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 were received from Committee Members Cllr Bryan Davies, Cllr Glyn Preston and Cllr Gary Mitchell, Cabinet Member for a Legal and Regulatory Services, Cllr Richard Church and Officers John Forsey - Head of Highways Transportation and Recycling, Jenny Ashton – Senior Manager Community Wellbeing and Catherine James – Head of Business Intelligence and Governance.
A declaration of interest from Cllr Angela Davies and Councillor Peter James relating to Item 7 and a declaration of interest from Cllr Peter James relating to Item 9.
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 09th July 2025 as a correct record.
Daniel Burgess, Head of Economy and Climate delivered a presentation to the Scrutiny Committee. It was noted: • MEIP was a cross-border initiative involving Powys, Shropshire, Herefordshire, and Monmouthshire councils. • The project aimed to tackle climate challenges like flooding and drought using nature-based solutions and private investment. • The presentation highlighted financial pressures and the need for alternative funding models. • MEIP proposed leveraging private capital to support biodiversity, water management, and land resilience. • Governance included a quarterly partnership board, monthly executive meetings, and a programme group chaired by Mr Burgess. • The partnership held no formal decision-making powers; decisions were made through existing structures such as Cabinet and scrutiny. • MEIP was positioned as a pioneering green finance platform. • The Severn Valley Water Management Scheme was identified as a priority. • Planned interventions included regenerative land management and engineered flood storage, maintaining agricultural productivity. • Emphasis was placed on cross-border collaboration, community protection, and attracting private finance. • The project remained in its technical design phase, with formal consultation scheduled for November. Points raised by the Committee: Responses received from Officers or Cabinet Members: Financial Viability and Investment What was the risk associated with failing to attract private sector finance. It was acknowledged that there were no guarantees of attracting private sector finance, which was why the project remained in its technical design phase. The aim at this stage had been to test the market and develop an investable proposition. How was the scheme monetised. It was explained that the scheme would be monetised through the creation of a platform offering nature-based solutions to investors. A management fee structure had been proposed to allow reinvestment into local communities and climate initiatives. What was the potential for the scheme to act as a top up to existing Welsh Government Farming schemes. It was confirmed that the scheme was intended to complement, rather than replace, existing Welsh Government farming schemes. It had been described as a potential top-up, offering longer-term stability and additional income for landowners. What was the expected return for private investors. Officers stated that private investors would expect a return based on the environmental services delivered, such as water management and biodiversity improvements. The importance of identifying buyers with a dependency on the landscape had been emphasised, as this would help de-risk the investment and attract capital. Governance and Influence What was the expected influence of the local authority over farming practises. Officers clarified that the local authority’s influence over farming practices would be exercised through partnership, engagement, and the development of a governance structure that provided assurance to investors and stakeholders. What was the governance structure. Officers explained that the governance structure had been outlined as informal, with no decision-making powers within the partnership itself. All decisions would be routed through existing formal mechanisms, including Cabinet and scrutiny. What was the role of the council in shaping land management decisions. Officers noted that the council’s role in shaping land management decisions had been described as one of coordination and facilitation, working with landowners and partners to deliver agreed interventions. Stakeholder Engagement What was the extent of engagement with farming unions and networks. Officers confirmed that engagement with farming unions, landowner groups, and networks such as the Nature Friendly Farming Network had already begun and would continue to be a priority. Would tourism businesses be included in the scheme. The inclusion of tourism businesses in the scheme had been welcomed, and it had been agreed that opportunities for green tourism and business engagement would be explored further. The inclusions of town and community councils in future consultation was recommended. The recommendation to involve town and community councils in future consultation was supported, with officers acknowledging their role as community leaders and potential advocates for the scheme. Communication and Understanding Further clarification on the meaning of the pie chart on page 40 was requested. Officers explained that it illustrated the integrated benefits of the scheme across multiple well-being goals, based on the Future Generations framework. It was suggested that clear messaging would be important for public consultation. Officers agreed that clear and accessible messaging would be essential for the upcoming public consultation, particularly to ensure understanding among farmers, businesses, and residents.
The Committee noted that: • The scheme aimed to attract private sector investment to deliver nature-based solutions and address climate and biodiversity challenges. • The governance structure relied on existing formal mechanisms, with decisions routed through chief executives, directors, Cabinet, and scrutiny. The Committee welcomed that: • The scheme had been recognised by both Welsh and UK Governments for its ambition and scalability. • The project sought to deliver long-term environmental and economic benefits without relying on public funding. • Engagement with stakeholders such as farming unions and networks had already commenced. The Committee requested that: • Wider engagement be undertaken, including with tourism businesses, town and community councils, and the general public. • Risk mitigation strategies be developed in case private sector investment was not secured. • Clear and accessible messaging be used during public consultation to ensure understanding of the scheme’s aims and benefits. The Committee remained unconvinced that: • The financial model and return on investment for private investors had been sufficiently explained. • The governance arrangements provided enough clarity or assurance regarding accountability and decision-making. The Committee expressed concern of: • The potential lack of influence the local authority might have over farming practices and land management decisions. • The risk that poor communication could undermine public confidence and stakeholder engagement. Scrutiny’s Recommendation Accept (plus Action and timescale) Partially Accept (plus Rationale and Action and timescale) Reject (plus Rationale) Wider engagement be undertaken, including with tourism businesses, town and community councils, and the general public. Risk mitigation strategies be developed in case private sector investment was not secured. Clear and accessible messaging be used during public consultation to ensure understanding of the scheme’s aims and benefits. Clarify governance structures and responsibilities Support the ongoing development of the MEIP
Councillor James Gibson-Watt, Cabinet Member for a More Prosperous Powys, introduced the paper concerning the proposed Visitor Levy. It was noted: • Cabinet CLT had already considered the proposal and expressed a preference to proceed with Option 2 (engagement), subject to scrutiny feedback. • The Welsh Government’s proposal was introduced, with recognition that visitor levies were commonly used internationally. • The proposed levy was described as modest—approximately £1.30 per hotel guest per night and 75p for caravan stays. • Any implementation of the levy would be preceded by a formal consultation process. Points raised by the Committee: Responses received from Officers or Cabinet Members: Levy Structure How was the levy structure applied and was VAT included. It was confirmed that the levy would be charged per person, not per room. Officers clarified that the indicative rates were £1.30 per person per night for hotel stays and 75p for caravan accommodation. It was not confirmed whether VAT was included in these figures, and further clarification was requested. Were children charged under the levy. Officers clarified that children would not be charged under the scheme. Was the levy intended to apply to static caravans. Officers explained that stays longer than 31 days would be exempt from the levy. Further clarification was needed on the practicalities associated with these stays, where static caravan users visited for several weekends over a longer period. However, the levy would not apply to people who were staying with family or in private homes. Were business travellers to be charged under the levy. Officers acknowledged that further clarification would be needed regarding exemptions for business travellers. Financial Impact and Risk Had the risk of the levy discouraging visitors been considered and how would this be mitigated. Officers acknowledged the concern and agreed that a detailed financial impact assessment would be required. It was noted that visitor numbers in Powys had not yet returned to pre-COVID levels, and the cost-of-living crisis was already affecting tourism behaviour. Was the levy considered to result in job losses or reduced income for local businesses. It was accepted that the tourism sector was a significant employer in Powys, with around 1 in 7 jobs linked to it. Officers agreed that the potential for job losses and reduced spending in local businesses must be considered before any decision was made. Was the levy income ring-fenced for tourism infrastructure. Officers confirmed that the levy income could be used to support tourism infrastructure and reduce reliance on central government funding. However, it was acknowledged that clear governance would be needed to ensure the funds were not diverted to unrelated services. How had the levy affected other council income, such as car parking charges. It was acknowledged that a reduction in visitor numbers could impact other income streams, such as car parking. Officers agreed that this risk should be included in the financial modelling. Engagement and Consultation How was the council expected to engage with the public and stakeholders. It was agreed that engagement would be essential and should include tourism businesses, town and community councils, and the wider public. Officers confirmed that a meeting with the Mid Wales Tourism Partnership had already been scheduled. How much would the engagement process cost. Officers stated that the engagement would be low-cost and could be delivered using existing resources. Social media, online surveys, and printed materials in libraries were mentioned as cost-effective methods. How was the council expected to ensure engagement reached those not online It was confirmed that posters and paper forms would be made available in libraries and other public spaces. Town and community councils would also be asked to help promote the engagement. How were consultation questions constructed to avoid bias. Officers agreed that the wording of consultation questions would be critical. It was acknowledged that poorly worded questions could lead to misleading results or misinterpretation by the public. Tourism Infrastructure and Local Benefits What was the levy income to be used for. Officers explained that the income could be used to improve visitor infrastructure, such as footpaths, signage, public toilets, and street cleaning. Officers noted that these services were currently underfunded and heavily reliant on grants like Brilliant Basics, which may end in 2027. Was the council expected to improve its tourism offer before charging visitors. Officers accepted that the current offer needed improvement. It was noted that some residents felt the visitor experience was not yet strong enough to justify a levy, but the levy could help fund those improvements. Implementation Who collected the levy. It was confirmed that the Welsh Revenue Authority would be responsible for collecting the levy, not the local authority. This arrangement was described as unusual but would reduce the administrative burden on the council. Was there a register of accommodation providers or would this be created. It was agreed that a register would be beneficial. Officers noted that Powys currently lacked a comprehensive list of accommodation providers, and the levy could help establish one.
Scrutiny made the following observations: The Committee noted that: • The Welsh Government had delegated the decision-making on the visitor levy to local authorities. • The levy had been proposed as a per-person charge, with different rates for hotels and caravans. • The Welsh Revenue Authority would be responsible for collection, not the local authority. The Committee welcomed that: • Engagement with the public and tourism sector had been proposed before any decision was made. • The levy could potentially support improvements to tourism infrastructure, such as footpaths and signage. The Committee requested that: • The wording of engagement questions be carefully considered to ensure full understanding. • A detailed financial assessment be undertaken to understand the impacts of the levy. • Clarity be provided on whether the funds raised would be ringfenced for tourism. • Costings for the engagement exercise be made available. The Committee remained unconvinced of: • The likelihood of positive engagement outcomes, given previous experiences. • The fairness and effectiveness of the levy, especially in rural areas with small businesses. The Committee expressed concern of: • The potential for job losses and income reduction in other areas due to fewer tourists. • The impact on static caravan users and business travellers. • The possibility that the levy might be used to reduce budget gaps rather than directly support tourism. Scrutiny’s Recommendation Accept (plus Action and timescale) Partially Accept (plus Rationale and Action and timescale) Reject (plus Rationale) Proceed with public engagement under Option 2. The wording of engagement questions be carefully considered to ensure full understanding. A detailed financial assessment be undertaken to understand the impacts of the levy. Clarity be provided on whether the funds raised would be ringfenced for tourism.
The committee received a presentation on the Q1 performance report for Economic Development and Growth. Points raised by the Committee: Responses received from Officers or Cabinet Members: Highways, Transport and Roads Was some of the off-track performance due to seasonal work that would catch up in the next quarter. It was explained that some of the off-track performance indicators had been influenced by seasonal factors. Officers noted that certain activities, particularly within HTR, tended to peak later in the year, and it was expected that performance would improve in the following quarter. Why were some data fields left blank. It was confirmed that the absence of data in some fields had resulted from delays in data collection. Officers stated that the relevant figures had not been available at the time of reporting but would be included in the Q2 update. Why did HTR not have targets for mandatory training, appraisals, or sickness absence. It was acknowledged that HTR had not included targets for mandatory training, appraisals, or sickness absence in the Q1 report. Officers confirmed that these indicators would be incorporated into the Q2 performance dashboard. Should benchmarking be included to provide context for performance indicators. The need for benchmarking was recognised, and it was agreed that comparative data would be added to future reports. This would allow members to assess performance against national or regional standards and provide greater context. Should figures be provided alongside percentages to show the scale of performance. It was accepted that percentages alone did not provide sufficient clarity. Officers agreed that figures would be added alongside percentages to illustrate the scale of performance and make the data more meaningful. Should commentary be added to explain trends and risk mitigation. It was confirmed that commentary would be expanded in future reports to explain performance trends and identify any associated risks. Officers acknowledged that narrative context was essential for effective scrutiny. Should technical notes be shared with Members to support further scrutiny. It was agreed that technical notes would be shared with Members to support their understanding of the data and enable more informed commentary. Officers committed to making these documents available ahead of future meetings. Economic Development Why were carbon accounting figures not available until Q3. It was explained that carbon accounting figures were retrospective and based on the previous financial year. As such, they were scheduled to be reported in Q3 once the full dataset had been compiled and verified. How could engagement quality be measured versus quantity. Officers acknowledged the importance of measuring engagement quality as well as quantity. It was agreed that methods for assessing the depth and impact of engagement would be explored, including qualitative feedback and stakeholder reach. Should commentary be added to explain the implications of performance indicators. It was confirmed that commentary would be added to explain the implications of performance indicators. Officers recognised that understanding the “so what” behind the data was essential for meaningful scrutiny and service improvement. Housing Why was the average number of days to re-let council properties so high. It was explained that the average number of days to re-let council properties had appeared high due to the inclusion of all void properties, including those requiring extensive refurbishment. Officers noted that performance was improving and that further breakdowns could be provided. Was the figure affected by properties requiring extensive work. It was confirmed that properties requiring significant work had skewed the average re-let time. Officers agreed that narrative context would be added to clarify this in future reports. Was the number of households registered in Band 1 above the target. Officers acknowledged that the number of households registered in Band 1 had exceeded the target. It was agreed that further analysis would be provided to explain the variance and assess the implications for housing need and allocation. Should a breakdown of void targets be provided. It was accepted that a breakdown of void targets would be beneficial. Officers committed to including this in future reports to provide greater clarity and support targeted interventions. Should narrative be added to explain unoccupancy figures. The need for narrative around unoccupancy figures was recognised. Officers agreed that commentary would be added to explain the reasons behind the data and any actions being taken to address long-term voids. Planning and Regulatory Services Should commentary around risk management and mitigation be included. The inclusion of commentary around risk management and mitigation was supported. Officers stated that this would be added to future reports to help Members understand how risks were being addressed and monitored. Should trends analysis be added to help interpret performance. It was agreed that trend analysis would be introduced to help interpret performance over time. Officers noted that this would assist in identifying patterns and forecasting future outcomes. Should quarter reports be added to the Forward Work Programme. The committee was informed that quarterly reports would be added to the Forward Work Programme to ensure regular scrutiny of service performance and progress. Should Member Development sessions be arranged for planning and regulatory services. Officers confirmed that a Member Development session would be arranged for Planning and Regulatory Services in order to support Members in interpreting technical data and understanding service delivery frameworks. Should Members be given access to technical documents. It was agreed that Members would be given access to technical documents relevant to Planning and Regulatory Services. Officers acknowledged that this would enhance transparency and support effective scrutiny. Scrutiny Committee requested the following actions: Action Responsible Service Benchmarking data to be included in future reports HTR KPIs to be reviewed to ensure they are SMART HTR, Planning Figures to be provided alongside percentages to show scale HTR Commentary to be completed to explain trends and performance HTR, Planning Appraisals and mandatory training data to be included by Q2 HTR, Planning Engagement quality versus quantity to be explored and shown Economic Development Narrative to be added to explain unoccupancy figures and breakdown of void targets Housing Commentary around risk management and mitigation to be included Planning Trends analysis to be added Planning Quarterly performance reports to be added to the Forward Work Programme Planning Technical notes to be shared with Members All relevant services Member Development sessions to be arranged Planning and Regulatory Services Access to technical documents to be provided for Members Planning and Regulatory Services
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.