The Policy Review and Performance Scrutiny Committee met to scrutinise the draft Corporate Plan for 2026-29 and the draft Budget proposals for 2026-27. Key discussions included the strategic direction of the council, financial planning, and service delivery, with a particular focus on education, social care, and environmental initiatives.

Corporate Plan 2026-29

The committee undertook pre-decision scrutiny of the draft Corporate Plan for 2026-29. Councillor Hugh Thomas, Leader of the Council, presented the plan, highlighting its role in translating political priorities into practical action and outlining progress made on the council's fairer, stronger, greener agenda. He cited examples such as the development of new council homes in Channel View and the regeneration of Cardiff Central Station, as well as the One Planet Cardiff strategy for tackling the climate emergency. Councillor Thomas acknowledged the challenges of rising demand and financial pressures but expressed confidence in the plan's ambition and deliverability.

Councillor Graham Hinchey raised concerns about the need for a replacement for sanitation facilities and the development of educational establishments in the north of the city, specifically mentioning the Teaglass site. Councillor Thomas assured him that proposals for ALN provision were being considered for the Teaglass site, with significant opportunities for a new secondary school in the future.

Councillor Garry Hunt questioned the disconnect between Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) and objectives within the plan, citing the example of school deficits and the lack of specific KPIs for economic development and modernising public services. He also suggested including previous years' targets in the document to show trends. The council's representatives explained that the plan aimed for strategic clarity, with detailed KPIs residing in directorate delivery plans. They also noted that performance data was available online for public scrutiny.

Discussions also touched upon anti-social behaviour (ASB), with Councillor Hunt expressing surprise at the reported satisfaction levels and questioning the reasons for a reported 14% city-wide decrease in ASB reports. It was clarified that this figure included police data and that multi-agency work was ongoing in hotspot areas to tackle under-reporting.

Concerns were also raised about the council's debt collection measures and the sensitivity shown towards residents struggling with payments. Councillor Chris Weaver, Cabinet Member for Finance, Modernisation and Performance, reassured the committee that actions were often a last resort and that a support infrastructure was in place, including the Money Advice Service.

Councillor Joe Carter echoed concerns about the disconnect between objectives and KPIs, particularly in the economy and modernising public services sections. He also suggested that previous years' targets should be included in the document for trend analysis.

Councillor Mike Ash-Edwards inquired about the resources allocated to new partnerships and the benefits expected. It was stated that most partnerships would be delivered within existing budgets, with a focus on regional collaboration to ensure urban areas' needs were heard.

Councillor Ash-Edwards also raised concerns about public understanding of the climate crisis and the cost of inaction, particularly in light of recent discussions at the environment scrutiny committee. Councillor Thomas acknowledged the challenge of communicating the urgency of climate change, especially when competing with cost of living concerns, but highlighted the council's commitment to green growth initiatives and flood defence works.

The committee also discussed the inclusion of a council role in supporting schools with financial challenges, with an agreement to explore potential KPIs and ensure reporting on this step. The issue of potholes and the potential for a KPI on average repair times was also raised.

Budget 2026-27

The committee scrutinised the draft Budget proposals for 2026-27. Councillor Chris Weaver presented the budget, highlighting a £22.6 million budget gap that would be met through over £40 million in savings and a 3.9% council tax increase. He emphasised that no frontline service cuts were proposed. The budget prioritises education, children's services, and adult services due to rising demand and cost pressures.

Councillor Ash-Edwards sought clarification on the council receiving a below average settlement from the Welsh Government, which was explained as being due to a restatement of population figures. He also questioned the presentation of future financial pressures, which officers explained were based on prudent assumptions and signalled the importance of the council's change management programme.

Councillor Garry Hunt raised concerns about job losses and the long-term sustainability of achieving efficiency savings. Officers acknowledged that services had been cut over the years but stated that technology and changes in customer behaviour could lead to future efficiencies. They also highlighted the importance of the Welsh Government's recognition of local services.

Questions were raised about the wide variation in increases to fees and charges. It was explained that these decisions were service-specific, considering demand, competitors, and market benchmarking to maximise income.

Councillor Hunt also questioned the realism of some of the larger savings proposals, particularly in adult services. It was noted that these savings were part of a longer-term plan focused on early intervention and prevention.

The significant capital investment in core office costs was questioned by Councillor Joe Carter, who asked for justification and whether this represented the upper limit of expenditure. It was explained that the current building was unfit for purpose, too large, and that the investment would lead to a smaller, more efficient, and net-zero compliant office, unlocking wider regeneration opportunities.

Councillor Graham Hinchey raised concerns about the capital programme, specifically the lack of funding for the Clan Rumney Bridge and the proposed vehicle acquisition strategy. It was clarified that the Clan Rumney Bridge project was subject to external funding and a developer's contribution, with the council contributing £3 million. The vehicle acquisition strategy was explained as a move towards purchasing a more modern and energy-efficient fleet, with a significant portion of the investment aimed at replacing older vehicles and transitioning to electric.

Councillor Hinchey also inquired about the reuse and recycling centre in Cardiff North and the potential for upcycling. It was noted that the council was aware of existing third-sector groups providing similar services and aimed to work in partnership.

The budget included additional funding for highways maintenance, street cleansing, neighbourhood regeneration schemes, child-friendly initiatives, and sport development grants, funded through the Financial Resilience Mechanism.

Concerns were raised about the potential impact of UK government decisions on Special Educational Needs (SEN) funding on Wales and Cardiff. Officers explained the complex process of funding allocation through the Barnett Consequential and the Welsh Government's distribution subgroup, noting that the exact impact was still unknown.

The committee also discussed the impact of population figures on the council's funding settlement and the rationale behind the profiling of road resurfacing budgets.

A specific concern was raised by Councillor Carter regarding the achievability of savings and their potential impact on residents, particularly in relation to school transport.

Councillor Mike Ash-Edwards raised a point about the assessment of roads for resurfacing and whether the increased investment was making a tangible difference in key routes.

The committee also discussed the council's compliance with the Supreme Court ruling on the Equality Act, with concerns raised about the lack of specific budget provision for addressing unknown liabilities. Officers stated that any necessary works would be managed within existing budgets, such as building maintenance.

The committee also noted that the One Planet Cardiff agenda had been ranked as a lower priority by residents in a recent survey, although other data suggested climate change was still considered an important issue by a majority of citizens.

The committee agreed to capture points regarding the strategic planning for the Teaglass site, the realism of savings proposals, the capital investment in core offices, the vehicle acquisition strategy, and the need for a strategy to address potential costs related to the Equality Act ruling.