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 current working practices be continued to allow prompt and timely recovery of the Council Tax debt (Option 1).
RESOLVED That a service for alerts for the status of the B4318 road at Gumfreston be implemented.
RESOLVED That the Corporate Strategy 2025–2030 and new Well-being Objectives, including two additional headline priorities, be endorsed, prior to seeking Council approval in March.
RESOLVED That the secondary catchment areas of Haverfordwest High VC School and Milford Haven School remain unchanged, thereby maintaining the position that the Johnston, Tiers Cross and Neyland areas continue to be included as part of the Milford Haven School catchment area.
RESOLVED That a further report be provided to Cabinet outlining in more detail the forecasted expenditure associated with any Capital Project work to be undertaken at Ysgol Brynconin CP.
RESOLVED That the public be excluded from the meeting in accordance with Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 to consider Appendix B as it involved the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraph 14 of Part 4 of Schedule 12A to the Act; and that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information. The webcast was paused at this juncture. Having convened in private session in accordance with Paragraph 14 of Part 4 of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972, Cabinet considered the Exempt Appendix. The webcast was resumed at this juncture. The vote for the Recommendation as set out in the report, undertaken by way of a roll call, was carried. The votes were recorded as follows: For the Motion: Councillors Jon Harvey, Paul Miller, Michelle Bateman, Joshua Beynon, Tessa Hodgson, Neil Prior, Rhys Sinnett, Jacob Williams and Guy Woodham [9] There were no votes against or abstentions. RESOLVED That the supply of the energy framework provider known as “Laser” be agreed, in line with the recommendation set out by the Welsh Government Commercial Procurement Utilities group.
RESOLVED That entering into the Agency Agreement, as outlined in Appendix 1 to the report, be approved.
RESOLVED That Option B, as outlined in the report, be approved, subject to the following amendments: (1) Cabinet agrees with the recommendation from the Corporate Overview and Scrutiny Committee and expands the current Members Panel (for Open Call) to include a Member from the Liberal Democrat Group, with its remit extended to include consideration of ?future Anchor projects, submitting its recommendations to the Director of Resources and Deputy Leader for final approval in accordance with recommendation (3) below. and; (7) That the Corporate Overview and Scrutiny Committee be asked to undertake an evaluation of completed Anchor projects at the appropriate time in those projects.
RESOLVED (a) That the allocation of income generated from the Council Tax Premium for Second Homes for 2025-26 to 2028-29, be determined as follows and recommended to Council for approval: a. 88.75% to fund elements of the Council’s budget relating to affordable housing and enhancing the sustainability of local communities b. 11.25% to fund the Affordable Housing programme c. 0% to fund the Enhancing Pembrokeshire Grant Scheme (the equivalent of 3.75% Second Home Council Tax Premium previously used to fund Enhancing Pembrokeshire Schemes to be funded by the Shared Prosperity Fund for 2025-26) b) That the allocation of income generated from the Council Tax Premium for Long Term Empty Properties for 2025-26 to 2028-29, be determined as follows and recommended to Council for approval: a. 100% to fund elements of the Council’s budget relating to affordable housing and enhancing the sustainability of local communities c) That the level of Council Tax ‘Band D’ increase for 2025-26, be determined as follows and recommended to Council for approval: Option 1 £2.85 per week £148.81 per annum 9.85% d) That the level of Council Tax ‘Band D’ increase for 2026-27 to 2028-29, for inclusion in the Medium Term Financial Plan 2025-26 to 2028-29, be determined as follows and recommended to Council for approval: a. 7.5% each year e) That the Revised Draft County Council Budget for 2025-26, including service pressures, proposed budget savings, movement in earmarked reserves and the General Fund working balance, be endorsed and recommended to Council for approval. f) That the indicative Capital Programme for 2025-26 to 2028-29 and the Capital Strategy 2025-26 to 2028-29 be endorsed and recommended to Council for approval. g) That the prudential indicators for capital and revenue estimates for 2025-26 to 2028-29 be endorsed and recommended to Council for approval. h) That the Medium Term Financial Plan 2025-26 to 2028-29 be endorsed and recommended to Council for approval. i) That the Housing Revenue Account (HRA) estimates for 2025-26 be endorsed and recommended to Council for approval. j) That the Director of Resources, in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Corporate Finance & Efficiencies, be given authority to make amendments to the County Council Budget report for 2025-26, prior to it being considered by Council on 20 February 2025. k) That any increase in funding received in the final settlement will be used first to provide additional funding to the Individual Schools Budget, up to a maximum of £889,865 (1% of that budget) and thereafter to reduce the additional £1.3m efficiency savings target, with anything above this amount being reflected in the vacancy management line to ensure the budget remains in balance. l) That the report be adopted as the Cabinet’s proposals for the County Council Budget for 2025-26, to be recommended to Council for approval, subject to the amendments at (j) above.
RESOLVED (a) That the Treasury Management Strategy 2025-26 to 2028-29, including the Policy on Borrowing in Advance of Need, the Minimum Revenue Provision Policy, the Treasury Limits, the Prudential Indicators and Borrowing Requirements, be endorsed and recommended to Council for approval. (b) That the Annual Investment Strategy for 2025-26 to 2028-29 be endorsed and recommended to Council for approval. (c) That the Director of Resources, in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Corporate Finance and Efficiencies, be given authority to make amendments to the Treasury Management Strategy 2025-26 to 2028-29 and the Annual Investment Strategy for 2025-26 to 2028-29, prior to it being considered by Council on 20 February 2025.
RESOLVED That the performance information in the Corporate Scorecard (data at December 2024) and Social Care Scorecard (data at November / December 2024), be noted.
RESOLVED (a) That the Budget Monitoring Report (revenue, revenue rolling budget, capital, reserves, budget savings, revenue collections, treasury management and 2025-26 to 2028-29 MTFP update) for Quarter 3 2024-25, be approved. (b) That it be noted that if the projected overspend of £2.1m is not recovered during the financial year it will be funded from reserves.
RESOLVED That the Council’s Corporate Risk Register at the end of Quarter 3 of the 2024-25 financial year, be noted.
RESOLVED (a) That the content of the report, in the context of the overall budget position, be noted. (b) That the pitch fee rents on Gypsy Traveller sites be increased by CPI of 2.6% from 7th April 2025. (c) That the service charges be increased for Gypsy Traveller sites where water and sewerage are non-metered by 10% per week from 7th April 2025. (d) That the Director of Resources, in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Housing, be given authority to introduce a separate pitch fee rent for new pitches or where improvements have been undertaken and/or significant differential is seen in pitch sizes within and/or between the sites.
RESOLVED That the public be excluded from the meeting in accordance with Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 to consider Appendix A as it involved the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraphs 14 and 16 of Part 4 of Schedule 12A to the Act; and that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information. The webcast was paused at this juncture. Having convened in private session in accordance with Paragraphs 14 and 16 of Part 4 of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972, Cabinet considered the exempt Appendix. The webcast was resumed at this juncture. The vote for the Recommendation, undertaken by way of a roll call, was carried. The votes were recorded as follows: For the Motion: Councillors Jon Harvey, Paul Miller, Michelle Bateman, Tessa Hodgson, Jacob Williams and Guy Woodham [6] There were no votes against or abstentions. RESOLVED (a) That the decision to acquire the phase 1 - 10 plus 5 units be delegated to the Assistant Chief Executive, noting that this decision is only to be made once the Director, in conjunction with property, legal and finance colleagues, is satisfied as to the due diligence which has been conducted, and subject to the (at present estimated) purchase price specified in Appendix A to the report. (b) That the negotiation of a Phase 2 Package Deal works contract for construction of the social/affordable housing be approved, and that it be noted that any future decision to proceed will be made by an Individual Cabinet Member Decision in accordance with delegations set out in the Council’s Contract Procedure Rules. Such decision shall be made subject to: (1) the (at present estimated) purchase price set out in Appendix A; (2) property, legal and finance colleagues’ satisfaction as to the due diligence which has been conducted; (3) direct award exception report being agreed by the Director of Resources.
RESOLVED (a) That the resourcing of additional preventative support via the initiative fund reserve,subject to a review and prioritisation of detailed business cases, in consultation with the relevant Cabinet Member, be endorsed. (b) That the intention to embark upon a place based preventative approach be endorsed; and an appraisal of progress be provided to future Cabinet meetings. (c) That the wider governance and accountability mechanisms that will be put in place to deliver upon this crucial agenda, be endorsed.
The following declarations were made: Item 7 – Review of School Catchment Area for Johnston, Tiers Cross and Neyland Councillor Rhys Sinnett declared a personal interest by virtue of being a Local Authority appointed Governor for Milford Haven Primary School. Item 18 – Acquisition of ‘Off the Shelf’ (OTS) affordable housing in Hook, Pembrokeshire Councillor Neil Prior declared a personal and prejudicial interest by virtue of being a non-executive Director of Pobl Group, but stated that he had a dispensation to speak but not to vote.
Councillor Guy Woodham Moved the Minutes; Seconded by Councillor Neil Prior. The vote was taken by way of a show of hands and carried. RESOLVED That the Minutes of the Cabinet Meeting held on 13 January 2025 be approved as a correct record.
Y penderfyniad fel y'i cofnodwyd
RESOLVED That the current working practices be continued to allow prompt and timely recovery of the Council Tax debt (Option 1).
Cabinet considered a report by the Head of Financial Services which outlined a Notice of Motion (NOM), submitted by Councillor Huw Murphy to Council on 12 December 2024, relating to No issuing of summonses for appearance at Magistrates Court for non-payment of Council Tax during the month of December. The Notice of Motion was submitted as follows: That PCC do not issue any summonses for appearance at Magistrates Court for non-payment of Council Tax during the month of December. At a Corporate O&S meeting on November 14th it was disclosed that since April 2024 PCC have sent out 14,000 reminder letters with regards to Council Tax (late payment) and issued 4,000 summonses for non-payment of Council Tax, which clearly evidences the financial pressure many Pembrokeshire residents currently face. December is for many families a festive month and although the debt does not go away the avoidance of any prosecutions during the month of December in the lead up to the festive holiday will indicate some empathy by PCC towards its residents under most financial pressure. The Leader announced that Councillor Huw Murphy, the originator of the Motion, had notified him that he wished to withdraw his Notice of Motion or accept the recommendation of Officers, as it had been confirmed that no court hearings were listed for non-payment of Council Tax for the month of December in Pembrokeshire. In response to the NOM, Councillor Joshua Beynon, the Cabinet Member with responsibility for Corporate Finance and Efficiencies, introduced the report and stated that the report was self-explanatory in terms of how the Authority operates in Revenues and Benefits, in terms of the court system. Councillor Joshua Beynon Moved the Recommendation; Seconded by the Leader. The vote, undertaken by way of a roll call, was carried. The votes were recorded as follows: For the Motion: Councillors Jon Harvey, Paul Miller, Michelle Bateman, Joshua Beynon, Tessa Hodgson, Neil Prior, Rhys Sinnett, Jacob Williams and Guy Woodham [9] There were no votes against or abstentions. RESOLVED That the current working practices be continued to allow prompt and timely recovery of the Council Tax debt (Option 1).
Y penderfyniad fel y'i cofnodwyd
RESOLVED That a service for alerts for the status of the B4318 road at Gumfreston be implemented.
Cabinet considered a report by the Head of Infrastructure and Environment which outlined the Notice of Motion (NOM) submitted by Councillor Rhys Jordan to Council on 12 December 2024, relating to the Implementation of Resident Alert Service for B4318 Closure at Gumfreston During Flooding. The Notice of Motion was submitted as follows: The B4318 at Gumfreston is prone to persistent flooding during adverse weather conditions, leading to road closures that disrupt travel and pose safety risks for residents and motorists. Currently, closures are not effectively communicated to residents, causing inconvenience, delays, and potential hazards. An efficient alert system would provide timely information to residents, allowing them to plan alternative routes and ensuring safety. The originator of the Motion, Councillor Jordan, stated that he and the residents he represented would like to have a long-term infrastructure solution in place that removed the problem, but understood that that was not currently possible due to the current financial pressures. He added that he was pleased to see a recommendation to implement an alert system, but was disappointed with the amount of time it had taken to be implemented.Councillor Jordan stated that it would not solve the problem but it would at least provide some mitigation, and urged Cabinet to support the recommendation and ensure that this improvement was delivered without further delay. In response to the NOM, the Head of Infrastructure provided some background information on the issue at Gumfreston and stated that various improvements had been undertaken over the years, as the long-term solutions included very significant costs and technical issues. He stated that warning signs had been put in place, but that the Authority was looking to change the supplier and improve some of the equipment, as well as introducing alerts. Councillor Rhys Sinnett, the Cabinet Member with responsibility for Residents’ Services, added that the Team was committed to putting in place a system that worked for residents affected in the area. He referred to the timeframe and the difficulty with the area geographically. Councillor Jacob Williams referred to the number of bulbs on warning signs in the area that were not working, and asked for them to fixed. The Leader suggested that it would be looked into by Officers. In conclusion, Councillor Jordan outlined the frustrations of residents but stated that he was grateful for the comments, and hoped that Members would support the recommendation in order to improve the area. The Leader then suggested that if implemented, which he believed to be a positive move, there should be publicity to make local residents aware that the alert process was in place and to sign up via the appropriate mechanism to receive those alerts. The Leader Moved the Recommendation; Seconded by Councillor Neil Prior. The vote, undertaken by way of a roll call, was carried. The votes were recorded as follows: For the Motion: Councillors Jon Harvey, Paul Miller, Michelle Bateman, Joshua Beynon, Tessa Hodgson, Neil Prior, Rhys Sinnett, Jacob Williams and Guy Woodham [9] There were no votes against or abstentions. RESOLVED That a service for alerts for the status of the B4318 road at Gumfreston be implemented.
Y penderfyniad fel y'i cofnodwyd
RESOLVED That the Corporate Strategy 2025–2030 and new Well-being Objectives, including two additional headline priorities, be endorsed, prior to seeking Council approval in March.
Cabinet considered a report by the Assistant Chief Executive which outlined the Corporate Strategy for 2025 – 2030 and the revised statutory well-being objectives. Councillor Neil Prior, the Cabinet Member with responsibility for Communities, Corporate Improvement and the Well-being of Future Generations, introduced the report and stated that the Strategy contained revised statutory well-being objectives, and that the Strategy would be presented to Council in early March. He stated that the main change was that the twelve well-being objectives had been reduced to four. Councillor Prior also highlighted that the Strategy had recently been considered by the Corporate Overview and Scrutiny Committee, with some of the suggestions having now been incorporated in the document. Councillor Neil Prior Moved the Recommendation; Seconded by Councillor Michelle Bateman. The Leader referred to a recent Social Partnership Forum that he attended, where the Unions were looking to get something in the Strategy in relation to the importance of Trade Union engagements and the roles of Trade Unions and the workforce, and asked if that could be picked up at some point. He added that the Strategy was positive and moving in the right direction, and therefore he was happy to support. The Corporate Policy and Partnerships Manager stated that the suggestions from the Trade Unions had been picked up, and the relevant sections in the Strategy had been strengthened to reflect that. For accuracy, he highlighted that two additional headline priorities had been included under the ‘our place’ well-being objectives, the first being County Farm Estates and its contribution into agriculture and the broader economy in the County, and the second being a request to strengthen the headline priority around biodiversity and meeting statutory duties. He asked that with Members’ consent, those additions would be included in the final version of the Strategy, which would then go to Council for approval in March. Councillor Prior stated that he was happy with the outlined additions, and commented on how the additions link with the work of the Public Services Board. He added that he was also happy with the well-being objectives, and that the document also outlined how those would be measured. The vote, undertaken by way of a roll call, was carried. The votes were recorded as follows: For the Motion: Councillors Jon Harvey, Paul Miller, Michelle Bateman, Joshua Beynon, Tessa Hodgson, Neil Prior, Rhys Sinnett, Jacob Williams and Guy Woodham [9] There were no votes against or abstentions. RESOLVED That the Corporate Strategy 2025–2030 and new Well-being Objectives, including two additional headline priorities, be endorsed, prior to seeking Council approval in March.
Y penderfyniad fel y'i cofnodwyd
RESOLVED That the secondary catchment areas of Haverfordwest High VC School and Milford Haven School remain unchanged, thereby maintaining the position that the Johnston, Tiers Cross and Neyland areas continue to be included as part of the Milford Haven School catchment area.
Cabinet considered a report by the Director for Education which outlined a review of the secondary school catchment areas for Johnston, Tiers Cross and Neyland, in accordance with the recent resolutions of the Schools and Learning Overview and Scrutiny Committee and full Council. Councillor Guy Woodham, the Cabinet Member with responsibility for Education and Welsh Language, introduced the report and provided the background of the matter. He then referred to the amount of pupils in the Milford Haven and Haverfordwest school catchment areas, as at January 2024, as well as the list of feeder primary schools for both secondary schools.He then highlighted that as the Admissions Authority for all Community and Voluntary Controlled schools, the Council must accede to parental preference up to the point the school’s Admission Number is reached. Councillor Woodham also outlined the number of pupils eligible for free school transport to Milford Haven School and to Haverfordwest High, and the current annual cost, as well as the current cost of transporting eligible pupils to Milford Haven and Haverfordwest High Schools that live in the Johnston, Tiers Cross and Neyland areas. He stated that retaining the geographical areas of Johnston, Tiers Cross and Neyland as part of the Milford Haven school catchment area, continued to provide the greatest opportunity to equalise pupil numbers across schools. Councillor Woodham added that it would be reasonable to expect a transition period where the Council would be transporting pupils from the same area to both schools, if a change of catchment area was supported, which would be challenging in regards to operational capacity and additional costs. Councillor Woodham also read out correspondence he had received from the Local Member, Councillor Aled Thomas, in regards to the matter, as follows: • Haverfordwest High School Roll The report does not seem to mention the fact that the vast majority of children in Johnston go on to attend Haverfordwest High School despite not having school transportation. Of the current Year 6 group in the school it is my understanding that 29 out of 32 pupils are going attend Haverfordwest High, meaning that the additional strain on the school is negligible. • School Transport The report doesn’t appear to consider the fact that the authority is saving money currently by Johnston children attending Haverfordwest High. If all the children in catchment attended Milford Haven the authority would be required to put on another bus and therefore I believe that any argument around cost should have this total saving figure included for a full an accurate picture of the current situation. It is my opinion that the whole premise of not allowing Johnston children to be returned under the Haverfordwest catchment area hinges on the Slade Lane development, and failure for the authority to properly plan and develop Milford Haven school in a reasonable time. As such, I am asking you as the local member not to burden the children of Johnston with failures of previous administrations and allow further discussion of the possibility of returning Johnston to the Haverfordwest catchment to take place. Councillor Guy Woodham Moved the Recommendation; Seconded by Councillor Jacob Williams. Councillor Paul Miller sought clarification in regards to capacity and questioned the capacity specifically in Milford Haven School. In response, the Chief Officer for School Resources and Governance explained that capacity at Milford Haven School was 1262, and currently on roll there were 1094 pupils, therefore there were 168 free places. He highlighted that there had been occasions in the past few years where there had been admissions appeals for certain year groups, but this was said to be normal as certain year groups would be fuller than others. Councillor Miller wished for clarification as to whether some year groups were full, which was confirmed to be the case by the Chief Officer for School Resources and Governance. In response to a question regarding how this was dealt with and whether those pupils received transport, the Chief Officer for School Resources and Governance explained that the Authority had a duty to provide transport to its nearest available school. He added that the Authority was bound to admit up to the school’s admission number, and that any parent of a child of compulsory school age had a right to appeal. Councillor Miller then referred to the petitioners’ outlined position for school transport to be provided to an alternate school, if their child’s place in their chosen school was refused. The Chief Officer for School Resources and Governance suggested that the vast majority of the children who attend Haverfordwest High School do so because of parental preference for the school. Councillor Miller agreed but sought clarification as to whether, in some cases, it would be due to the fact that Milford Haven School was full. The Chief Officer for School Resources and Governance stated that in certain cases that would be the reason, but stated that it was not the main reason. Councillor Miller then asked for further information in regards to the situation that would result in transport being provided for pupils. The Chief Officer for School Resources and Governance explained that if the Admissions Officer declined a place because the admission number has been reached, the parent had a right to go to appeal, and if the appeal was upheld, then the Authority was bound to provide transport to the nearest available school, which in most cases, the nearest available school was Haverfordwest High. [Councillor Tessa Hodgson declared a personal interest by virtue of having two close family members who work in Pembrokeshire schools.] Councillor Tessa Hodgson referred to the correspondence from Councillor Thomas and believed there to be a misconception around the quality of education in Milford Haven School compared to Haverfordwest High School, and stated that this was not addressed in the report. The Director for Education stated that parents had stated that they do not believe that the standards were high enough or that they perceived the issues to be around the quality of the school buildings. He added that there was the draw of a brand new building in regards to Haverfordwest High School. He also stated that not all applications would get places or transport, as the year group could be full. Councillor Michelle Bateman referred to the feeder schools and questioned whether Milford Haven School had the capacity to take on those pupils from the feeder schools, or whether there was the possibility that they could be denied a place. The Chief Officer for School Resources and Governance stated that there was adequate room for all the pupils from the feeder schools. Councillor Miller referred to the equity of access to good quality education and questioned the comparison between the two schools in regards to GCSE outcomes. In response, the Director for Education explained that there were some differences in outcomes, which were now measured by a point score, and stated that there was a difference of 10 to 15 points in regards to their nine top GCSE or BTEC outcomes. He added that there was a slight difference in regards to literacy, numeracy and science slots, with a slightly larger difference in regards to better literacy outcomes in Haverfordwest High School. He also highlighted that there were issues across Pembrokeshire in terms of the numeracy and science slots compared to the Welsh national averages. Councillor Miller questioned whether it would be possible to look at outcomes based on the catchment area. The Director stated that it was possible and that there was currently a consultation out on a set of new measures, and that outcomes could be reviewed on a pupil basis. Councillor Miller stated that his view had not changed and that he was very supportive of the petitioners’ call for a choice of school, and believed it was reasonable for the Authority to continue to provide transport, and stated that he would not support the recommendation. Councillor Woodham wished to comment on the outcomes at Milford Haven School and stated that there was some improvement to be done, but he was satisfied that work was under way, being led by the Director, to support the School in trying their best to improve outcomes. He wished to add that there were no serious issues at the School. The Leader wished to add that for first time in 20 years there were no schools in special measures, which was a credit to the Cabinet Member and the Education Directorate. The Leader then referred to the ongoing rebuild of Milford Haven Secondary School and questioned how that would potentially influence choice in the future. The Director stated that people did tend to chase places in new buildings, and explained that he saw this aspect as new schools were developed in Band A. Councillor Rhys Sinnett wished for a recap on the costs of continued provision of transport over the next few years, bearing in mind the financial challenges currently being faced across the Authority. He questioned what the cost was of the continued provision of transport to pupils from Neyland and Johnston to Haverfordwest, as well as the additional costs should that access continue going forward. The Passenger Transport Co-ordinator stated that, at present, costs of transporting pupils from Tiers Cross, Johnston and Neyland to Milford Haven School were £228,077. He highlighted that there was a saving due to parental choice. He added that if everyone within the Milford Haven catchment from Tiers Cross, Johnston and Neyland to Milford Haven School, the estimated cost would be £333,109. If the catchment area was to change and the people living in those areas were to go to Haverfordwest High, it was said that there would be a transition period with an estimated cost in the region of £415,000, as buses would be going from various areas to both schools. He stated that it was believed that the cost, once the transition was taking place to Haverfordwest High, would be £370,000 to £400,000, due to the distance and journey time. Councillor Sinnett stated that the outlined figures showed the additional cost to continuing the current arrangement and also to allow parents to exercise full parental choice going forward over the upcoming years. He wished for Members to bear in mind the current financial position. The vote, undertaken by way of a roll call, was carried. The votes were recorded as follows: For the Motion: Councillors Jon Harvey, Michelle Bateman, Joshua Beynon, Neil Prior, Rhys Sinnett, Jacob Williams and Guy Woodham [7] Against the Motion: Councillors Paul Miller and Tessa Hodgson [2] There were no abstentions. RESOLVED That the secondary catchment areas of Haverfordwest High VC School and Milford Haven School remain unchanged, thereby maintaining the position that the Johnston, Tiers Cross and Neyland areas continue to be included as part of the Milford Haven School catchment area.
Y penderfyniad fel y'i cofnodwyd
RESOLVED That a further report be provided to Cabinet outlining in more detail the forecasted expenditure associated with any Capital Project work to be undertaken at Ysgol Brynconin CP.
Cabinet considered a report by the Director for Education which outlined a Capital Project at Ysgol Brynconin CP. Councillor Guy Woodham, the Cabinet Member with responsibility for Education and Welsh Language, introduced the report and referred to the Capital Project at the Brynconin Community Primary. However, since publication of the Agenda, he advised that further consideration of the Capital expenditure had taken place, and he therefore wished to defer the matter to allow a further report to be compiled which would address the likely Capital cost of the work required at the school. Councillor Guy Woodham Moved the following Motion: That a further report be provided to Cabinet outlining in more detail the forecasted expenditure associated with any Capital Project work to be undertaken at Ysgol Brynconin CP. Seconded by Councillor Tessa Hodgson. Councillor Woodham highlighted that the forecasted cost of the project was £850,000, and that questions had been raised as to whether that was an accurate figure, therefore discussions had taken place with the Director for Education in order to bring back a more detailed report, specifically on the costs involved. The Chief Executive added that he had asked Building Maintenance to undertake a review of the site, as the lifespan of the building needed to be considered in order for the school to continue to function effectively, all of which was outlined in the report. He also wished to highlight that the breakdown of the £850,000, as covered in the report, also included £100,000 allocated to the current demolition, as well as dealing with the asbestos on site. Councillor Paul Miller stated that he would support anything that would improve outcomes at schools, but highlighted his concerns around the outlined cost of the classroom, noting the Chief Executive’s comments regarding demolition and asbestos, and wished for a review of the cost. He also referred to ensuring that this site had a long-term educational futureand a reasonable value to the taxpayer. Councillor Woodham stated that he agreed with Councillor Miller and the Chief Executive, and explained that the reasons outlined by them were the reasons for a further detailed report on the matter. Councillor Michelle Bateman requested that when the matter is looked into, whether that be at Cabinet or the School Modernisation Working Group, that projected pupil numbers for future years were closely reviewed. The vote, undertaken by way of a roll call, was carried. The votes were recorded as follows: For the Motion: Councillors Jon Harvey, Paul Miller, Michelle Bateman, Joshua Beynon, Tessa Hodgson, Neil Prior, Rhys Sinnett, Jacob Williams and Guy Woodham [9] There were no votes against or abstentions. RESOLVED That a further report be provided to Cabinet outlining in more detail the forecasted expenditure associated with any Capital Project work to be undertaken at Ysgol Brynconin CP.
Y penderfyniad fel y'i cofnodwyd
RESOLVED That the public be excluded from the meeting in accordance with Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 to consider Appendix B as it involved the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraph 14 of Part 4 of Schedule 12A to the Act; and that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information. The webcast was paused at this juncture. Having convened in private session in accordance with Paragraph 14 of Part 4 of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972, Cabinet considered the Exempt Appendix. The webcast was resumed at this juncture. The vote for the Recommendation as set out in the report, undertaken by way of a roll call, was carried. The votes were recorded as follows: For the Motion: Councillors Jon Harvey, Paul Miller, Michelle Bateman, Joshua Beynon, Tessa Hodgson, Neil Prior, Rhys Sinnett, Jacob Williams and Guy Woodham [9] There were no votes against or abstentions. RESOLVED That the supply of the energy framework provider known as “Laser” be agreed, in line with the recommendation set out by the Welsh Government Commercial Procurement Utilities group.
Cabinet considered a report by the Head of Infrastructure and Environment which outlined a proposal to change the supply of energy framework provider to “Laser”, in line with the recommendation set out by the Welsh Government Commercial Procurement Utilities group. Councillor Rhys Sinnett, the Cabinet Member with responsibility for Residents’ Services, introduced the report and stated that the Authority was currently part of the Welsh Government Commercial Procurement Utilities Customer Group, to ensure a better deal in regards to energy procurement. As a result of a review that had been undertaken, as decided by the Commercial Group, it was recommended that an alternative energy provider be used, as it would save between 4-5% on the current contracts. He then outlined further positive attributes of the new provider, and highlighted that there was a two year notice to move to the new provider, and if approved, this would come into effect from April 2027. Councillor Rhys Sinnett Moved the Recommendation; Seconded by Councillor Michelle Bateman. The Head of Infrastructure and Environment added that three options had been considered overall, with a detailed analysis of the options outlined in the report. He also referred to the restricted Appendix B, which contained commercial information from the discussion that had taken place around the procurement approach. Cabinet then considered excluding the public from the meeting in accordance with Section 100A (4) of the Local Government Act 1972, to consider Appendix B as it involved the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraph 14 of Part 4 of Schedule 12A to the Act; and that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information. The Leader Moved the Exclusion of the public; Seconded by Councillor Rhys Sinnett. The vote, undertaken by way of a roll call, was carried. The votes were recorded as follows: For the Motion: Councillors Jon Harvey, Paul Miller, Michelle Bateman, Joshua Beynon, Tessa Hodgson, Neil Prior, Rhys Sinnett, Jacob Williams and Guy Woodham [9] There were no votes against or abstentions. RESOLVED That the public be excluded from the meeting in accordance with Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 to consider Appendix B as it involved the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraph 14 of Part 4 of Schedule 12A to the Act; and that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information. The webcast was paused at this juncture. Having convened in private session in accordance with Paragraph 14 of Part 4 of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972, Cabinet considered the Exempt Appendix. The webcast was resumed at this juncture. The vote for the Recommendation as set out in the report, undertaken by way of a roll call, was carried. The votes were recorded as follows: For the Motion: Councillors Jon Harvey, Paul Miller, Michelle Bateman, Joshua Beynon, Tessa Hodgson, Neil Prior, Rhys Sinnett, Jacob Williams and Guy Woodham [9] There were no votes against or abstentions. RESOLVED That the supply of the energy framework provider known as “Laser” be agreed, in line with the recommendation set out by the Welsh Government Commercial Procurement Utilities group.
Y penderfyniad fel y'i cofnodwyd
RESOLVED That entering into the Agency Agreement, as outlined in Appendix 1 to the report, be approved.
Cabinet considered a report by the Head of Infrastructure and Environment which outlined an agreement with Welsh Government for Welsh Ministers to act as their agents, pursuant to Section 83 of the Government of Wales Act (GoWA) 2006, to provide National Support for the Authorised Issue of Mandatory Concessionary Fare Scheme Travel Cards. Councillor Rhys Sinnett, the Cabinet Member with responsibility for Residents’ Services, introduced the report and referred to the key considerations, mainly the fact that there was no financial implication to the Authority for entering into this Concessionary Travel Agency agreement. He explained that if the Authority did not enter into the agreement, the Authority would be responsible for processing the applications and the issuing of passes, which would result in cost implications. Councillor Rhys Sinnett Moved the Recommendation; Seconded by the Leader. The Leader believed it to be a straightforward decision and that it made sense to approve entering into the agreement. The vote, undertaken by way of a roll call, was carried. The votes were recorded as follows: For the Motion: Councillors Jon Harvey, Paul Miller, Michelle Bateman, Joshua Beynon, Tessa Hodgson, Neil Prior, Rhys Sinnett, Jacob Williams and Guy Woodham [9] There were no votes against or abstentions. RESOLVED That entering into the Agency Agreement, as outlined in Appendix 1 to the report, be approved.
Y penderfyniad fel y'i cofnodwyd
RESOLVED That Option B, as outlined in the report, be approved, subject to the following amendments: (1) Cabinet agrees with the recommendation from the Corporate Overview and Scrutiny Committee and expands the current Members Panel (for Open Call) to include a Member from the Liberal Democrat Group, with its remit extended to include consideration of ?future Anchor projects, submitting its recommendations to the Director of Resources and Deputy Leader for final approval in accordance with recommendation (3) below. and; (7) That the Corporate Overview and Scrutiny Committee be asked to undertake an evaluation of completed Anchor projects at the appropriate time in those projects.
Cabinet considered a report by the Head of Procurement and Revenue Services which outlined a recommendation made by the Corporate Overview and Scrutiny Committee at its meeting on 29 January 2025, as a result of a call-in. Councillor Paul Miller, the Cabinet Member with responsibility for Place, the Region, Climate Change and Rural Affairs, introduced the report and outlined the recommendation of the Corporate Overview and Scrutiny Committee, as follows: That the UK Shared Prosperity Fund (UKSPF) be referred back to Cabinet recommending that Pembrokeshire UKSPF funding schemes for 2025-26 and successive years be evaluated by a politically balanced Committee/Panel of 7. The remit of the group would be to evaluate the schemes and submit its recommendations to the Director of Resources and Deputy Leader for final approval. Councillor Miller stated that he had no issue with the recommendation and that since the decision of the Committee, he and Officers had determined what could be done with the grants in the time allowed. He explained that the allocation of funds to the respective Anchor Projects would remain delegated, as previously decided by Cabinet, but a role for the cross-party group in overseeing the Anchor Projects would be included going forward. Councillor Miller then questioned whether an evaluation of current and future Anchor Projects be included within the remit, or whether that was a function of the Corporate Overview and Scrutiny Committee. The External Funding Manager stated that he had no objection to including an evaluation, and stated that it would be useful to have Member insight on the process. Councillor Paul Miller Moved the Recommendation, with the following amendments; (1) Cabinet agrees with the recommendation from the Corporate Overview and Scrutiny Committee and expands the current Members Panel (for Open Call) to include a Member from the Liberal Democrat Group to ensure political balance, with its remit extended to include consideration of ?future Anchor projects, submitting its recommendations to the Director of Resources and Deputy Leader for final approval in accordance with recommendation (3) below. (7) That the Corporate Overview and Scrutiny Committee be asked to undertake an evaluation of completed Anchor projects at the appropriate time in those projects. Seconded by Councillor Tessa Hodgson. Councillor Rhys Sinnett sought clarification as to what the membership of the Members’ Panel currently was. In response, the External Funding Manager explained that the panel consisted of six Members, three from Cabinet and three Members from the opposition groups; one Conservative Member, one Independent Member and one Unaffiliated Member. He highlighted that the last time the panel met, the Liberal Democrats were represented on Cabinet, which was no longer the case, hence the reason for the proposal to introduce a seventh Member of the panel drawn from the Liberal Democrat Group. Councillor Sinnett wished to highlight that this did leave out the Plaid Cymru Members. Councillor Jacob Williams referred to the term ‘political balance’ and believed that the proposed Recommendation would not allow for this to happen. He then questioned why a seat would be given to the Liberal Democrat Group and not the Plaid Cymru Group, and highlighted that in this instance, political balance was not required for this panel. Councillor Miller agreed and removed ‘to ensure political balance’ from the Recommendation. He explained that when the panel was set up, it was decided that it would involve Cabinet Members as well as the Groups not already represented within Cabinet, which was, in this case, the Liberal Democrat Group. Councillor Sinnett agreed that this was a sensible way forward. Councillor Williams was also happy to proceed on this basis. The vote, undertaken by way of a roll call, was carried. The votes were recorded as follows: For the Motion: Councillors Jon Harvey, Paul Miller, Michelle Bateman, Joshua Beynon, Tessa Hodgson, Neil Prior, Rhys Sinnett, Jacob Williams and Guy Woodham [9] There were no votes against or abstentions. RESOLVED That Option B, as outlined in the report, be approved, subject to the following amendments: (1) Cabinet agrees with the recommendation from the Corporate Overview and Scrutiny Committee and expands the current Members Panel (for Open Call) to include a Member from the Liberal Democrat Group, with its remit extended to include consideration of ?future Anchor projects, submitting its recommendations to the Director of Resources and Deputy Leader for final approval in accordance with recommendation (3) below. and; (7) That the Corporate Overview and Scrutiny Committee be asked to undertake an evaluation of completed Anchor projects at the appropriate time in those projects.
The meeting was paused at 11:46am and resumed at 12:01pm.
Y penderfyniad fel y'i cofnodwyd
RESOLVED (a) That the allocation of income generated from the Council Tax Premium for Second Homes for 2025-26 to 2028-29, be determined as follows and recommended to Council for approval: a. 88.75% to fund elements of the Council’s budget relating to affordable housing and enhancing the sustainability of local communities b. 11.25% to fund the Affordable Housing programme c. 0% to fund the Enhancing Pembrokeshire Grant Scheme (the equivalent of 3.75% Second Home Council Tax Premium previously used to fund Enhancing Pembrokeshire Schemes to be funded by the Shared Prosperity Fund for 2025-26) b) That the allocation of income generated from the Council Tax Premium for Long Term Empty Properties for 2025-26 to 2028-29, be determined as follows and recommended to Council for approval: a. 100% to fund elements of the Council’s budget relating to affordable housing and enhancing the sustainability of local communities c) That the level of Council Tax ‘Band D’ increase for 2025-26, be determined as follows and recommended to Council for approval: Option 1 £2.85 per week £148.81 per annum 9.85% d) That the level of Council Tax ‘Band D’ increase for 2026-27 to 2028-29, for inclusion in the Medium Term Financial Plan 2025-26 to 2028-29, be determined as follows and recommended to Council for approval: a. 7.5% each year e) That the Revised Draft County Council Budget for 2025-26, including service pressures, proposed budget savings, movement in earmarked reserves and the General Fund working balance, be endorsed and recommended to Council for approval. f) That the indicative Capital Programme for 2025-26 to 2028-29 and the Capital Strategy 2025-26 to 2028-29 be endorsed and recommended to Council for approval. g) That the prudential indicators for capital and revenue estimates for 2025-26 to 2028-29 be endorsed and recommended to Council for approval. h) That the Medium Term Financial Plan 2025-26 to 2028-29 be endorsed and recommended to Council for approval. i) That the Housing Revenue Account (HRA) estimates for 2025-26 be endorsed and recommended to Council for approval. j) That the Director of Resources, in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Corporate Finance & Efficiencies, be given authority to make amendments to the County Council Budget report for 2025-26, prior to it being considered by Council on 20 February 2025. k) That any increase in funding received in the final settlement will be used first to provide additional funding to the Individual Schools Budget, up to a maximum of £889,865 (1% of that budget) and thereafter to reduce the additional £1.3m efficiency savings target, with anything above this amount being reflected in the vacancy management line to ensure the budget remains in balance. l) That the report be adopted as the Cabinet’s proposals for the County Council Budget for 2025-26, to be recommended to Council for approval, subject to the amendments at (j) above.
Cabinet considered a report by the Director of Resources which outlined the revised draft County Council Budget for 2025-26 and Summary Medium Term Financial Plan (MTFP) for 2025-26 to 2028-29. Councillor Joshua Beynon, the Cabinet Member with responsibility for Corporate Finance and Efficiencies, introduced the report and summarised the key points in the report, relating to the following: • The projected funding gap had reduced from £34.1 million in December 2024 to £27.4 million, which was an improvement but remained a significant funding gap. • The potential use of Reserves and the increase it would add to the projected funding gap for 2026-27. • The most significant cost pressures for 2025-26 being demand for Social Care, in both Adults and Children's Services, with a total increase in pressure of £25.6 million for 2025-26. • The process for arriving at the outlined budget, which included budget consultations and the schedule of budget savings. • The three available options to bridge the funding gap. • The Capital Programme, which included the Capital Investment Programme, the current Capital Programme and funding, as well as the draft Capital and Treasury Strategy. • The Housing and Revenue Account (HRA) estimates for 2025-26. • The receipt of the provisional settlement for 2025 -26 and consideration of commentary from the Wales fiscal analysis, and the assumptions of a 4% increase in Aggregate External Funding (AEF) for 2026-27 to 2028-29, which would increase the projected funding gap over the MTFP, with £73.6 million being the most likely scenario. • The risks involved and the Section 151 Officer assurance statement for the 2025-26 budget. • The alternative budget proposal, provided by the Liberal Democrat Group. • The ongoing challenges. • Second Homes Council Tax premium. • The Prevention Agenda. Councillor Joshua Beynon then Moved the following: a) That the allocation of income generated from the Council Tax Premium for Second Homes for 2025-26 to 2028-29, be determined as follows and recommended to Council for approval: a. 88.75% to fund elements of the Council’s budget relating to affordable housing and enhancing the sustainability of local communities b. 11.25% to fund the Affordable Housing programme c. 0% to fund the Enhancing Pembrokeshire Grant Scheme (the equivalent of 3.75% Second Home Council Tax Premium previously used to fund Enhancing Pembrokeshire Schemes to be funded by the Shared Prosperity Fund for 2025-26) b) That the allocation of income generated from the Council Tax Premium for Long Term Empty Properties for 2025-26 to 2028-29, be determined as follows and recommended to Council for approval: a. 100% to fund elements of the Council’s budget relating to affordable housing and enhancing the sustainability of local communities c) That the level of Council Tax ‘Band D’ increase for 2025-26, be determined as follows and recommended to Council for approval: Option 1 £2.85 per week £148.81 per annum 9.85% d) That the level of Council Tax ‘Band D’ increase for 2026-27 to 2028-29, for inclusion in the Medium Term Financial Plan 2025-26 to 2028-29, be determined as follows and recommended to Council for approval: a. 7.5% each year e) That the Revised Draft County Council Budget for 2025-26, including service pressures, proposed budget savings, movement in earmarked reserves and the General Fund working balance, be endorsed and recommended to Council for approval. f) That the indicative Capital Programme for 2025-26 to 2028-29 and the Capital Strategy 2025-26 to 2028-29 be endorsed and recommended to Council for approval. g) That the prudential indicators for capital and revenue estimates for 2025-26 to 2028-29 be endorsed and recommended to Council for approval. h) That the Medium Term Financial Plan 2025-26 to 2028-29 be endorsed and recommended to Council for approval. i) That the Housing Revenue Account (HRA) estimates for 2025-26 be endorsed and recommended to Council for approval. j) That the Director of Resources, in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Corporate Finance & Efficiencies, be given authority to make amendments to the County Council Budget report for 2025-26, prior to it being considered by Council on 20 February 2025. k) That any additional funding received in the final settlement will be used in the first instance towards reducing the pressure on Schools. l) That the report be adopted as the Cabinet’s proposals for the County Council Budget for 2025-26, to be recommended to Council for approval, subject to the amendments at (j) above. The Recommendations were Seconded by Councillor Tessa Hodgson. Councillor Guy Woodham recognised the financial position of the Authority, as well as the desire from others to keep Council Tax increase as low as possible, and stated the difficulty of the decision. He thanked Councillor Beynon for amending Recommendation K and stated that it was very helpful. However, based on discussions with Members, he was unsure as to whether the cap would be reduced further, but stated that schools would do their best to work within the budgets that were set, supported by the Directorate. He added that it would be a shame to lose the ability to continue delivering continuous education improvement, but appreciated that any increase in the funding would be prioritised for schools. He stated that he would support the Recommendations, but highlighted the difficult decision. The Leader agreed that it was a difficult situation and thanked Councillor Woodham for his comments. Councillor Paul Miller sought clarification regarding the reasons for the funding gap, particularly in regards to Social Care demographics, and what had led to the cost pressures being faced. He also asked for some information regarding the current and previous year’s individual budgets for both Education and Social Services. In response, the Director of Resources explained that Social Care was the most significant pressure, which had been increasing for a number of years, with significant spikes in demand in 2023-24, particularly in children’s care and the complexity of the cases. In regards to out of County and out of Country placements, there were said to be 18 at the start of 2023-24, which had increased to 41 during Quarter 3 of 2024-25, with the most expensive of those cases being £1.5 million for one child per year, and the average cost being around £500,000. The Director of Resources stated that those were the reasons behind such a significant pressure for Social Care for next year, which was suspected to continue throughout 2025-26. He also referred to the Prevention Agenda and having more input in the market. In regards to the current and previous year’s individual budgets for both Education and Social Services, the Director of Resources outlined that for 2024-25, the total for Education was £124.8 million, with the pressures for the following year said to be £9.8 million, which would give a gross budget requirement for next year, before budget savings, of £134.6 million.In terms of Social Care, it was said that the base for last year was £117.5 million, the pressures totalled were £26.7 million, which included housing, with the gross budget being £144 million before budget savings. Councillor Michelle Bateman thanked Councillor Beynon for his amendment to Recommendation K and stated that she was fully supportive of the change. Councillor Bateman then highlighted the challenges that schools were facing, not just due to financial pressures, and referred to the new curriculum, additional learning needs reform, the implementation of new GCSE’s, and a general increase in the support needs of learners. She then asked if the vote in regards to Recommendation C could be taken as a separate vote. The Leader agreed to a separate vote. Councillor Tessa Hodgson referred to the balance of Council Tax increases for the population of Pembrokeshire, and stated that the people at the forefront of her mind were those on low incomes for who Council Tax was a regressive tax. She then referred to the huge pressure within Social Care, particularly in children’s care, but believed that a 9.85% increase struck the right balance, despite it being a big increase. Councillor Neil Prior thanked all involved in putting together the report and stated that it was a difficult balance to strike. He also raised concern around the huge budget challenges being faced year on year. Councillor Prior then sought clarification around the Enhancing Pembrokeshire fund, and referred to the Prevention Agenda and the positive things that had been done in local communities as a result of the fund. He wished for some clarity around the Enhancing Pembrokeshire scheme and how that could be made as easy as possible for communities to access, particularly smaller communities. The Director of Resources explained that the Enhancing Pembrokeshire fund was projected to have around £1.3 million in Reserve at the end of the financial year. He added that in regards to the following year, it was proposed that there would not be a contribution and it would be funded from the Shared Prosperity Fund, which would still require governance and an approval process to gain the funds, and that this would effectively replace the Enhancing Pembrokeshire funding. Councillor Miller wished to add that there was a commitment to continue the Enhancing Pembrokeshire scheme, and shared Councillor Prior’s support for the scheme and referred to the important work it had done across the County. In regards to the budget, Councillor Miller recognised the difficult decisions that needed to be made, and stated that in recommending the lowest available option, Cabinet was recognising the balance for residents in Pembrokeshire. He highlighted that various elements were not within the Authority’s control, such as the legal duty to look after vulnerable children. He added that the increase in Council Tax would fund vital public services in communities, with the principal beneficiaries being Education and Social Services. Councillor Miller stated his support for the Recommendations; however, in regards to Recommendation K, he wished to amend it as follows: Cabinet require that any increase in funding received in the final settlement will be used first to provide additional funding to the Individual Schools Budget, up to a maximum of £889,865 (1% of that budget) and thereafter to reduce the additional £1.3m efficiency savings target, with anything above this amount being reflected in the vacancy management line to ensure the budget remains in balance. Councillor Beynon agreed to incorporate the suggestion in his original Amendment, as was Councillor Hodgson as the Seconder. Councillor Rhys Sinnett referred to the breakdown of the allocation of funding across the Council and the changes from 2014-15 to 2025-26, where next year the Social Care and Education budgets would take 78.3% of the overall budget. He stated that this highlighted the challenges and pressures being faced. He then highlighted that the various services under his portfolio had around 14% of funding, and suggested that it would be a difficult year in terms of balancing cost improvements and delivering core services. Councillor Sinnett believed that the outlined budget balanced the challenges being faced and stated his support for the Recommendations. The Chief Executive then commented on the budget and stated that the MTFP had remained a significant challenge, with the challenge remaining over the course of the next few years. He referred to the substantial savings that needed to be found, and highlighted that even the lowest proposed option for Council Tax was still quite a high increase, and highlighted the need to get the Council onto a long-term sustainable footing, which the outlined options allowed for. He also commented on the £1.3 million efficiency saving targets placed on Options one and two under the Recommendation, and the use of Reserves. He highlighted the importance of the Reserves required for the Prevention Agenda, and that he did not wish to rely on Reserves in relation to balancing the budget. He also referred to additional headroom that was available the previous year, which was not the case for the current year. The Leader stated that it would be beneficial to get the wider membership of the Council involved in assisting the Chief Executive in finding efficiencies or looking for potential efficiencies. The Leader believed that the outlined budget, given the financial constraints and challenges, was the bare minimum Council Tax increase that must be implemented, in order to protect essential services and to avoid cuts that would impact significantly on service delivery to residents. He added that it was not just about numbers on the page, but about ensuring that vital services remained in place for communities and residents, whilst creating a path towards a more secure financial future. He also referred to the potential risks, use of Reserves, savings, and potential additional funding from Welsh Government. He added that Members had the responsibility of ensuring that the Council survives challenging times and sets a balanced budget. The vote for Recommendations a, b, d, e, f, g, h, i, j, k and l, undertaken by way of a roll call, was carried. The votes were recorded as follows: For the Motion: Councillors Jon Harvey, Paul Miller, Michelle Bateman, Joshua Beynon, Tessa Hodgson, Neil Prior, Rhys Sinnett, Jacob Williams and Guy Woodham [9] There were no votes against or abstentions. The vote for Recommendation c (Option 1), undertaken by way of a roll call, was carried. The votes were recorded as follows: For the Motion: Councillors Jon Harvey, Paul Miller, Joshua Beynon, Tessa Hodgson, Neil Prior, Rhys Sinnett, Jacob Williams and Guy Woodham [8] Against the Motion: Councillor Michelle Bateman [1] There were no abstentions. RESOLVED (a) That the allocation of income generated from the Council Tax Premium for Second Homes for 2025-26 to 2028-29, be determined as follows and recommended to Council for approval: a. 88.75% to fund elements of the Council’s budget relating to affordable housing and enhancing the sustainability of local communities b. 11.25% to fund the Affordable Housing programme c. 0% to fund the Enhancing Pembrokeshire Grant Scheme (the equivalent of 3.75% Second Home Council Tax Premium previously used to fund Enhancing Pembrokeshire Schemes to be funded by the Shared Prosperity Fund for 2025-26) b) That the allocation of income generated from the Council Tax Premium for Long Term Empty Properties for 2025-26 to 2028-29, be determined as follows and recommended to Council for approval: a. 100% to fund elements of the Council’s budget relating to affordable housing and enhancing the sustainability of local communities c) That the level of Council Tax ‘Band D’ increase for 2025-26, be determined as follows and recommended to Council for approval: Option 1 £2.85 per week £148.81 per annum 9.85% d) That the level of Council Tax ‘Band D’ increase for 2026-27 to 2028-29, for inclusion in the Medium Term Financial Plan 2025-26 to 2028-29, be determined as follows and recommended to Council for approval: a. 7.5% each year e) That the Revised Draft County Council Budget for 2025-26, including service pressures, proposed budget savings, movement in earmarked reserves and the General Fund working balance, be endorsed and recommended to Council for approval. f) That the indicative Capital Programme for 2025-26 to 2028-29 and the Capital Strategy 2025-26 to 2028-29 be endorsed and recommended to Council for approval. g) That the prudential indicators for capital and revenue estimates for 2025-26 to 2028-29 be endorsed and recommended to Council for approval. h) That the Medium Term Financial Plan 2025-26 to 2028-29 be endorsed and recommended to Council for approval. i) That the Housing Revenue Account (HRA) estimates for 2025-26 be endorsed and recommended to Council for approval. j) That the Director of Resources, in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Corporate Finance & Efficiencies, be given authority to make amendments to the County Council Budget report for 2025-26, prior to it being considered by Council on 20 February 2025. k) That any increase in funding received in the final settlement will be used first to provide additional funding to the Individual Schools Budget, up to a maximum of £889,865 (1% of that budget) and thereafter to reduce the additional £1.3m efficiency savings target, with anything above this amount being reflected in the vacancy management line to ensure the budget remains in balance. l) That the report be adopted as the Cabinet’s proposals for the County Council Budget for 2025-26, to be recommended to Council for approval, subject to the amendments at (j) above.
Y penderfyniad fel y'i cofnodwyd
RESOLVED (a) That the Treasury Management Strategy 2025-26 to 2028-29, including the Policy on Borrowing in Advance of Need, the Minimum Revenue Provision Policy, the Treasury Limits, the Prudential Indicators and Borrowing Requirements, be endorsed and recommended to Council for approval. (b) That the Annual Investment Strategy for 2025-26 to 2028-29 be endorsed and recommended to Council for approval. (c) That the Director of Resources, in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Corporate Finance and Efficiencies, be given authority to make amendments to the Treasury Management Strategy 2025-26 to 2028-29 and the Annual Investment Strategy for 2025-26 to 2028-29, prior to it being considered by Council on 20 February 2025.
Cabinet considered a report by the Director of Resources which outlined the Treasury Management Governance Arrangements. Councillor Joshua Beynon, the Cabinet Member with responsibility for Corporate Finance and Efficiencies, introduced the report and stated that the Capital Programme, Treasury Management Strategy, the Minimum Revenue Provision Policy and the Investment Strategy had all been reviewed, with Treasury Management training having been held for all Members back in January, which was a positive session. He highlighted that the Council continued to use MUFG Corporate Markets Treasury Services Limited, who attend the Council's Treasury Panel meetings on a quarterly basis, whilst also providing advice throughout the year.Councillor Beynon then referred to the new methodology approved to provide assurance of affordability and sustainability of the Capital Programme, and stated that the cap level was up to a maximum of 5.3% for the general fund, with a review approved as part of the annual budget setting process. As of this year, it was said that the cap would be maintained and again reviewed in the future, and Councillor Beynon wished to stress that the cap was not a target. He also outlined the average cost of borrowing, which continued to see a reduction, as well as no changes to the Minimum Revenue Provision Policy, and the increased average rate of return on the Council’s investment. He added that the arrangements had recently been scrutinised by the Corporate Overview and Scrutiny Committee, where no recommendations were made. Councillor Joshua Beynon Moved the Recommendation; Seconded by the Leader. The vote, undertaken by way of a roll call, was carried. The votes were recorded as follows: For the Motion: Councillors Jon Harvey, Paul Miller, Michelle Bateman, Joshua Beynon, Tessa Hodgson, Neil Prior, Rhys Sinnett, Jacob Williams and Guy Woodham [9] There were no votes against or abstentions. RESOLVED (a) That the Treasury Management Strategy 2025-26 to 2028-29, including the Policy on Borrowing in Advance of Need, the Minimum Revenue Provision Policy, the Treasury Limits, the Prudential Indicators and Borrowing Requirements, be endorsed and recommended to Council for approval. (b) That the Annual Investment Strategy for 2025-26 to 2028-29 be endorsed and recommended to Council for approval. (c) That the Director of Resources, in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Corporate Finance and Efficiencies, be given authority to make amendments to the Treasury Management Strategy 2025-26 to 2028-29 and the Annual Investment Strategy for 2025-26 to 2028-29, prior to it being considered by Council on 20 February 2025.
Y penderfyniad fel y'i cofnodwyd
RESOLVED That the performance information in the Corporate Scorecard (data at December 2024) and Social Care Scorecard (data at November / December 2024), be noted.
Cabinet considered a report by the Assistant Chief Executive which outlined the performance information in the Corporate Scorecard 2023-24 (data at December 2024) and the Social Services and Housing Directorate Scorecard. Councillor Neil Prior, the Cabinet Member with responsibility for Communities, Corporate Improvement and the Well-being of Future Generations, introduced the report and referred to the range of data sets that were collated to monitor and measure performance, all of which were used in discussions with the Senior Leadership Team, Cabinet, Overview and Scrutiny Committees, and other groups. Councillor Neil Prior Moved the Recommendation; Seconded by the Leader. Councillor Tessa Hodgson referred to school attendance figures and asked for an update, as the figure outlined within the scorecard showed that attendance continued to decline. In response, the Director for Education stated that attendance figures remained difficult to move, and explained that attendance figures were more challenging in areas where there was deprivation, as well as some parents opting for elective home education, which continued to be a challenge for the Directorate on a regular basis. He also referred to some cases where families may have experienced a fallout with the school. The Director for Education also highlighted that the Directorate was about to launch a new attendance strategy with renewed efforts from Education Welfare Officers, focusing specifically on persistent absence, which would result in an increase in attendance prosecutions. Councillor Hodgson stated that she appreciated the work of the Directorate in this regard, and sought clarification as to where Pembrokeshire was placed on an all-Wales comparison. She also questioned how many attendance prosecutions had been undertaken. The Director for Education explained that some prosecutions had been undertaken over the last few years, but not as many as prior to the Covid-19 pandemic. In regards to comparisons, he stated that Pembrokeshire sat middle of the table nationally, usually moving between 8th and 11th place on a weekly basis. He stated that he would send Members the link to the website where attendance figures were published. The vote, undertaken by way of a show of hands, was carried. RESOLVED That the performance information in the Corporate Scorecard (data at December 2024) and Social Care Scorecard (data at November / December 2024), be noted.
Y penderfyniad fel y'i cofnodwyd
RESOLVED (a) That the Budget Monitoring Report (revenue, revenue rolling budget, capital, reserves, budget savings, revenue collections, treasury management and 2025-26 to 2028-29 MTFP update) for Quarter 3 2024-25, be approved. (b) That it be noted that if the projected overspend of £2.1m is not recovered during the financial year it will be funded from reserves.
Cabinet considered a report by the Deputy Chief Finance Officer which outlined the County Council Budget Monitoring Report for Quarter 3 for 2024-25. Councillor Joshua Beynon, the Cabinet Member with responsibility for Corporate Finance and Efficiencies, introduced the report and stated that the projected outturn at Quarter 3 for 2024 -25 was £304.9 million, representing a projected overspend of £1.4 million. There was also said to be a projected shortfall in 2024-25 Council Tax collection, which would result in a £0.7 million reduction in funding received. He highlighted that this was the best estimate currently in regards to the reduction. Councillor Beynon stated that, in total, there was a £2.1 million shortfall, which would need to be funded from the limited Corporate Reserve balances in 2024-25, but wished to highlight that this total figure had reduced from £3.9 million at Quarter 2. He also referred to a slippage in the Capital Programme in 2023-24, which had resulted in higher levels of investment income and delayed borrowing costs during 2024-25. Councillor Beynon also outlined the moratorium on non-essential expenditure, Revenue collections and Council Tax arrears. In regards to Reserves, he outlined that the total value of useable Reserve balances was projected to reduce by £9.376 million during 2024-25, to £80.515 million, excluding the HRA ring fenced Reserves. He also highlighted budget savings, where £12.223 million of budget savings had been identified as on track for delivery in Quarter 3, which was 86%. Overall, Councillor Beynon stated that it was a much more positive picture compared to Quarter 2. Councillor Joshua Beynon Moved the Recommendation; Seconded by Councillor Guy Woodham. The vote, undertaken by way of a roll call, was carried. The votes were recorded as follows: For the Motion: Councillors Jon Harvey, Paul Miller, Michelle Bateman, Joshua Beynon, Tessa Hodgson, Neil Prior, Rhys Sinnett, Jacob Williams and Guy Woodham [9] There were no votes against or abstentions. RESOLVED (a) That the Budget Monitoring Report (revenue, revenue rolling budget, capital, reserves, budget savings, revenue collections, treasury management and 2025-26 to 2028-29 MTFP update) for Quarter 3 2024-25, be approved. (b) That it be noted that if the projected overspend of £2.1m is not recovered during the financial year it will be funded from reserves.
Y penderfyniad fel y'i cofnodwyd
RESOLVED That the Council’s Corporate Risk Register at the end of Quarter 3 of the 2024-25 financial year, be noted.
[Councillor Rhys Sinnett left the meeting at this juncture.] Cabinet considered a joint report by theDirector of Resources (Risk Champion), and the Chief Audit, Risk and Information Officer, which outlined the Corporate Risk Register at the end of Quarter 3 of the 2024-25 financial year. Councillor Joshua Beynon, the Cabinet Member with responsibility for Corporate Finance and Efficiencies, introduced the report and stated that the register had recently been presented to the Services Overview and Scrutiny Committee, as well as the Corporate Risk Management Group, the Senior Leadership Team and the Governance and Audit Committee. He then outlined the corporate risks that were detailed in the report, such as increasing demand, Children’s Services, children requiring specialist placements, financial resilience, poverty, homelessness, water quality, climate change, and schools delegated budgets. He stated that the movement on these measures had not changed between Quarter 2 and Quarter 3, but highlighted that there was a corporate risk, which was an opportunity, said to be the UK Renewable Energy Bill. Councillor Joshua Beynon Moved the Recommendation; Seconded by the Leader. The Audit, Risk and Counter Fraud Manager referred to measuring the effectiveness of the risk control actions in place, to ensure that they were mitigating the overall risk, and highlighted that work on that would continue over the next quarter. He then added that the Council’s Business Risk Management Strategy was due for renewal, and would go to the Governance and Audit Committee in April 2025. Councillor Neil Prior referred to the Residual Business Risk Scores, specifically climate change and cyber security, and raised concern that there was not enough expertise, from a Member’s perspective, in regards to the oversight of what the corporate and environmental risks were, and wished for a further discussion with Officers outside the meeting. The Leader recognised the importance of the register and appreciated that risks were monitored on a quarterly basis, as they were likely to change over time. He then thanked the Audit, Risk and Counter Fraud Manager for collating the report and keeping Members aware of the risks. The vote, undertaken by way of a show of hands, was carried. RESOLVED That the Council’s Corporate Risk Register at the end of Quarter 3 of the 2024-25 financial year, be noted.
Y penderfyniad fel y'i cofnodwyd
RESOLVED (a) That the content of the report, in the context of the overall budget position, be noted. (b) That the pitch fee rents on Gypsy Traveller sites be increased by CPI of 2.6% from 7th April 2025. (c) That the service charges be increased for Gypsy Traveller sites where water and sewerage are non-metered by 10% per week from 7th April 2025. (d) That the Director of Resources, in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Housing, be given authority to introduce a separate pitch fee rent for new pitches or where improvements have been undertaken and/or significant differential is seen in pitch sizes within and/or between the sites.
[Councillor Joshua Beynon left the meeting at this juncture.] Cabinet considered a report by the Director of Social Services and Housing which outlined the intention to increase Gypsy and Traveller Site rents and water fees and charges for 2025-2026, in line with inflation. Councillor Michelle Bateman, the Cabinet Member with responsibility for Housing, introduced the report and stated that it dealt with the need to increase Gypsy and Traveller site rents and water fees and charges. She stated that the report also provided context regarding historic increases and the need for site capital improvements, and highlighted that improvements to the site had now been scheduled with grant funding secured. Councillor Michelle Bateman Moved the Recommendation; Seconded by Councillor Guy Woodham. The Leader referred to the CPI increase and sought clarification as to whether that was standard across other Authorities. The Head of Housing and Public Protection explained that the level of inflation that could be applied was governed by CPI, in accordance with the Mobile Homes Wales Act 2013. She stated that she was unsure of the levels across Wales, but that was the rationale behind how pitch fees could be increased. The vote, undertaken by way of a roll call, was carried. The votes were recorded as follows: For the Motion: Councillors Jon Harvey, Paul Miller, Michelle Bateman, Tessa Hodgson, Neil Prior, Jacob Williams and Guy Woodham [7] There were no votes against or abstentions. RESOLVED (a) That the content of the report, in the context of the overall budget position, be noted. (b) That the pitch fee rents on Gypsy Traveller sites be increased by CPI of 2.6% from 7th April 2025. (c) That the service charges be increased for Gypsy Traveller sites where water and sewerage are non-metered by 10% per week from 7th April 2025. (d) That the Director of Resources, in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Housing, be given authority to introduce a separate pitch fee rent for new pitches or where improvements have been undertaken and/or significant differential is seen in pitch sizes within and/or between the sites.
Y penderfyniad fel y'i cofnodwyd
RESOLVED That the public be excluded from the meeting in accordance with Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 to consider Appendix A as it involved the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraphs 14 and 16 of Part 4 of Schedule 12A to the Act; and that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information. The webcast was paused at this juncture. Having convened in private session in accordance with Paragraphs 14 and 16 of Part 4 of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972, Cabinet considered the exempt Appendix. The webcast was resumed at this juncture. The vote for the Recommendation, undertaken by way of a roll call, was carried. The votes were recorded as follows: For the Motion: Councillors Jon Harvey, Paul Miller, Michelle Bateman, Tessa Hodgson, Jacob Williams and Guy Woodham [6] There were no votes against or abstentions. RESOLVED (a) That the decision to acquire the phase 1 - 10 plus 5 units be delegated to the Assistant Chief Executive, noting that this decision is only to be made once the Director, in conjunction with property, legal and finance colleagues, is satisfied as to the due diligence which has been conducted, and subject to the (at present estimated) purchase price specified in Appendix A to the report. (b) That the negotiation of a Phase 2 Package Deal works contract for construction of the social/affordable housing be approved, and that it be noted that any future decision to proceed will be made by an Individual Cabinet Member Decision in accordance with delegations set out in the Council’s Contract Procedure Rules. Such decision shall be made subject to: (1) the (at present estimated) purchase price set out in Appendix A; (2) property, legal and finance colleagues’ satisfaction as to the due diligence which has been conducted; (3) direct award exception report being agreed by the Director of Resources.
Cabinet considered a report by the Director of Social Services and Housing which outlined a proposal to enter into an agreement for the acquisition of ten recently constructed new build housing units as an Off the Shelf deal at Harcourt Close, Hook. Councillor Michelle Bateman, the Cabinet Member with responsibility for Housing, introduced the report and stated that this opportunity would add to the Council’s supply of affordable housing, which was a Cabinet priority. She explained that Phase one consisted of ten properties that were complete, closely followed by another five; however, they needed to be redesigned slightly due to the size requirements that needed to be adhered to. In regards to Phase two, Councillor Bateman stated that it allowed the opportunity to purchase an additional fourteen units as a package deal. She highlighted a similar package deal in St. David's, where Phase one had recently been completed, and outlined its success in adding supply in an area where there was large demand. Councillor Michelle Bateman Moved the Recommendation; Seconded by the Leader. Cabinet then considered excluding the public from the meeting in accordance with Section 100A (4) of the Local Government Act 1972, to consider Appendix A as it involved the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraphs 14 and 16 of Part 4 of Schedule 12A to the Act; and that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information. Councillor Michelle Bateman Moved the Exclusion of the public; Seconded by the Leader. The vote, undertaken by way of a roll call, was carried. The votes were recorded as follows: For the Motion: Councillors Jon Harvey, Paul Miller, Michelle Bateman, Tessa Hodgson, Neil Prior, Jacob Williams and Guy Woodham [7] There were no votes against or abstentions. RESOLVED That the public be excluded from the meeting in accordance with Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 to consider Appendix A as it involved the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraphs 14 and 16 of Part 4 of Schedule 12A to the Act; and that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information. The webcast was paused at this juncture. Having convened in private session in accordance with Paragraphs 14 and 16 of Part 4 of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972, Cabinet considered the exempt Appendix. The webcast was resumed at this juncture. The vote for the Recommendation, undertaken by way of a roll call, was carried. The votes were recorded as follows: For the Motion: Councillors Jon Harvey, Paul Miller, Michelle Bateman, Tessa Hodgson, Jacob Williams and Guy Woodham [6] There were no votes against or abstentions. RESOLVED (a) That the decision to acquire the phase 1 - 10 plus 5 units be delegated to the Assistant Chief Executive, noting that this decision is only to be made once the Director, in conjunction with property, legal and finance colleagues, is satisfied as to the due diligence which has been conducted, and subject to the (at present estimated) purchase price specified in Appendix A to the report. (b) That the negotiation of a Phase 2 Package Deal works contract for construction of the social/affordable housing be approved, and that it be noted that any future decision to proceed will be made by an Individual Cabinet Member Decision in accordance with delegations set out in the Council’s Contract Procedure Rules. Such decision shall be made subject to: (1) the (at present estimated) purchase price set out in Appendix A; (2) property, legal and finance colleagues’ satisfaction as to the due diligence which has been conducted; (3) direct award exception report being agreed by the Director of Resources.
Y penderfyniad fel y'i cofnodwyd
RESOLVED (a) That the resourcing of additional preventative support via the initiative fund reserve,subject to a review and prioritisation of detailed business cases, in consultation with the relevant Cabinet Member, be endorsed. (b) That the intention to embark upon a place based preventative approach be endorsed; and an appraisal of progress be provided to future Cabinet meetings. (c) That the wider governance and accountability mechanisms that will be put in place to deliver upon this crucial agenda, be endorsed.
[Councillor Neil Prior left the meeting during this item of business.] Cabinet considered a report by the Senior Leadership Team which outlined the Target Operating Model Update. Councillor Tessa Hodgson, the Cabinet Member with responsibility for Social Care and Safeguarding, introduced the report and stated that the Target Operating Model was the Prevention Agenda of the whole Authority. She stated that the report outlined context, progress and next steps, and believed that this was a step up in relation to prevention, both in regards to focus and allocated resource. She explained that it was specifically aimed at those aged 0 to 25, and that the report asked for endorsement in regards to the resourcing requirements of this work, and the wider governance and accountability mechanisms that would be put in place to deliver on this crucial agenda. Councillor Tessa Hodgson Moved the Recommendation with an Amendment to Recommendation (a) as follows: That the resourcing of additional preventative support via the initiative fund reserve, subject to a review and prioritisation of detailed business cases, in consultation with the relevant Cabinet Member, be endorsed. The Director of Social Services and Housing stated that the report outlined the need to invest more within prevention, as well as taking an evidence based approachto deliver prevention initiatives that would reap financial benefits for the Authority in the medium to the longer term. He also highlighted that the report outlined the aspects of a place-based approach to prevention, where there were issues in certain areas of the County where a better coordinated approach was needed. He then referred to the initiative fund and the criteria that had been adopted for such initiatives. He explained the need for prevention within the County and the tools put forward to progress with that agenda. The Chief Executive stated that the agenda was a cross-cutting programme, with a series of projects involved in prevention, to ensure that the opportunity for positive outcomes was maximised. He referred to the programme linking to the current crisis and increase in pressure in regards to Children’s Services, as well as other issues, such as school attendance. He stated that the programme was dynamic and subject to change, and allowed the opportunity to make a big difference, with the majority of initiatives having an impact over a one to four year period. Councillor Paul Miller referred to the Edge of Care and Integrated Family Support Team and the concerns he had received from schools in regards to dealing with any issues themselves, and questioned whether this agenda would improve the support to schools. In response, the Director of Social Services and Housing stated that in regards to child protection, the Authority followed the Welsh Safeguarding Procedures, and that there were robust processes in place for child protection arrangements. He added that the Child Care Assessment Team had gone through a small restructure, where resource had been received through Operation Salus in order to strengthen the Authority’s safeguarding response as a first point of contact, as well as developed relationships with agencies that were referring concerns. He then encouraged anyone to call the Child Safeguarding Team if they had any concerns with the process or responses. In regards to Edge of Care, he stated that the reason for further investment within the Edge of Care service, was due to the stats showing that 80% of those children stay with their families 12 months after Edge of Care intervention, as well as the significant cost savings associated. The Director for Education referred to youth homelessness and that it had been reduced through a primary prevention approach, and through building resilience with young people and staff in schools. He also referred to acute interventions, acute spending and the evidence-based approach taken. Councillor Miller sought clarification as to whether the proposed intervention, particularly in regards to the Integrated Family Support Team, would improve the resource availability to schools. He also asked whether the whole process was being reviewed. In response, the Director for Education explained that the approach was more holistic and that ongoing work would be more aligned, as there would be one front door for such processes. Councillor Miller also questioned how the impact of the programmes would be measured. The Director for Education stated that the entire process would be covered by a Prevention Board, that would meet on a regular basis, as well as further Cabinet involvement. The Chief Executive wished to add that he envisaged the Prevention Board having a full set of data reporting, with key performance indicators on every single project, with each project having a government structure. Councillor Miller then asked about future bids for projects within the programme and what the governance structure was around those bids. The Chief Executive explained that all bids on the Initiative Fund and the Accelerated Change Programme were governed by the Authority’s Financial Procedure Rules. He added that reference had been made to the bids in the Quarter 3 Budget Monitoring Report, that had been discussed earlier in the meeting. Councillor Miller believed that subject to the bids being successful initiatives, they would become mainstreamed into the budget as part of the normal budget setting process. The Chief Executive confirmed that to be the case, and referred to the Children's Commissioning Team as a successful example. The Director of Education then outlined some examples regarding the type of evaluation that would be done in regards to the bids, and referred to the Nurture Programme, which would include analysis of attendance, behaviour, achievement data, feedback from staff known as parents and observations of practice, which would in turn allow for changes to the approach of the programme. In regards to Councillor Miller’s point regarding measures, the Director of Social Care and Housing stated that there was a balance that needed to be found between quantitative and qualitative, especially in regards to prevention. He explained that as well as having performance indicators in place, the team would also collate the views of people that had been in receipt of services. He also referred to a recent meeting of the Public Services Board and a technique that had been introduced, called ‘Most Significant Change’. Councillor Miller then sought clarification in regards to the difficult decisions that may need to be made in regards to children’s care, and referred to early intervention that may allow for adoption procedures, as opposed to foster case procedures. The Director of Social Care and Housing stated that the approach within Children's Services was about keeping families together when it was safe to do so, as it was believed that that would lead to better outcomes for young people and was a more sustainable way of delivering social care for families. He also referred to the skilled individuals within the Safeguarding Team, who on a day-to-day basis made risk-based decisions regarding children moving into care or not. He added that during a recent review, it was said that such thresholds were being applied correctly in this instance. He also referred to some external funding that had allowed for two child protection expert academics to work closely with the Team in recent months, to review processes and to review the practice model, with their findings and recommendations said to be received later in the year. Councillor Miller then sought clarification as to where parenting support was available from, potentially in regards to neurodiverse children, and questioned how such support would link with the Health Board. In response, the Director for Education stated that the ongoing costs of supporting placements for neurodiverse young people was increasing and becoming increasingly challenging. In regards to health, he referred to the good relationship with the Designated Education Clinical Lead Officer, and went on to outline the number of programmes in place to support families with neurodiverse children. Councillor Miller then referred to the Homelessness Prevention Project and the aim for years 9,10 and 11 to have one session, per year group, per term on the matter, and sought clarification as to how many children in the system would be affected by homelessness. The Director for Education explained that that was early prevention, and believed that intervening at an earlier stage and developing a set of resources around preventing homelessness and family breakdown, would help young people. He then highlighted that some success was being seen as result of that work in the Milford Haven cluster, where the numbers of young people becoming homeless had started to reduce. Councillor Miller questioned whether teachers teaching one lesson per term, to each member of each class in these year groups across the County, was proportionate. The Director for Education believed that it was proportionate and that if it was transferred into one PSE lesson per term, over time it would be sustainable. He added that that education process was an important part of the Prevention Agenda. The Recommendations were Seconded by Councillor Michelle Bateman. The vote, undertaken by way of a roll call, was carried. The votes were recorded as follows: For the Motion: Councillors Jon Harvey, Paul Miller, Michelle Bateman, Tessa Hodgson, Jacob Williams and Guy Woodham [6] There were no votes against or abstentions. RESOLVED (a) That the resourcing of additional preventative support via the initiative fund reserve,subject to a review and prioritisation of detailed business cases, in consultation with the relevant Cabinet Member, be endorsed. (b) That the intention to embark upon a place based preventative approach be endorsed; and an appraisal of progress be provided to future Cabinet meetings. (c) That the wider governance and accountability mechanisms that will be put in place to deliver upon this crucial agenda, be endorsed.
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.