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 items 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 has determined that category 3 of the Access to Information Procedure Rules applies to the following items. 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 outweigh the public interest in disclosing this information. Members are 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 were received from Committee Member Gareth Hall , Council Leader Councillor Jake Berriman, Officers Jane Thomas, Dr Richard Jones, Sharon Frewin, and Paul Bradshaw. It was also noted that Councillor Chris Walsh had given apologies for having to leave the meeting early.
There were no declarations of interest from Members relating to items for consideration on the agenda.
The Committee resolved to authorise the Chair to sign the minutes of the meeting held on the 23rd October 2025 as a true reflection of the meeting. Issues Raised by the Committee Responses Received The timing of the whistleblowing annual report was queried. Committee had previously requested the report be brought forward. Was there a deadline for this Officers confirmed the Monitoring Officer had advised the whistleblowing report for 2023–24 and 2024–25 would be presented to the Committee in January 2026, after which reports would revert to an annual cycle in July. The Monitoring officer advised that they would present the two Annual Reports together. Committee highlighted an outstanding response in the minutes regarding whether an annual review of the whistleblowing policy had been undertaken by the Committee in the last 12 months. The Monitoring Officer undertook to provide clarification on the outstanding query during the meeting. ACTION It was requested that Cllr Adam Kennerley’s name be removed from the attendance list. This would be done. Audit Wales Officers confirmed that the updated management response to Recommendation 4 had been received and would be included in the Council’s regulatory tracker. The response met the Code of Audit Practice requirements. Committee members raised a matter arising from the previous deep dive on climate risk, requesting consideration of working with the Economy Residents and Communities Scrutiny Committee in commissioning a benchmarking exercise on the costs of achieving net zero to provide assurance and comparative data against other authorities. This was noted for future consideration.
Background provided by Audit Wales: • Audit Wales confirmed that updates were provided twice yearly, with the next update scheduled for December 2025. • The report covered: • An audit of the Council’s 2024–25 Statement of Accounts and Pension Fund. • Two outstanding grant claims: Funding for Nursing Care and ICT; work ongoing on 2024–25 grants. • Performance audit work: • Unscheduled care review was ongoing. • Scrutiny and Commissioning reports received July 2025. • Corporate Governance Report had been submitted to the council and would be presented to the committee at a future meeting. • Evidence gathering on staffing resources and recruitment planned for early 2026. • Planning and safeguarding reviews completed; risk management report presented at the previous meeting. • Future work included cybersecurity review and economic development review in 2026. • National reports: Temporary accommodation report published; capital planning report due December; children’s services review underway; local government funding arrangements brief issued. Issues Raised by the Committee Responses Received Members queried the status of outstanding grant claims and whether delays would impact the Council’s accounts. Audit Wales confirmed that the two outstanding grant claims (Funding for Nursing Care and ICT) were not material to the Council’s accounts. Therefore, the sign-off of the accounts was unaffected. The information required had been received from the Council, and Audit Wales intended to complete these alongside the 2024–25 grant audits during the current year. Questions were raised about the reasons for delay in completing grant audits and whether these would be resolved alongside 2024–25 audits. Audit Wales explained that the delay was due to the need to work through the information provided by the Council. The plan was to finalise the outstanding 2023–24 claims together with the 2024–25 pooled budget audits, ensuring efficiency and consistency. Had the Joint Inspectorate Review of Child Protection Arrangements been published. It was confirmed that this report was published in June 2025 and related to Pembrokeshire County Council.
Background provided by Audit Wales: • Audit Wales presented a Wales-wide study on temporary accommodation, highlighting: • Demand for temporary accommodation has increased fivefold over the past decade, with 10,800 people in temporary accommodation in March 2025 (24% children), representing a 200% increase since 2020. • Council spending rose from £28 million in 2019–20 to £172 million in 2023–24, a 516% increase, creating significant financial challenges. • Temporary accommodation often fails to meet residents’ needs, negatively impacting health, employment, and child development. • Most councils do not robustly assess value for money; focus remains on short-term costs, with limited benchmarking and outcome evaluation. • Prevention efforts were inconsistent: all councils had rapid rehousing plans, but quality varied and primary prevention measures were often missing. • Workforce pressures included high sickness rates, recruitment challenges, and limited modelling of future skills needs. • Partnership working was inconsistent, leading to gaps and duplication. • Without a shift to prevention and collaboration, temporary accommodation risks becoming an expensive, unsustainable service. Audit Wales made three national recommendations: • Assess and monitor value for money, including outcomes and efficiency. • Use data to model future demand and workforce needs, emphasising primary prevention. • Improve partnership roles, address gaps, and regularly evaluate effectiveness. • Powys’ management response included: • A homeless triage pilot launched in June, achieving a 75% prevention rate. • 89% of temporary accommodation provided within social housing stock, minimising moves and promoting rapid rehousing. • Commitment to strengthen partnership working and upstream prevention. • Audit Wales confirmed Powys’ management response met Code of Audit Practice requirements, with clear actions, timescales, and responsibilities. Corporate Response: • The response had been structured around three main headings: Planning for Intervention, Partnership Working, and Finally for Many. These were presented as position statements, outlining how the service had been performing against each heading. SMART goals had then been developed to demonstrate how the service intended to progress further in meeting the recommendations. The key aim of the service, within the rapid rehousing approach, was homelessness prevention. • The management response form referenced a homeless triage pilot, designed to minimise and avoid households experiencing the trauma of homelessness. • The pilot had been running since early June and was achieving approximately 75% prevention, meaning three-quarters of households approaching the service were prevented from entering temporary accommodation or the homelessness system. • A full evaluation of the pilot was scheduled for the end of the calendar year, with the intention of formalising this approach if the proof of concept was demonstrated. Regarding temporary accommodation: • The Council aimed to minimise the use of private rented sector accommodation wherever possible. • Approximately 89% of temporary accommodation provision was within the social housing sector, predominantly the Council’s own stock but also that of partner housing associations. • Wherever possible, households were “flipped” into permanent tenancies within the same property to avoid moving them twice, in line with the rapid rehousing ethos. On partnership working: • The importance of strengthening partnerships to support primary prevention was recognised. • Through the Homelessness Cell, work was ongoing to engage partners and take services further upstream to reduce the need for homelessness presentations entirely. Issues Raised by the Committee Responses Received Members praised the compassionate approach outlined in the management response but stressed the need for measurable outcomes and clarity on what success would look like. Questions were asked about whether asylum-seeker dispersals were included in temporary accommodation figures. Officers clarified that asylum-seeker dispersals were not included in Powys’ temporary accommodation figures. Members queried the Council’s plans for new housing development and whether purchasing private properties affected overall market supply. Officers stated that Powys had a very active new-build programme and was the largest provider of new social housing in Powys. This reflected demand, noting the need for both small and family-sized accommodation. Homelessness was a clear example of a dysfunctional housing market, emphasising the challenge of meeting demand with limited supply. Committee expressed encouragement regarding officers’ approach to the report and their broader responses to audit reports. The importance of focusing on outcomes, effectiveness, and impact of actions taken against recommendations was emphasised. As well as understanding what success would look like and how it would be measured to ensure value for money. It was requested that this is in future reflected in the management actions for the report and apply it more widely to all internal audit responses. Were there locations in Powys where homelessness was a greater problem than elsewhere. Officers explained that homelessness was predominantly an issue in the five major towns in Powys.
Background provided: • The internal audit review of mandatory training issued a split opinion: • Substantial assurance for corporate training, which achieved 90% compliance supported by structured monitoring and a live BI dashboard. • Limited assurance for schools, where compliance averaged 53.5% and weaknesses were identified in policy, processes, and oversight. • Corporate training arrangements were described as robust, with clear governance and effective monitoring. • Schools lacked formal oversight; integration of school data into the corporate dashboard was in progress, and the Local Authority Partnership Agreement had been updated to include training requirements. Corporate Response: • Management reported that actions were underway: • GDPR and cybersecurity processes for schools now managed through Trent. • Mandatory training dashboard was in place with testing with schools to ensure secure access. • Improvements in compliance already observed, with further progress expected during the current academic year. • The Cabinet Member for Education emphasised that mandatory training compliance was a high priority, citing recent safeguarding failures nationally as a wake-up call. • The Director of Social Services and Wellbeing confirmed that the Corporate Safeguarding Board would maintain oversight and include mandatory training as a standing agenda item. Issues Raised by the Committee Responses Received • Members expressed concern about the low compliance rate in schools and asked for assurance that actions were being taken promptly. • Members queried how the success of training was measured beyond completion rates. • Questions were raised about why the compliance target was set at 90% rather than 100%, given the mandatory nature of the training. Officers clarified that policies such as safeguarding follow national frameworks with different levels and while completion was the primary metric, safeguarding frameworks included tiered training levels. Additional measures such as refresher training and role-specific modules were being implemented. Staff were sometimes compliant at higher safeguarding levels but had lapsed at the basic level, stressing the need to maintain all levels. Officers assured members that apparent non-compliance in one area often meant compliance elsewhere. Regarding the 90% completion rate for mandatory training, the expectation was full compliance, with the shortfall due to sickness and new starters. Concerns were expressed about the risk posed by staff who had not completed mandatory training, particularly in safeguarding roles. Officers responded that as of the 1st November 2025 the training was at 93%; a significant improvement to the reported figure. The committee queried the status of councillor training, particularly GDPR and cybersecurity modules and noted that there was a lack of transparency in the way that the mandatory training data was reported in the Annual Governance Statement. The Monitoring Officer confirmed that member compliance had improved significantly, reaching 93% as of 1 November. Members highlighted low compliance figures of Cyber Security and GDPR training for social services and sought clarification on whether these posed safeguarding risks. Why was this figure low and what action was being taken to improve it. Officers clarified that the reported 66% figure referred to a very small group of senior staff and was already rectified. Compliance for adult and children’s services was above 89%. Members asked whether the low compliance was due to increased training requirements or lack of support and requested clarity on the timeline for improvement. Officers explained that recent changes to national safeguarding frameworks increased training requirements. The timeline for improvement spanned the current academic year, with significant progress expected by year-end. It was suggested that a recommendation could be made by Committee for all School Governing Bodies to make Mandatory Training a standing item on their agendas. Committee supported that recommendation. Committee suggested a review of the SWAP Mandatory Training Audit could be conducted at a time of year when all training had been completed. Officers explained that this would not be possible because training was unique to officers first day in the role. Committee asked when a follow-up audit would be conducted in schools to provide assurance on progress against actions and suggested that the Internal Audit Working Group examine the report in more detail to seek further assurance on behalf of the Committee. SWAP Officers confirmed that progress would be tracked through action monitoring, reviewed by the Internal Audit Working Group, and a formal follow-up audit would take place within 6–9 months. Should mandatory training data be benchmarked. Officers were left to consider how this could be done.
Background provided: • The SWAP Q2 Progress Report (as at 31 October 2025) indicated: • 40% of the audit plan completed, with a further 26% in draft or in progress. • The work programme remained unchanged and was on track for delivery by year-end. • Outcomes to date: • 70% of opinion-based audits provided positive assurance, consistent with previous years, suggesting an overall reasonable assurance opinion. • Three audits flagged concerns: • Mandatory training (high corporate risk). • Network boundary defences (to be considered in exempt session). • Newtown High School (scheduled for next meeting). • Internal actions: • 96.8% of all internal audit actions implemented over the past two years, reflecting strong performance. Issues Raised by the Committee Responses Received Members commended the Chief Executive and Corporate Leadership Team for prioritising overdue actions and achieving significant improvements. The presenting officer acknowledged the committee’s comments and confirmed that the Chief Executive and Corporate Leadership Team had prioritised clearing overdue actions, which had driven the strong compliance rate. Members queried whether the 14 overdue actions were more than two years old and asked for context on their priority level. SWAP Officers clarified that the reference to two years related to the wider 96.8% action tracking figure. As of 31 October there were 14 overdue actions, with only four older than 90 days. Two of these related to schools and were being addressed through relevant forums, and two arose from a direct payment audit. Feedback from the working group indicated the direct payment actions had been implemented, although assurance was still awaited from children’s services. Two actions were delayed due to communication issues and two related to schools, which remained outstanding and were being followed up. None of the actions were two years old, with only four considered long-standing.
· The Chair introduced the draft Governance and Audit Committee Annual Report for 2024–25. · The purpose of the report was to provide a summary of the Committee’s work during the previous year and demonstrate compliance with statutory responsibilities under the Local Government and Elections (Wales) Act. Following approval from the committee, the report would go before Cabinet and Full Council as a record of the work of the Governance and Audit Committee. · The Chair thanked officers for their support in preparing the report and invited members to provide any final comments before formal approval for submission to Cabinet and Council. There were no questions or concerns from the committee. The committee moved to accept and approve the Governance and Audit Committee Annual Report 2024-25.
· The officer introduced the Quarter 2 Fraud and Error Report for 2025–26. · The report summarised: o Current caseload and types of allegations under investigation. o Outcomes from recent cases and progress on National Fraud Initiative (NFI) matches. o No serious risks were identified during Quarter 2. • The briefing note from Audit Wales was included in the pack, highlighting the importance of governance oversight and requesting that those charged with governance seek assurance on the Council’s fraud prevention processes. Issues Raised by the Committee Responses Received Members queried how the team prioritised cases given the large number of open investigations and whether there was a formal prioritisation process. The officer explained that all cases were treated as priority, particularly those with potential criminal implications. Cases were progressed continuously, with proactive work generating additional referrals. Concerns were raised about whether the team had sufficient resources to manage the current workload effectively. The officer acknowledged the challenge but confirmed that the team managed by staggering work and focusing on high-risk cases. Collaboration with other organisations was used where necessary. Members expressed difficulty interpreting the NFI data presented in Appendix 2 and asked for clarification on risk categories and match volumes. SWAP officers explained that risk ratings were determined by the Cabinet Office based on data integrity and match type. High and very high-risk matches were prioritised for review. Questions were raised about why blue badge matches were categorised as high or very high risk and what criteria determined these ratings. SWAP clarified that these ratings reflected the likelihood of fraud based on data matching, not confirmed fraud. High-risk matches were prioritised for investigation. Audit Wales officers added that they would be producing a report in 2026 and welcomed feedback from the committee on this. This would be picked up separately. Members asked whether the cost-of-living crisis had led to an increase in fraud cases and what preventative measures were in place. The officer confirmed that referrals had remained steady but noted that financial pressures could increase risk. Proactive checks and awareness campaigns were ongoing. The committee queried whether prosecutions generated income for the Council and how decisions were made between pursuing prosecution or recovery. The officer explained that prosecutions do not generate income and were costly. Recovery was often the preferred route unless serious criminality warrants court action. Members sought clarity on the relationship between the 16,500 NFI matches and the smaller number of cases reported in the officer’s update. The officer confirmed that the 16,500 matches covered all service areas, with responsibility shared across departments. The fraud team focused on household composition and high-risk matches. Were there 9,866 cases without a priority? Officers that their team was focusing on the most recent data matches released in January and testing multiple matches to avoid duplication. Only around half of the 9,000 cases would be reviewed and there was a need for Cabinet Office risk scoring to prioritise work. Concerns were raised about whether unreviewed NFI matches posed a risk and how these were managed over time. The officer explained that matches persist across cycles, so unresolved matches reappear in future uploads. This ensures that potential issues are not lost and can be addressed over time.
• The officer introduced the Quarter 2 Treasury Management Report for 2025–26. • The officer highlighted an error in Table 4 relating to the net revenue stream for 2026–27 and 2027–28, confirming that corrected figures had been circulated and would be updated in the published report. • It was noted that the Council’s financing costs as a percentage of net revenue stream were around 4%, which was considered sustainable. • The officer also referenced economic forecasts from the Council’s treasury advisors and confirmed that borrowing and investment activity remained within approved limits. Issues Raised by the Committee Responses Received Members asked what effect the corrected net revenue stream figures had on the financing percentage and whether this posed any concern. The officer confirmed that the corrected figures reduced the financing percentage to approximately 4% for 2026–27 and 4.1% for 2027–28, which was within acceptable limits. Questions were raised about the reasons for increasing aged debt in Highways and Transport and whether this indicated systemic issues. The officer explained that the aged debt related primarily to unpaid developer bonds, which were held until works were completed. These were being actively pursued.
• The Annual Information Governance Report for 2024–25 was introduced to provide assurance on the Council’s arrangements for managing information securely and in compliance with statutory requirements. • Key points highlighted: • 70% of actions within the Information Management Assurance and Governance Plan had been completed, including: • Implementation of an Information Governance Hub for staff and schools. • Review of postal checking regimes. • Development of a policy on surveillance camera systems. • Mandatory training compliance for GDPR and cybersecurity was discussed, with graphs included in the report (noting a minor correction required to the x-axis dates). • Personal data breaches had increased slightly by 0.5% compared to the previous year, although overall information security incidents had decreased by 15.6%. • Two incidents were reported to the Information Commissioner during the year; both resulted in recommendations rather than regulatory action. • The report also covered Freedom of Information (FOI), Environmental Information Regulations (EIR), and Subject Access Requests (SAR), noting 1,289 valid requests with compliance rates improving. • A backlog in file review and destruction remained due to resource constraints, but additional resources were being identified. Issues Raised by the Committee Responses Received Members asked whether personal data breaches were identified internally or reported by external parties. Officers confirmed that breaches were identified through multiple channels, including staff self-reporting and notifications from recipients or partner organisations. Did the Council undertake proactive monitoring or sampling of emails to detect misdirected communications. Officers explained that due to the volume of emails (approximately five million annually), proactive sampling was not feasible. Detection relies on staff reporting and recipient notifications. Members expressed concern about the impact on staff who report breaches and asked what support and remedial training were provided. Officers confirmed that staff were supported through one-to-one discussions, learning reviews, and remedial training where appropriate. The emphasis was on learning rather than punitive measures.
• The officer presented a summary of the Corporate Safeguarding Board meeting held on 11 September 2025. • The Corporate Safeguarding Policy had been updated to reflect revised roles, responsibilities, and Audit Wales recommendations. The policy was signed off within the required timescale. • A regional safeguarding update was provided, ensuring alignment with new guidance, training, and reviews across partner organisations. • A dedicated item on suicide prevention was discussed at the Board’s request and following a referral from the Health and Care Committee. The Council’s role was clarified as primarily administrative and focused on postvention rather than prevention. Staff well-being support was emphasised, including resources such as employee assistance programmes, mental health first aid, and HR support. • Updates were given on education safeguarding, including: • The conclusion of the Children Missing Education pilot and feedback to Welsh Government. • Concerns regarding tracking children educated outside the county and cross-border movements. • Trends in elective home education, with increased movement between home education and school attendance. • A Power BI dashboard had been introduced to support annual safeguarding self-assessments. Compliance levels were noted, and a working group was established to address areas for improvement. • Regular updates were provided on safeguarding in housing, social care, and children’s services. Mandatory training for volunteers was highlighted, and the volunteer policy had been updated to strengthen safeguarding requirements. • A presentation on community tension and social cohesion was delivered, with a risk score of 12 recorded on the corporate risk register. Mitigation actions were discussed. • The Board noted an increase in safeguarding referrals and raised concerns about poor record-keeping in some care homes and providers. The commissioning team was working with providers to implement action plans and explore digital tools to improve compliance. • The next Corporate Safeguarding Board meeting was scheduled for 11 December 2025. Issues Raised by the Committee Responses Received Members asked whether the Council could collaborate with local charities and community groups, such as Welsh Bikers for Suicide Prevention, to strengthen preventative efforts. Officers confirmed that the Council’s role was primarily postvention but agreed to explore opportunities for engagement with local groups and welcomed contact details for relevant organisations. • Concerns were raised about poor record-keeping practices in some care homes and the associated risks for safeguarding continuity and professional accountability. • Members queried whether the issues with record-keeping had led to the termination of student social worker placements. • How were care homes supported in adopting good record-keeping practice. • The officer clarified that the two issues were unrelated. Placements had ended for other reasons, not due to record-keeping concerns. • Officers assured the committee that the commissioning team was working with providers to implement action plans and improve compliance, including consideration of digital solutions. Questions were asked about the meaning of the risk score of 12 and how this related to the Council’s overall risk management framework. Officers clarified that the Corporate Safeguarding Board was assessing the risk and implementing appropriate mitigations, noting that the risk score comment should not have been included.
• The officer presented the Quarter 2 update on the Regulatory Tracker for 2025–26, covering the period from 1 July to 30 September. • The tracker monitored recommendations issued by external regulators and the Council’s progress in implementing them. • At the end of Quarter 2: • 30 recommendations were recorded in total (open and closed). • 6 new recommendations were received during the quarter: • 3 from Audit Wales following the national study on temporary accommodation. • 3 from the Health and Safety Executive. • 29 recommendations remained open, of which 23 were on track, 6 were off track. One recommendation was completed during the quarter (Food Standards Agency). • The six off-track recommendations were highlighted in the covering report, with explanations provided for delays. • The officer confirmed that the interactive tracker was available to Governance and Audit Committee members for detailed review. Issues Raised by the Committee Responses Received Members asked when the draft route map for net zero would be finalised and presented for approval. The officer advised that the route map was expected to be considered by the Climate and Nature Steering Group, scrutiny and then Cabinet in January or February 2026.
• The officer introduced the deep dive on corporate risk EDR0012, which relates to phosphate pollution in river catchments and its impact on development and compliance with environmental standards. • Phosphate levels in Special Areas of Conservation (SACs), such as the River Wye and River Usk, exceed target limits, creating significant environmental and regulatory challenges. • Consequences include: • Restrictions on planning applications within affected catchments. • Potential delays to major projects, including council house building, school modernisation, and regeneration schemes. • Wider economic impacts due to reduced development activity. • Current controls and actions: • Engagement with Nutrient Management Boards for the Wye and Usk catchments. • Development of action plans and identification of mitigation measures, such as wetland creation and improved land management practices. • Exploration of natural capital revenue opportunities and nutrient offsetting schemes. • The officer noted that mitigation was complex, requiring collaboration across local authorities, Natural Resources Wales, and other stakeholders. • Nutrient Management Plans for the Wye and Usk were expected to be published shortly, providing clearer timelines and priorities for intervention. Issues Raised by the Committee Responses Received • Members asked for clarity on the severity of the risk and the expected timeline for implementing mitigation measures. • Questions were raised about how the Council would measure the success of interventions and whether contingency plans were in place if initial measures proved ineffective. Officers noted the need to assess the effectiveness of mitigation measures, prioritise actions, and secure funding. There was progress across local authorities, with nutrient management plans emerging, planning approvals being granted, and case studies on wastewater upgrades under review. Sites for future mitigation had been identified and related work would be published in the coming weeks. The Portfolio Holder for a Greener Powys reported attending both nutrient management boards and confirmed regular engagement with Welsh and UK ministers. The importance of addressing phosphate issues for river health alongside economic impacts was emphasised, particularly housing, and noted ongoing lobbying for Welsh Government support and stakeholder involvement. The Portfolio Holder for a Greener Powys added that Powys actively participated in both the Wye and Usk Nutrient Management Boards and engaged with Welsh and English authorities to ensure coordinated action. Mitigation strategies aim to unlock stalled developments once nutrient offsetting solutions had been agreed. Members queried how effectively Powys was working with neighbouring authorities and national agencies to address phosphate pollution. Committee noted recent risk deep dive lacked clarity on intervention timing, risk scale, and the impact of control measures. The need for SMART objectives, measurable outcomes, and clear value for money was stressed. The Chair highlighted the importance of aligning actions with the Council’s risk appetite and evaluating cost-effectiveness when prioritising resources. The Portfolio Holder for a Greener Powys highlighted the complexities of solutions in this area, much of which were out of the hands of Powys County Council. Had clear milestones or deadlines been set, or was the approach simply ongoing monitoring and reporting. Assurance was given however, that Nutrient Management Plans had timelines within them. The Portfolio Holder for a Greener Powys advised that two separate nutrient management plans would be produced: one for the Usk (entirely in Wales) and one for the Wye (covering Wales and England). It was agreed that a confirmation of the timeline could be brought to a future Governance and Audit Committee Meeting. ACTION The committee requested a follow-up deep dive once the Nutrient Management Plans were published, to review progress and assess measurable outcomes. The officer agreed and proposed scheduling a further deep dive in six to nine months.
Internal Audit Working Group: · Recently met to review progress on overdue internal audit actions. · Noted significant improvement, with most actions now implemented and only a small number outstanding. · Received an update on the Montgomery Canal Shared Prosperity Fund project. Capital Working Group: • The Capital Working Group report approved by committee in the last meeting was scheduled to go to Cabinet alongside the Rural Enterprise Policy Report in early 2026. Issues Raised by the Committee Responses Received Concerns were raised about whether the Capital Working Group’s comments had been shared with the Farm Estate Advisory Group to ensure alignment. The officer explained that the comments had not yet been formally shared but agreed to forward the report to the Advisory Group before its next meeting. Members sought assurance that the working group’s recommendations would be incorporated into the final policy and not overlooked during the Cabinet process. The officer confirmed that the recommendations would be included as part of the Cabinet report and highlighted as a live document within the policy review process.
· Committee requested assurance that the Value for Money report would be ready for January 2026. It was suggested that if there was any doubt about the paper being ready then it should be postponed. Preferring a later date with confidence. It was asked that the Head of Finance discuss this with the Section 151 Officer to confirm. ACTION · Audit Wales Officers confirmed the audit plan would be presented later in spring and advised that the Capital Report would not be published until December and requested delays to both papers to allow officers time to prepare responses. · Officers confirmed the Whistleblowing Annual Report was on the Forward Work Programme for January 2026 (covering 2023–24 and 2024–25). An annual review of the policy would also be added to the Forward Work Programme.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED to exclude the public for the following items 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 has determined that category 3 of the Access to Information Procedure Rules applies to the following items. 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 outweigh the public interest in disclosing this information. Members are 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 items 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 has determined that category 3 of the Access to Information Procedure Rules applies to the following items. 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 outweigh the public interest in disclosing this information. Members are 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.
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.