Loading
There is no summary of this meeting yet. Summaries are written once the council publishes the minutes, which are its official record of what a meeting decided. They usually appear a few weeks after the meeting.
There were no apologies for absence.
There were no disclosures of interest by Members relating to items to be considered at the meeting
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 Chair was authorised to sign the Minutes of the previous meeting on the 15.07.2024 as a correct record.
Background: · The partnership commenced in 2015. · The reported provided the full year for 2023-2024. · A full overview was provided by officer from Freedom Leisure. Points raised by the Committee: Responses received from Officers or Cabinet Members: Was the intention to update all centres with solar panels. A joint approach was taken with the Council to ensure that as many sites as possible had solar panels. Plans continue into the coming years. It was asked if all centres would have building management systems upgraded. All centres had been updated over the past six years. Was a date available for the next installs of solar. Outcomes of funding bids were awaited from Sports Wales and if successful the next solar installations would be completed by March 2025. Collaboration with different partners would then be undertaken to map out future steps. When did the energy contract expire. Gas was a flexi contract a fixed plan was in place for electricity. Brokers and sustainable Energy Team were working together to achieve the best possible renewal. It was asked if all the number of customers that were engaged with could be added to the report. The report showed on page 18 - 300 responses were received 69 detractors, 78 passive, 149 promoters. It was asked if the energy being generated could be provided in the report. Figures would be provided in future reports. A financial surplus was demonstrated but it was asked if a few years could be shown. 2023-24 showed the first positive surplus since the contract began in 2015 and would provide the history and where investment was invested across the estate. An additional measure of how many people were using each centre was requested. Participation figures only provided totals. The information would be added to Portfolio Holder updates for all Councillors. It was asked if the percentage of the population that were not using the centres could be targeted with specific marketing, to enable more access from different groups. What percentage of the Powys population were accessing centres on a regular basis. The detail would be compiled and shared with the Committee. Had the water/shower usage and costs increased. Significant investment had been made; and full consideration taken when changing rooms were updated. Specific performance measures were recorded to ensure targets were met and included both usage and disposal. Details would be added to the energy section of the report. Page 15- active participation, it was asked if benchmarking exercises were undertaken. Benchmarking was undertaken both internally, across Wales, the portfolio and with UK partners. The last couple of years showed a positive steady recovery for Powys. Page 24 – customer feedback scores, examples were asked to be provided on what the detractor feedback was. Price was a key priority that appeared on a regular basis. Opening hours and providing refurbished facilities was also included. However, it was noted that positive feedback was always received for staff friendliness and helpfulness. Page 14 – marketing, would specific marketing for centres be beneficial to the local communities. It was agreed that more localised publicity could be created, and finding a balance was essential to also encourage visitors in the area. Local community work was increasingly important to target groups and Freedom Leisure were happy to explore opportunities. Clarity was requested around the statement in the report around Caereinion. It was confirmed that a new red gra surface had been added to the pitch. An observation was noted that the app was excellent but did not always work. · The Committee noted that it was a positive report and hoped that growth in the industry would continue. · Thanks, and appreciation were expressed to Freedom Leisure for comprehensive answers to all questions.
Background: · The information provided was an update only and the consultation would close on 12 October 2024. · The questions of the survey were explained and clarified to the Committee. · The policy would align with the schools admissions policy and catchment maps. · The update of the policy would ensure that all ambiguity was removed before implementation. Points raised by the Committee: Responses received from Officers or Cabinet Members: It was felt an easy read version with simplified language was required and would be helpful to avoid misinterpretation. Clarification was requested around the issue of bus passes. A reference to bus passes had been added to the policy as a new system had been introduced to enable officers to monitor the use of daily bus travel and vehicles used. More information around free transport for English and Welsh students was required. Options and scenarios were explained to the Committee and how the transport to Welsh medium schools was in support of the Welsh Language. Did the council benchmark against other Welsh Authorities and if so, did Powys show any consistency with other Welsh Authorities. Analysis had been undertaken and noted that Powys was not inconsistent but was dependent on the varying interpretation of the Learner Travel (Wales) Measure 2008. The Council could not provide all options but supported the Welsh Language offer by the promotion of school transport. Was there an enhancement that could be added to the vacant seat policy due to parents/residents’ concerns. The legislation did not allow for vacant seats to be sold, clarification from the Welsh Government was awaited. It was noted that the school was chosen by the parent or guardian and the policy complied with the Learner Travel (Wales) Measure 2008 which stated the nearest suitable or catchment school. The policy was questioned, and it was asked if the Council could provide sufficient information and evidence if challenged/appealed. It was explained that discretion was held within the policy and the transport team liaise with the school service to ensure that needs were met. Evidence was gathered in order for alternative options for pupils were provided or temporary measures were put in place. It was noted that the legal team had reviewed and provided comment to the policy. Officers were thanked for clear examples of how discretion was used in the Council as it was highlighted that residents had commented how the Council hid behind policies. The Chair of Learning and Skills Scrutiny Committee asked why the policy had not been brought to both scrutiny committees before the consultation began. A time pressure was in place with a decision target for end of the month. Officers were happy to receive feedback from Councillors. It was felt that the survey only asked specific questions and if the response rate was sufficient. The specific questions were necessary and deliberate to emphasise the changes made to the policy and not the application. A free text box was available after each question. Once the consultation closed the figures would be reviewed. Disappointed was stressed that the consultation had been run over the school summer holidays. Communications had been lacking and could have been promoted more comprehensively. The consultation was delayed due to the general election, colleagues in school service pushed out communications which unfortunately was close to summer holidays, and again when exam results were released. The policy did not allow for flexibility as discussed in full Council. Page 46 - Section two of the policy provided more detail around discretionary travel arrangements. Clarification was asked to be provided regarding hazardous routes and did the Council know how many pupils were driven and a how many walked to school. It was felt that a distinction in the policy could help: -the distance to quality for transport (milage) -and hazardous routes. It was parental responsibility to evaluate if the route to school was appropriate (safe and distance appropriate) for their child. If hazardous the Council would consider providing transport, however robust specific criteria was in place that had to be met before consideration. An appeals process and timeframe was clear, and the review process explained which included using google maps and also walking the route with parents at school times. The Portfolio Holder stressed that concerns would be taken forward and considered for the policy, timeframes were shorter to ensure legal implications were correct and the timing of the general election. The meeting was reminded that school transport was not free and impacts the budget significantly. How many bus passes were issued and what the timeframe for them to be issued and how long do they last. Approximately 7000 bus passes were issued and ensure those transitioning from primary to high school before the end of the term. Information from schools is relied upon for any new students and applications from parents. And stressed the importance of parents contacting the Council to notify them of any changes and to check eligibility criteria. Bus passes last for the full duration of primary education. Secondary learners have a pass from October half term to year eleven. A tight time frame was in place for those going to college due to term timetables and the decision of the learner. · The Committee would welcome an easy read version with simplified language and would be helpful to avoid misinterpretation. · It was felt that the policy would have benefited from the scrutiny process before the consultation began. · It was requested that the consultation was advertised further. · The comments and feedback from the meeting would be considered by officers. · It was requested that the policy returned to a joint committee. · Papers were to be provided in a timelier manner for Councillors to ensure full preparation had been made. · Pleased to see that medical needs were recognised within the policy. Post meeting note – the Policy for Home to School Transport would be re-submitted.
Background: • It was stressed that the tariff element of the review was a major point raised by the Working Group, however recommendations were needed to achieve budget targets and additional recommendations had been made by officers. • Additional elements of the review would be provided to scrutiny at a later stage. • It was clarified that income from car parks was a revenue stream of approximately £1.8m and supported services within the Council. Points raised by the Committee: Responses received from Officers or Cabinet Members: Clarification was requested around the decrease in ticket sales and was it due to the only option being two hours, also if residents had found other places to park due to the cost. Noting that recent figures had not been used in the report. It was explained that many reasons cause fluctuations including weather which attribute to income loss. A recommendation had been made to charge by the hour to encourage longer stays in car parks. Paragraphs 2.15, 2.16 and 3.15 Working Group concerns and benefits to communities were not considered in the report. All concerns and benefits were taken into consideration. Recommendations made were unable to balance the budget as required by set targets. It was asked if free car parking would be available for the Christmas period As stated in the report it was advised to stop, unless income of funds was achieved and would then be a consideration for the Portfolio Holder. The economic impact of the removal of free Christmas shopping was highlighted and would drive people to shop elsewhere. It was noted that the full benefits were included in the Atkins Realis report but not in the scrutiny report. It was asked for the rationale to be explained how short stay bays carparks were allotted. For proportion and percentage breakdown of available short stay bays to be provided. It was felt that half an hour for some residents would not allow enough time. The review considered the one-hour short stay cost to the service for all car parks and felt that it could be introduced to those car parks currently without that option. An example was provided of 200 tickets a day being sold which would be a mix of one- and two-hour stays. On street parking must be considered which was also available up to one hour in many towns. Town Councils suggested half hour options which would be considered in the future. It was stressed that the Working Group had spent up to year working together to provide a thorough process on behalf of the review and felt that not all recommendations had been considered and how it would impact on residents and town centres and felt that one issue would be solved by introducing a further problem. Disparity between locations was evident in the report and that the Council continued to maintain discretionary car parks which are free. Competitive charging with local authorities over the border was not evident. Signage could be improved to ensure residents know the locations of the short stay car parks in towns. It was asked why the cost of two additional enforcement officers was so high. It was explained that the cost would include ongoing costs including pensions, software, equipment, fuel, and vehicles needed for officers to conduct their duties. Page 57 3.8 – it was asked if enforcement officers were a deterrent and was income generated. The penalty charge notices alone did not cover the cost of enforcement officers and legislation did not allow targets to be set on how many notices were issued per day. Resources were limited with only eight full time staff at full capacity. Page 58 - an explanation was required around the unachieved car parking savings. An explanation was provided that the savings target set for the service was £2m and the forecast predicted a short fall of £121,000 and savings would be sought in other areas of the service to balance the budget. Page 58 – an explanation was required around the blue badge figure of £50,000. As part of the budget setting process last year a separate income target had been set for blue badges as a charge would be introduced to car parks. The economic impact of the removal of free car parks for Christmas shopping was highlighted and would drive people to shop elsewhere. The Christmas offering had not been in place continuously and was brought back recently. It was fully dependent on the financial position and changes would be considered by the Portfolio Holder. It was explained that Town and Community Councils hire car parks from the Council to offer free parking to visitors, residents and for events, and the Council would consider any further proposals. Could assurance be provided that all blue badge holders were able to access parking metres. Charges would not be implemented until all machines were accessible, work was being undertaken to improve sites and an interim phone system payment solution was being considered. It was felt that car parks could not be treated purely as revenue stream due to the economic impact on the communities and a common theme of fairness has not been addressed. Town centres were not thriving, and car parking charges would lessen the appeal further. Was there an investigation into electronic enforcement and all options considered. It would be a wider consideration for the next stage of the review, a more friendly way to enforce and pay charges. The Council would need to comply with strict legislation for new systems if introduced. It was commented that enforcement officer operating hours could be changed to elevate the on-street parking issues. The report did not clarify the use of permits. It was felt that the service would be best placed to continue with the review. The Portfolio Holder expressed that this was just a starting point, and all issues had been considered and the car park review continued to be a challenge, but a balance budget had to be achieved. The Atkins report was revisited to how improvements could be made and Town and Community Councils revisited. 10.1 Report Recommendations: · Leave car parking charges ‘as is’ with the exception of introducing 1 hour parking tariff to long stay car parks in the towns of Builth Wells, Crickhowell, Llanidloes, Machynlleth, Presteigne and Ystradgynlais where no short stay car parks are available in accordance with the Local Authorities’ Traffic Orders (procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996. The Committee proposed an alternative recommendation to introduce 1 hour parking tariff in all long stay car parks. · Increase tariffs for 2-4hr parking to £3.80 and all-day parking to £5 in accordance with the Local Authorities’ Traffic Orders (procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996. The Committee felt that the full impacts had not been considered and enough detail had not been provided and the recommendation could not be supported. · Review, assess and introduce charging in off streetcar parks in Powys where currently no charging structure exists. The Committee supported the recommendation above but would like to be part of any future proposals and ensure they were brought before the Scrutiny Committee. · Review, assess and introduce amendments to car parking permits so that they become a single car park only at current price, but introduce an option for a permit to be used in more than one carpark for an additional fee. Communication from residents was relayed to the meeting and explained that the cost was currently too high. It was hoped that alternative options could be considered that specific car park permits could be made available at a specific rate. Alternative wording to include – ‘review, assess and propose’ to be added to recommendations. · Free car parking for events will cease unless there is sufficient head room in the budget to accommodate all the associated costs. The Committee could not support the recommendation. All technology must be investigated, and all options explored. Summary: -The Committee recognised the significant difficulties and strain the Council was under. And the challenges faced by services including financial, operational and resource. -Disappointment was shared regarding the time taken to complete the car park review to date and the quality of information it contained.
The future dates were noted.
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.
Declarations are read from the minutes once they are published.
Lists the council's current councillors only. Co-opted members, officers and former councillors aren't shown.