Tai cyngor, tai cymdeithasol a fforddiadwy, digartrefedd a rhentu preifat.
Beth mae cynghorau'n ei wneud
Rhaid i gynghorau helpu pobl sy'n ddigartref neu ar fin colli eu cartref, dod o hyd i leoedd dros dro i aros, a chynllunio ar gyfer cartrefi fforddiadwy newydd. Mae rhai cynghorau'n berchen ar dai cyngor ac yn eu rheoli; mewn eraill, cymdeithasau tai sy'n gwneud hynny.
Pwy sy'n penderfynu
Yr aelod Cabinet dros dai sy'n arwain, gyda phenderfyniadau mawr yn y Cabinet. Mae cynlluniau tai a lefelau rhent tai cyngor yn mynd i'r Cabinet neu'r Cyngor llawn.
Dweud eich dweud
Os ydych mewn perygl o golli eich cartref, cysylltwch â thîm opsiynau tai'r cyngor cyn gynted â phosibl: mae'r gyfraith yn dweud bod rhaid iddo helpu. Ar gyfer materion ehangach, cysylltwch â'ch cynghorwyr.
Mewn rhifau
Mae cynghorau Cymru yn bwriadu gwario £327 y pen ar hyn yn 2026-27.
Mae'n amrywio o £177 yn Sir Benfro i £479 yn Abertawe.
Atal digartrefedd: 61% ar draws Cymru (2025-26).
Lleddfu digartrefedd: 27% ar draws Cymru (2025-26).
Pobl mewn llety dros dro: 33 fesul 10,000 o bobl ar draws Cymru (31 Gorffennaf 2026).
Cartrefi cyngor a adeiladwyd: 143 ar draws Cymru (2025-26).
RESOLVED – T H A T in pursuance of the powers delegated to the Committee,
the following application be determined as indicated and any other necessary
action be taken.
2022/00266/FUL Received on 12 April 2024
(P40)
APPLICANT: Newydd Housing Association, 5 Village Way, c/o agent, CF15 7NE
AGENT: Mr Jon Hurley, Unit 9, Oak Tree Court, Cardiff Gate Business Park,
Cardiff, CF23 8RS
Llantwit Road, Higher End, St. Athan
Full planning application for residential development, access, drainage
arrangements and other associated works
APPROVED – Subject to the conditions as contained within the report.
Reason for decision
Having regard to the contents of the report and discussions at the meeting.
Minutes - GD
RESOLVED –
(1) T H A T the contents of the report be noted.
(2) T H A T, in relation to the health and safety matters and school building
compliance, the Director of Learning and Skills assist the Director of Environment
and Housing to ensure that the schools identified within the report met the necessary
compliance and health and safety regulations.
Reason for decisions
(1&2) Having regard to the contents of the report and discussions at the meeting.
AGREED – T H A T the presentation be forwarded to all Members of the Council and
the Third Sector for their information with follow up conversations to be undertaken
as reflected in the discussions at the meeting.
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 – T H A T the use of the Urgent Decision Procedure (Cabinet Minute
No. C167, 30th November, 2023 (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.
NOMINATIONS FOR THE ROLES OF INDEPENDENT BOARD MEMBER REPRESENTING LOCAL AUTHORITIES TO THE CARDIFF AND VALE UNIVERSITY HEALTH BOARD AND THE NATIONAL JOINT COMMITTEE FOR THE NATIONAL ADOPTION SERVICE AND FOSTER WALES (REF)
RESOLVED – T H A T the use of the Urgent Decision Procedure (Cabinet Minute
No. C170, 30th November, 2023 (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.
No.
FINAL HOUSING REVENUE ACCOUNT (HRA) BUDGET PROPOSALS 2024/25, RENT SETTING 2024/2025 AND HOUSING REVENUE ACCOUNT BUSINESS PLAN 2024/25 (REF)
RESOLVED – T H A T the use of the Urgent Decision Procedure (Cabinet Minute
No. C196, 11th January, 2024 (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.
INITIAL BUDGET 2024/25 AND MEDIUM TERM FINANCIAL PLAN 2024/25 TO 2028/29 PROPOSALS FOR CONSULTATION (REF)
RESOLVED – T H A T the use of the Urgent Decision Procedure (Cabinet Minute
No. C206, 18th January, 2024 (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.
DRAFT CAPITAL PROGRAMME PROPOSALS 2024/25 TO 2028/29 (REF)
RESOLVED – T H A T the use of the Urgent Decision Procedure (Cabinet Minute
No. C207, 18th January, 2024 (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.
ACQUISITION OF RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES IN THE VALE OF GLAMORGAN (REF)
RESOLVED – T H A T the use of the Urgent Decision Procedure (Cabinet Minute
No. C222, 25th January, 2024 (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.
No.
VALE OF GLAMORGAN ENTERPRISE CENTRE (PART I) (REF)
RESOLVED – T H A T the use of the Urgent Decision Procedure (Cabinet Minute
No. C224, 25th January, 2024 (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.
VALE OF GLAMORGAN ENTERPRISE CENTRE (PART II) (REF)
RESOLVED – T H A T the use of the Urgent Decision Procedure (Cabinet Minute
No. C228, 25th January, 2024 (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.
DRAFT VALE OF GLAMORGAN COUNCIL ANNUAL DELIVERY PLAN 2024-25 (REF)
RESOLVED – T H A T the use of the Urgent Decision Procedure (Cabinet Minute
No. C248, 22nd February, 2024 (as set out in Section 15.14.2(ii) of the Council’s
Constitution) be noted.
Reason for decision
The reporting of the use of the Urgent Decision Procedure is a requirement of the
Council’s Constitution.
RESOLVED –
(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 in pursuance of the powers delegated to the Committee,
the following applications be determined as indicated and any other necessary
action be taken.
Minutes - AR
No.
2021/01710/FUL Received on 23 September 2022
(p70)
APPLICANT: Business Loan Services (UK) Ltd Pension Scheme C/o Agent,
AGENT: Mr Andrew Ayles Office 14, 35 Stow Park Circle, Newport, NP20 4HF
Former Eastbrook Methodist Chapel, Chapel Row, Eastbrook, Dinas Powys
Demolition of chapel building and the erection of a dormer bungalow, on-site car
parking and amenity provision and associated development thereto.
Councillor Gilligan declared a prejudicial interest in relation to this item and
therefore withdrew from the meeting for the entirety and did not take part in any
related vote.
In presenting the report, the Principal Planner highlighted a drafting error on page
96 of the report whereby text had not been omitted from the recommendations as
intended. Therefore, the text set out on the page between the Recommendation
Heading and Recommendation 1, should be amended to “approve subject to
conditions”, and the following erroneous text be deleted: “Subject to the relevant
person(s) first entering into a Section 106 Legal Agreement or undertaking to
include the following necessary planning obligations:
• to pay a financial contribution to the sum of £27,631.20 for an off site
affordable housing contribution.”
A recorded vote was called for the Application, based on the recommendations
within the report as amended, with the results as follows:
Member For Against Abstain
G. Bruce √
I. Buckley √
Mrs. C.A. Cave √
C. Champion √
M. Cowpe
Mrs. P. Drake √
A. Ernest √
W. Gilligan
N.P. Hodges √
Dr. I.J. Johnson √
H. Payne √
S. Perkes √
I. Perry √
C. Stallard √
N. Thomas √
E. Williams √
M.R. Wilson √
TOTAL 7 6 2
Minutes - AR
No.
APPROVED – Subject to the conditions as amended and contained within the
report.
Reason for decision
Having regard to the content of the report and discussions at the meeting.
2023/00087/FUL Received on 27 January 2023
(p102)
APPLICANT: Loft-Co Urban Regeneration Company Limited C/O Agent,
AGENT: Gwen Thomas Unit 9, Oak Tree Court, Cardiff Gate Business Park,
Cardiff, CF23 8RS
Crossway Methodist Church, Court Road, Barry
Proposed development of 15 no. affordable flats and associated works
A recorded vote was called for the Application, with the results as follows:
Member For Against Abstain
G. Bruce √
I. Buckley √
Mrs. C.A. Cave √
C. Champion
M. Cowpe
Mrs. P. Drake √
A. Ernest √
W. Gilligan √
N.P. Hodges √
Dr. I.J. Johnson √
H. Payne √
S. Perkes √
I. Perry √
C. Stallard √
N. Thomas √
E. Williams √
M.R. Wilson √
TOTAL 10 5 0
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.
Minutes - AR
No.
2023/00895/FUL Received on 29 August 2023
(p128)
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.
DEFERRED – to a future meeting of the Committee, given the need to re consult
neighbours for a consultation period of 21 days, following the submission of an
amended certificate of ownership.
Minutes - AR
RESOLVED –
(1) T H A T the final Housing Revenue Account budget proposals for 2024/25
as set out below be approved:
2024/25
Original Change Final
2023/24 Proposed
Budget
£000
Expenditure
Supervision & Management –
General 4,366 329 4,695
Supervision & Management – Special 1,604 345 1,949
Repairs & Maintenance 4,681 319 5,000
Capital Financing Costs 5,327 465 5,792
Rent, Rates, Taxes & Other Charges 221 49 270
Increase in Provision for Bad Debts 948 79 1,027
Capital Expenditure from Revenue 17,187 (8,990)
8,197
Account (CERA)
34,334 (7,404) 26,930
Income
Dwelling Rents (22,453) (3,340) (25,793)
Non Dwelling Rents (173) (13) (186)
Interest (156) 111 (45)
Charges For Services and Facilities (601) (83) (684)
Minutes -
No.
Contribution towards expenditure (74) (20) (94)
Grant Income (205) 0 (205)
(23,662) (3,345) (27,007)
(Surplus)/ deficit for the year 10,672 (10,749) (77)
Working Balance Brought Forward (11,621) 10,672
(949)
as at 1st April 2024
Working Balance Carried Forward (949) (77)
(1,026)
as at 31st March 2025
(2) T H A T an average rent increase of 6.7% as detailed in the Cabinet report
of 11th January, 2024, be approved.
(3) T H A T the increase proposed for other services as set out in the table
below and detailed in the Cabinet report of 11th January, 2024, be approved.
2023/24 2024/25
Actual Proposed
50 Week Basis Charges Charges
£ £
Grounds Maintenance 1.47 1.49 per week
Cleaning of communal areas 2.75 2.92 per week
Lighting of communal areas 1.85 2.51 per week
Laundry Facilities 0.41 0.62 per week
Window Cleaning 0.16 0.18 per week
Lift Maintenance 0.99 1.33 per week
Door Entry 0.50 0.71 per week
Intercom 0.94 0.95 per week
per week -Nil one
0.95
CCTV 0.0 year only
Sewerage Treatment Plants 426.66 455.25 per annum
Cesspools 411.50 439.00 per annum
(4) T H A T all changes to rents and service charges be approved and
implemented from 1st April, 2024, with the first week of April being a non-
chargeable rent week and that increase notices are sent to tenants two months in
advance of the new charges coming into effect as required by the Rented Homes
Wales Act.
(5) T H A T the Housing Revenue Account Business Plan 2024/25 attached at
Appendix A to the Cabinet report of 11th January, 2024 be approved.
Reasons for decisions
(1) To facilitate budget monitoring and to demonstrate a balanced budget with
a drawdown from HRA reserves to bring the reserve back into balance with the
Housing business Plan 2023/24.
Minutes -
No.
(2) In order that new rent levels are set within the specified Welsh Government
guidelines and to meet the tenant notification deadline as required by statute.
(3) That charges are approved and to meet the tenant notification deadline as
required by statute.
(4) In order that charges are approved, new rent levels are set within the
specified Welsh Government guidelines and to meet the tenant notification
deadline as required by statute.
(5) To approval for the Housing Revenue Account Business Plan 2023/53.
Minutes -
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.
2020/01218/HYB Received on 29 October 2020
(P. 103)
APPLICANT: Mr. Phil Worthing c/o Agent
AGENT: Mrs. Emma Fortune, Brunel House, 2 Fitzalan Road, Cardiff, CF24 0EB
Leckwith Quay, Leckwith Road, Leckwith
Hybrid planning application for residential development for up to 228 dwellings
(submitted in OUTLINE), associated highway and bridge improvement / realignment
works (submitted in FULL). Development involves the demolition of all buildings on
site and of the existing B4267 Leckwith Road Bridge.
RESOLVED – T H A T subject to the applicant entering into a Section 106
agreement to provide for the following:
• Procure that 10% (up to 23) 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 £240,000 for the provision or enhancement of education
facilities to meet the needs of future occupiers;
• Pay a contribution of £60,000 for the off-site planting of trees to mitigate loss
as a result of 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.
2021/00476/FUL Received on 27 April 2023
(P. 189)
APPLICANT: Westbourne School, Hickman Road, Penarth, CF64 3EF
AGENT: Mr. Liam Griffiths, Unit 9, Oak Tree Court, Cardiff Gate Business Park,
Cardiff, CF23 8RS
GM2 House, Plymouth Road, Penarth
Full planning application for a proposed 2 storey extension and associated works.
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.
2023/00337/FUL Received on 29 March 2023
(P. 226)
APPLICANT: Ceri Jones, 7 Sycamore Close, Llandough, Penarth, Vale of
Glamorgan, CF64 2NP
AGENT: Nicky Watkins, Studio 1, The Platform, Hemmingway Road, Cardiff,
CF10 5LS
7 Sycamore Close, Llandough, Penarth
Proposed two storey extension to rear elevation with hipped roof.
RESOLVED –
(1) T H A T the Head of Legal and Democratic Services be authorised to issue an
Enforcement Notice under Section 172 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990
(as amended) to require:
(i) The removal of the development;
or
(ii) The completion of the development in accordance with planning
permission 2023/00337/FUL.
(2) T H A T in the event of non-compliance with the Notice, authorisation be
granted to take such legal proceedings as may be required.
APPROVED – Subject to an amendment to Condition 3 to amend the position of the
bird boxes on the building and to the conditions as contained within the report.
Reasons for decisions
The decision to recommend planning permission has been taken in accordance with
Section 38 of The Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, which requires that,
in determining a planning application the determination must be in accordance with
the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The
Development Plan for the area comprises the Vale of Glamorgan Adopted Local
Development Plan 2011-2026 and Future Wales – the National Plan 2040.
Having regard to Policies SP1 (Delivering the Strategy), MD2 (Design of New
Development), MD5 (Development Within Settlement Boundaries) and MD9
(Promoting Biodiversity) of the Vale of Glamorgan Adopted Local Development Plan
2011-2026 and Future Wales – the National Plan 2040 and Supplementary Planning
Guidance on Residential and Householder Development; and national guidance
contained in Planning Policy Wales (11th Edition), and TAN12 (Design); the revised
proposal is considered acceptable in terms of the design and visual impact, impact
up on neighbouring properties, parking, amenity space and will secure biodiversity
enhancements.
Having regard to the Council’s duties under the Equality Act 2010 the proposed
development does not have any significant implications for, or effect on, persons
who share a protected characteristic.
It is considered that the decision complies with the Council’s well-being objectives
and the sustainable development principle in accordance with the requirements of
the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015.
The appropriate marine policy documents have been considered in the determination
of this application in accordance with Section 59 of the Marine and Coastal Access
Act 2009.
AGREED – T H A T Committee notes the Vale of Glamorgan’s draft response to
the Boundary Commission’s draft proposals, Cabinet’s suggested response and
deliberations on the proposals at its 5th October meeting, along with the following
Minutes - AR
comments of the Committee on the suggestions raised within the report to be
forwarded to Cabinet, as follows:
• Dinas Powys Community Council - The proposed changes to the Dinas
Powys Community Ward boundaries were acceptable to the Council on the
whole, as it avoided the Community Council having to create a 5th ward.
However, the Community Council was concerned by the proposed transfer
of houses along Sully Road. It was deemed quite illogical and unacceptable
to move said houses into Penarth.
• Llanfair Community Council - Concerns had previously been raised by
the Council in relation to future proposals meaning a loss in rural identity
should it merge with the larger Cowbridge Town Council. Having
considered the electoral numbers, close proximity to Llanmaes Community
Council, as well as the similar community makeup of other nearby villages
such as Llysworney (that currently sat under Llandow Community Council),
it was deemed appropriate to have a discussion with the other two
Community Councils to see whether any other alternative proposals could
be presented to the Commission.
• Ewenny and Corntown Community Council -The Community Council
was looking to make representation to the Boundary Commission voicing its
displeasure at the proposals. It was the Community Council’s view that the
suggested merging with St. Brides Major and Ogmore would not enable the
residents of Ewenny to be properly represented. The Council felt it was
geographically separate from St.Brides and Ogmore and had been a long-
established Community Council with its own specific needs and
requirements in the area, which would not be best serviced by joining with
another. The proposals would be a dissolution of the democratic process
because it would move further away from the area currently administered
by the Community Council. The proposals were based on a mathematical
calculation rather than local identity and local politics.
• Llandow Community Council - It was the intention of the Community
Council to put together a detailed proposal and objection for the Boundary
Commission on the basis that, as its stood, Llandow should stay the size
and makeup that it currently was to avoid dilution of local village
representation and identity.
• Colwinston Community Council - The Boundary Commission had looked
at the community review in detail and had found that it made sense for
Colwinston and Llangan to remain separate even though the individual
electorate numbers did not reach 1000. Therefore, the only issue with
keeping the two councils separate laid with the Vale of Glamorgan Council.
Llangan and Colwinston were six miles apart, considerably different,
separate villages, with nothing in common so the suggested merging did
not make sense.
• Llangan Community Council - The Community Council bordered with a
very different local authority, Bridgend County Borough Council therefore,
the Community Council’s issues were completely separate and irrelevant to
the residents living in Colwinston. The Llangan community area may be a
very small area geographically, but its issues were completely different to
Colwinston.
Minutes - AR
• Llanmaes Community Council - The Community Council was thankful
that the Boundary Commission had not proposed to merge Llanmaes with
Llantwit Major Town Council as originally suggested. However, it was
disappointing to hear that the Vale of Glamorgan Council would be
supporting the Boundary Commission’s proposal for changes to the
Llanmaes Community boundary due to the fact that the changes involved
only 2 properties, housing 5 individuals, who considered themselves to live
in a rural area and therefore wished to remain under a community rather
than town council. The existing boundaries were based on water course,
which in many instances was logical for setting boundaries. However, the
boundary change now being suggested was as a result of boundaries
following a road boundary rather than a water course which was
disappointing.
• Barry Town Council - The proposals relevant to Barry Town Council
seemed logical moving forward. The only minor criticism is that the Cadoc
Ward in Barry was potentially too large and therefore it could be suggested
to split the Cadoc ward in to two. Democracy was really healthy in Barry
and every seat was contested by multiple parties at elections. Therefore, it
was hoped that the proposals put by the Commission would help to
promote democracy in smaller communities across the Vale of Glamorgan
by encouraging and holding elections, as many seats were often
uncontested in the Community Councils.
• Wenvoe Community Council - The Community Council had held a
meeting to discuss the proposals and it was bitterly opposed to the
proposals put forward. The Wenvoe Community was a close-knit
community, and the proposals made no sense at all. One of the main
reasons for objection was in relation to the playing fields and allotments
based in Twyn-Yr-Odyn, which were owned by Wenvoe Community Council
and bequeathed to the Council some time ago for the use of people living in
the Wenvoe community. A petition had been organised by Councillor
Russell Godfrey amongst the residents of Dyffryn, St. Lythans and Twyn-yr-
Odyn and not one resident expressed a wish to move out of the Wenvoe
community. Prior to the last Town and Community Council election, the
Wenvoe community lost the St.Nicholas with Bonvilston ward to the
Llancarfan ward and therefore Wenvoe Community Council did not want
any further changes. St. Nicholas and Bonvilston were developing areas,
with residential property development ongoing, and therefore looking to
increase its number of residents but, this should not be to the detriment of
the Wenvoe community.
• Penllyn Community Council - The Community Council was very pleased
to see that both the Boundary Commission and the Vale of Glamorgan
Council’s cross party working group had supported the Community
Council’s proposals in terms of the Penllyn area, especially in terms of the
area that would be affected by the Darren Farm residential development.
The Community Council was concerned about the reduction in the number
of councillors that was being proposed as, being a relatively dispersed
area, the council found that the current numbers of councillors worked very
well. Therefore, the council would be making a recommendation to the
Commission that councillor numbers were not reduced taking account of
the fact that the sizing policy was for guidance only.
Minutes - AR
• St. Nicholas and Bonvilston Community Council – The Council and the
relevant ward member did not wish Twyn-Yr-Odyn to join with St.Nicholas
so, that point was misinformation in the public domain. In terms of the
Playing fields and allotments in Twyn-Yr-Odyn, those facilities could remain
within the area for Wenvoe Community Council, and this was endorsed by
the St. Nicholas and Bonvilston Community Council.
• Wick Community Council - The comments raised by councillors at Town
level demonstrated a lack of understanding on how democracy worked in
smaller communities. To suggest there was a democratic deficit within
Community Councils, if there had not been an election, was wrong. The
council would be writing to the Commission to oppose the proposals.
• Councillor Haines – 1) Reducing the number of councillors representing
the smaller communities would result in the councils losing what they were
as a community.
2) Basing proposals on making assumptions on what would be included or
not within the Council’s Local Development Plan or what would happen or
not with a community in the future could lead to unfulfilled promises for the
area which was best avoided. Therefore, it was important for the Vale
Council to really think about what it recommended to the Commission.
• Councillor Wilson – 1) for the 2022 elections, there were a number of
Community Councils that did not have elections and therefore individuals
were co-opted which was a concern because there were not enough
individuals standing for the number of seats available. To a certain extent,
the Cabinet report and subsequent recommendations of the Vale of
Glamorgan Council tried to address this issue. There was a collective wish
for democracy to work well in the Vale of Glamorgan area as a whole and
not just in the main towns.
2) When communities worked together, this did not mean that the
communities diminished, rather they grew stronger and increased their
capacity to do things because of pooling finances and resources as well as
more likely to be heard at a county council level.
3) Community reviews happened rarely and therefore there was a need to
think ahead to future proof communities for how they would develop over
the subsequent decade until the next review was undertaken.
• Councillor Dr. Johnson – 1) the political situation was clearly different in
some of the more urban areas than it was in some of the more rural areas
of the Vale of Glamorgan.
2) There were currently 26 Town and Community Councils in the Vale of
Glamorgan and, out of that number, only six held elections in 2022 to his
knowledge, so this represented a democratic deficit when people were
setting local taxes without being elected by local people.
• Councillor Hodges - The size of some of the Community Council budgets
were very small especially once clerk salaries were accounted for. This
meant that there was very little money to do anything with and effecting
change in the community using the precept available to a council was most
important.
Minutes - AR
2) Increasing the size and population of a community could increase the
chances of constituents engaging in local elections as well as the money
available to it to effect meaningful change.
Reason for recommendation
Having regard to the contents of the Cabinet report on the Community Review to
ensure that Community Liaison Committee has the opportunity make any
representations to Cabinet.
RESOLVED –
(1) T H A T the updates to the Cabinet Quarterly Work Programme for April to
June 2023 attached at Appendix 1 be agreed.
(2) T H A T the Cabinet Quarterly Work Programme July to September 2023
attached at Appendix 2 be endorsed.
Reasons for decisions
(1) To monitor progress.
(2) To approve the Work Programme for July to September 2023.
C43 CLOSURE OF ACCOUNTS 2022/23 (EL/PR) (SCRUTINY –
CORPORATE PERFORMANCE AND RESOURCES) –
The Leader presented the report, the purpose of which was to inform Cabinet of the
provisional financial position of the Council for the 2022/23 financial year.
There had been significant inflationary and demand pressures during the year for
Childrens Services including legal costs for complex cases and placement costs,
supply of HGV drivers, rising fuel and school transport costs, additional pay
pressures and rising energy costs. Additional payments in Social Care were made to
social care providers to assist commissioning and recruitment and retention of
providers.
Minutes - MS
Some provision was made for additional Council Tax income of £1.5m earlier in the
year which was not achieved in full as arrears had increased but was able to be
offset by underspend elsewhere. Additional pay costs had been offset by vacant
posts in service budgets, however it was important to be mindful that vacant posts
put additional pressure on existing staff.
The Leader referred to a typographical error in paragraph 10.5 of the report that
referred to the 2020/21 the Statement of Accounts, which should have referred to the
2022/23 accounts, which was noted.
This was a matter for Executive decision.
Cabinet, having considered the report and all the issues and implications contained
therein
RESOLVED –
(1) T H A T the report and the financial measures taken and proposed be
approved.
(2) T H A T the allocation of overall Council surplus as set out below be
approved.
• £200k transfer to Education Pressures and Improvements Reserve to
provide additional support to schools in special measures.
• £850k to Education Pressures and Improvements Reserve support ALN
support in mainstream schools.
• £20k to Neighbourhood Services Reserve for repairs in to single use
sports facilities
• £350k to Neighbourhood Services Reserve for micro asphalt schemes to
address the condition of roads within the Council area.
• £150k to Neighbourhood Services Reserve to support the delivery of
health and safety works in leisure centres.
• £200k to Reshaping Risk and Investment Reserve to provide additional
support to Children and Young people over the summer period.
• £120k to Neighbourhood Services Reserve to support the implementation
of A48 Scheme to improve Road Safety.
(3) T H A T the report be referred to Corporate Performance and Resources
Scrutiny Committee.
Reasons for decisions
(1) To approve the report and the financial measures taken and proposed.
(2) To approve the allocation of the 2022/23 surplus to support the delivery of
schemes supporting key priorities identified by the Council.
Minutes - MS
(3) To enable the Scrutiny Committee responsible for finance to review the year
end position.
C44 CAPITAL CLOSURE OF ACCOUNTS 2022/23 (EL/PR) (SCRUTINY –
ALL) –
The Leader presented the report, the purpose of which was to inform Cabinet of the
provisional financial position of the Council’s Capital Programme for the 2022/23
financial year.
Delivering 98% of the programme before the end of the financial year had been
outstanding and due to the commitment and hard work across all directorates. The
Leader said it was important to recognise the work undertaken to deliver the capital
programme, not only the impact of the continued school building programme but with
work going on to maintain, renovate and update existing Council properties.
Councillor Wilson concurred with the Leader’s comments concerning the teams that
had worked so hard to deliver the capital programme, often under difficult
circumstances. He referred to the successful delivery of the Resource Recovery
Facility and that it was a delight to see it delivered and working.
Councillor John said that the development at Hayes Road that consisted of 19 four-
person two-bedroom houses and 4 five person three-bedroom houses was
extremely good news with further schemes in the pipeline which would make a
difference to people across the Vale.
The Leader also referred to the installation of automatic water meter readers which
gave advanced warning of water leaks on the estate which saved water and money.
Paragraph 2.12 of the report noted the progress made within the Band B Programme
for six of the schools in the Vale with more to come in Cowbridge, St Nicholas, Ysgol
y Deri 2, Iolo Morgannwg and St Richard Gwyn from September onwards.
This was a matter for Executive decision.
Cabinet, having considered the report and all the issues and implications contained
therein
RESOLVED –
(1) T H A T the year end capital position for financial year 2022/23 be noted.
(2) T H A T the additional scheme budgets as set out in Appendix 1 be approved.
(3) T H AT the summary position of the changes in the Capital Programme by
directorate from approval at Council on 7th March, 2022 to 31st March, 2023, as set
out in Appendix 2 be noted.
(4) T H A T the Emergency Power approved in respect of the slippage as set out
in Appendix 3 be noted.
Minutes - MS
(5) T H A T the report be referred to Corporate Performance and Resources
Scrutiny Committee.
Reasons for decisions
(1) To inform Cabinet of the year end capital position for financial year 2022/23.
(2) To inform Cabinet of the additional schemes added to the approved
programme for 2022/23.
(3) To inform Cabinet of the changes to the Approved Capital Programme set on
7th March, 2022.
(4) To advise Cabinet of the approved slippage in the Emergency Powers in the
2022/23 Capital Programme.
(5) To enable the Scrutiny Committee responsible for finance to review the year
end position.
C45 ANNUAL TREASURY MANAGEMENT REPORT 2022/23 (EL/PR)
(SCRUTINY – CORPORATE PERFORMANCE AND RESOURCES) –
The Leader presented the report, the purpose of which was to present the annual
review report on Treasury Management 2022/23.
This was a matter for Executive decision.
Cabinet, having considered the report and all the issues and implications contained
therein
RESOLVED – T H A T the annual report on Treasury Management 2022/23 and that
the report be referred to the Corporate Performance Resources Scrutiny Committee
prior to being referred to Full Council for approval.
Reason for decision
To accept and refer the report to Council.
C46 CORPORATE RESOURCES DIRECTORATE - CAPACITY & WAYS
OF WORKING (EL/PR) (SCRUTINY – CORPORATE PERFORMANCE AND
RESOURCES) –
The Leader presented the report, the purpose of which was to provide an update on
proposals to make changes within the Corporate Resources directorate following the
restructure of the Strategic Leadership Team in 2022 and reflecting the future ways
of working to support the Council.
Minutes - MS
Paragraph 2.5 of the report highlighted that the Authority had been operating without
a Head of Policy and Business Transformation or Operational Manager for
Performance and Policy which had put pressure on other staff and was not a
sustainable situation. Paragraph 2.8 of the report proposed reorganising the
directorate around four key service areas of HR & Organisational Development,
Legal & Democratic Services, Finance & Digital and had no financial implications to
the Authority.
Councillor Sivagnanam stressed the importance of the Vale’s participation and
engagement and equality strategies and that there was no cost implication for the
Authority.
This was a matter for Executive decision.
Cabinet, having considered the report and all the issues and implications contained
therein
RESOLVED –
(1) T H A T the contents of the report be noted.
(2) T H A T the proposals contained in the report be endorsed.
Reasons for decisions
(1) To update Cabinet on the proposals to make changes within the Corporate
Resources directorate.
(2) To enable additional strategic capacity to be created to progress the Council's
digital ambitions and support the Council to deliver its strategic priorities.
C47 DRAFT DIGITAL STRATEGY (EL/PR) (SCRUTINY – CORPORATE
PERFORMANCE AND RESOURCES) –
The Leader presented the report, the purpose of which was to provide Cabinet with
an overview of work undertaken to develop a new draft Digital Strategy and seek
approval to consult on the same before adoption.
Digital innovation was a step change away from where it was prior to the pandemic
where many service users became much more used to accessing services online.
The Strategy would address how digital technology could be used to become more
effective, more active, more accessible, more inclusive, and also more data driven.
There was a fear that some people would be left out because of such changes, but
residents would still be supported by in-person and telephone services.
Councillor Sivagnanam said it was important to recognise that both digital and in
person support services were available, and that demand for digital services had
increased, e.g., 95% of residents in the Vale of Glamorgan digitally completed the
census survey. Data gathered could be used to provide better services to residents.
Minutes - MS
This was a matter for Executive decision.
Cabinet, having considered the report and all the issues and implications contained
therein
RESOLVED –
(1) T H A T the contents of this report be noted.
(2) T H A T the draft Digital Strategy and proposals contained in the report be
endorsed as the basis for wider consultation.
(3) T H A T the report and Appendix A be referred to Corporate Performance &
Resources Scrutiny Committee as part of the consultation process.
(4) T H A T Cabinet receives a further report on conclusion of the consultation
process in order to consider a final Digital Strategy to be adopted.
Reasons for decisions
(1) To update Cabinet on the approach taken to developing the draft Digital
Strategy.
(2) To enable the draft Digital Strategy to be consulted upon.
(3) To enable the Corporate Performance & Resources Scrutiny Committee to
participate in the consultation process.
(4) To enable Cabinet to consider the outcomes of the consultation process and
proposed changes to the draft Digital Strategy and to ensure the Council adopts a
Digital Strategy to provide the framework for digital development in the future.
C48 STRONG COMMUNITIES GRANT FUND 2020-2025 (DL/SP)
(SCRUTINY – CORPORATE PERFORMANCE AND RESOURCES) –
The Deputy Leader presented the report, the purpose of which was to provide
Cabinet with an update on the Strong Communities Grant Fund 2023 -24 and to
seek approval for the award of funding for the fourth round of applications.
Councillor Brooks emphasised the help and support available to a variety of applying
organisations and gave examples of some of the different types of applications that
had been made to the Fund.
The Leader added that bringing funding together in this way had enabled different
organisations from across the Vale of Glamorgan to apply for support for a variety of
different reasons and had proven to be amazingly successful. The Creative
Communities team had developed a high level of expertise in helping organisations
out together effective applications but also assisting with monitoring expenditure.
Minutes - MS
This was a matter for Executive decision.
Cabinet, having considered the report and all the issues and implications contained
therein
RESOLVED –
(1) T H A T grant funding of up to £152,916.58 be approved and the Evaluation
Panel's recommendations as outlined in Appendix A be endorsed.
(2) T H A T the content of the report and Appendices B and C be noted.
Reasons for decisions
(1) To enable Strong Communities Grant Funding to be awarded to submissions
as outlined in Appendix A attached to the report, in line with the Council's
Constitution and the scope of the scheme.
(2) To provide Cabinet with an update on the Strong Communities Grant Fund.
C49 WELSH LANGUAGE STANDARDS ANNUAL MONITORING
REPORT 2022-23 (EAWL) (SCRUTINY – LEARNING AND CULTURE AND
CORPORATE PERFORMANCE AND RESOURCES) –
The Cabinet Member presented the report, the purpose of which was to seek
approval for the Council’s Annual Welsh Monitoring Report and update on 5-year
Promotion Strategy.
Councillor Birch listed matters already in place bilingually including the website that
was available and updated bilingually and would soon include historical pages also,
staff pages enabled staff to view their information on internal news, policies, payslips
etc., the Chief Executive posted a weekly message to staff bilingually,
Communications teams produce material bilingually and the Contact Centre and
Reception at the Civic Offices were able to conduct business in either medium of
English or Welsh. Recruitment and retention of Welsh speakers was a priority and
Welsh language courses for all levels offered during work time and at no cost to
staff, with classes held remotely including members of the community. Welsh
awareness training had also been made available for elected Members as part of
equalities training.
The Leader noted that the Report Owner listed on the report was incorrect, stated as
the Executive Leader and Cabinet Member for Performance and Resources when it
should have been the Cabinet Member for Education, Arts and the Welsh Language.
This was a matter for Executive decision.
Cabinet, having considered the report and all the issues and implications contained
therein
Minutes - MS
RESOLVED –
(1) T H A T the Annual Welsh Monitoring Report for 2022-23 (Appendix 1) and
Update on the Welsh Language Promotional Strategy (Appendix 2) be approved in
principle, subject to consideration by Scrutiny Committee (Learning & Culture and
Corporate Performance & Resources).
(2) T H A T the report and appendices be referred to Learning & Culture and
Corporate Performance & Resources Scrutiny Committees for consideration and if
endorsed by the Committees, that the report be published.
Reasons for decisions
(1) To allow the Council to meet its reporting duty to the Welsh Commissioner as
part of the Welsh Language Standards.
(2) To enable Learning & Culture and Corporate Performance & Resources
Scrutiny Committees to consider the report (and appendices) prior to publication.
C50 DAMP AND MOULD POLICY (NBS) (SCRUTINY – HOMES AND
SAFE COMMUNITIES) –
The Cabinet Member presented the report, the purpose of which was to approve the
Damp and Mould Condensation Policy. Councillor Wilson said there were
management arrangements in place for addressing condensation and damp issues
in residential properties, but the Policy consolidated the detail into a working
document for stakeholders, including residents, Officers and the general public, who
may be concerned or interested in damp and condensation issues within their
properties. He emphasised that Officers in the Housing Department or
Neighbourhood Services Department could help people if there were issues with
damp and mould.
This was a matter for Executive decision.
Cabinet, having considered the report and all the issues and implications contained
therein
RESOLVED – T H A T the Damp and Mould Policy provided at Appendix 1 be
approved.
Reason for decision
To enable the practices set out within the policy to be adopted and practiced.
Minutes - MS
C51 PROPOSED TRAFFIC REGULATION ORDER FOR EXCEPTIONS
TO WALES 20MPH DEFAULT SPEED LIMIT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF
ANCILLARY SPEED LIMITS (NBS) (SCRUTINY – ENVIRONMENT AND
REGENERATION) –
The Cabinet Member presented the report, the purpose of which was to update
Cabinet on the Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) process associated with proposed
exceptions to Wales 20mph Default Speed Limit and proposed ancillary speed limits.
Councillor Wilson said that a similar exercise had taken place in Spain where a
substantial decrease in the number of deaths and serious accidents had occurred
because of the lowering of the speed limit. It was also hoped that the speed
reduction would help to promote sustainable mobility and encourage active travel
options and therefore in the future potentially assist to reduce the number of journeys
by private car.
Councillor John encouraged people to take part in the consultation to express their
views.
The Leader said the consultation was an example of data driving actions and echoed
Councillor John’s encouragement of people taking part in the consultation to express
their views. She said that speed reductions would make it safer for pedestrians and
cyclists, near schools and would not add a lot of time to average journeys around the
Vale of Glamorgan.
This was a matter for Executive decision.
Cabinet, having considered the report and all the issues and implications contained
therein
RESOLVED –
(1) T H A T the public consultation for the proposed Traffic Regulation Order
(TRO) associated with exceptions to Wales 20mph Default Speed Limit and
proposed ancillary speed limits which commenced on 22nd June, 2023 be noted.
(2) T H A T the report be referred to the Environment and Regeneration Scrutiny
Committee for consideration.
(3) T H A T Cabinet be provided with a further report on this matter to consider
the responses and comments received during the public consultation period and
make a final decision on the implementation of the proposed TRO.
Reasons for decisions
(1) To advise Cabinet of the proposed TRO and public consultation process.
(2) To ensure that the views of the Scrutiny Committee are considered prior to a
future decision being taken by Cabinet on the proposed TRO.
Minutes - MS
(3) To confirm the Council’s position in respect of any objections that may be
made to the Order.
C52 VALE, VALLEYS & CARDIFF ADOPTION COLLABORATIVE
AGREEMENT (SCH) (SCRUTINY – HEALTHY LIVING AND SOCIAL CARE) –
The Cabinet Member presented the report, the purpose of which was to agree to
enter into a new Collaborative Agreement, a copy of which was appended to the
report, between Vale of Glamorgan Council, The County Council of the City and
County of Cardiff, Rhondda Cynon Taf County Borough Council and Merthyr Tydfil
County Borough Council.
This was a matter for Executive decision.
Cabinet, having considered the report and all the issues and implications contained
therein
RESOLVED –
(1) T H A T a new Collaborative Agreement be entered into between the Vale of
Glamorgan Council, the County Council of the City and County of Cardiff, Rhondda
Cynon Taf County Borough Council and Merthyr Tydfil County Borough Council to
commence on 1st June, 2023.
(2) T H A T authority be delegated to the Monitoring Officer/Head of Legal and
Democratic Services to agree and execute the Collaborative Agreement and future
variations to the Agreement.
Reasons for decisions
(1) To provide a governance framework which ensured the continued operation
and delivery of the Collaborative and outlined the responsibilities of partners.
(2) To bring the Collaborative arrangements into line with current practice and
requirements.
Minutes - MS
RESOLVED – T H A T dispensations as set out in the schedule below be granted up
to the date of the next Local Government Elections:
Member Requesting Paragraph(s) of Decision
Dispensation the Standards
Committee (Grant
of Dispensations)
(Wales)
Regulations
2001 Under Which
Dispensation is
Granted and as
applied for
Councillor G. John (d) and (f) To speak and vote
at Vale of Glamorgan
Council and Llantwit Major
Town Council meetings
when matters concerning
Llantwit Major Royal British
Legion are being
considered
Councillor L. Green (d), (e) and (i) To speak only at meetings
of Llanmaes Community
Council when matters
relating to the neighbour’s
field are discussed in
respect of the replacement
Local Development Plan
and its updates/
consultations.
Councillor H. Payne (c, d, f and (h) To speak only at Vale of
Glamorgan Council
meetings when matters
regarding housing and
homelessness are
discussed relating to
finance and property given
the Councillors role for
Llanmau.
Reason for decisions
To comply with the regulations and obligations for the grant of dispensations to
speak and vote.
No.
RESOLVED – T H A T in pursuance of the powers delegated to the Committee, the
following application be determined as indicated and any other necessary action be
taken.
2022/00602/RES Received on 12 May 2022
(P24)
APPLICANT: Wales and West Housing Association, c/o Agent,
AGENT: Gwen Thomas Unit 9, Oak Tree Court, Cardiff Gate Business Park, Cardiff,
CF23 8RS
Land at Heol y Pentir, Rhoose
Proposed Reserved Matters application for residential development and associated
works.
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 – 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.
2020/00775/OUT Received on 28 July 2022
(P. 28)
APPLICANT: JG Hale Construction Ltd, Hafod HA, and Lynwood Inv.
AGENT: Michael Rees 22, Cathedral Road, Cardiff, CF11 9LJ
Former Railway Sidings, Ffordd y Mileniwm, Barry
Residential development at the former sidings, Ffordd y Mileniwm along with
associated infrastructure and open space
RESOLVED – T H A T subject to the interested person(s) first entering into a Section
106 Legal Agreement to include the following necessary planning obligations:
In the event that the residential units are delivered as affordable housing by Hafod
Housing (the applicant), or otherwise delivered by the Vale of Glamorgan Council or
its other Housing Association Partners (Newydd Housing, United Welsh Housing or
Wales & West Housing):
• The developer pays £82,494 for the provision or enhancement of educational
facilities in schools serving the development for Secondary school children.
• The developer pays a contribution of £71,300 towards sustainable transport
facilities in the vicinity of the site.
• The developer provides public art on the site to the value of 1% of the build
costs or otherwise pays a contribution to the same value to the Council.
• The developer pays a contribution of £54,587 towards providing or enhancing
public open space (outdoor sports facilities) in the vicinity of the site.
• The developer pays a contribution of £39,060 towards community facilities in
the vicinity of the site.
OR
No.
In the event that the residential units are delivered by any other provider:
• The developer pays £167,313 for the provision or enhancement of
educational facilities in schools serving the development for Secondary school
children.
• The developer pays a contribution of £128,800 towards sustainable transport
facilities in the vicinity of the site.
• The developer provides public art on the site to the value of 1% of the build
costs or otherwise pays a contribution to the same value to the Council.
• The developer pays a contribution of £98,209 towards providing or enhancing
public open space (outdoor sports facilities) in the vicinity of the site.
• The developer pays a contribution of £70,560 towards community facilities in
the vicinity of the site.
AND
• The developer pays the legal and implementation / monitoring fees for the
S106 agreement.
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.
2020/01590/HYB Received on 25 January 2021
(P. 68)
APPLICANT: Mr. Ken Thomas Newbridge Construction Limited, C/o Agent
AGENT: Mark Roberts Studio 117, The Creative Quarter, 8a, Morgan Arcade,
Cardiff, CF10 1AF
Land South of Llandough Hill and Penarth Road, Llandough
Hybrid application comprising an outline application for residential development and
a full application for the means of access into the site, provision of a spine road,
drainage, engineering and infrastructure works (revised viability information
received)
RESOLVED – T H A T, subject to the interested person(s) first entering into a
Section 106 Legal Agreement to include the following necessary planning
obligations:
• The provision of 15% affordable housing based on a ratio of 60% social
rented units and 40% low cost home ownership units;
• A contribution towards the provision of school places of £520,470;
No.
• The provision of the play area as public open space and a management plan
for this;
• The submission of a viability review upon the submission of the first reserved
matters application, if the mix differs from the following:
− 59 no. 1 bedroom flats
− 41 no. 2 bedroom flats
− 14 no. 3 bedroom houses
− 19 no. 4 bedroom houses
• The submission of a viability review should the development not be complete
within 3 years of the approval of the first reserved matters.
Separate to any obligation, the payment of an administration fee of £10,409 (2% of
the financial contribution sought), to cover the Council’s costs to negotiate, monitor
and implement the terms of the necessary Section 106 agreement.
APPROVED – Subject to the conditions as contained within the report and the
amended conditions 5 and 39 as below:
Amend condition 5 as follows:
The development shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved
plans and documents:
PL_10 Site Location Plan (received 31st December 2020)
DP rev P2 Design Principles (received 23rd June 2021)
PP02 Rev P2 Parameter Plan- Land Use (received 28th May 2021)
PP03 Rev P2 Parameter Plan- Scale (received 28th May 2021)
PP04 Rev P2 Parameter Plan- Green Infrastructure (received 28th May 2021)
PP05 Rev P1 Parameter Plan- Density (received 31st December 2020)
PP06 Rev P2 Parameter Plan- Access (received 28th May 2021)
Sections 4.1-4.4 of the document titled “Land at Llandough Hill, VOG Phase 2
Ecology Report”, prepared by Soltys Brewster Ecology, dated 15th December 2020
(received 31st December 2020)
Flood Consequences Assessment and Drainage Statement, prepared by Stuart
Michael Associates, November 2021 (Issue 02) (received 3 rd February 2022)
Drainage Technical Note, prepared by Stuart Michael Associates, dated
14th October 2022 (received 18th October 2022)
Reason:
For the avoidance of doubt as to the approved development and to accord with
Circular 016:2014 on The Use of Planning Conditions for Development
Management.
Amend condition 39 as follows:
The development shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved
plans and documents:
PL_10 Site Location Plan (received 31st December 2020)
No.
PP-01 Rev P1 Parameter Plan- Detailed App. (received 31st December 2020)
PP04 Rev P2 Parameter Plan- Green Infrastructure (received 28th May 2021)
6245.010 Site Access Road Scheme Layout (received 31st December 2020)
6245.011 Site Access Road Vertical Profiles (received 31st December 2020)
6245.012 Site Access Road Proposed Levels and Contours (received 31st December
2020)
6245.013 Site Access Road Cross Sections (received 31st December 2020)
6245.014 Site Access Road Pavement Finishes and Kerb Types (received
31st December 2020)
6245.15 Site Access Road Construction Details (received 31st December 2020)
6245.SK06 Rev I Alternative Site Access Road General Arrangement and
Development Plateaus (received 31st December 2020)
Sections 4.1-4.4 of the document titled “Land at Llandough Hill, VOG Phase 2
Ecology Report”, prepared by Soltys Brewster Ecology, dated 15th December 2020
(received 31st December 2020)
Flood Consequences Assessment and Drainage Statement, prepared by Stuart
Michael Associates, November 2021 (Issue 02) (received 3 rd February 2022)
Drainage Technical Note, prepared by Stuart Michael Associates, dated
14th October 2022 (received 18th October 2022)
other than where amended by condition 64 for the provision of the road layout being
shown as constructed up to and adjoining the south east boundary of the application
site with the reservoir site (to an adoptable standard).
Reason:
For the avoidance of doubt as to the approved development and to accord with
Circular 016:2014 on The Use of Planning Conditions for Development
Management.
Reason for decision
Having regard to the content of the report and discussions at the meeting.
2022/00268/FUL Received on 16 June 2022
(P. 152)
APPLICANT: McQuade C/O Agent, CF11 9HA
AGENT: David Thomas, Temple Court, 13A Cathedral Road, Cardiff, CF11 9HA
Sunbeams, Twyncyn, Dinas Powys
Conversion of existing property to four apartments. Proposed ground and first floor
extensions with glazed balcony to the front and Juliette balcony to the rear, raise
roofline incorporating front and rear gables
RESOLVED – T H A T subject to the applicant entering into a Section 106
Agreement for the following and subject to the following conditions:
In the event any of the flats are not Practically Complete on the trigger date, being 2
No.
years following the date of planning permission being granted, the owner will submit
an updated viability appraisal to the council, or should the planning permission have
not been implemented at this point, prior to the commencement of development.
Should the appraisal demonstrate that an affordable housing contribution is viable, a
contribution not exceeding £82,893.60 shall be paid towards the provision of
affordable housing.
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.
2022/01113/RG3 Received on 12 October 2022
(P. 189)
APPLICANT: 21st Century Schools Programme Manager Civic Offices, Holton
Road, Barry, CF63 4RU
AGENT: Mr Mark Farrar The Creative Quarter, 8a Morgan Arcade, Cardiff,
CF10 1AF
Land at Lower Cosmeston Farm, Lavernock
Proposed new specialised school and associated access, landscape, and
engineering works.
APPROVED – Subject to Welsh Government notifying the Council that the
application would not be called in by the Welsh Ministers and 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 – T H A T the use of the Urgent Decision Procedure (Cabinet Minute
No. C158, 1st December, 2022 (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.
COUNCIL TAX BASE: 2023/24 (REF)
RESOLVED – T H A T the use of the Urgent Decision Procedure (Cabinet Minute
No. C168, 15th December, 2022 (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.
FINAL HOUSING REVENUE ACCOUNT (HRA) BUDGET PROPOSALS AND 2023/24 AND RENT SETTING 2023/2024 (REF)
RESOLVED – T H A T the use of the Urgent Decision Procedure (Cabinet Minute
No. C176, 5th January, 2023 (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.
PROPOSAL TO TRANSFER SPECIALIST RESOURCE BASE AT LLANDOUGH PRIMARY TO YSGOL Y DDRAIG (REF)
RESOLVED – T H A T the use of the Urgent Decision Procedure (Cabinet Minute
No. C177, 5th January, 2023 (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.
BUDGET 2023/24 FOR CONSULTATION AND FURTHER MTFP UPDATE (REF)
RESOLVED – T H A T the use of the Urgent Decision Procedure (Cabinet Minute
No. C189, 19th January, 2023 (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.
DRAFT TRANSGENDER INCLUSION TOOLKIT AND GUIDANCE DOCUMENT FOR SCHOOLS AND OTHER SETTINGS (REF)
RESOLVED – T H A T the use of the Urgent Decision Procedure (Cabinet Minute
No. C193, 19th January, 2023 (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.
THE COUNCIL’S RESPONSE TO THE WELSH GOVERNMENT CONSULTATION: ELECTORAL ADMINISTRATION AND REFORM WHITE PAPER (REF)
RESOLVED – T H A T the use of the Urgent Decision Procedure (Cabinet Minute
No. C200, 19th January, 2023 (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.
DRAFT VALE OF GLAMORGAN COUNCIL ANNUAL DELIVERY PLAN 2023-24 (REF)
RESOLVED – T H A T the use of the Urgent Decision Procedure (Cabinet Minute
No. C226, 16th February, 2023 (as set out in Section 15.14.2(ii) of the Council’s
Constitution) be noted.
Reason for decision
The reporting of the use of the Urgent Decision Procedure is a requirement of the
Council’s Constitution.
RESOLVED – T H A T the Housing Revenue Account Business Plan 2023/53
attached to the report to Cabinet on 2nd February, 2023 (Min. No. C215) be
approved and submitted to Welsh Government.
Reason for decision
To enable the submission of the above Plan to Welsh Government by the
required deadline of 31st March, 2023.
COUNCIL TAX UNOCCUPIED DWELLINGS: 2023/24 (REF)
The Leader presented the reference, the purpose of which was to reaffirm the
previous decision not to grant any discount in Council Tax for empty properties
and furnished second homes for the 2023/24 financial year.
The report proposed that the Council consulted on the levying of a Council Tax
premium in 2023/24 in respect of long-term empty properties and in 2024/25 in
respect of second homes. This was in line with the Council’s objective to
increase the supply of housing in the Vale of Glamorgan. The headline annual
need for affordable housing in the Vale of Glamorgan from 2021 to 2026 was
1,205 dwellings.
The Leader outlined both proposals, the first being the charging of premiums on
long term empty properties (over 12 months) from 2023/24 financial year and
second homes from 2024/25 financial year. She also reminded Members that
the Council had published its Empty Homes Strategy in March 2020 the findings
indicating that quality rented homes were becoming increasingly difficult to find
coupled with increasing prices incentivising landlords to sell and the ever
widening gap between local housing allowance rents and market rents. This
created a shortage of housing and in terms of underlying need and there was an
obvious financial benefit to the Council in introducing premiums which in part
could contribute to greater engagement and enforcement work. She also
alluded to the 528 long term empty properties and 402 second homes in the
county. She considered that empty homes were a drain on the Council’s overall
resources and the exemptions meant that the properties affected will be lower
than 930 in total. She reminded Members that the Council had consulted on the
proposals and 385 responses had been received of around 56% were against
the proposals however, just over 40% were in favour of charging a premium at
some level.
Councillor Dr. Johnson referred to his comments made at previous Council
meetings in regard to the slowness of the Council to charge the premium and
was pleased to see it now being put forward. He considered there were obvious
benefits which would encourage bringing empty homes into useful use.
Referring to the proposals of Cabinet in terms of its recommendations,
Councillor Dr. Johnson sought clarification from the Leader as to how the
premiums would be agreed beyond the current fixed stepped increase beyond
the period set out in the report as he understood it from the legislation, this
would require an annual consultation on either or both of the premiums in future
years ahead. He also sought clarification as to whether the Chief Executive and
the Leader would be reviewing the premiums and setting these under the
delegated authority if granted.
Councillor Mahoney referring to the proposals shared concerns regarding empty
homes which he felt blighted communities. However, he considered the
proposals to be an infringement on civil rights and was of a concern to him as he
did not see it was the Council’s responsibility to dictate to individuals regarding
the use of their property. He was also concerned that the Council was again
ignoring the response of the public consultation exercise not for the first time
and he had significant reservations regarding this matter.
The Leader, referring to the comments made by Councillor Dr. Johnson,
indicated that the recommendations before Council were to provide a
reassurance to Members that any review of charges or to change premiums
would be brought back to Cabinet and Council for decision and this would also
allow the Council to be able to benchmark against other Councils to see how
well the initiative worked.
In terms of the comments made by Councillor Mahoney, the Leader indicated
that she had no problem with people owning two homes or more. However,
they had to be in productive use and if they were not they should be prepared to
pay an additional contribution and that was the purpose of establishing the
policy.
RESOLVED –
(1) T H A T the following Council Tax premiums be approved:
• A 100% Council Tax premium be levied in 2023/24 in respect of long-
term empty properties, a 150% premium in 2024/25 and a 200%
premium in 2025/26.
• A 100% Council Tax premium be levied in 2024/25 in respect of
second homes.
(2) T H A T delegated authority be granted to the Head of Finance to
implement the changes and to notify the owners of all affected properties.
(3) T H A T delegated authority be granted to the Head of Finance to
determine applications for an exception under the regulations as set out in
paragraph 5.5 of the report (see Cabinet report 16th February, 2023.)
(4) T H A T the Chief Executive and Leader review those premiums in future
years and bring changes to Cabinet and Council for approval as appropriate.
Reasons for decisions
(1) The Council was required to determine its policy on the introduction of
premiums in respect of second homes and 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.
(2) To ensure that all customers impacted by the introduction of premiums
were aware of the changes.
(3) To ensure arrangements were put in place to consider exceptions.
(4) To ensure premiums levied were kept under review as appropriate.
(N.B. Councillors Buckley, Campbell, Charles, Driscoll and Haines
withdrew from the meeting during consideration of this item.)
DRAFT VALE OF GLAMORGAN COUNCIL ANNUAL DELIVERY PLAN 2023-24 (REF)
Cabinet had considered the report on 16th February, 2023 (Minute No. C226
refers) together with the reference from Corporate Performance and Resources
Scrutiny Committee, and had referred the same to Council for consideration and
approval.
The report set out how the draft Annual Delivery Plan (the Plan) 2023-24
(Appendix A to the report) had been developed, the outcome of the consultation
and the subsequent changes to the Plan, which detailed the activities that would
be undertaken in 2023-24 to deliver those objectives. The Plan also detailed
three critical challenges which would be a key focus for the organisation in
2023-24, these being cost of living, Project Zero and organisational resilience.
The Council’s four Well-being Objectives provided the framework for the Annual
Delivery Plan 2023-24.
The commitments within the Annual Delivery Plan would be reflected in Annual
Service Plans together with a suite of performance measures which would detail
how different Council services would contribute to the delivery of the Council’s
four Well-being Objectives.
Publishing the Council’s Well-being Objectives at the start of the financial year
would enable it to meet its statutory obligations under the performance duties of
the Local Government and Election (Wales) Act 2021 and the Well-being of
Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015, both of which placed specific duties on
the Council in relation to objective setting and reporting. Under the Well-being
of Future Generations (Wales) Act, the Council was required to publish its Well-
being Objectives by 31st March each year and to keep these under review.
RESOLVED – T H A T the Draft Vale of Glamorgan Council Annual Delivery
Plan 2023-24, as attached at Appendix A to the report to Cabinet on 16th
February, 2023 (Minute No. C226) be approved.
Reason for decision
Having regard to the contents of the report and discussions at the meeting.
CAPITAL STRATEGY 2023/24 AND FINAL CAPITAL PROGRAMME PROPOSALS 2023/24 TO 2027/28 (REF)
The Leader, in presenting the report advised that the report had been
considered by Cabinet at its meeting on 27th February, 2023 (Minute No. C236
refers) and provided the Council's Capital Strategy for 2023/24 at Appendix 1.
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 2023/24 to 2027/28 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
£345m. This included £41m for the Band B Sustainable Communities for
Learning Programme (excluding the pipeline schemes) and £167m for the
Housing Improvement Programme.
Since the Draft Capital Programme proposals reported in January, a number of
changes had been made including the re-profile of the Sustainable Learning
Communities schemes, inclusion of the School Maintenance Grant, the inclusion
of two pipeline schemes, (as referred to at Appendix 2 to this report, in relation
to St. Richard Gwyn Redevelopment and Cowbridge Primary Phase 2 and
worked on two Leisure Centre boilers at Llantwit Major and Cowbridge.
Councillor Franks indicated to Members that it was worth considering in the
financial year 2021/2022 there had been slippage in the amount of £11.5m and
in the current financial year there was a minimum of £8m and therefore he felt
that the Administration’s track record on fulfilling the Council’s Capital Budget
had not been good. He highlighted that of the £88.2m which was in the budget
for the current year only £42.7m would be spent by the end of January with the
£8m of slippage likely to grow further. He felt that these figures highlighted that
residents in the Vale of Glamorgan had been badly let down by the
Administration and was only one area where there had been a failure to invest
funding in social housing. He also referred to the fact that he had challenged a
statement that work had been continuing at the Hayes Road site and despite
promises that the matter would be investigated he had not received any further
information on progress of the site to date. He also touched on other schemes
which had underspent or either had slipped. He also felt that schools had been
badly let down as maintenance had not been carried out and he also highlighted
the condition of roads and pavements and queried why the Council had not
allocated additional funding to improve matters. In concluding, he felt that the
proposed budget was not credible and that the Administration was failing its
communities.
There being no further comments it was subsequently,
RESOLVED –
(1) T H A T the Capital Strategy 2023/24 as set out in Appendix 1 to the
report to Cabinet on 27th February, 2023, be approved.
(2) T H A T the final Capital Programme for the years 2023/24 to 2027/28 as
set out in Appendix 2 to the report to Cabinet on 27th February, 2023, be
approved.
(3) T H A T the Chief Executive and the Head of Finance, in consultation with
the Cabinet Member for Performance and Resources, be granted delegated
authority to make additions, deletions or transfers to or from the 2023/24 to
2027/28 Housing Improvement Programme as appropriate.
(4) T H A T the Chief Executive and the Head of Finance, in consultation with
the Cabinet Member for Performance and Resources, be granted delegated
authority to make additions, deletions or transfers to or from the 2023/24 to
2027/28 Asset Renewal budgets as appropriate.
(5) T H A T the Chief Executive and the Head of Finance, in consultation with
the Cabinet Member for Performance and Resources, be granted delegated
authority to make additions, deletions or transfers to S106 funded schemes
subject to Member consultation as required under the existing process.
(6) T H A T the Chief Executive and the Head of Finance, in consultation with
the Cabinet Member for Performance and Resources, be granted delegated
authority to make additions, deletions or transfers to or from Energy
Management Schemes.
(7) T H A T the Chief Executive and the Head of Finance, in consultation with
the Cabinet Member for Performance and Resources, be granted delegated
authority to make additions, deletions or transfers to or from the Building Strong
Communities Fund schemes.
(8) T H A T the Chief Executive and the Head of Finance, in consultation with
the Cabinet Member for Performance and Resources, be granted delegated
authority to make additions, deletions or transfers to or from the Sustainable
Communities for Learning Band B programme (Previously 21st Century Schools
schemes).
Reasons for decisions
(1) To approve the Capital Strategy for 2023/24.
(2) To set and approve future Capital Programmes to 2027/28.
(3) To enable the Housing Capital budget to be managed effectively.
(4) To enable the Asset Renewal budgets to be managed effectively.
(5) To enable S106 schemes to be managed effectively.
(6) To enable the Energy Management Schemes to be managed effectively.
(7) To enable the Building Stronger Communities Fund to be managed
effectively.
(8) To enable the Sustainable Communities for Learning Band B programme
to be managed effectively.
TREASURY MANAGEMENT AND INVESTMENT STRATEGY 2023/24 AND UPDATE 202223 (REF)
The report, which had been considered by Cabinet on 27th February, 2023
(Minute No. C237 refers) provided an update on the Council’s Treasury
Management operations for the period 1st April to 31st December, 2022. All
activities were in accordance with the Council’s approved strategy on Treasury
Management. Details of monies borrowed and repaid and those invested were
outlined in the report.
The report presented the proposed 2023/24 Treasury Management and
Investment Strategy at Appendix 1.
The Council needed to ensure that the Prudential Code was complied with,
which had been developed by CIPFA as a professional code of practice and
recently revised in December 2021. To demonstrate the Council had fulfilled
these objectives, the Code set out prudential indicators that should be used and
the factors that had to be considered. These were shown in Appendix 1 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 into consideration when
developing the Strategy.
New Borrowing in the period was expected to be £127m for new Capital
Expenditure and a further £24m of borrowing to replace maturing loans and
reflected 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 2023/24 was attached at
Appendix 2 to the report.
The Council was required to keep its Treasury Management Practices (attached
at Appendix 3 to the report) up to date and these procedures for management of
Treasury Management processes were kept under regular review by the team.
The Leader confirmed that there were 12 management practices that the
Council was required to address and these were set out in the Appendix. The
Council’s Treasury Management Practices had been compiled in line with the
Treasury Management in the Public Services: Code of Practice and Cross-
Sectional Guidance Notes (2021 edition). These had been written in
conjunction with the Council’s Treasury Management Policy Statement (TMPS)
and Investment Strategy for 2023/24. The TMPS set out the way the Council
would seek to achieve its Treasury Management Policies and objectives and
how it would manage and control those activities. She reminded all Members
that the Financial Management Code was the collective responsibility of all
Elected Members.
Councillor Champion referred to a recent report that had been submitted to the
Welsh Church Act Estate Committee which had led to a request to officers to
investigate investing in green funds and to move away from fossil fuel
companies. He acknowledged that it may not get the best return by investing in
these companies, but the Council needed to demonstrate that it was moving
towards this.
Councillor Dr. Johnson referred to the recent and important training provided on
Treasury Management and acknowledged that the subject matter was not easy
to understand. He was pleased to see, for the first time since he had been a
Member of the Council, investment income being received as previously this
had been limited. Referring to Councillor Champion’s comments, it was his
understanding from the training that much of the Council’s income and
investments was linked to the Council’s risk appetite and therefore investments
were generally made to organisations that had high credit rating given that the
funds invested were tax payers’ money. He alluded to recent revenue forecast
reported where income was likely to be £75k in the next financial year, but the
most fundamental part of the Council’s Treasury Management Strategy was to
hold tax payers’ money safely and that it could be used when the Council
required it.
The Leader, in response, indicated that it was a matter of balancing the need to
get a return on investments against the likely risk to that investment. She was
glad to see that the Council was getting a return on its investments, but
acknowledged that she would like to see the Strategy be as ethical as possible.
She hoped that Members would become more engaged in how the Council
developed its Strategy on its investments, what the Council was doing with
those investments and how it would benefit local residents.
RESOLVED –
(1) T H A T the policy for making Minimum Revenue Provision in 2023/24 be
approved.
(2) T H A T the proposed 2023/24 Treasury Management and Investment
Strategy, including the following specific resolution (detailed in Appendix 1 to the
report), be approved:
• The Authorised Limit for External Debt be set at £225.439m for
2022/23, £247.141m for 2023/24, £276.773m for 2024/25 and
£305.927m for 2025/26
• The Operational Boundary for External Debt be set at £212.292m for
2022/23, £234.021m for 2023/24, £263.349m for 2024/25 and
£292.295m for 2025/26.
• The Section 151 Officer be given 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 £10m for 2022/23, £10m for 2023/24, £10m in
2024/25 and £10m in 2025/26 is set for total principal sums invested
for over 364 days.
• The amount of projected borrowing that is fixed rate maturing in each
period as a percentage of total projected borrowing that is fixed rate
for 2023/24 be set as:
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%
• T H A T the Prudential Indicators set out in Appendix 1 to the report
to Cabinet on 27th February, 2023, be approved.
• T H A T the Treasury Management Policy Statement set out in
Appendix 2 to the report to Cabinet on 27th February, 2023, be
approved.
Reasons for decisions
(1) To agree the basis of the Minimum Revenue Provision calculation for
2023/24.
(2) The Treasury Management and Annual Investment Strategy is prepared
as required by the Local Government Act 2003.
FINAL BUDGET 2023/24 AND MEDIUM TERM FINANCIAL PLAN (MTFP) 2023/24 TO 2028/29 (REF)
The Council was facing significant demographic and inflationary pressures in
2023/24 and into the medium term. Cabinet had approved the Financial
Strategy and update of the Medium Term Financial Plan in October, at which
time there was a funding gap of £28m in 2023/24 and £50m across the Medium
Term.
Officers reviewed those pressures and funding assumptions in light of the
Chancellor’s Budget in November and the Welsh Government Settlement
announcement on Tuesday, 13th December, 2022. Pressures had been
managed downwards with few of the investment proposals from October 2022
taken forwards which then stood at £1.010m, but managing the inflationary
pressures down was more challenging and it was determined appropriate to
support the utility based pressures through the temporary use of reserves in the
expectation that prices did reduce over the longer term.
There was better than expected news in the Settlement. £227m was made
available across Wales over and above the 3.5% commitment in last year’s
settlement.
Consequently, the Council faced a reduced funding gap of £9.255m and
following the approval of Cabinet on 19th January, 2023 consulted on a savings
package of £6.055m after the one off use of reserves of £3.2m.
Pressures and funding had continued to be reviewed alongside comments from
the Scrutiny Committees and public and wider consultation. There had been
further grants received to support Homelessness alongside a recognition of the
need to make greater provision for pay awards.
There was a proposed increase in Council Tax of 4.9%. For a Band D property
this was the equivalent of £1.32 per week and maintained Council Tax at the
mean of Welsh Authorities.
There was a £7.378m savings and efficiencies programme for which Equality
Impact Assessments had been undertaken, tracking and management
arrangements had already been put in place to ensure delivery.
As part of the budget deliberations there had been a fundamental review of the
Council’s reserves. The reserves had been realigned with the Council’s overall
objectives and risks and had been streamlined to provide greater transparency
and ease of management.
The comments from the public consultation and scrutiny review of the January
Budget for consultation had been considered in formulating the final proposals.
The Section 151 Officer had assessed the robustness of estimates and
adequacy of reserves and was satisfied with both.
A supplementary report was presented to Council following the receipt of the
Final Settlement from Welsh Government published on 28th February, 2023.
The Vale of Glamorgan’s Final Settlement was £202.797, this was an increase
of £16.782m in the Aggregate External Finance (AEF), providing an additional
£0.178m compared to the Provisional Settlement announced on 14th December,
2022.
The overall impact was on the funding side of the budget only with a £0.178m
increase in the AEF and a £0.178m reduction in Council Tax through a revision
downwards of the income assumed from the premiums on Council Tax for long
term empty properties.
The Leader reminded Members that the Council was legally required to agree a
balanced budget and how that was achieved depended upon the outcome of the
debate on the budget. She reminded Members of the challenges detailed in the
report previously considered by the Cabinet and Scrutiny Committees and
reiterated that it had been a particularly difficult budget round, there had been a
huge amount of uncertainty given the challenging economic climate and it made
it difficult to financially plan especially, when taking into consideration the last
Autumn and setting a financial strategy during the chaos caused by the mini
fiscal event by the U.K. government. In all the Council was facing a £28m
funding gap. The Leader also reminded Members, that as reported in January,
the provisional settlement in December 2022 was much better than expected,
but there still remained a sizeable gap. It had been necessary to manage a
number of priorities to bring forward a balanced budget. This included notional
funding for social care and schools which were uplifted by 5.1% and 7.0%
respectively by Welsh Government. The Council was being totally transparent
with the level of pressures faced in these services and referred to, for example,
in relation to social care there was an additional £8m within the budget,
significantly over the Government uplift to ensure that the Council could
commission to necessary domiciliary care with the needs of the residential care
sector that was experiencing similar inflationary pressures to the Council. In
regard to schools an extra £10.4m, a rise of in excess of 9% had been included
in the budget recognising all of the inflationary costs being faced, but accepted
that there would still need to be some efficiencies. She also felt that it was also
important to have regard to the fact that the Council’s Council Tax level was
below the average for Wales and the 4.9% proposed increase would see that
position maintained, particularly given that some Welsh authorities were setting
increases of 2 or 3 points higher. There had also been a difficult choice to be
made in identifying a savings package of £4.6m, but the Council was taking the
right action. Fees and charges had to go up in line with rising costs and it was
therefore essential that the Council covered its own costs.
The Leader’s attention then turned to the question of the use of Council
reserves and highlighted that there had been a fundamental review of the
Council’s reserves. She felt it was important to note that these had been
reduced as a result of inflation impacting on the Council’s investments.
Pressures remained and therefore it was likely that reserves may have to be
used over the next financial year.
In concluding, she referred to the various appendices attached to the report,
Appendix D related to reserves, Appendix E included an appraisal of the Section
151 Officer of estimates and reserves, Appendix F referred to the budget
consultation outcome and Appendix G related to the Equality Impact
Assessment. She thanked all those Members who had contributed to the
budget consultation exercise and in particular thanked the Council’s finance
officers for preparing the reports.
The Leader moved the following Motion:
(1) That the Final Budget be updated in recognition that the Final Aggregate
External Finance figure had increased to £202.797m which was an increase of
£16.782m and an improvement on the £6.604m Provisional Settlement figure
contained in the report published on 28th February, 2023 as set out in the
Supplementary Report circulated prior to the meeting.
(2) That a Council Tax increase of 4.9% be approved.
(3) That the Budget for 2023/24 be approved.
This was duly seconded by the Deputy Leader.
Councillor Carroll indicated that the setting of the budget was the single most
important decision that the Authority would take in each year. Therefore, he
considered it outrageous that the meeting was being held remotely when the
meeting should be held in person discussing the matter in the Council Chamber.
He considered it a failure of leadership on the part of the Administration that he
was unable to do so. He did not consider the failure in leadership to be
contained to this matter. When looking at the budget there were a number of
other examples. He found it unacceptable that the Administration was
proposing an increase in Council Tax by 4.9%, but at the same time cutting
services. He cited examples such as black bag collections moving to a three
weekly cycle, fees to be introduced for garden waste collection service and
other examples of fees and charges increasing. He was particularly concerned
regarding the levels of reserves that the Council held referring to the Council’s
General Reserve being at £11m. Acknowledging that the Council required
reserves he was disputing the level of those reserves held when taking account
of levels of reserves held by neighbouring Authorities.
In the context of reserves held by the Council he considered that the proposed
Council Tax rise was not necessary and the Council could freeze Council Tax
for the forthcoming financial year with the cost being borne by the Council from
its General Reserves.
Councillor Carroll moved the following amendment:
That £4.239m be taken out of the Council’s General Reserve to freeze Council
Tax for 2023/24.
This was duly seconded by Councillor Charles.
Councillor Dr. Johnson responding to the amendment felt that it was fair that
nobody would take the Conservatives seriously on financial matters they put
forward. He was concerned that the proposed amendment had been costed
only in the sense that there was some money available, but did not inform
Members what would happen in the future and consequently not a particularly
sensible way of discussing the matter. He considered the amendment nothing
more than grandstanding. It was his view that the Conservatives were
particularly problematic given the fiscal event which crashed the economy in the
Autumn 2022 and beyond that the slow strangulation of public services which
had taken place over the last decade. Having been a Councillor elected to the
Council for 11 years he had seen in that time the hollowing out of public services
through underfunding as part of austerity, the uncertainty brought about by the
economic disaster or Brexit, all of which had fed into the current cost of living
crisis. Whilst the Conservative Party had been in power at Westminster, the
Labour Party had also been responsible, in his opinion, having spent two thirds
of his life with a Tory Government that Wales did not elect and a Labour Party
that propped up the Conservative Government by wedding themselves to the
constitutional system of unionism, this meant that the Conservative Party were
in charge more often than not. This had led to budgets being decreased and
underfunding leading to substandard services for ordinary people in Wales at
the same time the cost of local services had been transferred from central
Government to tax payers and this had resulted in above inflation Council Tax
increase over the past decade and were paying more for fewer services. The
proposed Council Tax rise was low within the context of inflation and in the
middle across Wales, but it was clear that most households would get less
services than in previous years. He was also concerned about proposals to
introduce charges for garden waste, Council house rents that had risen on
average by £300 and the intention to move to a three week black bag collection
service. He signalled that he could not support the amendment proposed by the
Conservatives as it was unfunded and unexplained.
Councillor John considered that the Conservative Group had been asleep since
last Autumn Budget which had left the U.K. in a mess. He thanked the Chief
Executive and officers for their efforts to reduce the likely impact of the
economic challenges faced by the Council as without their intervention the
Council could have been facing an increase similar to that of Conwy of 9.9%.
He also reminded Members that the Council was currently 15th out of 22
Authorities that would be setting its Council Tax at 4.9% and considered the
amendment to be disrespectful to the Council’s Management Team who had
brought the budget together with the Members on the Cabinet during a very
worrying time. He accepted that nobody liked to pay Council Tax, but it was the
only solution to allow the Council to set a balanced budget and he indicated that
he would not be supporting the amendment.
Councillor Haines referring to the previous comments felt that some Members
had not noticed how the Vale of Glamorgan had deteriorated in previous years
and felt that the Labour Administration had hit residents doubly by increasing
Council Tax but at the same time cutting services. He did not see any reason
why the Council held excessive reserves to a greater extent than similar
Authorities in Wales. The Council could reduce its reserves and protect the
residents particularly those worst off and this should be something the Council’s
Administration and its officers should consider. He was particularly concerned
with the proposals to extend black bag waste collections and the impact this
would have on residents with clinical health issues as they would have to store
waste products longer. He indicated that he would be supporting the
amendment.
Councillor Wilson expressed concern in regard to the proposed amendment
taking account of the challenges faced by the Council with it just emerging from
the Covid pandemic and now dealing with the implications of the Ukrainian war
and the ongoing implications of Brexit. He considered the Council’s approach to
reserves held as prudent and did not consider these to be huge amounts held in
its General Reserve given the challenges faced by the Council in its recent past
and present. He reminded all Members that reserves could only be spent once.
Councillor R. Thomas viewed the proposals as giving residents of the Vale a
double whammy in that Council Tax would be hiked and services cut. He
echoed the comments of his Group Leader in regard to proposed fees to be
introduced for garden waste collections and other fee increases, this at the
same time that the Council held £11m in its General Reserves which was not an
insignificant amount of money proportionately when compared to other
Authorities like Cardiff. He felt that reserves should be used to much better use
by bolstering services and keeping other charges as low as possible.
Councillor Ewan Goodjohn referred to the previous comments made by
Councillor Dr. Johnson in regard to the Conservatives being taken seriously on
matters such as finances and he considered that to be true. He considered that
the amendment put forward by the Leader of the Conservative Group as
remarkable. By their own figures put forward, the Council would have utilised its
reserves to fund similar cost pressures in three years. He could only conclude
that the Conservatives would either be proposing an alternative for the next year
which they had not yet set out or that they were proposing on top of the Council
Tax increase that would be needed next year whatever that may be, an extra
4.9% on that year which would mean that residents would face even higher
Council Tax bills over coming years. He considered the amendment to be
extremely irresponsible.
Councillor Brooks considered that the comments made by the Conservative
Members as reckless given the situation that the Council was facing. Alluding to
12 years of cuts from a Conservative U.K. Government which to a certain extent
in Wales, Councils had been protected by the Welsh Government, but when
looking over the border at the budgets set in England it was notable that some
Councils were facing bankruptcy. The Conservative Group demonstrated a lack
of understanding regarding the Council’s reserves and their use. A significant
amount of work had gone into planning to obtain a balanced budget and to
protect the most vulnerable residents within the Vale of Glamorgan. Statutory
services had to be at the forefront and she indicated that she would not be
supporting the amendment.
Councillor Charles considered that the proposed increase in Council Tax would
hit the most vulnerable residents. At the same time they were also facing other
financial challenges and she felt that during these difficult times the objective
was to save money on the unnecessary and referred to the appointment of
additional Directors to the Council. She was also concerned about the
proposals to introduce charges for garden waste collections and this would have
the biggest impact on people on low income and the most vulnerable and the
elderly who did not have vehicles to take their recycling to waste centres. She
was concerned that would see an increase in fly tipping. She also indicated that
she did not support the proposed increase of 67% in allotment rentals. She
indicated that she would be supporting the amendment.
Councillor Perry described the Council Tax as not being particularly fair and
acknowledged that the Council was in a difficult position, pointing out that
Councils in England were facing potential bankruptcy or financial difficulties,
some more challenging than the Council’s. He felt that the policies of the U.K.
Government over the last 13 years had contributed to the situation that the
Council was facing. If the Council did not increase Council Tax it was likely that
it would have implications elsewhere for example, the loss of jobs and
acknowledged that reserves could only be spent once. He had no doubt if the
Council agreed to freeze the Council Tax for the next financial year it was
almost certain that it would have to increase it by a larger amount in the
subsequent financial year. He considered that the proposed amendment was
short sighted and that the political groups should stop playing politics and
collaborate more for the benefit of the Vale’s communities.
Councillor Hennessy echoed the previous comments of Councillors Carroll and
Charles in regard to the appointment of additional Directors and the proposed
increase of 4.9% when the most vulnerable would find it difficult to find the funds
to pay for green waste collections. He indicated that he would be supporting the
amendment.
Councillor Fisher referred to the comments made by Councillor Dr. Johnson in
regard to the state of the economy at the current time and the impact upon
residents which he agreed with, but felt this was the reason why Members
needed to consider approving the amendment as it would help residents of the
Vale and he indicated that he would be supporting the amendment.
Councillor Perkes echoed the comments of Councillor Brooks in regard to the
implications of using further reserves and to the impact the previous 12 years of
austerity had on local authorities in Wales. She felt that the Conservative U.K.
Government had mismanaged the U.K. budget and economy and felt that the
Conservative Group were in no position to criticise the proposals and indicated
that she would not be supporting the amendment.
Councillor Penn considered that if the Conservatives were in charge they would
play fast and loose with the Council finances and he was pleased that they were
not. Referring to the proposed amendment he enquired as to how this would be
funded, which services would be cut and how Council Tax would increase in
future years to come. He considered the amendment short sighted with no view
to the future, a headline today and financially irresponsible. He indicated that he
would not be supporting the amendment.
Councillor Driscoll felt that it had been easy to criticise the Conservative Party
over the previous 12 years and acknowledged that they had not done
themselves any favours. However, he felt that those criticising the
Conservatives should look more closer at some of the mistakes that had been
made by the Welsh Government and referred to the £155m wasted on the M4
Relief Road. In real terms he considered that residents of the Vale of
Glamorgan were paying the third highest Council Tax in Wales. He indicated
that he would be supporting the amendment.
The Leader in summing up, referred to the amendment which had clearly not
been based upon any financial projections or any of the financial information
contained in the reports discussed over the previous six months. She drew
Members’ attention to Appendix E of the report and the Head of Finance/Section
151 Officer’s report on the robustness of estimates and the sufficiency of the
Council’s reserves. She also reminded Members that the Council’s policy on
General Reserves was to hold a minimum prudent level which was currently set
at £10m, the projected level of General Fund balance would be 3.91% of net
revenue budget at the beginning of 2023/24 dropping to 3.74% and it was
considered that this remained an appropriate level. She reminded the
Conservative Group that it was not a game and alluded to the fact that the
Group had imploded in 2019 due to the types of suggestions that the
amendment was proposing now. She also highlighted that the budget had gone
through Scrutiny Committees and not a single suggestion on the budget had
come forward that could be looked at. She signalled that she would be voting
against the amendment.
A Vote took place on Councillor Carroll’s amendment (as seconded by Councillor
Charles) to freeze Council Tax for 2023/24 and to take a further £4.239m out of
general reserves to support the budget.
The Amendment was not carried.
Councillor Dr. Johnson alluding to the earlier debate in relation to the
Conservative Group’s proposed amendment and their comments regarding the
impact of an increase in Council Tax and considered the comments made by
both the Conservative Group and Labour Group had not recognised the impact
the increase in Council house rents of roughly £300 would have on Council
tenants. The proposals to increase Council Tax was actually less than the
impact of rent rises on Council tenants. He indicated unlike the Conservative
Group he would set out how an increase of around 2% in Council Tax could be
achieved through the use of a smoothing motion of around £2m. He explained
that this was clearly affordable as the Council consistently over collected the
anticipated amount of Council Tax by circa £1.5m to £2m each year. Alluding to
a recent Revenue Monitoring report in relation to the current financial year this
reported that it was anticipated to over collect Council Tax by an amount
approximately £1.5m. In the previous financial year the Council had over
collected Council Tax by £2m. Whilst he could see the benefit for the Council of
having extra money he did not believe that it was right that the Council
deliberately each year over collected. He considered it unfair to take this bonus,
but then not include it in the Council’s normal financial systems. He also
touched upon the introduction of the Garden Waste collection service and the
intention for it to be a fee paying subscription. He did not necessarily support
the proposal as a service change. He had been concerned that there had been
no discussion in relation to biodiversity in the context of the Council’s Nature
Emergency Declaration and that a charge for the service could lead to large
amounts of uncollected garden waste. He also thought that the proposal, in his
view, also underestimated the amounts that would be collected from the service
and thought the uptake of the subscription service would be higher than the
estimated 20% as reported. If it was the case, that subscriptions would be
higher and the Council would benefit from increased income.
In concluding, he drew attention to the amount of investment income that the
Council was likely to receive alluding to some £150k of investment income in the
most recent forecast for the next financial year. Referring to the supplementary
report circulated to Members he made reference to the additional funding in the
amount of £178k received from the Welsh Government as part of the Council’s
final budget settlement. He had no doubt that this additional funding could also
be used to lower the proposed Council Tax increase.
Councillor Dr. Johnson moved the following Amendment:
That the Council Tax increase for 2023/24 be set at 2%. The amendment was
duly seconded by Councillor Hooper.
Councillor Dr. Johnson also requested that a Recorded Vote on the matter and
the requisite number of Members signalled their support for it.
Councillor Franks referring to the technical report put forward by officers in
consultation with the Cabinet considered the proposals being deliberated
ignored reality and alluded to his earlier comments made in reference to the
failures of the Cabinet and previous Administrations. He referred to the
proposed cuts to the education service of £2m and considered the Leader’s
earlier response to his question in terms of the implications of cuts to schools as
nebulous. The comments of the Leader were also at odds with other statements
made that they wished to protect statutory services. He considered that the
Vale of Glamorgan was in decline and that the Cabinet was failing to respond to
poor standards and whilst he agreed with the Leader’s comments that all
Members had a responsibility for finance he did not need to be lectured on it and
he had no faith in the proposed budget.
Councillor Ewan Goodjohn acknowledged that the proposed amendment was an
attempt to find the middle ground between the Cabinet’s proposed budget and
the Conservative’s failed amendment. Referring to Councillor Dr. Johnson’s
explanation in support of his amendment and in particular to the proposed
charge for garden waste collection, there was no guarantee that the uptake in
subscriptions would be greater than that reported to the Scrutiny Committee and
reminded Members that the Council required to be prudent and that there was
no guarantee that the Council would collect a greater amount of Council Tax in
future years. He further reminded Members that the proposals were already
using a smoothing mechanism by the use of reserves of approximately £4.5m,
any further use of reserves would be irresponsible and only a temporary solution
with it likely that Council Tax levels would need to be increased further in
subsequent years and he indicated that he would not be supporting the
amendment.
Both Councillors Carroll and Haines signalled that they would be supporting the
amendment as they would sooner see a rise of 2% rather than the proposed
increase of 4.9%.
Councillor Wilson referred to the budget process and the preparation of the
same which had been undertaken over a period of months and difficult decisions
had to be made particularly in regard to introducing charges for providing
Council services. In all reality, Members and the Council as a whole were facing
a £9m budget deficit. He considered this in part due to the fact that the
Westminster Government had reduced the Welsh Government’s budget which
had then impacted on local authorities in Wales and therefore the Council had
no luxury as it had to balance its budget. Failure to do so could lead to the
Council being surcharged and the U.K. Government Autumn Budget had not
helped. He also flagged the Section 151 Officer’s comments in regard to the
sustainability of Council reserves and also echoed the previous comments of
Councillor Ewan Goodjohn in regard to collecting Council Tax to the levels the
Council had previously done and an uptake in the garden waste subscription.
He considered that the proposed amendment relied on optimism, therefore, he
indicated that he would not be supporting the amendment.
Councillor Perry referring to the level of reserves that the Council had built up
over time. It appeared to him that the problem was that the Council sometimes
did not spend funding on delivering things that residents would like to see and
referred to the condition of road surfaces throughout the county which required
repair.
Councillor Hodges alluding to the fact that the budget reporting process had
been to various Committees it was clear to him that inflation had had a
significant impact on the Council and whilst the Council had reserves the value
of that was slowly decreasing. Whilst he acknowledged that these would only
spend it once, he felt that it was better to spend some of it. He considered that
the proposed amendment was prudent and suggested that it was time the
Council radically looked at how it operated services rather than adjusting the
budget every year. He felt that it was time that the Council decided how it
wanted to operate its services not only the services that were provided but how
these were paid for. He indicated that he would be supporting the amendment.
The Leader, in summing up referred to the comments regarding the use of
reserves as a smoothing mechanism and reminded Members that the proposed
budget was in fact using reserves to reduce the Council Tax increase by utilising
£2.8m of the General Reserve and also reminded Members that Council funding
had already been used to off-set existing budget pressures referring to
homelessness issues and energy price increases and therefore it was clear that
the Council was already taking action to assist and protect its services. She
acknowledged that there were earmarked reserves however, these would be
reduced in coming years as projects were delivered. She also reminded
Members that when Cabinet was undertaking the budget process it did look at
the possibility of using additional reserves as they were mindful of the pressures
residents within the Vale of Glamorgan were facing. However, those same
pressures were also impacting on the Council and the proposals put forward by
the Cabinet would see an increase in Council Tax less than half the rate of
inflation. She signalled that she would not be supporting the amendment.
A Recorded Vote took place on Councillor Dr. Johnson’s amendment Motion (as
seconded by Councillor Hooper) to increase Council Tax by 2% for 2023/24.
Members 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 √
Janice Charles √
Millie Collins √
Marianne Cowpe √
Pamela Drake √
Vincent Driscoll √
Anthony Ernest √
Robert Fisher √
Christopher Franks √
Wendy Gilligan √
Emma Goodjohn √
Ewan Goodjohn √
Stephen Haines √
Howard Hamilton √
Sally Hanks √
William Hennessy √
Nic Hodges √
Mark Hooper √
Catherine Iannucci √
Gwyn John √
Dr. Ian Johnson √
Susan Lloyd-Selby √
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 √
Eddie Williams √
Mark Wilson √
Nicholas Wood √
TOTAL 22 30
The Amendment was not carried.
Councillor Hooper was disappointed that the amendment had not been
supported. He hoped that the wider budget process could be improved next
year as he believed that the process contained flaws when taking account of the
Council’s Corporate Plan and its associated priorities. It was his view that the
full cost recovery of Council services should be dealt with under the Corporate
Plan mechanism and the proposed increases contained in the proposed budget
should have been done over a longer period of time. The budget for next year
from his perspective would be largely set as a cost plus basis on the year’s
expected outturn and he considered this to be inefficient, maintained bottlenecks
and discouraged departmental innovation. He was also pleased to hear that
some moves had been made to budget from a zero base according to needs
and plans, but there was still insufficient resources available to undertake a full
zero based budget exercise across the Council which had been a point he had
made previously at Scrutiny Committees and at the Governance and Audit
Committees, but acknowledged that the Leader had responded to him on the
matter previously.
Councillor Ewan Goodjohn quoted inflation increases since 1997 based on
statistics in Wales and from the Office of National Statistics. Whilst he
acknowledged that certain Members wished to see the increase in Council Tax
to be lower, the fact of the matter was that Council Tax was an unfair tax as it
did not distinguish between those who rented a home or those who owned or
had a mortgage. The Council was in a difficult position as the Council Tax could
not be decreased if Welsh Government did not receive adequate funding from
the U.K. Government that did not reflect the increase in the Council’s costs. It
was his view that the proposed increase was one of the lowest in the Council’s
history, but to go lower would be irresponsible unless it could be properly
funded. The Council had to retain a realistic level of reserves to address future
challenges.
Councillor Cowpe was concerned that the Council was not listening to the
responses to the budget consultation nor to the responses of the Scrutiny
Committees and therefore nothing had changed with the budget remaining as
proposed. She asked that in future online consultations should provide for an
option for a response to be provided via email. She was also disappointed that
the Council had decided to go ahead and increase the cost of black storage
caddies which were used largely for nappies, hygiene waste. She was
concerned that there would be a reluctance to buy the hygiene caddies which
would lead to these type of waste products being disposed of in black bags and
this should be seen as unacceptable in a modern day Wales and likely to have
the biggest impact on vulnerable families and particularly single parent families
who were headed by a female. The proposals to charge would also
disproportionately impact on females as they were likely to be the main users
due to various health and wellbeing issues. She felt the proposed charge was
totally unacceptable and a tax on women and she sought clarification on what
equality impact assessment had been undertaken on the matter. She was also
concerned regarding the communication by the Council regarding the use of
purple bags and this needed to be addressed. She had been made aware that
residents were being discouraged to apply for additional purple bags which
meant that they were less inclined to recycle. She hoped that the Council would
address this by encouraging residents to register and apply for a purple bag so
that each household could be properly assessed based on their needs. She
was aware that officers did visit and advise households and she expressed her
thanks for this being done. However, she would like to see visits extended to
include existing households who were potentially abusing the system by placing
multiple purple bags out for kerbside collection.
Councillor Wilson in response to Councillor Cowpe' comments indicated that it
was the intention to encourage residents to recycle more and this was part of
the Council’s Strategy and not simply about raising funds, but more about
saving money by increasing participation and recycling rates. He acknowledged
that there were larger family units that required additional assistance who found
it difficult to recycle their waste. In terms of the Council’s purple bag service, a
balance had to be achieved in terms of encouraging residents to access the
service, but also not wishing it to be abused.
Councillor Dr. Johnson suggested that his amendment had not been taken on
board as Members had misinterpreted his rationale for a 2% increase as he had
provided an explanation how the Council could fund a 2% increase in Council
Tax. He reminded Members that the settlement received from Welsh
Government had seen an increase of approximately 9% which was the third
highest in Wales and approximately £10m more than anticipated. However, the
discussions in regard to the budget had not moved on from when it was
originally thought the Council was facing dire consequences and potential
massive cuts in services. The fact was the Council was not in great financial
difficulties and at the end of last financial year it held £128m in usable reserves.
He was also disappointed with the consultation on the budget and felt that
Councillors and the Scrutiny process had been disrespected. Some 773
responses by residents to the consultation in his view had been dismissed in
minutes when the Cabinet considered the final budget at its meeting in February
which he had attended.
Referring to changes in fees and charges, with the Council keen on full cost
recovery, it was important that the public needed to see that the Council was
using the additional income wisely. He was also concerned there had been a
lost opportunity to revisit many of the proposed small cuts to services given the
additional funding received in the final settlement and referred to the Warm
Space Libraries and cuts to provision of sand bags for residents who were
threatened by flooding. Instead, the decision had been made to bank the
money rather than use it for the benefit of residents or reduce the proposed
Council Tax rise. It was notable that 33 Equality Impact Assessments were still
awaited on proposed charges and increased charges for Council services,
reiterating the concern expressed by Councillor Cowpe in relation to the hygiene
caddies and the particular impact that increase would have on women and those
on low incomes. He hoped that the Cabinet and officers would revisit these
issues taking account of the Equality Impact Assessments once available and
reconsider proposed charges. He signalled that he would be voting against the
proposed budget.
Councillor Mahoney referred to the continual blame culture between the U.K.
Government and the Welsh Government in relation to provision of funding to
local government in Wales. As far as he was concerned both were as equally to
blame for the financial circumstances affecting the Council. He considered that
both the U.K. Conservative Government and Labour Welsh Government were
equally culpable of wasting public money when at the same time the residents
were unable to heat their own homes adequately. He also expressed concern
regarding the Council’s recycling targets. As he understood it, if the agreed
tonnage target in relation to black bag waste was not met the Council would be
penalised financially. He also did not believe in the creation of the new
Directors roles when at the same time the Council was making the case that it
had insufficient funding. He indicated that he would not be supporting the
budget.
Councillor Sivagnanam indicated that it was a simple choice for the Council in
that its budget intended to protect the most vulnerable residents and at the
same time to maintain statutory services. She acknowledged that the budget
was about a political choice and it was a choice that the Cabinet and the
Administration were prepared to make. She accepted the points made by
Councillor Cowpe in regard to the hygiene caddies and the purple bag waste
service. She gave Councillor Cowpe an assurance that this was something that
the Cabinet would be monitoring and hoped that would signal the Cabinet was
responsive particularly when it came to equality issues.
In summing up, Leader acknowledged that up to a point the Council could do
more, but she believed the next step moving forward would be to see greater
constructive discussion when the budget was being discussed at the Council’s
Scrutiny Committees in the future. There was very little at present. In regard to
Councillor Cowpe’s comment in relation to charging for hygiene caddies she
indicated that the Cabinet did look at the issue in some depth, but it was a
reasonable stance taken by the Council in an effort to cover its costs. She was
also mindful that households with lower incomes could potentially pay more and
she was open to a discussion about how residents could be supported further.
She acknowledged that it may be something that needed looking at in the future.
In terms of departmental innovation raised by Councillor Hooper, it was clear
that the Council was addressing this issue and referred to the Big Fresh
Catering Company. She hoped to see similar initiatives particularly under the
guise of the Reshaping Services agenda. She reiterated her previous points
relating to Council reserves.
Turning to Councillor Mahoney’s comment regarding Welsh Government
funding, there was evidence that local government in England was not being
afforded the same level of protection that was being provided in Wales to
Councils by the Welsh Government. She would not want to be in their position
and was very happy to be in Wales.
A Recorded Vote took place on the recommendations as contained within the
report and supplementary report, having been moved by the Leader and
seconded by Councillor Brooks.
Members 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 √
Janice Charles √
Millie Collins √
Marianne Cowpe √
Pamela Drake √
Vincent Driscoll √
Anthony Ernest √
Robert Fisher √
Christopher Franks √
Wendy Gilligan √
Emma Goodjohn √
Ewan Goodjohn √
Stephen Haines √
Howard Hamilton √
Sally Hanks √
William Hennessy √
Nic Hodges √
Mark Hooper √
Catherine Iannucci √
Gwyn John √
Dr. Ian Johnson √
Susan Lloyd-Selby √
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 √
Eddie Williams √
Mark Wilson √
Nicholas Wood √
TOTAL 30 22
The Motion was carried with it subsequently being
RESOLVED –
(1) T H A T approval be given to update the Final Budget in recognition that
the final Aggregate External Finance figure had increased to £202.797m which
was an increase of £16.782m, and an improvement on the £16.604m
Provisional Settlement figure contained in the report published on 28th February,
2023 as detailed in the Supplementary Report circulated prior to the meeting.
(2) T H A T a Council Tax increase of 4.9% be approved.
(3) T H A T the Budget for 2023/24 be approved.
Reasons for decisions
(1) To update the Budget following the receipt of the Final Settlement from
Welsh Government published on 28th February, 2023.
(2) Setting the annual rate of Council Tax was a key policy decision for
Council.
(3) Setting a balanced budget was a statutory responsibility and decision for
Council.
PAY POLICY 2023/2024 (REF)
The Council had a statutory requirement under the Localism Act 2011 to
prepare a pay policy statement for the new financial year 2023/24. The
statement needed to be approved and published by 31st March, 2023. 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.
The Pay Policy had been incrementally developed since 2012 to incorporate the
following:
• Guidance from Welsh Government as contained in the document “Pay
Accountabilities in Local Government in Wales” as updated November
2021;
• Changes as prescribed by the Local Authorities Standing Orders (Wales)
(Amendment) Regulations 2014 which took effect from 1st July, 2014;
• Changes as prescribed by the Local Government (Wales) Act 2015 to
ensure that any proposed changes to the salary of Chief Officers (as
defined in the Localism Act 2011) were made following consultation with
the Independent Remuneration Panel for Wales;
• Local Government and Elections (Wales) Act 2021 had been taken into
account as part of the annual Pay Policy Statement;
• Necessary refinements as a result of changes to the Council’s senior
management structure over recent years;
• The effects of national and locally negotiated pay and associated benefit
awards along with the provisions of the National Living Wage.
The Leader referred to Section 12 of Appendix A which was attached to the
original report to Cabinet and drew Members’ attention to the differentials in pay
between the top and bottom grades of the organisation which was quite flat and
should be seen as a positive. She also drew Members’ attention to the progress
made in regard to the gender pay gap.
RESOLVED – T H A T the Council’s Pay Policy as attached at Appendix A to
the report to Cabinet on 2nd February, 2023 (Minute No C213) 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. Councillors Aviet, Bruce, Champion and Ernest declared an interest
in the above matter and withdrew from the meeting during consideration
of the item.)
CHIEF OFFICER APPRAISAL SCHEME – PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS (REF)
The Corporate Performance and Resources Scrutiny Committee had considered
the report at its meeting on 15th February, 2023 where there had been a detailed
discussion of the matter where some had supported more regular appraisals
and there had been discussion concerning peer reviews.
Cabinet at its meeting on 16th February, 2023 had endorsed the report and
referred it to Council for approval in order to introduce the new scheme from 1st
April, 2023.
The Leader reminded Members that the matter before Council had been initially
referred from the Corporate Performance and Resources Scrutiny Committee to
the Cabinet and was now being reported to Council for approval. Referring to
the proposed modifications she indicated that these were minor adjustments
and had been initially considered by the Council’s Strategic Leadership Team,
the relevant recognised Trade Unions and diversity networks who were briefed
in November 2022 in addition to Chief Officer Heads of Service who were
briefed on the proposed changed in January 2023. She indicated that the
modified scheme contained SMART objectives and targets reflected a
competency profile which included coaching discussions linked to strength
based improvements encompassing a rounded view of performance through
peer reviews and 360 degree feedback which she considered was a much more
constructive way of undertaking appraisals. She hoped that the proposed
modifications would be seen in a positive and constructive way. The objective
was to introduce the revised scheme by 1st April, 2023.
Councillor Haines supported the principles behind the modifications but
suggested the Council needed to have a clearer understanding of the definition
of productivity and the appropriate techniques to increase the same within the
work place. At present, as he understood it, productivity of an individual was
only measured on an annual review. However, the issue of productivity was an
ongoing matter and was the easiest way to save money and increase the
performance of officers and suggested that this should have been included as
part of the modifications to the existing scheme.
RESOLVED – T H A T the proposed modifications for Chief Officer Appraisals
as reported to Cabinet on 16th February, 2023 (Minute No C223) be approved in
order to introduce the new scheme from 1st April, 2023.
Reason for decision
Having regard to the contents of the report and discussions at the meeting.
(N.B. All Chief Officers withdrew from the meeting during consideration of
the Pay Policy 2023/2024 and Chief Officer Appraisal Scheme – Proposed
Modifications items with the exception of the Head of Human Resources
and Organisational Development who remained to provide advice and then
withdrew from the meeting prior to a final decision being made on these
items.)