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 have been received from Cabinet Members Cllr Jake Berriman, Cllr Matthew and Cllr Raiff Devlin. Apologies were also received from Officers Jane Thomas, Clive Pinney, Catherine James, Ellen Sullivan, Nina Davies and Paul Bradshaw.
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.
Responses to scrutiny recommendations from the 2 December 2025 meeting were received. All seven recommendations on Strategic Sites for Economic Development were accepted, and it was noted that forthcoming engagement with town and community councils would likely replace the need for a member crib sheet. Responses to recommendations from the 6 January 2026 meeting were received. Only two of five recommendations on the Impact of Delivered Budget Savings were accepted. Concerns were raised about the quality of impact assessments, and it was acknowledged that these should have been challenged during the meeting. Officers were asked to help ensure members were signposted to the appropriate scrutiny forum at the relevant time. Cllr Gary Mitchell requested that it be formally noted in the minutes that the committee had sought to carry out its scrutiny responsibilities appropriately, and that where issues had not been addressed in other scrutiny forums, there remained valid justification for the committee to raise them, even if they might ordinarily fall within another scrutiny committee’s remit. Assurance was given that statutory duties were already monitored through quarterly service performance reviews, and officers confirmed they could provide clarification during meetings when required.
The work programme was noted.
The committee considered whether the item should be taken in confidential session. Officers confirmed that only the appendices contained commercially sensitive information and that the main report and draft Route Map were suitable for public discussion. Following debate, the committee agreed not to enter confidential session and to scrutinise the substantive documents in public, with the confidential appendices excluded. Background: A presentation on the draft Route Map to Net Zero was introduced by Councillor Jackie Charlton and delivered by Officer Daniel Burgess. • It was stated that organisation wide commitment would be required, with climate considerations embedded within all service agendas. • Supply chain emissions were identified as the dominant element of the Council’s carbon footprint, with the greatest early reductions expected through strengthened procurement and contract management. • It was reported that modelling supported a 40% emissions reduction by 2030 and the achievement of net zero by 2040, with existing and planned fleet and building investment expected to deliver around 10% reduction in the next five years. • Carbon literacy training, the appointment of climate champions, and enhanced communications were proposed to support organisational culture change • A phased approach to supply‑chain carbon reporting was outlined, beginning with Tier 2 reporting for major contracts. • It was noted that offsetting would be required for residual emissions, with a five-year lead in period for nature based sequestration methods such as tree planting. Points raised by the Committee: Responses received from Officers or Cabinet Members: Questions were raised regarding the cost impacts on residents arising from the actions proposed within the route map. It was explained that a balanced and proportionate approach was required, and that focusing solely on direct emissions would impose very high costs for only modest performance improvements. Officers advised that greater and quicker gains could be achieved through “softer measures” such as procurement and supply‑chain intervention, which avoided unnecessary financial burden. It was asked what Powys could realistically contribute to the global climate situation, and how the Council would work with neighbouring authorities, Welsh Government, and UK Government to ensure Powys was not acting in isolation. It was stated that Powys could not address the global climate crisis alone and that wider collaboration was already taking place, including work with neighbouring councils, cross‑border partnerships such as the Marches, and the Public Service Board. Officers noted that national expectations for decarbonisation were driven by Welsh Government and that any unachievable targets would need discussion at national level. Clarification was sought on why reductions in the Council’s own procurement related emissions were being imposed on external suppliers, and whether this created additional burdens. Officers clarified that this was not an unreasonable imposition as most large suppliers were already required to measure and reduce emissions for other clients. A staged approach was described, beginning with larger contracts, and the practice was said to be becoming normalised across the sector. Members questioned how high costs set out in Section 4 of the report would be balanced against wider budget pressures, including essential services. It was stated that focusing only on direct decarbonisation of buildings and fleet would involve gross capital costs of around £450 million, which would not be financially justifiable. A procurement‑focused approach was therefore prioritised to achieve more significant reductions without imposing excessive cost. The need to consider financial stability within budget‑setting was also emphasised. It was asked whether KPIs could demonstrate trade-offs, such as cases where investment in part of the route map meant that another service could not be delivered, and whether these choices could be transparently recorded. Officers explained that directorate‑level reporting was already being developed and that Powys’ total carbon account was built from assessments of directorate activities. Work was ongoing to strengthen monitoring, and future reporting could show how decisions impacted both emissions and service budgets. Members queried whether acting now—for example, in schools and care homes through loans rather than waiting for grants—would achieve greater long-term savings. It was confirmed that loan‑funded interventions could offer strong payback periods and that feasibility work on schools had already begun. However, capital constraints and budget pressures meant that decisions needed to balance financial risk and organisational stability. Information was sought on whether other authorities had trained all staff in carbon literacy, and what impact that had delivered. Officers cited national research indicating that carbon‑literate workforces delivered up to 15% emissions reduction because staff felt more confident in decision‑making. Members questioned how funding for the Public Service Board’s territorial emissions work would continue, given that the Shared Prosperity Fund was ending. It was confirmed that Shared Prosperity Fund support was ending, and while no replacement funding had yet been identified, other PSB partners could also pursue funding. The importance of continuing territorial emissions work was recognised, and discussions would continue with partners. Clarification was requested on the different net zero dates referenced—2040 in the slides and 2035 in the route map—and the history behind those differences. It was explained that the earlier date of 2035 reflected political ambition informed by the route map’s modelling, while the 2040 date reflected practical limitations. Confidence was expressed that 2035 could be achieved if the route map were fully implemented and conditions remained favourable. It was asked whether the Council had been too slow since declaring the climate emergency in 2020, given that five years had already elapsed without achieving the expected progress. Officers acknowledged that cultural change took time and that the organisation had initially lacked the structures needed for rapid progress. It was stated that progress had accelerated, new approaches had been adopted, and the Council was now better positioned to advance the work. Members sought examples showing how carbon sequestration case studies, such as tree planting or use of Council land, operated in practice. Officers stated that tree‑planting and other nature‑based solutions required a five‑year lead‑in before carbon benefits could be counted. Work was underway to map carbon sequestration on the Council’s estate, and regional projects such as the Severn Valley Water Management Scheme were cited as examples. Further questions were asked about how the public would be engaged, given limited references within the route map to community involvement, and how staff could be supported to hold meaningful climate conversations with communities. Officers explained that extensive engagement was taking place through the Public Service Board, town/community councils, and regional partnerships. However, they acknowledged the challenge of reaching residents beyond those already engaged and agreed that further thinking was required on how to support staff to hold community conversations. It was questioned how work across residents, farming groups, and tourism communities would be coordinated so that activity was joined up, and how good practice already happening in communities would be captured. It was confirmed that work was underway to improve coordination, supported by climate champions and strengthened contract management. Officers indicated that engagement structures were evolving and would increasingly support joined‑up delivery. Concerns were raised about whether staff capacity was sufficient, and whether more posts would be required as the pace of work increased. Officers recognised staff workload pressures and confirmed that recruitment was underway for an additional post to support supply‑chain and contract‑based emissions work. As the organisation matured in its approach, performance gains were expected to accelerate. Members asked whether directors and senior managers were fully on board, and whether climate champions would genuinely emerge from across the Council’s workforce. It was stated that directors and senior leadership teams had received briefings and were supportive. Officers noted that embedding climate considerations would also lead to financial savings for service areas, strengthening buy‑in across the organisation. It was asked how each department’s compliance and progress would be monitored, and who would hold responsibility for ensuring consistent implementation. Officers explained that climate champions would act as the link between directorates, the climate team, and procurement, ensuring consistent implementation. Contract management would play a key role in monitoring progress. It was asked whether internal governance structures (thematic boards, steering groups) were effective, or whether they required redesign to deliver faster progress. It was noted that thematic and steering groups had already evolved, and multiple pivots had been made over five years. Officers accepted that further review could support faster delivery. Further explanation was sought regarding continuing territorial emissions work and how the Council would support partners if PSB funding was no longer available. Officers confirmed that effort would continue with partners through PSB structures and that other organisations could contribute financially to sustain the work. Members queried whether community energy groups or cooperatives could be utilised to install solar panels on schools, reducing cost to the Council. It was confirmed that feasibility work on school energy projects was in progress and that alternative delivery models, including community approaches, were being explored. Questions were asked on whether existing policies in planning and conservation areas (e.g., restrictions on UPVC windows) could be reviewed to enable carbon reduction in the private sector. Officers advised that some policy areas—such as built heritage—were set nationally, but others could be reviewed as part of the Local Development Plan update. Work was already underway to align planning policies with climate priorities. A question was raised regarding whether farm tenants’ priorities conflicted with potential use of farm estate land for carbon offsetting projects, and how such priorities would be balanced. Officers confirmed that feasibility work was assessing what carbon sequestration options were possible across the Council’s estate, including farmland, and that the relationship between tenant priorities and carbon use was being examined. Members sought clarity on whether carbon reduction measures that delivered revenue savings were being prioritised over those that were necessary but not cost saving, and whether such pressures constrained officers. Officers stated that decisions were not based solely on revenue savings, but acknowledged that financial pressures influenced prioritisation. Carbon literacy and organisational culture change were highlighted as essential to ensuring decisions considered carbon impacts. It was asked how confidence could be assured that future investment in staff and resources would deliver results, and whether a report on total expenditure to date and outcomes achieved could be provided. Officers stated that an annual Climate and Nature Steering Group report was produced and could incorporate cost and outcome analysis. They confirmed that such reporting would provide the transparency requested.
Scrutiny made the following observations: The Committee endorsed that: · The approach of scrutinising the draft Net Zero Route Map in public session (restricted to non‑confidential material) was appropriate and enabled transparent debate. · The principle that climate considerations should be embedded across all service areas, including through climate champions and climate literacy training, was necessary for progress. The Committee welcomed that: • Officers acknowledged the need to adapt previous approaches as understanding and knowledge has grown and confirmed the route map represented a more structured, measurable plan of action. • A feasibility study of the council’s land estate—including woodland, farms, and public spaces—was already underway to explore carbon capture options. • Positive examples were emerging from local energy schemes and community based renewable projects within Powys. • Schools and some council buildings had potential for rapid payback from solar and LED improvements. The Committee requested that: • A clear plan be brought forward for future engagement and communication with residents, including reframing climate issues in accessible and relatable terms (e.g., potholes, flooding, transport). • Officers explore ways to continue funding for the territorial emissions work previously supported by PSB funded staff. • Officers reflect on the past five years of climate work, identifying what had or had not worked, and clarify how internal structures or processes could change to improve delivery. • A more detailed explanation be produced regarding the differing NetZero dates (2035 vs 2040) and how they relate to national targets. • Future work include clarity on KPIs, decision making trade offs, and how choices between climate investment and statutory services would be evidenced. • Information be provided on how progress will be monitored within each service area, particularly in relation to climate champions. • That the Public Service Board (PSB) climate and territorial emissions work continue, with the Council exploring options for sustaining funding and partnership support to maintain momentum and shared countywide progress. The Committee remained unconvinced of: • The realism of achieving the route map’s timeline, given the scale of estate upgrades, technological constraints, skills shortages, and financial pressures. • The effectiveness of the Council’s current approach to engaging small local suppliers, given concerns that new sustainability requirements may inadvertently exclude them. • The assertion that sufficient progress had been made since the 2020 climate declaration. • The capacity to achieve a 30% residual emissions offset by 2035 without clearer detail on technology, funding, and land use constraints. The Committee expressed concern of: • The volume and complexity of papers, limiting members’ ability to scrutinise fully. • The absence of a clear public facing narrative explaining the severity of climate impacts and the council’s strategic response. • The risk that local businesses, farms, and small contractors may struggle to meet emerging supply chain reporting requirements. • The lack of sustained funding for PSB climate work, which had produced extensive territorial emissions data. • Insufficient engagement to date with town and community councils, despite their role in local delivery and public engagement. Scrutiny’s Recommendation Accept (plus Action and timescale) Partially Accept (plus Rationale and Action and timescale) Reject (plus Rationale) Refocus the programme toward reducing territorial emissions across Powys, rather than concentrating solely on the Council’s 16% corporate share. Develop an early, Powys based carbon offsetting strategy, making use of Council land and involving local partners. Explore the case for upfront investment in unavoidable offsetting, rather than postponing these costs until later years. Where offsetting will be required, run offsetting projects in parallel with other decarbonisation work to avoid pushing back target dates. When embedding climate requirements into procurement, ensure these do not disproportionately disadvantage small local businesses, balancing climate ambition with local economic impact. For schools and care homes, assess whether loan financed energy efficiency upgrades (e.g., solar, insulation, LED) can be delivered now where the financial savings justify borrowing, rather than waiting for grant opportunities. Clarify the future use and expectations for PCC farm land, including the balance between tenant priorities and the potential for carbon or offsetting projects. Explore opportunities for community led or partnership initiatives to install rooftop solar on school buildings. Convene a dedicated workshop, for both PCC councillors and staff, and extended to Town and Community Councils, to build shared understanding, alignment and collective ownership of the climate programme. That the Net Zero Route Map, together with all relevant supporting and supplementary information, be brought forward for consideration at a dedicated Member Development session to ensure all elected members are fully briefed and able to engage with its implications. Include in KPIs a table of choices that shows where spending on the route map has displaced spend on other services (e.g., potholes) or impacts council tax. Undertake a “look under the bonnet” review to understand barriers or delays in delivery, including clearer linkage between thematic boards and actionable implementation plans. That the Council review and strengthen the link between action plans and thematic boards, ensuring that delivery mechanisms, responsibilities, and monitoring arrangements are clearly defined and effectively coordinated.
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.