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 resolution of the Planning Committee be endorsed, subject to the conditions outlined below: • Time period for implementation • Compliance with approved plans / documents • Phasing Plan • Contamination mitigation • Construction Traffic Management Plan • Construction Environmental Management Plan • Landscape Ecological Management Plan • Use for holiday accommodation only • No development on existing car park until the “proposed public car park” forming part of consent 11/0585/PA is constructed and available for public use • Tree Protection Methodology / Plan • Full detail of retaining structures • Appearance of caravans & pods • Habitat Management Plan (including monitoring) • Materials (Buildings) • Footpath upgrade details • Section/Level Details • Landscaping Details • Drainage Details • Former Coal Mining Safeguarding • Lighting Details • Flood resilient measures • Resource Efficiency/Renewable Energy Strategy [Councillor Joshua Beynon left the meeting and Councillor Chris Williams re-joined the meeting at this juncture.]
RESOLVED That the Director for Education be authorised to undertake statutory consultation on establishing a Learning Resource Centre for pupils with Complex Needs and Autistic Spectrum Condition at Neyland Community School.
RESOLVED That the Director for Education be authorised to undertake statutory consultation on establishing a Learning Resource Centre for pupils with Complex Needs and Autistic Spectrum Condition at Ysgol Penrhyn Dewi.
RESOLVED That the petition and the local Residents’ concerns, be noted; and that members of the public be encouraged to continue making representations at Planning meetings and representations into the Local Development Plan (LDP) 2 process.
RESOLVED That the draft Municipal Calendar for the period May to December 2024 be approved, subject to the Services Overview and Scrutiny Committee and the Social Care Overview and Scrutiny Committees in September / October 2024 being transposed.
Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Aaron Carey, Peter Morgan, Thomas Tudor, Michael Williams and Simon Wright.
At the commencement of the meeting, the Presiding Member invited the meeting to observe a Minute’s Silence as it was coming up to Remembrance Weekend.
The following declarations of interest were made: Item 3 – Development Management Policy Issue: Planning Application 20/0462/PA Councillor Alistair Cameron declared a personal interest by virtue of attending meetings of the Stepaside and Pleasant Valley Residents’ Group. Councillor Chris Williams declared a personal and prejudicial interest by virtue of being a Director of three major events in Saundersfoot as well as having dealings with the owner of Heritage Park. Councillor Alec Cormack declared a personal interest by virtue of being the Local Member. Item 4 – Additional Learning Needs Provision at Neyland Community School Councillor Simon Hancock declared a personal interest by virtue of being a Local Authority appointed Governor for Neyland Community School, as well as by virtue of being a member of the Management Committee at Neyland PLC. Councillor Tessa Hodgson declared a personal interest by virtue of being a member of the Management Committee at Neyland PLC. Councillor Terry Davies declared a personal interest by virtue of his daughter teaching at Neyland Community School. Councillor Aled Thomas declared a personal interest by virtue of being the Chair of Governors for Johnston Community Primary School. Item 5 – Additional Learning Needs Provision at Ysgol Penrhyn Dewi Councillor Bethan Price declared a personal interest by virtue of being a Governor for Ysgol Penrhyn Dewi and by virtue of having a family member attending the school. Councillor Aled Thomas declared a personal interest by virtue of being the Chair of Governors for Johnston Community Primary School. Item 6 – Petition calling for No More Caravan sites in Pleasant Valley and other areas already at capacity Councillor Alec Cormack declared a personal interest by virtue of being the Local Member. Councillor Phil Kidney sought clarification as to why the matter of the Presiding Member, previously discussed at Council in October, was not an item on the Agenda for the meeting. In response, the Chief Executive explained the time challenges around writing and processing reports prior to Council meetings, as well as limited resources, which resulted in the Presiding Member report not meeting the timeline for the publication of the Extraordinary Council Agenda. He highlighted that as it was not an urgent matter, the decision was taken to defer to the December meeting of Council.
Y penderfyniad fel y'i cofnodwyd
RESOLVED That the resolution of the Planning Committee be endorsed, subject to the conditions outlined below: • Time period for implementation • Compliance with approved plans / documents • Phasing Plan • Contamination mitigation • Construction Traffic Management Plan • Construction Environmental Management Plan • Landscape Ecological Management Plan • Use for holiday accommodation only • No development on existing car park until the “proposed public car park” forming part of consent 11/0585/PA is constructed and available for public use • Tree Protection Methodology / Plan • Full detail of retaining structures • Appearance of caravans & pods • Habitat Management Plan (including monitoring) • Materials (Buildings) • Footpath upgrade details • Section/Level Details • Landscaping Details • Drainage Details • Former Coal Mining Safeguarding • Lighting Details • Flood resilient measures • Resource Efficiency/Renewable Energy Strategy [Councillor Joshua Beynon left the meeting and Councillor Chris Williams re-joined the meeting at this juncture.]
[Having previously declared a personal and prejudicial interest in this item of business, Councillor Chris Williams withdrew from the meeting]. Council considered a report by the Head of Planning which outlined Planning Application 20/0462/PA, Heritage Park, Pleasant Valley, Narberth. Councillor Jacob Williams, Chair of the Planning Committee, introduced the report and gave background information on the matter. He highlighted that a site visit had taken place ahead of the September Planning Committee meeting, and at the October meeting of the Committee, Members resolved that they were minded to support the application, despite the application being against Policy and on the basis that the economic benefits outweighed the Policy conflict. Councillor Jacob Williams Moved Recommendation B, as outlined in the report; Seconded by Councillor Brian Hall. The Presiding Member took the opportunity to thank the Head of Planning for her work during her time at the Council, and wished her the best for the future. Councillor Alistair Cameron stated that he was against the endorsement of the Planning Committee’s Recommendation and highlighted that the proposal was located outside of the settlement boundary, and would therefore result in detrimental impacts in the County, such as the creation of an unsustainable development in an unsustainable location, or the provision of holiday accommodation leading to negative impacts on existing sites, as well as negative impacts on the cohesion of communities and local businesses. He suggested that approval of the application would seriously undermine the development plan policies and that this could set a precedent for future applications. Councillor Brian Hall stated his support for the site. Councillor Mark Carter stated that the site was impressive and highlighted that the chalets could be bought, therefore tourists may be less inclined to compete with local people for lower value properties in the area. He stated that the application would put money back into the local economy and was therefore in support of the application. Councillor Jon Harvey, Cabinet Member with responsibility for Planning and Housing Delivery, highlighted that the application was contrary to the Local Development Plan (LDP), as mentioned by Planning Officers at the Planning Committee meetings. He explained that, if approved, a precedent could be set for other applications that were outside of settlement boundary limits, and believed that the matter should be determined in accordance with the Policy. The Leader stated that Council had previously voted for LDP 1, and Officers therefore worked towards that plan. He highlighted that if Officers were advising against the application, it should therefore not be approved, and stated that he would not support the application. Councillor John Cole agreed with the Leader and believed that the economic benefits of the site did not outweigh the relevant Policy, and would therefore not support the application. Councillor Reg Owens stated the need to provide for people who wished to visit Pembrokeshire. He suggested that planning guidelines should not necessarily be relied upon and would therefore support the approval of the application. Councillor Mike Stoddart believed that the development would lead to a reduction in local properties being used as holiday accommodation. He then sought clarification in regards to whether the word ‘precedent’, as previously mentioned by Councillor Harvey, could be applied to planning applications. In response, the Head of Planning stated that Councillor Harvey was referring to developers potentially submitting applications in locations outside settlement boundaries, and therefore expecting the Planning Committee to approve such applications in the same way as the outlined application. Councillor Stoddart wished to clarify further that the precedent, in this case, may be persuasive, but did not determine matters in the same way it would in Court. The Presiding Member confirmed that to be correct. Councillor Michael John stated his support for the application and that it could be positive for the area. Councillor Aled Thomas suggested that a precedent had already been set due to the approval of a previous application that went against the Policy. He stated that the application would put money into the local economy, create jobs and potentially alleviate the issues of homelessness, and was therefore in support of the application. Councillor Viv Stoddart stated that she was reluctant to go against Policy, but believed that the Policy on static caravans should be more flexible and was therefore in support of the application. Councillor Paul Miller sought clarification in regards to the amount of money that could be brought into the County, as well as how the application could help with the homeless issue in the area. In response, the Head of Planning stated that in terms of the economic benefits, the applicant had indicated that it was estimated that £3 million would be brought into the County from the developments, however, it did not specify detail of how this would be apportioned into different areas. In terms of providing housing, it was stated that the proposed caravans would have a condition that would limit their use so that they could not be occupied for 52 weeks a year by the same person, therefore they could not be used as alternative housing. She highlighted that there was only specific detail outlined in regards to the number of jobs associated, which was said to be 44 additional direct jobs and 25 indirect jobs, with estimated expenditure said to be £2 million per annum, £930,000 of which would be associated with the proposed development. However, there was no detail in the application in terms of where the caravans would come from or where they would be manufactured. Councillor Michelle Bateman sought clarification in regards to the exceeded demand of static caravans and what the extent was of current access availability. She also wished for information regarding other similar applications that had been approved. In response, the Head of Planning clarified that a number of applications had been previously approved, contrary to Officer Recommendation. She explained that there was a background paper to LDP 1 which went into detail regarding caravan capacity and referred to an assessment that was undertaken to determine the caravan sites that were operating at the time and those that had planning permission at the time, which then resulted in the decision that the Policy would be that there would not be any further caravan sites outside of settlement boundaries or within particular areas. Councillor Jamie Adams agreed that the application would provide another option for people who may consider a second home in Pembrokeshire. He referenced that the LDP 1 was out of date and that if the existing policy was adhered to, it would restrict the visitor economy of Pembrokeshire. He believed it was important to facilitate private investment into the County and stated his support for the application. Councillor Alec Cormack believed that if the development was to proceed, other existing caravan sites would suffer detrimental impacts due to the oversupply. He agreed with the view of Officers and highlighted that the development would be the creation of an unsustainable development in an unsustainable location. Councillor Rhys Jordan highlighted that no objections from other businesses or caravan parks had been received against the application. He stated his support and believed it to be a positive opportunity for Pembrokeshire. The vote, undertaken by way of an electronic vote, was carried. The votes were recorded as follows: For the Motion: Councillors Jamie Adams, David Bryan, Mark Carter, John Davies, Pat Davies, Terry Davies, Alan Dennison, Andrew Edwards, Tim Evans, Jonathan Grimes, Nicola Gwynn, Brian Hall, Delme Harries, Tessa Hodgson, David Howlett, Mike James, Mike John, Rhys Jordan, Phil Kidney, Elwyn Morse, Huw Murphy, Reg Owens, Mel Phillips, Bethan Price, Shon Rees, Sam Skyrme-Blackhall, Mike Stoddart, Vivien Stoddart, Aled Thomas, Vanessa Thomas, Anji Tinley, Iwan Ward, Michele Wiggins, Tony Wilcox, Jacob Williams, Steve Yelland and Danny Young [37] Against the Motion: Councillors Michelle Bateman, Joshua Beynon, Maureen Bowen, Alistair Cameron, Di Clements, John Cole, Alec Cormack, Simon Hancock, Jon Harvey, Paul Miller, Neil Prior, Jordan Ryan, David Simpson, Rhys Sinnett, Thomas Tudor, Guy Woodham [16] Abstentions: Councillors Steve Alderman and Marc Tierney [2] RESOLVED That the resolution of the Planning Committee be endorsed, subject to the conditions outlined below: • Time period for implementation • Compliance with approved plans / documents • Phasing Plan • Contamination mitigation • Construction Traffic Management Plan • Construction Environmental Management Plan • Landscape Ecological Management Plan • Use for holiday accommodation only • No development on existing car park until the “proposed public car park” forming part of consent 11/0585/PA is constructed and available for public use • Tree Protection Methodology / Plan • Full detail of retaining structures • Appearance of caravans & pods • Habitat Management Plan (including monitoring) • Materials (Buildings) • Footpath upgrade details • Section/Level Details • Landscaping Details • Drainage Details • Former Coal Mining Safeguarding • Lighting Details • Flood resilient measures • Resource Efficiency/Renewable Energy Strategy [Councillor Joshua Beynon left the meeting and Councillor Chris Williams re-joined the meeting at this juncture.]
Y penderfyniad fel y'i cofnodwyd
RESOLVED That the Director for Education be authorised to undertake statutory consultation on establishing a Learning Resource Centre for pupils with Complex Needs and Autistic Spectrum Condition at Neyland Community School.
[Councillor Paul Miller declared a personal interest by virtue of being an LEA appointed Governor for Neyland Community School.] Council considered a report by the Director of Education which outlined the need to undertake statutory consultation on a proposal to establish a Learning Resource Centre (LRC) for pupils with Autistic Spectrum Condition (ASC) and Complex Learning Needs at Neyland Community School. Councillor Guy Woodham, Cabinet Member with responsibility for Education and Welsh Language, introduced the report and referred to the context of the matter, main considerations and the available options, as outlined in the report. He concluded that the introduction or removal of LRC based Special Educational Needs provision at a mainstream school, constituted a Regulated Alteration within the context of the School Standards and Organisation (Wales) Act 2013 and the School Organisation Code. He stated that subject to approval by Council, the necessary statutory process would need to be followed and highlighted that the proposed process was outlined in the report, with the potential implementation of the proposal to be in January 2025. Councillor Guy Woodham Moved the Recommendation; Seconded by Councillor Simon Hancock. Councillor Alan Dennison sought clarification in regards to the transport provision to the LRC. In response, Councillor Woodham stated that the consultation process would produce such information, but highlighted that the cost of transport was already determined by the address of the learner. The Director of Education added that transport for learners to LRC provisions was funded due to their additional learning needs. The Presiding Member was pleased to see that the excellence of the School was recognised within the report. Councillor Paul Miller stated his support and believed the matter to be a positive step for the community. He was also confident in the School’s leadership team to work with the Authority on the establishment of the Centre, and to manage it in the future. Councillor Michael John welcomed the investment into the School, but sought clarification as to whether this provision could potentially force parents to move, in order for their children to be able to attend such schools. In response, Councillor Woodham stated that there was huge demand for places in the LRC and believed that parents would welcome such provision as it provided additional support. He understood, however, how a parent could feel conflicted between mainstream and LRC schools, but stated that the LRC was placed in a school where there was the opportunity for pupils to be integrated into mainstream settings. The Director of Education added that in terms of LRC provision, the need for centralised specialist education provision was mitigated. He explained that children remained in their locality wherever possible, and that children who were eligible for an LRC place would go through a panel assessment. He highlighted that no current pupils would be forced to change their provision as a result of setting up a new one. Councillor Mike James sought clarification as to whether there would be help with ADHD as part of this new provision, especially in north Pembrokeshire. Councillor Woodham responded and stated that ADHD was part of special educational needs and complex needs, and would therefore be catered for within the new provision. The Director for Education explained that ADHD was usually managed within mainstream settings, but highlighted that it was sometimes managed alongside other complex issues, and that the LRC would support such pupils and gradually reintegrate them back into mainstream settings. Councillor Aled Thomas thanked the Director for the good work and stated his support for the new provision. He then sought clarification in regards to capacity within the LRC provisions, as well as the cost per pupil. In response, the Director of Education stated that the financing of places for LRC’s was determined using a global figure, not on a per pupil basis, but instead on the number of places allocated. He then explained that funds would be allocated to and managed by the relevant schools. He stated that pupils with more complex needs that required additional funding, would be funded by the Authority. In relation to capacity issues, the Director highlighted that the new outlined provision would, in time, free up places in LRC’s, such as the LRC in Johnston. He stated that the provision would allow for the needs across the locality to be managed, and would maintain learners in their local areas. The vote, undertaken by way of an electronic vote, was carried. The votes were recorded as follows: For the Motion: Councillors Jamie Adams, Steve Alderman, Michelle Bateman, Maureen Bowen, David Bryan, Alistair Cameron, Mark Carter, Di Clements, John Cole, Alec Cormack, John Davies, Pat Davies, Terry Davies, Alan Dennison, Andrew Edwards, Tim Evans, Jonathan Grimes, Nicola Gwynn, Brian Hall, Simon Hancock, Delme Harries, Jon Harvey, Tessa Hodgson, David Howlett, Mike James, Mike John, Rhys Jordan, Phil Kidney, Paul Miller, Elwyn Morse, Huw Murphy, Reg Owens, Mel Phillips, Bethan Price, Neil Prior, Shon Rees, Jordan Ryan, David Simpson, Rhys Sinnett, Sam Skyrme-Blackhall, Mike Stoddart, Vivien Stoddart, Aled Thomas, Vanessa Thomas, Marc Tierney, Anji Tinley, Thomas Tudor, Iwan Ward, Michele Wiggins, Tony Wilcox, Chris Williams, Jacob Williams, Guy Woodham, Steve Yelland and Danny Young [55] There were no votes against or abstentions. RESOLVED That the Director for Education be authorised to undertake statutory consultation on establishing a Learning Resource Centre for pupils with Complex Needs and Autistic Spectrum Condition at Neyland Community School.
Y penderfyniad fel y'i cofnodwyd
RESOLVED That the Director for Education be authorised to undertake statutory consultation on establishing a Learning Resource Centre for pupils with Complex Needs and Autistic Spectrum Condition at Ysgol Penrhyn Dewi.
Council considered a report by the Director of Education which outlined the need to undertake statutory consultation on a proposal to establish a Learning Resource Centre (LRC) for pupils with Autistic Spectrum Condition (ASC) and Complex Learning Needs at Ysgol Penrhyn Dewi. Councillor Guy Woodham, Cabinet Member with responsibility for Education and Welsh Language, introduced the report and referred to the context of the matter, main considerations and the available options, as outlined in the report. He concluded that the introduction or removal of LRC based Special Educational Needs provision at a mainstream school, constituted a Regulated Alteration within the context of the School Standards and Organisation (Wales) Act 2013 and the School Organisation Code. He stated that subject to approval by Council, the necessary statutory process would need to be followed and highlighted that the proposed process was outlined in the report, with the potential implementation of the proposal to be in January 2025. Councillor Guy Woodham Moved the Recommendation; Seconded by Councillor Alan Dennison. Councillor Alan Dennison sought assurance that schools would not be charged for pupils being referred to an LRC. In response, the Director of Education stated that additional costs of providing LRC’s at schools were borne by the Authority through education budgets, as they were education provisions and therefore Authority maintained provisions. Councillor Reg Owens sought assurance thateducating children was the main priority, rather than the cost of the service. In response, Councillor Woodham assured Members that the new LRC’s were education driven and not financially driven. The vote, undertaken by way of an electronic vote, was carried. The votes were recorded as follows: For the Motion: Councillors Jamie Adams, Steve Alderman, Michelle Bateman, Maureen Bowen, David Bryan, Alistair Cameron, Mark Carter, Di Clements, John Cole, Alec Cormack, John Davies, Pat Davies, Terry Davies, Alan Dennison, Andrew Edwards, Tim Evans, Jonathan Grimes, Brian Hall, Simon Hancock, Delme Harries, Jon Harvey, Tessa Hodgson, David Howlett, Mike James, Mike John, Rhys Jordan, Phil Kidney, Paul Miller, Elwyn Morse, Huw Murphy, Reg Owens, Mel Phillips, Bethan Price, Neil Prior, Shon Rees, Jordan Ryan, David Simpson, Rhys Sinnett, Sam Skyrme-Blackhall, Mike Stoddart, Vivien Stoddart, Aled Thomas, Vanessa Thomas, Marc Tierney, Anji Tinley, Thomas Tudor, Iwan Ward, Michele Wiggins, Tony Wilcox, Chris Williams, Jacob Williams, Guy Woodham, Steve Yelland and Danny Young [54] There were no votes against or abstentions RESOLVED That the Director for Education be authorised to undertake statutory consultation on establishing a Learning Resource Centre for pupils with Complex Needs and Autistic Spectrum Condition at Ysgol Penrhyn Dewi.
Y penderfyniad fel y'i cofnodwyd
RESOLVED That the petition and the local Residents’ concerns, be noted; and that members of the public be encouraged to continue making representations at Planning meetings and representations into the Local Development Plan (LDP) 2 process.
Council considered a petition which had met the threshold for debate at Council. The petition was as follows: We call on Pembrokeshire County Council to stop all new caravan sites in areas of the county that are already at capacity, including Pleasant Valley, Summerhill and surrounding areas close to the coast and National Park, and around Narberth as well as New Hedges and the area around Broadmoor and Penally. The originator of the petition, Councillor Alec Cormack, spoke in support of his petition and gave some background on the matter. He highlighted that local residents could not understand why the Local Development Plan (LDP) was not being adhered to in relation to certain planning applications, particularly in regards to capacity of the area. Councillor Cormack then thanked the 1,251 residents who signed the petition, raising the issue of caravan capacity in the six highlighted areas of south Pembrokeshire. He also thanked the Democratic Services Team for their work in verifying the signatures. He believed that the most efficient way of dealing with the petition would be to refer it to an appropriate committee of Council for further discussion. Councillor Alec Cormack Moved that the matter be referred to Cabinet; Seconded by Councillor Alistair Cameron. Councillor Alistair Cameron believed that rural areas should not be overdeveloped specifically for tourism. He also highlighted the concerns of local residents and stated that the balance needed to be right. Councillor Mike Stoddart believed the petition to be an attempt to amend the LDP without going through the appropriate processes. He sought advice on whether the petition was within Constitutional arrangements. In response, the Head of Planning stated that the petition sought to change the land use Policy, but highlighted that the appropriate way of amending this would be through the LDP review, which would be going to Council in 2024. The Head of Law and Governance stated that no substantive decision could be made as a result of the discussion, as the outlined petition could only trigger a debate. She highlighted that it could be decided to either refer the matter to Cabinet or conclude the matter after the debate. Councillor Stoddart believed that Councillor Cormack should raise such issues during the LDP review, rather than the matter being referred to Cabinet. Councillor Jordan Ryan believed that Councillor Cormack was only attempting to influence the new LDP that was currently being developed. Councillor Alan Dennison sought clarification in regards to the areas in which Councillor Cormack was referring to in his petition. He also highlighted that the amount of people that had signed the petition was a small percentage of the population in Pembrokeshire. In response, Councillor Cormack clarified that the petition referred to six areas which were said to be already at capacity, as listed in a document that was produced as part of the evidence base for LDP 2. Councillor Cormack raised concern that once LDP 2 came into force, it would remove the Policy that restricted developments outside of settlement boundaries, and in that period of time, highlighted that there would no supplementary planning guidance (SPG) to restrict areas already at capacity in regards to caravans. He hoped that if the matter was taken forward, it could then be discussed in more detail. The Head of Planning shared Councillor Cormack’s concerns and stated that if the LDP 2 was adopted without SPG, there would be a weakness within the Policy. She highlighted, however, that she had instructed the Planning team to ensure that the SPG goes through consultation and was adopted at the same time as LDP 2, to ensure that there was no period of time with that element of risk. Councillor Aled Thomas sought clarification in regards to whether a Member was eligible to vote if they had signed the petition. He also wished to clarify whether the wording of the petition also included sites that could reach capacity in the future. In response, the Head of Law and Governance stated it would generally be advised that Members do not sign a petition where they would be involved in making a decision, however, she stated that it was very unlikely that a Court would consider it as pre-determination on its own. Councillor Thomas asked whether Council had a right to know who may have signed the petition. In response, the Presiding Member stated that there was no automatic right to know who signed the petition. In response to Councillor Thomas’ second point, the Head of Planning believed that Councillor Cormack was referring to landscape capacity, rather than capacity in terms of the amount of caravans. Councillor Cormack wished to clarify that he had signed the petition. Councillor Jacob Williams suggested that the petition signatories, Councillor Cormack and any members of the public who had concerns about caravan sites, to make representations as part of the new LDP process. He believed it would not serve any interest in being referred to Cabinet and that he would not support the referral. Councillor Williams believed that the petition was not within the Council’s power to adopt, and that it should not have been accepted as a valid petition. The Presiding Member stated that Council was not able to make a decision on the matter regardless. In response to the validity of the petition, the Head of Law and Governance explained that the current petition scheme, whereby if a petition received over 500 signatures, it would trigger a debate in Council, and highlighted that a petition could be on any matter, but may not necessarily be a matter within Council's competence generally. She referred to the advice given, and stated that this could either be dealt with during the LDP process early next year, or, as within the power of Council, to refer it to a relevant body, at which point it would be accompanied by a written report. Councillor Mike Stoddart raised a Point of Order that the petition was ultra vires, in regards to the power of the Council as a public body, and believed that it should not be discussed any further. In response, the Head of Law and Governance stated that if the Council was to make a substantive decision, then that would be considered ultra vires, but highlighted the fact that the petition simply triggering a debate was not ultra vires. She explained that there was a list of petitions that would not be acceptable, such as a petition relating to anything which the Council did not have responsibility for, which referred to the Council as a whole. She reiterated her advice that the matter should be dealt with as part of the LDP process next year, and highlighted that there was always the opportunity that SPG could be developed from a petition like this, which would then, in turn, be a Cabinet matter. She stated that it was a matter for Council to determine the way forward. The Head of Planning reiterated her view and explained that any changes to land use planning should go through the LDP process, and if SPG that was brought in, it would be attached to the relevant policy and would be reviewed alongside. Councillor Michael John wished for the matter to be voted on, and did not see the point in adding to the workload of Cabinet and Officers by referring the matter to Cabinet. He suggested that it would be wrong for Cabinet to create SPG in advance of LDP 2 being adopted. Councillor Aled Thomas then wished to propose the following Amendment: That Councillor Cormack’s petition is noted, and residents’ concerns have been heard by Members of the Chamber, and this Council encourages members of the public to continue making representations at Planning meetings and representations into the LDP 2 process. The Presiding Member stated that he was advised that the Amendment negated the outlined proposal, but suggested that if the substantive Motion fell, then the matter could be proposed. The vote to refer the petition to Cabinet, undertaken by way of an electronic vote, was lost. The votes were recorded as follows: For the Motion: Councillors Alistair Cameron, Alec Cormack, Jordan Ryan, Neil Prior, David Simpson, Rhys Sinnett and Tony Wilcox [7] Against the Motion: Councillors Jamie Adams, Steve Alderman, Michelle Bateman, Maureen Bowen, David Bryan, Mark Carter, Di Clements, John Cole, John Davies, Pat Davies, Terry Davies, Alan Dennison, Andrew Edwards, Tim Evans, Jonathan Grimes, Nicola Gwynn, Brian Hall, Simon Hancock, Delme Harries, Jon Harvey, Tessa Hodgson, David Howlett, Mike James, Mike John, Rhys Jordan, Phil Kidney, Elwyn Morse, Huw Murphy, Reg Owens, Mel Phillips, Bethan Price, Shon Rees, Sam Skyrme-Blackhall, Vivien Stoddart, Mike Stoddart, Aled Thomas, Vanessa Thomas, Anji Tinley, Iwan Ward, Michele Wiggins, Chris Williams, Jacob Williams, Guy Woodham and Danny Young [44] Abstentions: Councillors Paul Miller and Marc Tierney [2] Councillor Aled Thomas then proposed the following Motion: That Councillor Cormack’s petition is noted, and residents’ concerns have been heard by Members of the Chamber, and this Council encourages members of the public to continue making representations at Planning meetings and representations into the LDP 2 process. The Motion was Seconded by Councillor Mark Carter. The vote for the Motion, undertaken by way of a show of hands, was carried. RESOLVED That the petition and the local Residents’ concerns, be noted; and that members of the public be encouraged to continue making representations at Planning meetings and representations into the Local Development Plan (LDP) 2 process.
Y penderfyniad fel y'i cofnodwyd
RESOLVED That the draft Municipal Calendar for the period May to December 2024 be approved, subject to the Services Overview and Scrutiny Committee and the Social Care Overview and Scrutiny Committees in September / October 2024 being transposed.
Council considered a report by the Head of Democratic Services which outlined the Calendar of meetings for the next 12 months. The Head of Democratic Services highlighted that the Social Care and Services Overview and Scrutiny Committees would be transposed in September 2024, therefore the Services Overview and Scrutiny Committee would be on 5 September 2024 and the Social Care Overview and Scrutiny Committee would be on the 3 October 2024. Councillor Simon Hancock Moved the Recommendation; Seconded by Councillor Rhys Jordan. The vote, undertaken by way of an electronic vote, was carried. The votes were recorded as follows: For the Motion: Councillors Jamie Adams, Steve Alderman, Michelle Bateman, Maureen Bowen, David Bryan, Alistair Cameron, Mark Carter, Di Clements, John Cole, Alec Cormack, John Davies, Pat Davies, Terry Davies, Alan Dennison, Andrew Edwards, Tim Evans, Jonathan Grimes, Nicola Gwynn, Brian Hall, Delme Harries, Jon Harvey, Tessa Hodgson, David Howlett, Mike James, Mike John, Rhys Jordan, Phil Kidney, Paul Miller, Elwyn Morse, Huw Murphy, Reg Owens, Mel Phillips, Bethan Price, Neil Prior, Shon Rees, Jordan Ryan, David Simpson, Rhys Sinnett, Sam Skyrme-Blackhall, Mike Stoddart, Vivien Stoddart, Aled Thomas, Vanessa Thomas, Marc Tierney, Anji Tinley, Iwan Ward, Michele Wiggins, Tony Wilcox, Chris Williams, Jacob Williams, Guy Woodham and Danny Young [52] There were no votes against or abstentions. RESOLVED That the draft Municipal Calendar for the period May to December 2024 be approved, subject to the Services Overview and Scrutiny Committee and the Social Care Overview and Scrutiny Committees in September / October 2024 being transposed.
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.
Yn rhestru cynghorwyr presennol y cyngor yn unig. Nid yw aelodau cyfetholedig, swyddogion a chyn-gynghorwyr yn cael eu dangos.