Wrthi'n llwytho
Y penderfyniadau fel y mae cofnodion y cyngor yn eu cofnodi. Bydd crynodeb mewn iaith glir yn dilyn pan fydd wedi'i ysgrifennu.
RESOLVED: that the minutes of the meeting held on the 26 June 2025 be received and approved as a true and correct record of the proceedings.
Resolved - that subject to Section 100A of the Local Government Act 1972, the Press and Public be excluded from the meeting for the discussion on the remainder of this business item on the grounds that it involved the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in paragraphs 12 and 13 of part 4 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972. During the ensuing discussion the Committee heard that there were several aspects which were of concern to the local ward members to the site identified including: · that the sites considered had been artificially restricted to one town; · in restricting the area to be considered alternative suitable options had been ignored; · the site had not been included on the GTAA schedule in April 2025 as it was allocated for housing – this fact had not been noted in the comments in Appendix 1; · that the ‘established link’ had been based on a temporary site allocation, the children attended school elsewhere and the family’s business was not limited to the town but county-wide and further; · alternative proposed sites made by members had been disregarded; and · insufficient consultation had been undertaken with local ward members or the Member Area Group; Following a comprehensive discussion on the T&F Group’s findings the Committee raised concerns that the report did not contain sufficient detail on the process undertaken to reach its conclusion. Committee members requested that some further work and discussions were undertaken with local members prior to the Committee being requested to formulate a recommendation in relation to the site assessment analysis. RESOLVED that subject to the above and having considered the analysis of the site assessment exercise undertaken that: I. the Lead Officer and Chair of the Task & Finish Group liaise with the local members and/or Member Area Group to discuss the site analysis; and II. a report detailing how the process for identifying suitable locations had been undertaken, together with details on the information provided to the T&FG to arrive at its conclusions
RESOLVED: that the Committee – I. noted the updated Planning Compliance Function Report; II. Agreed for the Planning Compliance team to continue to work in accordance with the current Planning Compliance Charter and III. requested a report on an options appraisal for further expansion of the team in 6 months.
RESOLVED: that the Committee – (i) Confirms that it has read, understood and taken account of the report and the associated “Enclosed Beaver Trial – Project Brief”. (ii) Confirms that it has read, understood and taken account of the Well-being Impact Assessment as part of its consideration.
RESOLVED: that the Communities Scrutiny Committee forward work programme be agreed.
Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Karen Edwards (Chair) James Elson and Merfyn Parry. The Vice-Chair, Councillor Brian Jones conducted the meeting in the Chair’s absence.
No items of an urgent nature had been raised with the Chair or the Scrutiny Coordinator prior to the commencement of the meeting.
Y penderfyniad fel y'i cofnodwyd
RESOLVED: that the minutes of the meeting held on the 26 June 2025 be received and approved as a true and correct record of the proceedings.
The minutes of the Communities Scrutiny Committee meeting held on the 26 June 2025 were submitted. It was: RESOLVED: that the minutes of the meeting held on the 26 June 2025 be received and approved as a true and correct record of the proceedings.
Y penderfyniad fel y'i cofnodwyd
Resolved - that subject to Section 100A of the Local Government Act 1972, the Press and Public be excluded from the meeting for the discussion on the remainder of this business item on the grounds that it involved the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in paragraphs 12 and 13 of part 4 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972. During the ensuing discussion the Committee heard that there were several aspects which were of concern to the local ward members to the site identified including: · that the sites considered had been artificially restricted to one town; · in restricting the area to be considered alternative suitable options had been ignored; · the site had not been included on the GTAA schedule in April 2025 as it was allocated for housing – this fact had not been noted in the comments in Appendix 1; · that the ‘established link’ had been based on a temporary site allocation, the children attended school elsewhere and the family’s business was not limited to the town but county-wide and further; · alternative proposed sites made by members had been disregarded; and · insufficient consultation had been undertaken with local ward members or the Member Area Group; Following a comprehensive discussion on the T&F Group’s findings the Committee raised concerns that the report did not contain sufficient detail on the process undertaken to reach its conclusion. Committee members requested that some further work and discussions were undertaken with local members prior to the Committee being requested to formulate a recommendation in relation to the site assessment analysis. RESOLVED that subject to the above and having considered the analysis of the site assessment exercise undertaken that: I. the Lead Officer and Chair of the Task & Finish Group liaise with the local members and/or Member Area Group to discuss the site analysis; and II. a report detailing how the process for identifying suitable locations had been undertaken, together with details on the information provided to the T&FG to arrive at its conclusions
The Corporate Director for Economy and Environment introduced the report and the confidential appendices (previously circulated). The Committee were advised that the report contained appendices which were deemed to be confidential owing to the information contained within which could identify an individual. Members debated the rationale for the appendices to be considered under Part 2 business, raising concerns that there could be criticism of the transparency of the process. However, they recognised the importance of protecting an individual’s privacy. In response, the Monitoring Officer advised that the Local Government Act 1972 set out certain categories of information which were exempt from publication to the public or for discussion in public. The reports for the Committee were published to ensure members, and the public were aware of what was going to be discussed and how the business of the Committee was going to be conducted. The relevant category for exemption of information for the Gypsy and Traveller Site Assessment item was that the documentation that had been marked Part 2 contained information that was likely to reveal the identity of an individual. The information did not need to state the name of an individual however, together with other information available it could lead to the possibility of an individual being identified. It was initially agreed to continue the discussion in Part 1 unless and until Members proposed and seconded that the Committee continued their discussions under Part 2. The Corporate Director for Economy and Environment introduced the report on the Gypsy and Traveller Site Assessment to the Committee. The purpose of the report was to report back to the Committee on the conclusions from the Member Task and Finish Group (T&F Group) which was established to consider options for permanent residential sites to meet the accommodation needs identified within the Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessment (GTAA). The report related to the statutory duty for the Council to meet the housing or accommodation needs of Denbighshire residents. The Housing Wales Act 2014 (Section 101) required Local Authorities to undertake a GTAA at least every 5 years. The purpose was to assess the needs of Gypsies and Travellers residing in their area. The Council’s current assessment was undertaken and subsequently approved by Welsh Government (WG) in May 2024. A project board was set up in December 2024, chaired by the Corporate Director for Economy and Environment, and membership included three Heads of Service. A Member T&F Group was set up in January 2025 consisting of the Lead Member for Local Development and Planning and a representative from each Member Area Group (MAG). The brief for the Member T&FG was to identify a suitable site or sites to meet the accommodation needs of Gypsies and Travellers identified within the approved GTAA. The T&FG agreed to limit the search to the town that the family already had established links with in Denbighshire, the search area would only be expanded if no suitable site or sites were identified in that area. The approach to the site search had therefore been to consider all DCC owned land in that town, plus to look at any privately owned sites available for sale. The Project Team assessed each site in line with WG criteria and revisited a site search that was carried out on a previous project in 2019. Appendix 1 contained a list of all sites owned by DCC that had been considered by the Project Team and the T&F Group. The outcome of that process was that Site A (Appendix 3) was deemed to be the most suitable in terms of becoming the permanent site to satisfy the unmet need within the GTAA. The decision of the T&F Group was not unanimous but the conclusion that Site A was the most suitable site was supported by a majority vote of the T&F Group. From a planning perspective, there was currently no designation on Site A within the Local Development Plan (LDP). The site did not have planning permission for residential use, and planning approval would be required for the site to become a permanent residential site for the family. The Corporate Director for Economy and Environment read a statement from the Chair of the T&F Group as he was unable to attend the meeting which included further details on the process the T&F Group had followed using WG criteria as stated above. The Chair invited questions from the Committee. Members referred to recommendations 3.1 and 3.2 of the report, it was felt that information on the analysis used throughout the process was limited in the report. The further supplementary appendix received prior to the meeting was helpful however, it was still felt that there was not enough information provided to the Committee to consider before agreeing the recommendations made in the report. Appendix 3.2 referred to the Well-being Impact Assessment (WBIA), it was noted that neither members of the T&FG nor members of the Gypsy and Traveller Community had participated in the WBIA process. The Corporate Director for Economy and Environment advised that the process for identifying a site, or sites was straightforward, and all sites were considered against robust criteria provided by Welsh Government. The WBIA had been completed by a neutral group of people. Officers were keen for people with specific knowledge of the subject area to be involved in the WBIA and that included the Regional Community Cohesion Coordinator however, there could always be more people involved when undertaking WBIAs. Members discussed the role of Scrutiny regarding the matter and questioned the decision-making process moving forward. The Corporate Director for Economy and Environment explained the role of the T&F Group was to identify possible sites that could be used, not to agree that a site would be used. The decision for the site to be used would be for the Planning Committee if an application for the site was submitted. The role of Communities Scrutiny Committee was to scrutinise the analysis process followed by the T&F Group. Members were keen to understand the reasons for the T&FG not being able to come to a unanimous decision regarding a site. The Corporate Director for Economy and Environment explained that the main difference in opinion on the T&FG was around the geographical search area and whether this should be extended or not. The membership of the T&FG had changed throughout the process for various reasons. The conclusion of the T&FG was agreed by the majority. Members sought clarification on the public consultation phase of the process. The Head of Planning, Public Protection and Countryside Servies explained that once an application was submitted for the preferred site, there would then be a statutory consultation period as part of the planning process. Members questioned the costings of a pitch on a site. The Corporate Director for Economy and Environment stated there were no figures available on the costs yet due to this not being within the remit of the T&F Group. Details on the estimated costs would be provided during the next steps of the process. Following questions from Committee members the Chair invited questions from non-Committee members. One of the local ward members for the area of the proposed site addressed the committee opening by declaring that they would need to discuss details contained in the confidential appendices to the report. Councillor Hugh Evans proposed that the Committee meeting should continue under confidential Part 2 restrictions, this proposal was seconded by Councillor Michelle Blakeley-Walker. Other members were of the view that the business should continue in open session and a recorded vote was requested by Councillor Jon Harland and seconded by Councillor Brian Jones. Committee members voted as follows: Vote: Councillor Gwyneth Ellis – Abstain Councillor Michelle Blakeley-Walker – For Councillor Carol Holliday – For Councillor Brian Jones - Against Councillor Jon Harland – Against Hugh Evans – For Cheryl Williams – For It was therefore: Resolved - that subject to Section 100A of the Local Government Act 1972, the Press and Public be excluded from the meeting for the discussion on the remainder of this business item on the grounds that it involved the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in paragraphs 12 and 13 of part 4 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972. During the ensuing discussion the Committee heard that there were several aspects which were of concern to the local ward members to the site identified including: · that the sites considered had been artificially restricted to one town; · in restricting the area to be considered alternative suitable options had been ignored; · the site had not been included on the GTAA schedule in April 2025 as it was allocated for housing – this fact had not been noted in the comments in Appendix 1; · that the ‘established link’ had been based on a temporary site allocation, the children attended school elsewhere and the family’s business was not limited to the town but county-wide and further; · alternative proposed sites made by members had been disregarded; and · insufficient consultation had been undertaken with local ward members or the Member Area Group; Following a comprehensive discussion on the T&F Group’s findings the Committee raised concerns that the report did not contain sufficient detail on the process undertaken to reach its conclusion. Committee members requested that some further work and discussions were undertaken with local members prior to the Committee being requested to formulate a recommendation in relation to the site assessment analysis. RESOLVED that subject to the above and having considered the analysis of the site assessment exercise undertaken that: I. the Lead Officer and Chair of the Task & Finish Group liaise with the local members and/or Member Area Group to discuss the site analysis; and II. a report detailing how the process for identifying suitable locations had been undertaken, together with details on the information provided to the T&FG to arrive at its conclusions
Y penderfyniad fel y'i cofnodwyd
RESOLVED: that the Committee – I. noted the updated Planning Compliance Function Report; II. Agreed for the Planning Compliance team to continue to work in accordance with the current Planning Compliance Charter and III. requested a report on an options appraisal for further expansion of the team in 6 months.
The Lead Member for Local Development and Planning introduced the report (previously circulated) to the Committee. The report provided the Committee with an update on the staffing and performance of the Planning Compliance Function. The Head of Planning, Public Protection and Countryside Services provided further details on the report: There had been a previous review of the Planning Compliance Charter which helped manage demand on the team and service. The Charter helped the Planning Team to prioritise their workload, working closely with local members. The Development Manager explained that the work of the Planning Compliance Function sat alongside other functions of the Local Planning Authority. Planning compliance was non-fee earning and discretionary service within the Local Planning Authority however, it did link closely to the planning application process, development management and the work of the Planning Committee. There were 3 areas to consider when trying to make the planning compliance process as effective as possible: 1. Staffing – The staffing of the department was in a better position than in December 2024 with two new Planning Compliance Officers in place. Staffing was very important as to how the department operated as there was the need for staff to investigate breaches of planning control. 2. Manging expectations – The Charter helped the department manage expectations. The Charter acted as an aid to prioritise workload. 3. Planning Compliance Phases - The process of planning compliance involved several phases which included investigations and serving notices followed by a legal process. The whole process required coordination of staff from across both planning and legal departments which had been difficult over the past 12 months. The report highlighted cases that had been investigated and notices that had been served in comparison to other Local Planning Authorities. The Chair thanked Officers for the report and questions were welcomed from the Committee. Members felt that the report was positive with a good level of improvement clearly evidenced within it. The Development Manager thanked members for highlighting the positive improvements. Members discussed the financial implications of planning compliance and how the planning department dealt with the increasing demand on resources. The Development Manager explained that Planning Compliance was a nonfee earning function of the Planning Authority and therefore funding for the service came from other functions such as planning application fees. Often when work was undertaken by Planning Compliance Officers certain costs were involved within the investigation process and if further legal action was required or if a notice was appealed further costs would also be associated with this. Members highlighted that investigating planning compliance action was discretionary however, it was emphasised that investigating possible breaches of planning control was a statutory function of the Council. Members discussed how they would like to see an analysis of how the Planning Compliance function could be improved and how much it would cost to improve it. The Head of Planning, Public Protection and Countryside Services explained that a business case was created some years ago which stated the reasons why the number of Planning Compliance Officers should increase. The business case was taken through an internal process and resulted in the recruitment of an additional officer. The department would be prepared to look at this option again, including what the impact would be with additional resources and if this was something the Council would support. [EJ to action] Members from outside of the Committee raised concerns regarding the staffing of the Planning Compliance Function and ongoing planning enforcement cases in their wards. The Development Manager stated that he would discuss the issues raised from members outside of the meeting. RESOLVED: that the Committee – I. noted the updated Planning Compliance Function Report; II. Agreed for the Planning Compliance team to continue to work in accordance with the current Planning Compliance Charter and III. requested a report on an options appraisal for further expansion of the team in 6 months.
Y penderfyniad fel y'i cofnodwyd
RESOLVED: that the Committee – (i) Confirms that it has read, understood and taken account of the report and the associated “Enclosed Beaver Trial – Project Brief”. (ii) Confirms that it has read, understood and taken account of the Well-being Impact Assessment as part of its consideration.
The Lead Member for Environment and Transport introduced the report to the Committee. The report provided information regarding the proposals to introduce a pair or family of beavers into an enclosure at Green Gates Nature Reserve. The report also provided information on the public consultation which would take place prior to the license application to release beavers into the enclosure at Green gates Nature Reserve. The Council had a statutory duty to maintain and enhance biodiversity and in doing so promote the resilience of the eco systems under the Environment Wales Act 2016. One of the main priorities set out in the Council’s Corporate Plan (2022-2027) was to create a greener Denbighshire through enhancing and preserving the Council’s natural assets to support biodiversity. The Council was striving to become an ecological positive Council by 2030 as part of the Nature and Climate Strategy. The location of the proposed enclosed beaver trial was at Green Gates Nature Reserve, St Asaph. The nature reserve was 70 acres in size, and the enclosure would extend to approximately 24 acres within the western side of the site. As part of the nature reserve creation, nine new ponds had been created within the enclosed area, which also contained a stretch of stream approximately 250m in length. Other habitats present in the enclosure included native species poor hedgerows, willow carr, scrub, and poor semi-improved grassland. Beavers were often referred to as ‘keystone species’ or ‘ecosystem engineers’ due to their ability to alter various physical and biological features of a site through their foraging, burrowing and damming activities. These actions often benefitted a wide variety of other species, providing many ecological niches resulting in greater biodiversity at sites where beavers were present. The Lead Officer for Ecology and Biodiversity provided further details on the report. The consultation phase would run for a period of 4 weeks and would be hosted online. The consultation would provide local stakeholders with the opportunity to learn about the proposals and provide feedback and highlight any issues which they felt may need to be addressed before the beavers were released on site. Following the closure of the consultation period, feedback would be collated, and a report would be written summarising the results. Any issues would be resolved and any required changes made, before a licence application was submitted. As part of the licence application, a project proposal and method statement would need to be submitted along with a general risk assessment, a veterinary risk assessment, an enclosure specification and maintenance plan, escape and recapture plan and an exit strategy. Prior to the submission of a licence application, there would be a discussion between officers, Heads of Service, Lead Members and Local Members to agree next steps and the best way to proceed with the project. Once Natural Resources Wales (NRW) were satisfied with the proposals and the licence was granted, preparations to release a pair or family of beavers into the enclosure would begin. The beavers would be sourced through project partners at the Welsh Beaver Project and after a period of quarantine and health screening, would be introduced into the enclosure. The impact of the beavers would be recorded through habitat and species monitoring throughout the trial period, with regular reporting of results. The project aimed to provide people with the opportunity to learn about beavers and their impacts first hand. Guided site visits and education events and activities would be held throughout the trial period. The Chair thanked the Lead Member and Lead Officer for Ecology and Environment for the report and questions were welcomed from members. Members discussed the potential risks of the project identified in the report, specifically damage to utility infrastructure within the enclosure through flooding, felling, burrowing or feeding activities of the beavers. The Lead Officer for Ecology and Biodiversity explained that the utility risk referred to electrical cables which crossed underneath the proposed beaver’s habitat. Sections of fencing had been buried underground in areas that the beavers could burrow out from, and further extensive work had been completed to alleviate the risk. Members questioned what the cost of the project would be. The Lead Officer for Ecology and Biodiversity explained that the cost of the project was funded through a Nature Grant from Welsh Government. There were further costs for obtaining a licence and deporting the beavers which would cost a maximum of 5k. Members asked if educational and mental health benefits for the local community could be gained from the project. The Lead Officer for Ecology and Biodiversity stated that a key element of the project was to get the community involved in seeing and learning about the beavers. It was hoped that a biodiversity site would be set up on site which would be an educational centre where school groups and other groups in the community would be invited to attend. The Chair thanked Officers for the report. RESOLVED: that the Committee – (i) Confirms that it has read, understood and taken account of the report and the associated “Enclosed Beaver Trial – Project Brief”. (ii) Confirms that it has read, understood and taken account of the Well-being Impact Assessment as part of its consideration.
Y penderfyniad fel y'i cofnodwyd
RESOLVED: that the Communities Scrutiny Committee forward work programme be agreed.
The Scrutiny Coordinator guided members through the Committee Forward Work Programme (previously circulated). The next meeting of Communities Scrutiny Committee was scheduled for the 16 October 2025. There were three items on the Committee’s Forward Work Programme – 1. Public Conveniences Savings Proposal 2. Royal Alexandra Hospital Redevelopment 3. Revised Waste Policy Members from the Partnerships Scrutiny Committee would be in attendance at the Committee’s October meeting to discuss the Royal Alexandra Hospital Redevelopment item. The Denbighshire Youth Services agenda item had been deferred to the Committee’s December meeting. The Gypsy and Traveller Site Assessment and the Planning Compliance Function from today’s meeting would be added to the Forward Work Programme once a date had been agreed with Lead officers. Members hoped that the Public Conveniences Saving Proposal report being brought to the next meeting would contain constructive dialogue regarding alternatives ways of keeping Public Conveniences open. RESOLVED: that the Communities Scrutiny Committee forward work programme be agreed.
None. Meeting concluded at 1.50pm
Rhaid i gynghorwyr ddweud pan fydd ganddyn nhw gysylltiad personol â rhywbeth sy'n cael ei drafod, fel swydd, eiddo neu aelod o'r teulu. Mae buddiant sy'n rhagfarnu yn ddigon cryf i'r cynghorydd adael yr ystafell fel arfer a pheidio â chymryd rhan.
Caiff datganiadau eu darllen o'r cofnodion unwaith y byddan nhw wedi'u cyhoeddi.
Dyw'r cyngor ddim wedi cofnodi presenoldeb ar gyfer y cyfarfod hwn.
Yn rhestru cynghorwyr presennol y cyngor yn unig. Nid yw aelodau cyfetholedig, swyddogion a chyn-gynghorwyr yn cael eu dangos.