to £11.5 million, and is that reduction sustainable? Are there further proposals to narrow the gap, and how is this reflected in the four-year planning range? A major factor is the way demand pressures have been treated in the modelling. Demand pressures are additional costs arising from increased demand for services such as social care, Additional Learning Needs support and waste collections, beyond normal pay and price inflation. Instead of automatically building assumed demand growth into the 2027-28 forecast, services are now required to provide evidence of the pressures they expect to face. They must demonstrate activity levels, unit costs and how they plan to mitigate demand. This creates a stronger challenge process and avoids relying on broad assumptions. The intention is to understand and test pressures in detail before incorporating them into budget forecasts, rather than accepting them automatically. The same approach is being applied across the four-year planning period so that future assumptions are more evidence-based and sustainable. Does the budget timetable provide sufficient opportunity for elected members to scrutinise and influence the budget-setting process? The process has been brought forward by around two weeks compared with previous years. This gives officers more time to gather and test information while maintaining robust challenge through the finance team, senior leadership and scrutiny committees. The timetable is considered to contain all the necessary stages for scrutiny and challenge before draft budget proposals are developed. However, there remains uncertainty because the council depends on funding information from Welsh Government, which in turn depends on decisions taken by the UK Government. This means that much of the key information does not become clear until late November or December, creating pressure on the timetable. Greater certainty through multi-year settlements would improve longer-term planning, but within the current system the timetable is considered workable and should allow the budget to be agreed before the local elections in May. The report identifies significant financial risks, but how will those risks actually be resolved? The council faces a four-year funding gap that could reach £31.4 million in the worst-case scenario. What will be done to address this? The current report is intended to provide an updated financial planning framework rather than set out the solutions. Detailed responses to the budget challenge will come through the draft budget process. Compared with recent years, the position has improved significantly, with a potential budget gap of £6.5 million in the adverse scenario rather than the much larger gaps faced previously. The council intends to manage the challenge through robust scrutiny of service pressures, savings proposals, income opportunities, demand management measures, and the wider "For Purpose on Purpose" change programme. The financial outlook remains uncertain and will be refined as more information becomes available from UK and Welsh Government budgets. School deficits are running ahead of the agreed recovery plans. The forecast cumulative deficit is £9.337 million compared with around £7.119 million on the recovery trajectory. What will be done to address this and improve confidence in school budget planning? Around £1.4 million of the variance is linked to pressures within the pupil referral service, which is a highly demand-led area. Work is underway to address those pressures and the issue continues to receive significant attention through scrutiny and council discussions. The approach is to work with schools over time to reduce deficits in a managed way, recognising that the council does not have unlimited resources to provide additional funding. There are formal intervention powers available if necessary, including taking control of school budgets, but that would be regarded as a last resort. The position is not unique to Monmouthshire, with most Welsh local authorities also carrying cumulative school deficits. Does the £4.5 million mid-range budget gap fully reflect service pressures in areas such as social care, homelessness, Additional Learning Needs and transport? Demand pressures remain one of the greatest uncertainties within the financial model. Rather than automatically building assumed pressures into forecasts, services are now being required to provide evidence of actual demand, costs and mitigation measures. Any additional pressures will need to be justified through the budget process before being incorporated into future forecasts. The financial model will continue to be updated as evidence becomes available and as the assumptions are tested. The ‘For Purpose on Purpose’programme is expected to be a key part of addressing the medium-term funding gap, but no financial benefits from it have yet been built into the forecasts. Any savings, cost avoidance or other benefits will only be included once there is evidence around delivery, ownership, timing and risks. Themes such as prevention and artificial intelligence may not generate substantial savings immediately, but are expected to become increasingly important in helping the council manage costs and demand over the longer term. Is there a risk that increasing capital pressures and £5.564 million of unsupported borrowing will leave the council with deteriorating infrastructure, including roads, bridges, schools and council buildings? Infrastructure pressures are recognised as a major challenge. In future years, investment in highways infrastructure, bridges, culverts and other assets is expected to become a greater priority within the capital programme. Any use of unsupported borrowing will need to remain affordable, prudent and sustainable under the Prudential Code. Decisions about future capital investment will need to balance financial constraints against the need to maintain and improve essential infrastructure. As Wales moves towards removing profit from children's residential care over the next few years, do we have a clearer understanding of how care providers are responding? Are providers looking to convert to not-for-profit models, leave the market, or make other changes, and what could this mean for the council's future capacity and costs? From a financial perspective, a key issue is ensuring that Welsh Government funding supporting the programme remains sustainable and secure over the long term. As the policy changes draw closer, certainty over both the amount and duration of funding will be essential to allow councils to develop the necessary services and provision with confidence. What are the potential implications for the council's own residential care provision, foster care arrangements and future social care cost pressures as these changes are implemented? The financial concern is that many social care services rely heavily on annually allocated Welsh Government grants. Greater certainty about future grant funding is needed so that councils can plan effectively, establish alternative provision where necessary, and manage future demand and cost pressures. This applies across the authority but is particularly significant for children's and adults' social care services. – ACTION: to receive more detailed responses from the Director of Social Care If inflation rises above current assumptions, or if Welsh Government funding is lower than forecast, what contingency plans are in place and how would services be protected? The report uses a range of planning assumptions, including an adverse scenario which already assumes higher inflation than current levels. The purpose is not to predict exactly what will happen but to illustrate the possible implications of different circumstances. If funding or inflation differs from the assumptions, the outcome will also differ. Any further financial pressure would create additional challenges for service delivery, but it is too early to identify specific service impacts because the council is not yet at the stage of developing detailed budget proposals. The current exercise is testing whether the assumptions being used are reasonable before moving into the budget-building phase. What plans are in place to replenish council reserves? The medium-term forecasts for reserves are set out in the report's reserve projections. The council's reserve position can change depending on financial performance during the year. For example, the position improved last year because the council ended the year with a budget surplus. The forecasts provide the current expected trajectory for both general and earmarked reserves, but these will continue to evolve as financial circumstances change. When will more certainty become available about funding and other key assumptions so that there is more confidence in the budget position? Greater clarity is expected later in the budget process, but much depends on decisions made by UK and Welsh Governments. Significant information about settlements, grants and funding allocations often does not become available until November and December, and in some years uncertainty has continued even after the draft budget has been published. The council therefore has to plan and make assumptions before all the information is known, adjusting its position as more certainty emerges. This uncertainty has become a normal feature of the budget-setting process. Although the report shows overall reserves remaining at around 5% of revenue expenditure, does that mask the true position once school deficits are taken into account? If school deficits are approaching £9.5 million and the Council Fund is around £12 million, does that mean the genuinely available non-earmarked reserves are closer to £2.5 million, or less than 1% of expenditure? How significant is that risk as the council enters what has been described as a particularly challenging financial period? The quality and composition of reserves is just as important as the overall headline figure, which is why the report separates out the different reserve categories. The projected school deficit is already built into the forward projections, including the forecast increase to around £9.3 million. The recovery of school balances over time will therefore be critical to maintaining the council's overall financial resilience. The school deficit effectively has to be managed through the council's wider reserve position, which increases the importance of restoring those balances. The council also has around £8.7 million of reserves available for strategic use, and those reserves will need to be used carefully to achieve the greatest benefit over the next three to four years, particularly in supporting the change programme and providing the upfront investment needed for transformation initiatives. While the projected reserve levels remain within the council's target range, recovery of school balances remains a key factor in maintaining that position and managing financial risk. What support is being provided to help directorates identify and deliver savings? Are there people driving change and helping services review their processes, and how confident are we that the planned savings will actually be achieved? There is evidence that service changes are already improving financial performance. The council is forecasting and controlling spending more effectively than in previous years, despite continuing demand pressures. Services have undertaken significant work to improve efficiency and manage growing demand, particularly in social care and education. Although forecasting remains difficult in demand-led services, there is greater confidence in the financial information coming from services than in previous years. Detailed questions about changes within individual services would be best directed to the relevant Cabinet Members or chief officers. How much progress has been made on the For Purpose on Purpose (FPOP) programme, and can it realistically deliver the benefits needed to help address the 2027-28 financial challenge? The programme's themes and ambitions must be separated from specific, costed projects that can demonstrate measurable benefits. Savings or other financial benefits will only be included in the budget once there is robust evidence that they can be delivered. Some initiatives may generate direct cash savings, while others may prevent future costs from arising. Cost avoidance is regarded as just as important as cash savings, particularly in areas such as prevention, social care, Additional Learning Needs and homelessness. The council is therefore maintaining a disciplined approach and will only incorporate benefits into the financial model when they are supported by evidence. Can you provide an example of how FPOP is influencing service planning and future savings? One example relates to waste services. The council is examining how digital technology, data and artificial intelligence can help respond to future changes such as the Deposit Return Scheme and the introduction of kerbside collection of soft plastics and films. The aim is to ensure decisions made now do not limit future options. These changes may not necessarily reduce costs in cash terms, but they could help prevent costs from increasing as much as they otherwise would. This type of long-term planning is a key part of the programme. How is the council improving consultation and engagement with residents, given concerns that communication is not always reaching local communities? Consultation remains a challenge. The council recognises its importance and is continually looking for better ways to engage residents. Participation levels in consultations are often low unless particularly controversial issues are involved. Traditional communication methods have become less effective, while some people are also moving away from social media, which creates further challenges. The council continues to explore different ways of reaching residents and regards improving engagement as an ongoing priority. How far has the FPOP programme been disseminated beyond Cabinet and the Senior Leadership Team, and how confident are you that its benefits will be realised in time to assist with future budget pressures? The programme's themes are being translated into specific pieces of work, but it is important to maintain discipline by only counting benefits when there is clear evidence, ownership and delivery plans. Some benefits will take time to emerge, particularly those linked to prevention and transformation. The challenge programme should be viewed as a long-term process rather than an immediate source of large savings. Scrutiny of the programme's progress is both expected and welcome as it develops. – ACTION: to obtain more a detailed response from the Deputy Chief Executive Chair’s Summary: The Chair suggested that the graph showing school balance projections in section 6.3 of the report should be updated before the report goes to Cabinet. He noted that the graph was already out of date, as it showed a projected cumulative school deficit of around £7.1 million whereas the latest forecast discussed during the meeting was £9.337 million. He argued that, given the speed at which the position had changed, retaining the older figure presented a misleading picture and that the graph should be revised to reflect the current forecast. He thanked the Cabinet Member and officers for the report and their responses to the committee’s questions. The report was moved.
Councillors Strong, Howells, Crook, Garratt and Buckler noted that they are members of the Planning Committee. Andrew Jones delivered a presentation and answered the members’ questions: Now that the planning and heritage enforcement teams are back to full staffing levels, are there still any outstanding enforcement cases that have not been progressed, and are you confident that performance can improve from "fair" to consistently "good"? Both the enforcement and heritage teams are now at full complement. A new Principal Planning Enforcement Officer has been appointed and the Principal Heritage Officer role has been strengthened, with both officers forming part of the service leadership team. While performance has occasionally reached the "good" category already, a single complex case can sometimes move an indicator back into "fair". The service is confident that several planned improvements will help achieve more consistent performance. These include a new enforcement policy, better reporting systems for the public, a more structured triage system for cases, quarterly reporting to Planning Committee, greater use of enforcement warning notices, and specialist enforcement training for officers. How will the new enforcement policy improve the service? The policy will introduce a more intuitive reporting process, allowing members of the public, councillors and community councils to provide better quality information from the outset. This should reduce delays caused by officers having to obtain further details after a complaint is received. It will also introduce a formal triage system for high, medium and low-priority cases, with clear timescales for responding to each category. Quarterly updates to Planning Committee will improve transparency and accountability, particularly for long-running cases. The policy will also support increased use of enforcement warning notices, which can secure action more quickly by requiring retrospective planning applications where appropriate. What other actions are being taken to strengthen enforcement activity? Joint training has been arranged with Trading Standards and Licensing for November. This will focus on evidence gathering and investigative procedures, particularly for complex land-use cases where identifying the responsible party can be difficult. The training is intended to improve the collection of admissible evidence and strengthen the council's ability to pursue enforcement action and prosecutions where necessary. Several actions listed in previous reports appear again in this year's report. Are there timescales for completing them and what progress has been made? Most actions are progressing as planned. The digitisation of historic planning and enforcement records was always expected to take several years because of the volume of records involved. Scanning work has largely been completed, but further work is needed to map records digitally and carry out data quality checks. Funding secured through external projects has accelerated some elements of this work. The Buildings at Risk Strategy is also a long-term programme rather than a one-year project. Progress has been slower because of staffing vacancies, but with the heritage team now fully staffed it is expected to accelerate over the next year. Professional accreditation work is almost complete, with only one remaining officer still requiring formal delegation from Cadw. The wider service restructure has been completed, with a small number of new starters joining to finalise implementation. The report highlights a 97% approval rate and a high proportion of decisions made under delegated powers, but how do we know these are the right decisions for communities? What independent assessment is undertaken to test the quality of planning decisions, particularly where applications generate significant public opposition? The strongest measure of decision quality is the council's performance at appeal. If poor decisions were being made, this would be reflected in appeals being upheld against the council or in awards of costs for unreasonable decision-making. That is not occurring. Planning decisions are made against planning policy and material considerations rather than the volume of objections received. Every application that attracts objections is assessed through an officer report which addresses the issues raised and explains how they have been considered. The service also seeks to negotiate improvements to developments where possible, including on smaller applications, to secure better outcomes. Officers meet regularly to review cases collectively, ensuring consistency in the interpretation of policy and in decision-making. Overall, there is confidence that the service is applying planning policy appropriately and making robust decisions. How do we know that the Planning Committee is providing effective democratic oversight rather than simply endorsing officer recommendations? Members do overturn officer recommendations on occasion, demonstrating that they exercise independent judgement. The committee's role is to make informed planning decisions in the public interest. The planning system operates within a policy framework, and decisions must be justified against planning considerations. The fact that the council maintains a strong appeal performance provides reassurance that both officer recommendations and committee decisions are generally robust. What safeguards exist to ensure that professional planning advice remains independent and is not influenced by political priorities, particularly in the context of the Replacement Local Development Plan? Planning officers assess applications and policies against adopted planning policy and material planning considerations. Reports set out how objections have been considered and explain the reasons for recommendations. The service operates through regular peer review of cases, whereby officers meet twice weekly to discuss applications, ensure consistent interpretation of policy and maintain consistency in decision-making. This professional process is intended to ensure that decisions remain evidence-based and policy-led. Would it be useful to undertake an independent review of a sample of delegated and committee decisions to assess the quality of planning reasoning and how objections have been considered? This is a potentially interesting and worthwhile piece of work. However, assessing and measuring the quality of planning decisions would be a substantial exercise and would require careful consideration of what criteria would be used to define a high-quality decision. The suggestion is acknowledged as something that could be explored further. The report notes that there is no dedicated training budget. How is staff training currently funded, and is there scope to secure a specific budget for professional development? Training is currently supported through existing service resources and external opportunities. Officers regularly access continuing professional development (CPD) provided by the Royal Town Planning Institute (RTPI), including conferences, digital learning sessions and specialist planning events. The service has also been able to support staff through postgraduate qualifications and trainee development routes, helping to develop planners internally in response to the national shortage of qualified planning professionals. Are there opportunities to work with other local authorities to share knowledge, training and best practice, similar to the collaboration already taking place on minerals planning work with Carmarthenshire? Yes. The planning profession already works collaboratively through national networks and professional bodies. The RTPI provides Wales-wide conferences and training events, and from next year will introduce separate conferences specifically for development management officers and planning policy officers. These events are intended to provide greater opportunities for officers from different authorities to share best practice, discuss case studies and learn from each other. How are officers encouraged and supported to undertake professional development? Professional development is actively encouraged. The service supports officers undertaking formal qualifications and professional accreditation, and makes extensive use of RTPI training opportunities. Training is also tailored to emerging issues affecting the service. Officers work closely as a team, identify common challenges and arrange learning sessions to develop consistent approaches. Can you provide an example of how training is being targeted towards current planning issues? The service had arranged a specific training session on agricultural buildings and development in the open countryside, reflecting an increase in applications involving isolated buildings on small parcels of land. The purpose is to ensure consistency in decision-making and policy interpretation across the team, so that applicants and residents are treated fairly and decisions are made consistently. A member welcomed the improvements that had been made to the planning enforcement service. Drawing on recent experience in his ward, he said he had already seen evidence of better enforcement activity and wanted to record his appreciation for the progress that had been made. Who is responsible for monitoring compliance with Construction Traffic Management Plans attached to planning permissions, and how are those conditions enforced when concerns are raised by residents? Responsibility for complying with Construction Traffic Management Plans rests with the developer. Monmouthshire benefits from having a dedicated enforcement monitoring officer who monitors compliance with planning conditions, although there are practical limitations in being able to observe multiple development sites throughout the day. The forthcoming enforcement policy is intended to make it easier for residents and councillors to provide evidence of breaches, helping officers take action more quickly. Improvements to evidence gathering, including specialist enforcement training and interview techniques, should also strengthen the council's ability to investigate and pursue breaches effectively. What is being done when developers fail to comply with Construction Traffic Management Plans? Where breaches are identified, enforcement action can be taken, including the use of breach of condition notices. However, one of the challenges is that the penalties available under current legislation are relatively limited and may not provide a significant deterrent, particularly for large housebuilders. The council has repeatedly raised this issue with Welsh Government and continues to argue for stronger and more proportionate sanctions where planning conditions are breached. There appears to be a reduction in the number of planning applications coming before the Planning Committee compared with previous years. Is there a particular reason for this, and is it part of a wider trend across Wales? The reduction largely reflects a fall in the number of planning applications being received overall. Comparative data from across Wales shows that authorities operate different delegation schemes, resulting in significant variation in the number of applications considered by committees. Monmouthshire sits broadly in the middle of the range, and there is no particular concern about the number of applications being referred to committee. Comparative Welsh data can be shared to show how other authorities are performing in this respect. – ACTION: to send all-Wales data to Members Section 106 income has fallen by around 25%. Does this simply reflect the stage reached in the current Local Development Plan, and would the adoption of the Replacement Local Development Plan be expected to increase Section 106 contributions in future? The reduction is a consequence of the current Local Development Plan reaching the end of its lifecycle. Most of the larger allocated sites that generated substantial Section 106 contributions have already received planning permission and been developed. As a result, current contributions are mainly being generated by smaller windfall developments. If the Replacement Local Development Plan is adopted and new strategic allocations come forward for planning permission, Section 106 contributions would be expected to increase significantly as those sites enter the development process. Could the report present Welsh performance comparisons in a clearer visual format, such as charts, rather than mainly in text form? Welsh Government already produces comparative performance charts showing how authorities perform against one another. These could be shared with members. It was also agreed that future versions of the report could include these comparisons as appendices, providing a clearer and more accessible visual comparison of Monmouthshire's performance against other Welsh planning authorities. Chair’s Summary: Thank you to the officer for the report and responses to the committee. The report was moved.
Members’ questions to be sent to officers for responses – ACTION
Councillors must say when they have a personal link to something being discussed, such as a job, a property or a family member. A prejudicial interest is one strong enough that the councillor usually leaves the room and takes no part.
Strong: Interest on Planning Annual Performance Report (APR) - To scrutinise the annual performance report prior to submission to Welsh Government
Noted that they are a member of the Planning Committee.
Howells: Interest on Planning Annual Performance Report (APR) - To scrutinise the annual performance report prior to submission to Welsh Government
Noted that they are a member of the Planning Committee.
Crook: Interest on Planning Annual Performance Report (APR) - To scrutinise the annual performance report prior to submission to Welsh Government
Noted that they are a member of the Planning Committee.
Garratt: Interest on Planning Annual Performance Report (APR) - To scrutinise the annual performance report prior to submission to Welsh Government
Noted that they are a member of the Planning Committee.
Buckler: Interest on Planning Annual Performance Report (APR) - To scrutinise the annual performance report prior to submission to Welsh Government
Noted that they are a member of the Planning Committee.
Lists the council's current councillors only. Co-opted members, officers and former councillors aren't shown.