Venue: Multi-Location Meeting - Council Chamber, Port Talbot & Microsoft Teams. View directions
Contact: Alison Thomas Email: a.thomas6@npt.gov.uk
No. | Item |
---|---|
Chair's Announcements Decision: The
chair welcomed everyone to the meeting. Minutes: The
chair welcomed everyone to the meeting. |
|
Declarations of Interest Decision: Cllr
S Reynolds – Item 4(d) – Personal. Recipient of core funding. Minutes: Cllr
S Reynolds – Item 4(d) – Personal. Recipient of core funding. |
|
Minutes of Previous Meeting ·
5th September 2024 ·
17th October 2024 Additional documents: Decision: The
minutes of the meetings held on 5th September 2024 and 17th
October 2024 were approved as true and accurate records. Minutes: The
minutes of the meetings held on 5th September 2024 and 17th
October 2024 were approved as true and accurate records. |
|
To consider items from the Cabinet Forward Work Programme Decision: The
committee considered items selected from the Cabinet Forward Work Programme. Minutes: The
committee considered items selected from the Cabinet Forward Work Programme. |
|
Strategic Equality Plan Annual Report 2023-2024 Additional documents: Decision: Following
scrutiny, the recommendation was supported to Cabinet. Minutes: Members
considered the report as circulated within the agenda pack. The
report is the final report on the 2020-2024 plan which sets out the how the
authority is meeting the public sector equality duty. The covering report sets
out a key number of deliverables achieved in 2023-2024. Following
scrutiny, the recommendation was supported to Cabinet. |
|
Strategic Risk Register Additional documents:
Decision: Following
scrutiny, members noted the report. Minutes: Members
considered the report as circulated within the agenda pack. The
Director of Strategy and Corporate Services outlined the changes that have been
made to the strategic risk register. It is the intention to present an updated
risk register on a six monthly basis as opposed to annual consideration. There
is now both an inherent risk score and a residual risk score. The matrix used
sets a maximum risk of 25 and the smallest risk rating would be 2. During
the summer a risk appetite statement was put in place. This sets out how the
authority position themselves on the risk contained within the strategic risk
register. The statement is based upon the principles contained within the
government’s Orange Book of Management of Risk - Principles and Concepts. The
strategic risk register will need to be aligned to the risk appetite statement.
It
is noted that the target risk score is not yet completed. The rationale for
this is there is an inherent risk score, which is based on the expertise of the
officers responsible for those risks, mitigating actions and controls are put
in place and then remaining risk is the residual risk. It is then for the
authority to determine if the residual level of risk is something that can be
managed or does this need to be reduced. What is the target risk for the
particular item? Members
referred to SR06 and its reference to insufficient capital and revenue
resources which could cause problems. It was suggested that this should also be
listed under other items and other directorates. Officers confirmed that this
item covered the council’s entire financial planning arrangements and is not
directorate specific. In
relation to SR25, members queried the use of the word aspirations and if this
was appropriate to use as a previous seminar indicated that there would be
fines imposed if targets were not met. Members were also concerned that the
targets would not be met. Officers confirmed that the Council did set a target
of 2030 for climate change and decarbonisation. Officers noted the pressure on
the budget and the impact that this was having on the ability to complete projects
which contribute to the decarbonisation target. It
was noted that each directorate has its own risk register which sits underneath
the overarching strategic risk register. Officers agreed that they would consider
referencing the more specific directorate risks as part of the strategic risk
register. Members referred to SR23 and that has been removed and is now included in SR01. It is recognised that the risk has moved from a risk that was owned by the Education Director and now sits under a risk owned by the Environment Director. The risk refers to buildings for learning and the impacts on that. Members queried if this risk had transferred ownership to fall under environment and not education. Officers confirmed that whilst the Headteachers of the school hold the autonomy over schools, all infrastructure works undertaken are carried out by the team ... view the full minutes text for item 4b |
|
Corporate Plan Annual Report 2023-2024 Additional documents:
Decision: Following
scrutiny, members noted the report. Minutes: Members
considered the report as outlined within the agenda pack. Members
expressed their concern that the some of the items indicated that they had increased
or were colour code green, yet there was no identified new measure that was
identified. Officers
advised that the information had collated from information from the individual
directorates and that they would go back and confirm. With regards to items
identified green but where no new measure was indicated, officers confirmed
that this indicated progress only. However, they took members point on board with
regards to this and would consider it for future reports. Following
scrutiny, members noted the report. |
|
Third Sector Grants and Commissioning Arrangements Additional documents:
Decision: Following
scrutiny, the recommendation was supported to Cabinet. Minutes: Members
considered the report as outlined within the agenda pack. Members
queried if the amount available, was the same as previous years or had
decreased? Officers confirmed that the amount available was the same as the
previous year. The authority are committed to increasing
funding by the proposed increase in revenue grant for the following year. There
was a 0% increase forecast in RSG, therefore there was the same amount of
funding available. Last year the funding was under allocated, however officer
confirmed that the full amount has been reinstated this year. Member
referred to the application forms, and the perceived change in criteria which
suggests an exclusion to apply for ‘core funding.’ Members advised that discussion
in the voluntary sector liaison committee indicated that the grant was looking to
fund core activities that were unable to be funded from other areas. There
are currently six organisations that are currently committed to core funding,
to the sum of £350,000 for next year as part of the three
year agreement. Officers confirmed that there is a proposal in the grant
arrangements to cap at £25,000 to enable the funding to be distributed to more organisations.
The criteria have been tidied up to ensure that projects are supported which
support identified priority areas. Members
asked that the comments of the committee be noted in regards
to ensuring that the funding is also available for core costs as well as
project costs and that this is conveyed to Cabinet before any decision it taken.
Following
scrutiny, the recommendation was supported to Cabinet. |
|
To consider items from the Scrutiny Committee Forward Work Programme There
are no scrutiny forward work programme items to be considered. Decision: There
were no items considered. Minutes: There
were no items considered. |
|
Performance Monitoring Decision: Members
considered performance monitoring items. Minutes: Members
considered performance monitoring items. |
|
Strategy & Corporate Services - Delivery Plan & Half Yearly Monitoring Additional documents:
Decision: Following
scrutiny, members noted the report. Minutes: Members
considered the report as circulated within the agenda pack. The
Director outlined the importance of the three service areas in underpinning the
Corporate Plan. It is important that the delivery plans are in place and for
members to understand and see how teams are progressing in terms of delivering
against those plans. Members
welcomed the details of the priorities and the narrative around these outlining
the progress made against these, set out within the report. In terms of the presentation
of the report, where specific performance measures are identified, they are
presented as on track, however the target is not indicated within the report. Some
of the narrative identifies the targets, and this makes it easier to see where
something is on track. Some of the items are being presented as data, without a
target, yet are being reported a on track. Members expressed their confusion at
items being ragged green when it was just presenting data for monitoring
purposes. Officers
noted the comments and took on board that there is work to be done in terms of
presenting quantifiable and qualitative data in the monitoring reports. Following
scrutiny, members noted the report. |
|
Corporate Plan 2024/2027 - Half Yearly Update 2024/2025 Additional documents:
Decision: Following
scrutiny, members noted the report. Minutes: Members
considered the report as circulated within the agenda pack. Members
noted the same presentations points as expressed in the previous item. Following
scrutiny, members noted the report. |
|
Selection of items for future scrutiny Additional documents: Decision: The
Forward Work Programme was noted. Minutes: There
were no updates to the forward work programme. The
Forward Work Programme was noted. |
|
Urgent Items Any
urgent items at the discretion of the Chairperson pursuant to Section
100BA(6)(b) of the Local Government Act 1972 (as amended). Decision: There
were no urgent items. Minutes: There
were no urgent items. |