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 petition be noted.
RESOLVED That the petition be noted. [The meeting then adjourned for a short break at 10:39 am and reconvened at 10:52 am.]
RESOLVED That the Director of Education be authorised to commence statutory consultation on establishing a new 3-19 school - split site initially, but as part of future Sustainable Communities for Learning investment to rebuild / extend Greenhill site, or on a new site: (a) with the St David’s Diocese to discontinue Tenby Church in Wales Voluntary Controlled School; and (b) to discontinue Ysgol Greenhill. As part of the statutory process, consideration be given to the value of VC/VA status, the benefits of a 3-19 model and the likely future needs for supporting Secondary Education in the Welsh Medium in South East Pembrokeshire. Council then discussed Recommendation (b) and the following key points were made: The Motion to approve Recommendation (b) had been Moved by Councillor Aled Thomas; Seconded by Councillor Michael Stoddart. Councillor Alistair Cameron then Moved an Amendment in the following terms: Stepaside School was informed on 8 December that Council would be recommended on 12 December to commence the statutory process of discontinuing Stepaside and Saundersfoot Primary Schools and establish a new school on the Saundersfoot Site. In view of this very short timescale, Council agrees to defer its decision until Council on 5 March 2026 to consult fully with all stakeholders including parents, staff, governors and the local community and consider proposals to keep the school in order to serve the best interests of education, community and sustainability. Seconded by Councillor Alec Cormack. The Cabinet Member for Education and the Welsh Language responded that he was opposed the Amendment, stating that the statutory consultation process is designed to gather stakeholder views and the Amendment would cause delay in a very emotive situation. He supported progressing with the original recommendation to authorise consultation. Councillor Alec Cormack spoke in support of the Amendment arguing that it would allow time for alternative proposals to be developed. He acknowledged that change is necessary due to falling pupil numbers but stressed that both schools are well-run and effective. He criticised the current recommendation for focusing mainly on resource efficiency, while other principles such as community focus, accessibility, inclusivity and sustainability require local knowledge and input from governing bodies and leadership teams. He suggested exploring mixed-use options for underutilised school sites, noting that upcoming trials of place-based teams could make these sites valuable for other Council services. He raised concerns about the impact of closure on attendance, particularly for pupils entitled to free school meals, and questioned whether the cost of busing pupils would outweigh savings. He concluded that delaying the decision would ensure fairness and allow consideration of better options that meet all six principles of school organisation. The Director for Education advised that delaying the decision to consult would breach the School Organisation Code, which requires Council to approve a proposal before statutory consultation begins. He explained that stakeholder engagement occurs during the consultation stage, not beforehand, and confirmed this is the process followed for other recent consultations. As Chair of the School Modernisation Working Group, Councillor Aled Thomas expressed his opposition to the Amendment, arguing that postponing the decision would simply delay the consultation and prolong uncertainty. He stressed that the purpose of consultation is to gather the views of stakeholders and noted that the proposals have been in the public domain for over 12 months, so they should not come as a surprise. He warned that unnecessary delays would repeat mistakes seen in other cases, causing harm to affected communities, and confirmed he would vote against the Amendment. The Cabinet Member sought clarification on whether there is an opportunity for respondents to suggest alternatives to the Council’s proposal. The Director for Education confirmed that the consultation includes this requirement in line with the School Organisation Code and that any suggested alternatives will be considered in the report presented to the future Council meeting. Councillor Alan Dennison queried whether there is sufficient space at the Saundersfoot site to build a new school without relocating pupils and demolishing the existing building. The Director of Education confirmed that the proposal is to use the existing Saundersfoot site, which currently has a capacity of 297 places. With 151 pupils enrolled (Reception to Year 6), it was noted there are 146 spare places, meaning the site can accommodate the proposal without requiring relocation or demolition. Councillor Michael Stoddart pointed out that the Amendment simply adds an unofficial consultation period before the official one, which he felt would only cause delay, and confirmed he would vote against it. Councillor Delme Harries also indicated his intention to vote against the Amendment. Councillor Alec Cormack expressed concern about the short notice given to affected communities and schools, arguing that better options could emerge through consultation with governors and schools. He highlighted errors in the report and felt the process appeared rushed, urging Members to support the Amendment to allow more time for engagement. Councillor Phil Kidney expressed support for moving forward, noting that once the process begins, concerns often ease, and emphasised the need to conclude matters rather than delay. Councillor Michael John opposed the Amendment, stating that all school clusters should follow a consistent process and that opportunities to suggest alternatives already exist within the formal consultation. Councillor Elwyn Morse supported the Amendment, citing insufficient notice for communities and the need for more lead-in time before consultation, particularly to explore alternative uses for schools. The Cabinet Member highlighted that formal consultation is scheduled to start in September 2026, allowing significant time for proposals and alternatives to be considered. He stressed that the current recommendation does not compromise the School Organisation Code and reiterated that alternatives can still be submitted before and during the consultation period. The Presiding Member clarified that Councillor Alistair Cameron was moving a Procedural Motion to defer the decision. Councillor Cameron argued that closure of Stepaside School would result in a net cost to the Council of approximately £100,000 due to additional transport costs outweighing projected savings. He highlighted steady pupil numbers, planned housing developments that could increase enrolment, and the school’s strong Estyn report praising its nurturing environment and support for disadvantaged pupils, including a significant gypsy traveller community. He stressed the importance of the Puffins nursery and local parent groups, raised concerns about transport safety and environmental impact, and warned that starting the statutory process now could create uncertainty and reduce pupil numbers. He urged deferral to allow proper engagement with the school and stakeholders before deciding whether to proceed with formal consultation. The vote to defer Recommendation (b), undertaken by way of an electronic vote, was not carried. The votes were recorded as follows: For the Motion: Councillors Alistair Cameron, Alec Cormack, Terry Davies, Brian Hall, Phil Kidney, Elwyn Morse, Bethan Price, Vanessa Thomas, Anji Tinley, Iwan Ward, Michele Wiggins, Tony Wilcox [12] Against the Motion: Councillors Jamie Adams, Steve Alderman, Michelle Bateman, Maureen Bowen, Mark Carter, Di Clements, John Cole, Alan Dennison, Tim Evans, Claire George, Nicola Gwynn, Simon Hancock, Delme Harries, Jon Harvey, Tessa Hodgson, David Howlett, Mike James, Michael John, Rhys Jordan, Huw Murphy, Nick Neumann, Mel Phillips, Neil Prior, Shon Rees, David Simpson, Rhys Sinnett, Sam Skyrme-Blackhall, Michael Stoddart, Vivien Stoddart, Aled Thomas, Marc Tierney, Thomas Tudor, Chris Williams, Jacob Williams, Michael Williams, Alun Wills, Guy Woodham, Steve Yelland [38] There were no abstentions. The vote was then put to approve Recommendation (b), undertaken by way of an electronic vote, and was carried. The votes were recorded as follows: For the Motion: Councillors Jamie Adams, Steve Alderman, Michelle Bateman, Maureen Bowen, Mark Carter, Di Clements, John Cole, Terry Davies, Alan Dennison, Tim Evans, Claire George, Brian Hall, Simon Hancock, Delme Harries, Jon Harvey, Tessa Hodgson, David Howlett, Mike James, Michael John, Rhys Jordan, Huw Murphy, Nick Neumann, Mel Phillips, Bethan Price, Neil Prior, Shon Rees, David Simpson, Rhys Sinnett, Sam Skyrme-Blackhall, Michael Stoddart, Vivien Stoddart, Aled Thomas, Marc Tierney, Thomas Tudor, Michele Wiggins, Tony Wilcox, Chris Williams, Jacob Williams, Michael Williams, Alun Wills, Guy Woodham, Steve Yelland [42] Against the Motion: Councillors Alec Cormack, Alistair Cameron, Anji Tinley, Elwyn Morse, Iwan Ward, Phil Kidney, Vanessa Thomas [7] There were no abstentions RESOLVED That the Director of Education be authorised to commence statutory consultation on establishing a new 3-11 primary school on the Saundersfoot School Site that encompasses the catchment of Saundersfoot and the catchment of Stepaside and Kilgetty: (a) To discontinue Saundersfoot School; and (b) To discontinue Stepaside school.
RESOLVED that: (a) The Pembrokeshire Standard Rents be increased by 3.6% plus up to £2.55 per individual rent that is currently below Standard Rent. Rents to be collected over 48 weeks, with effect for all existing tenancies from the 1 July 2026, and for all new tenancies from the 1 April 2026. (b) Garage rents be increased by 4.3%, to be collected over 48 weeks, with effect from 1 April 2026. (c) For tenanted properties improved to the highest possible energy rating of EPC A or B, the rent for the property will be increased until the Standard Rent for new/improved homes rent levels is achieved. This will be agreed in each circumstance dependent on the energy efficiency of the property by the relevant Cabinet Member and Head of Service prior to its implementation. (d) The Housing Revenue Account (HRA) Estimates for 2026-27 be approved.
RESOLVED that (a) The updated Corporate and Financial Planning Timetable for 2026-27 be noted. (b) The Outline Draft County Council Budget for 2026-27, including Service Pressures and proposed Budget Savings, and Outline Draft Medium Term Financial Plan 2026-27 to 2028-29 be noted. (c) The modelling work on the affordability of the Capital Programme be noted and the continuation of the Capital Financing Cost to Net Revenue Budget cap of 5.3% be endorsed. (d) The Capital Programme for 2026-27 to 2029-30 be noted. (e) The Senior Leadership Team continue to evaluate the Outline Draft County Council Budget for 2026-27 in light of any decisions of Cabinet or Council. (f) All discretionary fees and charges related to Council functions be increased by 3.8% for 2026-27, unless an alternative option has been included in the budget savings proposals or a separate report to Council. The reduction in uncommitted reserve balances over the MTFP 2026-27 to 2028-29 be noted, acknowledging that some of the remaining uncommitted reserve balances will need to be appropriated to the General Fund working balance in accordance with the Strategy for Holding and Utilising Reserves
RESOLVED that (a) The Council does not exercise its discretion in respect of: (i) Extending payment for working age claimants who find work, the effect of which is that the prescribed period of four weeks will apply. (ii) Backdating of claims beyond the three-month period, the effect of which is that backdating will be limited to a maximum of up to three months for all claimants. (b) The Council will exercise its discretion to: (i) Disregard war widows’ pensions, war disablement pensions and any other analogous payments as income for assessment purposes. (ii) Enhance the process for notification of decisions above the minimum requirements as it considers appropriate (c) A Scheme under the Council Tax Reduction Schemes and Prescribed Requirements (Wales) Regulations 2013 (as amended) be adopted.
RESOLVED That Mr Nadeem Ahmad be appointed as an Independent Member to the Standards Committee for a period of five years.
RESOLVED That the undertaking of a Section 31 review under the 2013 Act of the electoral arrangements for the communities of Lamphey, Llanrhian, Llangwm, St Dogmaels and Wolfscastle be approved, subject to Llangwm Community Council remaining at eight seats.
RESOLVED That authority be delegated to the Assistant Chief Executive/Director of Place to provide adequate accommodation for the Democratic Services Team within proximity to the Council Chamber and Committee Rooms; and to investigate remedial actions to improve ventilation in the Council Chamber.
RESOLVED (a) That the abolishment of the Swansea Bay City Deal Joint Committee and associated Scrutiny Committee be agreed. (b) That the decision taken by the member councils will need to be ratified by the Swansea Bay City Deal Joint Committee prior to its implementation be noted.
RESOLVED (a) That the Allocation of Committee Seats and Outside Bodies to political groups under the requirements of Section 15 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 as set out in Appendix 1 be approved, with the additional seat on the Planning Committee being allocated to the Independent Group. (b) That the following nominations be approved: (i) Social Care Overview and Scrutiny Committee – Councillor Phil Kidney. (ii) Policy and Pre-decision Overview and Scrutiny Committee – Neil Prior. (iii) South West Wales Corporate Joint Overview and Scrutiny Committee - Councillor Michael Stoddart. (c) That the appointment of Members to Committees and other bodies, as set out in Appendix 3, be approved subject to the following amendment made at the meeting: (i) Schools Modernisation Working Group – adding Councillor Huw Murphy.
RESOLVED (a) That the start time of the Annual Council Meeting be amended from 11am to 10am be approved. (b) That the draft Municipal Calendar for the period May to December 2026. [Councillor Di Clements left the meeting at this juncture.]
RESOLVED That the Notice of Motion be referred to Services Overview and Scrutiny Committee.
RESOLVED That the Notice of Motion be referred to Cabinet.
RESOLVED That the Notice of Motion be referred to Cabinet.
RESOLVED That the Notice of Motion be referred to Cabinet.
RESOLVED That the Notice of Motion be referred to Cabinet.
In welcoming everyone to the meeting, the Presiding Member advised that he had consented to allow an urgent question and Notice of Motion from Councillors Aaron Carey and Jonathan Grimes relating to flooding in Pembroke given that the matter was a live, ongoing problem affecting many residents and business and needed to be addressed as quickly as possible. He advised that they would be considered under Agenda items 18 and 19 respectively and that the details had already been circulated to all Members and was contained in the Supplementary Agenda published the previous day. The Presiding Member then referred to his attendance at the funeral yesterday of Councillor Jordan Ryan. He stated that Councillor Ryan was a man of values and principles who was absolutely committed and dedicated to his constituents in the Fishguard North East Ward; and that his passionate, insightful and thoughtful contributions to Council meetings will be sorely missed by every Member across the chamber. On behalf of Council, the Presiding Member expressed sincere condolences to Councillor Ryan’s family and friends. The Presiding Member then referred to the deaths of two former Members of the Council: Mickey Folland and Gwilym Price. Councillor Price was a former Goodwick County Councillor, Mayor of Fishguard and Goodwick and known across Pembrokeshire as former County Chairman of the Pembrokeshire branch of the Royal British Legion. Councillor Folland was a former Mayor of Tenby and served as Chairman of Pembrokeshire County Council in 2003. The Presiding Member also referred to the sad death of Darren Cole, the son of Councillor John Cole. Darren passed away recently at the very early age of only 40 years of age. He also expressed deepest condolences to Councillor Joshua Beynon, whose father Phil passed away recently; and also a couple of days ago, the death of Councillor Danny Young's father Billy. Furthermore, he announced the death of an employee, Simon Barry, who passed away very suddenly, last week. The meeting then observed a moment of silence as a mark of respect. The Presiding Member then invited the Chair of Council/Deputy Presiding Member to make her announcements. The Chair began her announcements by wishing to add her personal condolences to the families and friends of Councillors Ryan, Folland and Price and to those Members who have lost loved ones. Since the last meeting, the Chair advised that she had represented the Council at a host of different events across Pembrokeshire. These include marking two important moments in the regeneration of Haverfordwest with the steel signing ceremony at the Public Transport Interchange and the opening of the new bridge at Riverside. With regard to the annual Remembrance period, the Chair announced that she was honoured to attend services to rededicate the memorial window at the Heritage Centre, Pembroke Dock and dedicate a memorial garden at Salutation Square, Haverfordwest. She had laid a wreath at the Military Cemetery and the Cenotaphs in Pembroke Dock and Haverfordwest. Other interesting events she attended were the opening of the Art Exhibition by very talented students from Milford School at the Torch Theatre and the Annual General Meeting of the Women’s Institute at the County Showground. On 17 November she hosted a ceremony to present three British Empire Medals to very worthy recipients here in the Council Chamber; and the medals were presented by His Majesty’s Lord-Lieutenant of Dyfed. It was also an honour to attend the Sport Pembrokeshire Awards evening on 28 November where she had the pleasure of presenting the Chairman’s award to Team ‘Cruising Free’ from Neyland Rowing Club, who have completed one of the world's greatest challenges – rowing the mighty Atlantic Ocean. She then referred to a reception on 2 December for the Terence Higgins Trust hosted in the Chairman’s Parlour, marking the installation of blue plaques at the former Priory Mount Hospital, where Terry was born. This marks a significant moment in recognising Terry’s life and legacy in his hometown. She also commended the Presiding Member for his work on this project as Curator of Haverfordwest Town Museum. The Chair then concluded by wishing all Members and their families a very Merry Christmas and a happy and healthy new year.
The following declarations of interest were made: (a) Agenda Item No. 7 - Petition to Oppose the proposed closure of Ysgol Clydau Councillor Shon Rees declared a personal interest by virtue of his family business providing home to school transport for children attending Ysgol Clydau. (b) Agenda Item No. 8 - Recommendations of the School Modernisation Working Group Councillor Alistair Cameron declared a personal interest by virtue of being a Governor of Tenby VC School and a non-voting Governor at Stepaside School. Councillor Tessa Hodgson declared a personal interest by virtue of two family members being in education in Pembrokeshire; and as a Governor of Cosheston School. Councillor Michelle Bateman declared a personal interest by virtue of a family member being Deputy Headteacher of Saundersfoot School. Councillor Rhys Jordan declared a personal interest by virtue of being a Governor of Ysgol Hafan y Mor, appointed by the Authority; and a family member attending the School. Councillor Alec Cormack declared a personal interest by virtue of being a Governor of Saundersfoot and Greenhill Schools, appointed by the Authority. Councillor Sam Skyrme-Blackhall declared a personal interest by virtue of being a Governor of Ysgol Greenhill, appointed by the Authority. Councillor Chris Williams declared a personal interest by virtue of a family member being the Headmaster of Golden Grove School, Pembroke. Councillor Shon Rees declared a personal interest by virtue of a family member being employed at Ysgol Caer Elen; and being a Governor of Ysgol Bro Preseli, appointed by the Authority. Councillor Marc Tierney declared a personal interest by virtue of being a Governor of Narberth CP School, appointed by the Authority; and a partner of a family member being employed at Ysgol Greenhill. Councillor Phil Kidney declared a personal interest by virtue of being a Governor of St Florence School. Councillor Steve Alderman declared a personal interest by virtue of being a Governor of Ysgol Penrhyn, appointed by the Authority; and a family member being employed as a teacher. Councillor Terry Davies declared a personal interest by virtue of two family members teaching in local schools. Councillor Tony Wilcox declared a personal interest by virtue of being a Governor of Pennar Junior School. Councillor Huw Murphy declared a personal interest by virtue of being a Governor of Ysgol Bro Preseli and Ysgol Bro Ingli. Councillor David Simpson declared a personal interest by virtue of being a Governor of Tavernspite School, appointed by the Authority. Councillor Iwan Ward declared a personal interest by virtue of being a Governor of Ysgol Clydau and Ysgol Bro Preseli. Councillor Michael James declared a personal interest by virtue of being a Governor of Ysgol Bro Preseli. (c) Agenda Item No. 9 - Pembrokeshire Council HRA Rent and Service Charges Setting Options and HRA Estimates for 2026-2027 Councillor Neil Prior declared a personal interest by virtue of being a non-executive Director of POBL and advised that he had a dispensation to speak only on the matter. (d) Agenda Item No. 13 - Review of Community Electoral Arrangements Councillor Neil Prior declared a personal interest in by virtue of being the Chair of Llanrhian Community Council. Councillor Michael John declared a personal interest by virtue of being an elected Member of Llangwm Community Council. Councillor Steve Alderman declared a personal interest by virtue of being the Chair of Stackpole and Castlemartin Community Council. (e) Agenda Item No. 15 - Amendments to Swansea Bay City Deal Joint Committee Arrangements and Delegation of Functions to the South West Wales Corporate Joint Committee Councillor Steve Alderman declared a personal interest in by virtue of being a Council representative on the Governance and Audit Committee Corporate Joint Committee. (f) Agenda Item No. 18 – Question submitted by Councillor Alec Cormack on the Town and Country Planning Act Councillor Alec Cormack declared a personal interest by virtue of speaking on this item. During this item of business, the Presiding Member offered his congratulations, on behalf of Council, to Councillor Neil Prior for his recent appointment as a Community Member of the Hywel Dda University Health Board.
Council considered the Minutes of the Meeting held on 9 October 2025 for approval as a correct record. Moved by the Presiding Member; Seconded by Councillor Brian Hall RESOLVED That the Minutes of the Meeting held on 9 October 2025 be approved as a correct record.
Councillor Rhys Sinnett, the relevant Cabinet Member, responded to a question submitted by Sharon Purcell prior to the meeting in accordance with the provisions of Council Procedure Rule 4.17 as follows: Although I’ve been denied access to the budgeted costs of the five new proposed active travel routes, I have found out from Welsh Government that a total of £250,651,362 has been already been paid out in Active Travel Grants since the Active Travel Act passed into law, of which £7,681,485 has been paid to PCC. As a stated aim of the Act and of the Wales Transport Strategy is modal shift away from cars, have any surveys or research been done into how many staff and councillors make use of the existing current shared paths/quiet roads to cycle to County Hall from Pembroke, Pembroke Dock, Neyland, Milford, Herbrandston, Johnston, Tiers Cross, Steynton and Merlin’s Bridge? If not, how is the money spent evaluated to ensure value for money and to decide where future funds should be spent? The Cabinet Member responded as follows: Local authorities (LAs) in Wales are subject to a number of statutory requirements under the Active Travel (Wales) Act 2013, supported by related statutory and best-practice guidance. This includes a duty to improve active travel in addition to key elements which when combined create a legal framework requiring Welsh LAs not just to plan and build, but to champion and embed active travel as a key, everyday mode of transport. As such Pembrokeshire County Council has implemented a number of schemes since 2013 and are bidding into the Welsh Government’s Regional Transport Plan five-year programme in order to develop and deliver transport infrastructure including active travel across the County. A number of schemes are in development and consultation has taken place to ensure community feedback is incorporated into the final solutions to ensure their viability and deliverability. As agreed by Cabinet last month, the Active Travel Network Map (ATNM) will be reviewed and a public consultation will take place in 2026 to create the second iteration of this Map. With regards to the point surrounding surveys or research on Staff and Councillor Usage, at present, no specific surveys have been undertaken to measure how many Staff or Councillors cycle or walk to County Hall from the locations which have been listed. Whilst we encourage active travel among employees and have schemes to support this, such as the Salary Sacrifice Cycle Scheme, data collection on individual commuting habits has not been part of our current monitoring framework. Notwithstanding this, any surveys or consultations which are undertaken are of course open to all Councillors and Staff should they want to take part. From an impact assessment perspective, future funding decisions are informed by factors such as network connectivity, safety improvements, and potential to enable modal shift, supported by usage data where available such as counters on paths, public feedback and ATNM consultation responses.
Y penderfyniad fel y'i cofnodwyd
RESOLVED That the petition be noted.
The Presiding Member welcomed Richard Hughes to the meeting to speak on the petition relating to Manorbier School which had met the threshold for a debate at Council receiving over 1500 signatures. He then outlined the process for consideration of the petition. The terms of the petition called upon Pembrokeshire County Council to acknowledge and scrutinise fairly, honestly and with transparency and inclusivity, the following petition. We, as representatives of Ysgol Gynradd Eglwys Maenorbyr, Manorbier Church in Wales Primary School, are writing to express our unwavering opposition to the proposed closure of our school. Manorbier School, is a small rural school in Pembrokeshire, a vital community asset for the parish of Manorbier, which comprises of the villages Lydstep, Manorbier Newton, Jameston and Manorbier. Mr Hughes, parent and Community Councillor, began his presentation by stating that the petition opposed to the proposed closure of Manorbier School had gathered over 1,500 signatures. He stated that the consultation process was flawed, misleading, and unlawful. He argued that the capacity figures used in the report were based on a building destroyed by fire in October 2022 and were therefore invalid. The current capacity is 30 with 23 pupils, giving a surplus of 21.7%, which is below the 25% threshold for closure. Mr Hughes challenged claims of a 59.8% decline in pupil numbers, stating that these figures were misleading and influenced by capped admissions and delays in rebuilding. He raised concerns about breaches of the School Organisation Code, conflicts of interest during previous meetings and failure to consult statutory stakeholders. He emphasised the requirements of the Well-being of Future Generations Act and highlighted the negative impact on rural communities, Welsh language and culture. He urged the Council to reject the proposal and reinstate the school building as previously promised, noting that offers to rebuild at cost had been ignored. Mr Hughes concluded by warning that approving the proposal would endorse unlawful and biased decision-making and would harm children, staff, families and the viability of the rural community. [Councillor Di Clements joined the meeting at this juncture.] Following Mr Hughes’ address, the Presiding Member invited the local Member, Councillor Phil Kidney to make a statement. Councillor Kidney expressed his frustration with the process, stating that the community had lived under uncertainty for three years and felt misled. He emphasised that the Council had a moral duty to rebuild Manorbier School, which had been promised repeatedly, and highlighted that significant funds would need to be spent regardless to return the site to its original condition. He praised the dedication of staff who have maintained high standards of education in temporary accommodation and urged Members to visit the school to see the quality of care provided. Councillor Kidney criticised the consultation as biased, claiming it was presented as a promotion for St Florence School rather than a balanced review of Manorbier’s strengths and weaknesses. He expressed disappointment that the Scrutiny committee had not visited the school and said the community had lost trust in the Education Directorate. He urged Members to keep an open mind when the matter returns to Council in March, not to rely solely on figures, and to consider the promises made and the impact on the community. He concluded by asking members to do “the moral thing”. The Presiding Member then invited Councillor Guy Woodham, the Cabinet Member for Education and Welsh Language, to provide a response. Councillor Woodham thanked Mr Hughes and Councillor Kidney for their contributions and acknowledged the resilience shown by Manorbier School following the fire in October 2022. He expressed regret over the length of time the process has taken and noted that some concerns raised have already been addressed. He invited Mr Hughes to share his statement by email so he could review the points made in detail. Councillor Woodham encouraged everyone to participate in the consultation, which closes next Friday, and confirmed that the final decision will be made by Full Council, in March. He assured Members that his role is to present an accurate and balanced report, not to skew the outcome, and committed to ensuring that all data is robust and all relevant information is included so Members can make a fully informed decision. He reiterated his thanks and stressed the importance of engagement in the consultation process. The Presiding Member confirmed that the only action available to Council at this stage is to note the petition and the debate, as the statutory consultation is still ongoing. A full report will be prepared following the consultation and presented to Full Council for decision on 5 March 2026. The Presiding Member then opened the matter for debate, reminding Members that 15 minutes was allocated for debate. The key points were noted as follows: Councillor Alan Dennison thanked Mr Hughes for his presentation and expressed confusion about the Council’s position, noting that both the current and previous Leaders had indicated support for reopening the school. He asked for clarification on the Leader’s views. The Leader responded that the decision is a matter for Full Council, not the Leader or Cabinet. He confirmed that he had previously spoken in support of Manorbier School but reiterated that the recommendations for consultation came from the School Modernisation Working Group due to surplus places in the Tenby cluster. Councillor Iwan Ward voiced strong support for Councillor Kidney and the community, stating that he had visited the school and was impressed by the staff and pupils. He stressed that the school should be rebuilt and children should return to Manorbier. Councillor Tony Wilcox asked whether the Council is legally obliged to rebuild the school like-for-like under the lease terms. The Director for Education clarified that if the decision is made not to continue with the school, the Council would need to negotiate with the Diocese, who own the building. Councillor John Cole stressed that the school is central to the Manorbier community and removing it would take “the heart out of the community.” He urged that the final decision in March should consider both community needs and financial implications. Councillor Huw Murphy reflected that the Council had mishandled the situation, describing it as a “template for how not to deal with a catastrophic incident.” He said the school and community had been failed and warned that closing the school would punish victims of circumstances beyond their control. He committed to respecting the Council’s decision in March but advised the Council needed to be honest and do what is right for the community. Councillor Brian Hall reiterated his support for keeping the school open and noted that rebuilding could increase pupil numbers significantly and questioned the costs involved, which the Director confirmed are commercially sensitive and not in the public domain. Councillor Anji Tinley raised concerns about promises made to rebuild the school in 2022 and questioned the fairness of the process if the School Modernisation Working Group had been working with inaccurate data. She expressed unease about decisions being made before consultation and stressed that Full Council should have the final say. In response, the Director of Education clarified that pupil data comes from the PLASC census (pupil level annual census) provided by the school and financial data from the Section 52 education statement relating to running of the school in pupil costs. He confirmed that the consultation relates to the closure of the school, not the community hall. Councillor Jamie Adams associated himself with the comments of Councillor Huw Murphy and urged that when the matter returns to Council in March, Members should have a full understanding of commitments previously made by senior figures, including the former and current Leaders and the Chief Executive. He stressed that it would be disingenuous for reports to promote a different view if those commitments cannot be honoured. Councillor Michael Stoddart pointed out that this meeting was not the forum to debate the merits of the case and suggested that the petition be noted, with further discussion deferred until the March meeting when full consultation responses will be available. Councillor Stoddart Moved that the petition be noted; Seconded by the Presiding Member. Councillor Jacob Williams supported the motion to note the petition, clarifying that the petition asks the Council to reconsider its previous decision to consult, not to close the school, and that any decision on the school’s future will depend on the information provided after consultation. The Chief Executive echoed Members’ praise for the resilience and commitment of the school’s staff and community, led by the Headteacher and Chair of Governors, and confirmed that he and the Director of Education have maintained regular contact with the school throughout this period. The Presiding Member then invited Mr Hughes to sum up his right of reply. Mr Hughes reiterated his belief that the consultation process is fundamentally flawed and legally indefensible. He argued that the capacity figure of 86 pupils is based on a building that no longer exists, making the data invalid. He claimed that pupil decline was artificially engineered by restricting admissions and delaying reinstatement, and that financial figures are misleading because costs were inflated by prolonged use of temporary accommodation. He stated that the Diocese, a statutory consultee, strongly objected but was misled and kept uninformed, breaching the School Organisation Code. He highlighted conflicts of interest within the School Organisation Group and suggested the consultation was a smokescreen for pre-planned development on school land. He warned that approving the proposal would breach the Well-being of Future Generations Act and expose the Council to legal challenge. Mr Hughes urged members to reject the proposal entirely, stating that voting for it would be unsafe, unethical and unlawful. The Presiding Member clarified that no substantive decision regarding Manorbier School was being made at this meeting; the purpose was solely to note the public petition. A full report, including consultation results, will be presented to Full Council on 5 March 2026, when the substantive decision will be taken. A question was raised about whether Members of the School Modernisation Working Group should declare an interest. The Head of Democratic Services advised that Members appointed by Council to the working group do not have a disqualifying or personal interest. The Presiding Member thanked Mr Hughes and all participants for their contributions. The vote, undertaken by way of a show of hands, was carried. RESOLVED That the petition be noted.
Y penderfyniad fel y'i cofnodwyd
RESOLVED That the petition be noted. [The meeting then adjourned for a short break at 10:39 am and reconvened at 10:52 am.]
The Presiding Member welcomed Sarah Farnden to the meeting to speak on the petition opposing the proposed closure of Ysgol Clydau which had met the threshold for a debate at Council. He then outlined the process for consideration of the petition. The petition called upon the Council to reconsider its decision to close Ysgol Clydau and instead prioritise the needs of the community by keeping the school open. It opposed the closure of Ysgol Clydau and called for full public scrutiny before any decision is made. The petitioners urge the Council to engage in a meaningful dialogue with the community, listen to their concerns, and work with them to find alternative solutions that support the needs of their children and families. Ms Farnden spoke on behalf of the community, emphasising that the petition reflects a critical issue for the survival of the village and its future generations. She urged Members to view the proposed closure not as a financial exercise but as a decision affecting a living community. She highlighted Welsh Government guidance that there should be a presumption against closing rural schools, noting that once lost, such schools and communities do not return. She described Ysgol Clydau as a nurturing, inclusive environment praised by Inspectors as happy and caring, where children feel safe and are known individually. Closing the school would, she argued, damage the Welsh language, local culture, and community cohesion, and lead to long journeys, stress, and anxiety for young children, particularly those with additional learning needs who thrive in the small setting. She warned that many of these pupils could not cope in larger schools, risking regression or lack of suitable placements. Ms Farnden stressed that the school is not in deficit and has been managed responsibly, questioning why it is targeted for closure while others with deficits remain open. She argued that any perceived savings would be short-term and outweighed by future costs such as transport and loss of local investment. She concluded by appealing to Members to protect the school’s 145-year heritage and its vital role in sustaining the community, urging them to see the school as a lifeline rather than a liability. As local Member, Councillor Ward was then provided with the opportunity to speak on the terms of the petition. Councillor Ward expressed strong opposition to the proposed closure of Ysgol Clydau, criticising the timing of the consultation launch just before Christmas as insensitive and disrespectful to families. He emphasised that the school is not in financial deficit, is thriving, and provides stability and support for young people in a Welsh-speaking rural community. He argued that closing the school is not simply a financial or numerical decision but a moral one, affecting the long-term wellbeing of children and the identity of the community. He described the school as a safe and nurturing environment and a cornerstone of rural life, warning that its closure would rip the life out of the community. Councillor Ward pledged to stand with parents, staff, governors, and children to fight for the school’s future and voiced frustration at not being notified of the consultation in advance, despite assurances that this would happen. The Presiding Member then invited Councillor Guy Woodham, the Cabinet Member for Education and Welsh Language, to provide a response. Councillor Woodham thanked the speaker and acknowledged the presence of young people observing the meeting. He expressed regret over the delay in starting the consultation and noted that, although it spans the Christmas period, it will run for the full 42 working days. He emphasised that no decision has yet been made and that the purpose of the consultation is to gather views to inform a balanced report for Full Council. Councillor Woodham gave assurance that he will present all relevant information, including points raised in the Chamber and through the consultation, to ensure Members can make an informed decision. He invited the speaker to email their statement for further review. The Presiding Member then invited Members to debate the petition for a period of up to 15 minutes and the following key points were noted: Councillor Phil Kidney expressed support for the petition and warned that closing rural schools could lead to an increase in home schooling, which he felt was detrimental to children’s education. He also highlighted the wider impact on communities, citing the example of Penally School’s closure, which resulted in children no longer playing locally and weakened community ties. Councillor Mike James supported the local Member’s comments, stressing the importance of rural schools for children, the Welsh language and the future of local communities. He stated his clear preference for keeping rural schools open. Councillor Shon Rees voiced full support for the families of Clydau, drawing on his experience of a previous school closure in Hermon and acknowledging the pain it caused communities. He praised the commitment of parents and the local community. Councillor Michael Stoddart noted that the issues raised were similar to those in the earlier petition. Councillor Stoddart then Moved that the Council note the petition; Seconded by Councillor Brian Hall. Councillor Huw Murphy emphasised his duty as a first-language Welsh speaker to support schools that promote the Welsh language and confirmed he would vote to keep Welsh speaking schools open when the matter returns to Council. The Chief Executive apologised for the timing of the consultation, explaining that delays were caused by staff changes and translation issues, which pushed the start date into November. He acknowledged that launching the consultation before Christmas was less than ideal. Councillor Iwan Ward reiterated concerns about poor communication and stressed the need for better updates to both Members and schools. The Director for Education apologised for the lack of communication and gave assurance that the consultation will run for the required period, encouraging all stakeholders to respond. He also thanked petitioners for their contributions and the children, their families and staff in the public gallery. The Presiding Member invited Ms Farnden to sum up her right of reply. Ms Farnden urged Members to honour the Welsh Government’s presumption against school closures and act with fairness, compassion and respect for the community. She appealed to Members not to “cut the heart out of the community” and to help protect the school, the Welsh language, local identity and children’s wellbeing. The Presiding Member acknowledged the emotional nature of the issue and thanked the speaker and attendees. He confirmed that the substantive decision will be made by Full Council on 5 March 2026, following the consultation. The vote, undertaken by way of a show of hands, was carried. RESOLVED That the petition be noted. [The meeting then adjourned for a short break at 10:39 am and reconvened at 10:52 am.]
Y penderfyniad fel y'i cofnodwyd
RESOLVED That the Director of Education be authorised to commence statutory consultation on establishing a new 3-19 school - split site initially, but as part of future Sustainable Communities for Learning investment to rebuild / extend Greenhill site, or on a new site: (a) with the St David’s Diocese to discontinue Tenby Church in Wales Voluntary Controlled School; and (b) to discontinue Ysgol Greenhill. As part of the statutory process, consideration be given to the value of VC/VA status, the benefits of a 3-19 model and the likely future needs for supporting Secondary Education in the Welsh Medium in South East Pembrokeshire. Council then discussed Recommendation (b) and the following key points were made: The Motion to approve Recommendation (b) had been Moved by Councillor Aled Thomas; Seconded by Councillor Michael Stoddart. Councillor Alistair Cameron then Moved an Amendment in the following terms: Stepaside School was informed on 8 December that Council would be recommended on 12 December to commence the statutory process of discontinuing Stepaside and Saundersfoot Primary Schools and establish a new school on the Saundersfoot Site. In view of this very short timescale, Council agrees to defer its decision until Council on 5 March 2026 to consult fully with all stakeholders including parents, staff, governors and the local community and consider proposals to keep the school in order to serve the best interests of education, community and sustainability. Seconded by Councillor Alec Cormack. The Cabinet Member for Education and the Welsh Language responded that he was opposed the Amendment, stating that the statutory consultation process is designed to gather stakeholder views and the Amendment would cause delay in a very emotive situation. He supported progressing with the original recommendation to authorise consultation. Councillor Alec Cormack spoke in support of the Amendment arguing that it would allow time for alternative proposals to be developed. He acknowledged that change is necessary due to falling pupil numbers but stressed that both schools are well-run and effective. He criticised the current recommendation for focusing mainly on resource efficiency, while other principles such as community focus, accessibility, inclusivity and sustainability require local knowledge and input from governing bodies and leadership teams. He suggested exploring mixed-use options for underutilised school sites, noting that upcoming trials of place-based teams could make these sites valuable for other Council services. He raised concerns about the impact of closure on attendance, particularly for pupils entitled to free school meals, and questioned whether the cost of busing pupils would outweigh savings. He concluded that delaying the decision would ensure fairness and allow consideration of better options that meet all six principles of school organisation. The Director for Education advised that delaying the decision to consult would breach the School Organisation Code, which requires Council to approve a proposal before statutory consultation begins. He explained that stakeholder engagement occurs during the consultation stage, not beforehand, and confirmed this is the process followed for other recent consultations. As Chair of the School Modernisation Working Group, Councillor Aled Thomas expressed his opposition to the Amendment, arguing that postponing the decision would simply delay the consultation and prolong uncertainty. He stressed that the purpose of consultation is to gather the views of stakeholders and noted that the proposals have been in the public domain for over 12 months, so they should not come as a surprise. He warned that unnecessary delays would repeat mistakes seen in other cases, causing harm to affected communities, and confirmed he would vote against the Amendment. The Cabinet Member sought clarification on whether there is an opportunity for respondents to suggest alternatives to the Council’s proposal. The Director for Education confirmed that the consultation includes this requirement in line with the School Organisation Code and that any suggested alternatives will be considered in the report presented to the future Council meeting. Councillor Alan Dennison queried whether there is sufficient space at the Saundersfoot site to build a new school without relocating pupils and demolishing the existing building. The Director of Education confirmed that the proposal is to use the existing Saundersfoot site, which currently has a capacity of 297 places. With 151 pupils enrolled (Reception to Year 6), it was noted there are 146 spare places, meaning the site can accommodate the proposal without requiring relocation or demolition. Councillor Michael Stoddart pointed out that the Amendment simply adds an unofficial consultation period before the official one, which he felt would only cause delay, and confirmed he would vote against it. Councillor Delme Harries also indicated his intention to vote against the Amendment. Councillor Alec Cormack expressed concern about the short notice given to affected communities and schools, arguing that better options could emerge through consultation with governors and schools. He highlighted errors in the report and felt the process appeared rushed, urging Members to support the Amendment to allow more time for engagement. Councillor Phil Kidney expressed support for moving forward, noting that once the process begins, concerns often ease, and emphasised the need to conclude matters rather than delay. Councillor Michael John opposed the Amendment, stating that all school clusters should follow a consistent process and that opportunities to suggest alternatives already exist within the formal consultation. Councillor Elwyn Morse supported the Amendment, citing insufficient notice for communities and the need for more lead-in time before consultation, particularly to explore alternative uses for schools. The Cabinet Member highlighted that formal consultation is scheduled to start in September 2026, allowing significant time for proposals and alternatives to be considered. He stressed that the current recommendation does not compromise the School Organisation Code and reiterated that alternatives can still be submitted before and during the consultation period. The Presiding Member clarified that Councillor Alistair Cameron was moving a Procedural Motion to defer the decision. Councillor Cameron argued that closure of Stepaside School would result in a net cost to the Council of approximately £100,000 due to additional transport costs outweighing projected savings. He highlighted steady pupil numbers, planned housing developments that could increase enrolment, and the school’s strong Estyn report praising its nurturing environment and support for disadvantaged pupils, including a significant gypsy traveller community. He stressed the importance of the Puffins nursery and local parent groups, raised concerns about transport safety and environmental impact, and warned that starting the statutory process now could create uncertainty and reduce pupil numbers. He urged deferral to allow proper engagement with the school and stakeholders before deciding whether to proceed with formal consultation. The vote to defer Recommendation (b), undertaken by way of an electronic vote, was not carried. The votes were recorded as follows: For the Motion: Councillors Alistair Cameron, Alec Cormack, Terry Davies, Brian Hall, Phil Kidney, Elwyn Morse, Bethan Price, Vanessa Thomas, Anji Tinley, Iwan Ward, Michele Wiggins, Tony Wilcox [12] Against the Motion: Councillors Jamie Adams, Steve Alderman, Michelle Bateman, Maureen Bowen, Mark Carter, Di Clements, John Cole, Alan Dennison, Tim Evans, Claire George, Nicola Gwynn, Simon Hancock, Delme Harries, Jon Harvey, Tessa Hodgson, David Howlett, Mike James, Michael John, Rhys Jordan, Huw Murphy, Nick Neumann, Mel Phillips, Neil Prior, Shon Rees, David Simpson, Rhys Sinnett, Sam Skyrme-Blackhall, Michael Stoddart, Vivien Stoddart, Aled Thomas, Marc Tierney, Thomas Tudor, Chris Williams, Jacob Williams, Michael Williams, Alun Wills, Guy Woodham, Steve Yelland [38] There were no abstentions. The vote was then put to approve Recommendation (b), undertaken by way of an electronic vote, and was carried. The votes were recorded as follows: For the Motion: Councillors Jamie Adams, Steve Alderman, Michelle Bateman, Maureen Bowen, Mark Carter, Di Clements, John Cole, Terry Davies, Alan Dennison, Tim Evans, Claire George, Brian Hall, Simon Hancock, Delme Harries, Jon Harvey, Tessa Hodgson, David Howlett, Mike James, Michael John, Rhys Jordan, Huw Murphy, Nick Neumann, Mel Phillips, Bethan Price, Neil Prior, Shon Rees, David Simpson, Rhys Sinnett, Sam Skyrme-Blackhall, Michael Stoddart, Vivien Stoddart, Aled Thomas, Marc Tierney, Thomas Tudor, Michele Wiggins, Tony Wilcox, Chris Williams, Jacob Williams, Michael Williams, Alun Wills, Guy Woodham, Steve Yelland [42] Against the Motion: Councillors Alec Cormack, Alistair Cameron, Anji Tinley, Elwyn Morse, Iwan Ward, Phil Kidney, Vanessa Thomas [7] There were no abstentions RESOLVED That the Director of Education be authorised to commence statutory consultation on establishing a new 3-11 primary school on the Saundersfoot School Site that encompasses the catchment of Saundersfoot and the catchment of Stepaside and Kilgetty: (a) To discontinue Saundersfoot School; and (b) To discontinue Stepaside school.
Council considered a report of the School Modernisation Working Group on recommendations for the Director for Education to commence statutory consultation on proposals relating to Tenby, Saundersfoot and Stepaside Schools. Councillor Aled Thomas, Chair of the School Modernisation Working Group, introduced the report and outlined the recommendations. He explained that the review of provision in the Tenby area followed Council’s resolution in July 2024 and Cabinet’s direction in November 2025 to address significant surplus places. Current data shows 534 surplus places in the primary schools and 341 in Greenhill Secondary, equating to 27% and 28.6% respectively—well above the Welsh Government’s planning margin of 10% and the national average of 17–18%. He stated that the Working Group had reaffirmed the principles guiding school organisation, namely prioritising high educational standards, resource efficiency, sustainability, accessibility and community focus. After detailed analysis of pupil numbers, catchments, building conditions, financial implications and Welsh language provision, the Working Group recommended commencing statutory consultation on: (a) Establishing a new 3–19 school (initially split-site) as part of a future Sustainable Schools investment, involving discontinuance of Tenby Church in Wales VC School and Greenhill School. (b) Establishing a new 3–11 primary school on the Saundersfoot site, encompassing the catchments of Saundersfoot, Stepaside and Kilgetty, with discontinuance of Saundersfoot and Stepaside Schools. Councillor Thomas stated that these proposals aim to address declining enrolment and rising surplus capacity, which is forecast to exceed 50% in Saundersfoot School by 2030, while maintaining educational quality and aligning with the Welsh in Education Strategic Plan. He also stated that Tenby and Greenhill Schools operated well below capacity and demographic trends and estate conditions necessitated strategic change, particularly at Greenhill. Furthermore, he highlighted transport cost implications for Stepaside (£249,975) and confirmed that consultation with the Diocese of St David’s is mandatory for Tenby VC School. Councillor Thomas concluded that the proposals represent a considered response to demographic trends and financial pressures, ensuring a sustainable, high-quality school estate. He then moved both recommendations, suggesting they be discussed and voted on separately; Seconded by Councillor Michael Stoddart. Councillor Guy Woodham stated that, although he sits on the School Modernisation Working Group as a Labour Group Member rather than in his capacity as Cabinet Member for Education, he supports the recommendations to proceed to consultation. He acknowledged the emotive nature of the issue but stressed the need to address surplus places and ensure the best outcomes for learners in the Tenby cluster. He emphasised that consulting now will allow Full Council to consider all views and make an informed decision at a future meeting. He reiterated that no one wants to close schools, but difficult decisions sometimes have to be made, and he committed to ensuring Members have full and accurate information when the matter returns for decision. Councillor Sam Skyrme-Blackhall pointed out that the current situation stems from a major error over a decade ago when the Council built a new school in Tenby that was too large and poorly constructed, resulting in ongoing issues. She stressed the need to avoid repeating past mistakes and to protect what works well, including Tenby VC School’s strong ethos and its relationship with the church, praised in its Estyn report. As Chair of SACRVE, Councillor Skyrme-Blackhall highlighted the importance that the consultation process reflects on the value of voluntary aided (VA) and voluntary controlled (VC) status and faith input; how a proposed 3–19 model can retain early years and primary expertise; and the potential future need for Welsh-medium secondary education in South East Pembrokeshire. In that regard she proposed an Amendment to Recommendation (a) in the following terms: As part of the statutory process, consideration is given to the value of VC/VA status, the benefits of a 3-19 model and the likely future needs for supporting Secondary Education in the Welsh Medium in South East Pembrokeshire. By way of an explanation, she stated that the Amendment will enable any future plans to take account of the value of links with Faith Groups. It will also give an opportunity for the 3-19 model to be explained and understood more widely and crucially, how Early Years and Primary expertise can be maintained in a new arrangement. Further, this will also enable any proposals to give consideration to the longer-term future need for Welsh medium secondary education in South East Pembrokeshire. Councillor Alistair Cameron Seconded the Amendment. [Councillor Joshua Beynon joined the meeting at this juncture.] Council then debated Recommendation (a) and the following key points were made: Councillor Alistair Cameron reiterated his personal interest as a Governor at Tenby VC School and highlighted the school’s strong performance, citing its November 2024 Estyn report which described it as a happy, nurturing and inclusive school with excellent leadership and pupil wellbeing. He acknowledged the need for change but stressed the importance of keeping the school together during this challenging period. The Leader queried whether the proposed amendment would already be addressed in the consultation or if it needed to be added formally. In response, the Director for Education confirmed that those elements are already incorporated within the statutory consultation process and related impact assessments. He explained that faith and VC status will be considered through consultation with the Diocese, the 3–19 model discussion will include maintaining primary expertise, and Welsh-medium provision is addressed through the Welsh in Education Strategic Plan (WESP) and forthcoming Welsh Language and Education Act requirements. He noted that while there is no current plan for a third Welsh-medium secondary school in the WESP (running until 2031), future categorisation changes under the new legislation will be factored in. Councillor Michael Stoddart confirmed his support for the Amendment, noting the Director’s assurance that it does not materially affect the resolution. He acknowledged the emotive nature of the issue but stressed that the focus must be on allocating resources efficiently rather than simply saving money. He referred to Estyn’s view that excess surplus places lead to inefficient resource use and poorer educational outcomes, which has guided the Working Group’s approach. Councillor Sam Skyrme-Blackhall reiterated that, while the Director confirmed the issues raised would be covered in the consultation, explicitly including them in the Amendment would demonstrate to the public that the Council cares about these matters and is taking them seriously. She clarified that the reference to Welsh-medium provision was intended as a long-term consideration, while the other points—faith input and maintaining primary expertise—are immediate priorities. Councillor Alan Dennison confirmed his support for the Amendment and suggested exploring whether a Welsh-medium school could be located in Tenby instead of Milford Haven. He argued that Tenby would be a more suitable location due to its proximity to Welsh-speaking areas, which could improve attendance and potentially accelerate delivery compared to the delayed Milford project. He asked for this to be considered as part of future planning. The Cabinet Member clarified that the proposal in Milford Haven relates to primary Welsh-medium education, whereas Councillor Dennison’s suggestion concerned secondary provision. He noted that this would only become relevant if a 3–19 school was established in Tenby. He also explained that, while he agreed with the Director that the issues raised in the Amendment were already covered, he understood the local Member’s desire to make them explicit and was inclined to support the Amendment. Councillor Alec Cormack reiterated his personal interest as a Governor at Greenhill School and expressed support for the Amendment. He praised the headteacher’s leadership and experience in managing significant change, stating confidence in his ability to lead the creation of a 3–19 school. Councillor Aled Thomas confirmed he was happy to accept the Amendment, noting that it does not materially change the recommendations. He suggested incorporating the Amendment into the original Motion for efficiency, with agreement from the Seconder, Councillor Michael Stoddart. Councillor Michael John reflected on the complexity and sensitivity of the Working Group’s role, stressing that recommendations are based on evidence and that consultation responses can lead to changes, as seen in previous reorganisations. He sought clarification on whether the Amendment conflicted with the original recommendation to consult on discontinuing Tenby VC School. The Chief Executive confirmed that the Amendment simply adds an additional consideration to the existing recommendation without altering its core purpose. Councillors Thomas and Stoddart agreed to incorporate the Amendment into the original Motion. Councillor Huw Murphy acknowledged the challenging role of the School Modernisation Working Group and praised its Chair for handling a difficult task well. He highlighted the success of Welsh-medium education in the Tenby cluster, noting Census 2021 data showing growth in Welsh language use locally. He suggested that some parents may avoid Welsh-medium education because of long travel distances to secondary schools and called for future consideration of demand for Welsh-medium secondary provision in the area. [Councillor Paul Miller joined the meeting at this juncture.] The Director of Education responded to Councillor Murphy’s query, confirming that data on families who do not transfer to Welsh-medium education will be provided after the admissions round for 2025–26 and updated after January for 2026–27. The vote on Recommendation (a) as amended, undertaken by way of an electronic vote, was carried. The votes were recorded as follows: For the Motion: Councillors Jamie Adams, Steve Alderman, Michelle Bateman, Maureen Bowen, Alistair Cameron, Mark Carter, Di Clements, John Cole, Alec Cormack, Terry Davies, Alan Dennison, Tim Evans, Claire George, Nicola Gwynn, Brian Hall, Simon Hancock, Delme Harries, Jon Harvey, Tessa Hodgson, David Howlett, Mike James, Michael John, Rhys Jordan, Phil Kidney, Elwyn Morse, Huw Murphy, Nick Neumann, Mel Phillips, Bethan Price, Neil Prior, David Simpson, Rhys Sinnett, Sam Skyrme-Blackhall, Vivien Stoddart, Michael Stoddart, Aled Thomas, Vanessa Thomas, Marc Tierney, Anji Tinley, Thomas Tudor, Iwan Ward, Michele Wiggins, Tony Wilcox, Michael Williams, Chris Williams, Jacob Williams, Alun Wills, Guy Woodham and Steve Yelland [49] Abstentions: Councillor Joshua Beynon [1] There were no votes against. RESOLVED That the Director of Education be authorised to commence statutory consultation on establishing a new 3-19 school - split site initially, but as part of future Sustainable Communities for Learning investment to rebuild / extend Greenhill site, or on a new site: (a) with the St David’s Diocese to discontinue Tenby Church in Wales Voluntary Controlled School; and (b) to discontinue Ysgol Greenhill. As part of the statutory process, consideration be given to the value of VC/VA status, the benefits of a 3-19 model and the likely future needs for supporting Secondary Education in the Welsh Medium in South East Pembrokeshire. Council then discussed Recommendation (b) and the following key points were made: The Motion to approve Recommendation (b) had been Moved by Councillor Aled Thomas; Seconded by Councillor Michael Stoddart. Councillor Alistair Cameron then Moved an Amendment in the following terms: Stepaside School was informed on 8 December that Council would be recommended on 12 December to commence the statutory process of discontinuing Stepaside and Saundersfoot Primary Schools and establish a new school on the Saundersfoot Site. In view of this very short timescale, Council agrees to defer its decision until Council on 5 March 2026 to consult fully with all stakeholders including parents, staff, governors and the local community and consider proposals to keep the school in order to serve the best interests of education, community and sustainability. Seconded by Councillor Alec Cormack. The Cabinet Member for Education and the Welsh Language responded that he was opposed the Amendment, stating that the statutory consultation process is designed to gather stakeholder views and the Amendment would cause delay in a very emotive situation. He supported progressing with the original recommendation to authorise consultation. Councillor Alec Cormack spoke in support of the Amendment arguing that it would allow time for alternative proposals to be developed. He acknowledged that change is necessary due to falling pupil numbers but stressed that both schools are well-run and effective. He criticised the current recommendation for focusing mainly on resource efficiency, while other principles such as community focus, accessibility, inclusivity and sustainability require local knowledge and input from governing bodies and leadership teams. He suggested exploring mixed-use options for underutilised school sites, noting that upcoming trials of place-based teams could make these sites valuable for other Council services. He raised concerns about the impact of closure on attendance, particularly for pupils entitled to free school meals, and questioned whether the cost of busing pupils would outweigh savings. He concluded that delaying the decision would ensure fairness and allow consideration of better options that meet all six principles of school organisation. The Director for Education advised that delaying the decision to consult would breach the School Organisation Code, which requires Council to approve a proposal before statutory consultation begins. He explained that stakeholder engagement occurs during the consultation stage, not beforehand, and confirmed this is the process followed for other recent consultations. As Chair of the School Modernisation Working Group, Councillor Aled Thomas expressed his opposition to the Amendment, arguing that postponing the decision would simply delay the consultation and prolong uncertainty. He stressed that the purpose of consultation is to gather the views of stakeholders and noted that the proposals have been in the public domain for over 12 months, so they should not come as a surprise. He warned that unnecessary delays would repeat mistakes seen in other cases, causing harm to affected communities, and confirmed he would vote against the Amendment. The Cabinet Member sought clarification on whether there is an opportunity for respondents to suggest alternatives to the Council’s proposal. The Director for Education confirmed that the consultation includes this requirement in line with the School Organisation Code and that any suggested alternatives will be considered in the report presented to the future Council meeting. Councillor Alan Dennison queried whether there is sufficient space at the Saundersfoot site to build a new school without relocating pupils and demolishing the existing building. The Director of Education confirmed that the proposal is to use the existing Saundersfoot site, which currently has a capacity of 297 places. With 151 pupils enrolled (Reception to Year 6), it was noted there are 146 spare places, meaning the site can accommodate the proposal without requiring relocation or demolition. Councillor Michael Stoddart pointed out that the Amendment simply adds an unofficial consultation period before the official one, which he felt would only cause delay, and confirmed he would vote against it. Councillor Delme Harries also indicated his intention to vote against the Amendment. Councillor Alec Cormack expressed concern about the short notice given to affected communities and schools, arguing that better options could emerge through consultation with governors and schools. He highlighted errors in the report and felt the process appeared rushed, urging Members to support the Amendment to allow more time for engagement. Councillor Phil Kidney expressed support for moving forward, noting that once the process begins, concerns often ease, and emphasised the need to conclude matters rather than delay. Councillor Michael John opposed the Amendment, stating that all school clusters should follow a consistent process and that opportunities to suggest alternatives already exist within the formal consultation. Councillor Elwyn Morse supported the Amendment, citing insufficient notice for communities and the need for more lead-in time before consultation, particularly to explore alternative uses for schools. The Cabinet Member highlighted that formal consultation is scheduled to start in September 2026, allowing significant time for proposals and alternatives to be considered. He stressed that the current recommendation does not compromise the School Organisation Code and reiterated that alternatives can still be submitted before and during the consultation period. The Presiding Member clarified that Councillor Alistair Cameron was moving a Procedural Motion to defer the decision. Councillor Cameron argued that closure of Stepaside School would result in a net cost to the Council of approximately £100,000 due to additional transport costs outweighing projected savings. He highlighted steady pupil numbers, planned housing developments that could increase enrolment, and the school’s strong Estyn report praising its nurturing environment and support for disadvantaged pupils, including a significant gypsy traveller community. He stressed the importance of the Puffins nursery and local parent groups, raised concerns about transport safety and environmental impact, and warned that starting the statutory process now could create uncertainty and reduce pupil numbers. He urged deferral to allow proper engagement with the school and stakeholders before deciding whether to proceed with formal consultation. The vote to defer Recommendation (b), undertaken by way of an electronic vote, was not carried. The votes were recorded as follows: For the Motion: Councillors Alistair Cameron, Alec Cormack, Terry Davies, Brian Hall, Phil Kidney, Elwyn Morse, Bethan Price, Vanessa Thomas, Anji Tinley, Iwan Ward, Michele Wiggins, Tony Wilcox [12] Against the Motion: Councillors Jamie Adams, Steve Alderman, Michelle Bateman, Maureen Bowen, Mark Carter, Di Clements, John Cole, Alan Dennison, Tim Evans, Claire George, Nicola Gwynn, Simon Hancock, Delme Harries, Jon Harvey, Tessa Hodgson, David Howlett, Mike James, Michael John, Rhys Jordan, Huw Murphy, Nick Neumann, Mel Phillips, Neil Prior, Shon Rees, David Simpson, Rhys Sinnett, Sam Skyrme-Blackhall, Michael Stoddart, Vivien Stoddart, Aled Thomas, Marc Tierney, Thomas Tudor, Chris Williams, Jacob Williams, Michael Williams, Alun Wills, Guy Woodham, Steve Yelland [38] There were no abstentions. The vote was then put to approve Recommendation (b), undertaken by way of an electronic vote, and was carried. The votes were recorded as follows: For the Motion: Councillors Jamie Adams, Steve Alderman, Michelle Bateman, Maureen Bowen, Mark Carter, Di Clements, John Cole, Terry Davies, Alan Dennison, Tim Evans, Claire George, Brian Hall, Simon Hancock, Delme Harries, Jon Harvey, Tessa Hodgson, David Howlett, Mike James, Michael John, Rhys Jordan, Huw Murphy, Nick Neumann, Mel Phillips, Bethan Price, Neil Prior, Shon Rees, David Simpson, Rhys Sinnett, Sam Skyrme-Blackhall, Michael Stoddart, Vivien Stoddart, Aled Thomas, Marc Tierney, Thomas Tudor, Michele Wiggins, Tony Wilcox, Chris Williams, Jacob Williams, Michael Williams, Alun Wills, Guy Woodham, Steve Yelland [42] Against the Motion: Councillors Alec Cormack, Alistair Cameron, Anji Tinley, Elwyn Morse, Iwan Ward, Phil Kidney, Vanessa Thomas [7] There were no abstentions RESOLVED That the Director of Education be authorised to commence statutory consultation on establishing a new 3-11 primary school on the Saundersfoot School Site that encompasses the catchment of Saundersfoot and the catchment of Stepaside and Kilgetty: (a) To discontinue Saundersfoot School; and (b) To discontinue Stepaside school.
Y penderfyniad fel y'i cofnodwyd
RESOLVED that: (a) The Pembrokeshire Standard Rents be increased by 3.6% plus up to £2.55 per individual rent that is currently below Standard Rent. Rents to be collected over 48 weeks, with effect for all existing tenancies from the 1 July 2026, and for all new tenancies from the 1 April 2026. (b) Garage rents be increased by 4.3%, to be collected over 48 weeks, with effect from 1 April 2026. (c) For tenanted properties improved to the highest possible energy rating of EPC A or B, the rent for the property will be increased until the Standard Rent for new/improved homes rent levels is achieved. This will be agreed in each circumstance dependent on the energy efficiency of the property by the relevant Cabinet Member and Head of Service prior to its implementation. (d) The Housing Revenue Account (HRA) Estimates for 2026-27 be approved.
Council considered a report of Cabinet on proposals for rent setting for the financial year 2026 – 2027. Councillor Michelle Bateman, Cabinet Member for Housing, presented the report and explained that the Council’s request for dispensation to exceed the Welsh Government rent and service charge cap had been refused by the Cabinet Secretary for Housing and Local Government. She read out the contents of the letter received on the matter for Members’ information. The refusal was based on the need for consistency across all social landlords and concerns about long-term affordability. The Cabinet Secretary acknowledged Pembrokeshire’s challenges and confirmed ongoing work on rent convergence, as well as significant funding already provided for housing improvements. The Cabinet Member expressed her frustration at the decision, noting that previous correspondence and consultation had not addressed the Council’s concerns. She emphasised the importance of affordability, referencing the Joseph Rowntree living rent model and tenant support services. She thanked the HRA Working Group and the Policy and Pre-decision Overview and Scrutiny Committee for their feedback and comments. In light of the refusal, she amended the recommendation to Council as follows: (1) The Pembrokeshire Standard Rents is increased by 3.6% plus up to £2.55 per individual rent that is currently below Standard Rent. Rents to be collected over 48 weeks, with effect for all existing tenancies from the 1 July 2026, and for all new tenancies from the 1 April 2026. (2) Garage rents be increased by 4.3%, to be collected over 48 weeks, with effect from 1 April 2026. (3) For tenanted properties improved to the highest possible energy rating of EPC A or B, the rent for the property will increase until the Standard Rent for new/improved homes rent levels is achieved. This will be agreed in each circumstance dependent on the energy efficiency of the property by the relevant Cabinet Member and Head of Service prior to its implementation. (4) The Housing Revenue Account (HRA) Estimates for 2026-27 be approved. Seconded by the Leader. Council considered the report and the key points were noted as follows: Councillor Alan Dennison sought clarification about the percentage of rent collected, the level of arrears and whether the proposed rent increase would worsen any deficit. In response, the Head of Housing and Public Protection confirmed that the Council has a very high rent collection rate despite higher arrears figures, and explained that this apparent anomaly is addressed in the narrative within Appendix 4 of the report. Councillor Mark Carter queried whether the weekly rent figures shown in the report are multiplied by 48 or 52 weeks annually. The Head of Housing and Public Protection confirmed that tenants pay rent over 48 weeks, with four rent-free weeks built into July and Christmas. She explained that for comparison purposes, figures in the report are adjusted to ensure consistency with other landlords who use 52-week calculations. She further explained this means Pembrokeshire’s rents are effectively lower than they appear when compared to providers charging for 52 weeks. In response to a query from Councillor Anji Tinley, the Head of Housing and Public Protection confirmed that tenants do not receive four rent-free weeks; rather, the annual rent is calculated by spreading 52 weeks’ rent over 48 weeks. She reiterated that figures in the report are adjusted for comparison purposes with other landlords. Councillor Michael Stoddart expressed disappointment at Welsh Government’s refusal to allow flexibility on rent caps, arguing that the policy widens the gap between highest and lowest rents rather than equalising them. Councillor Tony Wilcox queried figures in the report showing 31 accounts with arrears between £10,000 and £25,000, totalling £420,000, and noted significant arrears overall. The Head of Housing and Public Protection confirmed the figures and explained that recovery work is ongoing, including court action following previous delays. The Cabinet Member added that high arrears are not necessarily linked to affordability, noting that Registered Social Landlords (RSL) partners have higher rents but lower arrears. She highlighted factors such as benefit changes and stressed the importance of tenant engagement with support services. She outlined measures in place, including alternative payment plans, income maximisation, direct payments from the Department for Works and Pensions (DWP) and tenancy support officers. She emphasised that tenants must pay rent for the social housing system to function and noted a six-month notice period for those most affected by rent increases. She also referenced the Council’s involvement in the LIFT project to identify unclaimed benefits and provide additional support. Councillor John Cole asked what proportion of rent arrears relates to tenants receiving housing benefit paid directly to them rather than to the Council, and whether rental agreements could require direct payment from DWP. The Head of Housing and Public Protection confirmed that detailed data would be collated and shared, noting that direct payments can only be arranged on a case-by-case basis where vulnerability is evidenced, as blanket arrangements are no longer permitted under current regulations. Councillor Alan Dennison queried how tenants could accrue arrears of £10,000 or more and expressed concern that partial payments would not prevent debts from growing. The Cabinet Member explained that the Council works with tenants to agree alternative payment plans and reduce arrears, but acknowledged that previous Welsh Government guidance during the pandemic discouraged evictions, which may have affected payment behaviour. She stressed that eviction is a last resort for non-engaging tenants. Councillor Di Clements expressed sympathy for the Housing Team and frustration at Welsh Government’s stance, asking if progress on rent policy was likely. The Cabinet Member responded that despite six years of lobbying and formal consultation, the new rent standard retained the overall income cap. She confirmed continued efforts to raise the issue and highlighted misunderstandings around rent convergence, pledging to keep pressing for change. Councillor Alan Dennison sought clarification on whether delays in electrical compliance work had made properties uninhabitable and prevented rent from being charged. The Head of Housing and Public Protection confirmed that the delay was not in carrying out work but in taking legal action while awaiting advice on cases where electrical compliance certificates had not been issued. This issue has now been resolved, and legal proceedings can proceed where tenants fail to engage on rent payments, taking individual circumstances into account. The vote, undertaken by way of an electronic vote, was carried. The votes were recorded as follows: For the Motion: Councillors Jamie Adams, Steve Alderman, Michelle Bateman, Maureen Bowen, Alistair Cameron, Mark Carter, Di Clements, John Cole, Alec Cormack, Terry Davies, Alan Dennison, Tim Evans, Claire George, Nicola Gwynn, Brian Hall, Simon Hancock, Delme Harries, Jon Harvey, Tessa Hodgson, David Howlett, Mike James, Michael John, Rhys Jordan, Phil Kidney, Paul Miller, Elwyn Morse, Huw Murphy, Nick Neumann, Mel Phillips, Bethan Price, Shon Rees, David Simpson JP, Sam Skyrme-Blackhall, Michael Stoddart, Vivien Stoddart, Aled Thomas, Vanessa Thomas, Marc Tierney, Anji Tinley, Thomas Tudor, Iwan Ward, Michele Wiggins, Tony Wilcox, Chris Williams, Jacob Williams, Michael Williams, Alun Wills, Guy Woodham, Steve Yelland [49] There were no votes against or abstentions. RESOLVED that: (a) The Pembrokeshire Standard Rents be increased by 3.6% plus up to £2.55 per individual rent that is currently below Standard Rent. Rents to be collected over 48 weeks, with effect for all existing tenancies from the 1 July 2026, and for all new tenancies from the 1 April 2026. (b) Garage rents be increased by 4.3%, to be collected over 48 weeks, with effect from 1 April 2026. (c) For tenanted properties improved to the highest possible energy rating of EPC A or B, the rent for the property will be increased until the Standard Rent for new/improved homes rent levels is achieved. This will be agreed in each circumstance dependent on the energy efficiency of the property by the relevant Cabinet Member and Head of Service prior to its implementation. (d) The Housing Revenue Account (HRA) Estimates for 2026-27 be approved.
Y penderfyniad fel y'i cofnodwyd
RESOLVED that (a) The updated Corporate and Financial Planning Timetable for 2026-27 be noted. (b) The Outline Draft County Council Budget for 2026-27, including Service Pressures and proposed Budget Savings, and Outline Draft Medium Term Financial Plan 2026-27 to 2028-29 be noted. (c) The modelling work on the affordability of the Capital Programme be noted and the continuation of the Capital Financing Cost to Net Revenue Budget cap of 5.3% be endorsed. (d) The Capital Programme for 2026-27 to 2029-30 be noted. (e) The Senior Leadership Team continue to evaluate the Outline Draft County Council Budget for 2026-27 in light of any decisions of Cabinet or Council. (f) All discretionary fees and charges related to Council functions be increased by 3.8% for 2026-27, unless an alternative option has been included in the budget savings proposals or a separate report to Council. The reduction in uncommitted reserve balances over the MTFP 2026-27 to 2028-29 be noted, acknowledging that some of the remaining uncommitted reserve balances will need to be appropriated to the General Fund working balance in accordance with the Strategy for Holding and Utilising Reserves
[During consideration of this item, Councillor Iwan Ward declared a personal interest by virtue of being a Crew Manager working for the Mid and West Wales Fire and Rescue Service in Crymych.] Council considered a report of Cabinet seeking views on the Outline Draft Budget for 2026 – 2027 and the Outline Draft Medium Term Financial Plan. Members’ attention was drawn to the revised report set out in the Supplementary Agenda. Councillor Alistair Cameron, the Cabinet Member for Corporate Finance and Efficiencies presented the updated provisional settlement from Welsh Government, noting an increase from 2.3% to 4.2%, reducing the funding gap for 2026–27 from £17.7m to £13.6m. He outlined current-year pressures including £1m for employer NI contributions, £0.4m for the Fire Authority levy, and £1.3m due to the second homes premium reduction. Additional pressures for schools (£5m) and social care (£9.6m) were highlighted, driven by pay awards, inflation, and increased demand, particularly in adult services (£8.6m). Other service pressures total £5m. Measures to offset costs include £3.8m from CPI-linked charges, £800k capital savings, and departmental proposals for 5% budget reductions. A budget modeller categorises savings by impact (green, amber, red, deep red) he explained. The Cabinet Member noted that a 1% Council Tax rise generates £0.98m and explained reserve levels (£84m general fund, £12.3m working balance, £10.2m corporate reserve) and their use for transformation initiatives and contingencies. He then Moved the Recommendations as set out in the report; Seconded by the Leader. Council considered the report and the following key points were noted: Councillor Alec Cormack asked why Welsh Government revised its funding settlement so quickly after issuing preliminary figures. In response, the Cabinet Member explained that the initial settlement held back funds pending agreement with other political parties, and the increase followed an agreement with Plaid Cymru to support lower Council Tax levels. Councillor Alan Dennison queried the rationale for increasing discretionary fees and charges by 3.8% if they already generate surplus income, and requested a breakdown of profitability at the next Budget seminar. He also asked for clarification on £1.4m expenditure related to crematorium maintenance. The Cabinet Member confirmed that detailed information would be provided at future seminars and Overview and Scrutiny Committee meetings. Councillor Di Clements asked for clarification on recommendation F, all discretionary fees and charges related to Council functions be increased by 3.8% for 2026-27, querying whether it involves using reserves to support the revenue budget. The Cabinet Member confirmed that this is the intention. Councillor Clements also welcomed the additional Welsh Government funding and urged that it be used to make the Authority financially sustainable while easing the burden on Council taxpayers by limiting Council Tax increases. The Leader stated that these points are being considered. Councillor Huw Murphy welcomed the additional Welsh Government funding and acknowledged the relief it brings but stressed that financial negotiations will remain challenging. He emphasised the need to deliver best value for money for residents and businesses under significant financial pressure, noting that the extra funding should not lead to complacency. The vote, undertaken by way of an electronic vote, was carried. The votes were recorded as follows: For the Motion: Councillors Steve Alderman, Michelle Bateman, Maureen Bowen, Alistair Cameron, Mark Carter, Di Clements, Alec Cormack, Terry Davies, Tim Evans, Claire George, Nicola Gwynn, Brian Hall, Simon Hancock, Delme Harries, Jon Harvey, Tessa Hodgson, David Howlett, Mike James, Michael John, Rhys Jordan, Phil Kidney, Paul Miller, Elwyn Morse, Huw Murphy, Nick Neumann, Mel Phillips, Bethan Price, Neil Prior, Shon Rees, David Simpson, Rhys Sinnett, Sam Skyrme-Blackhall, Michael Stoddart, Vivien Stoddart, Anji Tinley, Vanessa Thomas, Marc Tierney, Iwan Ward, Michele Wiggins, Tony Wilcox, Chris Williams, Jacob Williams, Michael Williams, Alun Wills, Guy Woodham, Steve Yelland [46] Against the Motion: Councillor Alan Dennison [1] Abstentions: Councillors Jamie Adams, John Cole, Delme Harries [3] RESOLVED that (a) The updated Corporate and Financial Planning Timetable for 2026-27 be noted. (b) The Outline Draft County Council Budget for 2026-27, including Service Pressures and proposed Budget Savings, and Outline Draft Medium Term Financial Plan 2026-27 to 2028-29 be noted. (c) The modelling work on the affordability of the Capital Programme be noted and the continuation of the Capital Financing Cost to Net Revenue Budget cap of 5.3% be endorsed. (d) The Capital Programme for 2026-27 to 2029-30 be noted. (e) The Senior Leadership Team continue to evaluate the Outline Draft County Council Budget for 2026-27 in light of any decisions of Cabinet or Council. (f) All discretionary fees and charges related to Council functions be increased by 3.8% for 2026-27, unless an alternative option has been included in the budget savings proposals or a separate report to Council. The reduction in uncommitted reserve balances over the MTFP 2026-27 to 2028-29 be noted, acknowledging that some of the remaining uncommitted reserve balances will need to be appropriated to the General Fund working balance in accordance with the Strategy for Holding and Utilising Reserves
Y penderfyniad fel y'i cofnodwyd
RESOLVED that (a) The Council does not exercise its discretion in respect of: (i) Extending payment for working age claimants who find work, the effect of which is that the prescribed period of four weeks will apply. (ii) Backdating of claims beyond the three-month period, the effect of which is that backdating will be limited to a maximum of up to three months for all claimants. (b) The Council will exercise its discretion to: (i) Disregard war widows’ pensions, war disablement pensions and any other analogous payments as income for assessment purposes. (ii) Enhance the process for notification of decisions above the minimum requirements as it considers appropriate (c) A Scheme under the Council Tax Reduction Schemes and Prescribed Requirements (Wales) Regulations 2013 (as amended) be adopted.
Council considered a report by the Director of Resources seeking adoption of the Council Tax Reduction Scheme for the financial year 2026-27. Councillor Alistair Cameron, the Cabinet Member for Corporate Finance and Efficiencies introduced the report an explained that the Council Tax Reduction Scheme is reviewed and approved annually and must be adopted by 31 January 2026 for the 2026–27 period. He confirmed there are no changes proposed to the discretionary elements of the scheme, which cost £6,000 last year and £12,000 the previous year. He then Moved the recommendations set out in the report; Seconded by the Leader. The vote, undertaken by way of an electronic vote, was carried. The votes were recorded as follows: For the Motion: Councillors Steve Alderman, Michelle Bateman, Maureen Bowen, John Cole, Alistair Cameron, Mark Carter, Di Clements, Alec Cormack, Terry Davies, Alan Dennison, Tim Evans, Claire George, Nicola Gwynn, Brian Hall, Simon Hancock, Delme Harries, Jon Harvey, Tessa Hodgson, David Howlett, Mike James, Michael John, Rhys Jordan, Phil Kidney, Paul Miller, Elwyn Morse, Huw Murphy, Nick Neumann, Mel Phillips, Bethan Price, Neil Prior, Shon Rees, David Simpson, Rhys Sinnett, Sam Skyrme-Blackhall, Michael Stoddart, Anji Tinley, Vanessa Thomas, Marc Tierney, Tony Wilcox, Michelle Wiggins, Chris Williams, Jacob Williams, Michael Williams, Alun Wills, Iwan Ward, Guy Woodham, Steve Yelland [47] Abstentions: Councillors Jamie Adams and Aled Thomas [2] There were no votes against RESOLVED that (a) The Council does not exercise its discretion in respect of: (i) Extending payment for working age claimants who find work, the effect of which is that the prescribed period of four weeks will apply. (ii) Backdating of claims beyond the three-month period, the effect of which is that backdating will be limited to a maximum of up to three months for all claimants. (b) The Council will exercise its discretion to: (i) Disregard war widows’ pensions, war disablement pensions and any other analogous payments as income for assessment purposes. (ii) Enhance the process for notification of decisions above the minimum requirements as it considers appropriate (c) A Scheme under the Council Tax Reduction Schemes and Prescribed Requirements (Wales) Regulations 2013 (as amended) be adopted.
Y penderfyniad fel y'i cofnodwyd
RESOLVED That Mr Nadeem Ahmad be appointed as an Independent Member to the Standards Committee for a period of five years.
Council considered a report by the Head of Democratic Services outlining the recommendation of the Appointment Panel for Council’s consideration. The Presiding Member invited the Leader, as the relevant Cabinet Member for Corporate matters, to present the report. The Leader stated that following the resignation of Mr Paul Rowley from the Standards Committee back in September, a recruitment exercise was undertaken to fill the vacant post. The Appointment Panel met on 24 November 2025 to interview three candidates. It was the unanimous decision of the Panel to recommend to Council the appointment of Mr Nadeem Ahmad from Milford Haven as Independent Member to the Standards Committee. The Leader Moved that Council appoints Mr Nadeem Ahmad to the Standards Committee for a period of five years; Seconded by Councillor Alec Cormack. For the Motion: Councillors Jamie Adams, Steve Alderman, Michelle Bateman, Maureen Bowen, John Cole, Alistair Cameron, Mark Carter, Di Clements, Alec Cormack, Terry Davies, Alan Dennison, Tim Evans, Claire George, Nicola Gwynn, Brian Hall, Delme Harries, Jon Harvey, Tessa Hodgson, David Howlett, Mike James, Michael John, Rhys Jordan, Phil Kidney, Paul Miller, Elwyn Morse, Huw Murphy, Nick Neumann, Mel Phillips, Bethan Price, Neil Prior, Shon Rees, David Simpson, Rhys Sinnett, Sam Skyrme-Blackhall, Michael Stoddart, Viv Stoddart, Aled Thomas, Anji Tinley, Vanessa Thomas, Tony Wilcox, Michelle Wiggins, Chris Williams, Jacob Williams, Michael Williams, Alun Wills, Iwan Ward, Guy Woodham, Steve Yelland [48] There were no votes against or abstentions. RESOLVED That Mr Nadeem Ahmad be appointed as an Independent Member to the Standards Committee for a period of five years.
The meeting adjourned at 12:54 pm and reconvened at 13:38 pm. Councillor Mark Carter tendered his apologies for the afternoon session. Councillors Joshua Beynon, John Cole and Shon Rees were not present for the afternoon session.
Y penderfyniad fel y'i cofnodwyd
RESOLVED That the undertaking of a Section 31 review under the 2013 Act of the electoral arrangements for the communities of Lamphey, Llanrhian, Llangwm, St Dogmaels and Wolfscastle be approved, subject to Llangwm Community Council remaining at eight seats.
[Councillor Michelle Bateman declared a personal interest by virtue of a family member being a Councillor on one of the community councils mentioned.] Council considered a report by the Assistant Chief Executive on proposals to review the electoral arrangements for those communities whose boundaries were unaffected by the recent Section 26 review and who are not in alignment with the size policy adopted by the Council. The Presiding Member invited Councillor Marc Tierney, the Cabinet Member with responsibility for Communities, to present the report. The Cabinet Member presented the report on the review of community electoral arrangements, explaining that the Council must determine whether to undertake a Section 31 review following the Democracy and Boundary Commission’s recommendation. This review applies to communities where boundaries remain unchanged but the member-to-elector ratio falls outside the Council’s adopted size policy. Of 13 communities with no boundary changes, eight align with policy, while five: Llanfyrnach, Llanrhian, Llangwm, St Dogmaels and Walwyn’s Castle require review. He stated that the recommendation is to approve a Section 31 review of electoral arrangements for these communities under the 2013 Act. He then Moved the Recommendation; Seconded by the Leader. Council then discussed the report and the following key points were noted: Councillor Michael John Moved an Amendment as follows: In the interests of democracy and to ensure an equivalent Councillor/elector ratio as similar community councils in Pembrokeshire, Llangwm Community Council remains at eight seats. Seconded by Councillor Elwyn Morse. Councillor John cited future housing development that will significantly increase the electorate and maintain the optimal councillor-to-elector ratio of 1:120. He argued that reducing seats to six would result in ratios well above this target. In response, the Assistant Chief Executive advised that the proposed Section 31 review will include a full consultation process and that such considerations can be addressed when final recommendations are brought back to Council, suggesting the Amendment is premature at this stage. Councillor Tessa Hodgson expressed sympathy with Councillor John’s concerns but agreed with the advice that today’s decision is only to approve the review. She noted that her own community also faces significant housing developments and confirmed she would raise these issues during the consultation process. Similarly, Councillor Michelle Bateman stated that her community council in Walwyn’s Castle was also affected. Whilst she would not like to see its number of councillors reduced, she agreed the consultation process should proceed so that the Council and wider community can contribute their views. Councillor Neil Prior reflected on previous efforts to reduce the number of town and community councils in Pembrokeshire, noting that this review feels like “tinkering around the edges” but expressed no objection to the consultation proceeding. He acknowledged Councillor John’s concerns but suggested there are other ways for community councils to engage with their communities beyond increasing councillor numbers. Councillor John clarified that his Amendment seeks to retain eight seats for Llangwm Community Council based on confirmed housing development under construction, arguing that reducing to six seats would result in an inaccurate ratio. He emphasised that community councillors are volunteers and do not incur costs for the Council. The Amendment was put to the vote, undertaken by way of an electronic vote, and was carried. The votes were recorded as follows: For the Motion: Councillors Jamie Adams, Steve Alderman, Terry Davies, Alan Dennison, Tim Evans, Brian Hall, Delme Harries, Mike James, Michael John, Phil Kidney, Elwyn Morse, Huw Murphy, Mel Phillips, Bethan Price, David Simpson, Sam Skyrme-Blackhall, Vivien Stoddart, Vanessa Thomas, Anji Tinley, Thomas Tudor, Iwan Ward, Michele Wiggins, Chris Williams, Michael Williams, Alun Wills [25] Against the Motion: Councillors Michelle Bateman, Maureen Bowen, Alistair Cameron, Di Clements, Alec Cormack, Claire George, Nicola Gwynn, Simon Hancock, Jon Harvey, Tessa Hodgson, David Howlett, Paul Miller, Nick Neumann, Neil Prior, Rhys Sinnett, Michael Stoddart, Marc Tierney, Tony Wilcox, Jacob Williams, Guy Woodham, Steve Yelland [21] Abstentions: Councillor Aled Thomas [1] The vote on the Substantive Motion to approve the Recommendation as amended, undertaken by way of an electronic vote, was carried. The votes were recorded as follows: For the Motion: Councillors Steve Alderman, Michelle Bateman, Maureen Bowen, Alistair Cameron, Di Clements, Alec Cormack, Terry Davies, Alan Dennison, Tim Evans, Claire George, Nicola Gwynn, Brian Hall, Simon Hancock, Delme Harries, Jon Harvey, Tessa Hodgson, David Howlett, Mike James, Michael John, Rhys Jordan, Phil Kidney, Paul Miller, Elwyn Morse, Huw Murphy, Nick Neumann, Mel Phillips, Bethan Price, Neil Prior, David Simpson, Rhys Sinnett, Sam Skyrme-Blackhall, Michael Stoddart, Vivien Stoddart, Aled Thomas, Vanessa Thomas, Marc Tierney, Anji Tinley, Thomas Tudor, Iwan Ward, Michele Wiggins, Tony Wilcox, Chris Williams, Jacob Williams, Michael Williams, Guy Woodham, Steve Yelland [46] Against the Motion: Councillor Alun Wills [1] There were no abstentions RESOLVED That the undertaking of a Section 31 review under the 2013 Act of the electoral arrangements for the communities of Lamphey, Llanrhian, Llangwm, St Dogmaels and Wolfscastle be approved, subject to Llangwm Community Council remaining at eight seats.
Y penderfyniad fel y'i cofnodwyd
RESOLVED That authority be delegated to the Assistant Chief Executive/Director of Place to provide adequate accommodation for the Democratic Services Team within proximity to the Council Chamber and Committee Rooms; and to investigate remedial actions to improve ventilation in the Council Chamber.
Council considered a report of the Democratic Services Committee in relation to the provision of accommodation for the Democratic Services Team and the Council Chamber. The Presiding Member invited Councillor Sam Skyrme-Blackhall, Chair of the Democratic Services Committee, to present the report. Councillor Skyrme-Blackhall stated that Section 11 of the Local Government (Wales) Measure 2011 requires the Democratic Services Committee to keep under review the adequacy of provision by the Council of staff, accommodation and other resources to discharge Democratic Services functions; and to make reports and recommendations to the Council in relation to such provision. Having considered a report of the Head of Democratic Services in regard to the adequacy of accommodation for the Democratic Services Team, the Committee unanimously agreed that the current office space for the team was inadequate for them to provide an effective service to support Members and made a number of recommendations for Council’s consideration. These were: 1. To allocate the small meeting room near the Chamber to Democratic Services; and 2. Add the Cabinet Room to the pool of bookable meeting rooms or subdivide it back into two rooms. The Committee also raised concerns regarding the Council Chamber and made the following recommendations: 3. Investigate remedial actions to improve ventilation (not necessarily air conditioning); and 4. Replace broken light bulbs and review overall lighting adequacy. Councillor Skyrme-Blackhall informed Council that since the meeting of the Democratic Services Committee, it was understood that there have been discussions at Senior Leadership Team level on office space in general within County Hall. The lighting in the Council Chamber has also been remedied. In that regard, Councillor Skyrme-Blackhall Moved that authority be delegated to the Assistant Chief Executive/Director of Place to provide adequate accommodation for the Democratic Services Team within proximity to the Council Chamber and Committee Rooms; and to investigate remedial actions to improve ventilation in the Council Chamber. Seconded by Councillor Michael John. The Leader stated that Cabinet is happy to vacate its current room to accommodate Democratic Services and will relocate to another suitable space, including the upstairs office, if necessary. He noted that finding appropriate accommodation is ultimately a matter for the Chief Executive but reiterated his willingness to support the recommendation. The vote, undertaken by way of an electronic vote, was carried. The votes were recorded as follows: For the motion: Councillors Jamie Adams, Steve Alderman, Michelle Bateman, Maureen Bowen, Alistair Cameron, Di Clements, Alec Cormack, Terry Davies, Alan Dennison, Tim Evans, Claire George, Nicola Gwynn, Brian Hall, Delme Harries, Jon Harvey, Tessa Hodgson, David Howlett, Mike James, Michael John, Rhys Jordan, Phil Kidney, Paul Miller, Elwyn Morse, Huw Murphy, Nick Neumann, Mel Phillips, Bethan Price, Neil Prior, David Simpson, Rhys Sinnett, Sam Skyrme-Blackhall, Michael Stoddart, Vivien Stoddart, Aled Thomas, Vanessa Thomas, Marc Tierney, Anji Tinley, Thomas Tudor, Iwan Ward, Michele Wiggins, Tony Wilcox, Chris Williams, Jacob Williams, Michael Williams, Alun Wills, Guy Woodham, Steve Yelland [47] No votes against the motion or abstentions. RESOLVED That authority be delegated to the Assistant Chief Executive/Director of Place to provide adequate accommodation for the Democratic Services Team within proximity to the Council Chamber and Committee Rooms; and to investigate remedial actions to improve ventilation in the Council Chamber.
Y penderfyniad fel y'i cofnodwyd
RESOLVED (a) That the abolishment of the Swansea Bay City Deal Joint Committee and associated Scrutiny Committee be agreed. (b) That the decision taken by the member councils will need to be ratified by the Swansea Bay City Deal Joint Committee prior to its implementation be noted.
Council considered a report by the Assistant Chief Executive/Director of Place on a recent review undertaken into the Swansea Bay City Deal support and governance arrangements; and to seek agreement to delegate future decision making of the Swansea Bay City Deal to the South West Wales Corporate Joint Committee. The Presiding Member invited the Leader to present the report. The Leader updated Members on the review of governance arrangements for the Swansea Bay City Deal and proposals to delegate future decision-making to the South West Wales Corporate Joint Committee (CJC). He stated that the Swansea Bay City Deal is a £1.3 billion, 15-year regional investment programme across four local authorities. Current governance and funding arrangements are unsustainable beyond 2025–26, and duplication has arisen with the statutory South West Wales CJC. He stated that the proposed changes include abolishing the Swansea Bay City Deal Joint Committee and its scrutiny committee, delegating decision-making and scrutiny functions to the South West Wales CJC, merging the Economic Strategy Board into the CJC’s Private Sector Advisory Board, and amending the Joint Committee Agreement accordingly. These changes aim to provide a more efficient and sustainable governance model for the remainder of the programme. The Leader moved the recommendations; Seconded by Councillor Paul Miller. Council discussed the report and the following key points were noted: Councillor Michael Williams questioned the democratic accountability of the Private Sector Advisory Board within the proposed governance structure. The Leader explained that democratic oversight remains through Councillor representation on the Corporate Joint Committee and its scrutiny committee, while the Advisory Board provides private sector expertise and reports to the CJC. The Assistant Chief Executive added that the Advisory Board membership remains unchanged and continues to provide business input. Councillor Alec Cormack queried the potential loss of SLA (Service Level Agreement) income for internal audit services following the merger. The Director of Resources confirmed there is a risk of reduced income as only one SLA may be required instead of two. Councillor Michael John supported the proposal, noting previous discussions about duplication between the Swansea Bay City Deal and the CJC, and confirmed that the CJC Scrutiny Committee has strong Councillor representation. The vote, undertaken by way of an electronic vote, was carried. The votes were recorded as follows: For the motion: Councillors Jamie Adams, Steve Alderman, Michelle Bateman, Maureen Bowen, Alistair Cameron, Di Clements, Alec Cormack, Terry Davies, Alan Dennison, Tim Evans, Claire George, Nicola Gwynn, Brian Hall, Delme Harries, Jon Harvey, Tessa Hodgson, David Howlett, Mike James, Michael John, Rhys Jordan, Phil Kidney, Paul Miller, Elwyn Morse, Nick Neumann, Mel Phillips, Bethan Price, Neil Prior, David Simpson, Rhys Sinnett, Sam Skyrme-Blackhall, Michael Stoddart, Vivien Stoddart, Marc Tierney, Tony Wilcox, Chris Williams, Jacob Williams, Guy Woodham, Iwan Ward, Michele Wiggins, Steve Yelland [40] Against the Motion: Councillor Michael Williams [1] There were no abstentions. RESOLVED (a) That the abolishment of the Swansea Bay City Deal Joint Committee and associated Scrutiny Committee be agreed. (b) That the decision taken by the member councils will need to be ratified by the Swansea Bay City Deal Joint Committee prior to its implementation be noted.
Y penderfyniad fel y'i cofnodwyd
RESOLVED (a) That the Allocation of Committee Seats and Outside Bodies to political groups under the requirements of Section 15 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 as set out in Appendix 1 be approved, with the additional seat on the Planning Committee being allocated to the Independent Group. (b) That the following nominations be approved: (i) Social Care Overview and Scrutiny Committee – Councillor Phil Kidney. (ii) Policy and Pre-decision Overview and Scrutiny Committee – Neil Prior. (iii) South West Wales Corporate Joint Overview and Scrutiny Committee - Councillor Michael Stoddart. (c) That the appointment of Members to Committees and other bodies, as set out in Appendix 3, be approved subject to the following amendment made at the meeting: (i) Schools Modernisation Working Group – adding Councillor Huw Murphy.
Council considered a report by the Head of Democratic Services on changes to the allocation of seats on Committees and Outside Bodies to political groups in accordance with Section 15 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 following the death of Councillor Jordan Ryan. For Members’ information, the Presiding Member announced that the nomination period for the vacant seat for Fishguard North East would commence on 6 January 2026 and the election would be held on 10 February 2026. The Head of Democratic Services reported that a review of the political balance had been undertaken and as a consequence the Independent Group is entitled to an additional seat on an ordinary Committee. The Leader of the Independent Group confirmed that the Group would take the extra seat on the Planning Committee to be filled by Councillor Iwan Ward. The Presiding Member Moved that the Independent Group be allocated an additional seat on the Planning Committee; Seconded by Councillor Phil Kidney. The vote, undertaken by way of a show of hands, was carried. Council noted anomalies in the allocation of seats on the Schools Modernisation Working Group and the South West Wales Corporate Joint Overview and Scrutiny Committee that were not picked up at the last meeting as highlighted in Appendix A. It was noted that Councillor Huw Murphy would take the additional seat on the Schools Modernisation Working Group. Councillor Di Clements Moved that Recommendation (a) as amended be approved; Seconded by Claire George. The Presiding Member then sought nominations for the vacant seats to be allocated to the Unaffiliated Members. The following nominations were received: Councillor Neil Prior expressed an interest in joining the Policy and Pre-decision Overview and Scrutiny Committee. The nomination was Moved by the Presiding Member; Seconded by Councillor Michelle Bateman. The vote, undertaken by way of a show of hands, was carried. Councillor Jacob Williams moved that Councillor Michael Stoddart be appointed to the South West Wales Corporate Joint Overview and Scrutiny Committee; Seconded by Councillor Bethan Price. The vote, undertaken by way of a show of hands, was carried. Councillor Phil Kidney expressed an interest in joining the Social Care Overview and Scrutiny Committee. The nomination was Moved by Councillor Michelle Bateman; Seconded by Councillor Chris Williams. The vote, undertaken by way of a show of hands, was carried. RESOLVED (a) That the Allocation of Committee Seats and Outside Bodies to political groups under the requirements of Section 15 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 as set out in Appendix 1 be approved, with the additional seat on the Planning Committee being allocated to the Independent Group. (b) That the following nominations be approved: (i) Social Care Overview and Scrutiny Committee – Councillor Phil Kidney. (ii) Policy and Pre-decision Overview and Scrutiny Committee – Neil Prior. (iii) South West Wales Corporate Joint Overview and Scrutiny Committee - Councillor Michael Stoddart. (c) That the appointment of Members to Committees and other bodies, as set out in Appendix 3, be approved subject to the following amendment made at the meeting: (i) Schools Modernisation Working Group – adding Councillor Huw Murphy.
Y penderfyniad fel y'i cofnodwyd
RESOLVED (a) That the start time of the Annual Council Meeting be amended from 11am to 10am be approved. (b) That the draft Municipal Calendar for the period May to December 2026. [Councillor Di Clements left the meeting at this juncture.]
Council considered a report by the Head of Democratic Services seeking approval of the draft Municipal Calendar of meetings for the period May 2026 to December 2026. The Leader presented the report and advised that the Democratic Services Committee had recommended to Council the bringing bring forward of the start time of future Annual Meetings from 11am to 10am for consistency with other Council meetings. The Leader supported the change and Moved the Recommendation; Seconded by Councillor Di Clements. The vote, undertaken by way of an electronic vote, was carried. The votes were recorded as follows: For the Motion: CouncillorsJamie Adams, Steve Alderman, Michelle Bateman, Maureen Bowen, Alistair Cameron, Di Clements, Alec Cormack, Terry Davies, Alan Dennison, Tim Evans, Claire George, Nicola Gwynn, Brian Hall, Delme Harries, Jon Harvey, Tessa Hodgson, David Howlett, Mike James, Rhys Jordan, Phil Kidney, Paul Miller, Elwyn Morse, Nick Neumann, Mel Phillips, Bethan Price, Neil Prior, David Simpson, Rhys Sinnett, Sam Skyrme-Blackhall, Michael Stoddart, Vivien Stoddart, Aled Thomas, Marc Tierney, Anji Tinley, Iwan Ward, Michele Wiggins, Tony Wilcox, Chris Williams, Jacob Williams, Michael Williams, Alun Wills, Guy Woodham, Steve Yelland [43] There were no votes against or abstentions. RESOLVED (a) That the start time of the Annual Council Meeting be amended from 11am to 10am be approved. (b) That the draft Municipal Calendar for the period May to December 2026. [Councillor Di Clements left the meeting at this juncture.]
Councillor Guy Woodham, the relevant Cabinet Member, responded to a question submitted by Councillor Phil Kidney prior to the meeting in accordance with the provisions of Council Procedure Rule 4.18 as follows: Would the Cabinet Member for Education, agree that the recent consultation document regarding the future of Manorbier school was both misleading, and stacked heavily in favour of St Florence school, the Council’s preferred choice if Manorbier was to close? The Cabinet Member provided the following response: Thank you for the question. I would disagree that the consultation regarding Manorbier school is misleading and heavily stacked in favour of St Florence School. The consultation emphasises the processes for the school and excludes anything else. St Florence is referenced as the nearest local school and therefore could become the catchment school if Council proceeded in the future. Councillor Kidney expressed concern regarding references in favour of St Florence School in relation to the Manorbier School consultation, suggesting this could be misleading. He emphasised the importance of fairness and transparency in the process and stated that Members place significant trust in the Cabinet to ensure this. In response, the Cabinet Member thanked Councillor Kidney and others for their confidence and assured Members that he would provide a balanced report when the Manorbier School consultation is brought back before Council. [Councillor Bethan Price left the meeting at this juncture.]
Councillor Paul Miller, the relevant Cabinet Member, responded to a question submitted by Councillor Huw Murphy prior to the meeting in accordance with the provisions of Council Procedure Rule 4.18 as follows: Since the creation of the Celtic Freeport how many direct jobs have been created in Pembrokeshire itself? The Cabinet Member provided the following response: I do not have any direct job creation figures available for you. The agreement, in fact the final set of agreements, still hasn't been signed, but the agreement was signed in June of last year, and most of the work now is preparatory work, so there are businesses out there applying for planning permission and there are businesses out there developing their business plans. Until some more of that preparatory work is done and the final agreement signed with the UK and Welsh Governments and the constituent bodies of the Freeport, we cannot do things like formally release the seed capital, etc. So, in summary, what I'm saying is it's still a bit too early, but we are confident that there is activity going on out there directly linked to the Freeport that will ultimately directly deliver jobs to the region. Councillor Murphy asked a supplementary question about the realistic number of jobs that could be created in the region over the next 15 years, acknowledging the uncertainty involved. The Cabinet Member responded that the most recent comprehensive estimate suggested around 11,500 jobs, though circumstances have changed since then, including the agreement of a third tax site. He acknowledged that two of the three tax sites are in Port Talbot, which currently has more suitable infrastructure and skills, but emphasised that the aim is to maximise opportunities across the region, particularly in areas such as Celtic Sea renewables. While no definitive figure can be given, progress is positive, albeit slower than hoped, and he expressed confidence that Pembrokeshire will benefit from direct job creation through the Freeport endeavour.
Councillor Rhys Sinnett, the relevant Cabinet Member, responded to a question submitted by Councillor Alan Dennison prior to the meeting in accordance with the provisions of Council Procedure Rule 4.18 as follows: I and many residents of Milford are deeply concerned about the drastic cut in funding for the Milford library, which has hindered its ability to function effectively, especially given its lack of a permanent location since its sale years ago. Many residents have voiced their dissatisfaction with the request for over £3 weekly contributions to keep the library operational for another year, particularly while we see ongoing financial support for Haverfordwest. As a councillor for Milford and responsible cabinet member, you are aware of the PCC's plans for the Haverfordwest library. Are you not concerned, as your constituents are, about the insufficient investment in our town's library, especially in light of the seemingly unlimited funds directed towards Haverfordwest and can you identify what plans are in place to support Milford library going forward? The Cabinet Member provided the following response: The Milford Haven library has been permanently based at Cedar Court for over 16 years. The library is a massive improvement on the previous one and has been, and continues to be, a much loved and well used facility. The lease currently runs until 2034 so there is a good home for the library there as long as funding is sufficient to cover that. We have been working in partnership with the Town Council and the Port of Milford Haven Authority over the last year, to consider options to improve the financial sustainability of the library. As part of this, the Town Council recently decided to undertake a survey to understand if local residents would be prepared to pay a small amount extra in the annual precept to enable the Town Council to make a financial contribution to supporting the library. This would equate to £3.35 per annum, a little over 6p per week; not the £3 per week expressed by Councillor Dennison. It is my understanding that of the 367 responses received, 89.3% were supportive of the proposal with 10.7% against. Nevertheless, this is a matter for the Town Council to determine as part of their precepting process for the next financial year, and we will respect their decision. It is also important to emphasise that, even if the Town Council make an annual financial contribution to library running costs, PCC would still be the major funder of the facility, investing approximately £114,000 per annum to cover operations. Nevertheless, a Town Council contribution would make a real difference, helping to avoid the risk of further damaging cuts to the library. It is also worth pointing out that the majority of libraries in the County benefit from financial support from their local city, town or community council, including Haverfordwest. These local councils have recognised the great value of the local library service to their communities and have been prepared to support it and we are most grateful to them for doing so, as it has helped to support the network over these long years of financial austerity to the benefit of local communities up and down the County. We applaud and thank them for their support. Now I can confirm that Haverfordwest Library is not immune to funding cuts, as suggested in Councillor Dennison's question, with reductions made to staffing hours earlier this year, leading to a consequential reduction in access to some services at the library. Moving forward, Haverfordwest Library will continue to contribute to savings targets. In addition, any increases to fees and charges are equally applied to all libraries. Haverfordwest Library is not excluded from this. The small-scale changes being made to Haverfordwest Library over the next couple of months have been predominantly funded by a grant from Welsh Government and are primarily focused on addressing significant antisocial behaviour issues that the library has faced. We have a duty of care to our customers and staff to address these issues. In terms of supporting Milford Haven Library moving forward, as indicated earlier, we await the decision of the Town Council and will continue to work in partnership with them and other stakeholders to ensure that the library continues to deliver excellent services for local residents. As a supplementary question, Councillor Dennison queried why Milford residents are again being asked to contribute towards Milford Library as part of the budget process, noting that £22,000 had been identified across three libraries (Pembroke, Milford, and another) but not in Haverfordwest. He also questioned why building modifications are being proposed to address antisocial behaviour, suggesting that such issues should be resolved by the Police rather than altering library facilities. In response, the Cabinet Member explained that the Police can only respond when they have sufficient resources to do so. He pointed out that the antisocial behaviour is low-level but persistent, involving noise, property damage, intimidation, and drug-related issues. While the Council has worked with the Police and other stakeholders, resources are limited, and library staff cannot act as security personnel. Therefore, measures funded primarily through Welsh Government grants are being implemented to protect staff and users. He stressed that Riverside Library is the only library in the County experiencing such problems and reiterated that the Council will continue to seek Police support where possible.
The Leader responded to a question submitted by Councillor Alan Dennison prior to the meeting in accordance with the provisions of Council Procedure Rule 4.18 as follows: Could the Leader please clarify whether it is the intention of this administration to endorse the recent proposal regarding remuneration for elected officials who are not re-elected in subsequent elections and will he commit to contacting the Welsh Government to advocate for the elimination of payments currently provided to sitting Senedd members who lose their seats? The Leader provided the following response: There is a provision under the Elections and Elected Bodies 2024 to allow local councillors in Wales to receive “resettlement payments” (similar to redundancy) if they lose their seats. Similar arrangements already exist for Senedd Members and MPs. The Democracy and Boundary Commission Cymru has a responsibility to consider resettlement payments for those elected members who lose their seats at an election, and to advise the Welsh Government on what an appropriate payment scheme might look like. They have provided us with the following comment: ‘The Commission has written to the Cabinet Secretary informing her that they are proposing that there is a form of resettlement payments to councillors who lose their seats. There will be a consultation held next year on what those payments will look like and local authorities will be invited to provide their input as we shape the framework for those payments.’ So given that this is a matter that will affect all elected Members of this Authority, I believe that whether to support or oppose any such proposal is a matter for Full Council to consider and express a view rather than the Administration. I have yet to see any specific proposals from the Democratic and Boundary Commission. I would make it clear, however, that it is my understanding that whatever scheme may be proposed, no one will be required to take a payment. So, in respect of the separate aspect of the question relating to payments currently provided to sitting Senedd Members who use their seats, it is not a matter of direct relevance to this Council requiring us to take a view or necessitate a response. individual members or groups may raise whatever comments they may wish directly with the Senedd, the Senedd Commission or local MS's or indeed Councillor Dennison could put in a Notice of Motion. Councillor Dennison expressed concern about severance payments for former Senedd Members and asked a supplementary question on whether the Administration had considered the financial implications if similar compensation was introduced for county councillors who fail to be re-elected and sought clarification on who would bear the cost. In response, the Leader stated that the matter is subject to the Boundary Commission’s ongoing consultation, and details are not yet available. He indicated that, unless Welsh Government provides funding, such costs would likely fall on the Council, but no definitive information can be given at this stage.
The Leader responded to a question submitted by Councillor Alan Dennison prior to the meeting in accordance with the provisions of Council Procedure Rule 4.18 as follows: In 2019, a politically balanced Working Group consisting of seven members was established by the Council to evaluate insights from experts across the private and third sectors, as well as other relevant stakeholders. The objective was to formulate an action plan, establish timelines, and provide recommendations to assist the Authority in achieving its goal of becoming a net carbon zero organization by 2030. Known as the 'Net Zero 2030 Working Group,' this group convened for the first time on September 20, 2019, with plans to meet quarterly, although these meetings were interrupted by the Covid lockdown. To enhance focus, subgroups were created to address specific areas, including Procurement, Energy /Buildings / Housing, Land Use /Assets / Development, Fleet/Transport/Mobility/Active Travel, and Behaviours, with these subgroups also scheduled to meet quarterly between the full group sessions. Can the Leader provide an update on the progress made by these groups and whether there are any documented outputs available to share with constituents, highlighting the carbon reduction achievements to date? The Cabinet Member provided the following response: A seven-member politically balanced Working Group was setup in 2019 to develop an action plan, timescales and recommendations to support the Authority in aiming to become a net carbon zero organisation by 2030. This Working Group reported back to Council with the Net Zero Action Plan in December 2020. Following this, it is my understanding that no further meetings of the Working Group or sub groups were held following adoption of the Net Zero Action Plan, so no further updates were provided. The Net Zero Working Group has now been re-established following the resolution by Council in July 2025 and the next meeting has been arranged for January 2026. Since December 2020, the Authority has worked to implement the Action Plan with the key focus in the areas outlined within – Non-domestic Buildings, Streetlighting, Fleet Mileage and Business Mileage. The results of this work from a carbon reduction perspective have been reported through the Welsh Public Sector Net Zero Reporting tool through the Welsh Government Energy Service methodology; however, since 2020 this methodology has seen multiple amendments to include a scope larger than the PCC Action Plan. Between 2020 and 2024, PCC has seen a 13.1% reduction in annual emissions despite the increase scope of the reporting tool methodology. This includes a 26.8% reduction in tCO2 (tons of carbon dioxide) emitted per year emissions linked to buildings, 57.2% reduction in emissions linked to waste and a 16.9% reduction in CO2 emissions linked to the supply change. The one area we have seen an increase in CO2 emissions is transport, but this is linked to the acquisition of the Bus Depot in Tiers Cross. Councillor Dennison posed a supplementary question seeking an estimate of the additional costs required to achieve the Council’s net zero target by 2030 and sought reassurance that ratepayers would not face increased Council Tax as a result. The Leader responded that he did not have the figures available but acknowledged that some initiatives, such as vehicle replacements, have been grant-aided by Welsh Government. He confirmed that a written response would be provided and noted that the re-established Net Zero Working Group will review costs associated with current and future work towards the target. [Councillor Iwan Ward left the meeting at this juncture.]
The Leader responded to a question submitted by Councillor Michael Stoddart prior to the meeting in accordance with the provisions of Council Procedure Rule 4.18 as follows: At its meeting on 17 July 2025 Council resolved: (a) That the Net Zero Working Group be reinstated to consider the Notice of Motion and, subject to the outcome of the review, review the future delivery of the Net Zero Action Plan, the previous resolutions of Council and future reporting requirements. (b) That Councillors Steve Alderman, Aaron Carey and Michael Stoddart be appointed as the unaffiliated Members of the Working Group. Four months have now passed and this working group is yet to meet and neither has any meeting been arranged. Does the Leader agree with me that, in a constitutional democracy, the Executive should not be able to pick and choose which resolutions of Council it decides to implement? The Leader provided the following response: To be clear, the resolution passed by Council on 17 July stands, and the Executive does not have the authority to disregard or override decisions of Full Council. I absolutely agree that in a constitutional local government framework, the Executive does not ‘pick and choose’ which Council resolutions are implemented. In this case the establishment and convening of the Working Group is an operational matter and is, therefore, the responsibility of Officers, acting under the direction given by Council. The Executive does not control the scheduling or administrative arrangements for these groups. The resolution of Council on 17th July has been implemented and the Next Zero Working Group meeting has been arranged for January 2026. Since this time Officers have been collecting the information linked to the queries within the original Notice of Motion from Councillor Stoddart including the commissioning of external consultants to support with the cost plan requirements. [Councillors Rhys Jordan and Michele Wiggins left at this juncture]
The Leader responded to a question submitted by Councillor Michael Stoddart prior to the meeting in accordance with the provisions of Council Procedure Rule 4.18 as follows: At its meeting on 13 July 2023, in response to a Notice of Motion submitted by Councillor Aaron Carey, Council resolved: (a) That the Council maintains a bi-annually updated assessment of the anticipated cost associated with delivering Net Zero Council operations 2030, over and above business as usual activity. This, where possible, shall be undertaken in-line with nationally recognised methodologies for assessing costs and benefits. (b) That the Council maintains a bi-annually updated assessment of the anticipated cost associated with delivering a Net Zero Council Housing stock, over and above business as usual activity. This, where possible, shall be undertaken in-line with nationally recognised methodologies for assessing costs and benefits. (c) That, from this point forward, specific decisions on Capital schemes to include Net Zero provisions over and above those mandated, include a cost benefit analysis of doing so. Four anniversaries of the date for six-monthly reports to be presented have now passed yet no such report has ever been put before council or any of its committees. Can the Leader explain why the executive has chosen to ignore the clear instructions of Council with respect to (a) and also an account of any steps taken to comply with (b) and (c)? The Leader provided the following response: The challenges experienced surrounding this reporting requirement were discussed at the Corporate Overview and Scrutiny Committee as part of the review of the Notice of Motion from Councillor Stoddart earlier this year. This was outlined in the associated report to Council in July this year. It was recommended by the Corporate Overview and Scrutiny Committee that the reporting requirements surrounding the 2023 resolution be reviewed by the Working Group. As such the following was resolved by Council in July 2025: That the Net Zero Working Group be reinstated to consider the Notice of Motion and, subject to the outcome of the review, review the future delivery of the Net Zero Action Plan, the previous resolutions of Council and future reporting requirements. As outlined in my response to the previous question it has been arranged for this Working Group to meet in January. The issues associated with point (a) are as follows: (a) The Council did not have an assessment of these costs because the Welsh Government Energy Service methodology, mentioned within the Notice of Motion report that went to Council, was significantly delayed from Welsh Government. As such the Council were unable to develop an alternative substantive methodology. However, in Summer 2025, the Council engaged an external consultant to assist in producing a fully costed roadmap plan for the PCC Net Zero by 2030 goal. This provides a financial forecast for the decarbonisation of the categories included within the plan, including the capital investment required and the lifecycle cost analysis of these measures. This has been completed and will be presented at the next meeting of Decarbonisation and Adaptation Sub Group of the Innovation and Transformation Board prior to a report to Council. With regards to steps taken to comply with points (b) and (c), the financial profiling for our housing retrofit programme is included within the annual Housing Revenue Account Business Plan which is presented to Cabinet in March each year. The decarbonisation of our housing stock forms part of the requirement under the Wales Housing Quality Standards 2023, and capital funding we receive from Welsh Government under the Optimised Retrofit Programme and Major Repairs Allowance contribute towards the costs of this programme. Annually, a report is taken to the Services Scrutiny that includes the building maintenance service retrofit programme. A cost benefit analysis of all capital schemes is prepared as part of the Capital Programme process; this includes decarbonisation projects over and above those mandated. This also includes PCC’s fleet through the Technical, Environmental, Economical and Practicable (TEEP) Analysis as per the Fleet Transition Plan as agreed by Cabinet in November 2024. Councillor Stoddart pointed out that the resolution required following the Welsh Government methodology, where possible, and had not ruled out other approaches. He asked the Leader whether he agreed that two years was a long time for the Council to realise it might need to develop its own methodology. In response, the Leader agreed.
Councillor Jacob Williams, the relevant Cabinet Member, responded to questions submitted by Councillor Alec Cormack prior to the meeting in accordance with the provisions of Council Procedure Rule 4.18 as follows: 1. Does the Cabinet Member agree that, under the Town & Country Planning Act 1990, Section 106 agreements are a valid mechanism to mitigate the specific impacts of housing development, provided the statutory tests are met? The Cabinet Member provided the following response: Yes 2. Furthermore, does the Member accept that valid mitigation for education impacts is not restricted solely to increasing pupil capacity (new places), but also extends to qualitative improvements—specifically, upgrading existing substandard facilities to ensure that the educational environment remains satisfactory for both existing and new pupils? The Cabinet Member provided the following response: Yes. As stated in paragraph 3.31 of the joint Pembrokeshire County Council and Pembrokeshire Coast National Park Authority Supplementary Planning Guidance ‘Planning Obligations’ (adopted 2016), “where existing facilities do not have sufficient capacity to support additional students, or require upgrading, a contribution from the developer (payable to the local authority) will be required.” Councillor Alec Cormack posed a supplementary question in his capacity as a Governor of Greenhill School, to clarify if paragraph 3.31 was being accurately enforced on the basis that the school had not been contacted in the matter of two large housing developments in Saundersfoot to see if any facilities needed upgrading. The Cabinet Member responded that the areas of development may be in the National Park area. He stated that it was not the normal course for the school to be contacted and he understood that the threshold would be in relation to a development of 20 or more two-bed properties and that the statutory consultee would be the Local Education Authority (LEA) not schools directly. In terms of the policy being followed, the Cabinet Member stated that it would be the LEA who would be consulted to provide an opinion. He further advised that the Section 106 contribution was to mitigate the impact of development which required robust evidence. Councillor Cormack expressed concern that the 2016 Supplementary Planning Guidance on Section 106 contributions is not being enforced correctly. He noted that because most schools are under capacity, developers are not being asked for contributions and highlighted the significant increase in Additional Learning Needs (ALN) since 2016, calling for the policy to be reviewed urgently. In response, the Cabinet Member explained that the policy is jointly held with the Pembrokeshire Coast National Park Authority and acknowledged that since 2016, the Council’s priority has been the adoption of LDP2. He confirmed that the guidance will be reviewed, particularly regarding ALN, though the Planning Authority relies on information from the Education Authority when determining Section 106 agreements. He also noted that Section 106 agreements in Wales are generally less robust than in England and expressed sympathy with Councillor Cormack’s concerns.
The Leader responded to questions submitted by Councillor Jamie Adams prior to the meeting in accordance with the provisions of Council Procedure Rule 4.18 as follows: During the discussions with Members as part of the recent WLGA led peer review, many Members expressed a concern over the direction and focus of the Authority and a lack of political leadership. It will be rather telling to see if these concerns form a part of the final report. Does the Leader recognise this viewpoint and could he please offer an insight into his priorities for the relatively short term remaining until the 2027 local government elections? The Leader provided the following response: No, I do not recognise that viewpoint at all. During the Panel Performance Assessment I conducted daily wash-ups with the Panel Chair, and no such concerns were raised, nor were any such concerns raised at the end of the Assessment during the Panel’s briefing on their findings, to which the Leader of the Independent Group was invited. Indeed, quite the contrary was expressed. We have been provided a copy of the report to check for accuracy, and I am very comfortable in saying that I fully expect the final report to commend our Political Leadership. With regard to my priorities for the period until the next local government elections in 2027, you will recall Cabinet refreshed our Programme for Administration at the Cabinet meeting on 6 October and you will also note that the revised Programme highlights that our collective vision and our priorities are centred on the following: • That Pembrokeshire is a great place to live, work and visit • Our young people and learners receive high quality education • People can draw upon care and support when they need it, to live meaningful and purposeful lives, whatever their age or stage in life • Appropriate housing is available, accessible and affordable • Pembrokeshire is a net zero carbon County, leading the way in green and blue energy renewables • Fewer families and households experience poverty and inequality • Our communities are active and thriving • We make a positive difference for future generations through the things we do today And if you care to read the Programme for Administration it will highlight within pages 15-23 our commitments for the remainder of our Administration in detail. Please correct me if I am wrong, but I don’t recall any programme for Administration or equivalent priorities document published during your Leadership. Both I and my Cabinet colleagues will continue to work tirelessly to deliver the vision set out in the Programme for Administration. By way of a supplementary question, Councillor Adams raised concerns that comments made by cross-party Members during interview panels about leadership may not have been accurately reflected in the Panel’s report, questioning whether it was accurate and honest. He also sought assurance that capital projects not included in the programme, and which could detract from investment in schools and social services, would not proceed, citing public concern over recent projects in Haverfordwest. In response, the Leader rejected the suggestion that information had been misrepresented, stating that he and the Chief Executive had regular discussions with the Panel Chair and quoting from the draft PPA report, which described the Cabinet as cohesive and responsive. On capital projects, he disagreed with Councillor Adams’ position and confirmed that the Administration will continue to pursue projects that benefit Pembrokeshire residents. [Councillors Nicola Gwynn and Claire George left the meeting at this juncture.]
Councillor Jacob Williams, the relevant Cabinet Member, responded to a question submitted by Councillor Huw Murphy prior to the meeting in accordance with the provisions of Council Procedure Rule 4.18 as follows: Services O&S Committee debated Riding Establishment Licensing Fees on November 25th, 2025 to examine the disparity between fees levied by Pembrokeshire County Council (PCC) and other Local Authorities such as Ceredigion who levy markedly lower licensing fees. The concern is felt that PCC are burdening these rural businesses with high licence fees when operating within a very difficult trading environment. Most would agree that horse-riding establishments are a valued part of the rural economy within Pembrokeshire. During the Services O&S Meeting the Cabinet Portfolio holder and Officers in defence of the current licence fee structure presented a written report claiming that Pembrokeshire riding establishments “typically charge £80 per rider for a 2-hour session” and that a riding establishment business within Pembrokeshire “may turnover £7200 per day.” Could the Cabinet portfolio holder inform Council what consultation occurred with the owners of Pembrokeshire riding establishments prior to the printing of this agenda item to confirm the accuracy of what PCC are claiming? The claim by PCC that Pembrokeshire riding establishments may turnover £7200 a day appears extremely misleading and inaccurate, which is of great concern to the owners of Pembrokeshire riding establishments and others. The Cabinet Member provided the following response: Horse riding establishments are of course a valid part of the rural economy and I would like to thank Councillor Murphy for his question, the answer to which was provided to the Services Overview and Scrutiny Committee in response to the same question by its Chair, Councillor Anji Tinley, which is that no such consultation took place in compiling the report. It was presented to the Committee at Councillor Murphy's request, the relevant Minute of its 27 March meeting records, “Councillor Murphy also suggested that an item on equestrian centres be added in order to review the prices of licences across the County as the number of establishments have decreased”. The implication was that riding establishment licencing fees have caused or contributed to the decline of licenced operators and the report apprised Members of the fee setting process using a toolkit to comply with the Council's Full Cost Recovery Income Generation Strategy introduced from 2018. It also set out the number of licenced riding establishments operating over the past 10 years. It was noted that no significant decline was evident and Committee Members' comments included that the fees were, “reasonable” and another Member stating that, “I don't think it's an overly expensive added cost." Mr Jeff Beynon, Public Protection Manager, told Members how in 2016 when consultation took place on the current fee structure, businesses were contacted directly to participate. That consultation hasn't been repeated; however, the Council has reconsidered the work involved in administering such licences and whether there are any opportunities for cost reduction changes. Mr Beynon advised that the fees represent a good average of the cost and time involved in administering the process which includes licence and inspections and subsequent compliance checks but doesn't factor in costs associated with follow-ups with non-compliant businesses. Finally, on the turnover aspect of the report, what it states is, “a larger riding establishment taking out three groups of 30 riders for three sessions each day at the weekend may turn over £7,200 per day." And it wasn't representing itself as anything other than a crude calculation, hypothetically. It's obviously fair to question how likely it is that a riding establishment would or could reach such a turnover, and indeed it was. The report debated by the Committee on 25 November, in Councillor Murphy's absence, I'm sure he's watched the webcast many times since, and he will have seen that the turnover aspect of the report, certainly I don't think played any part in influencing Members' unanimous resolution to note the report with no other recommendations or referrals. And I'm sure he would have heard the Head of Service, Mrs Toft, confirming in response to a question by the Chair that this aspect of the report would be withdrawn. And on that note, I understand that the Committee is to receive a further update at its next meeting in January. In his supplementary question, Councillor Murphy highlighted concerns about outdated and inaccurate figures used in setting land safety fees for riding establishments, noting that previous estimates were unrealistic and could disadvantage well-established businesses. He requested that the fee structure be reviewed using current and accurate information rather than outdated data. In response, the Cabinet Member explained that officers had relied on information from the March meeting when preparing the report and acknowledged the delay in bringing the matter forward. He confirmed that the issue will return to the January Committee meeting, where Councillor Murphy can raise his concerns and propose resolutions. He noted that Committee Members previously expressed no significant concerns about the fees but gave assurance that the matter will be revisited. [Councillor Phil Kidney left the meeting at this juncture.]
Councillor Alistair Cameron, the relevant Cabinet Member, responded to a question submitted by Councillor Michael Stoddart prior to the meeting in accordance with the provisions of Council Procedure Rule 4.18 as follows: Does the Cabinet Member for Finance agree that the use of the term "accumulated funding gap" is mathematically unsound and should play no part in the Council's budget deliberations? The Cabinet Member provided the following response: I do not agree that the use of the term ‘accumulated funding gap’ is mathematically unsound. The definition of “accumulated funding gap” is: “accumulated funding gap” equals sum of annual shortfalls over multiple years, representing an ongoing fiscal imbalance. In Welsh local government accounting, the term “accumulated funding gap” refers to the total shortfall over time between the funds an authority needs to maintain balanced budgets (including service levels and infrastructure upkeep) and the actual funding available. It is not a single year's deficit, but a cumulative, multi-year shortfall reflected in financial plans and reserves. Councillor Stoddart challenged the use of the term “cumulative funding gap” in the budget report, arguing that it is misleading because funding gaps are eliminated annually when a balanced budget is set. He cited figures in the report showing individual yearly gaps alongside a cumulative total, which he described as nonsensical. He disagreed with the interpretation given. In response, the Cabinet Member stated that over the Medium Term Financial Plan there are multiple year funding gaps. He suggested that a meeting with Councillor Stoddart be held to discuss further.
The Presiding Member reminded Council that he had allowed this late question as an emergency question under Section 4.18.3 (b) of the Constitution for the reason that it was a very much live issue. Councillor Rhys Sinnett, the relevant Cabinet Member, responded to a question submitted by Councillors Aaron Carey and Jonathan Grimes prior to the meeting in accordance with the provisions of Council Procedure Rule 4.18 as follows: In light of the repeated flooding events across the county — including the recent overflow at Castle Pond and the acknowledgement by your own Coastal, Rivers & Drainage Team that the barrage tipping gate remains inoperable until mid-January — can you explain what assessment has been made of the adequacy of our tidal outfall infrastructure in the face of current and projected future storm surges and sea-level rise? If no such assessment has yet been undertaken, will you commit now to commissioning an immediate structural and risk-capacity audit, with a report to Full Council within 3 months, and with proposals for funding any remedial works required — to avoid recurring damage and disruption to residents, highways, and public amenities? The Cabinet Member provided the following response: Thank you for your question. Unfortunately, as this question was only received late on Wednesday there has been a limited opportunity review the request in detail but I have received a short briefing from Officers specifically in relation to the Pembroke Barrage. I would point out before covering that specific matter, however, that Natural Resources Wales are also responsible for much of the tidal outfall infrastructure around the County and we will seek the information requested and inform members in due course. When we talk about Pembroke, significant assessments of the Pembroke Barrage and associated tidal outfall infrastructure have already been undertaken over the past two years. These include annual inspections by qualified engineers and four-monthly checks. Based on these assessments, a comprehensive package of works was designed with external marine specialists and is currently being implemented. Work began in September 2025 including refurbishment of the hydraulic ram, tipping gate, swing bridge, sluice penstock, and eel pass flap valve. All works were due to be completed before Christmas, but a significant issue was found with the tipping gate hydraulic ram. Consequently, this is currently having to undergo more significant overhaul, and reinstallation is now due by late January 2026. This approach ensures long-term reliability and avoids the risks of partial repair with subsequent failure or extended delays. Additional mitigation measures—such as maintaining the sluice for free flow and regular trash screen clearance—are in place. Once works are complete, enhanced maintenance and monitoring will provide improved resilience against flooding and tidal surges. Updates will continue to be reported to Cabinet as this is an Executive Function. [Councillor Delme Harries left the meeting at this juncture.]
Y penderfyniad fel y'i cofnodwyd
RESOLVED That the Notice of Motion be referred to Services Overview and Scrutiny Committee.
A Notice of Motion was submitted by Councillor Aaron Carey in the following terms: That Council agrees to the establishment of a cross-departmental working group, comprised of relevant Council representatives, stakeholders, and representatives of local Gypsy Traveller communities, with the objective of assessing, evaluating, and recommending sustainable, inclusive, and effective practices for the maintenance of local Gypsy Traveller sites within the county. The working group will: · Assess the current condition of Gypsy Traveller sites, including infrastructure, safety, sanitation, and accessibility. · Engage with Gypsy Traveller communities to understand their specific needs and concerns regarding site maintenance. · Review best practices from other local authorities and regions for managing and maintaining Gypsy Traveller sites. · Consider the financial and resource implications of maintenance proposals and develop a clear action plan. · Provide recommendations to the Council for improvements and sustainable management of the sites, with the aim of improving living conditions for residents. · The working group will present its findings and recommendations to full Council/Cabinet/O&S (where appropriate) within 6 months of the establishment of the group, following a series of consultations and site visits. Upon the terms of Council Procedure Rule 4.19, the Motion having been Moved by Councillor Sam Skyrme-Blackhall; Seconded by Councillor Chris Williams then stood referred to Services Overview and Scrutiny Committee. The vote, undertaken by way of a show of hands, was carried. RESOLVED That the Notice of Motion be referred to Services Overview and Scrutiny Committee.
Y penderfyniad fel y'i cofnodwyd
RESOLVED That the Notice of Motion be referred to Cabinet.
A Notice of Motion was submitted by Councillor Huw Murphy in the following terms: That Pembrokeshire County Council (PCC) Highways Department review their poor weather strategy, especially in relation to snow and ice conditions. That PCC look to reinstate/return an auxiliary/reserve salt tip to North Pembrokeshire, which in snow and icy conditions can be utilised to keep primary routes open to enable emergency services to attend calls, key workers to go to work and for HGV’s to be able to attend farms to collect milk as three examples. Historically, North Pembrokeshire had a “salt tip” located Nr Crymych and it’s a well-known fact that the A478 between Crymych & Cardigan and between Crymych & Clunderwen becomes difficult for motorists, especially HGV’s and Coaches (school buses), becoming treacherous during periods of snowfall and ice An auxiliary salt tip again located in North Pembrokeshire would enable North Pembrokeshire roads to be subject of quicker and regular gritting than currently occurs, keeping roads open and safer for road users. The recent heavy snowfall highlighted a weakness in the current highway gritting and snow clearing strategy in relation to North East Pembrokeshire and areas of the Preseli Mountains, which generally suffer the worst weather when it comes to snow and ice. Prompt gritting and deployment of snow ploughs for the A478, A487, B4332 and B4329 especially are critical for North East Pembrokeshire communities and communities near the Preseli Mountains. Upon the terms of Council Procedure Rule 4.19, the Motion having been Moved by Councillor Huw Murphy; Seconded by Councillor Brian Hall then stood referred to Cabinet. The vote, undertaken by way of a show of hands, was carried. RESOLVED That the Notice of Motion be referred to Cabinet.
Y penderfyniad fel y'i cofnodwyd
RESOLVED That the Notice of Motion be referred to Cabinet.
A Notice of Motion was submitted by Councillor Huw Murphy in the following terms: That Pembrokeshire County Council (PCC) work with all schools to develop a policy where all schools hold epi-pens as part of their first aid equipment. PCC can negotiate on behalf of our schools with the suppliers of such equipment to achieve best value through bulk purchasing. The immediate availability of epi-pens in an emergency involving a pupil on school premises has the potential reduce the risk of a tragic outcome. As some background in relation to this Notice of Motion, the April 2025 meeting of the Schools O&S Committee debated the subject of epi-pens. The current policy from Welsh Government states that it’s a matter for individual School Governing bodies to decide whether to stock epi-pens for use in an emergency should a pupil suffer anaphylactic shock, and should they wish to purchase epi-pens then each school does this on an individual basis. The Schools O&S Committee in April 2025 resolved to write to Welsh Government (WG) to highlight the epi-pens issue, which the Chair of the Schools O&S did. Since April 2025 the Schools O&S Committee have received no update from WG and a period of nearly 8 months has elapsed. The safety and well-being of pupils is a matter of priority and in view of the lack of response (I would argue lamentably so) from WG I feel PCC should proceed to develop our own policy to ensure that every LA school in Pembrokeshire hold epi-pens for use in an emergency hence this NoM. Upon the terms of Council Procedure Rule 4.19, the Motion having been Moved by Councillor Alec Cormack; Seconded by Councillor Brian Hall then stood referred to Cabinet. The vote, undertaken by way of a show of hands, was carried. RESOLVED That the Notice of Motion be referred to Cabinet.
Y penderfyniad fel y'i cofnodwyd
RESOLVED That the Notice of Motion be referred to Cabinet.
A Notice of Motion was submitted by Councillor Huw Murphy in the following terms: On November 25th, 2025, our Celtic cousins in Cornwall passed a motion that the Leader of Cornwall County Council would write to the Home Secretary voicing their objection to a UK Government proposal to implement mandatory digital ID for the United Kingdom. This Notice of motion asks that the Leader of Pembrokeshire County Council likewise writes to the Home Secretary and to the First Minster of Wales communicating the objection of elected members to the idea of Digital ID. This is not a devolved matter for WG hence the request to write to the Home Secretary expressing our objections. The Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) following the budget stated that the cost of introducing Digital ID will cost the UK Govt around £1.8 billion which is money that would be better spent elsewhere. Compulsory ID cards were abolished in 1952 after WW2 due to the widespread belief and sentiment they are fundamentally at odds with British and Welsh values and civil liberties, which was true then and remains true today. As the Leader of the largest political group, therefore representing the largest group of residents I’m obliged to express my objection to this proposal by the UK Government asking that our objection to Digital ID is communicated to the Home Secretary and the First Minister. I am not alone in my objection to mandatory digital ID with universal opposition to include the Leaders of Plaid Cymru, the Conservative Party, the Liberal Party, Reform UK, the Green Party, Scottish Nationalist Party, Sinn Fein and the DUP. Upon the terms of Council Procedure Rule 4.19, the Motion having been Moved by Councillor Huw Murphy; Seconded by Councillor Steve Alderman then stood referred to Cabinet. The vote, undertaken by way of a show of hands, was carried. RESOLVED That the Notice of Motion be referred to Cabinet.
Y penderfyniad fel y'i cofnodwyd
RESOLVED That the Notice of Motion be referred to Cabinet.
The Presiding Member reminded Council that he had permitted this Notice of Motion to be received as an urgent matter under Section 4.19.1 of the Constitution for the reason that it was a very much live issue. A Notice of Motion was submitted by Councillors Aaron Carey and Jonathan Grimes in the following terms: • That this Council notes with concern the repeated and increasingly severe flooding experienced in our coastal, estuarial and river-fringe communities over recent weeks — in particular the flooding events affecting the Commons / Castle Pond area. • That the Council further notes that, according to correspondence from the Coastal, Rivers & Drainage Team Manager, the tipping gate at the barrage remains out of operation until mid-January due to mechanical issues; meanwhile high tide, heavy rain, wind-driven tidal surges and overspill at the sluice have combined to overwhelm the drainage/outfall infrastructure. • That we recognise the current maintenance schedule (delayed till after the summer season) and the justification given — but further that such planning failed to foresee the likelihood of severe winter storm and surge events, which climate change makes more frequent and more intense. • That this Council therefore calls on the Cabinet to commission an urgent review of: o the adequacy of the current drainage/outfall and tidal-sluice infrastructure (barrage tipping gate, sluice/sluice-valve, flap valve, outfall capacity) for current and projected climate/tide conditions; o the maintenance scheduling policy for coastal and estuarial flood-risk assets, with a view to ensuring critical maintenance is completed before winter high-tide / storm-surge season, rather than — as at present — being delayed until after summer for “recreational / biodiversity” reasons. • That, pending the outcome of the review, the Council should allocate appropriate emergency capital funding to remediate the barrages / sluices / outfalls at risk of failure or blockage — to safeguard residents, properties, highways and public amenities from further flooding. • That, further, this Council resolves to publish a public flood-resilience plan for the County, identifying all coastal and river-fringe “hotspots”, maintenance schedules, responsible teams, and a transparent timeline for upgrades or remedial works — so residents have clarity and confidence in flood prevention measures. Upon the terms of Council Procedure Rule 4.19, the Motion having been Moved by Councillor Sam Skyrme-Blackhall; Seconded by Councillor Chris Williams then stood referred to Cabinet. The vote, undertaken by way of a show of hands, was carried. RESOLVED That the Notice of Motion be referred to Cabinet.
On behalf of Council, the Presiding Member expressed appreciation to all staff for their hard work throughout the year and extended best wishes to staff and Members for a happy Christmas and a peaceful, prosperous and healthy New Year.
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.