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 –
(1) T H A T the policy to not grant any level of discount for unoccupied dwellings
that have remained so for 6 months which was agreed for 2025/26, be agreed for
2026/27.
(2) T H A T the long-term empty property premium of 100% agreed by Full
Council on 10th March, 2025 for the 2025/26 financial year continue for such
properties from 2026/27 that remain so for the period up to (but not including) 24
months.
(3) T H A T the long-term empty property premium of 150% agreed by Full
Council on 10th March, 2025 for the 2025/26 financial year continue for such
properties from 2026/27 that remain so for a continuous period of 24 months up to
(but not including) 36 months.
(4) T H A T the long-term empty property premium of 200% agreed by Full
Council on 10th March, 2025 for the 2025/26 financial year continue for such
properties from 2026/27 that remain so for a continuous period of 36 months or
more.
(5) T H A T the premium of 100% for periodically occupied properties for the
2025/26 financial year agreed on 10th March, 2025 be reaffirmed and continue for
2026/27.
Reason for decisions
(1-5) The Council was required to determine its policy on discounts in relation to
unoccupied dwellings as defined in classes A, B and C to the Council Tax
(Prescribed Class of Dwellings) (Wales) Regulations 1998 each year. The Council
was required to determine its policy regarding premiums in respect of long-term
empty properties and periodically occupied properties as defined in Sections 12A
and 12B of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 as inserted by the Housing
(Wales) Act 2014.
RESOLVED: that
(1) the updated Budget Position for 2026/27 be noted.
(2) the proposed approach to Budget Consultation for 2026/27 be agreed, and subject to that agreement:
· it be noted that the formal budget consultation will commence on the 8th January 2026 and run until midnight on the 1st February 2026. The results of the consultation process will then be considered by Cabinet in preparing their final 2026/27 budget proposal.
(3) It be noted that the Chief Executive as Head of Paid Service will be issuing all necessary statutory and non-statutory employment consultation in respect of the staffing implications of the proposals
RESOLVED: that
1) the calculation of the Council’s tax base for the year 2026/27 be approved.
2) that pursuant to this report and in accordance with the Local Authorities (Calculation of Tax Base) (Wales) Regulations 1995, as amended, the amount calculated by Cardiff Council as its Council Tax Base for the year 2026/27 shall be 156,050.
3) that pursuant to this report and in accordance with the Local Authorities (Calculation of Tax Base) (Wales) Regulations 1995, as amended, the amounts calculated by the Council as the Council Tax Base for the year 2026/27 in the community areas subject to a precept shall be as follows:
Lisvane
3,394
Pentyrch
3,945
Radyr
4,297
St. Fagans
2,065
Old St. Mellons
2,744
Tongwynlais
819
4) that the arrangements for the payment of precepts in 2026/27 to the Police and Crime Commissioner for South Wales be by equal instalments on the last working day of each month from April 2026 to March 2027; and to the Community Councils, by one payment on the first working day of April 2026, reflecting the same basis as that used in 2025/26; and the precepting authorities to be advised accordingly.
RESOLVED – T H A T the Treasury Management Mid-Year Report 2025/26 be
noted.
Reason for decision
Having regard to the contents of the report and discussions at the meeting.
RESOLVED: To note the current position of the General Reserve balance and the proposed Medium Term Financial Plan; and to note that a potential annual or in year increase to Local Authority contributions may be required moving forward upon approval from S151 Officers.
RESOLVED: Pursuant to this Committee’s delegated powers the following development management applications be determined in accordance with the recommendation set out in the reports of the Director of Planning, Transport and Environment, subject to any further amendments as detailed below and notification be given of the decisions in accordance with Section 70 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 or Section 74 of the Planning (Listed Building & Conservation) Act 1990.
APPLICATIONS GRANTED:
5a. 25/02085/VAR – RHIWBINA
6-8 Beulah Road, Rhiwbina, Cardiff, CF14 6LX
Removal of Condition 2 of planning permission 07/02357/W to allow the mixed shop/restaurant/gallery use (sui generis) to extend throughout the ground floor of 6-8 Beulah Road.
Variation of conditions 3 and 4 of planning permission 07/02357/W:
Condition 3 – to extend the opening hours from 7:30 am to 11pm Monday to Saturday (to be closed on Sundays).
Condition 4 – to allow outside dining within the area to the rear of Beulah Road shown on drawing no a-p-s001. (09/00363/W - Approved 19 October 2009 as modified by 10/01583/DCO -Approved 19 November 2010):
Section 73 application to vary Conditions 3 (Operating Hours), 4 (External Dining Area) and 16 (External Dining Area Doors) of 09/00363W as modified by 10/01583/DCO to amend the approved scheme as follows: 1) Vary the operating hours to allow the premises to operate on a Sunday between 07:30am – 09:00pm.
5b. 25/02406/FUL - BUTETOWN
Former Ibis Budget, Tyndall Street, Cardiff
Change of Use from 157 bedroom hotel (Class C1) to a Hostel (Sui Generis Use Class) providing supported accommodation for homeless persons (98 bedrooms with communal kitchen, dining and lounge facilities) for a period of up to three years.
(Cllr Gunter left her seat as a member of the Committee during this item in accordance with her prejudicial interest).
Abertawe, Panel Perfformiad Craffu - Gwella Gwasanaethau, Adfywio a Chyllid,
RESOLVED:
a. To note the 2025/26 projected outturn forecast including the projected year-end balance for the Joint Committee Reserve Account.
b. To recommend the 2026/27 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 2026/27.
c. To ask the Partnering Councils to note the indicative budgets, and associated partner contributions, outlined for the financial years 2027/28 to 2029/30.
RESOLVED – T H A T the Statement of Licensing Principles for 2025- 2028, as
detailed be approved.
Reason for decision
Having regard to there having been no consultation responses received, and to
ensure that the Council fulfilled its statutory duty as a Licensing Authority.
FINAL DRAFT VALE OF GLAMORGAN ANNUAL SELF-ASSESSMENT REPORT 2024/25 (REF)
The Leader presented the report, and highlighted that Members would be aware of
this as it had been shared in draft in a number of areas including a joint Scrutiny
session in July, where recommendations were made, and Governance and Audit
Committee, which recommended the evidence and insight assessment changed
from “Good” to “Fair”, and that it was the role of Council to approve the final report.
Councillor Carroll reflected that considerable improvement needed to be made within
the Council as demonstrated by the change in approach to car parking, and the
change in decision based upon its impact which had generated media attention,
alongside an impact to residents. He believed this was not an isolated incident and
that there needed to be more honesty over performance and believed the report did
not reflect residents’ experiences.
Councillor Dr. Johnson noted that the process had been different this year due to
changes in Scrutiny arrangements, which would need longer to consider its impact,
but reflected that during the Joint Scrutiny session, it was difficult to get into the
detail of approximately 500 RAG ratings. He also shared that during the session, he
had questioned the methodology and moderation, as the achievement was exactly
the same as the target for “Good”, and that despite several indicators being Red, the
assessment remained the same, which supported the feeling of this report being the
Council marking its own homework. He felt that external statistics, such as Welsh
Index of Multiple Deprivation, proved the impact of working, and noted an increased
in the number of LSOAs in the most deprived areas.
A recorded vote was undertaken as below:
Member For Against Abstain
Anne Asbrey √
Julie Aviet √
Gareth Ball √
Rhiannon Birch √
Bronwen Brooks √
Gillian Bruce √
Ian Buckley √
Lis Burnett √
Samantha Campbell √
George Carroll √
Christine Cave √
Charles Champion √
Amelia Collins √
Marianne Cowpe √
Pamela Drake √
Vincent Driscoll √
Anthony Ernest √
Robert Fisher
Christopher Franks √
Wendy Gilligan √
Russell Godfrey √
Emma Goodjohn √
Member For Against Abstain
Ewan Goodjohn √
Stephen Haines √
Sally Hanks √
William Hennessy √
Nic Hodges √
Mark Hooper √
Catherine Iannucci-Williams √
Gwyn John √
Ian Johnson √
Belinda Loveluck-Edwards √
Julie Lynch-Wilson √
Kevin Mahoney √
Naomi Marshallsea √
Michael Morgan √
Jayne Norman √
Helen Payne √
Elliot Penn √
Sandra Perkes √
Ian Perry √
Joanna Protheroe √
Ruba Sivagnanam √
Carys Stallard √
Neil Thomas √
Member For Against Abstain
Rhys Thomas √
Steffan Wiliam √
Margaret Wilkinson √
Eddie Williams √
Mark Wilson √
Nicholas Wood √
Total 29 20 1
RESOLVED – T H A T the Final Draft Vale of Glamorgan Annual Self-Assessment
2024/25 be approved.
Reason for decision
Having regard to the contents of the reference and discussions at the meeting.
VALE OF GLAMORGAN REPLACEMENT LOCAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN (RLDP) 2021-2026 – HOUSING GROWTH IN BARRY CONSULTATION REPORT (REF)
Councillor Sivagnanam presented the report and noted this was a critical stage in
ensuring there was an up-to-date planning framework which met the needs of
communities. She advised that Members would be aware that the strategy for the
Replacement Local Development Plan was agreed by Full Council in September last
year, and that due to concerns around deliverability, sites at Northwest Barry, land at
Neptune Road and Hayes Lane were being consulted upon. She shared that there
had been 159 individuals and organisations who had made representations, less
than the number when consulting upon Northeast Barry, but still valid concerns.
She reflected that at Place Scrutiny previously residents made powerful and relevant
objections about these sites, and that she recognised concerns surrounding
infrastructure, with specific concerns around increased traffic at Weycock Cross, but
that developers would be required to fund highways improvements to deal with traffic
issues, and that this would be part of the planning process moving forward. She also
noted that there would need to be an increase in school places, and access to health
care, which they were working on the Health Board to explore.
She noted that Barry was the largest and most sustainable settlement in the Vale,
identified as a key settlement in in the RLDP hierarchy and that it was a national
growth area, alongside the need for affordable housing was critical, as there were
around 7,000 households on the Council's housing register with 4,000 expressing a
preference to live in Barry alongside nearly 900 people living in inappropriate
housing in Barry.
Councillor Dr. Johnson indicated that they were not present during the Scrutiny
meeting, but upon review, agreed with Councillor Hooper’s assessments during the
meeting, in supporting the scheme for Neptune Road and noting the lack of facilities
and public transport in the Bendricks. He reflected upon the Weycock Cross
proposal, which he believed to be the most controversial, and shared that the
Conservative Party had previously built around 700 houses into the prospective
Local Development Plan in this area in 2012, and that the Labour Group opposed
this in local media and sought to redistribute this across the Vale. He shared that the
Plaid Cymru Group had concerns about the site for a number of reasons, including
the loss of the green belt, traffic problems, the lack of public transport and likely over-
reliance on cars, so would propose an amendment to remove this scheme from the
proposals. He further noted that the number of people on the housing list was not a
core evidence basis, queried how this would address the 900 individuals in
unsuitable housing in Barry, and why other areas where planning already existed
such as the college site on Colcot Road or Western Gateway were not part of this
proposed scheme.
Councillor Collins shared that they acknowledged the need for housing, there was a
concern over the lack of community facilities, such as shops, doctors and dentists as
a remote part of Barry which was not as well connected, with no buses on a Sunday
or between 7.30am and 4.30pm, meaning people would need to use cars.
Councillor Campbell noted the Cabinet Member’s comments around developers
funding infrastructure improvement, and how Section 106 monies as part of the
development of Golwg Y Mor in Rhoose had been put forward for infrastructure
improvements had been used but were not enough and the Council needed to also
do more to improve this moving forward. She further expressed that Council needed
to take a role in improving active travel and public transport, particularly in the
Western Vale area, as there needed to be consideration as to how these proposals
would impact upon these residents.
Councillor Carroll agreed that the proposed development at Weycock Cross was
problematic and would have an impact upon traffic, which was at capacity, busy all
day and worsened by increasing the number of dwellings. He commented that of 129
representations, all bar 3 signalled opposition to the plan, which he felt they were
right to do so as it was clearly unsuitable for development, and that despite being
less than other sites representations, this still represented a considerable number of
people who the Council should listen to.
Councillor Franks shared that he felt this was being considered due to the failure to
properly assess the Northeast Barry proposal, which included 900 houses, which
failed and had to be withdrawn. He noted that the Labour Party had previously
opposed this site, whilst the Conservative Party had supported it, and believed this
reflected chaos by Cabinet, and that the proposal should be withdrawn.
Councillor Perry raised that at Place Scrutiny Committee, a resident raised concern
about flood water at Weycock Cross and expressed doubt over the robustness of
modelling in terms of flood risk assessment and drainage, and that he felt the
planning system was flawed if the building of more houses resulted in increased
flooding. He further reflected that there would be the need to own cars, and that
there was a need to reduce the dependence on cars to support the climate
emergency and that active travel needed to be properly considered. He finally
commented that increasing developments were seeing more delays and congestion
and that current approaches to mitigation do not work.
Councillor Goodjohn emphasised the need to consider future generations who would
need affordable housing. He reflected that this proposal did not address the need in
the best way possible and that the original proposal did, but this was reduced based
upon representations. He agreed around the need to increase active travel and
public transport but reflected the plan could not address everything right now and
that there was a desperate need for housing in Barry.
Councillor Wilson stated the belief that no-one wanted new homes next to them, and
that a lot of other homes in the area were modern, but that the Council need to
evolve as households and their needs changed. He reflected upon changing
attitudes to transport, including increased usage of electric cars and active travel,
both of which needed to be considered. He shared that the Vale of Glamorgan was a
popular place to live, with demand exceeding supply, and house prices increasing at
rates greater than inflation, and that there was increasing deprivation, and a need to
supply affordable housing. He felt that no viable alternatives had been proposed, so
would support inclusion of this site.
Councillor Sivagnanam responded that this proposal was about the delivery of
affordable homes, with mitigations identified in the report and considered as part of
the ongoing planning process. She reflected that there was a need to balance
housing with the needs of the environment and transport, and felt this proposal
achieved the right balance. She indicated that previous opposition from the Labour
Party was due to the deliverability of the proposal, which she felt to be addressed in
the report, and that whilst there had been representations, there would still be
numerous in Barry who had not been heard who would support the development.
A Recorded Vote was taken to consider the removal of the Weycock Cross site from
the proposals as below:
Member For Against Abstain
Anne Asbrey √
Julie Aviet √
Gareth Ball √
Rhiannon Birch √
Bronwen Brooks √
Member For Against Abstain
Gillian Bruce √
Ian Buckley √
Lis Burnett √
Samantha Campbell √
George Carroll √
Christine Cave √
Charles Champion √
Amelia Collins √
Marianne Cowpe √
Pamela Drake √
Vincent Driscoll √
Anthony Ernest √
Robert Fisher
Christopher Franks √
Wendy Gilligan √
Russell Godfrey √
Emma Goodjohn √
Ewan Goodjohn √
Stephen Haines √
Sally Hanks √
William Hennessy √
Nic Hodges √
Mark Hooper √
Member For Against Abstain
Catherine Iannucci-Williams √
Gwyn John √
Ian Johnson √
Belinda Loveluck-Edwards √
Julie Lynch-Wilson √
Kevin Mahoney √
Naomi Marshallsea √
Michael Morgan √
Jayne Norman √
Helen Payne √
Elliot Penn √
Sandra Perkes √
Ian Perry √
Joanna Protheroe √
Ruba Sivagnanam √
Carys Stallard √
Neil Thomas √
Rhys Thomas
Steffan Wiliam √
Margaret Wilkinson √
Eddie Williams √
Mark Wilson √
Nicholas Wood √
Member For Against Abstain
Total 23 24 2
The amendment was not carried and the debate returned to discussing the original
proposals.
Councillor Mahoney acknowledged the need for housing but felt that building
housing in high density areas with no access to services such as Doctors and
Schools, which had not increased in recent times. He shared that he had lived in the
Bendricks area for 13 years, there were no facilities excluding a café, and a bus
service subsidised by Section 106 monies and that Sully School had not been
upgraded in several years, despite recently losing a significant part of its budget. He
noted that the Bendricks area was cut off from the rest of the area and without
transport apart from walking, which did not suit all situations and urged the Council to
stop building housing in concentrated places without enough services and
infrastructure.
Councillor Ernest stated that very little had changed in Sully in a number of years
apart from increased housing and noted that the development of Sully Hospital had
been beneficial in providing several new homes, but that there was limited public
transport, which tended to run infrequently. He added that building more housing on
Hayes Road would not lead to the services needed such as medical facilities,
doctors and shops, and that if residents did not own a car, they would struggle with
everyday tasks.
The Leader acknowledged that in relation to infrastructure, there were things that the
Council was responsible for and things it was not responsible for, and that the role of
Council was to often lobby and negotiate on behalf of people, as demonstrated by
the Health hub at Western Gate and the lobbying of the health board for Eagleswell
in Llantwit Major. She also noted that whilst the Council had limited funding for bus
services, there were two services which covered the Bendricks (88 and 94), and that
when she used the bus, residents often commented positively on the Council
housing which had been built in the area. She further stated that the area did not
have an abundance of green fields to be built upon, so sites were invited to be
considered as part of the LDP, with the Council considering most appropriate based
upon the agreed strategy. The Leader emphasised that today’s proposals were
about supporting people into the right accommodation, supporting people in looking
towards their futures, and made no apologies in allocating these sites as they
supported people with affordable housing.
Councillor Perkes shared that they felt the Bendricks was becoming more of a
community, with a development planned in partnership with Cardiff Council and
Lovell Homes, containing affordable homes which were built to Welsh Housing
Quality Standards. She noted concerns around lack of services but shared that
services would grow as the population grew.
Councillor Perry noted that increasing house prices were global issue, with housing
becoming an investment which profited few people, and that the problem was not
about the supply of housing, but the financing of housing. He reflected that building
costs had increased alongside labour so there was inflation built into the system
impacting upon their affordability. He sought clarification as to what was meant by
inappropriate housing as he felt no definition was provided and would welcome
similar detail surrounding the housing waiting list. He also challenged Members to
further consider the environmental impacts upon the increased housing, as climate
risks were increasing, and re-emphasised the point to invest in the transport network
and subsidise public transport to be accessible and reduce the dependent on cars.
Councillor Wilson stated that the Replacement Local Development Plan went
through a detailed process with planning professionals, with sites tested upon their
viability. He reflected that Transport for Wales were spending approximately £1
billion on electrification and new stations in Wales, and that the Council were bidding
for stations. He noted that he felt the area was a great place to live, an amazing
destination, and that he was a product of Council housing. He shared that the
Council needed a legal basis to defend things which were outside of the RLDP, and
that when it came to looking at the viability for these sites, it was essential that
facilities were considered.
Councillor John acknowledged the need for housing, particularly in the Western
Vale, and welcomed the Leader’s work in lobbying the Health Board to improve
medical services in the area which were oversubscribed, but suggested Welsh
Government needed to intervene to push the development of health care provision,
as the Council needed to consider facilities when trying to develop and build
communities.
Councillor Hodges indicated that the Weycock Cross development was not about
social housing, but a commercial venture, and that when considering the Bendricks
area, he did not believe the view that facilities would follow housing as services were
reducing generally. He reflected on the Waterfront development, which was
previously proposed as a potential hotel, and believed this to be a failure of the
Council to promote Barry as a tourist destination, which would have a broader
economic benefit. He also noted that he believed that developers had shafted the
Council for a number of years and that it needed to be better in standing up to big
business.
Councillor Sivagnanam responded that the Housing Development team were holding
pre-application consultations and invited Members and residents to participate in
these moving forward to make their views clear. She emphasised that this was
national growth area and there was a need for housing, particularly affordable homes
in Barry, and failure to agree could leave the Council vulnerable to speculative
applications.
A further Recorded Vote took place on all three of the original recommendations as
presented within the report:
Member For Against Abstain
Anne Asbrey √
Julie Aviet √
Gareth Ball √
Rhiannon Birch √
Bronwen Brooks √
Gillian Bruce √
Ian Buckley √
Lis Burnett √
Samantha Campbell √
George Carroll √
Christine Cave √
Charles Champion √
Amelia Collins √
Marianne Cowpe √
Pamela Drake √
Vincent Driscoll √
Anthony Ernest √
Robert Fisher
Christopher Franks √
Wendy Gilligan √
Russell Godfrey √
Emma Goodjohn √
Ewan Goodjohn √
Member For Against Abstain
Stephen Haines √
Sally Hanks √
William Hennessy √
Nic Hodges √
Mark Hooper √
Catherine Iannucci-Williams √
Gwyn John √
Ian Johnson √
Belinda Loveluck-Edwards √
Julie Lynch-Wilson √
Kevin Mahoney √
Naomi Marshallsea √
Michael Morgan √
Jayne Norman √
Helen Payne √
Elliot Penn √
Sandra Perkes √
Ian Perry √
Joanna Protheroe √
Ruba Sivagnanam √
Carys Stallard √
Neil Thomas √
Rhys Thomas
Member For Against Abstain
Steffan Wiliam √
Margaret Wilkinson √
Eddie Williams √
Mark Wilson √
Nicholas Wood √
Total 26 22 1
RESOLVED –
(1) T H A T the contents of the report be noted.
(2) T H A T the actions set out in the Consultation Report be endorsed.
(3) T H A T the inclusion of the three potential housing sites as allocations in the
Deposit Replacement Local Development Plan (RLDP) be approved.
Reasons for decisions
(1&2) To outline to Members the issues raised during the public consultation
exercise on Housing Growth in Barry.
(3 ) To allow officers to progress with the preparation of the Deposit RLDP.
TREASURY MANAGEMENT MID-YEAR REPORT 2025/26 (REF)
The Leader presented the regular update of the Council’s Treasury Management
approach and highlighted that the report noted economic factors driving the UK
economy alongside forecasts, and that there were no policy changes as of 30th
September, 2025. She further noted the Council’s capital expenditure and prudential
indicators were included in Appendix A, and that the investment portfolio listed the
investments as £51.775 million as of 30th September, 2025, up from £17.19 million in
April 2025. She shared that there was an average interest rate of 4.22% this year,
which meant there was approximately £1.19 million interest accrued that the new
external borrowing was at £6 million at an average rate of 4.56%, and that this was
borrowed at shorter terms of up to 7 years, so it could be reborrowed if rates were to
decrease. She further noted that the Council were prudent in terms of borrowing and
investments and had not considered any debt rescheduling opportunities this year to
date due to current interest rates.
RESOLVED – T H A T the Treasury Management Annual Report for the period
2025/26 be approved
Reason for decision
To update Council surrounding the Council’s approach to Treasury Management.
REVIEW OF THE VALE OF GLAMORGAN COUNCIL’S PETITION SCHEME (REF)
The Leader presented the report and advised that the previous Petition Scheme had
been considered by Council in 2022, and that this was a requirement under the Local
Government and Elections (Wales) Act 2021 to produce a scheme which considered
how a petition could be submitted, who could submit a petition, how and by when the
Council acknowledged receipt and how the Council responded.
Councillor Dr. Johnson stated that he felt the petitions process was quite difficult for
ordinary members of the public to use, and that awareness needed to be raised as
only 3 petitions had been submitted in 3 years, with only 1 reaching the threshold,
and shared how it had worked positively when looking at School crossings. He noted
that the Council needed to ensure that that there was an need to promoted
awareness of this process to the public as to how they could get involved, to which
the Leader responded that there was a need to ensure Vale residents were
signatories, and as outlined within the report, the platform for this was being
reviewed to be more user friendly as it was important to engage more effectively and
through the most appropriate means.
RESOLVED – T H A T the revised Vale of Glamorgan Council’s Petition Scheme be
approved.
Reason for decision
To update the Council’s approach to fulfilling statutory legislation relating to petitions
from the public.
VALE OF GLAMORGAN REPLACEMENT LOCAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN (RLDP) 2021-2026 – HOUSING GROWTH IN BARRY CONSULTATION REPORT (REF)
RESOLVED – T H A T the use of the Urgent Decision Procedure (Cabinet Minute
No. C69, 17th July, 2025 (as set out in Section 15.14.2(ii) of the Council’s
Constitution) be noted.
Reason for decision
The reporting of the use of the Urgent Decision Procedure is a requirement of the
Council’s Constitution.
RESOLVED – That the report be noted.
• Corporate Director Resources to provide Members with a calculation of the actual 6.7% increase in Real Living Wage compared to the 4% increase budgeted.
RESOLVED; that the Treasury Management Mid-Year Report 2025-26 (Appendix 1) be noted, prior to its submission to Governance and Audit Committee and Full Council in November 2025.