Agenda and draft minutes

None.

Cabinet Member Ben Callard and Richard Jones introduced the report and answered the members’ questions with Matt Gatehouse, Nick Keyse, Peter Davies and James Vale:

How robust is the Council's measurement and scoring system, and how does it compare with other local authorities?

The scoring framework is the same approach used within the Council's self-assessment process and is intended to provide an overall indication of progress against each enabling strategy. It draws on a range of evidence, including performance measures, targets, actions, customer feedback, staff surveys, resident surveys and audit findings. The ratings are based on progress against agreed objectives rather than simply completion of actions.

There is no standard assessment framework used by local authorities across Wales or the UK for evaluating enabling strategies, so direct comparison with other councils is difficult. Benchmarking tends to take place within individual service areas rather than through an overarching scoring system. The framework is designed to be transparent and is subject to challenge through the Council's governance arrangements, including scrutiny by the Governance and Audit Committee and oversight by external regulators. The assessment process also includes evidence review, challenge and moderation through performance management processes, with the intention of ensuring that judgements are supported by evidence and are not simply self-generated scores.

The report is intended both as an accountability mechanism and as a way of demonstrating progress against published strategies. While some enabling strategies directly affect residents, others support the systems, workforce and infrastructure that enable frontline services to operate effectively. Work is continuing to strengthen the measurement of outcomes and impact, particularly in demonstrating benefits to residents.

The scoring process is moderated and challenged through the Council's performance management arrangements. The Performance Team reviews the supporting evidence and data before reaching an initial assessment, rather than relying solely on the judgement of the service responsible for delivering the strategy. Scores are then discussed with relevant officers and the Strategic Leadership Team to ensure that ratings are supported by the available evidence and applied consistently across the organisation.

How should residents view the assessment when the Council is effectively evaluating its own performance?

The assessment measures performance against objectives, actions, timescales and targets that have already been agreed and published. It uses evidence from multiple sources, including residents, staff, service users and audit activity. Publishing both the judgements and supporting evidence allows elected members, audit bodies and the public to scrutinise and challenge the conclusions reached. The process is intended to demonstrate accountability and ensure the Council measures its progress against its own commitments rather than allowing strategies to proceed without evaluation. The process also includes internal challenge and moderation. The Performance Team assesses the evidence and proposes ratings before discussions take place with responsible officers and the Strategic Leadership Team. Judgements are therefore tested and reviewed rather than being determined solely by the service being assessed.

If a strategy is rated "Very Good", does that mean there is no further room for improvement?

No. A rating of "Very Good  ...  view the full minutes text for item 2.

Chief Executive Paul Matthews introduced the report and answered the members’ questions:

Should the vision for For Purpose, On Purpose be more outward-looking and focused on residents rather than on the Council itself?

This is a valid and constructive challenge. The vision of what the Council ultimately wants to achieve should be determined politically by elected members rather than by officers. The For Purpose, On Purpose framework is not intended to replace or redefine the Council's political vision or the Community and Corporate Plan. Instead, it is intended to describe the type of organisation that the Council needs to become in order to achieve the ambitions set by elected members.

The framework is designed to continue breaking down barriers between the Council and residents and to create a more open, permeable organisation that works alongside communities rather than acting in a distant or top-down manner. It is intended to encourage a stronger relationship between the Council and residents, with greater participation, collaboration and shared responsibility. The suggestion that the vision should be expressed in more resident-focused terms was not rejected. Paul Matthews indicated that such language was entirely consistent with the purpose of the framework, whose overall aim is to create an organisation that is increasingly connected to, aligned with and trusted by the communities it serves.

Is For Purpose, On Purpose based on high ideals without enough practical detail for residents?

The programme is deliberately ambitious because the Council should continually seek to improve and become the best version of itself. The framework is intended to drive purposeful change rather than function as a slogan. It will help the Council decide which activities matter most, concentrate resources on those priorities and stop or reduce work that contributes less to the desired outcomes.

What will the programme contain in practical terms?

The framework will guide changes across council services and influence how limited resources are prioritised. It will require clear choices about what the Council will do, what it will do less of and what it will stop doing. Activities arising from the programme are expected to feed into later budget considerations, including the budget for 2027/28, with potentially greater contributions in subsequent years.

How much will For Purpose, On Purpose cost to implement?

The cost is not zero, but no additional organisational growth has been requested to establish the programme. Existing resources have been reorganised to create dedicated programme leadership and a core programme team of approximately five or six key individuals. Their costs have been absorbed by changing existing arrangements rather than adding new expenditure. The wider cost is more difficult to quantify because colleagues across the organisation will need to devote time to understanding and embedding the framework. That time has an opportunity cost because it cannot simultaneously be spent on other work. This investment is considered necessary to create sufficient organisational alignment and bring the framework to life.

Is the programme expected to generate savings, service improvements or both?

It is expected to support both financial  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.

29th September 2026 at 10.00am.