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 public submission be noted and referred to the relevant Working Group.
RESOLVED (a) That the current position of the Environmental Crime Enforcement contract, including its operational challenges and lessons learnt, be noted. (b) That the need for a strategic review of future Enviro-Crime enforcement approaches be noted. (c) That the establishment of a Task and Finish Group comprising elected Members and relevant Officers be considered to: (i) Review the trial period (ii) Evaluate the effectiveness of the current enforcement model. (iii) Explore alternative models for future delivery. (iv) Ensure alignment with public expectations, legal frameworks, and resource availability. (v) Make recommendations for a sustainable and accountable enforcement strategy.
RESOLVED That the report be noted.
RESOLVED That the Forward Work Programme be approved, with the following additions for the 22 January 2026 meeting: · Environmental Crime Task and Finish Group Update · Fly Grazing Update · Six Monthly Update report on vandalism reports against Council assets
RESOLVED That the content of the report be noted, as well as the continued low levels of Hydrogen Sulphide (H2S) being monitored at the station and that there have been no complaints since the last update.
RESOLVED That Council be recommended: (a) To establish a politically balanced Rural Communities Working Group. (b) That Officer support, to include senior Officers and Democratic Services, to initiate and coordinate the groups work be agreed.
RESOLVED That the update be noted.
RESOLVED That the update be noted.
RESOLVED That the Housing Building Maintenance Service performance update be noted.
RESOLVED That the report be noted. [Councillor Viv Stoddart left the meeting at this juncture.]
RESOLVED (a) That the work of the Pembrokeshire Nature Partnership and the role of Pembrokeshire County Council in hosting it be endorsed, recognising the benefits to the Authority and to the wildlife and communities of Pembrokeshire. (b) That continued financial and management support to the Pembrokeshire Nature Partnership be recommended at least at current levels to reflect the commitments made under the Edinburgh Declaration and to support actions under the Environment (Wales) Act Section 6 Duty and the Wellbeing of Future Generations (Wales) Act (2015). [Councillor Rhys Jordan left the meeting at this juncture.]
RESOLVED That the decision of the Cabinet Member be upheld.
Apologies for absence received from Councillors Brian Hall and Chris Williams.
Councillor Alec Cormack for Item 5 (Public Submission/Correspondence) and Item 12 (Environmental Crime – Enforcement Team).
Councillor Mark Carter declared a personal interest in Item 16 (Call in of ICM – Acquisition of 16 Woodland Crescent, Milford Haven to increase the supply of social housing in Pembrokeshire) by virtue of being a private landlord.
Councillor Di Clements Moved the Minutes of the 17 June 2025 meeting; Seconded by Councillor Mark Carter. Councillor Tony Wilcox Moved the Minutes of the 22 July 2025 Extraordinary meeting; Seconded by Councillor Steve Alderman. Councillor Di Clements Moved the Minutes of the 8 August 2025 Extraordinary meeting; Seconded by Councillor Mark Carter. The votes were taken by way of a show of hands and carried. Councillor Di Clements abstained from the vote for the 22 July Extraordinary meeting as she was not present. RESOLVED That the English and Welsh Minutes of the meeting held on 17 June 2025, and of the Extraordinary meetings held on 22 July and 8 August 2025 be approved as correct records.
The Chair advised Members that Item 12 (Environmental Crime - Enforcement Team) would be taken following Item 5 (Public Submission/Correspondence).
Y penderfyniad fel y'i cofnodwyd
RESOLVED That the public submission be noted and referred to the relevant Working Group.
The Chair introduced the public correspondence regarding summer beach animal (dog / horse) restrictions and the beach bylaws review, specifically concerning the beaches within the Amroth Community Council area. She then invited Community Councillor Mark Harvey to speak to his submission. Mr Harvey stated that Amroth Community Council supported seasonal beach restrictions to uphold Blue Flag standards, but expressed concern over outdated and unclear dog-related byelaws. He suggested that these byelaws were difficult to interpret, inconsistent across signage and platforms, and no longer reflected the beach’s physical layout or visitor expectations. He stated that public feedback highlighted confusion, particularly among visitors, and concern over off-lead dogs in restricted zones during peak hours. He added that Amroth Community Council requested that the Authority review the existing byelaws and consider replacing them with modern, flexible measures such as Public Space Protection Orders. He also proposed timed exclusions for domestic animals and sought active collaboration to develop and communicate a revised, inclusive beach management plan. The Committee then raised the following points: • Councillor Di Clements sought clarification as to how many complaints the Community Council had received and how had the information been gathered around the current process. In response, Mr Harvey explained that most complaints about dog restrictions at Amroth arise during peak summer, mainly from parents concerned about off-lead dogs in restricted zones. He stated that concerns were received both formally and informally, and while incidents were few, confusion stemmed from unclear signage and the physical layout of the beach, especially as restricted areas were often empty outside peak season. • Councillor Clements asked whether complaints were via a mix of residents and visitors to the area. Mr Harvey confirmed that it was a mixture, but mainly visitors. He stated that visitor confusion over dog restrictions at Amroth was primarily due to differences with nearby beaches like Coppet Hall, which use timed exclusions. He added that many visitors expect similar arrangements to those in Cornwall, where Blue Flag beaches typically operate shorter, clearer restriction periods. • Councillor John Cole questioned whether the sites visitors stay on with their animals were aware of the regulations on beaches, and whether they were advertising the restrictions. Mr Harvey stated that Amroth Community Council promoted beach guidance via its website and social media, but could not control messaging from external holiday companies. He stated that confusion arises due to inconsistent signage and conflicting information between physical signs and online sources like Visit Pembrokeshire. He also stated that horses, classified as domestic animals under Blue Flag criteria, were subject to separate seasonal controls, further complicating enforcement. • Councillor Tony Wilcox believed that standardising beach restriction information across Pembrokeshire would reduce confusion, especially as public attitudes toward dogs had become more accepting. • Councillor Mark Carter questioned why Amroth had restrictions in relation to horses, compared to other areas in the County where there were none. Mr Harvey explained that the horse restrictions at Amroth were based on a local byelaw introduced by Narberth Rural District Council. He stated that these controls also aligned with Blue Flag criteria. • Councillor Carter then sought clarification as to whether Amroth Community Council simply wished for the relevant signage to be clearer and more consistent with other areas. Mr Harvey believed that Amroth’s dog restriction byelaw was complex and outdated, and stated that current Pembrokeshire byelaws that used simple maps in comparison. • Councillor Rhys Jordan expressed sympathy for Mr Harvey, and stated that despite the formation of a Working Group, dog restrictions on Pembrokeshire beaches remained inconsistent and confusing. He stated that Amroth Community Council’s suggestion for timed exclusions, such as 10am to 6pm, was more practical and easier for the public to follow compared to blanket seasonal bans. He added that the current byelaws were outdated, overly complex, and difficult to enforce, especially when signage was unclear and enforcement inconsistent. • Councillor Alec Cormack stated that as a member of Amroth Community Council, he supported calls for clearer, standardised beach restrictions, as current rules were overly complex and difficult for the public to understand. He stated that timed exclusions during peak hours was a more practical solution, balancing beach use and public safety. He added that restrictions must also be adaptable to reflect changing community needs, as relying on outdated byelaws was no longer viable. • Councillor Clements sought clarification in regards to how difficult it would be to make the restrictions consistent across the County, as it was important to continue encouraging visitors to bring their dogs to the area. In response, the Head of Infrastructure and Environment suggested that Amroth’s concerns be referred to the Working Group that was due to be recommended under a different item on the agenda, where there could be a review of beach dog restrictions. She stated that only 12 beaches in Pembrokeshire had restrictions, primarily those with Blue Flag status, which required enforceable controls, and added that while changing a byelaw was difficult, the preferred approach was to suspend existing byelaws and implement Public Space Protection Orders (PSPOs), as adopted by several English Authorities. She explained that PSPOs allowed for clearer, time-based restrictions, but required regular public consultation, placing additional resource demands on the Council. The Public Realm Manager added that Amroth presented unique challenges due to its complex and outdated byelaws, and explained that while signage had been increased, orientation issues remained. He stated that any changes must also consider Blue Flag criteria and broader public expectations, including the desire for dog-free zones, and that the feedback received was a valuable foundation for improving clarity, consistency, and accessibility across Pembrokeshire’s beaches. • Councillor Cole sought clarification as to whether Visit Pembrokeshire advertised the dog restrictions on its website in order to inform visitors. In response, the Head of Infrastructure and Environment confirmed that the Authority had an agreement with Visit Pembrokeshire that they have all of the maps associated with the dog restrictions across the County on their website. • Councillor Carter agreed with having this aspect included on the relevant Working Group in order to look at enforcement. He then questioned whether a time period where dogs were not allowed on beaches was a viable option, in order to satisfy the Blue Flag status. In response, the Public Realm Manager stated that there was currently a mix of dog access restrictions in place, including full and part restrictions, particularly during the summer season, which typically runs from May to September. He stated that consideration was being given to time-based limitations where access was restricted during certain hours, however, enforcement remained a challenge. He added that feedback from residents and holidaymakers indicated a need for clearer communication and adequate resourcing to support enforcement efforts. [The meeting paused at this juncture due to technical issues.] The Chair then Moved that the public submission be noted and referred to the relevant Working Group; Seconded by Councillor Di Clements. The vote, undertaken by way of a show of hands, was carried. RESOLVED That the public submission be noted and referred to the relevant Working Group.
Y penderfyniad fel y'i cofnodwyd
RESOLVED (a) That the current position of the Environmental Crime Enforcement contract, including its operational challenges and lessons learnt, be noted. (b) That the need for a strategic review of future Enviro-Crime enforcement approaches be noted. (c) That the establishment of a Task and Finish Group comprising elected Members and relevant Officers be considered to: (i) Review the trial period (ii) Evaluate the effectiveness of the current enforcement model. (iii) Explore alternative models for future delivery. (iv) Ensure alignment with public expectations, legal frameworks, and resource availability. (v) Make recommendations for a sustainable and accountable enforcement strategy.
The Cabinet Member for Residents’ Services, Councillor Rhys Sinnett, introduced the report and stated that it provided useful context on the current position and outlined future options under the Environmental Crime agenda. He stated that the report recommended the establishment of a Member Working Group to explore the options, which ranged from maintaining the status quo to outsourcing or developing an internal service, though the latter would require significant Local Authority funding. He highlighted that data from the two-year pilot highlighted both successes and challenges, notably around beach restrictions and recruitment difficulties. He added that enforcement approaches also varied, with a balance needed between education and formal action. The Head of Infrastructure and Environment added that over the past two years, the Directorate had explored various approaches to managing beach restrictions, which had yielded both challenges and notable improvements. In particular, the enforcement contract was to said to have contributed positively to street cleanliness, with a marked reduction in litter. She highlighted that these outcomes were closely linked to targeted enforcement efforts, and while the report outlined several areas requiring further attention, there was substantial detail available for the Task and Finish Group to consider, should it be approved. She stated that moving forward, it was important for the Authority to adopt a holistic approach to environmental crime, integrating beach restrictions and broader enforcement strategies to ensure effective and sustainable outcomes. The Committee then raised the following points: • Councillor Di Clements believed it was up to Members to determine what was really needed in this area, and supported the idea of a dedicated Working Group. Councillor Di Clements Moved the Recommendation. • Councillor Mark Carter suggested that the first key decision was whether the Authority wished to continue with enforcement, and anticipated that most Members would support this. He added that a further consideration was whether the current contractor intended to retender, and raised the question of whether the Authority could do the same as the contractor but internally. He suggested exploring the possibility of bringing the service in-house, potentially integrating it with existing functions, such as parking enforcement. • The Public Realm Manager then clarified that a Task and Finish Group was established last year to specifically review dog restrictions, focusing on the use of fixed penalty notices versus warnings. However, he stated that the scope had now expanded to encompass wider environmental crime, including littering, dog fouling, and beach restrictions. He suggested that the new Task and Finish group supersede the previous one, enabling a comprehensive review of enforcement strategies and future direction. • Councillor Viv Stoddart acknowledged the difficulty in securing staff, whether contracted or in-house, to effectively manage enforcement. She then highlighted the issue of fly-tipping, particularly in her ward, where two locations were persistent hotspots. She then referred to the issue of lack of sufficient evidence for enforcement action, and highlighted Ceredigion County Council’s successful use of surveillance cameras funded through a dedicated scheme. She stated that these cameras enabled prosecutions and publicised outcomes, which she believed was a highly effective deterrent, and urged Officers to revisit the use of surveillance in hotspot areas. • Councillor Rhys Jordan sought clarification as to whether the proposed group would be a Task and Finish Group or a Working Group. He stated that given past experiences where Working Groups had lacked clear outcomes, there was a strong preference for a Task and Finish Group with defined objectives and a clear timeline. He stated that this was particularly important if changes to bylaws or beach restrictions were to be implemented in time for the next summer season, as delays could risk the Group achieving little before the end of the current Council term in 2027. • Councillor Clements also supported the establishment of a Task and Finish Group rather than a Working Group. She stated that the proposed Task and Finish Group should take over the matters previously considered by the existing Working Group, with a defined scope and a clear deadline, particularly in relation to any changes to bylaws or beach restrictions that need to be implemented ahead of the next summer season. • The Chair stated that with the current contract ending soon, speed was essential. She stated her support for bringing the service in-house, though establishing a team quickly may be challenging. She believed that the initiative should focus on public education rather than profit, and peer-led approaches, particularly involving young adults. • Councillor Tony Wilcox suggested reviewing internal waste collection processes within the Authority, as currently, minor fly-tipping near bins may go uncollected for days due to departmental boundaries. He commented that a more integrated approach, where frontline staff remove small-scale waste when identified, could reduce delays and discourage repeat offences. • Councillor John Cole agreed that a Task and Finish Group would be the best approach, in order to cover all aspects of enforcement under one group. The Recommendation was Seconded by Councillor John Cole. • The Public Realm Manger wished to confirm that the current contractor had now ceased operations, with the final officer resigning immediately, leaving no enforcement presence on the ground. He stated that feedback suggested that having an Enforcement Team provided reassurance to operational staff, particularly in relation to fly-tipping. He added that the Task and Finish Group would need to consider operational impacts, alongside budget pressures and service delivery challenges, especially in rural areas where enforcement was difficult. He stated that if an internal model was pursued, careful consideration must be given to funding, staffing, and integration with existing services to avoid overstretching. • In response to Councillor Stoddart’s previous comments, the Head of Infrastructure and Environment responded by explaining that CCTV remained under review in collaboration with the Housing and Community Safety Teams, with mobile units being considered for deployment at hotspot locations. In regards to fly-tipping, she commented that immediate collection by crews could hinder evidence gathering, making enforcement difficult, and although the contract had ended, some staff remained authorised to issue fixed penalty notices where evidence allowed, ensuring continued enforcement during this transitional period. • Councillor Carter sought clarification as to what the current procedure was now that the WISE enforcement contract had ended. He questioned whether the Authority had staff that retained authorisation to issue Fixed Penalty Notices (FPNs) where evidence was available, as well as what the procedure was for Members if they had a hotspot for other issues, such as dog fowling. In response, the Public Realm Manager explained that while FPNs could still be issued, enforcement capacity was limited, and stated that Civil Enforcement Officers were not authorised to issue FPNs at present. He highlighted that there was lack of a robust back-office system to support wider enforcement, which suggested the urgency of establishing the Task and Finish Group. • Councillor Clements then suggested that the first meeting of the Task and Finish Group be before the end of October, due to the urgency of the issues it involved. The vote, undertaken by way of a roll call, was carried. The votes were recorded as follows: For the Motion: Councillors Steve Alderman, Mark Carter, Di Clements, John Cole, Terry Davies, Delme Harries, Rhys Jordan, Shon Rees, Viv Stoddart, Anji Tinley, Thomas Tudor and Tony Wilcox [12] There were no votes against or abstentions. RESOLVED (a) That the current position of the Environmental Crime Enforcement contract, including its operational challenges and lessons learnt, be noted. (b) That the need for a strategic review of future Enviro-Crime enforcement approaches be noted. (c) That the establishment of a Task and Finish Group comprising elected Members and relevant Officers be considered to: (i) Review the trial period (ii) Evaluate the effectiveness of the current enforcement model. (iii) Explore alternative models for future delivery. (iv) Ensure alignment with public expectations, legal frameworks, and resource availability. (v) Make recommendations for a sustainable and accountable enforcement strategy.
Y penderfyniad fel y'i cofnodwyd
RESOLVED That the report be noted.
The Chair introduced the report and referred to the completed actions within the Action Log from the last meeting of the Services Overview and Scrutiny Committee on 17 June 2025 The Committee was content with the update. Councillor Di Clements Moved the Recommendation; Seconded by Councillor Steve Alderman. Councillor Tony Wilcox referred to Action 1 and questioned whether any information had been circulated regarding that aspect. The Chair confirmed that a response had been circulated to Committee Members via email. The Head of Infrastructure and Environment added that the Fleet Transition Plan, approved by Cabinet in January, now required all vehicle requests to undergo a TEAP assessment, evaluating technical, environmental, economic, and practical suitability. She stated that this ensured that each vehicle, whether combustion, hydrogen, or electric, was appropriate for its service area. She added that while electric refuse vehicles were still under review, trials were ongoing, with hydrogen being a promising option, particularly with harbour infrastructure in place, though cost remained a consideration. The vote, undertaken by way of a show of hands, was carried. RESOLVED That the report be noted.
Y penderfyniad fel y'i cofnodwyd
RESOLVED That the Forward Work Programme be approved, with the following additions for the 22 January 2026 meeting: · Environmental Crime Task and Finish Group Update · Fly Grazing Update · Six Monthly Update report on vandalism reports against Council assets
The Chair introduced the report and referred to the items on the Forward Work Programme between November 2025 to June 2026. The Committee then raised the following points: • Councillor Di Clements sought clarification as to whether the item on the Withyhedge Landfill needed to be brought to the Committee each time. The Chair confirmed that the item only comes before the Committee if there was an update. Councillor Clements also asked the same of the Havens Head and Lower Priory item, to which it was confirmed that that item was only coming to the current meeting at the request of Councillor Viv Stoddart during the 17 June meeting of the Committee. • Councillor Rhys Jordan suggested that for the November item on the Crematorium and Cremation Services, it would be helpful for Members to receive feedback from local Funeral Directors who regularly use the service. He stated that while reports provided useful insight, external professional perspectives could offer a more balanced view, and suggested that the relevant Officers contact a selection of local firms to gather their opinions ahead of the November meeting. In response, the Cabinet Member for Residents’ Services, Councillor Rhys Sinnett, explained that the Strategic Business Manager meets regularly with Funeral Directors and may be well placed to present such feedback to the Committee. He added that from previous discussions, Funeral Directors had been open and direct about their concerns, and their input could provide valuable context alongside the formal report. • Councillor Mark Carter suggested that a review of the Environmental Crime item for November’s meeting be included, in order to report back to the Committee on the work of the Task and Finish Group. • The Chair confirmed that the November meeting was full and stated that it would be added to the January meeting, along with an update on Fly Grazing. • Councillor Viv Stoddart highlighted that an omission had been made and that a six monthly update report on vandalism reports against Council assets should be added to the January meeting, as per the Recommendation from the June meeting of the Committee. • In regards to Councillor Jordan’s suggestion, Councillor Terry Davies stated that the regular meetings with the Funeral Directors were all minuted, and suggested that the Minutes of those meetings could come to the Committee, in order to provide a better understanding of the service. Councillor Di Clements Moved the Recommendation; Seconded by Councillor Mark Carter. The vote, undertaken by way of a roll call, was carried. The votes were recorded as follows: For the Motion: Councillors Steve Alderman, Mark Carter, Di Clements, John Cole, Terry Davies, Delme Harries, Rhys Jordan, Shon Rees, Viv Stoddart, Anji Tinley, Thomas Tudor and Tony Wilcox [12] There were no votes against or abstentions. RESOLVED That the Forward Work Programme be approved, with the following additions for the 22 January 2026 meeting: · Environmental Crime Task and Finish Group Update · Fly Grazing Update · Six Monthly Update report on vandalism reports against Council assets
Y penderfyniad fel y'i cofnodwyd
RESOLVED That the content of the report be noted, as well as the continued low levels of Hydrogen Sulphide (H2S) being monitored at the station and that there have been no complaints since the last update.
The Cabinet Member for Residents’ Services, Councillor Rhys Sinnett, introduced the report and referred to page 84 where it showed only isolated incidents where odour thresholds were exceeded, specifically on 14 and 15 July, likely due to external sources based on wind direction. He added that the application to vary the landfill permit was currently under review by Natural Resources Wales, with further consultation to follow once a draft decision was issued. The Committee was content with the update. Councillor Di Clements Moved the Recommendation; Seconded by Councillor Tony Wilcox. The vote, undertaken by way of a show of hands, was carried. RESOLVED That the content of the report be noted, as well as the continued low levels of Hydrogen Sulphide (H2S) being monitored at the station and that there have been no complaints since the last update.
Y penderfyniad fel y'i cofnodwyd
RESOLVED That Council be recommended: (a) To establish a politically balanced Rural Communities Working Group. (b) That Officer support, to include senior Officers and Democratic Services, to initiate and coordinate the groups work be agreed.
The Head of Planning introduced the report and stated that it concerned a Notice of Motion submitted by Councillor Delme Harries, referred from Council on 17 July 2025, which highlighted the need for enhanced support for rural areas. She explained that the motion proposes the creation of a cross-chamber Working Group to address rural regeneration through improved enterprise connectivity, housing, and access to essential services. She added that while significant investment had been directed toward revitalising town centres, enabled by substantial external funding, there was growing recognition of the distinct challenges facing rural communities, which were vital to Pembrokeshire’s economy, heritage, and environment. She stated that the Committee’s decision would be reported to a future Council meeting. Councillor Tony Wilcox sought clarification as to whether a Task and Finish Group could be formed, rather than a Working Group. The originator of the Motion, Councillor Delme Harries, then provided some background on the matter, in order explain why he believed a Working Group would be more appropriate in this circumstance. He firstly wished to address the Committee as a representative of all rural communities across Pembrokeshire that felt increasingly overlooked. He stated that while some towns had benefited from investment and attention, some rural areas, central to the County’s agricultural economy, cultural heritage, and Welsh language, continued to face significant neglect. He commented that despite previous inquiries and the assignment of rural affairs to a Cabinet portfolio, there had been little tangible progress, and he therefore called for the immediate establishment of a cross-chamber Working Group to focus on rural revitalisation, emphasising five urgent priorities: supporting rural enterprise, improving connectivity, addressing housing needs, enhancing access to essential services, and tackling rural mental health. He stressed that this initiative was not about seeking special treatment but ensuring fairness and meaningful support for rural communities, and that the proposal aimed to deliver lasting change through committed leadership, appropriate resources, and ongoing engagement. In regards to Working Groups and Task and Finish Groups, the Head of Democratic Services explained that a Working Group was more ongoing compared to a Task and Finish Group, where an issue was looked into in depth and reported back to the Committee more quickly. The Committee then raised the following points: • Councillor Alec Cormackexpressed support for the proposal, noting that a significant portion of the Amroth Ward was rural and faced similar challenges. He highlighted the importance of supporting rural enterprise and emphasised the need to replicate successes, such as that of Paternoster Farm, across the rural economy. He then endorsed the establishment of a Working Group as an effective mechanism to drive this work forward. • Councillor Di Clements also expressed support for the proposal but emphasised the need for realism in its scope and objectives. She stated that while many of the issues raised were important, some fall outside the Council’s direct control, being the responsibility of external bodies, such as the Health Board. She suggested that to ensure the Working Group was effective, areas within the Council’s remit should be focussed on, such as planning, which played a critical role in shaping rural development. Councillor Clements also recommended a thematic approach, starting with one priority area at a time, to avoid the Group becoming a broad discussion forum without actionable outcomes. • Councillor Steve Alderman stated his support for the proposal and highlighted previous efforts to address digital connectivity in rural areas, noting that while villages had seen improvements, many isolated properties remained unconnected, and referred to the awareness of alternative solutions. Councillor Alderman also raised concerns about rural housing and the implications of transitioning away from kerosene heating, with limited options such as air source heat pumps and solar panels, some of which faced planning restrictions due to covenants. Additionally, he advocated for the Working Group to explore funding opportunities, suggesting a coordinated approach to help Community Councils access resources more effectively. • The Chair expressed support for the proposal and emphasised the importance of senior Officer leadership for the Working Group, noting that similar initiatives in town areas received such oversight, and rural matters should be treated with equal priority. She also stressed the need for all Members to be satisfied with the proposed terms of reference and encouraged their review. • Councillor Shon Rees also expressed his support for the Motion, and highlighted the frequent focus on town investment and stressed the importance of recognising the value of Pembrokeshire’s rural areas, particularly in relation to tourism. He commented that a significant proportion of visitors were drawn to the County’s villages and countryside, underscoring the need for continued support and investment in these communities to preserve their appeal and vitality. • Councillor Rhys Jordan, as the Mental Health Champion, emphasised the importance of addressing mental health within rural communities, and stated that while Pembrokeshire could be a wonderful place to live and work, rural isolation, limited services, and poor transport links could make it a difficult environment for many. He highlighted that suicide was the leading cause of death among males under 50 in the County, emphasising the urgency of proactive mental health support. He then expressed full support for the proposed Working Group. • Councillor John Cole supported the Motion, reflecting on the decline of rural services such as shops and post offices, and emphasised the environmental and social benefits of restoring local amenities, which would reduce the need for travel into towns and strengthen community cohesion. He acknowledged the importance of supporting rural entrepreneurs and suggested that Council assistance could help revitalise local economies, and commented that while broadband expansion had made progress, the need for broader service provision was important, to ensure that rural communities could thrive. • In response to Councillor Clements’ comments, the Head of Planning highlighted the important role Planning could play in supporting the proposed Working Group. She explained that while the Local Development Plan (LDP2) was already well advanced, there remained a clear opportunity for Members to influence future local planning policy through the next development plan cycle. She stated that this influence could help shape policies that better support rural communities and businesses, ensuring the Planning Directorate contributes meaningfully to the Group’s objectives. • Councillor Harries supported the suggestion of a theme-led approach for the proposed Working Group, noting that this would help prioritise topics and align the involvement of relevant Heads Of Service. He also emphasised the importance of partnership working, suggesting collaboration with third sector organisations and farming unions, adding that they could provide valuable expertise and act as advisors to the Group. He then clarified that the Group’s role should be both to make recommendations within the Council’s remit and to lobby and influence external decision-makers, ensuring the right stakeholders were engaged to drive meaningful change for Pembrokeshire’s rural communities. Councillor Delme Harries Moved the Recommendation; Seconded by Councillor Di Clements. • The Head of Planning then sought clarification as to the level of resource they wished to see allocated to support the Group. • Councillor Clements suggested assistance from Democratic Services in order to facilitate engagement with third parties. • Councillor Harries suggested that the Working Group first be established, by selecting appropriate Members and collaboratively determining thematic priorities with Officers, with a task-and-finish approach for each theme, allowing focused discussion and targeted action. He also stressed the need to involve external expertise, as well as drawing on internal knowledge, and noted that the upcoming Welsh Government elections would be an opportunity to lobby candidates and present a unified rural perspective from Pembrokeshire. The vote, undertaken by way of a roll call, was carried. The votes were recorded as follows: For the Motion: Councillors Steve Alderman, Mark Carter, Di Clements, John Cole, Terry Davies, Delme Harries, Rhys Jordan, Shon Rees, Viv Stoddart, Anji Tinley, Thomas Tudor and Tony Wilcox [12] There were no votes against or abstentions. RESOLVED That Council be recommended: (a) To establish a politically balanced Rural Communities Working Group. (b) That Officer support, to include senior Officers and Democratic Services, to initiate and coordinate the groups work be agreed.
Y penderfyniad fel y'i cofnodwyd
RESOLVED That the update be noted.
The Cabinet Member for Residents’ Services, Councillor Rhys Sinnett, introduced the report and stated thatwork had continued over the summer regarding the fly-grazing issue and the control of horses in Pembrokeshire. He explained that there had been a notable reduction in reports of horses on highways and public areas since the peak in late 2024 to 2025, and that a trial of the new procedure under the Control of Horses Act led to the removal of two illegally fly-grazing animals. He added that further options, including benchmarking policies and procedures from other areas, particularly in relation to incidents on private land, were being explored and would be presented to the Working Group at its next meeting, expected in early November, with a comprehensive report to follow in January. He commented that this remained a complex issue, with legal and financial implications that required thorough consideration before returning to Committee. The Committee then raised the following points: • Councillor Di Clements stated that while actions had been noted regarding the control of horses, concerns remained, particularly from Councillors in the Pembroke and Pembroke Dock area, regarding the ongoing impact on residents. She stated that recently horses were observed in play areas and roaming streets late at night, causing distress and disruption. She added that there was a strong perception that progress was slow, and urgent action was needed to address the issue effectively and reassure affected communities. • Councillor Steve Alderman believed that it was important to note that grazing conditions were currently relatively favourable, however, within the next three months it was anticipated that there would be a significant increase in incidents involving horses seeking food in inappropriate areas. He added that based on last year’s experience, this could lead to animals posing serious safety risks. and that without timely intervention, there was a real risk of a major accident occurring. He stated that swift and decisive action was therefore essential to prevent the situation from escalating. • Councillor Mark Carter stated that there were ongoing concerns about reports of horses being shepherded back onto private land, which placed undue burden on landowners, and was perceived as a quick fix rather than a sustainable solution. He stated that this practice was unacceptable and raised questions about the fairness and effectiveness of current procedures, and sought clarification as to whether this practice was being addressed and would ultimately not continue. In response, Councillor Sinnett acknowledged the inconvenience caused by loose horses and emphasised that the Authority must operate within the powers and procedures available, and highlighted that responsibility for addressing such issues did not rest solely with the Authority. In regards to the practice of returning horses to private land, Councillor Sinnett clarified that this may occur when the police respond from a public safety perspective, and as such, an assurance cannot be given that this practice would cease, as it falls within the operational remit of the police. • Councillor Tony Wilcox referred to the issue as ongoing, with several landowners currently dealing with horses that had entered and remained on their property. He stated that historically, the police would remove horses from highways by directing them into the nearest available field, however, it seemed that the police were now contacting the Authority to take responsibility for the animals. He believed that this shift in practice seemed appropriate given the wider implications and asked for assurance that these animals would not be returned to their original owners. In response, the Head of Infrastructure and Environment explained that horses removed under the Control of Horses Act could only be reclaimed by individuals who provided proof of ownership and covered any costs incurred during the removal process. In regards to police involvement, she clarified that not all highways fall under the Authority’s jurisdiction, therefore the police retained powers to address obstructions on the highway that the Local Authority does not possess. She added that while the Authority may be asked to support in certain cases, this was done under police direction. She also noted that in many instances, animals had already vacated the highway by the time Teams arrive, and there was no confirmation that they were being placed on private land by any specific organisation. • Councillor John Cole referred to horses that were eventually claimed and questioned the cost of recovering those horses and moving them. The Head of Infrastructure and Environment stated that she was not aware that any owners had come forward to claim. Councillor Di Clements Moved the Recommendation; Seconded by Councillor Steve Alderman. The vote, undertaken by way of a show of hands, was carried. RESOLVED That the update be noted.
The meeting adjourned at 12:35pm and reconvened at 1:17pm.
Y penderfyniad fel y'i cofnodwyd
RESOLVED That the update be noted.
The Cabinet Member for Residents’ Services, Councillor Rhys Sinnett, introduced the report and stated thatthe project had experienced a lengthy timeline, with repeated revisions to both the outline and full business cases, but that it was at a stage where sequencing of works between the Port of Milford Haven and the Authority were being coordinated. He stated that the full business case remained subject to the outcome of a successful tender, and that a previous tender exercise did not yield suitable responses, but it was hoped that the issues had now been resolved and a new tender was either imminent or already underway. He added that the aim was to progress the works as swiftly as possible, with awareness of public concerns from both the Haven’s Head and Lower Priory areas. He also explained that additional works, including stream diversion and displacement near Lower Priory, were required, and with the Port’s works underway, the Authority was working to secure a suitable contractor to begin its portion of the project. The Coastal, Rivers and Drainage Team Manager wished to clarify that the Authority had been actively progressing the finalisation of the full business case and had hoped to have the re-tender live by the time of this meeting, but that it was now expected to be achieved within the next week. She explained that the delay was due to efforts to explore alternative options to facilitate the re-tender, following the unsuccessful initial tender exercise. She highlighted that during the first tender period, several contractor queries were received, indicating interest; however, concerns were raised regarding uncertainty around repair works by the Milford Haven Port Authority and the proposed outfall location for the new culvert and the site of the existing culvert, and this uncertainty contributed to the failure of the initial tender. She also wished to clarify that while works had been observed at the dock wall, these were private works undertaken by the Port and were not related to or beneficial to the scheme. The Committee then raised the following points: • Councillor Viv Stoddart commented that Members had consistently supported receiving updates, and residents recently had a constructive meeting with the Port Authority. However, she stated that after eight winters without mitigation, communities in Lower Priory and Havens Head continued to face stress and uncertainty. She added that while the Authority was hopeful a tender would be issued within the next week, it was important to remember the real impact on residents. She suggested that bureaucratic hurdles had delayed progress, and that delivering solutions swiftly should be the focus. • Councillor John Cole sought clarification from the Cabinet Member in regards to how confident he was that bids would be received this time round, and questioned whether there was a back up plan in place. In response, Councillor Sinnett confirmed that his confidence in the process had improved since the initial stage, with several previous challenges, particularly those affecting final tender submissions, now addressed. He noted that the Haven’s Head area, being a retail and commercial zone, required careful planning to ensure culvert works could proceed without significantly disrupting business activity. He stated that these logistical concerns appeared to have been resolved, and there was cautious optimism about achieving a more positive outcome in the next phase. • The Chair noted the significant challenges associated with the wall and culverts, acknowledging that numerous steps had been taken to progress the project. Despite Officers confirming that a tender for the works was expected imminently, concern was raised regarding the Welsh Government’s indication that, even if a suitable tender was secured, construction may be delayed until the 2026–27 financial year, due to funding deadlines. She sought clarification on why such a delay might occur given the urgency and longstanding need for the works. In response, Councillor Sinnett explained that in addition to bureaucratic complexities, the funding process required annual expressions of interest to maintain eligibility, despite longstanding commitment to the project. He then expressed hope that the tender documentation would be issued promptly, with a positive response, ideally from a local company, allowing the works to begin, if not be completed, before the next financial year. The Coastal, Rivers and Drainage Team Manager added that the full business case, which included the tender package, was currently being finalised. She explained that an expression of interest for construction funding was submitted in the previous financial year, anticipating earlier progress, and that once the full business case and tender were complete, they would be submitted to Welsh Government for approval. She stated that if approved, funding would be formally awarded, however, due to high demand on the funding pot, the money could not be held indefinitely. She highlighted that if the project does not commence within the current financial year, a new expression of interest must be submitted for the next, in order to comply with Welsh Government funding rules. • The Chair questioned the cut-off date for the funding, to which the Coastal, Rivers and Drainage Team Manager stated October. Councillor Di Clements Moved the Recommendation; Seconded by Councillor Mark Carter. The vote, undertaken by way of a show of hands, was carried. RESOLVED That the update be noted.
Y penderfyniad fel y'i cofnodwyd
RESOLVED That the Housing Building Maintenance Service performance update be noted.
The Cabinet Member for Housing, Councillor Michelle Bateman, introduced the report and stated that it reflected the scale and scope of the Building Maintenance Service, which often goes under-recognised. She noted the substantial volume of work completed over the past year and the increasing demand on the service, with particular recognition given to efforts around recruitment and retention, with thanks extended to the Building Maintenance Service Operations Manager for his long-term strategy of developing apprenticeships. She highlighted that this approach was now yielding positive results, with apprentices progressing and contributing effectively to the Team, and referred to the importance of instilling a broader corporate perspective in new recruits. Additionally, she stated that the impact of the Welsh Housing Quality Standard (WHQS) on the service was noted, particularly in terms of cost, workload, and administrative burden on a relatively small team. The Building Maintenance Service Operations Manager stated that the scale and breadth of the Building Maintenance Service was highlighted in the report, with over 3,800 projects completed and nearly 38,000 responsive repair requests actioned, alongside ongoing servicing and statutory compliance work. He stated that the Team was commended for consistently exceeding expectations despite the volume and complexity of tasks, and that recruitment efforts had focused on developing internal talent, with a structured progression pathway now in place. He explained that this included 28 Officers currently undertaking qualifications, and a growing apprenticeship programme. He added that the service continued to adapt to the demands of the WHQS, including enhanced data collection and reporting requirements. He also highlighted that significant progress had been made in implementing the NEC Asset Management System and integrating stock condition surveys, which would be expanded across the housing stock in the coming years. The Committee then raised the following points: • The Chair referred to page 108 of the Agenda and sought clarification as to the difference between projects and works. The Building Maintenance Service Operations Manager explained that the projects themselves were works which would be completed under the Capital Team, and would be classed as planned works. He added that the work requests were the ones that came in on a daily basis. • The Chair also acknowledged the impressive volume of work undertaken by the relatively new team of 28, many of whom were still in training or education, and asked for clarification on whether recruitment had been a positive factor or a hindrance for the Service. Councillor Bateman clarified that recruitment had historically been a challenge, particularly for senior roles at Grade 7 and above, due to the inability to compete with private sector salaries. As a result, she explained that the Service had adopted a long-term strategy of developing internal talent through apprenticeships, which was now beginning to show positive outcomes. However, she added that recruitment remained difficult for certain specialist roles, prompting a broader review of recruitment approaches across the service and wider Local Authority. • The Chair then queried whether the current apprenticeship model might result in staff leaving for higher-paid roles elsewhere, noting that Grade 7 locally may be equivalent to Grade 9 in other areas. She also sought clarification on whether this presented a risk to retention or if measures were in place to mitigate it. In response, Councillor Bateman stated that while recruitment and retention remained ongoing risks for the Authority, there were notable positives. She explained that the public sector offered broader purpose and stability, which could appeal to new recruits, and that the Building Maintenance Team was praised for its strong camaraderie and leadership, with apprentices given varied opportunities across different workstreams. She added that this team-based approach and exposure to wider service delivery were seen as key factors in supporting retention, though it was acknowledged that challenges in this area may persist. The Chair then congratulated the team on securing 10 apprentices, highlighting the positive impact such opportunities have on young people’s lives, and commended the department for its commitment to supporting youth development. • Councillor Tony Wilcox also congratulated the team on securing 10 apprentices. He then referred to the recruitment and retention section on page 124 of the Agenda, and raised a concern that the structure might appear top-heavy, with many officer and manager roles listed, potentially giving the impression of an imbalance between leadership and operational staff. In response, the Building Maintenance Service Operations Manager explained that the department was structured into three geographic teams for the County, each with a clear progression pathway from apprentice to senior officer, designed to support career development and ensure capacity to deliver the service effectively. Councillor Wilcox questioned whether three teams was necessary, and that it seemed top-heavy. The Head of Housing and Public Protection commented that the Building Maintenance Service had undergone a staffing restructure over the past two and a half years to meet increasing demands. She explained that while some roles were titled as managerial, they remained operational and carried significant project caseloads. She added that the structure was designed to build resilience by bringing in qualified and experienced staff who could supervise and deliver work effectively, and believed that the service was not top-heavy; rather, it was lean in management compared to other departments and housing association partners. • Councillor Di Clements welcomed the positive performance of the in-house direct labour operatives, noting their faster response times and better outcomes compared to specialist contractors, and highlighted the cost-effectiveness of growing internal capacity. She then raised several queries for clarification as follows: - The rising number of completed tickets was noted, and further information was requested to understand whether this increase was due to higher tenant expectations, more frequent issues, or an expanding housing stock. - The increase from 44 to 63 days was acknowledged, with a request for confirmation that this was due to the greater scope of work required during tenancy changes. - A rise in tenant reports was observed, and clarification was sought on whether this was due to increased awareness or a growing issue. - Concern was expressed over the £25,000 per-property investment, with questions about how this compared to average rental income and tenancy duration, and whether the cost burden risks outpacing rental returns over time. Councillor Clements concluded by emphasising the importance of understanding these operational pressures and their long-term financial implications. In response, Councillor Bateman explained that that the increase in responsive repair tickets was due to a combination of factors: rising tenant expectations, increased demand, and an ageing housing stock, which was older than that of many Registered Social Landlord (RSL) partners. Regarding void turnaround times, she explained that WHQS2 requirements had led to more extensive works being undertaken during void periods, which extended the timeframe but were more efficient when properties were vacant. In regards to damp, mould, and condensation, she stated that the rise in reports was attributed to greater public awareness and seasonal factors, particularly during winter months, and that the issue was being actively monitored and addressed. In terms of decarbonisation, Councillor Bateman acknowledged the financial challenge, and that while the average rent levels were relatively low and capped by Welsh Government policy, the cost of achieving WHQS2 standards, including decarbonisation, was significant. She explained that although funding was received through mechanisms such as the Major Repairs Allowance and Optimised Retrofit Programme, these contributions were limited compared to the overall cost. She highlighted that the service was working to balance investment in new builds with the need to upgrade existing stock, and was exploring ways to reduce tenancy turnover through adaptable, lifetime homes. The Building Maintenance Service Operations Manager then confirmed the comments made by Councillor Bateman and stated that in order to address the issues, the service was prioritising comprehensive stock condition surveys over the next 6 to 12 months to better understand and plan future workstreams. Regarding void properties, he explained that the team was using the opportunity during vacancy periods to complete WHQS2 related upgrades and assessments, such as asbestos surveys, ensuring properties were fully compliant and ready for new tenants, thereby reducing disruption post-occupation. In relation to damp and mould, he stated that there was a robust process now in place to resolve issues and maintain long-term communication with tenants to prevent recurrence. • Councillor Clements referred to damp and mould and questioned whether there was anything in place to help teach people how to clean damp and mould themselves in their properties. In response, the Head of Housing and Public Protection noted the importance of tenant behaviour change in addressing damp, mould, and condensation issues, with education on lifestyle factors forming a key part of the workstream. She highlighted that the profile of damp-related concerns had increased, with legislative developments in England potentially influencing future Welsh policy. She explained that the organisation was actively monitoring moisture levels in properties, including during tenant decants, to identify patterns and respond effectively. In addition, she stated that support measures, such as cleaning packs and financial assessments, were being considered to help tenants manage heating costs and access appropriate benefits. • The Chair believed it was the responsibility of tenants to care for their properties in regards to mould and damp, rather than it being the expectation of the Authority. • Councillor Mark Carter raised concerns regarding tenant expectations around Council responsibilities, noting the importance of estate wardens in promoting tenant accountability. He then drew attention to the increasing void turnaround times, with specific reference to properties left vacant for extended periods. He also questioned the availability of contractors for more substantial refurbishments, and the financial implications of long-term empty homes, including lost council tax revenue and increased reliance on temporary accommodation. He requested clarity on plans to address these long-term voids. In response, the Building Maintenance Service Operations Managerconfirmed that, in addition to standard voids, a separate workstream had been established to address properties requiring significant structural upgrades, including non-traditional builds and those under the Capital Team. He explained that this dedicated Team enabled more effective progression of major projects and ensured that all void properties, regardless of complexity, were incorporated into the appropriate schedules for refurbishment and re-letting. • Councillor Carter further questioned whether the Authority had the ability to or was struggling to get contractors in to assist in such work. The Building Maintenance Service Operations Manager stated that the current contractor framework, now approaching the end of its fourth year, was being reviewed and re-tendered to ensure sufficient capacity across all workstreams. In response to increased demand, he stated that additional local contractors were engaged over the past year, with support provided to help them join the framework, and that while contractor availability remained a challenge, the revised framework aimed to secure adequate coverage in all required areas to maintain progress on property-related projects. • Councillor Carter also queried the accessibility of the procurement framework for small local businesses, questioning whether the process was overly complex and burdensome, and emphasised the importance of supporting local firms. The Building Maintenance Service Operations Manager stated thatefforts had been made to attract smaller, local contractors through the new procurement framework, with several schemes already completed in Tenby, Fishguard, and Haverfordwest. He added that Business Wales had also been involved to support local firms in meeting procurement requirements, reinforcing the commitment to keeping works local and enhancing community-based delivery. • Councillor Tom Tudor expressed appreciation to Officers and the wider team for their prompt responses to reported issues in his ward, and extended his thanks on behalf of residents for the Team's continued dedication and effective service delivery. • Councillor Delme Harries referred to the Decarbonisation Project and the housing in Letterston, noting that approximately 125 residents were initially approached, with around 50 having taken up the offer at the time of the last report. He sought clarification on current uptake figures and whether the project was expected to be expanded further. In response, the Building Maintenance Service Operations Manager reported ongoing proactive engagement with residents in the area through client liaison and the Decarbonisation Team, aimed at raising awareness and improving housing standards. He stated that the initiative continued to progress, and noted that the approach prioritised sustainable upgrades, such as installing PV panels and air source systems, rather than replacing failed oil boilers, with a focus on long-term support for residents. • Councillor Harries suggested the need for improved public awareness and signposting regarding available housing support schemes, and questioned whether there were ways to better inform both tenants and the wider public, to prevent misinformation and enhance accessibility. In response, the Head of Housing and Public Protection outlined the Council’s involvement in promoting energy efficiency within the private sector, including participation in the EcoFlex 4 scheme and signposting to the Welsh Government’s NEST programme. She stated that while the Council’s role in EcoFlex was limited to signing off eligibility, assurance had been sought from intermediary energy companies, with approved providers listed on the Council’s website. She also noted that strategic efforts were being made to align decarbonisation initiatives across both social and private housing sectors, particularly in mixed-tenure estates, to prevent disparities in energy efficiency standards. Councillor Bateman also emphasised the importance of tenant engagement and education in delivering WHQS and decarbonisation work, noting that new technologies and heating systems required clear communication and support. She confirmed that the tenant panel played a key role in this process, and reiterated that improving energy efficiency and housing quality within the private sector was a core element of the Council’s wider housing strategy, beyond its social landlord responsibilities. • Councillor Rhys Jordan questioned how many properties, in terms of Social Housing, were Energy Performance Certificate (EPC) A. In response, the Head of Housing and Public Protection explained that high EPC ratings were primarily associated with new build properties, including those at Cranham Park, which currently achieved EPC B ratings. For retrofitted stock, including stackable properties and works undertaken in Letterston, she stated that further detail on EPC performance would be sought from the Decarbonisation Manager and passed on to Members. Councillor Jordan acknowledged the significant investment required to improve energy performance in rural and semi-rural properties, particularly those still reliant on oil. He referred to the journey of upgrading properties such as the Stackpole units, and a request was made for further data on current progress and future plans for transitioning away from oil-based systems. The Building Maintenance Service Operations Manager then confirmed that 31 properties currently hold an EPC A rating, primarily among new builds. He added that the Council was working in partnership with Sava, via Welsh Government, to model energy performance improvements across its housing stock. He explained that this tool enabled assessment of various upgrade methodologies, such as PV panels or external wall insulation, against cost and projected EPC outcomes, supporting strategic decision-making around affordability and effectiveness. Councillor Mark Carter Moved the Recommendation; Seconded by Councillor Di Clements. The vote, undertaken by way of a show of hands, was carried. RESOLVED That the Housing Building Maintenance Service performance update be noted.
Y penderfyniad fel y'i cofnodwyd
RESOLVED That the report be noted. [Councillor Viv Stoddart left the meeting at this juncture.]
The Chair introduced the report and stated that it was for noting only, as the Group was due to meet in October. Councillor Steve Alderman Moved the Recommendation; Seconded by Councillor Mark Carter. Councillor Di Clements questioned whether the Minutes of the Strategic Asset Management Group were publicly available. Officers confirmed that they were not. Councillor Clements queried whether the Committee would have sight of those Minutes, as various aspects of the Group related to the Services Overview and Scrutiny Committee’s remit. In response, Councill Paul Miller, the Cabinet Member with responsibility for Place, the Region, Climate Change and Rural Affairs, confirmed that he would happy for Officers to circulate the Minutes of the previous meeting, and to do so moving forward. The vote, undertaken by way of a show of hands, was carried. RESOLVED That the report be noted. [Councillor Viv Stoddart left the meeting at this juncture.]
Y penderfyniad fel y'i cofnodwyd
RESOLVED (a) That the work of the Pembrokeshire Nature Partnership and the role of Pembrokeshire County Council in hosting it be endorsed, recognising the benefits to the Authority and to the wildlife and communities of Pembrokeshire. (b) That continued financial and management support to the Pembrokeshire Nature Partnership be recommended at least at current levels to reflect the commitments made under the Edinburgh Declaration and to support actions under the Environment (Wales) Act Section 6 Duty and the Wellbeing of Future Generations (Wales) Act (2015). [Councillor Rhys Jordan left the meeting at this juncture.]
The Head of Planning introduced the report and provided an update on the work of the Pembrokeshire Nature Partnership over the past year, with thanks extended to the Officers, Elected Members, and external partners for their continued support and contributions. She stated that the Partnership was commended for its effectiveness in delivering biodiversity enhancement and nature recovery across the County. A brief presentation was provided by the Biodiversity Implementation Officer, outlining recent achievements and ongoing projects. The presentation highlighted the Council’s statutory duty under Section 6 of the Environment (Wales) Act and its role in hosting the Partnership. Key achievements included the addition of new partners, extensive policy engagement at local, regional, and national levels, and the delivery of 16 supported and eight core-funded conservation projects. The Partnership secured over £1.8 million in funding, including contributions from Welsh Government programmes and competitive grants. Notable initiatives included biodiversity-focused collaboration with Environmental Services and the creation of a nature meadow at Parc Gwyn Crematorium. Members were encouraged to view the recorded seminar for further detail and were thanked for their continued support. The Committee then raised the following points: • The Chair referred to the contributions and ring-fenced money, and questioned whether that was spent year on year, or whether there were reserves in that account. In response, the Biodiversity Implementation Officer explained that the money received was largely grant funding sources, and that reserves weren’t held. He added that the Nature Partnership did not have a bank account, and that the Authority was used as the administrator for all of the funding. He stated that any money unspent come 31 March would be returned to Welsh Government. • Councillor Di Clements commended the Pembrokeshire Nature Partnership for its exceptional achievements, particularly in securing significant external funding from minimal core contributions. She also expressed appreciation for the Team’s ability to engage communities and adapt approaches to encourage broader understanding and support for nature recovery, especially among those less familiar with evolving environmental priorities. She also questioned whether lessons had been learned in order to assist future work. In response, the Biodiversity Implementation Officer acknowledged the challenges of encouraging behavioural change in response to the nature emergency, noting the steep learning curve involved. He highlighted ongoing collaboration with public bodies to embed biodiversity considerations into all points of public service contact, and added that a cross-sector approach aimed to gradually build public understanding and support for nature recovery. • Councillor Terry Davies referred to the Park Gwyn Fund of £537,000, and questioned whether the field that was purchased alongside that was part of the grant or paid for separately by the Authority. In response, the Biodiversity Implementation Officer believed that it was purchased in advance by the Authority with a view to doing something with it. He stated that the Team were then asked to seek funding to try and deliver the project, which was done through the Local Places for Nature programme. He added that there were revenue opportunities in that now, for example, planting memorial trees for a fee, and memorial plaques in shelters. Councillor Steve Alderman Moved the Recommendation; Seconded by Councillor Terry Davies. The vote, undertaken by way of a show of hands, was carried. RESOLVED (a) That the work of the Pembrokeshire Nature Partnership and the role of Pembrokeshire County Council in hosting it be endorsed, recognising the benefits to the Authority and to the wildlife and communities of Pembrokeshire. (b) That continued financial and management support to the Pembrokeshire Nature Partnership be recommended at least at current levels to reflect the commitments made under the Edinburgh Declaration and to support actions under the Environment (Wales) Act Section 6 Duty and the Wellbeing of Future Generations (Wales) Act (2015). [Councillor Rhys Jordan left the meeting at this juncture.]
Y penderfyniad fel y'i cofnodwyd
RESOLVED That the decision of the Cabinet Member be upheld.
The Committee considered a call-in request by Councillor Alan Dennison in regards to an Individual Cabinet Member Decision made by Councillor Michelle Bateman, in relation to the Acquisition of 16 Woodland Crescent, Milford Haven to increase the supply of social housing in Pembrokeshire. The Chair introduced the report and invited Councillor Mark Carter, as one of the signatories of the call-in, to read the statement on behalf of the originator of the call-in, Councillor Alan Dennion, which read as follows: Dear Services Overview and Scrutiny members I apologise for my absence today, as I am likely traveling back from London this morning. I appreciate your willingness to review the call-in regarding 16 Woodland Cresent during your meeting. I have little to add to my previous comments, except to express my concern that this call-in might be perceived as an attempt to hinder the acquisition of adapted properties, which is not the case. The intention of the call in is to enhance the transparency of the property procurement process for our elected members and constituents. Should the committee decide to recommend proceeding with the purchase, I would fully support that decision. Additionally, I, along with other supporters of this call-in, have other relevant issues that may warrant further discussion, either during this meeting or in a future members' seminar. These topics include • addressing the backlog in our current property portfolio, • prioritising the use of council-owned land for new developments over purchasing existing properties, • ascertaining what criteria is used when determining which type of property to purchase, given the initial indication we were only going to purchase previously owned council stock and • defining what constitutes good value in property acquisitions, among other important considerations. I remain confident discussion will be forthcoming from the other members of the call in who plan to attend the meeting. The Committee then raised the following points: • Councillor Carter raised concerns regarding the acquisition of properties requiring significant refurbishment, questioning whether resources would be better directed toward bringing long-term vacant properties back into use. He made reference to specific examples of empty homes, including those vacant for over a decade, and the need to prioritise housing solutions that enabled quicker occupancy for those on waiting lists or in temporary accommodation. He then posed a question to the Cabinet Member regarding the strategic approach to property acquisition and refurbishment. • Councillor Michelle Bateman, the Cabinet Member with responsibility for Housing, confirmed that the property acquisition in question meets the Council’s strategic and operational criteria, including alignment with housing need, value for money, and suitability for a specific service user. She explained that the property was located in an area of high demand and qualified for significant funding support through the Transitional Accommodation Capital Programme (TACP). She noted that while the property required approximately £20,000 of work, this was considered minor and did not place it within the Capital voids programme. She explained that the acquisition process included input from Building Maintenance Officers, and no concerns were raised in this instance. She then emphasised the importance of growing the housing stock to meet demand and highlighted that increased rental income would support the expansion of maintenance services, and that long-term voids requiring substantial works remained under the Capital team’s remit. • Councillor Tony Wilcox expressed support for the property buy-in scheme, particularly if grant-funded, but raised concerns about previously purchased properties remaining unused. He questioned the cost-effectiveness of spending £300,000 on a single property when multiple mobile homes could be acquired for the same amount, highlighting a flaw in the current grant funding criteria. He also emphasised the urgent need for one-bedroom accommodation and suggested that the scheme be reconsidered. In response, Councillor Bateman acknowledged the need for one-bedroom properties and confirmed that acquisitions were targeted accordingly, though availability was limited due to many being leasehold. She explained that the property in question was selected to meet a clear need for four-bedroom or adapted accommodation. While some funding had been earmarked for a meanwhile site, she stated that progress was halted due to an issue affecting planning consents, and consequently, the decision was made to proceed with acquiring existing properties unaffected by the planning constraints, to ensure the TACP funding was utilised within the financial year and not reallocated elsewhere. The Head of Housing and Public Protection reiterated that while various housing priorities existed, including one-bedroom units, void turnaround, and adapted homes, the scale of demand necessitated a strategic and flexible approach. She explained that the acquisition of the wheelchair-accessible property was identified as a rare and valuable opportunity, aligning with the urgent need for bespoke, accessible housing. She added that the purchase was grant-aided, minimising cost to the Authority, followed governance procedures, and that independent valuations ensured value for money. She also acknowledged current bottlenecks in building maintenance, but outlined active workstreams and capacity-building efforts to address voids and meet housing demand. • Councillor Di Clements acknowledged concerns raised but stated her confidence in the transparency of the valuation process, noting that Members were not qualified to challenge expert assessments. She expressed support for the acquisition, recognising the significant and specific need for wheelchair-accessible housing and the likelihood that the property could be matched with multiple families. She then stressed the importance of responding to bespoke housing needs, highlighting the broader pressures and responsibilities in meeting diverse housing demands. [Councillor Di Clements left the meeting at this juncture.] • Councillor Carter expressed appreciation for the additional context provided by Officers, and acknowledged the difficulty in finding homes that meet specific criteria. He reiterated concerns about the housing maintenance backlog and empty properties incurring council tax premiums, and requested clarification on the grant funding, specifically whether a 60% grant applied to the £283,000 property cost. In response, the Housing Strategy and Affordable Housing Manager explained that each property acquisition required a separate grant application, which calculated funding based on the purchase price, estimated works, and potential rental income. For the property in question, he stated that a grant of approximately 60% was anticipated on the £283,000 purchase price, with an additional claim to be submitted once refurbishment works were completed. He added that final grant values may be adjusted depending on actual costs incurred, ensuring the Authority maximises eligible funding while meeting housing needs. • Councillor Carter sought clarification as to whether the Authority was obliged to pay land tax and whether the grant could be put towards it, to which the Housing Strategy and Affordable Housing Manager confirmed that to be the case. • Councillor Carter also questioned how much the annual grant capacity was and what could be bought with it. In response, the Housing Strategy and Affordable Housing Managerclarified that Pembrokeshire’s initial TACP allocation was £3.3 million, based on a £100 million Welsh Government budget. However, he explained that an additional £50 million had recently been added to the programme, creating further opportunities for grant funding if suitable properties were submitted and approved. Councillor Carter also questioned what the cap was in regards to the grant funding, to which the Housing Strategy and Affordable Housing Manager explained that while Pembrokeshire’s initial TACP allocation was £3.3 million, this figure represented a minimum and could increase depending on grant availability and performance across other Local Authorities. He stated that if other Council’s experienced delays or underspend on their approved schemes, Pembrokeshire may be able to access additional funding by submitting suitable property proposals. • The Chair questioned what the price cap was for a property that the Authority was able to purchase. In response, the Head of Housing and Public Protection explained that each property was assessed individually to ensure it aligned with the Council’s housing needs and standards. She stated that while the property in question was not a former social housing unit or a right-to-buy buyback, it met the criteria for acquisition due to its suitability and potential to address urgent housing needs. She also emphasised the importance of value for money and clarified that high-value purchases would only be considered if they involved multiple units, such as a block of flats, rather than a single dwelling. She added that the decision-making process remained flexible and responsive to the scale and nature of housing demand, including the pressures of temporary accommodation. • Councillor John Cole sought clarification as to whether an offer was made on the property or whether the surveyors valuation was proceeded with. The Housing Strategy and Affordable Housing Manager confirmed that the Property Team valued and made offers, therefore they made the offer that they believed was suitable for that property, which was then accepted. • Councillor Cole then asked whether the money being spent on the property would bring it up to WHQS. The Housing Strategy and Affordable Housing Manager confirmed that to be the case, and explained that the property required a heating upgrade and rewire, which was standard void works that could be completed quickly to bring it up to the required standard. He added that the Council also conducted a thorough assessment to ensure the property's suitability, particularly given its non-standard nature for social housing. • Councillor Cole also questioned whether the Authority was in conversation with local Estate Agents in order to be notified of any suitable properties that may become available. The Housing Strategy and Affordable Housing Manager explained that he spoke regularly with Estate Agents, and that while the Authority was regularly offered a large number of properties, through Estate Agents and property owners directly, only a portion were pursued, with each offer being assessed for suitability, and many were declined either outright or after inspection. In the previous year, he highlighted that 47 properties were successfully acquired. • Councillor Delme Harries acknowledged the challenges in sourcing adapted housing and did not dispute the need for the property in question. He raised a procedural query regarding efficiency, asking why two similar property acquisition ICM’s were presented separately on the same day, suggesting a preference for streamlined handling where appropriate. In response, Councillor Bateman explained that the property was not deliberately split from others, but rather the remaining five acquisitions were grouped together due to their similar nature and cost to streamline the administrative process, and clarified that this particular property was kept separate as it was an adapted home. Additionally, she noted that strategic considerations, such as increasing social housing in rural areas with limited development opportunities, could influence decisions. • Councillor Carter believed that the discussion had been valuable in clarifying the process, as the initial ICM report lacked detail. He also recognised the challenges faced by the Housing Team and noted their recent helpfulness within the community. • The Head of Housing added that she would be happy to bring planned reports to Scrutiny on specific areas of the housing service, including acquisitions and other topics. Councillor Mark Carter Moved that the decision of the Cabinet Member be upheld; Seconded by Councillor Steve Alderman. The vote, undertaken by way of a roll call, was carried. The votes were recorded as follows: For the Motion: Councillors Steve Alderman, Mark Carter, John Cole, Terry Davies, Delme Harries, Shon Rees, Anji Tinley, Thomas Tudor and Tony Wilcox [9] There were no votes against or abstentions. RESOLVED That the decision of the Cabinet Member be upheld.
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.