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 There were no apologies for absence.
There were no Declarations of Interest from Members relating to items to be considered on the agenda.
The Committee did not receive any disclosures of prohibited party whips which a Member had 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 meetings as a correct record.
The Chair moved to discuss this item at the end of the meeting.
• The Committee received a presentation from Powys County Council and Powys Teaching Health Board on the North Powys Wellbeing Programme. • The briefing focused on Phase 1 of the programme, centred around the development of an integrated wellbeing hub in Newtown. • The presentation covered objectives, benefits, governance timetable, stakeholder engagement, and the Target Operating Model. • Stakeholder engagement had been ongoing, with public engagement scheduled for October–November 2025. Points raised by the Committee: Responses received from Officers or Cabinet Members. What caused the delay in progressing the programme. Delays were due to the COVID-19 pandemic and Welsh Government’s capital prioritisation process, which paused business case submissions across Wales. When would public engagement take place. Public engagement was scheduled for October–November 2025 and dates would be shared once finalised. Officers welcomed the opportunity for a working group to engage with the North Powys Team over the next few months to analyse the results of the public engagement. How would the specifics of governance, financial responsibility, and role allocation be addressed. These details would be developed and presented in the next phase, with further scrutiny planned for December 2025. What was unique about the proposed community café. The café would serve as a social space and informal waiting area, with potential for health promotion activities. Similar models had been successful in Machynlleth. The project had been funded £971k, and it had an anticipated release value of £30million. Please can this be explained. Welsh Government provided £971k to develop the design and business case, with a view to ringfencing £30–32 million for construction. The project was now on a well-defined timeline. Would the café require a business model or remain a community space. Options were still being explored. How would demographic growth and increased demand be factored into the model. Cllr Sian Cox assured the Committee those demographic projections had been considered and the preventative model was designed to mitigate future pressures. Who was leading the programme – Powys County Council, Powys Teaching Health Board, or the Regional Partnership Board. The programme was jointly led, but governance and funding were routed through the Regional Partnership Board via the IPBRCF. Would trauma-informed practice be embedded across all services at the hub. The importance of embedding trauma-informed approaches across all services was acknowledged and officers committed to addressing this in future planning. What training would be provided to staff to support trauma-informed care. Training and support for staff would be considered in the next phase, with emphasis on seamless, joined-up care. What was the proposed catchment area for service users and who would be able to access the hub. This detail was still being developed and would be shared in future updates. Would the hub interact with schools in the area. Integration with local schools was part of the vision, particularly in relation to early years and mental health support. What measures would be used to track mental health parity and inequality reduction. The importance of these metrics was acknowledged and officers committed to including them in future reporting to Scrutiny. Would Scrutiny be involved in the next decision phase. Scrutiny would be consulted again in December 2025, prior to Cabinet and Regional Partnership Board decisions.
The Committee received a briefing from the Regional Strategic Safeguarding Manager for Mid and West Wales: • The briefing covered the statutory requirement for Regional Safeguarding Boards to produce an annual report under the Social Services and Wellbeing (Wales) Act. • The Board operated as a multi-agency strategic partnership, including representatives from four local authorities, two health boards, Public Health Wales, Dyfed-Powys Police, and the National Probation Service. • The Executive Board provided strategic oversight of safeguarding practice across the region and directed the work of several sub-groups. • The annual report summarised achievements and workstreams aligned to the Board’s strategic plan. Points raised by the Committee: Responses received from Officers or Cabinet Members. How were the Board’s workstreams decided. All workstreams stemmed from the Regional Safeguarding Plan, which was published annually and guided the Board’s priorities. How did the Board identify issues requiring wider systemic change. Local operational groups played a key role in identifying cases. These were then considered by the Regional Case Review Subgroup, which assessed them against legal criteria before escalating to the Executive Board Chair for decision. Should Scrutiny have a role in reviewing safeguarding matters or was this purely operational. While much of the Board’s work was operational, there were mechanisms through which Scrutiny could be made aware of emerging themes for potential deeper exploration, e.g. the Powys Corporate Safeguarding Board. How could Scrutiny help review safeguarding themes. Scrutiny could have sight of the annual plan and key updates and engage in dialogue with officers to identify areas of interest. When was the annual plan developed. The plan was published on 31st March each year and covered the following financial year. What mechanisms were in place to communicate safeguarding priorities within teams. Powys played an active role in leading safeguarding work and communication occurred through the Powys Local Operational Group (PLOG), which facilitated learning, sharing of good practice, and strategic alignment. Was the Board’s work used to inform policy development within Powys. Learning from the Board was used to inform policy and practice, and Powys had led on certain areas of work across the region. Were there any financial implications or liabilities for Powys County Council as a member of the Board. The Board operated as a collaborative space, and while Powys contributed actively, there were no direct liabilities beyond its statutory responsibilities. Due to time constraints, committee members agreed to provide further questions in writing to officers and publish the questions and answers for information when the item next came to committee.
• The Committee received a presentation from the Director of Social Services and Wellbeing and Cabinet Member Councillor Sian Cox on the Adult Social Care Diagnostic work. • The diagnostic was commissioned to identify how transformation could be delivered within existing pressures and capacity constraints. • The work aimed to explore how to release capacity within teams and structures to support sustainable change. • The diagnostic was carried out in partnership with a strategic development partner and followed a phased approach: • The diagnostic identified opportunities to improve outcomes for over 800 residents and deliver £10.68m in annualised benefits through cost avoidance and cost reduction. • Key areas of opportunity included: • Proactive prevention (e.g. falls prevention) • Effective enablement • Improved decision-making • Independence planning • Strategic commissioning • Staff engagement was central to the process, with over 140 improvement ideas generated through workshops. • Resident engagement was also undertaken, with feedback informing the development of solutions. • A draft model was developed based on principles of self-determination, person-centred planning, and maximising wellbeing. • Two internal workstream leads were appointed to drive implementation from October 2025. Points raised by the Committee: Responses received from Officers or Cabinet Members. Were there any surprises in the diagnostic findings. There were no surprises, which reflected a strong understanding of the service. However, the diagnostic provided robust analysis and quantified the scale of opportunities, which had previously been lacking. What was the benefit of having the findings formally documented. The findings enabled the service to prioritise areas for transformation, build evidence-based business cases, and identify where investment could deliver measurable improvements. Could examples of future projects be shared. Specific projects were still being scoped, but the formation of a scrutiny working group to support and monitor implementation was welcomed. What percentage of staff responded to the survey, and did it include commissioned staff. That data would be provided separately, but around 45 staff had participated in in-depth engagement sessions. When and how would the £10.68million in benefits be realised. The benefits would be profiled over five years and aligned with budget planning. Cost avoidance had already been factored into the Financial Resource Model (FRM) for 2026–27. How would the programme address and protect the needs of people with protected characteristics. The importance of this was acknowledged and officers committed to strengthening future engagement plans accordingly. How would disabled residents in rural areas be protected from reduced choice and control. What commitments would be built into the mobilisation plan. Did the mobilisation plan have specific measures and standards that guaranteed the protections such as contract clauses, commissioning criteria and thresholds. When would the impact assessment be completed and used to impact design. Would scrutiny see evidence of choice and control for disabled residents being maintained and improved and what metrics and reporting cadence could be committed to. Improving safe choice and control was central to the programme and equality impact assessments would be shared with Scrutiny. Further detail in answer to these questions could be explored through the proposed working group. Would staffing levels and training be sufficient to deliver the transformation. Would frontline care staff be involved in shaping packages of care. The value of input from commissioned care workers was emphasised. Committee was assured that staffing capacity was being considered and that internal appointments to lead workstreams would be backfilled to avoid loss of operational capacity. The Portfolio Holder for a Caring Powys added that identifying workforce capacity and capability had been a core objective from the outset of the strategic partnership. Frontline workers had played a key role in shaping the work, contributing their expertise in safe, open spaces designed to explore service improvements. A learning cycle had been embedded across the system to support continuous improvement and address concerns raised. Was the council’s relationship with the Health Board sufficient to support the development of care packages. Assurance was provided that key partners were working together to ensure the delivery of successful outcomes. Powys Teaching Health Board (PTHB) staff had been involved from executive level to frontline staff to ensure the work was aligned to PTHB’s Better Together Transformation Work. PAVO and the third sector were also involved to ensure there was no cost shunting or duplication of work. Was the £10.6million a one-off payment. If continuous, was the intention to utilise it as reinvestment into the model. The financial benefits identified through the programme comprised a mix of cost efficiencies and cost avoidance. Adult social care was facing increasing financial pressures, and much of the work undertaken aimed to reduce future demand on services. While some efficiencies would be one-off, others would deliver ongoing reductions if sustained. The financial detail was complex and officers suggested that a separate discussion could be held to explore it further. What would be the role of the workforce leads. Had the newly appointed staff come from clinical settings or been trained to a specific standard. Were these roles funded by the savings. The newly appointed workstream leads were internal candidates from within adult social care, bringing valuable frontline experience to the roles. These posts were funded through transformation funding, and appropriate upskilling and training were being provided to support them in their new responsibilities. How were the KPIs set. KPIs had been developed through workshops and rigorously challenged by senior leaders in adult social care, finance, and performance to ensure robust involvement. Newly appointed workforce leads within the service would play a central role in driving the programme forward. Was the dashboard being developed in house or from the Newton Package. What was the timeline for it to be operational. The dashboard was under development. Was the service looking to upskill staff to improve analysis. Officers confirmed that shared learning, analysis, training, and upskilling had been central to the diagnostic and mobilisation phases of the programme. A learning event had been held for senior managers across Powys County Council, where the methodology and toolkit used to identify opportunities were shared. The Director of Social Services had delivered seminars and workshops to Welsh Government, the Welsh Local Government Association, other Directors of Social Services, and Heads of Adult Social Care Services across Wales. This approach had generated significant interest and was considered a key strength of the programme. Would lessons learned be shared more widely. Would the council be working with academic institutions to write this up. Would Scrutiny be involved in monitoring delivery. Officers proposed a working group be established in November 2025 to align with the onboarding of workstream leads and support ongoing oversight. Committee was reminded that the care workforce included men and non-binary individuals, and the use inclusive and professional terminology was important. It was requested that future committee discussions and documentation refer to staff as “professional care workers” to reflect the value and respect owed to all individuals in the sector, regardless of gender. The inclusion of 16 operational KPIs within the programme was welcomed and committee expressed support for efforts to establish clear baselines. Would a small number of high-level KPIs be identified and regularly reported to the scrutiny committee. How much of the projected reduction in future pressures had already been factored into the Financial Resource Model (FRM), and this would result in a lower FRM figure for 2026–27. Officers confirmed that all the KPIs could be shared with the committee. Officers confirmed that the financial projections had been profiled as accurately as possible over the next five years. Cost avoidance had been deducted from the demographic growth figures and was incorporated into the current Financial Resource Model (FRM) due to be presented to councillors. Would Scrutiny be able to track progress through KPIs. Specifically looking at up to 5 key KPIs every 6 months or so. Officers advised that these would become part of the service’s core suite of KPIs evaluated monthly and quarterly by officers. Work was ongoing with finance to establish key financial KPIs. Committee requested an indication of when a scrutiny working group could be established to align with the programme’s timeframes, and how the written questions submitted might be incorporated. Officers suggested November as a suitable time, allowing newly appointed workstream leads to settle into their roles. All submitted questions would be reviewed and considered as part of the ongoing work. Committee thanked County Councillor Sian Cox for her work as Portfolio Holder for a Caring Powys and her work with the scrutiny committee. County Councillor Sian Cox thanked committee members for their remarks.
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.