Sut mae'r cyngor yn codi ac yn gwario ei arian, gan gynnwys y dreth gyngor ac arbedion.
Beth mae cynghorau'n ei wneud
Mae pob cyngor yn pennu cyllideb bob blwyddyn: faint i'w wario ar bob gwasanaeth a faint o dreth gyngor i'w chodi. Mae'r dreth gyngor yn talu am tua thraean; daw'r rhan fwyaf o'r gweddill o grant gan Lywodraeth Cymru ac ardrethi busnes.
Pwy sy'n penderfynu
Mae'r Cabinet yn cynnig y gyllideb, fel arfer yn y gaeaf, ac mae'r Cyngor llawn yn ei chytuno ac yn pennu'r dreth gyngor erbyn dechrau mis Mawrth. Mae pwyllgorau craffu'n archwilio'r cynlluniau yn gyntaf.
Dweud eich dweud
Mae'r rhan fwyaf o gynghorau'n cynnal ymgynghoriad ar y gyllideb yn yr hydref neu ddechrau'r gaeaf. Mae eich cynghorwyr yn pleidleisio ar y gyllideb derfynol, felly dywedwch wrthyn nhw beth sy'n bwysig i chi.
Mewn rhifau
Treth gyngor a gasglwyd: 95% ar draws Cymru (2025-26).
Treth gyngor heb ei thalu ar ddiwedd y flwyddyn: £119 miliwn ar draws Cymru (2025-26).
Treth gyngor sy'n dal yn ddyledus o flynyddoedd cynt: £199.3 miliwn ar draws Cymru (2025-26).
Treth gyngor a ddilëwyd: £9 miliwn ar draws Cymru (2025-26).
RESOLVED – T H A T the Treasury Management Mid-Year Report for the period
1st April, 2023 to 30th September, 2023 be noted.
Reason for decision
Having regard to the contents of the report and discussions at the meeting.
Minutes - GD
No.
RESOLVED – T H A T the Treasury Management Mid-Year Report 2023/24 as
considered by Cabinet on 16th November, 2023 (Minute No. C152 refers) be
approved.
Reason for decision
Having regard to the contents of the report and discussions at the meeting.
RESOLVED –
(1) T H A T the Independent Remuneration Panel for Wales’ (IRPW) draft Annual
Report 2024/25 proposals be noted.
No.
(2) T H A T the draft response to the IRPW Determinations as set out below be
forwarded to the IRPW on behalf of the Council:
Determination 1 – Basic Salary in 2023/24 for Elected Members of Principal
Councils shall be £18,666
The basic salary will be aligned with three fifths of the All Wales 2022 ASHE
(Annual Survey for Hours & Earning), the latest figure available at drafting.
This represents a 6.06% increase in the basic salary.
Council’s Response
The Council supports the continued linking of remuneration to Elected
Members’ salaries to ASHE however requests that the IRPW consider a pay
freeze for Principal Council Elected Members’ salaries for 2024/25.
Determination 2 – Senior Salary Levels in 2024/25 for Members of Principal
Councils shall be set out in Table 1 (of the IRPW Annual Report)
The All Wales 2022 ASHE (Annual Survey for Hours & Earnings) applies to
Band 1 (Leader of Council and Deputy Leader of the Council) and Band 2
(Executive Members), Band 3 (Committee Chairs), Band 4 (Leader of the
largest Opposition Group), Band 5 (Leader of other Political Groups) where
pay is frozen and the basic salary increase will apply.
Council’s Response
The Council supports the continued linking of remuneration to Elected
Members’ salaries to ASHE however requests that the IRPW consider a pay
freeze for Principal Council Elected Members’ salaries for 2024/25.
Determination 3 – The Salary Level for a Chair of a Joint Overview and
Scrutiny Committee and Vice-Chair
The proposed amounts are £9,333 and £4,667 respectively.
Council’s Response
The Council supports the continued linking of remuneration to Elected
Members’ salaries to ASHE however requests that the IRPW consider a pay
freeze for Principal Council Elected Members’ salaries for 2024/25.
Determination 4 – Payments to National Park Authorities and Fire and
Rescue Authorities
Payments will be increased as a result of the uplift proposed for Elected
Members of Principal Councils. Therefore, there will also be an uplift of
6.06% in the basic salary element.
No.
The remuneration for Chairs will remain linked to a Band 3 senior salary of
Principal Councils. Therefore, there will be a small increase to the role
element of their pay. Deputy Chairs, Committee Chairs and other senior roles
will remain linked to Band 5. Therefore, their role element of pay will remain
frozen. The increase in basic salary will apply. Full details of the levels of
remuneration for members of National Park Authorities and Fire and Rescue
Authorities, is set out in Table 2.
Council’s Response
The Authority makes no comment on the increase as it is a matter for those
authorities.
Determination 5 – Co-opted Member Payments
The Panel proposes there should be local flexibility for the relevant officer to
decide when it will be appropriate to apply a day or a half day rate or to use an
hourly rate where it is sensible to aggregate a number of short meetings. The
full and half day rates remain unchanged from 2023 to 2024. The only
change is the stipulation of hourly rates.
Council’s Response
The Authority supports the introduction of the flexibility to use an hourly rate
where appropriate.
Determination 6 – Payments towards costs and expenses of Members of
Community and Town Councils / Basic payment for extra costs of working
from home
All Community / Town Councils must pay Members £156 per year (equivalent
to £3 a week) towards extra household expenses (including heating, lighting,
power and broadband) of working from home.
Set Payment for Consumables
These Councils must pay their Members £52 a year for the cost of office
consumables required to carry out their role, or alternatively Councils must
enable Members to claim full reimbursement for the cost of their office
consumables. It is a matter for each Council to make and record a policy
decision in respect of when and how the payments are made and whether
they are paid monthly, yearly, or otherwise. The policy should also state
whether and how to recover any payments made to a Member who leaves or
changes their role during the financial year.
Council’s Response
The Authority makes no comment on the proposal but supports the principle
that Members should be reimbursed.
No.
Determination 7 – Compensation for Financial Loss
This is an optional payment and the amount was not increased last year.
Previously the Panel determined that an appropriate level of payment be set
at the daily rate of ASHE. To maintain this link, the figures for 2024 are now
proposed as £119.62 for a full day and £59.81 for a half day.
Council’s Response
The Authority makes no comment on the increase.
Determination 8 – Returns in Respect of Mandatory Payments
The Panel proposes that from September 2024, the returns need only show
the total amounts aid in respect of the mandatory payments mentioned above.
This is the £156 contribution to the costs of working form home and the £52
set rate consumables allowance and the travel and subsistence expenses
paid. This brings these in line with the reporting of the costs of care and
personal assistance allowances.
Council’s Response
The Authority supports the principle of alignment with reporting of the costs of
care and personal assistance allowance.
(3) T H A T with regard to the Survey at Appendix B to the report, that the
responses to the questions be as follows :
• Question 1 – Uplift of remuneration using the Annual Survey of Hours
and Earnings (ASHE)
The Panel is fully aware of the current constraints on public funding and
the impact its decisions will have on the budgets of Principal
Authorities. The Panel is also mindful of our Aims and Objectives to
provide a fair and reasonable remuneration package to support elected
members and to encourage diversity of representation. We therefore
propose to uplift their remuneration based on the average earnings of
their constituents.
Do you think that the Panel has struck the right balance between
affordability and adequate remuneration for representatives? If
not, do you have other suggestions?
Council’s Response
Yes but would comment that the Council maintains its support for the
continued linking of remuneration for Elected Members’ salaries to
ASHE however, the Panel could consider a freeze in Member
remuneration in exceptional circumstances.
No.
• Question 2 – Local flexibility for payments to co-opted individuals
The Panel has received evidence that it would be more cost effective
and fairer to provide for flexibility in paying those who are co-opted to
serve on committees of Principal Councils, National Park Authorities
and Fire and Rescue Authorities.
The Panel has therefore proposed there should be local flexibility for
the relevant officer to decide when it will be appropriate to apply a day
or half day rate or to use an hourly rate where it is sensible to
aggregate a few short meetings.
Do you agree with this proposal? If not, do you have any
suggested alternatives?
Council’s Response
Yes and the Council accepts the stance taken by the IRPW to review
existing payment methods to reflect agile working arrangements and
changing demands on Co-opted Members.
• Question 3 – Encouraging sustainable travel
The Panel would like to ensure that we support environmental
sustainability in our decisions about remuneration. We are aware that
there are schemes in many bodies in Wales which encourage
sustainable travel and we have advised that, if possible, elected
members should be encouraged to participate in these schemes.
Do you have any examples of good practice or other ideas of ways
in which we might use our powers to encourage more sustainable
travel among members?
Council’s Response
No, the Council however supports the principle of encouraging the use
of sustainable travel. The Council is currently looking to review
information that is provided to its Members to raise awareness of the
initiatives that they may wish to take advantage of.
• Question 4 – Awareness of the entitlements of representatives
The Panel has seen evidence of a lack of awareness amongst local
elected members of the payments to which they are entitled. We would
like to find out if this is a significant issue, and if so, we will aim to raise
awareness further, targeted at areas where this may be a problem.
No.
Please identify which type of body you serve Principal Council
What is your status? Response of the
Committee
Did you know that you may be entitled to some of or all of the
following:
Remuneration for your role Yes
Pension (Principal Councils only) Yes
Reimbursement of expenses Yes
Reimbursement for caring responsibilities Yes
Family absence payments (Principal Councils only) Yes
What steps does your council or authority take to make its elected
members and co-opted members aware of their entitlements?
Council’s Response
Information relating to Member Remuneration is published in the
Elected Member Handbook. Members have also been provided
practical workshops on how to claim expenses via its digital portal.
• Question 5 – Publication of consolidated sums for Community and
Town Councils
Community and Town Councils are required to submit an annual
statement of payments to the Panel by 30 September each year, and
also publish this on their website. The Panel have provided a template
return for clerks to use. The Panel have discussed and considered
changing the requirements for Community and Town Councils when
submitting their statement of payment returns. The Panel’s aim is to
simplify administration and encourage Councils to ensure all mandatory
payments are made to individual members.
The Panel proposes that from September 2024, the returns need only
show the total amounts paid in respect of the mandatory payments
mentioned above. That is the £156 contribution to the costs of working
from home, the £52 set rate consumables allowance and the travel and
subsistence expenses paid.
This brings these in line with the reporting of the costs of care and
personal assistance allowances.
Do you agree that these figures may be published as a global total
rather than individually?
Council’s Response
No View
No.
What are the reasons for your view?
Council’s Response
Whilst this is a matter for Town and Community Councils, the Council
supports the Panel’s proposal to encourage all Members to take
appropriate remuneration for carrying out their duties.
• Question 6 – Publication of consolidated sums for other bodies
In future reports, we are thinking of allowing consolidation of the travel
and subsistence expenses of members of principal councils, National
Park Authorities and Fire and Rescue Authorities and would be
interested in your views.
Do you agree that these figures may be published as a global total
rather than individually?
Council’s Response
No.
What are the reasons for your view?
Council’s Response
The Council supports the principle of publishing travel and subsistence
expenses on an individual basis.
Reason for decisions
(1-3) Having considered Appendices A and B and following discussions at the
meeting.
RESOLVED: that
1. the revenue financial outturn based on the projected position at Month 6 2023/24 be noted.
2. the capital spend and projected position at Month 6 2023/24 be noted.
RESOLVED: that
1) the Indoor Arena Funding Strategy as set out within this report and in more detail at Confidential Appendix 2 be approved.
2) entry into and execution of the Development and Funding Agreement (DFA) previously approved by Cabinet in July 2023, be authorised and in so doing approve any amendments to the legal documentation as may be necessary, for reasons including but not limited to ensuring consistency between them and finalising any outstanding areas of further deeds and documents which are ancillary to the legal documents approved, subject to consultation with S151 Officer and Legal Officers.
3) It be noted that, subject to entering into a DFA with the Arena Developer/Operator and approval by Cabinet of the MSCP Business Case at a future meeting, relevant financial implications will be updated in the Medium-Term Financial Plan, Capital, and Treasury Management Strategies to be consistent with this funding strategy, to form a revised affordability envelope.
4) It be noted that Treasury Management Activities are delegated to the S151 Officer and implementation and review of this funding strategy will be undertaken as part of the annual updates to the strategy and checkpoints in respect to this project specifically as part of post project review.
Caerdydd, Policy Review and Performance Scrutiny Committee,
AGREED: that the Chairperson, on behalf of the Committee, writes to the Cabinet Member conveying the observations of the Committee when discussing the way forward.
RESOLVED:
a. That the Joint Committee notes the 2023/24 projected outturn forecast including the projected year-end balance for the Joint Committee Reserve Account.
b. That the Joint Committee recommends the 2024/25 budget, including the proposed drawdown and closing balance of the Reserve Account, to the Partnering Councils for approval as part of their respective budget planning frameworks for 2024/25.
c. The Joint Committee asks the Partnering Councils to note the indicative budgets, and associated partner contributions, outlined for the financial years 2025/26 to 2027/28.
RESOLVED
• That the report be noted.
• A briefing would be provided to the Committee in respect of borrowing and associated accounting principles, to include the Minimum Revenue Provision.
RESOLVED –
(1) T H A T the contents of the report be noted.
Minutes - GD
No.
(2) T H A T Cabinet be advised of the views of the Governance and Audit
Committee, those being:
• Accessibility – that it be clarified that there was an opposing view that the
document was easily accessible as it was felt that the document may be
difficult to read for some members of the public as there was some
complexities around the way that certain opinions were expressed in the
report, particularly in relation to a rise in Council Tax and a decrease in
services.
• Brexit – for further detail to be included regarding the impact of Brexit or for
Cabinet to consider removing this reference.
• Hybrid meetings – for the self-assessment document to reflect that the
Council has not implemented a hybrid meeting solution and that this was
now an urgent matter to resolve. The second reference in the assessment
was felt to be more accurate than the first.
• Public engagement and communication – for commentary to outline to the
public how the Council spends its money and the priority areas that the
money was allocated to as part of communicating the Assessment and in
particular the Council’s budget. To also clearly highlight that the majority of
the Council’s budget (around 75%) was allocated to education and social
services which meant that along with those departments, all other service
areas were under extreme budget pressures.
• Agency staff – for a detailed in-depth review to be undertaken to
understand the how’s and why’s of the areas that the Council spends on
agency staff. For this to be undertaken as part of the development of the
Council’s budget proposals for 2024/25.
Reasons for decisions
(1&2) Having regard to the contents of the report and discussions at the meeting.
AGREED – T H A T Committee notes the Vale of Glamorgan’s draft response to
the Boundary Commission’s draft proposals, Cabinet’s suggested response and
deliberations on the proposals at its 5th October meeting, along with the following
Minutes - AR
comments of the Committee on the suggestions raised within the report to be
forwarded to Cabinet, as follows:
• Dinas Powys Community Council - The proposed changes to the Dinas
Powys Community Ward boundaries were acceptable to the Council on the
whole, as it avoided the Community Council having to create a 5th ward.
However, the Community Council was concerned by the proposed transfer
of houses along Sully Road. It was deemed quite illogical and unacceptable
to move said houses into Penarth.
• Llanfair Community Council - Concerns had previously been raised by
the Council in relation to future proposals meaning a loss in rural identity
should it merge with the larger Cowbridge Town Council. Having
considered the electoral numbers, close proximity to Llanmaes Community
Council, as well as the similar community makeup of other nearby villages
such as Llysworney (that currently sat under Llandow Community Council),
it was deemed appropriate to have a discussion with the other two
Community Councils to see whether any other alternative proposals could
be presented to the Commission.
• Ewenny and Corntown Community Council -The Community Council
was looking to make representation to the Boundary Commission voicing its
displeasure at the proposals. It was the Community Council’s view that the
suggested merging with St. Brides Major and Ogmore would not enable the
residents of Ewenny to be properly represented. The Council felt it was
geographically separate from St.Brides and Ogmore and had been a long-
established Community Council with its own specific needs and
requirements in the area, which would not be best serviced by joining with
another. The proposals would be a dissolution of the democratic process
because it would move further away from the area currently administered
by the Community Council. The proposals were based on a mathematical
calculation rather than local identity and local politics.
• Llandow Community Council - It was the intention of the Community
Council to put together a detailed proposal and objection for the Boundary
Commission on the basis that, as its stood, Llandow should stay the size
and makeup that it currently was to avoid dilution of local village
representation and identity.
• Colwinston Community Council - The Boundary Commission had looked
at the community review in detail and had found that it made sense for
Colwinston and Llangan to remain separate even though the individual
electorate numbers did not reach 1000. Therefore, the only issue with
keeping the two councils separate laid with the Vale of Glamorgan Council.
Llangan and Colwinston were six miles apart, considerably different,
separate villages, with nothing in common so the suggested merging did
not make sense.
• Llangan Community Council - The Community Council bordered with a
very different local authority, Bridgend County Borough Council therefore,
the Community Council’s issues were completely separate and irrelevant to
the residents living in Colwinston. The Llangan community area may be a
very small area geographically, but its issues were completely different to
Colwinston.
Minutes - AR
• Llanmaes Community Council - The Community Council was thankful
that the Boundary Commission had not proposed to merge Llanmaes with
Llantwit Major Town Council as originally suggested. However, it was
disappointing to hear that the Vale of Glamorgan Council would be
supporting the Boundary Commission’s proposal for changes to the
Llanmaes Community boundary due to the fact that the changes involved
only 2 properties, housing 5 individuals, who considered themselves to live
in a rural area and therefore wished to remain under a community rather
than town council. The existing boundaries were based on water course,
which in many instances was logical for setting boundaries. However, the
boundary change now being suggested was as a result of boundaries
following a road boundary rather than a water course which was
disappointing.
• Barry Town Council - The proposals relevant to Barry Town Council
seemed logical moving forward. The only minor criticism is that the Cadoc
Ward in Barry was potentially too large and therefore it could be suggested
to split the Cadoc ward in to two. Democracy was really healthy in Barry
and every seat was contested by multiple parties at elections. Therefore, it
was hoped that the proposals put by the Commission would help to
promote democracy in smaller communities across the Vale of Glamorgan
by encouraging and holding elections, as many seats were often
uncontested in the Community Councils.
• Wenvoe Community Council - The Community Council had held a
meeting to discuss the proposals and it was bitterly opposed to the
proposals put forward. The Wenvoe Community was a close-knit
community, and the proposals made no sense at all. One of the main
reasons for objection was in relation to the playing fields and allotments
based in Twyn-Yr-Odyn, which were owned by Wenvoe Community Council
and bequeathed to the Council some time ago for the use of people living in
the Wenvoe community. A petition had been organised by Councillor
Russell Godfrey amongst the residents of Dyffryn, St. Lythans and Twyn-yr-
Odyn and not one resident expressed a wish to move out of the Wenvoe
community. Prior to the last Town and Community Council election, the
Wenvoe community lost the St.Nicholas with Bonvilston ward to the
Llancarfan ward and therefore Wenvoe Community Council did not want
any further changes. St. Nicholas and Bonvilston were developing areas,
with residential property development ongoing, and therefore looking to
increase its number of residents but, this should not be to the detriment of
the Wenvoe community.
• Penllyn Community Council - The Community Council was very pleased
to see that both the Boundary Commission and the Vale of Glamorgan
Council’s cross party working group had supported the Community
Council’s proposals in terms of the Penllyn area, especially in terms of the
area that would be affected by the Darren Farm residential development.
The Community Council was concerned about the reduction in the number
of councillors that was being proposed as, being a relatively dispersed
area, the council found that the current numbers of councillors worked very
well. Therefore, the council would be making a recommendation to the
Commission that councillor numbers were not reduced taking account of
the fact that the sizing policy was for guidance only.
Minutes - AR
• St. Nicholas and Bonvilston Community Council – The Council and the
relevant ward member did not wish Twyn-Yr-Odyn to join with St.Nicholas
so, that point was misinformation in the public domain. In terms of the
Playing fields and allotments in Twyn-Yr-Odyn, those facilities could remain
within the area for Wenvoe Community Council, and this was endorsed by
the St. Nicholas and Bonvilston Community Council.
• Wick Community Council - The comments raised by councillors at Town
level demonstrated a lack of understanding on how democracy worked in
smaller communities. To suggest there was a democratic deficit within
Community Councils, if there had not been an election, was wrong. The
council would be writing to the Commission to oppose the proposals.
• Councillor Haines – 1) Reducing the number of councillors representing
the smaller communities would result in the councils losing what they were
as a community.
2) Basing proposals on making assumptions on what would be included or
not within the Council’s Local Development Plan or what would happen or
not with a community in the future could lead to unfulfilled promises for the
area which was best avoided. Therefore, it was important for the Vale
Council to really think about what it recommended to the Commission.
• Councillor Wilson – 1) for the 2022 elections, there were a number of
Community Councils that did not have elections and therefore individuals
were co-opted which was a concern because there were not enough
individuals standing for the number of seats available. To a certain extent,
the Cabinet report and subsequent recommendations of the Vale of
Glamorgan Council tried to address this issue. There was a collective wish
for democracy to work well in the Vale of Glamorgan area as a whole and
not just in the main towns.
2) When communities worked together, this did not mean that the
communities diminished, rather they grew stronger and increased their
capacity to do things because of pooling finances and resources as well as
more likely to be heard at a county council level.
3) Community reviews happened rarely and therefore there was a need to
think ahead to future proof communities for how they would develop over
the subsequent decade until the next review was undertaken.
• Councillor Dr. Johnson – 1) the political situation was clearly different in
some of the more urban areas than it was in some of the more rural areas
of the Vale of Glamorgan.
2) There were currently 26 Town and Community Councils in the Vale of
Glamorgan and, out of that number, only six held elections in 2022 to his
knowledge, so this represented a democratic deficit when people were
setting local taxes without being elected by local people.
• Councillor Hodges - The size of some of the Community Council budgets
were very small especially once clerk salaries were accounted for. This
meant that there was very little money to do anything with and effecting
change in the community using the precept available to a council was most
important.
Minutes - AR
2) Increasing the size and population of a community could increase the
chances of constituents engaging in local elections as well as the money
available to it to effect meaningful change.
Reason for recommendation
Having regard to the contents of the Cabinet report on the Community Review to
ensure that Community Liaison Committee has the opportunity make any
representations to Cabinet.
RESOLVED – T H A T the Annual Treasury Management Report 2021/22 as
considered by Cabinet on 6th July, 2023 (Minute No. C45 refers) be approved.
Reason for decision
Having regard to the contents of the report and discussions at the meeting.
RESOLVED that
the projected revenue financial outturn based on the projected position at Month 4 2023/24 be noted
the capital spend and projected position at Month 4 2023/24 be noted.
RESOLVED: Council AGREED to:
Agree that the Budget Timetable Framework set out in Appendix 3 be adopted, and that the work outlined be progressed with a view to informing budget preparation