Newid hinsawdd, sero net, llifogydd, ynni, bioamrywiaeth, parciau a mannau gwyrdd.
Beth mae cynghorau'n ei wneud
Mae pob cyngor yng Nghymru wedi datgan neu ymateb i'r argyfwng hinsawdd ac mae ganddo gynlluniau i dorri ei allyriadau ei hun, o adeiladau, cerbydau a'r hyn y mae'n ei brynu. Mae cynghorau hefyd yn rheoli perygl llifogydd ar afonydd a nentydd lleol.
Pwy sy'n penderfynu
Mae'r Cabinet yn cytuno ar gynlluniau hinsawdd; mae pwyllgorau craffu'n gwirio cynnydd.
Dweud eich dweud
Gofynnwch i'ch cynghorwyr sut mae'r cyngor yn gwneud yn erbyn ei dargedau ei hun, ac ymatebwch i'w ymgynghoriadau ar gynlluniau.
Wrthi'n llwytho
Fesul cyngor, y 12 mis diwethaf
Faint o eitemau agenda ar y pwnc hwn y deliodd pob cyngor â nhw, a faint oedd â phenderfyniad wedi'i gofnodi.
RESOLVED – T H A T in pursuance of the powers delegated to the Committee, the
following applications be determined as indicated and any other necessary action be
taken.
2020/01170/OUT Received on 14 October 2020
(P. 1)
APPLICANT: Welsh Government Land Division, Permanent Secretary's Group,
Cathays Park, Cardiff, CF10 3NQ
AGENT: Ms Catherine Blyth Unit 9, Oak Tree Court, Cardiff Gate Business Park,
Cardiff, CF23 8RS
Land at Upper Cosmeston Farm, Lavernock Road, Penarth
Outline application for residential development, a primary school, community space
and public open space with all matters reserved other than access.
A recorded vote was called for the Application, based on the recommendations
within the report, with the results as follows:
No.
Members For Against Abstain
G. Bruce
I.R. Buckley √
C.A. Cave
C.E.A. Champion √
C.M. Cowpe √
P. Drake √
A.M. Ernest √
W. Gilligan √
N.P. Hodges √
Dr. I.J. Johnson √
H.M. Payne √
S.D. Perkes √
I.A.N. Perry
C. Stallard √
N.C. Thomas √
E. Williams √
M.R. Wilson √
TOTAL 12 2
RESOLVED – T H A T subject to the applicant entering into a Section 106
agreement to provide for the following (based on 576 dwellings):
• Procure that 40% (up to 231) of the dwellings built on the site pursuant to the
planning permission are built and thereafter maintained as affordable housing
units in perpetuity.
• Pay a contribution of £1,324,800 towards sustainable transport improvements.
No.
• Pay a financial contribution towards education requirements arising from the
development of £6,476,088, in addition to the transfer of the 1ha school site to
the Council.
• Provision of suitable open space within the confines of the site (inclusive of 1
x NEAP, 3 x LEAPs and 4 x LAPs).
• Pay 1% of project budget towards public art.
• Cliff monitoring contribution of £59,150
• To provide community facilities of circa 0.1-0.2 hectares within the
development
APPROVED – Subject to the conditions as contained within the report.
Reason for decision
Having regard to the content of the report and discussions at the meeting.
2023/00032/FUL Received on 27 January 2023
(P. 79)
APPLICANT: Biomass UK No.2 Limited -, -,
AGENT: Mr Philip Murphy 21 Soho Square, London, W1D 3QP
Barry Biomass Renewable Energy Facility, David Davies Road, Barry
Retrospective full planning permission for development comprising a wood fired
renewable energy plant and associated structures without complying with Condition
5 (Drawings) attached to planning permission 2015/00031/OUT.
A recorded vote was called for the Application, based upon whether Members were
for or against Rejection of the Application, with the results as follows:
Members For Against Abstain
G. Bruce
I.R. Buckley √
C.A. Cave √
C.E.A. Champion √
C.M. Cowpe √
P. Drake √
A.M. Ernest
W. Gilligan √
No.
N.P. Hodges √
Dr. I.J. Johnson √
H.M. Payne √
S.D. Perkes √
I.A.N. Perry √
C. Stallard √
N.C. Thomas √
E. Williams √
M.R. Wilson √
TOTAL 13 2
REFUSED – Subject to the following reasons:
(1) The unauthorised addition of the ancillary structures, minor alterations, and
associated layout changes including:- a Lean-to Fuel Reception Building, lean-to
Compressor House, urea Silo, externally mounted discharge Incline conveyor,
screening tower and dust extraction plant, emergency diesel generator and fire
kiosk, fire water tank and pump house, amendment to stack width and an
enlargement to the noise attenuator located at the base of the chimney stack; have
detrimentally affected the appearance of the development over and above that
approved in 2015 and will harm the amenity of nearby residential properties in both
the Waterfront and Dock View Road. The Development is accordingly contrary to
policies MD 2 (Design of New Development) and MD5 (Development Within
Settlement Boundaries) of the adopted Vale of Glamorgan Local Development Plan.
(2) The applicant has failed to demonstrate that there will not be adverse
environmental impacts because the EIA fails to adequately and fully assess the
impacts regarding waste; particularly as there is no specific chapter dealing with this
key issue. The proposal is therefore contrary to policies MD 2 (Design of New
Developments), MD 7 (Environmental Protection) and MD 20 (Assessment of waste
Management Proposals) of the adopted Vale of Glamorgan Local Development Plan.
Reason for decision
Having regard to the contents of the report and discussions at the meeting.
No.
2023/00033/FUL Received on 24 January 2023
(P. 130)
APPLICANT: Biomass UK No. 2 Ltd., c/o Agent, -, -
AGENT: Mr Philip Murphy, 21, Soho Square, London, W1D 3QP
Land to the North of Barry Biomass Renewable Energy Facility, David Davies
Road, Barry
Retrospective planning permission for external storage, vehicle turning and vehicle
layover, and perimeter fencing for use in association with the adjacent renewable
energy plant.
A recorded vote was called for the Application, based upon whether Members were
for or against Rejection of the Application, with the results as follows:
Members For Against Abstain
G. Bruce √
I.R. Buckley √
C.A. Cave √
C.E.A. Champion √
C.M. Cowpe √
P. Drake √
A.M. Ernest
W. Gilligan √
N.P. Hodges √
Dr. I.J. Johnson √
H.M. Payne √
S.D. Perkes √
I.A.N. Perry √
C. Stallard √
N.C. Thomas √
No.
E. Williams
M.R. Wilson √
TOTAL 15
REFUSED – Subject to the following reasons:
1. The proposal comprises an integral and operational part of the wider
development which, by reason of the unauthorised ancillary structures, minor
alterations, and associated layout changes that include:- a Lean-to Fuel Reception
Building, lean-to Compressor House, urea Silo, externally mounted discharge Incline
conveyor, screening tower and dust extraction plant, emergency diesel generator
and fire kiosk, fire water tank and pump house, amendment to stack width and an
enlargement to the noise attenuator located at the base of the chimney stack; has
detrimentally affected the appearance of the development over and above that
approved in 2015 and will harm the amenity of nearby residential properties in both
the Waterfront and Dock View Road. The Development is accordingly contrary to
policies MD 2 (Design of New Development) and MD5 (Development Within
Settlement Boundaries) of the adopted Vale of Glamorgan Local Development Plan.
2. The proposal comprises an integral and operational part of the wider
development, which is not supported by adequate information to demonstrate that
there would not be adverse environmental impacts (due to the EIA failing to assess
fully the impacts regarding waste, particularly as there is no specific chapter dealing
with this key issue). The proposal is therefore contrary to policies MD 2 (Design of
New Developments), MD 7 (Environmental Protection) and MD 20 (Assessment of
waste Management Proposals) of the adopted Vale of Glamorgan Local
Development Plan.
Reason for decisions
Having regard to the contents of the report and discussions at the meeting.
2023/00895/FUL Received on 17 January 2024
(P. 156)
APPLICANT: Mr Huw Llewellyn Great House Farm, Penllyn, Cowbridge, CF71 7RQ
AGENT: Ms Bethan Evans Unit 9, Oak Tree Court, Cardiff Gate Business Park,
Cardiff, CF23 8RS
Great House Farm, Penllyn
Proposed change of use from agricultural use to glamping visitor accommodation
comprising 3 yurts, separate kitchen units and conversion of the existing barn to a
shower block and farm storage.
A recorded vote was called for the Application, based on the recommendations
within the report, with the results as follows:
No.
Members For Against Abstain
G. Bruce √
I.R. Buckley √
C.A. Cave √
C.E.A. Champion √
C.M. Cowpe √
P. Drake √
A.M. Ernest
W. Gilligan √
N.P. Hodges √
Dr. I.J. Johnson
H.M. Payne √
S.D. Perkes √
I.A.N. Perry √
C. Stallard √
N.C. Thomas √
E. Williams
M.R. Wilson √
TOTAL 13 1
APPROVED – Subject to the conditions as contained within the report.
Reason for decision
Having regard to the content of the report and discussions at the meeting.
RESOLVED –
(1) T H A T the policy with regard to not granting any level of discount for
unoccupied dwellings that have remained so for 6 months agreed for 2023-24,
be agreed for 2024-25.
(2) T H A T the long term empty property premium of 100% be agreed for
the 2023-24 financial year and continue for such properties from 2024-25 that
remain so for the period up to (but not including) 24 months.
(3) T H A T from 1st April, 2024 a premium of 150% be introduced for long
term empty properties that have remained as such for a continuous period of
24 months or more.
(4) T H A T from 1st April, 2025 a premium of 200% be introduced for long
term empty properties that have remained as such for a continuous period of
36 months or more.
(5) T H A T the policy to introduce a premium of 100% on second homes
for the 2024-25 financial year be agreed and reaffirmed.
Reasons for decisions
(1) 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.
(2&4) The Council was required to determine its policy regarding premiums in
respect of long-term empty properties as defined in Sections 12A and 12B of
the Local Government Finance Act 1992 as inserted by the Housing (Wales)
Act 2014.
No.
(3) Upon reviewing the implementation of the premium for long term empty
properties introduced from the start of 1st April 2023, it was felt that a straight
increase to the premium levels as previously proposed, may counteract the
intention of the policy, which was to bring long term empty properties back
into use, if the level of charges due hindered necessary works required to
make a dwelling habitable. As such it was felt that a stepped approach would
be more in keeping with the policy to ensure that persistent long term empty
properties were targeted.
(5) The Council was required to determine its policy regarding premiums in
respect of second homes as defined in Sections 12A and 12B of the Local
Government Finance Act1992 as inserted by the Housing (Wales) Act 2014.
CORPORATE FRAUD ENFORCEMENT POLICY (REF)
Cabinet had considered the report on 25th January, 2024 (Minute No. C220)
together with the reference from Governance and Audit Committee of
11th December, 2023 (Minute No. 636) and had referred the same to Council
for consideration and approval. Having regard to the contents of the report
and the previous discussions at the meeting earlier in the meeting in respect
of the report titled amendments to the Constitution, it was subsequently
RESOLVED – T H A T the report and the Officer Delegation Scheme and
relevant provisions within the current Constitution be updated to reflect the
changes referred to in the report and as considered earlier in the agenda
under the Amendments to the Constitution report.
Reason for decision
To update the Officer Delegation Scheme and relevant provisions within the
current Constitution to reflect the changes outlined within the report and as
considered under an earlier report in the agenda.
DRAFT VALE OF GLAMORGAN COUNCIL ANNUAL DELIVERY PLAN 2024-25 (REF)
Cabinet had considered the report on 22nd February, 2024 (Minute No. C248
refers) and had referred the same to Council for consideration and approval.
The Leader took the opportunity to remind Members that the initial draft had
been considered by Cabinet and the Scrutiny Committees with the amended
draft coming back to Cabinet and to the Corporate Performance and
Resources Scrutiny Committee. Members had stated that they had been
pleased with the way the report had been presented which demonstrated how
their feedback had been included, with Members also being able to easily see
where the changes had been made.
There being no further comments, it was
No.
RESOLVED – T H A T the draft Annual Delivery Plan 2024-25, as attached at
Appendix A to the report to Cabinet on 22nd February, 2024 (Minute No.
C248), be approved.
Reason for decision
Having regard to the contents of the report and discussions at the meeting.
DRAFT BUDGET 2024/25 AND MEDIUM TERM FINANCIAL PLAN 2024/25 TO 2028/29 (REF)
The Leader advised that the proposals had been published at the end of the
previous week, prior to the availability of Welsh Government ‘s settlement
figures. There had been no changes to the overall settlement following that
announcement but there was additional detail regarding the Standard
Spending Assessment that was subsequently detailed in the supplementary
information that had been distributed to all Members and published online
prior to the Cabinet meeting on 29th February, 2024.
The Council faced significant financial pressures in excess of £38m initially
and had undertaken significant work to mitigate those pressures. As a result,
it had not been possible to fund pay awards in full and there were limited
resources to meet the full demands of care providers to fully meet
demographic growth and the complexity of services required.
A 3.4% increase in the grant received by the Council from Welsh Government
alongside the proposed 6.7% increase in Council Tax fell short of meeting the
additional costs.
There would be a further UK budget announcement on the same day the
report would be considered by Full Council, and it remained to be seen if
there would be any further funding made available for Local Government, but
it was not expected there would be any further matters for Council to consider
on 6th March.
Consultation on how to allocate the available resources had taken place,
including a 4-week public budget consultation, consideration by the five
Council Scrutiny Committees and the ‘Life in the Vale’ survey where residents
were asked for their views on what they expected from the Council, where
residents were supportive of the ambition to target resources to social care,
affordable housing and schools and less supportive of any Council Tax
increase and increase in discretionary charges by the rate of inflation.
Council Tax levels in the Vale of Glamorgan were below the Welsh average
and below the level of expected rises for many Authorities across Wales, with
10% or more having been proposed by some.
No.
There had been in-depth discussions at Scrutiny but no alternatives put
forward prior to consideration at Full Council, where it was difficult to take
proposals on board at that point and achieve a balanced budget as was the
legal requirement for the Authority to do, but there would be a full debate at
Full Council on the day.
The proposal concerning charging for toilets at coastal areas had been
removed as Members felt that was not something they could support and the
£5k saving would be found elsewhere. The next year’s £7.7m savings
programme was mostly tactical and looked at how to provide and deliver
services more effectively, along with some transformational initiatives, as
having another multi-million pound savings programme next year would be
challenging.
The Leader further commented that the Cabinet and officers had been
working on the budget since June 2023. In July 2023 Cabinet had referred
the Financial Strategy to all Scrutiny Committees and November had brought
the refreshed Medium Term Financial Plan. Christmas had been cancelled
for a lot of the officers and a number of Cabinet Members. The things that it
had hoped to do were no longer possible until the funding gap could be
reduced to a reasonable level. In January 2024 the draft budget was
presented to all Scrutiny Committees which were attended by the Cabinet
Members who had listened to the discussions. There were some things she
said that were unpalatable, not liked and had reluctantly been accepted but
one recommendation had been made which had been accepted by Cabinet
that the proposed charges to Coastal toilets be removed.
The budget this evening, she said, proposed for a balanced budget, which
was required to be delivered by 11th March, considerations for which had
included the money that the Council would receive from Council Tax and as
the Council wanted to continue to support bus services and not make car
parking charges on streets etc., a 6.7% Council Tax was being proposed.
The budget was also she said based on supporting the Council’s most
vulnerable.
In referring to the recent Living in the Vale Survey she said the top priority for
residents had been easy accessibility to care and health care, the second
priority the ability to buy or rent a good quality home. The cost of living crisis
had also not gone away, in the feedback received 60% of respondents said
that they had chosen not to put the heating on at times, and 44% of them said
that they could not pay an unexpected bill of £850, so if their boiler went that
would be it.
There were a number of pressures for the Council, pressures in terms of
demography not just numbers of people but the complexity and scale of need,
people's lives and lived experience were hugely diverse in the Vale and as a
result the need was hugely diverse. Since the pandemic the Council was
aware that older residents had become more isolated, more frail and required
more care. Young people were struggling with anxiety and there were
behavioural issues across the Vale with the Council having to consider a
No.
range of ways to meet such needs. Service redesigns were being considered
and looking for ways to do things more effectively. Reviews of the street
cleansing service, litter etc, would be undertaken as well as transformational
change. The Leader referred to other areas of good work that had taken
place, which had included reshaping of the Library services, Big Fresh was
also delivering not only Universal Free School Meals to primary children, but
also delivering a surplus that can be reinvested into schools. Income
generation was being considered as well as generating income from fees and
charges for non-statutory services. However although the financial position
was difficult the Council, through its proposed budget, was still delivering
many services.
The Leader also referred to other aspects of Council provision such as each
week 105 recycling rounds were out in the communities with each vehicle
collecting from 550 properties a day. As a result over 850 articulated lorries
full of material that could be sold or reused with this year forecasting income
of between £1.2m and £1.4m from processing recycling at the new recycling
facility. With the support of residents the Council had managed to deliver over
a 70% recycling outcome being one of the top in Wales, one of the top in the
UK and actually one of the top in Europe.
The Council also managed 30 Feature Parks, 21 Recreation Grounds, 13
Conservation Parks, 88 Play Areas and 9 Skateboard areas and has 38
football pitches, 13 mini football pitches alongside rugby pitches, cricket, etc
which are all still supported. Over the past 3 years the Council had delivered
over 177,000 meters of active travel shared use being pedestrian and cycling
paths. The Council offered child pedestrian training, delivered cycle shelters
in schools and bought bikes for schools. 20 Car Parks were owned and
controlled by the Vale with only two of the town centre car parks with a
charge. The Leader further advised that 52,567 square meters of
carriageway resurfacing had been undertaken in the year, 3,261 square
meters of footway improvements and surface water gullies had been
cleansed. The Leader concluded by stating that she would be happy to
circulate some of the information recognising that the Council was still
providing services. With regard to queries of measuring productivity that she
had heard being said at meetings, she questioned how did you choose or
measure how productive a care worker was, how did you look at productivity
when you've had a child with severe learning needs. The Council would
measure where it was appropriate to do so and she ended by presenting the
budget to Council which was duly seconded by Councillor Brooks who
reserved her right to speak later in the debate.
Councillor Carroll commenced by saying the Labour Council was asking
residents to pay more for less. He said Labour had failed to show leadership
and manage budgets properly and was therefore imposing cuts to services
and charging for things like garden waste collections. He drew attention to
the multi-million pound bus station and enquired as to how much this Authority
spent on diversity and inclusion. At the Healthy Living and Social Care
Scrutiny Committee meeting Councillor Cave had made perfectly reasonable
comments about the funding of bus services in the rural Vale but instead of
No.
addressing Councillor Cave's concerns, the Leader ‘s comments many
residents had told him they considered to be a smear with Councillor Cave
being accused of using inflammatory language. Perhaps he said the Leader
could enlighten Council as to what aspect of Councillor Cave's remarks were
considered inflammatory. He also referred to a recent report where the
Leader had stated the 2% cut in National Insurance contributions announced
in November by the Conservative UK Government was disappointing and that
she had confirmed that this Council opposed tax cuts for millions of working
people with he said his only assumption from those comments was that the
Leader would oppose further tax cuts that had been announced that day.
The 6.7% rise proposed he said fitted with his view of the Administration’s
attitude that residents should pay more. The rise proposed significantly
exceeded inflation with CPI currently standing at 4%. He felt the rise was not
necessary as the Council had tens of millions of pounds in usable reserves
including £10,177mn sat in the bank in the Council Fund as a percentage of
the Authority's Revenue budget. If the Authority was to consider a real terms
freeze in Council Tax and increase it in line with inflation at 4% it would cost
£2,505m but given the amount held in Reserves it would be possible to go
further than that and to cut Council Tax in real terms, which is what he said
the Council should do. A 3% rise would cost £3.435m which he said would be
below the rate of inflation. This real terms cut stood in stark contrast to the
6.7% rise proposed by Labour and would ease the pressures on working
people across the Vale, so on behalf of the Conservative Group he proposed
an amendment to the revenue budget which would transfer £3.435m from the
Council's General Fund balances to support the base budget and he urged all
Members to support the amendment.
Councillor Charles, in seconding the amendment, said the additional income
required by the Council could well be taken from Reserves which the
taxpayers of the Vale of Glamorgan had already contributed to. She said she
believed this could be the fairest way of raising the revenue instead of
increasing the pressure on every household. The budget management of the
Council had, in her view, been mismanaged by Labour backed up Llantwit
Firsts and the people of the Vale of Glamorgan deserved better.
Councillor Dr. Johnson, speaking to the amendment by Councillor Carroll
whilst reserving his right to speak later on the proposed budget, asked after
listening to the Conservatives uncosted amendment taking money out of the
Reserves if £3.5m was taken out of the Reserves did the Conservative Group
have any idea how to return it as it would obviously be using the exact same
£3.5m next year and the year after and then the Council would be left with
nothing in the Reserves. This was not the way to run a Council, stating that
unfortunately the Conservatives had created the problems that were before
the Council. In 2010 Britain's debt was £1 trillion and now it's £2.7 trillion so
this was quite a shambles. What sort of ridiculous regime increased or cut
one country's budget based on the spending of a government in another
country. Taking a look at public spending in its entirety there was more spent
per head in London than anywhere else. A little bit higher than in Scotland
and Northern Ireland. The spending per head in London, Scotland and
No.
Northern Ireland was 500 times higher annually almost 4%, even if Wales only
received funding on an equal footing with these three it would be richer to the
tune of £1.5 billion and this was the type of money which could transform the
Vale’s local services and ensure that the Council did not need to increase
Council Tax as has been suggested, but the we don't and this was leading to
difficult decisions for all of us. Of course in Scotland the SNP Government
had used part of the additional funding to freeze Council Tax realising the
impact of the economic storm for families, but here with the challenging
budget across Wales the ordinary people must pay more a lot more to
maintain even basic services. Councillor Dr. Johnson ended by saying that
he did not accept the figures presented by the Conservative Group which had
not been costed in either a sensible or responsible manner which could be
sustained.
Councillor Wilson commented that he thought the amendment was pretty
interesting, in that we would be looking at a 3% Council Tax increase at least
where as in previous years the Conservatives had suggested no increase.
He said that in his view the Conservative Group did not have the right to talk
about financial mismanagement as Councillor Dr. Johnson had rightly said,
we have got huge issues with our debt at the moment. Referring to 2008
where he said Labour helped out the banks and stopped people running out
of money at cash points, which had happened in other places like Cyprus.
We do not need any lessons from the Conservatives about financial
management he said as in his view they didn’t have a clue how to manage the
budget.
Councillor Godfrey commented that if people were quoting facts then they
should be correct and encapsulate the whole picture including the impact of
the Ukraine war and BREXIT and he felt it quite wrong if people were not
doing that.
Councillor Hodges, in response to Councillor Godfrey’s comments, said yes
the Ukraine war and Covid had a dramatic effect on balances as did Brexit but
he felt that there was plenty of other mismanagement going on as well.
Councillor Goodjohn considered that the amendment didn’t appear to be a
very tactical solution to the Council’s issues and enquired of Councillor Carroll
as to exactly what mismanagement of the budget issues there were in the
Revenue proposals. He also asked the Conservative Leader to consider that
taking from Reserves would quite frankly cause cash flow issues in the
Council and what he would propose do in such situations as if there were
cash flow issues in the Council people would have delays in getting vital
services which would impact on their lives, being people's real lives here in
the real world rather than some abstract idea. He also took the opportunity to
remind Council of the current 10% inflation rate.
Councillor Hodges, in drawing attention to Social Care costs, said if they were
not funded what would happen going forward further, commenting that the
NHS was already struggling because of mismanagement from the
Conservative Government and its finances stating that he could not support
No.
the amendment as it had not been fully costed and would mean a cut in
schools provision and social care.
Councillor John said he could not believe what he was hearing from the
Conservative Group referring to the months of discussion on the budget that
had already taken place and that it was a good job the Council had reserves.
He mentioned other Councils, in particular Monmouth Council, who he said
did not have any Reserves to help them and their Council Tax had gone up to
7.5%.
Councillor Franks, listening with interest to Councillor Carroll’s and the
Conservative Members’ comments, said he felt that they were basically
saying that apart from them no one else could financially manage the Council
and referred to the catastrophic failures of Conservative Councils in England.
The Leader, in response, said that in her view the amendment was completely
preposterous in view of the financial position facing the Council and that she
would be voting against the amendment.
Councillor Perry said it was a shame that as Elected Members elected by the
communities that there was a lack of togetherness. He said he applauded
attempts to get rid of Council Tax or severely change it as, in his view, a land
value tax would be much fairer. He said he would not be supporting the
amendment because he believed that his residents would rather not spend
money on new tyres and suspensions on their vehicles that they would rather
if there were Reserves fix the roads and fix the other services and stop relying
on volunteers to run services and stop cheering the minority getting wealthier
and wealthier and have a more equitable society.
Following a vote on the amendment the amendment was lost it being noted
12 were in favour, 38 against and one abstention.
Councillor Dr. Johnson, speaking on the substantive Motion, said it had been
interesting to hear the conversations taking place and that some people might
almost be surprised to hear that he sympathised with the Leader of the
Council in respect of the challenge before her, but that was why Plaid did not
accept the propaganda about the Council being a great Council because the
average person did not feel this. We as a Council needed to provide on
demand services which were quickly rising as a result of lack of investment in
preventative services. We needed to consider the relationship between the
people that we served and the funding. Welsh Government added extra
funding at the last minute and that increased £25m between the provisional
and the final settlement £600,000 through to the Revenue Grant and around
£500,000 through the introduction of the K Grant where we're expecting a loss
and furthermore additional funding in the Housing Support Grant last week.
How much was still unclear but the Council intended to keep Council Tax at
the same level rather than considering a cut like last year when we received
last minute funding which the Council put in its Reserves. This year we
considered our energy savings to be too tight and so the money needed to go
to the coffers for that rather than reducing Council Tax. There was no
No.
scrutiny, and he had been to all of the meetings, there was no scrutiny which
would change the minds of those deciding Council Taxes and setting aside
funding elsewhere in the budget. He had mentioned in the past how the
Council looked after its bank balance before considering the public's needs
and of course this year the figures before us showed some spend of the
Reserves of £51m which was almost a half. Let's see if this was true because
the same types of figures which were provided to us in the past had been
incorrect. But he said there were challenges nonetheless. The public had
seen a huge cost of living rise over the last years from energy costs, everyday
shopping costs and housing costs, including 12.5% over the last two years for
people in our Council houses. He understood that the budget was tight but
said what was the purpose of Welsh Government providing extra funding for
Councils in the final settlement if it was only put into Reserves.
A number of things he said concerned him, he didn’t like the idea of the
administrative fee for residents in parking permanent zones. Of course he
stated the Council could provide any service if it forced people to pay for it.
There was not enough money for fundamental core services for residents
although he accepted that the situation was a difficult one, as was the case for
all Councils, and he expressed his concern that the mix of cuts for Council’s
consideration and the increase in Council Tax stating that between the both of
them this was not acceptable and that he would be voting against the Motion.
Councillor Brooks said the reality was that more and more Councils were
being pushed to the financial brink. More Councils had issued a Section 114
Notice in the previous year than in the previous 30 years combined which she
said was quite astounding. Welsh Government had quite rightly put the
protection of public services at the front and centre of their budget, however
the Council could not get away from the fact that their funding had been cut
for the last 14 years from the Westminster Government leaving them with no
alternative but to reduce their transfer funding for Local Authorities. The cost
of living crisis came out as a significant issue in the recent survey with 42% of
the population citing easily accessible care and health care closely followed
by the buying or renting of good quality homes. These were the issues that
really mattered to people and their priorities she said and she stood by the
commitment to protect services which supported the Council’s most
vulnerable residents. However, in conclusion she said difficult decisions had
to be made to deliver a balanced and fair budget and she was pleased that
the Council had been able to protect supported bus services as she felt many
residents in rural and deprived communities relied on the bus services.
Councillor Franks commented that the Council had heard about potholes
being filled, a bit of resurfacing, grass being cut, road gullies being emptied,
which was basically the standard work of all Councils. However, what did
surprise him a little bit was the quick reference to support for Education. He
was not sure if he had misheard but that's what he thought he heard, but our
support for education has led to a disastrous situation in our schools, we've
also heard a mention about people's priorities that was good to be reminded,
but he didn't think we heard mention of the consultation with the public which,
if his memory served him right, did not support the proposed level of increase.
No.
He wondered why we had that omission. Whereas other facts were
highlighted, he considered there to be an element of cherry-picking. In the
previous year’s budget debate almost a year to the day, the Cabinet proposed
a £2m plus cut in schools with Cabinet being warned at that time that this
would have had a terrible impact on school budgets. This was disregarded by
Labour Members who, in his view he said, cheerfully dismissed such
warnings. The result had been over 20 schools now facing a deficit budget, of
these 19 apparently indicated that there was no prospect of recovery within 3
years, however since then he understood that the situation had worsened,
both in terms of the numbers of schools and the size of the deficits. He
therefore asked how can we and the public have any faith in this year's
budget process now seeing that this year's allocation to schools would
basically be following last year's allocation. What was the situation going to
be in a year's time for our schools? What was going to be the size of the
deficits? How many schools were going to be facing at least 3 years in the
red and to add to their problems he understood that schools were going to be
asked to pay for school crossing patrols and for elements of grass cutting?
We really do need to know what the impact would be on schools in 2024/25.
What would be the accumulated overspend and what was the anticipated
overspend in the following year and he welcomed comments from the Cabinet
Member for Education on these points.
Councillor Birch, advising that she would be unable to answer all of the points
at the meeting that evening, said that all of the schools that had budget
deficits had been assisted by the finance teams with schools unable to
recover their deficits within 3 years being offered plans to restructure the debt
that they had so that they could eventually balance their budgets. Going
forward she could not say what the deficits would be like in three years’ time,
rather she hoped that they would be balanced. Furthermore, Councillor Birch
added that all that had been said during the debate had been about the
difficulties of various events in the last few years and the toll that that had
taken on budgets everywhere, so schools were not going to be immune from
that. It was obvious that balancing budgets was going to be more difficult for
some schools than others.
In conclusion, the Leader referred to the number of times the budget process
had been considered by Cabinet and Scrutiny however she was disappointed
with the questions at Council when a lot of the discussion could have been
held at the Scrutiny Committee meetings over the year with suggestions being
put forward for consideration. In referring to the issues of diversity and
inclusion that had been commented on during the debate, the Leader drew
attention to the budget for Corporate Resources being only 5% of the overall
total. Having regard to Reserves she said the detail was contained within the
report although they had been rationalised. In referring to the comments
relating to the 2% cut in National Insurance the Leader mentioned that if one
was of retirement age they wouldn’t receive this cut.
The Leader subsequently took the opportunity to repeat her earlier comments
that the proposed budget was a budget to protect the most vulnerable and
moved the recommendations within the report.
No.
The motion moved by the Leader and seconded by Councillor Brooks was
subsequently voted upon.
A recorded vote took place on the recommendations as contained within the
reference and the report, as follows:-
Members For Against Abstain
Anne Asbrey x
Julie Aviet x
Gareth Ball x
Rhiannon Birch x
Bronwen Brooks x
Gillian Bruce x
Ian Buckley x
Lis Burnett x
Samantha Campbell x
George Carroll x
Christine Cave x
Charles Champion x
Janice Charles x
Millie Collins x
Marianne Cowpe x
Pamela Drake x
Vincent Driscoll
Anthony Ernest x
Robert Fisher x
Christopher Franks x
No.
Wendy Gilligan x
Russell Godfrey x
Emma Goodjohn x
Ewan Goodjohn x
Stephen Haines x
Howard Hamilton x
Sally Hanks x
William Hennessy x
Nic Hodges x
Catherine Iannucci x
Gwyn John x
Dr. Ian Johnson x
Susan Lloyd-Selby x
Julie Lynch-Wilson x
Kevin Mahoney x
Naomi Marshallsea x
Michael Morgan x
Jayne Norman x
Helen Payne x
Elliot Penn x
Sandra Perkes x
Ian Perry x
Joanna Protheroe x
Ruba Sivagnanam x
Carys Stallard x
No.
Neil Thomas x
Rhys Thomas x
Steffan Wiliam x
Margaret Wilkinson x
Eddie Williams x
Mark Wilson x
Nicholas Wood x
TOTAL 30 21
The vote being carried, it was
RESOLVED –
(1) T H A T a Council Tax increase of 6.7% be approved.
(2) T H A T the Revenue budget for 2024/25 and Medium Term Financial
Plan 24/25 to 28/29 be approved.
(3) T H A T the fees and charges presented for approval in January 2024,
which stood unchanged following review by Scrutiny, be noted.
(4) T H A T the information provided in the supplemental report to Cabinet
th
on 29 February 2024 regarding updated Standard Spending Assessment
figures be endorsed.
Reasons for decisions
(1) Setting the annual rate of Council Tax was a key policy decision for
Council.
(2) Setting a balanced budget was a statutory responsibility and decision
for Full Council.
(3) To confirm fees and charges for 2024/25.
(4) Having regard to the supplemental information which provided Full
Council with the most up to date figures as part of its final budget
deliberations.
No.
CAPITAL STRATEGY 2024/25 AND FINAL CAPITAL PROGRAMME PROPOSALS 2024/25 TO 2028/29 (REF)
Cabinet had considered the report on 29th February, 2024 (Minute No. C261)
and had referred the same to Council for consideration and approval.
Appendix 1 to the report provided the Council's Capital Strategy for 2024/25.
The Capital Strategy provided a framework which outlined how capital
expenditure, capital financing and treasury management activity contributed to
the provision of corporate objectives, along with an overview of how
associated risk was managed and the implications for future financial
sustainability.
The report set out the Council’s proposed Final Capital Programme for the
period 2024/25 to 2028/29 at Appendix 2.
The Council was facing significant pressures in relation to price inflation and
the cost-of-living crisis which had seen increases in the costs of materials and
labour. This had had an impact on the current schemes within the Capital
Programme and the funding available to fund new schemes within the Capital
Programme.
The total value of capital schemes over the next five years was £387.582m
which included £25.376m for the Band B Sustainable Communities for
Learning Programme (excluding the pipeline schemes) and £205.775m for the
Housing Improvement Programme.
Since the Draft Capital Programme proposals report in January, a number of
changes had been made including the reprofile and allocation of
decarbonisation schemes, City Deal reprofile, slippage from the 2023/24
Capital Programme into the 2024/25 Capital Programme and the Llanmaes
match funding was no longer being removed from the five year proposals.
The detail of these changes was covered later in the report.
The Leader subsequently moved the recommendations in the report, which
were seconded by Councillor Brooks, and there being no dissent it was
RESOLVED –
(1) T H A T the Capital Strategy 2024/25, as set out in Appendix 1 to the
report to Cabinet on 29th February, 2024 (Minute No. C261), be approved.
(2) T H A T the final Capital Programme for the years 2024/25 to 2028/29,
as set out in Appendix 2 to the report to Cabinet on 29th February, 2024
(Minute No. C261), be approved.
(3) T H A T the Chief Executive and the Head of Finance / Section 151
Officer, in consultation with the Executive Leader and Cabinet Member for
No.
Performance and Resources, be granted delegated authority to make
additions, deletions or transfers to or from the:
i. 2024/25 to 2028/29 Housing Improvement Programme as
appropriate.
ii. 2024/25 to 2028/29 Asset Renewal budgets as appropriate.
iii. S106 funded schemes subject to Member consultation as
required under the existing process.
iv. Energy Management Schemes
v. Building Strong Communities Fund schemes.
vi. Sustainable Communities for Learning Band B programme
(Previously 21st Century Schools schemes).
vii. Discretionary Adaption Grant Schemes.
viii. Vale Regeneration Schemes.
(4) T H A T the Chief Executive, Head of Finance / Section 151 Officer,
and Director of Learning and Skills in consultation with the Executive Leader
and Cabinet Member for Performance and Resources, be granted delegated
authority to increase the Capital Programme for the long term solution in
relation to the Successful Futures Centre at Pencoedtre High School when
the feasibility studies had been concluded. It being noted that £300k had
been ringfenced within reserves to carry out the scheme when feasibility
studies had been undertaken.
Reasons for decisions
(1) To approve the Capital Strategy for 2024/25.
(2) To set and approve future Capital Programmes to 2028/29.
(3) To enable the Housing Capital budget, Asset Renewal budgets, S106
schemes, Energy Management Schemes, Building Stronger Communities
Fund, Sustainable Communities for Learning Band B programme,
Discretionary Adaption Grant Schemes, and Vale Regeneration schemes to
be managed effectively.
(4) To enable the long term solution to the Successful Futures Centre at
Pencoedtre High School to proceed when the feasibility studies had been
concluded.
TREASURY MANAGEMENT AND INVESTMENT STRATEGY 2024/25 AND UPDATE 2023/24 (REF)
Cabinet had considered the report on 29th February, 2024 (Minute No. C262)
and had referred the same to Council for consideration and approval.
The interim report outlined the proposed 2024/25 Treasury Management
Strategy detailed in Appendix 1 and provided an update on the Council’s
Treasury Management operations for the period 1st April to 31st December,
No.
2023. All activities were in accordance with the Council’s approved strategy
on Treasury Management.
Total external borrowing as of 31st December, 2023 was £145.479m at an
average rate of 4.37%. New external borrowing totalling £5.000m was
undertaken during the first 9 months of 2023/24 at a rate of 4.38% with
utilised the special project rate for Housing Revenue Account schemes.
The Council invested with the Debt Management Deposit Facility, Local
Authorities, Treasury Bills, Money Market Funds together with Lloyds Bank
Call Accounts. Total investments as of 31st December, 2023 stood at
£50.495m at an average rate of 4.53% over the nine-month period.
The Council had to ensure that the Prudential Code was complied with, which
had been developed by CIPFA as a professional code of practice, last
updated in December 2021. To demonstrate that the Council had fulfilled
these objectives, the Code set out a list of Prudential and Treasury indicators
that should be calculated together with other factors that had to be
considered. These were included in Appendix 1 to the report as part of the
Strategy.
The Council also had a legal requirement to comply with the Welsh
Government Guidance on Investments and had taken this guidance into
consideration when developing the Strategy.
New borrowing in the period to 2028/29 was expected to be £184.377m for
new Capital Expenditure and a further £14.000m of borrowing to replace
maturing loans and reflect the Council’s reducing ability to internally borrow
over the period.
Capital expenditure when financed by long term debt incurred two elements of
cost, interest and repayment of the principal sum borrowed. The resources
the Council must put aside in each year to repay the principal sum borrowed
was known as Minimum Revenue Provision (MRP) and the Council's policy
for the calculation was detailed in the report.
The Treasury Management Policy Statement for 2024/25 was attached at
Appendix 2 to the report.
The Leader, in referring to the recent training provided to all Members, and
indeed training that was provided each year, on the subject, commented that
she had found the training to be a really constructive training session which
had also been recorded for Members to view it online.
RESOLVED –
(1) T H A T the Treasury Management interim report for the period 1 st April
st
to 31 December, 2023 be approved.
No.
(2) T H A T the policy for making Minimum Revenue Provision in 2024/25
be approved.
(3) T H A T the proposed 2024/25 Treasury Management and Investment
Strategy be approved, including the following specific resolutions (as detailed
in Appendix 1 to the report to Cabinet on 29th February, 2024 [Minute No.
C262]):
• The Authorised Limit for External Debt be set at £240.969m for
2023/24, £271.200m for 2024/25, £303.939m for 2025/26 and
£336.893m for 2026/27.
• The Operational Boundary for External Debt be set at
£226.147m for 2023/24, £255.687 for 2024/25, £287.406m for
2025/26 and £320.338m for 2026/27.
• The Section 151 Officer be granted delegated authority within
the total Authorised Limit and Operational Boundary as
estimated for individual years to effect movement between the
separately agreed limits for borrowing and other long term
liabilities.
• An upper limit of £0m for 2023/24, £10m for 2024/25, £10m in
2025/26 and £10m in 2026/27 be set for total principal sums
invested for over 364 days.
• The amount of projected borrowing that was fixed rate maturing
in each period as a percentage of total projected borrowing that
was fixed rate for 2024/25 be set as:
Table 1 – Upper and lower Limits for fixed rate borrowing
Upper Lower
Limit Limit
Under 12 months 20% 0%
12 months and within 24 months 20% 0%
24 months and within 5 years 30% 0%
5 years and within 10 years 40% 0%
10 years and above 100% 0%
(4) T H A T Prudential Indicators set out in Appendix 1 to the report to
Cabinet on 29th February, 2024 (Minute No. C262) be approved.
(5) T H A T the Treasury Management Policy Statement set out in
Appendix 2 to the report to Cabinet on 29th February, 2024 (Minute No. C262)
be approved.
Reasons for decisions
(1) Having regard to the contents of the report and discussions at the
meeting.
(2) To agree the basis of the Minimum Revenue Provision calculation for
2024/25.
No.
(3-5) In order for the Treasury Management and Annual Investment Strategy
as prepared be approved as required by the Local Government Act 2003.
PAY POLICY 2024/25 (REF)
The Council had a statutory requirement under the Localism Act 2011 to
prepare a pay policy statement for the new financial year 2024/25. The
statement needed to be approved and published by 31st March, 2024. The
document provided a framework for ensuring that employees were rewarded
fairly and objectively, in accordance with the service needs of the Council and
that there was openness and transparency in relation to the process. It being
a straightforward report the Leader moved the recommendations which were
seconded by Councillor Brooks.
Prior to putting the recommendations to Full Council the Mayor asked if there
were any points of clarification required by Members from the Head of Human
Resources. There being no clarifications required and no further comments, it
was subsequently
RESOLVED – T H A T the Council’s Pay Policy as attached at Appendix A to
the report to Cabinet on 8th February, 2024 (Minute No C234) be approved.
Reason for decision
To respond to the legal requirement under the Localism Act 2011 and to
provide openness and accountability in relation to how the Council rewards its
staff.
N.B.
All Chief Officers, save for the Head of Human Resources, left the meeting
when this item was considered. The Head of Human Resources remained in
the meeting, until the matter was to be voted upon, in order to provide any
clarification required by Elected Members.
RESOLVED – T H A T the applications as outlined within the report, on pages 21
through to 23, as determined by the Head of Sustainable Development under
delegated powers, be noted.
24-02-22 (GD)