Loading
The decisions as the council's minutes record them. A plain-language summary follows once it has been written.
RESOLVED: Council AGREED to: Approve the Annual Well-being Report 2022/23
RESOLVED: Council AGREED to: Agree that the Budget Timetable Framework set out in Appendix 3 be adopted, and that the work outlined be progressed with a view to informing budget preparation
RESOLVED: Council AGREED to: 1. Subject to the conclusion of a Service Level Agreement in accordance with recommendation 2 below, agree to the request from the SEWCJC to utilise Cardiff’s Standards & Ethics Committee to discharge the statutory functions of the Standards Sub-Committee of the SEWCJC, and to this end, to: i Accept the delegation from the SEWCJC of functions under section 53(1) of the Local Government Act 2000; ii Delegate responsibility for the statutory functions of the standards sub-committee of the SEWCJC to the Standards and Ethics Committee; iii Amend the terms of reference of the Standards and Ethics Committee as shown in paragraph 17 of the report. 2. Subject to approval of recommendation 1, authorise the Director of Governance and Legal Services, in consultation with the Leader, to conclude a Service Level Agreement between Cardiff Council and SEWCJC on suitable terms, including specifically, to provide that any additional costs and liabilities incurred by Cardiff Council under this arrangement are to be paid for by the SEWCJC and with provision for review after 12 months and termination of the arrangements. 3. Appoint the existing Cardiff Capital Region City Deal Joint Overview and Scrutiny Committee (JOSC) as the authority’s scrutiny committee in relation to all functions of the SEWCJC, and agree its initial terms of reference as set out at Appendix A, subject to agreement by each of the other SEWCJC constituent authorities. 4. To note the comments, observations and recommendations in relation to the scrutiny proposals set out in the Chair of the Economy and Culture Scrutiny Committee and the Chair of the Environmental Scrutiny Committee dated 20th September 2023 (Appendix B to the Amendment Sheet) and to agree to submit the three recommendations set out therein to the Joint Overview and Scrutiny Committee for consideration
RESOLVED: Council AGREED to: 1. Note the forthcoming vacancy of the post of Director of Governance and Legal Services, and approve a recruitment and selection exercise to fill the post; 2. Agree no changes to the statement of duties, terms and conditions, including remuneration for the post, as previously determined by ECC and Council and referenced in paragraphs 6 and 9 of this report; 3. Delegate authority to the Corporate Director, Resources, to put in place appropriate arrangements for public advertisement of the post; 4. Note that an Appointments Committee will be convened to make a suitable appointment under its approved terms of reference; 5. Receive a further report/s to: a) Note the Appointments Committee’s appointment of a new Director of Governance and Legal Services and for Council to designate the new appointee as the Council’s Monitoring Officer pursuant to section 5 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989; b) Agree the arrangements to be made for, and the designation of, an Interim Monitoring Officer, to discharge the statutory functions of this role until such time as the new Director of Governance and Legal Services and Monitoring Officer takes up their position; 6. Authorise the Monitoring Officer to amend the Constitution Article 11 references to the term ‘employee’ to read instead as ‘officer’, in order to remove the inconsistency within the Constitution, as explained in paragraph 17 of the report; 7. Assign the Corporate Director Resources to assist in carrying out the Returning Officer’s duties during his absence, with effect from the date on which the Director of Governance and Legal Services (as Deputy Returning Officer) leaves the employment of the Council.
RESOLVED: The Council APPROVED the appointment of Mr Craig Hampton-Stone as an Executive Director of Cardiff City Transport Services Limited (Cardiff Bus)
RESOLVED: The Council AGREED the appointment of the nomination to the vacancy on the Committee, in accordance with the Party Group wishes, as set out in Table A and on the Amendment Sheet
RESOLVED: Council NOTED an urgent officer decision serving an Immediate Article 4 Direction in respect of the Rompney Castle, Wentloog Road, Rumney (Appendix A), and removing permitted development rights afforded under Parts 2 and 31 of the Schedule to the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (as amended for Wales) in relation to the property.
RESOLVED: The Council APPROVED the new appointments and re-appointments of Local Authority Governors to the school governing bodies as set out on the Amendment Sheet, each for a term of 4 years from the date of the appointment, in accordance with the recommendations of the Local Authority Governor Panel.
Apologies for absence were received from Cllrs Ali Ahmed, Goodway, Lay, Lent, Thompson and Wood.
The following declarations of interests were received in accordance with the Members’ Code of Conduct. NAME AGENDA ITEM NO NATURE OF INTEREST REASON FOR INTEREST Cllr Gary Hunt Item 13 Personal Non-Exec Director – Cardiff Bus Cllr Dan Naughton Item 12 Personal Neurodiversity Issue Cllr Dan Naughton Item 13 Personal Family Member in receipt of pension from Cardiff Bus Cllr Dan Naughton Item 17 – Apt Exec Director Personal Family Member in receipt of pension from Cardiff Bus Cllr Dan Naughton Item 8 Personal Family Member employed by Cardiff Council Cllr Huw Thomas Item 9 Personal Cardiff Council appointee on the SEW CJC Cllr Calum Davies Item 13 Personal Non-Exec Director – Cardiff Bus Cllr Jon Shimmin Item 12 Personal Neurodiversity Issues Cllr Owen Jones Item 13 Personal Non-Exec Director – Cardiff Bus Cllr Rhys Taylor Item 13 Personal Non-Exec Director – Cardiff Bus Cllr Joe Carter Item 7 Personal Nature of Employment Cllr Joe Carter Item 13 Prejudicial Nature of Employment Cllr Williams Item 8 Personal Family Member employed by Cardiff Council Cllr Williams Item 12 Personal Neurodiversity Issues & Ambassador for Autism Puzzles Cllr Cowan Item 12 Personal Ambassador for Autism Puzzles Cllr Keith Jones Item 12 Personal Family Member in receipt of Individual Development Plan Cllr Cunnah Item 7 Personal Nature of employment Cllr Cunnah Item 13 Prejudicial Nature of employment Cllr Jamie Green Item 12 Personal Member of Dyspraxia Foundation Cllr Lloyd Jones Item 12 Personal Family Member with neurodiversity issues Cllr McEvoy Item 11 Personal Nature of employment – as the statements relate to Children’s Services and Housing Disrepair Cllr McEvoy Item 7 Personal Child attends nursery where they wont lock gates Cllr Gunter Item 8 Personal Family Member employed by Cardiff Council Cllr Kate Carr Item 7 Personal Nature of Employment Cllr Marc Palmer Item 8 Personal Family Member employed by Cardiff Council Cllr Jane Henshaw Item 8 Personal Family Members employed by Cardiff Council
The minutes of the meeting of the 20th July 2023 were approved as a correct record of the meeting and signed by the Chair.
Stephanie Wilkins to Cllr Goodway, Cabinet Member for Investment and Development Last week Llandaff North Residents' Association, this was back in June, lost its legal challenge to Cardiff Council's planning processes and decision to send sewage from 6,000 plus homes at Plasd?r and for Welsh Water to build a sewage pumping station on Hailey Park, which, as you can see behind me, has already started. Now that the legal process has been concluded will the Council still be progressing with the lease on the scheme despite overwhelming opposition to it, and will it now start talking to the Llandaff North community? Reply – Cllr Huw Thomas on behalf of Cllr Goodway Just to clarify, I'm responding to this because the question as refers to a lease. It would normally be answered by Councillor Goodway but Councillor Goodway unfortunately is not well. Mrs. Wilkins, thank you for your question. I do absolutely understand the strong feelings within the community on this matter, and I am aware that both the local councillors as well as the MS and MP objected to the planning application; however planning officers and members of the Planning Committee must consider every application giving due regard to both local and national planning policies and legislation. I note from the Planning Committee report that the project is required to reinforce the sewerage system infrastructure, so clearly this is an important development as far as protecting the water quality of the River Taff is concerned. I further note that, in response to the proposed mitigations, that no concerns were raised by Council experts concerning any impact on the ecology, nor indeed were there any undue concerns raised by technical officers on the grounds of flooding. These positions were reinforced by the comments from Natural Resources Wales as a statutory consultee. A site visit was arranged on the request of the local councillors and following the visit the Planning Committee approved the application. Throughout this process, the Council has been open and clear about its role as the local planning authority and has always maintained that it acted correctly. The recent judgment saw the claim against the Council fail on all grounds, with a court finding the Council, acting as Local Planning Authority, acted rationally and appropriately. Turning to the matter of the lease, Welsh Water has confirmed that a lease from the Council is not required at any stage for it to progress enabling works, construction works subject to planning permission or, indeed, access for ongoing inspection and maintenance. Relevant statutory powers under the Water Industry Act 1991 will be employed to undertake the initial project works and therefore the land at Hailey Park has not been leased currently to Welsh Water. In the long term, formalising access to the land at Hailey Park through a lease would allow the Council to have a degree of control into aspects such as restrictions on access to the pumping station for inspection and maintenance purposes for specific times. This would have obvious advantages to park users and residents, and it is for this reason and this reason alone that consideration has been given to a lease. So to be crystal clear, the Council withholding a lease would not stop the work going ahead. It is going ahead behind you. The Council has not issued a lease, and any suggestion that withholding a lease would stop that work is demonstrably incorrect. Thank you. Supplementary question – Stephanie Wilkins I take issue with much of what Cllr Thomas has just said. Just to clarify a point of accuracy, Welsh Water said that Natural Resources Wales had actually replied regarding the original four options for the planning application, and when we put an Environmental Information Request in to Natural Resources Wales, they said they'd had no such conversation and we have all that written documentary evidence. So we are where we are; the community would disagree with much of what you said Cllr Thomas. Will you commit to speaking to us, we deserve that right, you’ve made these decisions on our behalf, please will you speak to us? Reply – Cllr Thomas The reference to the comments from Natural Resources Wales is taken directly from the Planning Committee reports. Mrs Wilkins, I am always happy to speak to anybody, but I want to be clear again, and you know, listen back to the answer I have just given, I haven't taken a decision in relation to Hailey Park and it is desperately disappointing I must say that you continue to insist that this is some sort of Council decision. You've had local councillors, local MP’s and MS’s, fighting on your behalf within the confines of the planning system; and I think a step back is warranted. I understand the level of local concern and opposition, but I really do struggle with the level of vitriol generated by the campaign. This is a commonplace and standard piece of infrastructure. There are at least four other parks in Cardiff with a similar installation in place and that generates no issues whatsoever. It's interesting, you know, because in preparing for this question I looked at the map of Hailey Park. From where the pumping station is being installed to the other end of Hailey Park is a distance of about a kilometre. There are Councillors in this Chamber who live a similar distance from the main wastewater treatment centre for all of East Cardiff and I can assure you it has no impact on their lives whatsoever. The campaign has claimed an increased risk of sewage entering the water, but in fact, by reinforcing the sewage system, the project aims to reduce that risk. The campaign cites flooding concerns yet those concerns weren’t held up by either the Council or independent experts; and you claim the installation will destroy Hailey Park and yet the entire development area is half the size of this room. It represents an area of approximately 0.2% of the total area of Hailey Park. The park is demonstrably not under threat. I totally accept, there will be short term disruption and that's why we sought to minimise it through a lease; so it is disappointing that instead of working with us on that lease, you sought to weaponise that fact and use it to attack the Council. Instead of working with local elected members, the campaign's treatment of them has been not great at all I would suggest, and instead of respecting the Planning Committee members and officers who are bound by planning laws and regulation, you've insinuated against the professionalism and their integrity and pursued the judicial review that concluded they acted entirely appropriately. So please, we all live in a city, the densest concentration of Welsh people in history. We all need to share an infrastructure to get along and live in that city, be that a sewage pumping station or an incinerator or a household waste recycling centre. We all need compromise, and that is what enables humans to live in cities. Thank you very much, Mrs. Wilkins. Angela Weeks to Cllr Goodway, Cabinet Member for Investment and Development What is the Cardiff Council's policy on the disposal of land that it owns and does the same policy and criteria apply to our public parks and green spaces? What protections has it, or will it provide for these vital spaces for nature, biodiversity, climate, our health and wellbeing? Reply – Cllr Huw Thomas on behalf of Cllr Goodway Thanks for the question Mrs Weeks, I can tell you that where a land and property has been declared surplus to service area requirements, it is assessed for all potential alternative operating uses. Where no alternative use is determined, consideration to lease or dispose is considered through the Council's established asset management process, which is aligned with the decision-making arrangements set out in the Council's Constitution and the delegation of authority to Cabinet and/or senior managers as appropriate. For any land that is proposed for disposal which is designated as public open space, in addition to elected member consultation, a specific process of public consultation is followed prior to progressing the disposal, and that, by the way, includes disposal for lease. The provision and protection of our parks and green spaces is achieved primarily through the planning system. In line with national planning policy in Wales, Cardiff's existing LDP includes policies that seek to protect our parks and green spaces. Only in the most exceptional circumstances will development be permitted on parkland and open space. Separate to the planning process, the Council has historically entered into legal agreements with the parks and green space charity Fields in Trust to protect such areas across our city. These legal agreements, of which there are currently 10, protect the land for the purposes of outdoor play, sport and recreation, with the trust's consent being required for any disposals and changes in use. The current sites afforded such protection are Heath Park, Roath Rec, Moorland Park, Llanishen Park, Pontprennau Playing Fields, Pontcanna Fields, Hywel Dda open space in Ely, Rumney recreation grounds, Alexandra Gardens and Grange Gardens. I must take some degree of pride that several of those were put into trust by myself when I was the Cabinet Member. You may be aware also that the Council plans to protect further parks and green spaces in the city through its continuing work with Fields in Trust. Supplementary question – Angela Weeks Why was Hailey Park considered surplus to service area requirements and if it was proposed for disposal, why was there no public consultation? Reply – Cllr Huw Thomas As far as I'm aware the park is not surplus to operational requirements. It was included in the annual property plan for disposal, and that would have required consultation in order to put the aforementioned lease with Welsh Water in place to manage the maintenance and access. But we haven't gone through that process so there hasn't been a consultation, because for the purposes of carrying out permitted development, Welsh Water do not require our permission. I hope that clarifies the matter. Reuben Kelman to Cllr De’Ath, Cabinet Member for Transport and Strategic Planning How is the Council working to develop our Cardiff Metro? Reply – Cllr De’Ath The South Wales Metro is obviously being delivered by Transport for Wales. We will work closely with them to deliver the parts that are happening in Cardiff, so that's new stations, that’s upgrading stations, that’s on-street trams, things like that. The core Valleys lines are all funded, but other parts have to compete and bid for funding; for example, I’m sure you know we recently secured £50 million from the Levelling-up Fund match funded by Welsh Government for the Central Station to the Bay section of Crossrail, which is very exciting. So that's what we were doing at our end. Supplementary question – Reuben Kelman It's not just trains: the bus station is still not open, operators aren’t going to use it, and it's no replacement for the old one; Cardiff Parkway station has been called in by Welsh Government; Cardiff East Park and Ride has closed; bus timetables are being cut back; services withdrawn. So it isn’t looking very good for our transport network. None of that is stronger, fairer or greener for Cardiff, nor does it support Cardiff being a child friendly city. But, there is one glimmer of hope, the new TFW trains and trams which are already, as you said, running on some lines in our city. Therefore I'd like to know, is the Council still committed to the full delivery of Cardiff Crossrail and a city loop, and what are the current target completion dates for these projects? Reply – Cllr De’Ath With the Metro it's all master-planned; the Newport Road bypass is going through the Welsh Government's WelTag process, that’s a methodology in delivering transport projects; Crwys Road is well set for delivery; Butetown station, the spade’s in the ground there. So it's a really exciting project. Sometimes I don’t understand where you’re coming from. On the Metro, there's pretty much bipartisan agreement between Welsh Labour and Plaid Cymru, it’s in the Cooperation Agreement along with £40 million. So with some of these things you know, we’re on the same page as Plaid. A few months ago you were saying I was anti-car and criticising cycle lanes. Well, I heard Delyth Jewell speak very well and she's pretty much on the same page as what we're doing in Cardiff.
The following petitions were received. Presented by Number of relevant signatures Nature of petition Cllr Livesy 204 Requesting the reinstatement of the bus service between the Cardiff city centre and St Fagans Cllr Stubbs 63 Requesting a free direct bus service for pupils Splott, Tremorfa and Pengam Green to Bro Edern High School
The Lord Mayor provided an outline of her recent engagements, including attendance at a number of events: · Closure event of St Athan station · Visiting HMS Cambria · Eid Event organised by Wales Bangladeshi Chamber of Commerce · Visiting Sanatan Dharma mandal · Beautiful City Hospice Forever Flower event at the castle · Ratha Yatra by ty Krishna cymru followed by Glitter Pride Event · Women’s Institute Centenary thanksgiving service · Merchant Navy flag raising day · Launch of centre of leadership in education at Cardiff Met · Royal gun salute for Accession day · Meeting with Thailand ambassador · Meeting with a delegation from Nepal · Forget Me Not choir performance · A talk on the role of Lord Mayor at Friends of Rhydypennau · Lord Mayor’s Scouts awards evening The Lord Mayor added that she had recently taken a break with her family and extended thanks to the Deputy Lord Mayor, Cllr Henshaw, for covering while she was away, including attending the naming of HMS Cardiff sponsor Katherine Jenkins and a flag raising event for Indian Independence Day. A tea and coffee morning at Mansion House on 19th October, organised by former Lord Mayors Margaret Jones and Freda Salway, while the Bangladeshi Women’s Association were organising a fundraising event on the 26th November. Both of these were for her chosen charity UCAN Productions, who were planning to hold a large performance event showcasing their talents on 2nd December. She thanked the 14 people who were running Cardiff Half Marathon in support of UCAN Productions, including Cllrs. Carter, Livesy and Stubbs, and the former Cllr Joe Boyle, who was also doing the London half marathon. That the previous Lord Mayor and Lord Mayoress, Cllr Graham Hinchey and his wife Anne, had recently closed their Guide Dog Cymru fundraising campaign after raising a fantastic £85,000 during their year in office. The Lord Mayor also paid tribute and offered condolences to the families of two former councillors who had passed away: Cllrs Cathy Pearcy and Patricia Burfoot.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED: Council AGREED to: Approve the Annual Well-being Report 2022/23
Following the Cabinet proposal on 13th July 2023, the Council was asked to approve the Annual Well-being Report 2022/23, which provided an assessment of the progress made in the delivery of the administration’s priorities as set out within the Corporate Plan 2022-25. The report also enabled the Council to discharge a number of statutory obligations, including a self-assessment of performance as required by the Local Government and Elections (Wales) Act 2021 and the publication of a statutory Annual Well-Being Report, as required by the Well-Being of Future Generations Act (Wales) 2015. The report was proposed by Cllr Thomas and seconded by Cllr Merry. The Lord Mayor called for a vote on the recommendations contained in the report. FOR (55) Councillors Saleh Ahmed, Ali, Ash-Edwards, Berman, Boes, Bowen-Thomson, Bradbury, Bridgeman, Burke, Carr, Carter, Chowdhury, Cunnah, De’Ath, Derbyshire, Elsmore, Ferguson-Thorne, Gibson, Green, Gunter, Hinchey, Hopkins, Humphreys, Hunt, Huw Jenkins, Lloyd Jones, Jackie Jones, Keith Jones, Owen Jones, Joyce, Lewis, Lister, Livesy, Mackie, McGarry, Merry, Michael, Moultrie, Naughton, Palmer, Parry, Proctor, Robinson, Sangani, Sattar, Shimmin, Simmons, Singh, Stubbs, Taylor, Thomas, Thorne, Waldron, Weaver and Wild AGAINST (2) Councillors Ebrahim and McEvoy ABSTAIN (9) Councillors Cowan, Davies, Driscoll, Lancaster, Littlechild, Melbourne, Reid-Jones, Robson, Williams RESOLVED: Council AGREED to: Approve the Annual Well-being Report 2022/23
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED: Council AGREED to: Agree that the Budget Timetable Framework set out in Appendix 3 be adopted, and that the work outlined be progressed with a view to informing budget preparation
Council was provided with an update on budget preparation for 2024/25, including the most recent estimate of the 2024/25 budget gap and an update in relation to the Medium-Term Financial Plan and Capital Programme. The report outlined the budget timetable that would be followed to present the 2024/25 Budget to Council in February/March 2024 and provided an update in relation to the Council’s financial resilience, and Council was asked to agree an Income Generation Framework outlining the Council’s approach to setting income from sales, fees, and charges for 2024/25. The report was proposed by Cllr Weaver and seconded by Cllr Thomas. Cllr Carter proposed an Amendment to the report. “To be inserted at the end of the Cabinet Proposal: “Council further requests that a report is presented for its consideration before the end of the calendar year which provides a more detailed analysis of the potential impact of continued high inflation and high interest rates on the council’s revenue budget and capital programme. This should consider the affordability of the capital programme (including the impact of the proposed council capital contribution of £27.3 million to progress the proposed new indoor arena on the availability of both capital and revenue funding for important core services), the risks to future revenue budgets if inflation, operational costs and/or pay awards are higher than current planning assumptions, and the risks posed by an economic downturn.” ” The Amendment was formally seconded by Cllr Berman. The Lord Mayor invited debate on the report and the amendment. Cllr Weaver responded to the debate and confirmed the amendment was not accepted. The Lord Mayor called for a Vote on the amendment. FOR (22) Councillors Berman, Brown-Reckless, Carter, Cowan, Davies, Driscoll, Ebrahim, Gibson, Hopkins, Lancaster, Littlechild, Livesy, McEvoy, Melbourne, Naughton, Owen, Reid-Jones, Robson, Shimmin, Taylor, Waldron and Williams AGAINST (45) Councillors Saleh Ahmed, Ali, Ash-Edwards, Bowen-Thomson, Bradbury, Bridgeman, Burke, Carr, Chowdhury, Cunnah, De’Ath, Elsmore, Ferguson-Thorne, Greene, Gunter, Hinchey, Humphreys, Hunt, Huw Jenkins, Lloyd Jones, Jackie Jones, Keith Jones, Owen Jones, Joyce, Kaaba, Lewis, Lister, Mackie, McGarry, Merry, Michael, Moultrie, Palmer, Parry, Proctor, Robinson, Sangani, Sattar, Simmons, Singh, Stubbs, Thomas, Thorne, Weaver and Wild There were no abstentions. The Vote on the amendment was LOST. The Lord Mayor called for a Vote on the recommendations contained the report. FOR (48) Councillors Saleh Ahmed, Ali, Ash-Edwards, Bowen-Thomson, Bradbury, Bridgeman, Burke, Carr, Chowdhury, Cunnah, De’Ath, Ebrahim, Elsmore, Ferguson-Thorne, Gibson, Greene, Gunter, Hinchey, Humphreys, Hunt, Huw Jenkins, Lloyd Jones, Jackie Jones, Keith Jones, Owen Jones, Joyce, Kaaba, Lewis, Lister, Livesy, Mackie, McGarry, Merry, Michael, Moultrie, Palmer, Proctor, Robinson, Sangani, Sattar, Simmons, Singh, Stubbs, Thomas, Thorne, Weaver and Wild AGAINST (1) Councillor McEvoy ABSTAIN (18) Councillors Berman, Brown-Reckless, Carter, Cowan, Davies, Driscoll, Hopkins, Lancaster, Littlechild, Melbourne, Naughton, Owen, Reid-Jones, Robson, Shimmin, Taylor, Waldron and Williams The Vote on the report was CARRIED. RESOLVED: Council AGREED to: Agree that the Budget Timetable Framework set out in Appendix 3 be adopted, and that the work outlined be progressed with a view to informing budget preparation
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED: Council AGREED to: 1. Subject to the conclusion of a Service Level Agreement in accordance with recommendation 2 below, agree to the request from the SEWCJC to utilise Cardiff’s Standards & Ethics Committee to discharge the statutory functions of the Standards Sub-Committee of the SEWCJC, and to this end, to: i Accept the delegation from the SEWCJC of functions under section 53(1) of the Local Government Act 2000; ii Delegate responsibility for the statutory functions of the standards sub-committee of the SEWCJC to the Standards and Ethics Committee; iii Amend the terms of reference of the Standards and Ethics Committee as shown in paragraph 17 of the report. 2. Subject to approval of recommendation 1, authorise the Director of Governance and Legal Services, in consultation with the Leader, to conclude a Service Level Agreement between Cardiff Council and SEWCJC on suitable terms, including specifically, to provide that any additional costs and liabilities incurred by Cardiff Council under this arrangement are to be paid for by the SEWCJC and with provision for review after 12 months and termination of the arrangements. 3. Appoint the existing Cardiff Capital Region City Deal Joint Overview and Scrutiny Committee (JOSC) as the authority’s scrutiny committee in relation to all functions of the SEWCJC, and agree its initial terms of reference as set out at Appendix A, subject to agreement by each of the other SEWCJC constituent authorities. 4. To note the comments, observations and recommendations in relation to the scrutiny proposals set out in the Chair of the Economy and Culture Scrutiny Committee and the Chair of the Environmental Scrutiny Committee dated 20th September 2023 (Appendix B to the Amendment Sheet) and to agree to submit the three recommendations set out therein to the Joint Overview and Scrutiny Committee for consideration
Council was asked to consider the request from the South East Wales Corporate Joint Committee (SEWCJC) for Cardiff’s Standards and Ethics Committee to be utilised as the Standards Sub-Committee for the SEWCJC on an initial basis, until such time as the SEWCJC was fully operational and ready to establish its own Standards Sub-Committee, and the proposal that the existing Cardiff Capital Region City Deal Joint Overview and Scrutiny Committee (JOSC) be appointed to discharge the authority’s scrutiny functions in relation to the SEWCJC. The report was proposed by Cllr Thomas and seconded by Cllr Lancaster. The Lord Mayor called for a Vote on the recommendations contained in the report and on the Amendment Sheet. FOR (63) Councillors Saleh Ahmed, Ali, Ash-Edwards, Berman, Boes, Bowen-Thomson, Bradbury, Bridgeman, Brown-Reckless, Burke, Carr, Carter, Chowdhury, Cowan, Cunnah, Davies, De’Ath, Driscoll, Ebrahim, Elsmore, Ferguson-Thorne, Green, Gunter, Hopkins, Humphreys, Hunt, Huw Jenkins, Lloyd Jones, Jackie Jones, Keith Jones, Owen Jones, Joyce, Kaaba, Lancaster, Lewis, Lister, Littlechild, Mackie, McGarry, Melbourne, Merry, Michael, Moultrie, Naughton, Owen, Palmer, Parry, Proctor, Reid-Jones, Robinson, Robson, Sangani, Sattar, Shimmin, Singh, Stubbs, Taylor, Thomas, Thorne, Waldron, Weaver, Wild and Williams There were no votes against the recommendations and no abstentions. RESOLVED: Council AGREED to: 1. Subject to the conclusion of a Service Level Agreement in accordance with recommendation 2 below, agree to the request from the SEWCJC to utilise Cardiff’s Standards & Ethics Committee to discharge the statutory functions of the Standards Sub-Committee of the SEWCJC, and to this end, to: i Accept the delegation from the SEWCJC of functions under section 53(1) of the Local Government Act 2000; ii Delegate responsibility for the statutory functions of the standards sub-committee of the SEWCJC to the Standards and Ethics Committee; iii Amend the terms of reference of the Standards and Ethics Committee as shown in paragraph 17 of the report. 2. Subject to approval of recommendation 1, authorise the Director of Governance and Legal Services, in consultation with the Leader, to conclude a Service Level Agreement between Cardiff Council and SEWCJC on suitable terms, including specifically, to provide that any additional costs and liabilities incurred by Cardiff Council under this arrangement are to be paid for by the SEWCJC and with provision for review after 12 months and termination of the arrangements. 3. Appoint the existing Cardiff Capital Region City Deal Joint Overview and Scrutiny Committee (JOSC) as the authority’s scrutiny committee in relation to all functions of the SEWCJC, and agree its initial terms of reference as set out at Appendix A, subject to agreement by each of the other SEWCJC constituent authorities. 4. To note the comments, observations and recommendations in relation to the scrutiny proposals set out in the Chair of the Economy and Culture Scrutiny Committee and the Chair of the Environmental Scrutiny Committee dated 20th September 2023 (Appendix B to the Amendment Sheet) and to agree to submit the three recommendations set out therein to the Joint Overview and Scrutiny Committee for consideration
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED: Council AGREED to: 1. Note the forthcoming vacancy of the post of Director of Governance and Legal Services, and approve a recruitment and selection exercise to fill the post; 2. Agree no changes to the statement of duties, terms and conditions, including remuneration for the post, as previously determined by ECC and Council and referenced in paragraphs 6 and 9 of this report; 3. Delegate authority to the Corporate Director, Resources, to put in place appropriate arrangements for public advertisement of the post; 4. Note that an Appointments Committee will be convened to make a suitable appointment under its approved terms of reference; 5. Receive a further report/s to: a) Note the Appointments Committee’s appointment of a new Director of Governance and Legal Services and for Council to designate the new appointee as the Council’s Monitoring Officer pursuant to section 5 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989; b) Agree the arrangements to be made for, and the designation of, an Interim Monitoring Officer, to discharge the statutory functions of this role until such time as the new Director of Governance and Legal Services and Monitoring Officer takes up their position; 6. Authorise the Monitoring Officer to amend the Constitution Article 11 references to the term ‘employee’ to read instead as ‘officer’, in order to remove the inconsistency within the Constitution, as explained in paragraph 17 of the report; 7. Assign the Corporate Director Resources to assist in carrying out the Returning Officer’s duties during his absence, with effect from the date on which the Director of Governance and Legal Services (as Deputy Returning Officer) leaves the employment of the Council.
Council was formally notified of a vacancy in the post of Director of Governance and Legal Services, the Council’s designated Monitoring Officer, subsequent to the resignation of the current post-holder; and was asked to put in place arrangements to ensure the Council had adequate senior management resources to discharge its functions effectively. The report was proposed by Cllr Thomas and seconded by Cllr Merry. Cllr Berman proposed an Amendment to the report: “After “That the Council”, delete existing recommendations 1-5 and replace with: “1. notes the forthcoming departure of the Director of Governance and Legal Services who is also the Council’s designated Monitoring Officer; 2. notes that, as stated in paragraph 11, the Council will need to designate an Interim Monitoring Officer for a period of time;” Renumber existing recommendations 6 and 7 as recommendations 3 and 4, respectively. Add the following new recommendations at end: “5. recognising the current financial constraints faced by the Council, authorises the Corporate Director Resources to use the opportunity of the forthcoming departure of the Director of Governance and Legal Services to consider the potential for a restructure of the Council’s senior management team that could generate future revenue savings and then draw up options for such a restructure to present to a future Council meeting for Members’ consideration.” ” The Amendment was formally seconded by Cllr Carter. The Lord Mayor invited debate on the report and the amendment. Cllr Thomas responded to the debate and confirmed the amendment was not accepted. The Lord Mayor called for a Vote on the amendment. FOR (20) Councillors Berman, Carter, Cowan, Davies, Driscoll, Gibson, Hopkins, Lancaster, Littlechild, Livesy, McEvoy, Melbourne, Naughton, Owen, Reid-Jones, Robson, Shimmin, Taylor, Waldron and Williams AGAINST (43) Councillors Saleh Ahmed, Ali, Ash-Edwards, Bowen-Thomson, Bradbury, Bridgeman, Burke, Carr, Chowdhury, Cunnah, De’Ath, Ebrahim, Elsmore, Ferguson-Thorne, Greene, Gunter, Humphreys, Hunt, Huw Jenkins, Lloyd Jones, Keith Jones, Owen Jones, Joyce, Kaaba, Lewis, Lister, Mackie, McGarry, Michael, Moultrie, Palmer, Parry, Proctor, Robinson, Sangani, Sattar, Simmons, Singh, Stubbs, Thomas, Thorne, Weaver and Wild The Vote on the amendment was LOST. The Lord Mayor called for a Vote on the recommendations in the report. FOR (58) Councillors Saleh Ahmed, Ali, Ash-Edwards, Boes, Bowen-Thomson, Bradbury, Bridgeman, Brown-Reckless, Burke, Carr, Chowdhury, Cowan, Cunnah, Davies, De’Ath, Driscoll, Ebrahim, Elsmore, Ferguson-Thorne, Gibson, Green, Gunter, Humphreys, Hunt, Huw Jenkins, Lloyd Jones, Keith Jones, Owen Jones, Joyce, Kaaba, Lancaster, Lewis, Lister, Littlechild, Livesy, Mackie, McGarry, Melbourne, Merry, Michael, Moultrie, Owen, Palmer, Parry, Proctor, Reid-Jones, Robinson, Robson, Sangani, Sattar, Simmons, Singh, Stubbs, Thomas, Thorne, Weaver, Wild and Williams AGAINST (0) ABSTAIN (8) Councillors Berman, Carter, Hopkins, McEvoy, Naughton, Shimmin, Taylor and Waldron The Vote on the report was CARRIED. RESOLVED: Council AGREED to: 1. Note the forthcoming vacancy of the post of Director of Governance and Legal Services, and approve a recruitment and selection exercise to fill the post; 2. Agree no changes to the statement of duties, terms and conditions, including remuneration for the post, as previously determined by ECC and Council and referenced in paragraphs 6 and 9 of this report; 3. Delegate authority to the Corporate Director, Resources, to put in place appropriate arrangements for public advertisement of the post; 4. Note that an Appointments Committee will be convened to make a suitable appointment under its approved terms of reference; 5. Receive a further report/s to: a) Note the Appointments Committee’s appointment of a new Director of Governance and Legal Services and for Council to designate the new appointee as the Council’s Monitoring Officer pursuant to section 5 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989; b) Agree the arrangements to be made for, and the designation of, an Interim Monitoring Officer, to discharge the statutory functions of this role until such time as the new Director of Governance and Legal Services and Monitoring Officer takes up their position; 6. Authorise the Monitoring Officer to amend the Constitution Article 11 references to the term ‘employee’ to read instead as ‘officer’, in order to remove the inconsistency within the Constitution, as explained in paragraph 17 of the report; 7. Assign the Corporate Director Resources to assist in carrying out the Returning Officer’s duties during his absence, with effect from the date on which the Director of Governance and Legal Services (as Deputy Returning Officer) leaves the employment of the Council.
Leader’s Statement The Leader responded to questions in relation to: · The Welsh rugby codebreakers statue · Cycle lanes · Llanrumney regeneration · Tafwyl Education Statement The Deputy Leader Councillor Merry responded to questions in relation to: · Rights Respecting Schools · What’s Next · Estyn Inspections · School Visits · Food and Fun · Space Academy Cardiff Social Services Statement Councillor Mackie responded to questions in relation to: · Community Groups Councillor Lister responded to questions in relation to: · Summer Holiday Care Provision · My Things Matter Climate Change Statement Councillor Wild responded to questions in relation to: · EVs and EV Charging Infrastructure · Replacement bins · Bin collection Culture, Parks and Events Statement Councillor Burke responded to questions in relation to: · Green Flag Awards · Children’s play areas Finance, Modernisation and Performance Statement Councillor Weaver responded to questions in relation to: · The Cardiff App Investment and Development Statement The Leader, on behalf of Councillor Goodway, responded to questions in relation to: · Red Dragon Centre · Atlantic Wharf Masterplan Housing and Communities Statement Councillor Thorne responded to questions in relation to: · Asylum accommodation · Families in hotels Tackling Poverty, Equality and Public Health Statement Councillor Bradbury responded to questions in relation to: · Community support groups · Partnership with Sky Councillor Sanghani responded to questions in relation to: · Covid-19 vaccination Transport and Strategic Planning Statement Councillor De’Ath responded to questions in relation to: · Active Travel · Highways Resurfacing · Active Travel for Schools School Streets
The Lord Mayor noted that a Notice of Motion proposed by Cllr Green and seconded by Cllr Robinson had been received for consideration. The Lord Mayor invited Cllr Green to propose the motion as follows: “This Council notes that around 1-in-7 people in the UK are neurodivergent, meaning they experience the world more uniquely than others. Neurodivergence is associated with a range of conditions and traits including, but not limited to Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, Autism Spectrum Conditions, Dyslexia, Developmental Language Disorder, Dyspraxia, and Dyscalculia. People with neurodivergent traits and conditions face a range of challenges across our society, including finding employment, increased likelihood of mental health diagnoses, and trouble accessing public services. However, neurodiversity brings many strengths and patterns of unique thinking that benefit our communities and workplaces. This Council further notes the examples of how other local authorities are working to become more neurodiverse friendly. This includes Greater Manchester’s Autism Strategy and Leicester Council’s ‘‘Every Voice Counts’ initiative. This Council believes that we must remove the barriers that prevent those with neurodivergent traits and conditions from participating in society and to work across our city to make Cardiff more neurodiversity friendly. As such, this Council resolves to: Ask the Cabinet to produce a neurodiversity strategy that ensures our services identify and meet the needs of those with neurodiversity and to do this within the next 12 months. This should include looking to provide training on neurodiversity internally for employees and stakeholder partners, like school governors, as well as all those involved in providing public services to the people of Cardiff through the Council so they can identify and meet the needs of people with neurodiversity. Promote acceptance and understanding of neurodiversity across Cardiff. For example, through celebrating awareness-raising campaigns such as Neurodiversity Celebration week, World Autism Acceptance Week, ADHD Awareness Month and Dyspraxia Awareness Week. Investigate providing training to all Councillors on neurodiversity to aid in their casework in recognising the growing impact of neurodivergent conditions on the issues they deal with on behalf of constituents. Ensure neurodiversity is considered within the Council’s well-being goals and strategy to build a Stronger, Fairer, Greener Cardiff by the time the next corporate plan is published. To actively encourage those who are neurodivergent to participate in public life, such as running to be a Councillor and becoming a school governor. To review and implement reasonable adjustments for our elected members, to ensure the role of Councillor is accessible to people with neurodivergent traits and conditions and that the skills and talents of all people can be harnessed for the benefit of the citizens of Cardiff.” The Lord Mayor invited debate on the motion. The Lord Mayor called for a vote on the Motion. FOR (69) Councillors Saleh Ahmed, Ali, Ash-Edwards, Berman, Boes, Bowen-Thomson, Bradbury, Bridgeman, Brown-Reckless, Burke, Carr, Carter, Chowdhury, Cowan, Cunnah, Davies, De’Ath, Derbyshire, Driscoll, Ebrahim, Elsmore, Ferguson-Thorne, Gibson, Green, Gunter, Henshaw, Hinchey, Hopkins, Humphreys, Hunt, Jackie Jones, Keith Jones, Owen Jones, Joyce, Kaaba, Lancaster, Latif, Lewis, Lister, Littlechild, Livesy, Mackie, McEvoy, McGarry, Melbourne, Merry, Michael, Moultrie, Naughton, Owen, Palmer, Parry, Proctor, Reid-Jones, Robinson, Robson, Sattar, Shimmin, Simmons, Singh, Stubbs, Taylor, Thomas, Thorne, Waldron, Weaver, Wild, Williams and Wong. There were no votes against and no abstentions. The vote on the Motion was CARRIED
The Lord Mayor noted that a Notice of Motion proposed by Cllr Reid-Jones and seconded by Cllr Owen had been received for consideration. The Lord Mayor invited Cllr Reid-Jones to propose the motion as follows: “The Council notes: 1. The Welsh Government Bus Emergency Scheme, introduced to bridge the gap between bus operators income and expenditure, is due to expire on 24th July 2023. 2. Cardiff’s share of the £46m of funding to help bus services for the rest of this financial year is insufficient to maintain existing services across the city, in particular those much needed services in the suburbs. 3. Bus services across Cardiff are already being cut with many others currently under review. 4. Cardiff Bus, which is owned by Cardiff Council received £5.6m from the Bus Emergency Scheme and £1.6m Bus Service Support Grant in 2021/22 (the latest published accounts). The council believes: 1. Frequent and reliable bus services are a key characteristic of a capital city and are essential to reducing car use, carbon emissions and road congestion and will help the City centre to thrive. 2. Bus services should be prioritised over other modes of active travel. Other than trains which are outside of our control, buses are the only accessible, affordable, and safe, mode of transport available to ALL Cardiff residents. 3. The potential removal of bus services in the suburbs will lead to communities, especially the elderly, being isolated from essential services. We call on the Cabinet to: 1. Given resource constraints, ensure priority is given to bus services as the only low-cost, accessible mode of transport around our City. 2. Review the role of cycle lanes in increased road congestion and consult with bus companies in Cardiff about the impact of proposed new cycle lanes on bus services. 3. Lobby the Welsh Government to maintain and improve existing levels of bus funding until it’s to-be-legislated franchising model is in place. 4. To stop all work on proposals for congestion/road user charging and to focus efforts on creating viable, inclusive, efficient and effective transport services for the people of Cardiff and to save the struggling City Centre. It must be accessible, affordable and safe for all its citizens, in support of the Councils own 15 minute City strategy. 5. Include Cardiff Bus’s finances and operational ability in its policy impact assessments.” The first amendment to the motion had been received from the Liberal Democrat Group. The Lord Mayor called upon Cllr Berman to move the first amendment as follows: “The Council notes: 1. The Welsh Government Bus Emergency Scheme, introduced to bridge the gap between bus operators’ income and expenditure, is due to expire on 24th July 2023. 2. Cardiff’s share of the £46m of funding to help bus services for the rest of this financial year is insufficient to maintain existing services across the city, in particular those much needed services in the suburbs. 3. Bus services across Cardiff are already being cut with many others currently under review. 4. Cardiff Bus, which is owned by Cardiff Council received £5.6m from the Bus Emergency Scheme and £1.6m Bus Service Support Grant in 2021/22 (the latest published accounts). The council believes: 1. Frequent and reliable bus services are a key characteristic of a capital city and are essential to reducing car use, carbon emissions and road congestion and will help the City centre to thrive. 2. Bus services should be prioritised over modes of travel which are less accessible, affordable, environmentally-friendly and safe, or cannot be made available to all Cardiff residents. 3. The potential removal of bus services in the suburbs will lead to communities, especially the elderly, being isolated from essential services. We call on the Cabinet: 1. Given resource constraints, ensure priority is given to bus services as the only low-cost, mode of transport around our City that is accessible to the vast majority. 2. To review the role of cycle lanes in increased road congestion and consult with bus companies in Cardiff about the impact of proposed new cycle lanes on bus services to ensure a balanced transport strategy which promotes modal shift by recognising the need to make it easier to switch to active travel for those who are able to, as well as recognising the need to increase access to reliable bus services that can be used by all. 3. To lobby the Welsh Government to maintain and improve existing levels of bus funding until it’s to-be-legislated franchising model is in place. 4. To focus efforts on creating viable, inclusive, efficient and effective transport services for the people of Cardiff that enable journeys to where people want to go, not just the city centre. It must be accessible, affordable and safe for all its citizens, in support of the Councils own 15 minute City strategy. 5. Given the administration’s lack of a democratic mandate from its 2022 manifesto, commit to seek public support for its agreed plan to introduce a road user charging scheme through a city-wide referendum. 6. To include Cardiff Bus’s finances and operational ability in its policy impact assessments.” The first amendment was formally seconded by Cllr Hopkins. The second amendment to the motion had been received from the Labour Group. The Lord Mayor called upon Councillor Stubbs to move the second amendment as follows: “The Council notes: 1. The Welsh Government Bus Emergency Scheme, introduced to bridge the gap between bus operators’ income and expenditure, is due to expire on 24th July 2023. 2. Cardiff’s share of the £46m of funding to help bus services for the rest of this financial year is insufficient to maintain existing services across the city, and that Council official have been working hard to allocate resources so as to allow continued access to the bus network across the entire city. 4. Cardiff Bus, which is owned by Cardiff Council received £5.6m from the Bus Emergency Scheme and £1.6m Bus Service Support Grant in 2021/22 (the latest published accounts). The council believes: 1. Frequent and reliable bus services are a key characteristic of a capital city and are essential to reducing car use, carbon emissions and road congestion and will help the City centre to thrive. 2. Bus services are a key part of a sustainable transport system. Other than trains which are outside of our control, buses are the only accessible, affordable, and safe, mode of transport available to ALL Cardiff residents. 3. That since the deregulation of the bus industry in the 1980s, the Council does not have the powers to control, plan and manage the city’s bus network efficiently. 4. Bus services are a vital tool in preventing people and communities, especially the elderly, being isolated from essential services 5. That segregated cycle lanes also play a vital role in enabling low-cost, sustainable journeys across the city, and allows new and less confident cyclists to travel safely. We call on the Cabinet: 1. Given resource constraints, ensure priority is given to bus services as the only low-cost, accessible mode of transport around our City. 2. To continue to consult with bus companies in Cardiff about the impact of proposed new cycle lanes on bus services, as part of a balanced approach to enhancing the city’s transport infrastructure. 3. To continue to lobby the Welsh Government to maintain and improve existing levels of bus funding until it’s to-be-legislated franchising model is in place. 4. To continue the delivery of the Council’s Transport Strategy which recognises that a potential Road User Payment scheme would deliver more frequent, more reliable, and more widespread bus services to every part of the city, as well as across the city region. The Strategy focuses on creating viable, inclusive, efficient and effective transport services, which is accessible, affordable, equitable and safe for all its citizens, supporting the principles of a 15 minute city. 5. To outline a series of bus priority measures, such as smart corridors, in the forthcoming Bus Strategy to make the city as bus friendly as possible. Furthermore, Council resolves: 1. To thank and congratulate Cardiff Bus staff for their work in successfully transforming the company in recent years. 2. To continue to support and cherish our municipally owned bus company – one of the few left in the UK – and to condemn any Councillor who wilfully undermines the company’s reputation by sharing or inventing unfound hearsay about its financial status. The second amendment was formally seconded by Cllr Humphries. The Lord Mayor invited debate on the motion and amendments. The Lord Mayor invited Cllr Reid-Jones to respond to the issues raised during the debate. Cllr Reid-Jones responded to the issues raised and confirmed none of the Amendments were accepted. The Lord Mayor called for a Vote on the first Amendment as moved by Cllr Berman and seconded by Cllr Hopkins. FOR (11) Councillors Berman, Carter, Gibson, Hopkins, Latif, Livesy, McEvoy, Naughton, Shimmin, Taylor and Waldron AGAINST (55) Councillors Saleh Ahmed, Ali, Ash-Edwards, Boes, Bowen-Thomson, Bradbury, Bridgeman, Brown-Reckless, Burke, Carr, Chowdhury, Cowan, Davies, De’Ath, Derbyshire, Driscoll, Ebrahim, Ferguson-Thorne, Greene, Gunter, Henshaw, Hinchey, Humphreys, Hunt, Keith Jones, Owen Jones, Joyce, Kaaba, Lancaster, Lewis, Littlechild, Mackie, McGarry, Melbourne, Merry, Michael, Moultrie, Owen, Palmer, Parry, Proctor, Reid-Jones, Robinson, Robson, Sattar, Simmons, Singh, Stubbs, Thomas, Thorne, Weaver, Wild and Wong There were no abstentions. The Vote on the first amendment was LOST. The Lord Mayor called for a Vote on the second Amendment as moved by Cllr Stubbs and seconded by Cllr Humphreys. FOR (44) Councillors Saleh Ahmed, Ali, Ash-Edwards, Boes, Bowen-Thomson, Bradbury, Bridgeman, Burke, Carr, Chowdhury, De’Ath, Derbyshire, Ebrahim, Ferguson-Thorne, Greene, Gunter, Henshaw, Hinchey, Humphreys, Hunt, Keith Jones, Owen Jones, Joyce, Kaaba, Lewis, Lister, Mackie, McEvoy, McGarry, Merry, Michael, Moultrie, Palmer, Proctor, Robinson, Sattar, Simmons, Singh, Stubbs, Thomas, Thorne, Weaver, Wild and Wong AGAINST (22) Councillors Berman, Brown-Reckless, Carter, Cowan, Davies, Driscoll, Gibson, Hopkins, Lancaster, Latif, Littlechild, Livesy, Melbourne, Naughton, Owen, Parry, Reid-Jones, Robson, Shimmin, Taylor, Waldron and Williams There were no abstentions. The Vote on the second amendment was CARRIED. The Lord Mayor invited Cllr Stubbs as proposer of the second amendment to respond before the vote was taken on the Substantive Motion as amended. Cllr Stubbs responded. The Lord Mayor called for a vote on the Substantive Motion as amended by Cllr Stubbs and seconded by Cllr Humphreys. FOR (44) Councillor Saleh Ahmed, Ali, Ash-Edwards, Boes, Bowen-Thomson, Bradbury, Bridgeman, Burke, Carr, Chowdhury, De’Ath, Derbyshire, Ebrahim, Ferguson-Thorne, Greene, Gunter, Henshaw, Hinchey, Humphreys, Hunt, Keith Jones, Owen Jones, Joyce, Kaaba, Lewis, Lister, Mackie, McGarry, Merry, Michael, Moultrie, Palmer, Parry, Proctor, Robinson, Sattar, Simmons, Singh, Stubbs, Thomas, Thorne, Weaver, Wild and Wong AGAINST (21) Councillors Berman, Brown-Reckless, Carter, Cowan, Davies, Driscoll, Gibson, Hopkins, Lancaster, Latif, Littlechild, Livesy, Melbourne, Naughton, Owen, Reid-Jones, Robson, Shimmin, Taylor, Waldron and Williams ABSTAIN (1) Councillor McEvoy The Vote on the Substantive Motion was CARRIED
The Lord Mayor noted that a Notice of Motion proposed by Cllr Berman and seconded by Cllr Carter had been received for consideration. The Lord Mayor invited Cllr Berman to propose the motion as follows: “The Council notes that: 1. many residents and communities within Cardiff do not currently feel the local authority consults them appropriately prior to making key decisions that impact on their lives and on services they use and depend upon. 2. council consultations are often not advertised effectively to residents who may be affected by decisions, in part due to an over-reliance on consultations predominantly being promoted on digital platforms. The council believes that: 1. whilst consultation should not be seen simply as a veto, good and appropriate use of consultation undoubtedly leads to better decision-making. 2. for consultation to be seen as meaningful, it should as far as possible be carried out prior to decisions being taken, including when decisions are taken in-principle. 3. there should be an assumption that consultation will be carried out prior to all key decisions which impact on residents and communities. This council therefore calls on the Cabinet to put the principles outlined above firmly into practice and to revise the council’s participation strategy accordingly in order to give Cardiff’s residents more confidence that their views will be taken into account when future decisions are made by the council’s administration.” An amendment to the motion had been received from the Labour Group. The Lord Mayor called upon Cllr Michael to move the amendment as follows: “The Council notes that: 1. The reach and breadth of Cardiff Council’s consultation and engagement is greater than ever before. Evidence for this includes: a) The 62,000 responses to consultations and surveys in 2021/22 – a 40% increase since 2019. b) The almost 4,000 responses to the 2022 Ask Cardiff Survey, and almost 6,000 responses to the 2023/24 Budget Proposals, compared with the 2012 Budget consultation consisting of a single electronic survey that garnered just 237 responses. c) A Citizens Panel, established to support engagement, with over 5,000 active members, reported 63% of members believing engagement to be Very Good/Good, compared with 3% reporting a poor/very poor experience. The Council further notes that despite the above, there is further room for improvement, given that some areas of the city, and some demographics are under-represented in responses to Consultation. The Council’s new Participation Strategy seeks to improve this. In view of this, this council believes that: 1. Consultations are not referenda, and Councillors are elected by the people to take decisions in the best interests of the whole city. On occasion, the best interest of the City may be in conflict with the wishes of special interests groups with a narrow focus. 2. good and appropriate use of consultation undoubtedly helps inform better decision-making. 3. for consultation to be seen as meaningful, it should as far as possible be carried out at a formative stage of proposals whilst also recognising both the legitimacy of a political mandate for the delivery of policies, and the constraints of budget. 4. consultation will be carried out in line with the National Principles for Public Engagement in Wales, the Gunning Principles and the Well-being of Future Generations Act. This council therefore calls on the Cabinet to put the principles outlined above firmly into practice, and calls on all Councillors to encourage responses to the Participation Strategy which is currently being consulted on.” The amendment was formally seconded by Cllr Gunter. The Lord Mayor invited debate on the motion and amendment. The Lord Mayor invited Cllr Berman to respond to the issues raised during the debate. Cllr Berman responded to the issues raised and confirmed that the Amendment was not accepted. The Lord Mayor called for a Vote on the Amendment as moved by Cllr Michael and seconded by Cllr Gunter. FOR (42) Councillors Saleh Ahmed, Ali, Ash-Edwards, Boes, Bowen-Thomson, Bradbury, Bridgeman, Burke, Carr, Chowdhury, Cunnah, Ebrahim, Ferguson-Thorne, Greene, Gunter, Henshaw, Hinchey, Humphreys, Hunt, Keith Jones, Owen Jones, Joyce, Kaaba, Lewis, Lister, Mackie, McGarry, Merry, Michael, Moultrie, Palmer, Proctor, Robinson, Sattar, Simmons, Singh, Stubbs, Thomas, Thorne, Weaver, Wild and Wong AGAINST (21) Councillors Berman, Brown-Reckless, Carter, Cowan, Davies, Driscoll, Gibson, Hopkins, Lancaster, Latif, Littlechild, Livesy, Melbourne, Naughton, Owen, Reid-Jones, Robson, Shimmin, Taylor, Waldron and Williams There were no abstentions. The Vote on the amendment was CARRIED. The Lord Mayor invited Cllr Michael as proposer of the amendment to respond before the vote was taken on the Substantive Motion as amended. Cllr Michael responded. The Lord Mayor called for a vote on the Substantive Motion as amended by Cllr Michael and seconded by Cllr Gunter. FOR (44) Councillors Saleh Ahmed, Ali, Ash-Edwards, Boes, Bowen-Thomson, Bradbury, Bridgeman, Burke, Carr, Chowdhury, Cunnah, De’Ath, Ebrahim, Ferguson-Thorne, Greene, Gunter, Henshaw, Hinchey, Humphreys, Hunt, Keith Jones, Owen Jones, Joyce, Kaaba, Lewis, Lister, Mackie, McGarry, Merry, Michael, Moultrie, Palmer, Parry, Proctor, Robinson, Sattar, Simmons, Singh, Stubbs, Thomas, Thorne, Weaver, Wild and Wong AGAINST (13) Councillors Brown-Reckless, Cowan, Davies, Driscoll, Gibson, Lancaster, Littlechild, Livesy, Melbourne, Owen, Reid-Jones, Robson and Williams ABSTAIN (8) Councillors Berman, Carter, Hopkins, Latif, Naughton, Shimmin, Taylor and Waldron The Vote on the Substantive Motion, as amended, was CARRIED
Councillor Williams to Councillor Dan’ De’Ath as Chair of the meeting of Cabinet (as Trustee of Maindy Park Trust) Can the Cabinet Member provide Members and the public with an update on the Council’s application to the Charity Commission in respects to disposal of land at Maindy Park Trust and confirm whether the Council has considered acquisition of land at Companies House as an alternative to the proposed disposal of land at Maindy Park Trust? Reply – Cllr De’Ath With regard to your question, I can advise you as follows. The Charity Commission requested more information from the County Council, which we have supplied them, and I can confirm that the County Council has expressed an interest in the land you have referred to. Supplementary – Cllr Williams Residents in the vicinity and across Cardiff will be intrigued that the Council has expressed an interest in land at Companies House, and I would like the Cabinet Member to provide some more detail on the extent of the Council's interest. Is this a serious bid to acquire land at Companies House ,which I hope would negate the need to proceed with the disposal of land at Maindy Park Trust, so the community can enjoy the use of that land as it was always intended when it was put into trust all those years ago? Reply – Cllr De’Ath At the moment it is quite an involved process with the current occupant vacating the site, that will take a while. My understanding is conversations are happening, but at this moment precise terms have not been discussed. I’m sure my esteemed colleague Councillor Goodway will be able to update the Chamber in due course. Councillor Berman to Councillor De’Ath Can you please provide an update on whether or not National Express will return its services to using the City Central Bus Station when a new Cardiff bus station eventually opens, so that national coach services can once again be integrated with national rail services and local bus services? Reply – Cllr De’Ath As you know, TfW are operating the new interchange and they haven't fully finalised what buses will be using that as yet, but we understand National Express will not be using the new interchange. TfW are engaged in a piece of work to try and decide where exactly is best for them to go, we've been involved in those discussions. We absolutely want to see National Express interchange with the bus station and the train station and will update people when we know on those discussions have gone. Supplementary – Cllr Berman If we don't reintegrate these services, I think that quite frankly will be a disaster for this city, and I wonder if perhaps you can enlighten us if there is any truth in the rumour that one of the reasons why National Express don't want to return their services to the new bus station is because the new bus bays won't be high enough for some of their coaches to actually get in? Reply – Cllr De’Ath I'm not aware of the particular rumour you're referring. These are live discussions we're having at the moment with National Express, and some of the possibilities that we've ventilated are quite exciting and I'm sure you would approve but we’ll be able to say more in a few months' time. Councillor Livesy to Councillor De’Ath Will the Council now consider introducing active travel links between St Fagans and Fairwater and between the village and Cowbridge Road West, now that residents, staff, vulnerable or disabled users, and even international visitors, have lost their link to the St Fagans National Museum of History, I mean the service 32 bus. Reply – Cllr De’Ath We obviously want to see every community have great active travel infrastructure. What's planned is set out in the Active Travel Network map? There are plans for the Ely Trail between St Fagans and Cowbridge Road in the pipeline. I understand some 106 money in the ward could be deployed for some of those purposes would you and your ward colleagues be so minded. But I think, really, fundamentally, what we need is a bus that stops at St Fagans. There’s obviously the number 320 Adventure Travel service that goes from the city centre to St Fagans, big loop round the Vale and back into town, and I know they're very keen at stopping at St Fagans site and we facilitate conversations between museum and Adventure Travel. My understanding, unless the museum are against them stopping on their premises, is that that should happen, which I think is really what people are after. Supplementary – Cllr Livesy One of the main complaints we get about the Ely Trail at the moment is that it's completely muddy, unsuitable for commuting cyclists for example, and pavements on Cardiff Road between St Fagans and Fairwater are just disintegrating or the overgrowth stops people walking on them, and we get frequent complaints about that. So I was wondering more along those lines: new pavements, cycle routes up on Cardiff Road. Reply – Cllr De’Ath As I've said, I understand there’s a sum of 106 in your ward; if you'd like it spent on that kind of infrastructure, we can certainly meet with you and see what we can do. Councillor Davies to Councillor Thomas, on behalf of Councillor Goodway How does the Council engage positively with local stakeholders, particularly community councils, in supporting high streets outside the city centre? Reply – Cllr Thomas The Council's Regeneration team work closely with local stakeholders whenundertaking regeneration activity in local and district centres, specifically ensuring that all relevant stakeholders are identified at the very beginning of the process, which would include any community councils, and then that an engagement strategy is devised to ensure that meaningful engagement happens. This aims to ensure that the views of all stakeholders are considered in the development of any proposals, identifying issues and priorities for local district centres are at the centre of improvements is naturally a process that needs to involve the communities that they serve, and this work will include direct input from the people that represent the communities, including Councillors, of course, as well as people who live, work and visit the area, to inform transparent and robust regeneration proposals for the area. Our work on district shopping centres is following a prioritised area-based approach, a number of local shopping centre regeneration schemes that are also designed and delivered through the Council's member-led Neighbourhood Regeneration Strategy programme, and if schemes are planned in areas which have community councils, our processes will ensure that those councils are directly engaged with throughout the scheme. Supplementary – Cllr Davies I’m pleased that the Cabinet wishes to engage positively with community councils, after all County Councillors like ourselves, covering the same wards, know just how valuable they are in their roles as community leaders. I ask the question because there is a lot of frustration in the Community Council of Radyr and Morganstown after the recent news that the resource is not available in Cardiff Council, to support redevelopment for Station Street, the commercial centre in the ward, that we wish to see flourishing. This has been very disappointing since the Leader, who came to visit us last October, stated that this was the route the Community Council should take, and that it would be supportive of such an initiative. Indeed the Chair of Radyr and Morganstown Community Council, Tyrone Davis, has recently written to you regarding this point. So I ask whether the Leader will use his authority to ensure that officers are equipped to help my Community Council in a meaningful way with this particular ambition? Reply – Cllr Thomas I can understand the frustration. I hope the council appreciates my desire to engage with them, that's exactly why I went to meet them. What’s happened during the last year since I went there is the recession as a result of Liz Truss’s leadership and the impact that that had on budgets and on inflation specifically, which has limited how far the money that the Council has available can go. I am keen to see improvements being made to Station Street as you mentioned, and I'm pleased to hear the Community Council’s desire. We need to be honest and we need to recognise that the Council does not have the resources to do everything it can and, as I said in my previous response, we need to prioritise very purposefully within the economy that we have in front of us. So what we are hoping now, is working with other partners, for example, TfW, is there a conversation which can happen, or with all of the developments happening in Radyr. I am very keen to support growth in the population and the number of houses. Are there ways we can use part of the planning gain to support the project. So going back to the financial limitations facing us, but also the desire to work differently with the Community Council to make a difference. Thank you. Councillor Shimmin to Councillor De’Ath Whilst the Council are seeking and promoting alternative transport modes to personal cars, why did they not prioritise stepping in to support the retention of the Cardiff Bus services 51/53 linking large parts of Llanedeyrn, Penylan and Cyncoed to local shopping centres and town, leaving some without a convenient alternative to their personal cars? Reply – Cllr De’Ath Councillor, it's obviously as we’ve discussed this evening been a difficult time for Cardiff Bus, they've reduced 8 services in the city that were no longer commercially viable without the Welsh Government's Bus Emergency Scheme. However, as a County Council we have stepped in and supported services, namely the 101 and 102 which covers the majority of the routes 51 and 53 buses covered, particularly areas in Penylan, Llanedeyrn, Pentwyn and Cyncoed, that would have no other service. Supplementary – Cllr Shimmin That service you mentioned, whilst it's useful to get to the hospital, isn't actually a replacement to the service that was lost, so what would you say to the residents of Carisbrooke Way with mobility issues or young children or generally, who now have to walk some distance to get the bus to Wellfield Road or Albany Road shopping areas, their local library or into town, thus taking away a vital lifeline and likely to encourage personal car use? Reply – Cllr De’Ath I mean while it doesn't cover the exact same route, it does cover the majority of the area that other bus service had. To subsidise a bus, it kind of depends on the length of the route, it can cost up to as much as £150,000, it's not cheap to do it, so what I'm describing are able to provide those people some alternative bus service. Councillor Livesy to Councillor De’Ath What energy or enthusiasm does the Council have in helping to protect Sites of Special Scientific Interest currently being threatened or destroyed by increased leisure, such as Garth Woods, or that are on the candidate list for looming development, like Ty Du Moor? Reply – Cllr De’Ath We are one of the most enthusiastic and energetic administrations in the UK, energy and enthusiasm are our watchword as I'm sure you would agree. We've declared a nature emergency. We absolutely want the RLDP to rise to that challenge. Part of that framework we want to include in the RLDP through the Strategic Policy SP19 will look to develop plans and strategies in the plan to protect green infrastructure assets, including Sites of Special Scientific Interest. The next stage of the plan, the deposit stage, will be the green infrastructure assessments and measures to protect and enhance green infrastructure and make sure various matters you’ve raised are included. Just with regard to Garth Woods which has been designated a European Special Area of Conservation we’re undertaking a Habitats Regulations Assessment that will look specifically at the impact of increased leisure on the woodlands and its findings will absolutely go into the final LDP. Supplementary – Cllr Livesy You've answered some of my supplementary questions, so I wondered if we can look to be getting extra funding out of developers for maintenance of SSSI’s and all forms of them? Reply – Cllr De’Ath We obviously want to maximise the contribution we can get from developers, be that for affordable housing or whatever it is. I know this particular issue is really important to you, we’ve got your input into the LDP. It's not a Labour one, it’s for us as a city; so if you'd like to meet and go through the thing, we’d like to hear what you think. Councillor Lancaster to Councillor Wild Please would you update Members on what the Waste Department is doing to clear the backlog of waste collections missed as a result of the ongoing industrial action? Reply – Cllr Wild Unfortunately due to industrial action there were a number of services cancelled, postponed, last week to make sure the priority collections took place. This week the staff have worked really hard, cleared much of the backlog with collections going really well. Still a little unclear as the exact impact over the next few weeks and because of that we’ll be running a similar schedule as we did the previous two weeks, but it would like to thank Members across the Chamber who've really helped communicating the messages to residents. Some of it's been a bit last minute because we haven’t known exactly what's happening day to day but we have done a good job of communicating. I'd like to thank everyone that has helped with that. Supplementary – Cllr Lancaster One of the biggest omissions in this industrial action has been the non-collection of garden waste bins, as other forms of waste have been prioritised, so by the time this industrial action is over garden waste bins will have been missed for probably getting on for the best part of two months. I know in previous years you've suspended garden waste collections over the winter. Would you now commit to recognising the effect of the industrial action and commit to extending garden waste collections into the winter in order to help residents clear the backlog of garden waste collection? Reply – Cllr Wild Yes, we're going to commit to that. Councillor Taylor to Councillor Merry What consideration has been given to providing free school meals during all or some school holidays following the withdrawal of funding from Welsh Government? Reply – Cllr Merry We asked officers to prepare a what if scenario, following the change in national policy when the Welsh Government made the decision to withdraw the support to pupils eligible for free school meals during holiday periods. Officers calculated that in order to provide support to the eligible pupils in Cardiff schools it would cost the Council £345,480 a week and for the six week summer holiday period this year, this would have equated to more than £2 million. Given the current financial position of the Council, finding this level of additional funding was simply not possible, and would have had a significant detrimental impact on the provision of other Council services. Supplementary – Cllr Taylor I totally appreciate the current financial climate, and clearly that's a huge sum of money for the Council to find. It is important to balance that against the loss or the holiday hunger and the further impact that has on families, and so I am sure that across the Chamber, I won’t pre-empt future discussions, but if some or all of that money could be found as part of the ongoing budget period, I am sure that many of us across the Chamber would support that in ensuring that children don't continue to miss out and that we’re able to support those families that need it most. Councillor Livesy to Councillor De’Ath What constructive action can the Council take to ensure Gwaelod y Garth’s troubled G1 bus service, provided by Adventure Travel, improves in terms of consistency and reliability? Reply – Cllr De’Ath The main constructive action that the Council took, along with Adventure Travel, was to make a significant investment in a special bespoke vehicle that can easily navigate its way through the village. My understanding is issues are arising because it's a requirement that vehicle be serviced every 35 days, and when it's off the road the company are using a larger vehicle where the problems that were occurring previously obviously come back due to its size. How we get round that I'm not sure. I'm not sure if there's any way of it being serviced less regularly, I think we can look at that licence. But that vehicle we've put money towards tends to work very well when it's when it's operating which is most of the time. Supplementary – Cllr Livesy Villagers are telling us in the last two or three weeks that it's not necessarily because of a change of bus. The bus either just doesn't turn up and obviously they know nothing of it, or it'll just suddenly reroute and go to a depot and take 20 or 30 minutes extra to complete the service. So I'm just wondering what lessons we can learn really when we're considering private bus providers for some of the replacement buses that we're looking for in the recent cuts. We did, in fact, we were waiting for news on an extension further into Whitchurch on the G 1 as well, which never came. Reply – Cllr De’Ath We can certainly speak to the company to see what their issues are, on waste, but it's not in our gift to tell them what to do; I try and work constructively with them. With some of these services, when you put them out to tender, it's whoever comes and takes the contract. I appreciate some of the concerns your residents. We had a good walk through your ward a few months ago. If there's any other issues, like lines and signs and bollards we can try and use to try to stop cars blocking the bus route and make it a bit easier, as well as trying to understand a bit better what problems the companies are experiencing. So if it's not the larger vehicle being used, we would like to get a better understanding of what is going on, so let us speak to them and we'll get back to you. Councillor Williams to Councillor De’Ath The introduction of default 20mph speed limits throughout Cardiff will have a devasting impact on economic growth and harm productivity. From a Council perspective, these changes will have an adverse impact on time-critical Council services, such as meals on wheels, carers visiting clients’ homes with emergency red button responses for residents also being delayed. Those are elderly and vulnerable people who have suffered falls waiting far longer for responses from Council workers. What assessment has the Council undertaken to assess the cost of default 20mph speed limits on Council business, such as the extra time needed to attend to these time-critical services? Reply – Cllr De’Ath I fundamentally disagree with the evidence for the assertion you've just made. Welsh Government research indicates that journey times are more impacted by junctions and signals rather than the speed limit, and it predicts that in most cases it won't make any particular difference to journey times, and in those instances where it does, the difference is an extra 1 minute. Supplementary – Cllr Williams People in Cardiff and across Wales look at the congestion in the last few days alone, it has got profoundly worse. My question surrounded vulnerable citizens in this city at risk if they've suffered a full or an injury, the time it's going to take our officers to get to those people. Meals on wheels. Councillor De’Ath. So what are you going to do about it and what assessment has the Council undertaken, because I am being told by officers that they’re spending far longer going around doing urgent, time-critical jobs. That costs money. What assessment has taken place? Reply – Cllr De’Ath As I said, the evidence suggests that most vehicles haven't actually been reaching 30 miles an hour. But, you know, to be fair to you and what you've said, it's an important point, and as a Council the Transport Team will be monitoring what happens in the city and if there are any issues we’ll try to address them. For the moment, based on the evidence compiled by the Welsh Government, the effect will be negligible. Councillor Carter to Councillor Burke Aside from private funding, has the Council considered any other sources of external funding to deliver the Pentwyn Leisure Centre redevelopment? Reply – Cllr Burke The private funding through Cardiff Rugby will cover around half the total cost of the proposed investment into Pentwyn Leisure Centre. The capital allocation is an invest-to-save model and is required to be repaid in full. The Council is therefore exploring a range of other opportunities to make up for the shortfall, including UK Government and Welsh Government grant funding schemes. The Council will also explore contributions towards the cost of the 3G pitch from the FAW and the WRU. Opportunities for a contribution from GLL are also being explored. Supplementary – Cllr Carter It’s interesting you mentioned the UK Government. I noted on Monday when we all got the press release from the Council demonstrating just how much had been funded by the Shared Prosperity Fund, the so-called levelling up funds from the UK Government, because I never even dreamt it would be eligible. Is this an area we've considered looking for funding for this project, and if not, why would this project not be eligible when other leisure facilities in different parts of the UK have been funded by similar schemes? Reply – Cllr Burke I’m really sorry, I only caught the first half of your question. What I would say is we're looking at all avenues and nothing is off the table, thank you. Councillor Berman to Councillor De’Ath Does the administration consider it put sufficient safeguards in place to protect the facades of the buildings forming the former Victorian terrace in Guildford Crescent? Reply – Cllr De’Ath An application was submitted in 2018 for prior notification of demolition of 1-6 Guildford Crescent. Demolition of such buildings is, and was, permitted development. The Council are never in control over the method of demolition and restoration of the site. That application preceded the application to redevelop the site which was made in July 2021. As part of that demolition application, in response to substantial public objections, the plans were amended to allow the front facade of the former buildings to be retained, with detailed plans provided, which indicated the retained facades would be held in place by scaffolding. The Planning Committee took the decision in 2019 to approve the partial demolition, subject to the facades being retained in accordance with the approved details. Given the limited control available at the time by the Council over the full demolition of the buildings, it was considered the controls imposed requiring retention of the facades sufficient, with the subsequent approval of the redevelopment of the site also being predicated on retention of facades. The decision of developers to move onto the site ahead of consideration of their current planning application to demolish and rebuild the facades was made following the receipt of a structure report, and demolition work was undertaken without contacting the Council. This prevented officers from inspecting ahead of demolition or considering the expediency of pursuing any action to prevent its demolition ahead of any such examination. Within this context, it’s considered the Council had sufficient safeguards in place but ultimately could not prevent the demolition due to the speed of action taken by the developer proceeding to demolish the remaining structure on health and safety grounds. Supplementary – Cllr Berman Earlier today at the Cabinet meeting you'll recall that the Cabinet took a decision to serve an Article 4 direction on the Rompney Castle, which I very much welcome, which hopefully will help to save another building that’s of value to its community within the city. So I suppose my question is, and I appreciate that the process for applying for an Article 4 direction may have been different at the stage when we were looking at the original applications for Guildford Crescent, but did the Council at that point explore the option of an article 4 direction and look to see if that could have been put in place? Reply – Cllr De’Ath I think my colleague Councillor Merry summed up our feelings about the whole situation. We’re very angry, very frustrated by the way things have gone. I think we've explored a range of options. Really, fundamentally, the thing was knocked down all in one day. We sent our people out there to see what was going on, but by the time they arrived there wasn't much left. We're exploring a range of enforcement options, recognising it's quite a complicated situation. It's going to Planning Committee, their current application in October, where we discuss. Enforcement action will be considered also at that meeting. Councillor Berman to Councillor Thomas Why was the Council’s proposed developer partner for the next phase of the International Sport Village not initially named in the non-confidential part of the Cabinet report entitled: “International Sports Village – Full Business Case” which was considered at the Cabinet meeting on 13th July? Reply – Cllr Thomas I'm sure when you wrote this question you didn't anticipate this would be the last of the evening after six hours of Council meeting. You did ask this question in July and I did provide you with an answer during August. A simple omission, which was corrected by amendment. Supplementary – Cllr Berman It was corrected by an amendment I think after I had raised the issue at Scrutiny, that the name is missing from the public part of the report, and I just wonder if the fact it was omitted was linked to the fact that the developer partner is essentially the same former Ryan Land Leisure that was previously involved with delivering the Sports Village back in the mid-2000s, but the Council at that point ended the relationship because they weren’t able to progress the development, and now we're going back to that same company. So I just wonder, can you assure us that that's not the reason why the name was omitted? Reply – Cllr De’Ath If we wanted to hide the name, why did we put the name in a press release that we released before the Scrutiny Committee?
Part of an issue followed across 11 meetings
There was no Urgent Business.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED: The Council APPROVED the appointment of Mr Craig Hampton-Stone as an Executive Director of Cardiff City Transport Services Limited (Cardiff Bus)
RESOLVED: The Council APPROVED the appointment of Mr Craig Hampton-Stone as an Executive Director of Cardiff City Transport Services Limited (Cardiff Bus)
Part of an issue followed across 3 meetings
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED: The Council AGREED the appointment of the nomination to the vacancy on the Committee, in accordance with the Party Group wishes, as set out in Table A and on the Amendment Sheet
RESOLVED: The Council AGREED the appointment of the nomination to the vacancy on the Committee, in accordance with the Party Group wishes, as set out in Table A and on the Amendment Sheet
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED: Council NOTED an urgent officer decision serving an Immediate Article 4 Direction in respect of the Rompney Castle, Wentloog Road, Rumney (Appendix A), and removing permitted development rights afforded under Parts 2 and 31 of the Schedule to the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (as amended for Wales) in relation to the property.
RESOLVED: Council NOTED an urgent officer decision serving an Immediate Article 4 Direction in respect of the Rompney Castle, Wentloog Road, Rumney (Appendix A), and removing permitted development rights afforded under Parts 2 and 31 of the Schedule to the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (as amended for Wales) in relation to the property.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED: The Council APPROVED the new appointments and re-appointments of Local Authority Governors to the school governing bodies as set out on the Amendment Sheet, each for a term of 4 years from the date of the appointment, in accordance with the recommendations of the Local Authority Governor Panel.
RESOLVED: The Council APPROVED the new appointments and re-appointments of Local Authority Governors to the school governing bodies as set out on the Amendment Sheet, each for a term of 4 years from the date of the appointment, in accordance with the recommendations of the Local Authority Governor Panel.
Part of an issue followed across 8 meetings
In accordance with Council procedure Rule 17 (f) the Written Questions received for consideration and the responses are attached to the minutes.
Part of an issue followed across 11 meetings
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.