Swyddi, cymorth i fusnesau, adfywio, canol trefi a dinasoedd a thwristiaeth.
Beth mae cynghorau'n ei wneud
Mae cynghorau'n cefnogi busnesau lleol, yn adfywio canol trefi, yn rhedeg marchnadoedd ac yn gwneud cais am gyllid adfywio. Maen nhw'n gweithio gyda chynghorau cyfagos drwy gyrff rhanbarthol o'r enw cyd-bwyllgorau corfforedig.
Pwy sy'n penderfynu
Yr aelod Cabinet dros yr economi sy'n arwain. Mae prosiectau mawr yn mynd i'r Cabinet, a rhai rhanbarthol i'r cyd-bwyllgor corfforedig.
Dweud eich dweud
Gall perchnogion busnes gysylltu â thîm cymorth busnes y cyngor. Fel arfer, ymgynghorir ar gynlluniau adfywio.
Mewn rhifau
Mae cynghorau Cymru yn bwriadu gwario £40 y pen ar hyn yn 2026-27.
Mae'n amrywio o £13 yn Sir Benfro i £152 yn Castell-nedd Port Talbot.
RESOLVED: that
1. the content of the report be noted.
2. the procurement proposals as detailed in this report for the New Collaborative General Building Construction & Maintenance Framework as set out in the report be approved.
3. authority be delegated to the Director of Economic Development, in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Investment and Development, the Section 151 Officer and Director of Governance and Legal Services, to deal with all aspects of the procurement of the proposed framework (including finalising the lotting structure, setting the evaluation methodology, commencing procurement and award of successful contracts to the framework) and thereafter to deal with any ancillary agreements and ancillary matters.
RESOLVED: To note the Terms of Reference for the Appointment Committee.
To discharge the functions of the authority in respect of the appointment and dismissal of Chief Officers and Deputy Chief Officers (as defined in the Local Authorities (Standing Orders) (Wales) Regulations 2006) and the statutory Head of Democratic Services, in accordance with the Employment Procedure Rules and other relevant Council policies and procedures.
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 authority be delegated to the Director of Economic Development (in consultation with the Cabinet Members for Housing & Communities and Investment & Development, the Section 151 Officer, and the Director of Governance & Legal Services) to complete and submit the Pride in Place Programme proforma to the UK Government based on the approach outlined in paragraphs 30 to 32 above.
RESOLVED – That the following matters be dealt with as indicated:
(1)
Application 1
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that he had nine penalty points on his driving licence.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver stated that he had worked as a taxi driver for over 30 years and this was his first time before the Committee. Members were advised that the two SP30 driving offences had both occurred outside Cardiff in the early hours of the morning. The vehicle was travelling at 26mph in a 20mph zone and there were no passengers in the vehicle at the time.
The driver accepted that he was at fault, and he was now extra vigilant when it came to complying with speed limits.
RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning for driving offences.
(2)
Application 2
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that he had nine penalty points on his driving licence.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that the 3 SP30 driving offences had all occurred within a short space of time. The driver had taken fares to Swansea and was unfamiliar with the area. The speeds for the offences were 22mph, 22mph and 27mph respectively.
Members were advised that the offences were reported to the Hackney Office at the time. The driver was now very vigilant as he was fully aware that any conviction for a further driving offence would affect his livelihood.
RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning for driving offences.
(3)
Application 3
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that a complaint had been received alleging he failed to remain with his taxi after parking it on a rank, failed to display the interior plate and was rude and aggressive to Licensing Enforcement officers.
The driver addressed the Sub Committee. Members were advised that on the day in question the driver parked in a taxi rank in order to go to his bank. When he returned to his vehicle he became aware of somebody taking photographs of his vehicle.
When asked, the lady identified herself as a Licensing Officer. She asked why he had parked in the rank and was ‘shouting and raving’. The driver denied that he was rude and aggressive to the Licensing Officers and suggested that the statements made by the witnesses were concocted. He stated that he was calm and respectful throughout the incident and denied using bad language.
The driver confirmed that he was aware that parking on a taxi rank was not permitted.
The Sub Committee also received representations from two Licensing Officers. The officers were invited to explain their version of the incident. Members were advised that the driver was rude and aggressive and had used phrases such as “I don’t give a shit”. The officers attempted to defuse the situation by inviting the driver to attend an interview at a later date. At that point they were accused of being “on a power trip”.
The officers stated that there was no window badge on display in the vehicle at the time of the incident.
RESOLVED – that the Hackney Carriage / Private Hire licence be suspended for two weeks for unacceptable conduct.
(4)
Application 4
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that a complaint had been received alleging abusive and threatening behaviour towards a fellow driver whilst carrying passengers.
Members were asked to consider the circumstances which had led to a disagreement between two drivers in the Kingsway area of the City Centre. The Sub Committee watched a video of a driver in a heated argument with another driver and using very strong bad language in front of passengers in his vehicle.
The driver was invited to provide details of his recollection of the incident. Members were advised that the driver was parked at the front of an unofficial rank and was next in line to collect a fare. The complainant’s vehicle parked in front of him and attempted to hail passengers.
The driver asked the complainant to move his vehicle. The complainant refused stating that it was not a legal taxi rank. The complainant then left his vehicle and came to the side of the driver’s vehicle, provoking a reaction.
The driver accepted that his response was wholly inappropriate and unprofessional. He stated that he now wished he had left the area immediately and had taken his passengers home.
The complainant was invited to address the Sub Committee. Members were advised that after overtaking the parked vehicle the driver started swearing and spitting. He therefore started to record the incident. The complainant considered that the other driver’s behaviour fell far short of the standards expected.
RESOLVED – that the Hackney Carriage / Private Hire licence be suspended for 60 days for unacceptable conduct.
(5)
Application 5
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that a complaint had been received alleging that he requested a fixed price card payment once the passengers were in the vehicle and the journey had already started to an area outside of the Cardiff boundary.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver stated that he had agreed a fare of £50 to first take a passenger to Barry and then make a second drop off returning to Dinas Powys. After commencing the journey, the driver asked whether the passenger would be paying by cash or card. The passenger stated that it would be a card payment and therefore the driver stopped the vehicle and attempted to take the payment before the end of the journey. The driver stated that he did this because he had had several incidents where card payments have been declined.
The driver accepted that he should have asked for the payment when the price for the fare was agreed at the taxi rank.
The complainant stated that at the start of the journey, whilst an indication of the cost had been provided, he was unaware whether the driver was using the meter or not. The vehicle stopped in Callaghan Square and the driver requested payment. The complainant considered this to be inappropriate and refused to pay until the end of the journey. The complainant felt uneasy and was concerned that this portrayed a pattern of behaviour rather than a simple misunderstanding.
RESOLVED – that no further action be taken.
(6)
Application 6
The Sub Committee was asked to consider an application for the grant of a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that the applicant had a motoring conviction contrary to the guidance and had been refused a licence by another local authority.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the applicant stated that whilst working delivering food his vehicle had broken down. He therefore used his cousin’s vehicle. He updated his insurance policy to allow his to use the different vehicle. However, whilst he was able to drive the vehicle as a third party he was not allowed to use it for food deliveries. He was stopped by the police and charged with an IN10 offence. He accepted that he was uninsured at the time.
RESOLVED – that the application for a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire driver’s licence be refused.
(7)
Application 7
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that he had declared nine penalty points on his driving licence.
Members were advised that the driving offences had occurred on the A470 over a short space of time. The driver stated that after an extended break in Canada he had returned to the UK and started working. The speed limit on a section of the A470 had changed during his period abroad and he was unaware.
RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning for driving offences.
(8)
Application 8
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that he had declared six penalty points on his driving licence.
Members were advised that the driver had received 6 penalty points after taking a telephone call from his daughter whilst stopped at traffic lights on Newport Road. The driver accepted responsibility for the offence. There were no passengers in the vehicle at the time. The driver accepted that he should have declared the conviction at the time of the offence as required.
RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning for a driving offence.
(9)
Application 9
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that he had declared six penalty points on his driving licence.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he was working a private hire driver at the time of the offence. He had mistakenly picked up a passenger who was not pre-booked, when he was not insured to do so. Prior to the incident, the driver had 17 years’ experience in the trade without any complaints. He was now licensed as both a hackney carriage and private hire driver. He considered that after receiving six penalty points and a fine in the magistrate’s court and having to pay higher insurance, he had learned a valuable lesson.
RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning for a driving offence.
(10)
Application 10
The Sub Committee was asked to consider an application for the grant of a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that the applicant had motoring convictions and a previous criminal conviction contrary to the guidance.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained the nature of the convictions and the circumstances surrounding the speeding offences, and that he has now addressed his behaviour and drives to a professional standard.
The Sub Committee asked the applicant to explain his conviction for money laundering. The applicant stated that the conviction had occurred whilst he was at university. A friend had asked him to create a cryptocurrency account which was then used to send money to someone else.
RESOLVED – that the application for a hackney carriage / private hire drivers licence be refused.
Bro Morgannwg, Early Retirement and Redundancy Committee,
RESOLVED –
(1) T H A T the flexible retirement of A be agreed in accordance with the
Council's policy subject to no other circumstances arising in the interim whereby the
employment was to be terminated for a different reason.
(2) T H A T the flexible retirement of A without a specified end date providing no
other circumstances arose in the interim whereby the employment was to be
terminated for a different reason be agreed.
Reasons for decisions
(1) To determine the flexible retirement application within the regulations and to
allow for eventualities that may not be known at the time.
(2) To achieve the necessary change to the employee’s working hours, to assist
service continuity, provide appropriate support to assist the employee’s transition to
retirement and to contribute to the work of Adult Services.
Bro Morgannwg, Early Retirement and Redundancy Committee,
RESOLVED –
(1) T H A T the flexible retirement of C in accordance with the Council's policy be
agreed subject to no other circumstances arising in the interim whereby the
employment concluded for a different reason.
(2) T H A T the use of the appropriate delegated powers be endorsed to enable C
to reduce C's contracted hours from 37 to 22 hours per week from the week
commencing 5th January, 2026.
(3) T H A T the retirement of C from employment with the Council be reviewed by
the Chief Officer at six monthly intervals in consultation with the Chief Officer for
Human Resources.
Reasons for decisions
(1) To determine the flexible retirement application of C within the regulations and
to allow for eventualities which may be known at the time.
(2-3) The achieve the necessary change to the employee's working hours, to assist
service continuity, provide appropriate support to assist the employee’s health and
transition to retirement and provide opportunity to provide training to new members
of staff interested in the post.
Bro Morgannwg, Early Retirement and Redundancy Committee,
RESOLVED –
(1) T H A T the flexible retirement of B be agreed in accordance with the
Council's policy subject to no other circumstances arising in the interim whereby the
employment concluded for a different reason.
(2) T H A T the use of the appropriate delegated powers be endorsed to enable B
to reduce B's contracted hours from 37 to 22 hours per week from the week
commencing 5th January, 2026.
(3) T H A T the retirement of B from employment with the Council be reviewed by
the Chief Officer at six monthly intervals in consultation with the Chief Officer for
Human Resources.
December 18 Minutes and DN (MS)
Reasons for decisions
(1) To determine the flexible retirement application of B within the regulation and
to allow for eventualities which may be known at the time.
(2-3) The achieve the necessary change to the employee's working hours, to assist
service continuity, provide appropriate support to assist the employee’s health and
transition to retirement and provide opportunity to provide training to new members
of staff interested in the post.
RESOLVED: that
1) Authority be delegated to the Director of Economic Development, in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Culture, Sport & Parks, the Section 151 Officer and Director of Governance and Legal Services, to deal with all aspects of the proposed procurement (including determining delivery model, setting the evaluation methodology, commencing procurement and to deal with any ancillary matters) and thereafter to report the outcome at a future Cabinet meeting for approval of award of contracts.
2) It be agreed, subject to interest in the opportunity, to advertise the proposed disposal of the land as indicated within the attached plan at AppendixB, in accordance with the Local Government Act 1972 and to report back the outcome at a future Cabinet Meeting.
AGREED: that the Chairperson, on behalf of the Committee, writes to the Cabinet Member conveying the observations and recommendations of the Committee when discussing the way forward.
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.
Bro Morgannwg, Early Retirement and Redundancy Committee,
RESOLVED –
(1) T H A T a redundancy payment be approved from 31st March, 2026 as a
result of the end of the temporary contract with the Council. A redundancy payment
would be payable as S would have 14 years’ service on termination of the contract.
(2) T H A T should alternative employment be found for S, Resolution (1) be
revoked together with the redundancy payment should the trial period prove
successful.
Reasons for decisions
(1) To determine the redundancy application within the regulations and to allow
for eventualities that may not be known at this time.
(2) To maintain compliance with the Council's Redeployment procedure.
November 27 Minutes and DN (MS)
Bro Morgannwg, Early Retirement and Redundancy Committee,
RESOLVED –
(1) T H A T the flexible retirement of J be approved with effect from Monday,
th
27 April, 2026.
(2) T H A T the flexible retirement of J be agreed in accordance with the Council's
policy subject to no other circumstances arising in the interim whereby the
employment was to be terminated for a different reason.
(3) T H A T the flexible retirement of J with an end date of April 2028, providing
no other circumstances arose in the interim whereby the employment was to be
terminated for a different reason, be agreed.
Reasons for decisions
(1) To support the employee’s request for flexible retirement whilst also securing
the employee’s continued employment for a period of up to 24 months during which
time the employee's skills and experience would be an asset to the Learning and
Skills Directorate. That period allowed for planned succession building and sharing
of knowledge and skills.
(2-3) To determine the flexible retirement application within the regulations and to
allow for eventualities that may not be known at the time.
RESOLVED: Council AGREED:
a)
To approve the draft proposal for a visitor levy outlined in Appendix A and to proceed to consult on that proposal;
b)
To delegate authority to the Director of Economic Development to take all necessary steps required by legislation to be undertaken by the authority prior to adopting the levy, including finalising arrangements for the consultation exercise;
c)
To note that following the consultation exercise, a further report will return to Cabinet and Council in March for final decision as to whether to proceed to adopt the proposed levy.
RESOLVED: that
• the contents of the report be noted.
• It be recommend that Council
a) Approves the draft proposal for a visitor levy outlined in Appendix A and to proceed to consult on that proposal;
b) Delegate authority to the Director of Economic Development, in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Investment & Development, to take all necessary steps required by legislation to be undertaken by the authority prior to adopting the levy, including finalising arrangements for the consultation exercise; and
c) To note that following the consultation exercise, a further report will return to Cabinet and Council in March for final decision as to whether to proceed to adopt the proposed levy.