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 Officers Nina Davies and Jenny Ashton.
Resolved: To elect Cllr Gary Mitchell as Vice-Chair for the ensuing year.
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 meeting on 11th February 2026, 18th February 2026 and 12th March 2026 as a correct record.
The Committee received and noted updates on responses to previous scrutiny recommendations, including some long-outstanding items. While delays were acknowledged as an ongoing issue, improvements in response timeliness and support arrangements were reported. The Committee welcomed the improved quality of responses, particularly the inclusion of clear rationale and timescales, which support accountability and monitoring and emphasis was made on with emphasis on maintaining improved timeliness and progressing outstanding or partially addressed issues.
The Committee reviewed the Forward Work Programme and considered proposed agenda items for upcoming meetings. Members discussed the removal of the Local Development Plan (LDP) item and sought clarification on the reasons for this change. It was explained that delays in the LDP process had occurred due to wider strategic and resourcing factors, and that work was continuing. The Committee agreed that the item should be relabelled as delayed rather than removed to ensure transparency and maintain its visibility within the work programme.
Points raised by the Panel: Responses received from Officers or Cabinet Members. Access to Services and Digital Transformation · Asked what factors had contributed to long call waiting times within the corporate contact centre beyond call volumes. · Questioned whether sufficient planning had been put in place to address recurring seasonal pressures, such as winter demand and staff sickness. · Enquired why usage of an existing online platform remained off track despite a wider strategic shift towards increasing digital access and self-service provision. · Asked what actions would be taken to increase engagement with online services and whether targeted publicity would be undertaken. · Questioned how consultation on digital transformation had been undertaken and whether adequate face-to-face engagement had taken place to mitigate digital exclusion. · Raised concern regarding the potential impact of digitalisation on an ageing population and whether access to non-digital services would be maintained. Officers and Cabinet Members advised that several factors had contributed to longer call waiting times within the corporate contact centre. These had included seasonal pressures during the winter period, increased call volumes arising from demand across multiple services, and temporary resourcing challenges caused by annual leave and staff sickness. It was explained that out-of-hours service arrangements had also led to a rise in contact levels during this period. Officers further reported that steps had been taken to address these pressures in the short term and that longer-term work was underway through the digital transformation programme. This work had sought to increase the availability of self-service options in order to reduce reliance on telephone contact and improve response times overall. In relation to online platform usage, Cabinet Members clarified that the performance reflected the lifecycle of a newly introduced service, which had experienced high initial engagement followed by a natural decline. Officers advised that further development of the platform, including the introduction of additional features and targeted promotion, had been planned to increase utilisation. It had been confirmed that publicity arrangements were being finalised to support this. With regard to digital transformation more broadly, Cabinet Members emphasised that the programme had been designed to enhance rather than replace existing methods of access. It was stated that telephone and face-to-face contact options would be retained, including services delivered through local facilities, and that consideration had been given to ensuring accessibility for all residents, including those less confident in using digital services. Employment, Skills and Workforce Development · Asked whether programmes supporting young people into employment were delivering meaningful outcomes and placing individuals into roles that addressed workforce shortages. · Enquired whether employment support initiatives were aligned to areas of service need, particularly within hard-to-recruit roles. · Questioned whether the remit of existing committees should be expanded to provide greater oversight of employment performance data and workforce challenges. Officers advised that employment support programmes had demonstrated positive progress, with increasing numbers of individuals entering employment and evidence of progression within the workforce. It was reported that additional resource had been identified to support targeted recruitment activity and to help align opportunities with service needs. However, officers clarified that employment support activity had been influenced by the needs and circumstances of those being supported into work, rather than exclusively by service demand. It was acknowledged that further work was required to strengthen the alignment between workforce shortages and recruitment outcomes, and officers undertook to provide further detail on the distribution of placements across service areas. In response to questions regarding oversight, it was recognised that workforce data was already subject to monitoring through existing governance arrangements. It was indicated that there were opportunities to strengthen scrutiny of workforce performance through existing mechanisms where appropriate. Rights of Way (ROW) and Infrastructure · Asked whether additional resources could be allocated to address pressures within the rights of way service. · Enquired whether sufficient core funding existed for rights of way services or whether they were largely reliant on grant funding. · Questioned how the targets for rights of way performance had been set and what they were intended to measure in practice. · Raised concern that the reported target figures may indicate a significant volume of unresolved issues and required clarification. · Asked what constituted a “problem” within rights of way reporting and whether recurring or persistent issues were captured appropriately. Cabinet Members acknowledged that the rights of way service was under significant resource pressure and confirmed that this was a recognised issue. It was reported that work was ongoing to review resourcing levels and to consider potential changes, although no definitive update had been available at that time. Officers confirmed that the service operated with a combination of core funding and external grant support, with some areas, such as infrastructure maintenance, presenting particular financial challenges. It was explained that the scale of the network and the number of assets requiring maintenance contributed to these pressures. In relation to performance measures, officers advised that the reporting mechanism had been introduced as part of digital transformation objectives to improve the ease with which residents could report issues. It was acknowledged that the measure primarily reflected usage of the reporting system rather than resolution of issues, and that targets and definitions would benefit from further clarification and review. Officers also explained that reports submitted through the system varied in nature and could include repeated or ongoing issues. It was recognised that the current reporting framework did not always clearly distinguish between unique and recurring problems. Performance Measures, Targets and Data Clarity · Asked how performance targets across the report were determined and whether they provided meaningful insight into service performance. · Questioned whether some targets were appropriately set, including whether certain measures should be revised to provide clearer interpretation. · Enquired whether additional context, including baseline data or comparable figures, should be provided to better understand performance outcomes. · Asked whether external targets were being used and, if so, whether this should be clearly identified to provide context to performance expectations. Officers advised that performance targets had been developed through established processes and, in some cases, reflected historical benchmarks or requirements linked to national or programme-based objectives. It was acknowledged that not all targets were equally clear in their purpose and that further refinement could improve their usefulness. In response to concerns, officers recognised that some measures required clearer definitions and improved contextual information to support interpretation. It was also noted that performance data was presented at a point in time and that trends over a longer period could provide more meaningful insight. Cabinet Members confirmed that where targets were externally set or influenced, this would be clarified in future reporting to ensure that expectations were better understood. Freedom of Information (FOI) and Governance · Questioned why the target for responding to Freedom of Information requests was below 100% despite being a statutory requirement. · Asked whether performance failures related to initial acknowledgements or delays in providing full responses within statutory timescales. · Enquired about the potential consequences of not meeting statutory FOI targets, including whether penalties could be incurred. · Requested further detail on the overall volume of FOI requests to provide context to performance data. Cabinet Members explained that performance against Freedom of Information response targets had been affected by a combination of factors, including staffing capacity within the Information Governance function and delays in obtaining information from service areas. It was confirmed that these issues had already been escalated and were being addressed at a senior level. Officers advised that response times were measured from receipt of a request and were subject to statutory timeframes. It was clarified that delays were not typically due to a failure to acknowledge requests, but rather to the time required to gather and collate information across services. In relation to the target level, it was acknowledged that a 100% performance expectation would be ideal given the statutory context, but it was recognised that operational pressures could impact delivery. Assurance was provided that actions were being taken to improve performance, including work to streamline processes and reduce duplication through the publication of frequently requested information. Workforce Sickness and Staff Performance · Asked how sickness absence targets were defined and whether they were measured in days or percentages. · Questioned how sickness absence levels compared across service areas and what impact they had on service delivery. · Enquired whether a detailed breakdown of sickness absence, including total days lost, associated costs, and underlying reasons, could be provided. · Questioned whether staff perception data reflected current conditions given potential time lags in reporting. Cabinet Members clarified that sickness absence data was measured in days per employee and that the authority’s performance compared favourably with other organisations. It was reported that sickness levels were monitored closely at both organisational and service levels, with detailed data reviewed regularly. Officers confirmed that variations existed across different service areas, reflecting the nature of the work undertaken. Processes were in place to manage absence, including recording, monitoring, and follow-up through return-to-work procedures. In response to requests for further detail, it was acknowledged that additional information, including breakdowns of absence, associated costs, and underlying causes, could be provided to support scrutiny. Officers also confirmed that staff perception data was collected periodically and that trends were monitored, although it was recognised that there could be a time lag between data collection and reporting. Waste, Recycling and Environmental Performance · Asked for clarification on why recycling tonnage at household recycling centres had decreased while curb-side collection had increased. · Questioned whether changes in waste streams indicated a shift in behaviour or issues with how recycling data was recorded and reported. Officers advised that changes in recycling performance had been influenced by a range of operational factors. These had included the introduction of booking arrangements at recycling centres, changes in the types of waste being received, and external factors such as weather conditions affecting volumes of garden waste. It was explained that improvements in the sorting of materials at recycling centres had increased the proportion of waste being recycled at those sites, but overall tonnage had been affected by reduced inflows and changes in waste composition. Officers also noted that adjustments in how certain materials were recorded at a national level had impacted reported performance. Strategic Planning and Corporate Measures · Enquired whether additional measures should be introduced to monitor the development and impact of co-production approaches across services. · Asked whether the absence of narrative on co-production activity indicated a gap in performance reporting. · Questioned whether broader performance frameworks adequately captured outcomes and the effectiveness of cross-service initiatives. Officers confirmed that co-production was a developing area of work across the organisation and acknowledged that it was not yet supported by a specific performance measure within the framework. It was stated that the intention had been to embed co-production principles across services, with narrative updates provided where possible. It was further advised that the development of meaningful measures required additional work, given the cross-cutting nature of co-production. Officers indicated that they were open to suggestions and would consider how best to reflect progress in future reports. Cabinet Members recognised that the absence of detailed reporting on co-production activity reflected the early stage of development and confirmed that further work would be undertaken to strengthen both reporting and measurement in this area.
The Committee endorsed that: • The Q3 performance position had demonstrated overall delivery against a number of key priority areas despite ongoing operational pressures. • The mitigating actions outlined to address areas of underperformance had been appropriate and proportionate. • The continued focus on performance management arrangements and accountability had supported service improvement. The Committee welcomed that: • Improvements had been evidenced in several service areas compared with previous quarters. • Officers had provided clear narrative explanations alongside performance data, enabling better understanding of trends and variances. • Actions already taken had begun to stabilise performance in previously declining indicators. The Committee requested that: • Further detail be provided on the trajectory for those indicators showing continued underperformance, including anticipated timescales for recovery. • Future reports include clearer benchmarking and comparative data to contextualise performance. • Additional information be presented on the impact of resource pressures and workforce capacity on service delivery. • The process of setting targets be evidence based, resulting in ambitious, realistic and achievable targets. • Clarity be given regarding the lateness of the report being presented to the Committee. The Committee remained unconvinced of: • The sustainability of improvements in certain indicators where progress had been inconsistent. • The extent to which current actions would fully mitigate risks in the medium term for the lowest-performing areas. The Committee expressed concern of: • Continued underperformance in specific key indicators and the potential impact on service users. • The level of variance across services and the risk this posed to overall organisational objectives. • The absence of sufficient progress in a small number of priority areas despite previous reporting cycles. Scrutiny Recommendations • That a report on the Rights of Way Improvement Plan was to be brought to Scrutiny. • A breakdown of sickness absence, to include percentages and total number of days, with the associated financial cost, across each service to be included in the quarterly reports moving forward. • That consideration be given to the remit of the Employment and Appeals Committee to include oversight of employment outcomes, recruitment pathways and workforce development trends. • Develop and include a corporate measure for co-production activities across all services, with robust narrative. • Review Measure 123 and FOI performance targets to ensure they are clearly defined, accurately presented, and supported by contextual data.
Background The Leader, Cllr Jake Berriman, and officers introduced the report by outlining that the Rural Estate Policy had been under review for a number of years and was required to replace an existing policy that was considered no longer fit for purpose. It was explained that the revised policy had been developed following engagement with tenant representatives, advisory groups and through a formal consultation process. Feedback received had informed changes to both the structure and content of the policy to ensure greater clarity and usability. Members were advised that the policy set out how the farm estate would be managed on a day-to-day basis, with a stronger focus on operating in a more commercial and sustainable manner. This included proposals to modernise tenancy arrangements, introduce a standard 15-year tenancy, and remove any automatic right to renewal. The Leader further outlined that the policy aimed to balance the need to generate income for the Council with wider objectives, including supporting new entrants into farming, improving access to the estate, and enhancing environmental and economic outcomes. Points raised by the Panel: Responses received from Officers or Cabinet Members. Policy Approach and Strategic Alignment · Asked how aligned with current Welsh agricultural policy and emerging national schemes. · Questioned whether the extension of tenancy length to 15 years would reduce opportunities for new entrants into agriculture. · Enquired whether the policy sufficiently supported broader objectives such as climate, nature and sustainable farming practices. Officers and Cabinet Members advised that the policy had been developed in recognition of changing national policy, noting that Welsh Government direction, including emerging sustainable farming arrangements, remained uncertain. It was stated that the policy had therefore been designed to remain flexible, requiring tenants to comply with current and future national schemes while supporting wider climate and nature objectives. In relation to tenancy length, Cabinet Members clarified that the move to a standard 15-year tenancy had been intended to strike a balance between providing sufficient security for tenants to invest and ensuring continued turnover to support new entrants. It was emphasised that additional opportunities had been created through alternative tenancy arrangements, including smaller holdings and bare land opportunities. Estate Management and Review Process · Asked how frequently the holding review and decision-making framework would be applied in practice. · Questioned whether the timing of reviews meant that estates would only be formally reassessed at long intervals. · Enquired how the policy ensured proactive planning and visibility of upcoming tenancy changes. Officers explained that the policy introduced a more proactive and planned approach to estate management, with reviews undertaken well in advance of tenancy end dates. It was confirmed that a rolling programme of reviews would be implemented, ensuring that the estate was continually assessed rather than only at the end of long tenancy periods. Cabinet Members further stated that this approach would enable earlier engagement with tenants and provide greater clarity regarding future opportunities or changes, including circumstances where tenancies may end early or require intervention. Financial Arrangements and Rent Setting · Asked how estate tenancy rental income targets were determined and who was responsible for setting them. · Questioned how increases in rental income were managed and whether additional income would be reinvested into the estate or returned to the wider Council. · Enquired whether the methodology for setting income targets had been sufficiently robust or whether it required further review. · Asked whether there should be greater transparency and clarity regarding the financial assumptions underpinning the policy. Officers advised that rental income targets formed part of the wider Council budget-setting process and had been established over time, with annual review based on prevailing financial conditions, including inflation and market context. It was explained that the estate generated both gross and net income, with net income contributing to the wider Council budget after operational costs had been met. Officers acknowledged that the methodology underpinning the original target had evolved over time and confirmed that it would continue to be reviewed through standard financial processes. Cabinet Members also clarified that rental levels and targets were not fixed in isolation, but were influenced by changes to the estate, including disposals, reconfiguration of holdings and tenant reviews. Reinvestment and Financial Sustainability · Questioned how reinvestment into the farm estate operated and whether sufficient funds were being directed back into improving the estate. · Raised concern that income targets could limit the ability to reinvest additional funds into the estate. · Enquired whether alternative approaches to funding and reinvestment, including capital receipts and rental uplifts, could be explored. · Asked whether the current arrangements risked prioritising corporate income over long-term estate sustainability. Officers acknowledged that there was currently no formal mechanism to ringfence income for reinvestment into the estate. It was explained that income generated from the estate formed part of the Council’s overall financial position and was therefore subject to corporate financial decision-making. However, Cabinet Members confirmed that the policy sought to create limited capacity for reinvestment by allowing additional income above existing targets, where achievable, to be directed towards estate improvements. It was also noted that any broader reinvestment would require consideration through the Council’s budget process, where competing priorities across services must be balanced. Tenancy Arrangements and Opportunities · Asked whether changes to tenancy arrangements would impact the number of new entrants to farming. · Enquired how bare land tenancies operated and why they were limited to shorter time periods compared to fully equipped holdings. · Questioned whether shorter tenancies provided sufficient time for new entrants to establish viable businesses. · Asked how the policy balanced turnover of tenancies with providing security and stability for tenants. Officers advised that the introduction of varied tenancy types had been intended to increase flexibility and widen access to the estate. It was highlighted that bare land tenancies, typically shorter in duration, had been designed to enable quicker turnover and provide entry points for new entrants or alternative business models. Cabinet Members explained that shorter tenancies required lower levels of initial investment and therefore provided opportunities for a broader range of applicants. It was also confirmed that the policy aimed to balance turnover with stability, ensuring that tenants had sufficient time to develop viable businesses while maintaining opportunity within the estate. Tenant Investment and Property Condition · Asked whether there was sufficient investment in farmhouses and estate properties and whether conditions were being improved over time. · Questioned whether tenants were expected to fund improvements themselves and what protections were in place for those investments. · Enquired whether tenants could recover or be compensated for capital investments made to properties at the end of a tenancy. · Raised concern about the potential financial risk to tenants investing in properties without guaranteed renewal of tenancies. Officers clarified that responsibility for property maintenance was shared, with the Council retaining responsibility for structural elements while tenants were responsible for internal improvements. It was confirmed that properties were let at an appropriate standard but were not necessarily upgraded to modern housing specifications. Cabinet Members advised that tenants made informed decisions regarding investment based on the length of tenancy and business plans. It was further explained that, where tenants had made improvements, there were established mechanisms to assess and recognise such contributions at the end of a tenancy, although these were subject to technical evaluation and not guaranteed as full cost recovery. Scoring Criteria and Tenant Selection · Questioned whether the weighting given to rental bids within the scoring matrix risked prioritising higher financial offers over broader sustainability criteria. · Enquired whether the approach to tenant selection could favour those able to bid the highest rents rather than those best aligned to policy objectives. · Asked how sustainability and long-term viability were balanced against financial considerations in decision-making. Officers advised that the scoring framework had been developed to reflect both financial and non-financial considerations, including sustainability, environmental factors and wider social value. It was acknowledged that rental value carried significant weighting, reflecting the need for commercial viability. However, Cabinet Members confirmed that the highest financial bid would not automatically be successful. It was stated that expert judgement was applied to assess the sustainability and realism of bids, ensuring that tenancies remained viable over the long term and aligned with policy objectives. Engagement, Communication and Capacity · Asked what training officers would receive to support effective engagement with tenants and stakeholders. · Questioned whether planned engagement arrangements, including periodic reviews, were sufficient to build strong working relationships. · Enquired what communication and engagement mechanisms would operate between formal review points. · Raised concern about whether the service had sufficient capacity and resources to deliver the increased level of engagement and oversight proposed. Officers confirmed that the policy had strengthened expectations around engagement, including regular dialogue with tenants and representative groups. It was stated that engagement would take place through a combination of formal reviews and ongoing communication. Cabinet Members advised that while some elements of estate management remained operational and contractual in nature, broader engagement would continue through tenant groups and stakeholder forums. It was also highlighted that additional capacity was being introduced within the service, alongside support from wider corporate teams, to ensure that communication and engagement requirements could be met. Definitions, Clarity and Accessibility · Questioned whether key terminology, such as “sustainable”, required clearer definition within the policy. · Enquired whether additional explanation was needed to support understanding of specific policy provisions, including tenancy types and durations. Officers acknowledged that certain terminology within the policy could benefit from greater clarity. It was confirmed that definitions of sustainability had been incorporated within the policy framework, drawing on established well-being principles, but that additional emphasis or cross-referencing could be introduced to support understanding. It was also recognised that further explanation could be provided for specific elements, such as tenancy types and durations, to improve accessibility for tenants and stakeholders. Diversity, Inclusion and Equal Access · Asked what was meant by references to diversity in tenancy arrangements and the recognition of women as tenants. · Questioned whether the policy ensured equal opportunities and fair access for all applicants. Cabinet Members confirmed that the policy did not include any discriminatory criteria and that all applications were assessed on merit against the defined framework. It was stated that efforts were made to ensure a fair and transparent process, with equal opportunity for all applicants. Officers highlighted that a range of applicants, including those from underrepresented groups, had successfully entered the estate, demonstrating that the process supported inclusive access in practice. Future Opportunities and Alternative Models · Enquired whether alternative models of ownership, investment and partnership, including community involvement, had been considered. · Questioned whether exploring new approaches to estate management and investment fell within the scope of the policy or should be addressed separately. Officers advised that while the policy focused on the immediate management of the estate, wider considerations around investment models, ownership structures and alternative approaches were being explored separately through other strategic workstreams. Cabinet Members confirmed that longer-term opportunities, including diversification into areas such as energy, carbon and community use, would be considered through future policy development and corporate asset strategies, rather than within the scope of the current policy.
Scrutiny made the following observations: The Committee Endorsed: • The collaborative and cross-party approach taken in developing the Rural Estate Policy, recognising that significant work had been undertaken over a number of years involving officers, members, and stakeholders. • The overall direction of the policy in seeking to retain the Council’s farm estate as a significant asset supporting rural communities. • The inclusion of broader objectives within the policy, including economic, environmental, social, and community outcomes associated with the estate. • The proposal to modernise tenancy arrangements, including the move to 15-year tenancies to provide greater security and encourage investment by tenants. The Committee Welcomed: • The strengthened emphasis within the policy on engagement with tenants, stakeholders, and representative groups, including plans for regular dialogue beyond formal reviews. • The intention to expand opportunities for new entrants, including through innovative approaches such as small holdings and bare land opportunities. • The recognition of wider opportunities for the estate, including environmental initiatives, carbon capture, energy generation, and community use. • The proposal to increase staffing capacity, including the recruitment of an additional land surveyor resource to support more proactive management of the estate. • That the policy aimed to balance commercial viability with sustainability and community benefit. The Committee Requested that • Further clarity within the policy regarding definitions, particularly the meaning of “sustainable”, to assist public understanding. • That the rationale for shorter bare land tenancies be more clearly explained, including reference to wider policy frameworks. • Clearer explanation of financial arrangements, including how rental income targets were set and how any additional income would be reinvested into the estate. • That member development and further briefing be provided to wider members to improve understanding of the policy and its implications. • Continued engagement with stakeholders and communities, including more detailed narrative on how co-production and engagement would be delivered in practice. The Committee remained unconvinced and expressed concern of • The transparency and robustness of the financial framework, particularly the methodology used to establish rental income targets. • The current financial model might not sufficiently guarantee reinvestment into the estate, particularly given competing corporate budget pressures. • The potential impact of tenancy length changes on opportunities for new entrants and overall turnover within the estate. • The capacity of the service to deliver enhanced engagement and proactive estate management with existing resources. • That elements of the policy, including consultation feedback around diversity and inclusion, required further clarity to ensure confidence in fair and equitable access. • Scrutiny Recommendations • The Committee recommended that the policy be presented through a Member Development session for all Members, to ensure wider understanding and engagement. • The Committee recommended that the policy glossary include a clear definition of “sustainable”, covering environmental, social and economic dimensions. • The Committee recommended that the policy include an explanation of the rationale for five-year bare land tenancies, including reference to relevant planning or rural enterprise criteria. • The Committee recommended that opportunities for reinvestment into the rural estate be reviewed as part of the Council’s overarching budget-setting process. • The Committee recommended that improved support and, or training be provided to the estate management team through corporate communications and engagement functions, to strengthen stakeholder engagement approaches. • The Committee requested that financial information be shared (via Member Development or otherwise) to clarify how rental income targets were set and how reinvestment mechanisms operated in practice. Chair A Davies County Councillor
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.