Loading
The decisions as the council's minutes record them. A plain-language summary follows once it has been written.
RESOLVED to exclude the public for the following item of business on the grounds that there would be disclosure to them of exempt information under category 3 of The Local Authorities (Access to Information) (Variation) (Wales) Order 2007). The Monitoring Officer had determined that category 3 of the Access to Information Procedure Rules applied to the following item. His view on the public interest test (having taken account of the provisions of Rule 14.8 of the Council's Access to Information Rules) was that to make this information public would disclose information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the authority holding that information). These factors in his view outweighed the public interest in disclosing this information. Members were asked to consider these factors when determining the public interest test, which they must decide when considering excluding the public from this part of the meeting.
Apologies for absence received from County Councillors B Davies and G Ratcliffe.
There were no declarations of interest from Members relating to items for consideration on the agenda.
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 meeting on the 11th July were proposed and seconded, Committee Members indicated their agreement, and the minutes were formally accepted as a true and correct record and signed off by the Chair.
Points raised by the Panel: Responses received from Officers or Cabinet Members. Strategic Vision and Alignment • Members asked whether the Schools Asset Management Plan aligned with the Council’s long-term transformation strategy and educational vision for Powys. • A question was raised about whether the plan considered the geographical distribution of schools and whether assets were located in the right places to meet future demographic needs. • One Member queried whether the plan addressed the long-term sustainability of the school estate, noting that the backlog of maintenance would not be resolved within five years. • It was asked whether the strategic objectives within the plan were sufficiently forward-looking and whether they supported the Council’s broader educational priorities. Officers confirmed that the Schools Asset Management Plan had been developed to provide a strategic framework for managing the school estate. They explained that the plan was aligned with the Council’s Transforming Education strategy and Vision 2025, although it was intended to focus on short- to medium-term priorities. The transformation programme, which extended to 2032, was described as the longer-term strategic vehicle, and Officers acknowledged that the two documents needed to work hand in hand. The Cabinet Member for a Learning Powys added that the transformation programme had been structured in three waves, with the current administration delivering the second wave. He stated that the programme was on schedule and that all formal works were expected to be completed by 2027. He emphasised that while progress had been slow, it had been methodical and required full public consultation. Officers also acknowledged that the school estate had been under pressure for many years and that the backlog of maintenance—estimated at over £100 million—could not be resolved within five years. They agreed that a longer-term vision for education in Powys was necessary and confirmed that the strategic data now available would support future decisions about the location and structure of schools. Data Transparency and Communication • Members questioned when individual schools would receive their condition survey data and why this had not yet been shared, despite the surveys being completed. • A Member expressed concern that schools needed assurance that the local authority understood the issues affecting their buildings and was actively working to resolve them. • It was asked whether the data belonged to the Council or should be considered shared data with schools, and whether withholding it undermined collaboration. • Members sought clarification on how the plan would be communicated to headteachers, governors, and stakeholders, and whether there was a mechanism for regular updates. Officers confirmed that condition surveys had been completed for all schools and that the data had been collated into easy-to-read profiles, including backlog maintenance and sustainability elements. However, they explained that the information had not yet been released to individual schools because a strategic approach was still being finalised. Officers expressed concern that releasing raw data prematurely could lead to misinterpretation or political pressure before a coherent programme had been agreed. Committee Members challenged this position, arguing that schools needed to see the data to verify its accuracy and to understand the Council’s awareness of their specific issues. Officers acknowledged this concern and agreed that the data should be shared once the management team had approved the release. They also confirmed that summary sheets would be provided initially, with more detailed block-level data available upon request. The Cabinet Member for a learning Powys supported the view that high-level information should be shared promptly and suggested that worked examples be provided to demonstrate how the scoring matrix had been used to prioritise summer works. Officers agreed to this and committed to providing a synopsis of the scoring methodology and the updated Welsh Government banding system. Scoring Methodology and Prioritisation • Several Members queried the scoring system used to prioritise maintenance works, particularly why a “very high danger to life” scored 70, while “imminent closure” scored only 20. • It was asked whether the scoring categories were independent or cumulative, and how the final prioritisation score was calculated. • A Member suggested that a traffic light system should be introduced to make the scoring more intuitive and accessible. • Clarification was sought on whether the scoring system had been approved by Cabinet and whether worked examples could be provided to demonstrate its application. Officers explained that the scoring system used to prioritise maintenance works had been approved by Cabinet and was unchanged from the previous version of the plan. They clarified that each category—such as health and safety, suitability, and sustainability—contained individual criteria, and that scores were accumulated to produce a final ranking for each school. Officers acknowledged the confusion and agreed to provide a short explanatory note outlining the rationale behind the scoring. They also confirmed that the scoring system was designed to prioritise health and safety risks above other factors. Officers further explained that the scoring was based on individual blocks within each school, and that the overall score reflected the cumulative condition of the estate. They agreed to provide both summary and detailed data to Scrutiny Members to support transparency and understanding. Monitoring, Resourcing and Delivery • Members asked how the Council intended to keep the condition data up to date, given the resource-intensive nature of surveys and the loss of key staff. • It was queried whether the Council had sufficient resources to maintain the plan as a live document and whether annual surveys would be feasible. • A question was raised about how progress would be monitored and whether there was a governance structure in place to oversee delivery. • Members asked whether the plan included targets and key performance indicators to measure success. Officers confirmed that the programme would be monitored by the Property Compliance and Operational Safety Board, chaired by the Head of Place, and including representatives from education, property, finance, and health and safety. They stated that progress would be tracked using condition grades, energy performance, pupil capacity, and sufficiency metrics. In response to concerns about resourcing, Officers admitted that the team had recently lost a senior surveyor and that maintaining the plan as a live document would be challenging. They explained that annual health and safety inspections would be conducted for each school, but that full condition surveys would require additional investment. Officers committed to doing their best with the resources available and acknowledged the importance of keeping the data current. Curriculum and Sufficiency Considerations • A Member asked whether the plan sufficiently accounted for the breadth of curriculum delivery, such as science labs and engineering facilities. • It was queried whether sufficiency and capacity data would be shared alongside condition data to provide a complete picture of school needs. • Members asked whether the plan addressed over- or under-provision of facilities and how this would be monitored. Officers confirmed that the plan included references to sufficiency and curriculum delivery, particularly in relation to teaching spaces and specialist facilities such as science labs. They explained that the scoring system accounted for ventilation, electrical requirements, and other factors relevant to curriculum delivery. The Cabinet Member clarified that the plan was a maintenance programme rather than a development programme, and that its purpose was to ensure existing facilities were safe and fit for use. Officers added that sufficiency and capacity data were collected annually for Welsh Government and could be shared with the Committee alongside condition data. Emergency Response and Contingency Planning • A question was raised about how the plan would respond to emergency infrastructure issues, such as oil leaks or climate-related incidents. • Members asked whether there was a contingency mechanism within the plan to reallocate resources in response to urgent needs. Officers confirmed that the plan included flexibility to respond to emergencies. They cited a recent oil leak at Trewern School as an example of how budgets had been reallocated to address urgent issues. They explained that while the property service could manage smaller emergencies, larger incidents would require coordination with the transformation and education teams. The Cabinet Member for Finance and Corporate Services reminded the Committee that any capital expenditure arising from emergencies or strategic decisions would need to be considered within the broader context of the Council’s financial sustainability.
Scrutiny Committee made the following observations: The Committee noted that: • The Schools Asset Management Plan represented a significant improvement in strategic planning and provided a clearer framework than previous iterations. • The plan had been jointly developed by the Education and Property Services teams and was supported by a strong working relationship between the two. • A substantial amount of survey work had been undertaken over the summer, resulting in a comprehensive dataset covering the condition and sustainability of the school estate. • The plan was intended to inform future investment decisions and was aligned with the Council’s Transforming Education strategy. The Committee welcomed that: • Officers had committed to sharing high-level data with Members and schools, including condition summaries and scoring methodologies. • The plan would be monitored through the Property Compliance and Operational Safety Board, ensuring governance and oversight. • The scoring system prioritised health and safety concerns, and Officers agreed to provide worked examples to demonstrate how prioritisation decisions were made. • The plan would be shared with headteachers and other stakeholders before being finalised, allowing for further input and refinement. The Committee requested that: • A timeline be provided for the release of individual school data, and that schools be given access to their own condition surveys. • The scoring methodology be clarified, including the rationale behind the weighting of criteria such as “danger to life” and “imminent closure”. • The plan include measurable targets and key performance indicators to assess its effectiveness over time. • Sufficiency and capacity data be shared alongside condition data to provide a complete picture of school needs. • The scoring matrix be presented using a traffic light system to improve accessibility and understanding. The Committee remained unconvinced of: • The justification for withholding school-level data, particularly given that schools were already aware of many of their own issues. • The clarity of the scoring system, especially the numerical weighting and how final prioritisation scores were calculated. • Whether the plan, in its current form, adequately addressed long-term strategic objectives and the geographical distribution of schools across Powys. The Committee expressed concern of: • The lack of visibility over the full extent of the school estate’s condition, including issues such as plumbing failures and fire door defects. • The potential disconnect between the Council’s understanding of school-level issues and the lived experience of headteachers and governors. • The resource implications of maintaining the plan as a live document, particularly in light of staffing changes and the scale of the estate. • The impact of building condition on the quality of teaching and learning, and the need for urgent action in some cases. The Committee made the following recommendations to Cabinet • That a timeline be established for the release of individual school condition data to schools and stakeholders. • That the Schools Asset Management Plan includes measurable targets and key performance indicators, to enable effective monitoring of progress and impact. • That the plan be maintained as a live document, with sufficient resources allocated to ensure regular updates and accuracy. • That the plan be formally aligned with the Council’s Transforming Education strategy and school organisation policy, to ensure strategic coherence. • That the scoring matrix be presented using a traffic light system, to improve clarity and accessibility for schools and stakeholders. • That condition and capacity data be shared with the Committee and schools, to support transparency and informed decision-making. • That sufficiency data be included alongside condition data, to provide a complete picture of school estate needs. In accordance with Rule 7.27.2 the Cabinet is asked to provide a written response to the scrutiny report, including an action plan where appropriate, as soon as possible or at the latest within 2 months of the date of the Cabinet meeting i.e. by 30th November 2025
Comments: ALN update – this had been previously noted as an item on the full forward work programme, scheduling to be reviewed.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED to exclude the public for the following item of business on the grounds that there would be disclosure to them of exempt information under category 3 of The Local Authorities (Access to Information) (Variation) (Wales) Order 2007). The Monitoring Officer had determined that category 3 of the Access to Information Procedure Rules applied to the following item. His view on the public interest test (having taken account of the provisions of Rule 14.8 of the Council's Access to Information Rules) was that to make this information public would disclose information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the authority holding that information). These factors in his view outweighed the public interest in disclosing this information. Members were asked to consider these factors when determining the public interest test, which they must decide when considering excluding the public from this part of the meeting.
RESOLVED to exclude the public for the following item of business on the grounds that there would be disclosure to them of exempt information under category 3 of The Local Authorities (Access to Information) (Variation) (Wales) Order 2007). The Monitoring Officer had determined that category 3 of the Access to Information Procedure Rules applied to the following item. His view on the public interest test (having taken account of the provisions of Rule 14.8 of the Council's Access to Information Rules) was that to make this information public would disclose information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the authority holding that information). These factors in his view outweighed the public interest in disclosing this information. Members were asked to consider these factors when determining the public interest test, which they must decide when considering excluding the public from this part of the meeting.
As noted above.
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.