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 Councillor Jacob Williams be elected as Chair for the remainder of the Municipal Year.
RESOLVED That it be recommended to Council that the Notice of Motion in relation to disbanding the Planning Delegation Panel be not adopted.
RESOLVED That it be recommended to Council that the Notice of Motion in relation to secret ballots be not adopted. [Councillor Joshua Beynon left the meeting at this juncture.]
RESOLVED That Council be recommended: (a) That Part 2.2.2 of section 14 of the Constitution be amended as follows to clarify the position in relation to temporary appointments at Head of Service level: 15. The appointment and dismissal of staff to include temporary appointments at Deputy Chief Officer (Head of Service) level for a period not exceeding three months. (a) That delegated authority be granted to the Monitoring Officer to make consequential amendments to the Constitution, including the terms of reference of the Senior Staff Committee and any related policies or documents. (b) That the Senior Staff Committee be notified by the Chief Executive of temporary appointments as soon as reasonably practicable. The Chair proposed, using his prerogative as Chair, that the substantive motion be approved by unanimous consent rather than taking a further vote on the amendment as no objections were raised, and the Committee unanimously agreed to recommend the proposed constitutional change to Council.
Y penderfyniad fel y'i cofnodwyd
RESOLVED That Councillor Jacob Williams be elected as Chair for the remainder of the Municipal Year.
The Senior Democratic Services Officer sought nominations for the election of Chair for the remainder of the Municipal Year. Councillor Steve Alderman nominated Councillor Jacob Williams; Seconded by Councillor Michelle Bateman. The vote, undertaken by way of a show of hands, was carried. RESOLVED That Councillor Jacob Williams be elected as Chair for the remainder of the Municipal Year.
Following a request made by the Chair, there were no nominations received for the Vice-Chair position. It was agreed that the election of Vice-Chair be rolled over to the next meeting of the Committee.
There were no apologies for absence received.
There were no requests received.
The following declarations of interest were received in relation to Agenda Item No. 7 - Notice of Motion in relation to disbanding the Planning Delegation Panel: · Councillor Steve Alderman declared a personal interest by virtue of being a member of the Planning Committee. · Councillor Huw Murphy declared a personal interest by virtue of being a previous Chair of the Planning Delegation Panel. · Councillor Vanessa Thomas declared a personal interest by virtue of being Chair of the Planning Delegation Panel.
Moved by Councillor Jacob Williams; Seconded by Councillor Steve Alderman The vote, undertaken by way of a show of hands, was carried. RESOLVED That the Minutes of the meeting held on 28 April 2025 be approved as a correct record.
Y penderfyniad fel y'i cofnodwyd
RESOLVED That it be recommended to Council that the Notice of Motion in relation to disbanding the Planning Delegation Panel be not adopted.
The Committee considered a report by the Head of Law and Governance and the Head of Planning regarding a Notice of Motion in relation to disbanding the Planning Delegation Panel (PDP). The Chair invited Councillor Huw Murphy, who was a Committee Member, to speak to his motion but Councillor Murphy advised that he was content for the Head of Planning to present the report in the first instance. The Head of Planning introduced the report, outlining proposals to disband the PDP and replace it with arrangements allowing applications recommended for refusal to be referred directly to the Planning Committee at a Member's request. It was emphasised that there was no legal requirement to operate a PDP but it was expressed that its retention provided an effective and proportionate gateway between officer delegation and Committee determination. Members were advised that the PDP had reduced the number of applications considered by Committee whilst maintaining appropriate democratic scrutiny, ensuring that applications were referred where there were genuine planning considerations or significant public interest. Reference was made to developments in England and previous Welsh Government consultations, which supported structured approaches to delegation. Concerns were highlighted that disbanding the PDP could increase referrals, place additional demands on resources, lead to delays and increase risks associated with decisions departing from professional advice. Councillor Huw Murphy expressed that disbanding the PDP would improve transparency and noted that the Pembrokeshire Coast National Park Authority operated without a similar arrangement. It was suggested that it could not be assumed that removing the Panel would result in an increase in applications being referred to the Planning Committee, arguing that the reduction in referrals may reflect fewer applications being challenged rather than the impact of the PDP itself. It was stated that elected Members should be accountable for planning decisions and concerns were raised about creating additional layers of bureaucracy and administrative work where decision-making could be undertaken directly by Committee. A suggestion was made, by Councillor Huw Murphy for the PDP to be suspended for a trial period of 12 to 24 months to assess whether it provided genuine value to the planning process or merely added an unnecessary layer of bureaucracy. The Committee debated the contents of the report and the key points were highlighted as follows: · In response to a suggestion made by Councillor Huw Murphy to suspend the PDP for a period of time, the Chair raised concerns that a suspension would not be straightforward, as alternative constitutional arrangements would need to be established to determine how applications would be referred in the absence of the PDP, and the removal of the Panel would not automatically allow local Members to call applications before the Planning Committee. The Head of Law and Governance confirmed that if Members wished to replace the existing PDP arrangements with an alternative process, it would require amendments to the Constitution rather than simply suspending the current provision and it was suggested that any new mechanism could be introduced through constitutional changes and reviewed after 12 months to assess its effectiveness. · Following points raised by Councillor Huw Murphy, the Head of Planning cautioned against direct comparisons between Pembrokeshire County Council and the Pembrokeshire Coast National Park Authority, noting that the two authorities operated in different planning contexts and the National Park Authority dealt with approximately half the number of planning applications received by the Council. · Councillor Rhys Jordan expressed reservations about disbanding the PDP, also noting that comparisons between the County Council and the National Park Authority were not directly comparable. Concerns were also raised that removing the Panel could lead to a significant increase in applications being referred to the Planning Committee and he highlighted the importance of maintaining public confidence in the planning process by avoiding any perception of inappropriate influence over planning decisions. The timing of the proposal was questioned, noting that the PDP had been in place throughout the current Council term, and clarification was sought on the rationale for bringing the matter forward at this stage. Councillor Joshua Beynon also queried why the motion had been put at this stage as he had not encountered any issues being raised by members of the public. · Councillors Michelle Bateman and David Howlett considered that whilst the Panel may not be a perfect system and improvements would be welcomed, it operated effectively and they raised concerns that removing the Panel could increase pressure on Members to refer a greater number of applications to the Planning Committee In summing up, Councillor Huw Murphy stated that the intention behind the proposal was to increase transparency within the planning process and reduce the administrative workload associated with the existing arrangements, reassuring Members and the public that these were the primary objectives of the suggested changes. Councillor Rhys Jordan Moved that it be recommended to Council that the Notice of Motion be not adopted; Seconded by Councillor Joshua Beynon. The vote, undertaken by way of a roll call, was carried. The votes were recorded as follows: For the Motion: Councillors Steve Alderman, Michelle Bateman, Joshua Beynon, David Howlett, Rhys Jordan, Paul Miller, Billy Shaw, Aled Thomas and Jacob Williams [9] Against the Motion: Councillors Elwyn Morse, Huw Murphy, Vanessa Thomas and Anji Tinley [4] There were no abstentions. RESOLVED That it be recommended to Council that the Notice of Motion in relation to disbanding the Planning Delegation Panel be not adopted.
Y penderfyniad fel y'i cofnodwyd
RESOLVED That it be recommended to Council that the Notice of Motion in relation to secret ballots be not adopted. [Councillor Joshua Beynon left the meeting at this juncture.]
The Committee considered a report by the Head of Law and Governance and the Head of Democratic Services regarding a Notice of Motion in relation to secret ballots. The Chair invited Councillor Aled Thomas, who was a Committee Member, to speak to his motion. Councillor Aled Thomas emphasised the importance of accountability and openness in Council decision-making and noted that voting on such matters occurred infrequently and suggested that adopting new arrangements would help set the tone for the next Council term. Opposition to the use of secret ballots was expressed, stating that roll-call voting would be quicker, more transparent and would better support democratic accountability by clearly recording how individual Members voted. The Committee debated the contents of the report and the key points were highlighted as follows: · Councillor Huw Murphy queried whether any other local authorities in Wales operated without the option of a secret ballot. In response, the Head of Law and Governance advised that no comprehensive review of all Welsh local authorities had been undertaken by her, however, a limited comparison with a number of authorities indicated that most appeared to use recorded or roll-call voting while retaining provisions that allow for secret ballots in certain circumstances. · Councillors Rhys Jordan, Elwyn Morse and Anji Tinley supported greater transparency and accountability through recorded voting, stating that Councillors should be prepared to have their voting decisions publicly known. · In response to a question raised by Councillor Anji Tinely, the Chair confirmed that the motion proposed would cover all contested appointments where a ballot was currently prescribed. Councillor Aled Thomas advised that he was not against a roll-call being conducted for roles such as scrutiny Chairs where no political party held balance. · The Chair referred to the supporting statement accompanying the motion and asked Councillor Aled Thomas to clarify his comment that, following the 2026 Annual General Meeting, secret ballots had allowed "disinformation and bad politics to fester" due to the absence of a factual record of how Members had voted. In response, Councillor Thomas stated that political discourse had become increasingly toxic and that greater openness was needed to maintain public confidence in democratic processes. Referring to the closely contested leadership election at the 2026 Annual Meeting, he stated that the use of a secret ballot had led to speculation and claims about how Members had voted, which could not be verified due to the absence of a formal record. It was highlighted that recorded voting would remove uncertainty, reduce the potential for misinformation, and promote greater transparency and accountability, enabling the public to make informed judgements about their elected representatives. · The Chair sought further explanation from Councillor Aled Thomas regarding the ‘nasty politics’ comment, to which Councillor Thomas explained that following the leadership election there had been speculation and unverified claims about how individual Members had voted and maintained that recorded voting would improve transparency, reduce speculation, and help ensure public confidence in the integrity of the democratic process. · Councillor Paul Miller expressed discontent with points made and highlighted that the UK’s voting system enabled individuals to cast their vote without fear or favour. It was questioned whether it was preferable to allow some post-election speculation about how Members had voted, or to risk Members being subjected to pressure regarding their voting decisions if all votes were recorded. · Councillor Paul Miller asked how Councillor Aled Thomas would respond to suggestions that the motion was motivated by dissatisfaction with the outcome of the recent leadership election and was intended to increase political control over how Members voted. In response, Councillor Thomas rejected suggestions that the motion was linked to the outcome of the leadership election or his role as a political group whip and maintained that the proposal was solely about improving openness, honesty and transparency in Council decision-making. · Councillor Paul Miller asked whether the proposed abolition of secret ballots would enable political group leaders or whips to identify how Members had voted and therefore make sanctions, to which Councillor Aled Thomas rejected the suggestion, stating that any such sanctions would only arise where a formal party whip had been issued, and added that no whip had been imposed during his time as group whip. · Councillor Michelle Bateman stated that while transparency was essential for decisions affecting residents, secret ballots remained appropriate for appointments to Council positions as it allowed Members, particularly newly elected and independent Councillors, to vote freely without pressure or influence from others. It was also raised that a roll-call vote would disadvantage those with last names higher up the alphabet as they would have to provide their vote first, giving those further down the roll-call list more time to consider how the vote could be swayed. Councillors Huw Murphy and Billy Shaw also expressed that they would not be able to support the motion. · In response to clarification sought by Councillor Vanessa Thomas, the Head of Law and Governance advised that the Notice of Motion, as drafted, would remove all references to secret ballots and stated that the Constitution did not appear to contain a provision allowing Members to revert to a secret ballot through an alternative voting method. Consequently, if Members wished to support the motion while retaining the option of a secret ballot in certain circumstances, specific provision for this would need to be included in the constitutional amendments. In summing up, Councillor Aled Thomas stated that his motion was intended to improve transparency and accountability to the public. Concerns raised were acknowledged but he maintained that recorded voting would demonstrate openness and honesty in the Council's decision-making processes. It was argued that greater transparency was particularly important in relation to leadership and appointment decisions and suggested that adopting the proposal would help reinforce public confidence in the Council ahead of the next electoral term. Councillor Rhys Jordan Moved that the following constitutional amendments be recommended to Council: 1. Deletion of the words “Secret Ballot” in sections 4.6.3(c), 4.6.7, 4.19.3(b), 6.1.2 of the constitution, and changed to “Roll-Call.” 2. Changing section 4.23.6 of the constitution to read as follows: 4.23.6 Voting on Appointments (a) For uncontested appointments voting shall be by a show of hands. (b) For contested appointments, voting shall be undertaken by a secret ballot ROLL CALL using the exhaustive ballot voting process as follows: (i) where a single member is to be appointed, if a candidate does not receive a majority of the votes cast, the candidate with the fewest votes will be eliminated and further rounds of voting will be taken until a majority of votes have been cast for one candidate. (ii) In the case of an appointment of more than one member, rounds of voting will take place, with the candidate receiving the fewest votes eliminated, until the number of candidates remaining is equal to the number of members to be appointed. (c) On those occasions where a vote is to be taken by secret ballot, a sealed ballot box will be used for the purpose of depositing ballot papers and the Council meeting will be adjourned for approximately ten minutes to facilitate the voting process. For remote attendees, Democratic Services will institute a suitable secure alternative voting system. Seconded by Councillor David Howlett. When put to a roll call vote, the proposal fell. The votes were recorded as follows: For the Motion: Councillors David Howlett, Rhys Jordan, Elwyn Morse, Vanessa Thomas, Aled Thomas and Anji Tinley [6] Against the Motion: Councillors Steve Alderman, Michelle Bateman, Joshua Beynon, Paul Miller, Huw Murphy, Billy Shaw and Jacob Williams [7] There were no abstentions. Councillor Jacob Williams then Moved that it be recommended to Council that the Notice of Motion in relation to secret ballots be not adopted; 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, Michelle Bateman, Joshua Beynon, Paul Miller, Huw Murphy, Billy Shaw and Jacob Williams [7] Against the Motion: Councillors David Howlett, Rhys Jordan, Elwyn Morse, Vanessa Thomas, Aled Thomas and Anji Tinley [6] There were no abstentions. RESOLVED That it be recommended to Council that the Notice of Motion in relation to secret ballots be not adopted. [Councillor Joshua Beynon left the meeting at this juncture.]
Y penderfyniad fel y'i cofnodwyd
RESOLVED That Council be recommended: (a) That Part 2.2.2 of section 14 of the Constitution be amended as follows to clarify the position in relation to temporary appointments at Head of Service level: 15. The appointment and dismissal of staff to include temporary appointments at Deputy Chief Officer (Head of Service) level for a period not exceeding three months. (a) That delegated authority be granted to the Monitoring Officer to make consequential amendments to the Constitution, including the terms of reference of the Senior Staff Committee and any related policies or documents. (b) That the Senior Staff Committee be notified by the Chief Executive of temporary appointments as soon as reasonably practicable. The Chair proposed, using his prerogative as Chair, that the substantive motion be approved by unanimous consent rather than taking a further vote on the amendment as no objections were raised, and the Committee unanimously agreed to recommend the proposed constitutional change to Council.
The Committee considered a report by the Monitoring Officer regarding the appointment of temporary staff. The Monitoring Officer introduced the report and stated that the Committee was being asked to consider a referral from Council regarding a proposed constitutional amendment to permit the Chief Executive to appoint Heads of Service for a period of up to 12 months without reference to the Senior Staff Committee, subject to the Committee being informed as soon as reasonably practicable. It was stated that the proposal would not apply to the posts of Chief Executive, Director or Monitoring Officer. It was advised that convening decision-making meetings required organisational time and resources, and Members were being asked to consider the appropriate balance between operational flexibility and Member oversight before making a recommendation to Council. The Chair also welcomed the Head of HR to the meeting to partake in the item of business. The Committee debated the contents of the report and the key points were highlighted as follows: · In response to clarification sought by Councillors Rhys Jordan and Anji Tinley, the Monitoring Officer and the Head of HR advised that any arrangements that would exceed the twelve-month period would revert to the Senior Staff Committee for consideration and the post-holders, if no further arrangements were agreed, would return to their substantive roles. · Councillor Anji Tinley expressed that she would be more comfortable for the appointment and dismissal of staff to include temporary appointments at Deputy Chief Officer (Head of Service) level for a period not exceeding three months instead of twelve months. Councillor Aled Thomas sought clarification on this suggestion. In response, the Chair stated that concerns raised by Councillor Thomas regarding the Chief Executive having the provision to continue to roll a temporary role over for three months at a time would not be possible as after the first three-month agreement, the matter would be required to be considered by the Senior Staff Committee. · Councillor Rhys Jordan queried what mechanism would be available if an employee temporarily appointed or seconded to a more senior role was unable to perform satisfactorily and needed to return to their previous position before the end of the agreed period. In response, the Head of HR advised that temporary appointments would normally be subject to a probationary period, particularly for senior roles. It was added that where performance concerns arose, the Council would work with the employee to facilitate a return to their substantive post, which would remain available. It was noted that individuals appointed to such roles would typically have significant prior management experience and would be selected through a fair and robust recruitment process, including competency-based assessment. Councillor Paul Miller Moved the following recommendations, as set out within the report: (a) That Part 2.2.2 of section 14 of the Constitution be amended as follows to clarify the position in relation to temporary appointments at Head of Service level: 15. The appointment and dismissal of staff to include temporary appointments at Deputy Chief Officer (Head of Service) level for a period not exceeding twelve months. (b) That delegated authority be granted to the Monitoring Officer to make consequential amendments to the Constitution, including the terms of reference of the Senior Staff Committee and any related policies or documents. (c) That the Senior Staff Committee be notified by the Chief Executive of temporary appointments as soon as reasonably practicable. Seconded by Councillor Billy Shaw. Councillor Anji Tinley then Moved an Amendment to the motion, for Recommendation A to be altered to ‘The appointment and dismissal of staff to include temporary appointments at Deputy Chief Officer (Head of Service) level for a period not exceeding three months’; Councillor Elwyn Morse Seconded this amendment. The vote on the Amendment, undertaken by way of a roll call, was carried. The votes were recorded as follows: For the Motion: Councillors Steve Alderman, Michelle Bateman, David Howlett, Rhys Jordan, Paul Miller, Elwyn Morse, Huw Murphy, Billy Shaw, Vanessa Thomas, Aled Thomas, Anji Tinley and Jacob Williams [12] There were no votes against the motion or abstentions. RESOLVED That Council be recommended: (a) That Part 2.2.2 of section 14 of the Constitution be amended as follows to clarify the position in relation to temporary appointments at Head of Service level: 15. The appointment and dismissal of staff to include temporary appointments at Deputy Chief Officer (Head of Service) level for a period not exceeding three months. (a) That delegated authority be granted to the Monitoring Officer to make consequential amendments to the Constitution, including the terms of reference of the Senior Staff Committee and any related policies or documents. (b) That the Senior Staff Committee be notified by the Chief Executive of temporary appointments as soon as reasonably practicable. The Chair proposed, using his prerogative as Chair, that the substantive motion be approved by unanimous consent rather than taking a further vote on the amendment as no objections were raised, and the Committee unanimously agreed to recommend the proposed constitutional change to Council.
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.