3,726 eitem
Penderfyniad: Nododd y Pwyllgor ei gylch gorchwyl.
RESOLVED: a) To note the outturn position for 2025/26 as detailed in this report and the draft Statement of Accounts for 2025/26; b) To note the attached draft Minor Bodies Return 2025/26; c) That the Committee Chair be authorised to sign the Minor Bodies Return 2025/26
RESOLVED: The Hearings Panel determined unanimously to proceed with the Hearing in public, noting that such matters would ordinarily be an open Hearing and that Cllr Latif’s representations did not raise issues of a sensitive nature which would warrant the matter being heard in private. As there were no further procedural matters and no submission of late evidence, the Panel proceeded to consider findings of fact. Cllr Latif confirmed that he did not dispute the key facts set out in the Investigation Report. As the facts of the case were not in dispute the Chair of the Panel determined to combine Stages 1 and 2 of the procedure (findings of fact and whether a Code of Conduct breach had arisen) and sought representations initially from Mr. Morris and thereafter Cllr Latif. Philip Morris drew attention to the facts, referring to page 39 of the papers, stating that: · The actions of Cllr Latif on 3 June 2024 related to the criminal offence of locking on which is a relatively new offence under the Public Order Act 2023 · When the matter came before the Magistrates Court in May 2025 Cllr Latif pleaded guilty and received a conditional discharge and was ordered to pay costs amounting to £750 and a surcharge of £26 · Cllr Latif continued in his role as Councillor throughout · The incident gave rise to media articles (as referred to in Appendix 9 of the Investigation Report) and Social Media attention (as referred to within Appendix 9, pages 139-162 of the agenda pack). There were mixed views with some comments in support of Cllr Latif’s actions. · The investigation of breach of the Members’ Code of Conduct relates to Paragraph 6.1(a), the duty to not conduct yourself in a manner which could reasonably be regarded as bringing your office or authority into disrepute, as referred to at Paragraph 8 of the Investigation Report. · When interviewed Cllr Latif had provided a balanced account and had been open in terms of his actions, he’d shown remorse and had made a self-referral to the Ombudsman · The Investigation Report sets out undisputed facts at Paragraph 26-38. One disputed fact was whether Cllr Latif attended the protest as a Councillor. Albeit Paragraph 6.1(a) applies in public as well as in private life, it is submitted that on the facts as Cllr Latif had introduced himself to the police as being a Councillor, that he did attend the protest in his capacity as a Councillor rather than as a private individual. · References made to Paragraph 44 of the Investigation Report, and that Cllr Latif had expressed remorse from the start. · References made to the role and requirement to uphold the law being a key principle to be adhered to by members. · The Panel’s attention was drawn to Paragraph 53 of the Investigation Report which concluded that there was sufficient indication by the Ombudsman that Cllr Latif’s actions were suggestive of a breach of Paragraph 6.1(a) of the Code of Conduct and contrary to the principle that members have a duty to uphold the law. The Hearing Panel discussed the issue of a breach to the Code of Conduct and bringing the Council into disrepute. Cllr Latif openly expressed remorse, explaining that he did plead guilty at the Magistrates court. The Hearing Panel noted the Nolan Principles and paragraph 6.1 a of the Code which stated: You must: Not conduct yourself in a manner which could reasonably by regarded as bringing your office or authority into disrepute. Cllr Latif had prepared the following statement: “Thank you for considering my statement. I take my role as a councillor seriously and deeply regret being before you. I offer my sincere and unreserved apology. I recognise the importance of public trust and accept responsibility where I have fallen short. It was never my intention to bring the Council into disrepute, and I have reflected carefully and learned from this experience. I have also completed a refresher course on Standards and Ethics Committee requirements at the beginning of the year to strengthen my understanding and practice. I remain committed to serving my community with integrity. I will also continue to stand firm in my principles, including speaking out for Gaza and Palestine and against oppression wherever it occurs, while ensuring I do so responsibly and in line with the standards expected of my role.” The Hearing Panel had no questions The Hearing Panel adjourned to deliberate in private. The Hearing Panel was re-convened to announce the Panel’s decision. RESOLVED: The Chairman announced that a unanimous decision had been reached by the Panel; that they were satisfied that the facts of the case had been established; and that with regard to whether Cllr Latif had attended the protest in a personal or Councillor capacity, they were satisfied that as he had introduced himself to the Police as a Councillor, he indeed was present at the police station in his capacity as a Councillor. Given the facts, specifically, the public order nature of the offence of locking on, the guilty plea, the conviction and sentence of 18 months conditional discharge, together with £750 costs and surcharge of £26, together with the fact that the Cllr had introduced himself as a Councillor and the media coverage, with headlines referring to him as a Cardiff Councillor, and social media commentary, some of which was negative, and having regard to the Ombudsman’s guidance on the Code of Conduct, paragraph 6.1(a) duty, the Panel were satisfied that the Cllr had brought the office of Councillor and the Council into disrepute, and therefore, paragraph 6.1(a) (and the principle of upholding the law underpinning the Code of Conduct) had been breached by Cllr Latif. The Hearing Panel moved on to Stage 3 of the Hearing Procedure to discuss sanctions and invited representations from Mr Morris and Cllr Latif. Mr Morris submitted that there were a number of mitigating factors including remorse shown by Cllr Latif; that he had made a self-referral; that no previous complaints had been received by the Ombudsman’s office against Cllr Latif; and that he had attended refresher training on the Code of Conduct. Cllr Latif submitted that his actions were wrong and the situation could have been avoided; he had definitely learned from the experience; that the outcome that he had wanted to achieve at the police station could have been achieved without locking on and sitting down. There was a lot of noise in the police station and at the time he was ill (and was on sick leave from work). He had heard via social media about the protest and thought he’d be able to help. In future he would not get involved again. Rashpal Singh asked Cllr Latif about his goal/purpose in attending the police station. Cllr Latif explained that he knew a number of Police Officers and he thought that he would be able to calm down and resolve the situation; that as a local councillor he felt that he could open up a channel of communication, however he was wrong as he was only there for forty five minutes, whereas protesters had been there from early afternoon. Cllr Latif said he had hoped his actions could make a difference, but on reflection he now believed that he had over estimated his abilities and had been very ambitious. Louise Evans asked Cllr Latif what the impact had been on him from the reporting of the incident and criminal conviction. Councillor Latif provided a full answer which contained personal information. The Hearing Panel adjourned to consider potential sanctions in private. The Hearing Panel was re-convened to announce the Panel’s decision. RESOLVED: Having regard to the undisputed facts of the case as set out in the Investigation Report, including the seriousness of the criminal offence of locking on pursuant to the Public Order Act 2023 and the sentence issued by the Magistrates Court together with Cllr Latif’s comments during his interview with the Ombudsman’s investigating officer during which Cllr Latif had commented (as set out at page 8 of the Investigation Report) that ”the police officers were in an intense situation” and “the atmosphere was very charged”, the Panel took the view that in that situation, a public office holder would reasonably be expected to act responsibly and lawfully and walk away if necessary. The Panel also considered the sanctions guidance issued by the Adjudication Panel for Wales, noting the seriousness of the breach, and the consequences for the reputation of the Council and the Councillor (having regard to the media headlines referring to him as a Cardiff Councillor and social media commentary on Cllr Latif’s conviction by the Magistrates Court), and the various mitigating factors, as outlined by Mr Morris. Having regard to all of the above, the Panel determined that Cllr Latif be suspended as a County Councillor for the City and County of Cardiff for two months. The Panel noted that a decision notice would be provided to Councillor Latif setting out the reasons for the decision within five working days. The rights of appeal would also be outlined in the decision notice. The Panel noted that an appeal would have to submitted within 21 days. A brief email would be sent to Cllr Latif today, outlining the Panel’s decision.
Penderfyniad: Cytunodd y Pwyllgor y bydd y Cadeirydd, ar ran y Pwyllgor, yn ysgrifennu at Aelod y Cabinet gyda sylwadau ac argymhellion y Pwyllgor.
AGREED: 1. That the agreed dates of Policy Review & Performance Scrutiny Committee meetings up to March 2027 be noted; 2. That the draft Policy Review & Performance Scrutiny Committee pages for the Scrutiny Annual Report, attached at Appendix 1, be noted; 3. That correspondence between the Committee and the Cabinet for meetings between December 2025 – April 2026 be noted.
Penderfyniad: Cytunodd y Pwyllgor i nodi'r ffordd ymlaen ar gyfer llunio ei amlinelliad o raglen waith 2026/27. Bydd fersiwn derfynol yn dod yn ôl i'r Pwyllgor i'w chymeradwyo'n ffurfiol ym mis Medi 2026.
RESOLVED – That the following matters be dealt with as indicated: (1) Application 1 The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License given that he was disengaged as a driver from Veezu for multiple complaints of using his phone while driving, for a poor standard of driving making passengers feel unsafe, and for being rude, hostile and threatening. The Sub Committee received representations from witnesses to an incident which had occurred at Llandough Hospital. Members were advised that the driver locked a passenger with a brain injury inside the vehicle when he was advised that the passenger’s mother would pay the fare at the destination. The passenger refused to travel in the vehicle and was very upset and anxious following the incident. The driver was reported to have been rude, hostile and threatening. Further representations were received from a different witness relating to a separate incident when the driver was said to have displayed a poor standard of driving and watched TikTok videos on his mobile phone during the journey. A third witness provided a statement regarding the driver using his mobile phone during a journey. Members were advised that Veezu had received reports of each incident from their customers and they had disengaged the driver from their platform as a result. Members questioned the witnesses to each incident and sought clarification from the driver regarding his actions. RESOLVED – that the Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence be suspended for 28 days for unacceptable conduct. (2) Application 2 The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License given that a complaint had been received alleging that he urinated into a bottle on a public street. The driver addressed the Sub Committee. The driver accepted that his actions were unacceptable and apologised unreservedly for his actions. Members were advised that his actions would not be repeated in the future. RESOLVED – that no further action be taken. (3) Application 3 The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License given that a complaint had been received alleging that he displayed intimidating, unprofessional and unacceptable behaviour to a passenger. Members received representations from two witnesses who were passengers in the vehicle. Members were advised that the passengers were having a conversation regarding the payment method. The driver was said to have suddenly become very angry and began shouting and using bad language. He then refused the fare and ordered the passengers out of his vehicle. RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning regarding his conduct. (4) Application 4 The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License given that a complaint had been received alleging that he failed to use the meter for a journey within the Cardiff boundary and overcharged for a fare. Members received representations from a witness who was a passenger in the vehicle. Members were advised that the passenger was in Mill Lane in the city centre and wanted to travel to Manor Way. The fare was usually in the region of £15. The witness approached the driver’s taxi and was advised that the fare would be £25 as it was after midnight and she would have to pay the fare in advance. The witness stated that four other taxi drivers surrounded her and attempted to convince her that the fare she was quoted was correct. She felt intimidated as she was a single female. The passenger also stated that the fare meter was not used during the journey. Members also received representation from an officer from Cardiff Licensing. Members were advised that a fare from Mill Lane to Manor Way should be around £12.70. The driver’s representative addressed the Sub Committee. Members were advised that the driver accepted the seriousness of the allegations and was aware that the meter should be used for all journeys in the city. The driver acknowledged that a payment of £25 was received but could not recall any other details of the journey. RESOLVED – that the Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence be suspended for 14 days for overcharging and not using the meter. (5) Application 5 The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License given that he had declared 7 penalty points on his driving licence. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver stated that he had four penalty points on his driver’s licence before he was licenced as taxi driver. He then received 3 further points for going through a red light in Bridgend. RESOLVED – that no further action be taken. (6) Application 6 The Sub Committee were asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Private Hire Driver’s License given that since the renewal of his licence he had failed to provide his DBS certificate. The driver did not attend. RESOLVED – that the Private Hire Driver’s Licence be revoked. (7) Application 7 The Sub Committee was asked to consider an application for the grant of a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License given that the applicant had a relevant conviction contrary to the guidance. The applicant did not attend. RESOLVED – that the application for a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence be refused. (8) Application 8 The Sub Committee was asked to consider an application for the grant of a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License given that the applicant had motoring convictions and previous criminal convictions contrary to the guidance. The applicant did not attend. RESOLVED – that the application for a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence be refused. (8) Application 8 The Sub Committee was asked to consider an application for the grant of a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License given that the applicant had a motoring conviction contrary to the guidance. Addressing the Sub Committee, the applicant stated that he had received six penalty points for not disclosing the identity of a driver. Members were advised that the applicant had moved from Sheffield to Cardiff. He had updated the address details on his drivers licence. He was caught speeding in Newport but the letter had been sent to Sheffield and he was unaware. RESOLVED – that the application for a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence be granted. (9) Application 9 The Sub Committee was asked to consider an application for the grant of a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License given that the applicant had a motoring conviction contrary to the guidance. The applicant advised Members of the circumstances relating to a conviction for using a mobile phone whilst driving. The applicant stated that his phone was sitting in a cradle on his dashboard when he hit a pothole. The phone fell between his feet and he reached down to get it. This was witnessed by a police officer. The driver accepted that he should have pulled over first in order to retrieve his phone. RESOLVED – that the application for a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence be granted.
Penderfyniad: Cytunodd y Pwyllgor y bydd y Cadeirydd yn ysgrifennu at Aelod y Cabinet ar ei ran, gyda sylwadau ac argymhellion y Pwyllgor. Cafodd y cyhoedd eu gwahardd o ran o'r drafodaeth am ei bod yn cynnwys gwybodaeth eithriedig, sef gwybodaeth y mae'r gyfraith yn caniatáu i gyngor ei chadw'n breifat. Nid yw'r cofnod yn nodi penderfyniad ar y cynllun ei hun, sydd yn nwylo'r Cabinet.
RESOLVED: The Committee AGREED to: Note the information set out in the report.
RESOLVED: The Committee AGREED to: · Note views on the Draft Outline Member Induction Programme 2027 (Appendix A) and reflect these in an updated version of the programme. · Approve the proposed development of the Induction programme · An updated version of the induction programme to be provided at its next meeting
RESOLVED: The Committee AGREED to: · Note the information set out in the report. · Approve the promotion future Democratic Engagement activities to all Elected Members. Encourage all Elected Members to participate in these activities and promote engagement opportunities and social media channels within their communities.
RESOLVED: The Committee AGREED to: · Note the contents of the report and its Appendices. · Approve the PPA Scrutiny Action Plan and the progress monitoring arrangements.
RESOLVED: The Committee AGREED to: · Note the proposed Work Programme appended as Appendix A to this report · Approve its Work Programme.
RESOLVED – T H A T the content of the report, including the matters discussed at the Monitoring Officer meeting with Town and Community Council Clerks held on 5th March 2026 be noted. Reason for decision Having regard to the contents of the report to ensure the Committee was informed of recent engagement with Town and Community Councils, including any emerging issues, themes, and guidance provided in relation to the Code of Conduct, in support of its oversight role.
RESOLVED – T H A T the minutes of the meeting held on 26th March 2026 be approved as a correct record. Mr. Watkins raised a query in relation to previous minute section 783, specifically parts three and four of the resolution, and sought an update on any progress made. The Monitoring Officer advised that the proposed changes to Section 19 of the Council’s Constitution arising from the previous meeting had been shared with political group leaders and that feedback was currently awaited. Following this clarification, Mr. Watkins confirmed he was satisfied, and the minutes were approved as a true record.
RESOLVED – T H A T the dispensations as set out in the schedule below be granted up to the date of the next Local Government Elections: Member Requesting Paragraph(s) of the Decision Dispensation Standards Committee (Grant of Dispensations) (Wales) Regulations 2001 Under Which Dispensation is Granted and as applied for C.E.A. Champion (d) To speak and vote on matters relating to the Vale of Glamorgan Council Replacement Local Development Plan (RLDP) at both Vale of Glamorgan Council and Cowbridge Town Council meetings. In respect of any matter specifically relating to the parcel of land subject to planning application 2022/00958/FUL, in which the applicant had a personal and prejudicial interest due to a family financial interest, the dispensation was restricted as follows: Councillor Champion may speak only on such item; Councillor Champion must not vote on the matter. H.M. Payne (d) To speak, vote and remain in meetings where matters relating to the Vale of Glamorgan Council’s Telecare Service are discussed at both Vale of Glamorgan Council and Barry Town Council meetings. Reason for decision Having regard to the applications submitted and discussions held at the meeting.
RESOLVED – T H A T the decisions of the Public Services Ombudsman for Wales and the Adjudication Panel for Wales, as appended to the report, be noted. Reason for decision Having regard to the contents of the report to support the Committee in its role of promoting and maintaining high standards of conduct by enabling consideration of recent findings and decisions.
RESOLVED – T H A T under Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the press and public be excluded from the meeting for the following item of business on the grounds that it involves the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Part 4 of Schedule 12A (as amended) of the Act, the relevant paragraphs of the Schedule being referred to in brackets after the minute heading.
RESOLVED – (1) T H A T the Part I content of the report and the correspondence received from the Public Services Ombudsman for Wales be noted. (2) T H A T the Part II version of the report be considered in private session. Reasons for decisions (1) Having regard to the contents of the report to ensure the Committee was informed of relevant correspondence and could fulfil its role in overseeing standards of conduct and the ethical framework within the Council. (2) To ensure that confidential or sensitive information was handled appropriately in accordance with statutory requirements and the Council’s procedures.
RESOLVED – T H A T the Part II content of the report and verbal update provided by the Monitoring Officer be noted. Reason for decision Having regard to the contents of the report to ensure the Committee was informed of relevant correspondence and could fulfil its role in overseeing standards of conduct and the ethical framework within the Council.
Penderfyniad: Penderfynodd y pwyllgor ar y ceisiadau yn unol ag argymhellion adroddiadau'r Cyfarwyddwr Cynllunio, Trafnidiaeth a'r Amgylchedd. Rhoddodd ganiatâd i 26/00507/FUL (digwyddiadau byw dros dro ar ran o Gaeau Blackweir, Cathays), 25/02030/FUL (pont i gerddwyr a beicwyr yn Central Quay), 25/01468/FUL (pont i gerddwyr a beicwyr yn y Marl a Pharc Hamadryad) a 26/00360/HSE (estyniadau yn 23 Charlotte Square, Rhiwbina). Rhoddodd ganiatâd i 25/02351/FUL (adeilad cyd-fyw ar dir rhwng Stryd Custom House, Stryd Bute a Stryd Hope, Cathays) yn amodol ar gytundeb Adran 106. Cytundeb cyfreithiol yw hwn sy'n nodi'r hyn y mae'n rhaid i'r datblygwr ei ddarparu neu dalu amdano.
Penderfyniad: Nododd y pwyllgor y ceisiadau a benderfynwyd o dan bwerau dirprwyedig rhwng 8 a 27 Mai.
RESOLVED – That the Sub Committee, having considered the application in accordance with the Licensing Act 2003, the statutory guidance issued under section 182 of the Act, and the council’s Statement of Licensing Policy, REFUSED the application for the grant of a Personal Licence. The Sub Committee noted the applicant’s reasons for applying, namely that he and his wife had been offered an opportunity and that obtaining the licence would enable him to return to employment and give back to the community. This was taken into account as part of their overall consideration. However, Members attached significant weight to the fact that he did not declare his conviction on the application form. This non-disclosure meant that his application did not present a full and accurate account of his background. Members considered his explanation for this omission, which was that it was an error on his part and that he had relied on advice from the licensing office. Members also considered the nature and circumstances of the conviction, which arose from an offence of failing to provide a specimen at the roadside. The applicant had explained that this occurred after a long day, that he had panicked when approached by the police, and that he suffered from breathing difficulties following Covid-19. He further acknowledged that this was a significant mistake in his life. Members attached significant weight to the seriousness and recency of the conviction, which was recorded in November 2024. They did not find that the explanation provided for either the offence itself or the failure to declare the conviction was sufficient to allay their concerns regarding the applicant’s reliability, judgment, and ability to uphold the responsibilities associated with holding a Personal Licence. Having weighed all of the evidence before them, the Sub Committee was satisfied that it was appropriate and proportionate to refuse the application for the promotion of the crime prevention objective.
Penderfyniad: Cymeradwyodd y Cabinet y penodiadau i bwyllgorau ar y cyd ar gyfer 2026/27 fel y'u nodir yn Atodiad A yr adroddiad. Dirprwyodd awdurdod i'r Prif Weithredwr, ar ôl ymgynghori â'r Arweinydd (ac arweinwyr y grwpiau gwleidyddol perthnasol yn achos Pwyllgor Cyd Archifau Morgannwg), i newid penodiadau'r Cabinet os bydd angen yn ystod y flwyddyn. Mae awdurdod dirprwyedig yn golygu y gall swyddogion weithredu heb benderfyniad newydd gan y Cabinet. Bydd y penodiadau y cytunwyd arnynt yn cael eu hadrodd i'r Cyngor er gwybodaeth ar 25 Mehefin 2026.
Penderfyniad: Cytunodd y Cabinet ar strategaeth arfaethedig pum mlynedd y Gwasanaeth Ieuenctid ar gyfer Caerdydd. Cymeradwyodd hefyd y weledigaeth, yr egwyddorion a'r model gweithredu integredig yn seiliedig ar ardaloedd lleol a gynigiwyd, sy'n darparu gwasanaethau ieuenctid drwy ardaloedd lleol.
Penderfyniad: Dirprwyodd y Cabinet awdurdod i'r Cyfarwyddwr Addysg a Dysgu Gydol Oes, mewn ymgynghoriad â'r Aelod Cabinet dros Addysg, i gyhoeddi'r cynigion o dan adran 48 o Ddeddf Safonau ac Trefniadaeth Ysgolion (Cymru) 2013. Dyma'r cam hysbysiad ffurfiol, pan ellir gwneud gwrthwynebiadau. Bydd adroddiad pellach yn dod i'r Cabinet ar unrhyw wrthwynebiadau, yr ymateb iddynt ac argymhellion ynghylch a ddylid bwrw ymlaen. Dirprwyodd y Cabinet awdurdod hefyd i'r Cyfarwyddwr, mewn ymgynghoriad â'r Aelodau Cabinet dros Addysg ac dros Gyllid, Moderneiddio a Pherfformiad, y Cyfarwyddwr Llywodraethu a Gwasanaethau Cyfreithiol a'r Swyddog S.151 (y swyddog sy'n gyfrifol am gyllid y Cyngor), i benodi gwasanaethau amlddisgyblaethol i ddatblygu dyluniadau ar gyfer camau diweddarach posibl o ehangu darpariaeth ADY.
Penderfyniad: Nododd y Cabinet ganlyniad yr ymarfer ymgynghori ac ymgysylltu a chymeradwyodd y Strategaeth Adfywio 2025-2030.
Penderfyniad: Nododd y Cabinet gynnydd ar y Parth Buddsoddi. Dirprwyodd awdurdod i'r Cyfarwyddwr Datblygu a Thwf, ar ôl ymgynghori â'r Aelod Cabinet dros Fuddsoddi, Cyflogaeth a Thwf Cynhwysol, y Swyddog Adran 151 a'r Swyddog Monitro, i gwblhau a llofnodi Memorandwm Cyd-ddealltwriaeth ar Ardrethi Annomestig (ardrethi busnes) a gedwir. Cymeradwyodd yr ymateb i ymchwiliad Ymyriadau Economaidd Seiliedig ar Le y Pwyllgor Craffu Economi a Diwylliant. Dirprwyodd awdurdod hefyd i'r Prif Weithredwr gwblhau trefniadau cyfranogiad y Cyngor ar Fwrdd Cynghori'r Parth Buddsoddi.
RESOLVED – T H A T the minutes of the meeting held on 2nd February 2026 be approved as a correct record.
RESOLVED – (1) T H A T the recruitment and selection arrangements for the post of Head of Regeneration and Strategic Project Delivery be approved. (2) T H A T the position of Head of Regeneration and Strategic Delivery be advertised based on a two-year interim appointment. (3) T H A T delegated authority be granted to the Chief Executive, in consultation with the relevant Cabinet Member, Director of Place, and Head of Human Resources and Operational Development, to progress advertising, assessment, longlisting and shortlisting (4) T H A T associated recruitment, assessment and process costs be met from existing approved budgets. Reasons for decisions (1) To enable the Council to progress the appointment in accordance with constitutional requirements and secure strategic leadership capacity. (2) To enable the Council to trial and evaluate the effectiveness of a new position within the structure. (3) To enable timely progression of the recruitment process and minimise delay in securing critical leadership capacity. (4) To ensure appropriate governance, affordability and value for money.