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.
Apologies for absence were received from Cllr Angela Davies, Cllr Adrian Jones, Cllr Liz Rijnenberg, Cllr Pete Roberts and Cllr Raiff Devlin.
The Committee received the following disclose of interests by Members relating to items to be considered at the meeting: 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 minutes of the 20th March meeting were accepted by the Committee as a true record, with the following amendments; • Cllr Corinna Kenyon-Wade noted that she had not been in attendance and that Cllr Chloe Masefield had been; this amendment was made. • Cllr David Thomas noted that he was listed as a Committee Member and asked that this be corrected.
Nominations were received for Cllr Gary Mitchell and vote was carried unanimously. Proposed: Cllr Peter James Seconded: Cllr Bryan Davies
The Customer Experience Framework was introduced by Ellen Sullivan, Head of Digital Services. It was explained that the framework had been developed to address inconsistencies in service quality across the council’s five separate contact centres: the corporate contact centre, income and awards, housing, adult social care, and children’s services. It was noted that the framework aimed to ensure a consistent standard of service and to align customer service delivery with the council’s strategic objectives. It was outlined that the framework had been drafted in late 2024, informed by engagement work carried out by Better Gov. This engagement had included feedback from 1,000 residents, council staff, local businesses, and mystery shoppers. Additional input had been gathered at Sustainable Powys events. The draft framework was subsequently subject to an eight-week public consultation between March and June 2025. It was acknowledged that the consultation had received a low response rate, with only 22 responses from 392 page visits. Nevertheless, key themes were identified, particularly the need for clear follow-up actions. It was confirmed that the next step would involve the development of an action plan and key performance indicators (KPIs) to monitor service quality and consistency across all contact centres. It was clarified that the framework was not intended to address all aspects of customer experience directly, but rather to provide a structure for improving service delivery and performance management. It was also stated that the framework would support the council in responding to customer feedback, particularly through complaints, and in using that insight to inform future improvements. Points raised by the Committee: Responses received from Officers or Cabinet Members: Strategic Planning • How did the framework align with the council’s strategic goals and Sustainable Powys. • Was the framework designed to support consistency across all contact centres. Ellen Sullivan, Head of Digital Services, confirmed that the Customer Experience Framework had been developed to align with the council’s strategic goals, particularly those set out in the Sustainable Powys vision. The framework was intended to ensure consistency in service quality across the five separate customer contact centres, which had previously operated with varying standards. The framework was described as a foundational tool to support transparency, performance management, and improved customer outcomes. Consultation and Engagement • Why was the response rate to the consultation so low. • Could feedback have been gathered more effectively, such as at the end of customer calls. • Was a full public consultation necessary. Officers acknowledged the low response rate to the consultation, with only 22 responses from 392 visits. It was explained that the consultation had been promoted through multiple channels, including the People’s Panel, social media, and the council’s website. Officers agreed that future consultations could consider capturing feedback at the point of contact, such as during or after phone calls. It was also noted that the decision to consult publicly had been debated internally, and while the framework was based on extensive pre-engagement, the public consultation was intended to ensure transparency. Performance Monitoring and Complaints • How would the framework support performance management. • Could it incorporate complaints, FOI requests, and SARs. • What role would managers play in monitoring service delivery. Officers explained that the framework would enable the development of key performance indicators (KPIs) across all contact centres, which had not previously been possible due to fragmented oversight. It was confirmed that complaints data would be a central part of performance monitoring and that the council was in the process of updating its complaints policy. Jane Thomas, Director of Corporate Services, added that KPIs would be integrated into routine service-level performance reviews and reported through scrutiny committees. The framework would support managers in ensuring consistent service delivery and accountability. Digital Inclusion and Accessibility • How would the framework support elderly or digitally excluded residents. • Was there a risk of vulnerable residents being lost in the system. • Were any contact centre staff home-based and had this affected service quality. Officers acknowledged the challenges faced by elderly and digitally excluded residents. Officers stated that the framework aimed to improve the end-to-end customer journey and ensure that all residents, regardless of how they contacted the council, received a consistent and supportive service. It was emphasised that the framework was not a solution in itself but a structure to guide future improvements. Ellen Sullivan confirmed that some staff worked from home but stated that there was no evidence to suggest this had negatively impacted service delivery. She explained that performance was monitored consistently, regardless of location, and that staff were relocated if technical issues arose. Clarity and Communication • Why was the framework document unclear about what would change. • Could the customer charter have been used instead. • Was it appropriate to refer to residents as “customers”. Officers noted that the framework was not intended to outline specific changes but to provide a structure for improvement. They acknowledged that the customer charter was a clearer and more concise document and confirmed that it had been prominently featured on the council’s website. The framework, was more of an internal tool to support consistent service delivery and performance management. Officers noted that the term “customer” was used to reflect the council’s commitment to service quality, though it was recognised that the relationship between the council and residents was not identical to that of a private business and its customers.
The Economy, Residents and Communities Scrutiny Committee thank Portfolio Holders for Finance and Corporate Services, for Greener Powys and a More Prosperous Powys as well as Officers for attending scrutiny. Scrutiny made the following observations: The Committee noted that: • The Customer Experience Framework had been developed to address inconsistencies across five separate contact centres within the Council. • The framework aimed to ensure a consistent quality of service regardless of the point of contact. • The consultation on the framework received only 22 responses from over 6,900 people contacted, despite 11,000 views on social media. • The framework was based on previous engagement with over 1,000 residents, staff, businesses, and mystery shoppers. • The framework was not intended to address the full customer experience but to provide a structure for future action planning and performance monitoring. The Committee welcomed that: • The framework would lead to the development of key performance indicators (KPIs) to monitor service consistency and quality. • Feedback from the consultation, though limited, would be incorporated into the action plan. • The Council had committed to listening to residents and learning from complaints and service feedback. • The framework would support a more transparent and strategic approach to customer service delivery. The Committee requested that: • The action plan be developed promptly and include measurable KPIs. • The framework be shared widely with all staff and councillors, alongside the Customer Charter. • Councillors be provided with a mechanism to report recurring customer service issues. • Future consultations include direct engagement with service users at the point of contact (e.g. after phone calls or web chats). The Committee remain unconvinced of: • The clarity and distinctiveness of the framework compared to the existing Customer Charter. • The value of the public consultation process given the low response rate and limited public understanding of the framework’s purpose. The Committee expressed concern of: • The potential duplication between the Customer Charter and the framework. • The lack of clarity in the framework regarding specific actions or changes to be implemented. • The need for clearer communication to the public about the purpose and benefits of the framework. Scrutiny’s Recommendations to Cabinet 1. The Committee recommended that the framework be shared widely with all staff and councillors, alongside the Customer Charter 2. The Committee requested that the framework be supported by a clear action plan, including measurable key performance indicators (KPIs). 3. The Committee suggested that future consultations should include direct engagement with service users at the point of contact 4. The Committee recommended that the framework be embedded across all departments and staff roles, not limited to customer-facing teams 5. The Committee requested that performance data linked to the framework be included in future scrutiny reports
A summary of the Car Park Review was presented by Councillor Jackie Charlton, Cabinet Member for a Greener Powys and Matt Perry, Chief Officer, Place. It was explained that the review had been brought back to scrutiny following previous consideration, during which no final decision had been made. While the current report was not significantly different from earlier versions, revised outcomes and recommendations had been included as a result of further engagement and analysis. It was outlined that the review had focused on three key themes: tariff structures, enforcement and service improvement, and asset review. The process was described as extensive, having involved multiple working groups since 2024, with cross-party representation, stakeholders, and town councillors. A final working group, held in February 2025, had been independently facilitated by academics from Aberystwyth University and had included cabinet members, group leaders, officers, and members of the Corporate Leadership Team. A consensus had been reached during this session around the need for a consistent model in which users paid for the time they used in as many car parks as possible. Further context was provided by Matt Perry, Chief Officer for Place, who explained that the review had been initiated following a proposed motion concerning car park charges. The aim had been to develop a consistent pricing model across Powys, ensuring equity and supporting sustainable transport. It was noted that the council, as the parking authority, was responsible for both on-street and off-street parking, and that the review had taken into account the rural nature of the county and its reliance on private vehicles. It was highlighted that the last increase in car park charges had taken place in April 2023. Despite this, ticket sales had declined by 9%, prompting a reassessment of pricing strategies. The introduction of a one-hour tariff was projected to create a financial pressure of £136,000, although it was suggested that this could be offset by adjustments to other tariffs. The report’s recommendations included revising tariffs, reviewing on-street parking times, exploring underutilised car parks, and increasing enforcement. It was noted that the report had been shaped by contributions from scrutiny, cabinet, officers, and external consultants. It was reiterated that the review was not solely about revenue generation but also about fairness, accessibility, and supporting local communities. Points raised by the Committee: Responses received from Officers or Cabinet Members: Pricing and Perception • Had the council considered the perception that parking was cheaper in neighbouring English counties such as Herefordshire and Shropshire. • Were comparisons with Ceredigion appropriate, given its status as a tourist area. • Would the existing full-permit option, which allowed parking in all council-run car parks, remain available alongside the new single car park permit. Councillor Jackie Charlton, Portfolio Holder for a Greener Powys, acknowledged the perception that parking in neighbouring counties might appear cheaper. However, she explained that many other local authorities were also in the process of increasing their charges, and that Powys’s pricing was not out of step with broader trends. Matt Perry, Chief Officer for Place, added that while comparisons had been made with other authorities, the council’s priority was to ensure equity across Powys. He noted that some authorities used tiered pricing structures, but the council had opted for a consistent model to ensure fairness. Officers confirmed that the existing full-permit option would remain available. The new single car park permit, priced at £2.80 per day, was introduced to provide a more affordable alternative for users who only needed access to one location. Both permit types would be offered with flexible durations, including monthly, six-monthly, and annual options. Implementation • How were car parks in areas with only one facility being categorised under the new short-stay and long-stay structure. • What did the short-, medium-, and long-term timeframes referred to in the report mean. Officers explained that the categorisation of car parks had been simplified to ensure consistency. All car parks, including those with only one facility, would now offer a one-hour tariff, removing the previous distinction between short-stay and long-stay. This change was based on feedback from the working groups and aimed to improve equity. Regarding implementation, officers stated that the council aimed to introduce the changes by August 2025. Medium-term actions were expected to be addressed within two years, while long-term considerations would follow thereafter. Financial Impact • Had the review fully considered the impact of increased charges on residents, town centre businesses, and tourists. • Had the council assessed the potential consequences of raising the all-day tariff by 25%, particularly whether it might lead to increased parking in residential areas. • Was the review driven primarily by financial motives, or had it taken a balanced approach. Councillor Jackie Charlton emphasised that the review had not been driven solely by financial considerations. She stated that the income generated from car parks was reinvested into highways and transport infrastructure, supporting both drivers and public transport users. It was also noted that the review had been shaped by extensive engagement with stakeholders, including town councils and working groups. Officers added that previous increases in all-day tariffs had not led to significant displacement into residential areas. He explained that regular users tended to purchase permits, and that the new single car park permit offered a more affordable option for those using one location regularly. Accessibility and Inclusivity • Were the pay-and-display machines accessible to people with disabilities or visual impairments. • Was the lack of free parking encouraging visitors to stop at supermarkets with free parking and toilets, rather than supporting independent high street businesses. It was confirmed that the council was in the process of upgrading its parking infrastructure, including signage and ticket machines, to improve accessibility. It was acknowledged that some machines had small buttons, which could be difficult for visually impaired users, but improvements were underway. Also highlighted was the introduction of a new parking app, which allowed users to pay remotely and extend their stay if needed. Regarding competition from supermarkets, the concern was recognised and the council was exploring ways to better understand footfall and its relationship to parking, including potential collaboration with Aberystwyth University. Local Variation • Had the review adequately accounted for the differences between towns across the county, particularly in terms of car park availability and congestion. • Would the council continue to engage with town and community councils in future reviews. Councillor Jackie Charlton acknowledged that every town in Powys had different needs and challenges. It was confirmed that the council was committed to ongoing engagement with town and community councils, particularly in the medium term. Crickhowell was cited as an example of a town that had developed a place plan and was actively working with the council on parking issues. It was also noted that the review would consider underused assets and explore opportunities for better use of existing spaces. Technology • Had the council considered implementing dynamic pricing in car parks, where charges could be adjusted based on demand. • What was the current status of the Smart Towns project in Newtown, and could it be used to analyse footfall from car parks into town centres. While no immediate plans were in place to introduce dynamic pricing, officers confirmed that the idea had merit and could be explored in future reviews. The use of data to inform decisions was supported and it was noted that the Smart Towns project, although delayed, remained a priority. Officers agreed that better data on footfall and parking usage would help shape future policy.
The Economy, Residents and Communities Scrutiny Committee thank Portfolio Holders for Finance and Corporate Services, for Greener Powys and a More Prosperous Powys as well as Officers for attending scrutiny. Scrutiny made the following observations: The Committee noted that: • The review had been ongoing for over two years and had involved multiple working groups, Cabinet discussions, and external facilitation. • The revised proposals included a consistent pricing model across Powys, with a reintroduction of a 1-hour tariff. • Ticket sales had declined by 9% following previous changes, despite an increase in income. • The new proposals aimed to balance the budget while addressing public concerns. • The review included considerations of enforcement, innovation, and asset management. The Committee welcomed that: • The 1-hour parking tariff would be reintroduced across all car parks, including those with only one facility. • A new single car park permit would be introduced at a discounted rate, with flexible durations. • Town and community councils would be engaged in future reviews and decisions. • The Council had committed to reviewing underutilised car parks and exploring alternative uses. The Committee requested that: • The impact of increased all-day tariffs on residential parking and town centre footfall be monitored. The committee noted a number of still outstanding short, medium and longer term items for review, evaluation and possible implementation and would like to see a clear timeline of when further action on these will be taken • The Council consider dynamic pricing models to better match demand and usage. • The blue badge parking policy be reviewed and clarified, with a clear decision on whether charges would be introduced. • The Council explore the use of smart technology and footfall data to inform future decisions. • A post-Christmas review be conducted to assess the impact of any free parking initiatives. The Committee remain unconvinced of: • The extent to which the review had considered the economic impact on town centre businesses and tourism. • The justification for increasing all-day tariffs without clear evidence of behavioural impact. The Committee expressed concern of: • The slow pace of progress and implementation over the past two years. • The risk of pricing residents and visitors out of town centres, potentially harming local economies. • The lack of up-to-date data to support some of the assumptions in the report. • The potential for increased on-street parking in residential areas due to higher car park charges. Scrutiny’s Recommendations to Cabinet 1. The Committee supported the reintroduction of a 1-hour parking tariff across all long-stay car parks. 2. The Committee approved the proposed tariff structure: a. 1 hour: £1.50 b. 1–2 hours: £2.50 c. 2–4 hours: £3.50 d. All day: £5.00 with a recommendation that the impact of the all-day tariff be monitored and reviewed. 3. The Committee endorsed the introduction of a new single car park permit at a discounted rate, with flexible durations (monthly, quarterly, annual). 4. The Committee requested that the impact of increased tariffs on residential parking and town centre footfall be monitored. 5. The Committee recommended that the Council explore dynamic pricing models to better match demand and usage. 6. The Committee encouraged the use of smart technology and footfall data to inform future decisions. 7. The Committee requested a post-Christmas review to assess the impact of any free parking initiatives. 8. The Committee urged the Council to accelerate progress on short medium- and long-term car park review actions. 9. The Committee recommended that future reviews consider the economic impact on local businesses and tourism, not solely revenue generation. 10. The Committee requested that the Council engage with town and community councils in future car park planning and review processes. 11. The blue badge parking policy be reviewed and clarified, with a clear decision on whether charges would be introduced.
This item was for information only and was presented by Sian Barnes, Professional Lead - Countryside Access & Recreation. The committee was informed that the Rights of Way Improvement Plan (RoWIP) was a statutory requirement under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act, with a review required every ten years. The current plan, last reviewed in 2018, was due for renewal by 2028. It was explained that the review would be commenced in the 2026–27 financial year to allow sufficient time for completion. The review process was expected to be resource-intensive and would involve extensive engagement with statutory consultees and stakeholders. It was noted that the RoWIP underpinned access-related grant funding from Welsh Government and supported wider funding bids. The committee was advised that the review would assess delivery against the current plan and set out future aspirations, taking into account changes in funding, climate impacts, strategic priorities, and increased public demand for accessible green space. The importance of aligning with Sustainable Powys principles and supporting health, wellbeing, and low-carbon travel was also emphasised. The committee was assured that it would be given a formal opportunity to comment on the draft plan before its submission to Cabinet. The Chair reminded the Committee Members that this was an information only item and therefore no scrutiny would be undertaken, however general questions would be allowed if Officers were happy to receive them. Sian Barnes indicated that questions would be welcome. Points raised by the Committee: Responses received from Officers or Cabinet Members: Volunteer Coordination and Support • Would the employment of more volunteer coordinators be considered to better support the volunteer network. Officers explained that the volunteer programme had been reshaped to address underutilisation caused by limited officer capacity. The revised approach was designed to provide greater autonomy to volunteer groups, reducing their reliance on officer input. It was confirmed that additional funding for volunteer coordination was being explored, although any such funding would need to be sourced externally due to the council’s financial constraints. Funding • Was there sufficient funding available to support the statutory duties of the footpath network, given that grants could not be used for statutory work. • How would funding be secured from wind farm developments, especially those still in the planning pipeline. It was acknowledged that core funding for statutory duties remained limited. The officer confirmed that while grants such as the Brilliant Basics fund had been received, these could not be used for statutory responsibilities. It was noted that section 106 agreements were being routinely used to secure contributions from wind farm developers. These mechanisms were described as well-established, and it was stated that the council’s involvement at the early scoping stage of planning applications ensured that appropriate access-related contributions were requested and considered by the Planning Inspectorate. Performance Monitoring and Review • Would the review include an assessment of how well the previous Rights of Way Improvement Plan had been delivered. It was confirmed that the review would include an assessment of the delivery of the current plan. This requirement was stated to be part of Welsh Government guidance. The assessment would be carried out in a light-touch manner due to resource limitations, but it would inform the development of the new plan. Engagement and Consultation • Would external partners and organisations be engaged in the development of the new plan. • Could expectations be better managed with statutory consultees, such as the Local Access Forum, to clarify when formal consultation would begin. It was confirmed that extensive engagement would be undertaken with both statutory consultees and wider stakeholders. The Local Access Forum was identified as a key channel for communication and engagement. Officers acknowledged that some consultees had expressed disappointment at not being involved at this early stage, and it was suggested that clearer communication would be provided in future to manage expectations. It was reiterated that the current report was an introductory update and not the start of the formal review process.
This item was removed from the agenda and is due to be presented as a Member Development session.
To receive the Cabinet’s response to Budget Scrutiny Recommendations. This item was noted.
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.