Wrthi'n llwytho
Y penderfyniadau fel y mae cofnodion y cyngor yn eu cofnodi. Bydd crynodeb mewn iaith glir yn dilyn pan fydd wedi'i ysgrifennu.
RESOLVED – T H A T the amendments to the Council’s Constitution as detailed in paragraphs 4.2 – 4.7 of the report be approved and that the Constitution be updated accordingly. Reason for decision To update the Constitution to reflect amendments as outlined within the report.
RESOLVED – T H A T the Statement of Licensing Policy 2026-2031, as detailed in Appendix B to the report, be approved. Reason for decision To ensure that the Council fulfilled its duty as a Licensing Authority under the Licensing Act 2003.
RESOLVED – T H A T the use of the Urgent Decision Procedure (Cabinet Minute No. C252, 26th March, 2026 (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 use of the Urgent Decision Procedure (Cabinet Minute No. C265, 16th April, 2026 (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 use of the Urgent Decision Procedure (Cabinet Minute No. C289, 25th May, 2026 (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 Council work with partners across the county, region and nationally who shared its determination to deliver support to children and young people with Additional Learning Needs (ALN). (2) T H A T the Leader of the Council write to the First Minister urging the Welsh Government to ensure that the full value of any SEND/ALN related consequentials received from the UK Government be allocated to Local Authorities. (3) T H A T copies of the letter be sent to all Members of the Senedd and MPs for the Vale of Glamorgan. (4) T H A T copies of the letter be forwarded to all Members of the Vale of Glamorgan Council, to all schools and to the School Budget Forum. Reason for decisions (1-5) Having regard to the discussions at the meeting.
RESOLVED – (1) T H A T the Council review what evidence was required by its departments and why, so that staff and residents were clear on why they were necessary. (2) T H A T the Council, wherever possible, accept other forms of evidence such as a copy of PIP/Pension Credit correspondence from the DWP. (3) T H A T the Council create a basic guide that explains, in plain language, to residents why it asks for certain evidence. (4) T H A T the Council Contact the LMC (Local Medical Committee) a representative body of GPs across Cardiff and Vale Health Board to raise awareness and secure a long-term solution that removes the financial pressures our most vulnerable residents face because of the charges a GP practice may impose. Reason for decisions (1-4) Having regard to the discussions at the meeting.
These were received from Councillors Anthony Ernest, Wendy Gilligan, William Hennessy and Michael Morgan.
The following declarations of interest were received: Councillor A. Asbrey Agenda item 11 – Notice of Motion: Additional Learning Needs (ALN) fundings – Councillor Asbrey was a School Governor and declared a personal and not prejudicial interest and remained to participate in the debate and vote. Councillor J. Aviet Agenda item 11 – Notice of Motion: Additional Learning Needs (ALN) fundings – the Member was a School Governor and declared a personal and not prejudicial interest and remained to participate in the debate and vote. Councillor R. Birch Agenda item 11 – Notice of Motion: Additional Learning Needs (ALN) fundings – the Councillor was a School Governor and declared a personal and not prejudicial interest and remained to participate in the debate and vote. Councillor B. Brooks Agenda item 11 – Notice of Motion: Additional Learning Needs (ALN) fundings – the Member was a School Governor and declared a personal and not prejudicial interest and remained to participate in the debate and vote. Councillor G. Carroll Agenda item 11 – Notice of Motion: Additional Learning Needs (ALN) fundings – the Member was a School Governor and declared a personal and not prejudicial interest and remained to participate in the debate and vote. Councillor C. Champion Agenda item 11 – Notice of Motion: Additional Learning Needs (ALN) fundings – the Councillor was a School Governor and declared a personal and not prejudicial interest and remained to participate in the debate and vote. Councillor C.M. Cowpe Agenda item 11 – Notice of Motion: Additional Learning Needs (ALN) fundings – the Members was a School Governor and declared a personal and not prejudicial interest and remained to participate in the debate and vote. Councillor P. Drake Agenda item 11 – Notice of Motion: Additional Learning Needs (ALN) fundings – Councillor Drake was a School Governor and declared a personal and not prejudicial interest and remained to participate in the debate and vote. Councillor C. Franks Agenda item 11 – Notice of Motion: Additional Learning Needs (ALN) fundings – the Member was a School Governor and declared a personal and not prejudicial interest and remained to participate in the debate and vote. Councillor Emma Goodjohn Agenda item 11 – Notice of Motion: Additional Learning Needs (ALN) fundings – the Councillor was a School Governor and declared a personal and not prejudicial interest and remained to participate in the debate and vote. Councillor S. Haines Agenda item 11 – Notice of Motion: Additional Learning Needs (ALN) fundings – the Member was a School Governor and declared a personal and not prejudicial interest and remained to participate in the debate and vote. Councillor N.P. Hodges Agenda item 12 – Notice of Motion: Evidence of Need – Councillor N. Hodges declared a personal and not prejudicial interest as his wife worked for the Department of Work and Pensions Councillor S.A. Hodges Agenda item 12 – Notice of Motion: Evidence of Need – Councillor S. Hodges declared a personal and not prejudicial interest as they worked for the Department of Work and Pensions. Councillor C. Iannucci-Williams Agenda item 11 – Notice of Motion: Additional Learning Needs (ALN) fundings – the Member was a School Governor and declared a personal and not prejudicial interest and remained to participate in the debate and vote. Councillor S. Lloyd-Selby Agenda item 12 – Notice of Motion: Evidence of Need – Councillor Lloyd- Selby declared a prejudicial interest as an independent member of Cardiff and Vale University Health Board (and left the meeting). Councillor B. Loveluck-Edwards Agenda item 11 – Notice of Motion: Additional Learning Needs (ALN) fundings – the Member was a School Governor and declared a personal and not prejudicial interest and remained to participate in the debate and vote. Councillor J. Lynch-Wilson Agenda item 11 – Notice of Motion: Additional Learning Needs (ALN) fundings – the Councillor was a School Governor and declared a personal and not prejudicial interest and remained to participate in the debate and vote. Councillor N. Marshallsea Agenda item 11 – Notice of Motion: Additional Learning Needs (ALN) fundings – the Member was a School Governor and declared a personal and not prejudicial interest and remained to participate in the debate and vote. Councillor H. Payne Agenda item 11 – Notice of Motion: Additional Learning Needs (ALN) fundings – Councillor Payne was a School Governor and declared a personal and not prejudicial interest and remained to participate in the debate and vote. Councillor E. Penn Agenda item 11 – Notice of Motion: Additional Learning Needs (ALN) fundings – the Councillor was a School Governor and declared a personal and not prejudicial interest and remained to participate in the debate and vote. Councillor S. Wiliam Agenda item 11 – Notice of Motion: Additional Learning Needs (ALN) fundings – the Member was a School Governor and declared a personal and not prejudicial interest and remained to participate in the debate and vote. Councillor M. Wilkinson Agenda item 11 – Notice of Motion: Additional Learning Needs (ALN) fundings – Councillor Wilkinson was a School Governor and declared a personal and not prejudicial interest and remained to participate in the debate and vote. Councillor M. Wilson Agenda item 11 – Notice of Motion: Additional Learning Needs (ALN) fundings – the Member was a School Governor and declared a personal and not prejudicial interest and remained to participate in the debate and vote.
RESOLVED – T H A T the minutes of the meeting held on 9th March, 2026 and the Annual Meeting held on 13th May, 2026 be approved as a correct record.
(i) The Mayor The Mayor announced they were happy to be chairing their first Full Council, and welcomed Councillor Shirley Hodges, who was elected at the recent Baruc by- election. They reflected that it had been very hot due to recent heatwaves and had attended several Civic events including an event in Dinas Powys, Armed Forces Day and Windrush Day. (ii) The Leader and Executive Member for Performance and Resources The Leader recognised several residents of the Vale of Glamorgan who were recently honoured as part of the King’s Birthday Honors including: • British Empire Medal: Carmen Soraya Kelly and David Gardiner; • MBE: Roger Charles Lewis, Hywel Thomas Baker, and Christopher Britten; • OBE: Professor Steven Jolles; • CBE: Anthony Richard. They also extended a congratulations were extended to Dame Heather Stevens of the Waterloo Foundation for her appointment as a Dame Commander of the Order of the British Empire. The Leader highlighted the Foundation's significant impact since its establishment in 2007, noting its work in child development, health, environmental sustainability, and support for local businesses in the Vale of Glamorgan. (iii) Cabinet Member for Neighbourhood and Building Services The Cabinet Member for Neighbourhood and Building Services expressed his gratitude toward the Council's frontline staff for their hard work under very challenging weather conditions over the preceding few weeks. They also acknowledged the residents of the Vale for their positive feedback and support regarding the staff's efforts during this difficult period.
The following questions were submitted in accordance with the protocol agreed by Council on 5th May, 2010. (i) Question from Andrew Vincent Have the Vale residents’ submissions from the March 2026 RLDP Consultation Process been made "fully" available to all current Vale Councillors (that is unedited by Vale Planning or by any AI software)? If not, why not? Thus can Vale residents be assured that all current Vale Councillors should be fully aware of the unedited contents of all these submissions? Reply from the Cabinet Member for Community Engagement, Equalities and Regulatory Services The full representations made as part of the Deposit consultation will be made available in full to Vale of Glamorgan Elected Members. However, due to the number and length of representations submitted, it is necessary to summarise them as part of the actual report of consultation. (ii) Question from William Hart I've come across many people who object to the proposed urban sprawl housing developments around Barry and Dinas but none who support them, so why do Councillors think it's in the best interests of the people they represent to force something onto them that they do not want? Reply from the Cabinet Member for Community Engagement, E qualities and Regulatory Services The Council has a duty to prepare a development plan, and this must balance a range of priorities. This includes responding to housing needs and economic growth in a way that aligns with national policy. The plan must ensure that the right sites are allocated in the right locations, based on robust evidence. We are pleased with the number of residents that engaged with us on the recent consultation on the Deposit RLDP. Whilst many residents objected to specific sites, we have also received comments from people who support the proposals and who recognise the importance of providing new homes at a time of housing crisis. We are mindful that the feedback received may not reflect the full range of views in the community, and the views of those people most in need of housing may well be under-represented. It is therefore important that when Councillors make decisions, they consider all the evidence alongside the views of communities. Residents should note that there will be an Examination into the RLDP, where an Independent Planning Inspector will review of all representations received, alongside the evidence underpinning policies and proposals in the Plan. (iii) Question from Max Wallis What changes does Councillor Ruba Sivagnanam propose to the deposit RLDP to bring it into line with the Welsh requirement for new developments to be accompanied by biodiversity enhancement proportionate to their scale and nature (as PPW12). The deposit RLDP uses instead the requirement in England for "net benefit for biodiversity" (cf. SP19). Will the stronger Welsh requirement be applied retrospectively and appropriate corrections to the supporting "Green Infrastructure Strategy" document issued? Reply from the Cabinet Member for Community Engagement, Equalities and Regulatory Services The RLDP has been prepared in accordance with the requirements of Planning Policy Wales with regards to biodiversity. The term ‘net benefit for biodiversity’ is a Welsh term, referenced repeatedly in Planning Policy Wales. The English terminology is for ‘biodiversity net gain.’ The Green Infrastructure Strategy was subject to consultation alongside the RLDP. Consideration is currently being given to any amendments that may be necessary to the document in light of representations received. However, it was prepared in line with the latest edition of Planning Policy Wales and therefore references the most recent biodiversity requirements. (iv) Question from Jason Vincent-Newson Will the RLDP submissions made by residents during the March 2026 consultation period be made available in full (i.e. unedited/unabridged) to the independent planning inspector? If not, why not, and what then will the process be to accurately convey the residents’ objections registered during the RLDP consultation process? Reply from the Cabinet Member for Community Engagement, Equalities and Regulatory Services The full representations made as part of the Deposit consultation will be made available in full to the appointed Independent Planning Inspector. However, due to the number and length of representations submitted, it is necessary to summarise them as part of the actual report of consultation. (v) Question from Mary Vincent In the light of Wales being the "most nature depleted country in the world" (Tir Natur website) why did the Vale RLDP not fully address options for housing development on the remaining brown field sites in Barry instead of making incursion into well- established green wedge farmland at the fringes of town? Reply from the Cabinet Member for Community Engagement, Equalities and Regulatory Services As part of the RLDP process, two calls for candidate sites were undertaken, enabling landowners to submit sites for potential inclusion as allocations in the Plan. Each site has been subject to a robust assessment to determine its suitability and deliverability for housing. As a result of the candidate site assessment process, some brownfield sites have been allocated for housing. However, following the development of Barry Waterfront during the previous plan period, there are now very few large, deliverable brownfield sites remaining in Barry. The Council has also undertaken an urban capacity study to identify opportunities on previously developed and underutilised land within the Barry settlement boundary. In addition, an allowance for completions on unallocated ‘windfall’ sites has been factored into the Plan. Nevertheless, given the significant need for new housing in Barry, including affordable housing on deliverable sites, there has been a need to consider greenfield sites. This position is fully explained in the RLDP evidence base. (vi) Question from Rebekah Vincent-Newson What future Council meetings (Full Council / partial / Scrutiny Committee specific) are scheduled where any votes might take place which could in any way impact or affect the approval and adoption process of the RLDP? Reply from the Cabinet Member for Community Engagement, Equalities and Regulatory Services It is anticipated that a report on the RLDP will be presented to Cabinet and Place Scrutiny Committee in November 2026 followed by Full Council in December 2026 seeking approval to submit the RLDP for Independent Examination. It is important to note that Scrutiny is not a formal decision-making Committee but a space to provide challenge and viewpoints on an apolitical basis ahead of any decisions being made. During Place Scrutiny Committee, a range of Members will consider the Plan, with Committee Members agreeing recommendations that will help inform the longer-term decision-making process ahead of all Members discussing and voting on the issue at Full Council. (vii) Question from Catherine Hart Will the Council introduce compensation for residents whose properties are significantly devalued as a result of the excessive new housing developments around the Vale? Reply from the Cabinet Member for Community Engagement, Equalities and Regulatory Services Impact on property value is not generally a material Planning consideration. This is a well‑established principle, as planning policies and appeal decisions make clear that land and house prices are outside the planning system. (viii) Question from Maxine Levett In reviewing public responses to the RLDP, has Councillor Ruba Sivagnanam accepted that calling St Athan area a "strategic growth area" seriously misleads readers, being inconsistent with Future Wales, where St Athan is defined as a rural area. Future Wales contains a policy of growth for local needs or our area. Is the RLDP therefore being amended to assess St Athan's needs and drop the two "key" development sites pending this assessment? Reply from the Cabinet Member for Community Engagement, Equalities and Regulatory Services The Vale of Glamorgan, including St Athan, is identified within a national growth area in Future Wales, the National Plan 2040. At the local level, the RLDP Strategy defines a ‘strategic growth area’ which encompasses the main centres of population in the Vale, with St Athan being referenced as a sustainable location where new residential development can be aligned with other uses and where there are current and proposed sustainable transport options to reduce the need to travel by car. St Athan is identified as a primary settlement within the strategic growth area, and it is considered that the level of growth proposed is appropriate given its strategic location in close proximity to two key employment sites. (ix) Question from Julia Thompson All of us will be aware of the widespread concerns regarding the regular, ongoing discharge of sewage into open water (rivers/sea) in and around the Vale of Glamorgan, due to the inability of Welsh Water’s infrastructure to cope with the current levels of sewage and wastewater they are responsible for processing. Considering the proposals within the RLDP to add a large number of new houses to the existing sewage infrastructure, what concrete and specific actions are currently being taken, or are planned to be taken by Welsh Water and/or the Vale authority, to bring the current system up to the required standard now, and ensure that the system will be able to cope with the increased demand occurring as a result of future implementation of the RLDP? Reply from the Cabinet Member for Community Engagement, Equalities and Regulatory Services In preparing the Deposit RLDP, the Council has consulted Dwr Cymru Welsh Water (DCWW) to identify sewerage capacity on a site-specific basis. DCWW have a programme of capital investment, which is set out in their Asset Management Plan and over their next programme period improvements have been identified to specific Wastewater Treatment Works serving the Vale. Where there is a need for improvements to take place prior to development, or where additional hydraulic modelling work is necessary, this is set out within the Infrastructure Delivery Plan prepared as part of the evidence base for the RLDP. DCWW will also be consulted again as standard on all relevant planning applications. (x) Question from Stephen Fraser The Welsh Government have invested large sums of money into improving the existing transport links around the Vale in order to support future expansion of operations at Cardiff Wales Airport. In light of the fact that any future building development in the area of Rhoose and/or north or west Barry will have the effect of significantly increasing traffic delays in the area, in particular along the key A4226 road between Weycock Cross and the airport, have the emergency services been consulted in this matter, and if so, what discussions have taken place? Furthermore, what measures are being taken to fully model the potential impact of the proposed developments on the ability of emergency services to respond to a major incident at Cardiff Airport in the future? Reply from the Cabinet Member for Community Engagement, Equalities and Regulatory Services Cardiff Airport and the emergency services were consulted on the Deposit RLDP and did not raise objections to the plan. (xi) Question from Emma Reed Will the Cabinet Member please advise if the Objections raised to the Replacement Deposit Local Development Plan in Spring 2026 are to be considered by Council in October 2026 in order to meet the approved RLDP timetable? Reply from the Cabinet Member for Community Engagement, Equalities and Regulatory Services The approved RLDP Delivery Agreement indicates that the political reporting for the next stage of the RLDP process should take place in October/November 2026. This report will include the report of consultation on representations made to the Deposit RLDP and seek approval to submit the RLDP to Welsh Government for Independent Examination. It is anticipated that the report will be considered by Cabinet and Scrutiny Committee in November 2026 and by Full Council in early December 2026. (xii) Question from Dennis Clarke Would the Leader agree that it is in the Council’s interests to fully investigate reasons for the 2 large costs Orders paid to the developers in relation to the attempts at planning permission for the Barry Biomass project of a total of circa £1,000,000.00. The strong criticisms made against the Council by the Inspectors on the two occasions might demonstrate similar issues. It is important when cash is in short supply that the Council learns from errors rather than continue to make the same and/or similar errors on similar planning applications. A committee of Vale Councillors who were not involved in the planning applications could investigate and report back to Cabinet and full Council and, if appropriate, advise on how errors might be avoided going forward. Reply from the Executive Leader and Cabinet Member for Performance and Resources The Council has repeatedly sought to protect Barry and the Vale’s communities from unauthorised development at the site of the Biomass plant, and that involved taking enforcement action in the most robust terms possible. The award of costs hinged on a technical matter relating to proposed enforcement, a matter which could have reasonably been accommodated by an amendment to the Notice. It was a highly regrettable decision of Planning and Environment Decisions Wales to determine the matter in the way they did, one which left the Council unjustly facing a costs award. I do not consider it an appropriate use of resources to revisit that matter in the manner requested, given the reasons already stated. (xiii) Question from Emma Reed Much has been said over the past 10 years of the implementation of additional rail services on the Vale of Glamorgan Railway Line. The latest iteration of the Local Development Plan promotes massive growth in Rhoose yet its public transport options are woefully inadequate. Can the Cabinet Member confirm that Llantwit Major and Rhoose stations are still to receive an additional train service per hour from December 2026 meaning that they have access to two trains per hour not one? Also can the Cabinet Member confirm what plans there are to improve the very poor local bus services in Rhoose after the extra Council tax charged to residents in 26/27 for better rural bus services? Reply from the Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Sustainable Places In March 2026, Transport for Wales (TFW) reaffirmed their aim of delivering timetable improvements to achieve two trains per hour for customers travelling between Bridgend and Cardiff on the Vale of Glamorgan Line. TFW have confirmed that significant progress has been made in delivering the infrastructure and fleet changes required. This has included the completion of the electrification of the upper Rhymney line, and work is progressing to secure the necessary permissions to introduce Class 756 tri-mode trains on the line. TFW have confirmed that they require the Class 756 trains to be running reliably before increasing to a full timetable of two trains an hour. In support of introducing new Class 756 trains on the Vale of Glamorgan Line, TFW is working closely with Network Rail and the VoG to resolve rail operational requirements around existing level crossings. Any material change that impacts either the usage of a level crossing by the public or the frequency of train movements must satisfy a robust level crossing risk assessment process undertaken by National Rail. TFW currently anticipates that subject to resolving both the outstanding rolling stock and level crossing matters, the enhanced timetable will be introduced from 2027. The Council is due to go to tender for the following 3 rural Vale services: • V1 - Llantwit Major to Bridgend via Llanmaes, Sigingstone, Llandow, Llanblethian, Cowbridge, Penllyn, Craig Penllyn, Colwinston, Corntown and Ewenny; • V2 - Llantwit Major to Bridgend via Boverton, St Athan, St Mary Church, St Hilary, Penllyn, Craig Penllyn, Fferm Goch, Llangan, Treoes; • V3 - Cowbridge to Barry via Welsh St Donats, Tair Onen, Llantrithyd, Llancarfan, Llancadle, Penmark, Fonmon and Rhoose. The timetables are set for Monday to Saturday services with between four and five services running in each direction per day (a total of eight to ten services daily). Operators will also be given, as part of the tender, the opportunity to submit their own timetables for consideration. Once the tender results are received and assessed consideration will be given to allocation of the £535k funding. The tender is currently with the Council’s procurement body, Ardal, who are undertaking final checks before it goes live. It is envisaged this will happen this month. Once tender results are received, consideration will also be given to: • The need to run an enhanced G1 service with Greenlinks as residents would have a “regular” bus services based on the tendered timetables. • Increasing frequency on the 320 service and adding an additional bus into the 303/304/X2 loop.
Y penderfyniad fel y'i cofnodwyd
RESOLVED – T H A T the amendments to the Council’s Constitution as detailed in paragraphs 4.2 – 4.7 of the report be approved and that the Constitution be updated accordingly. Reason for decision To update the Constitution to reflect amendments as outlined within the report.
The report requested Council’s approval for updates to Section 14 – Responsibilities for Function – Summary within the Council’s Constitution. In line with the legislative requirements surrounding political balance, this had been re-calculated based upon the proposed changes identified and there was no requirement for any Groups to identify changes in Committee memberships and balancing of seats in line with proportionality requirements. However, there would be a requirement for the Council’s political balance to be updated as a result of the Baruc by-election which was held on Thursday, 9th July 2026. RESOLVED – T H A T the amendments to the Council’s Constitution as detailed in paragraphs 4.2 – 4.7 of the report be approved and that the Constitution be updated accordingly. Reason for decision To update the Constitution to reflect amendments as outlined within the report.
Y penderfyniad fel y'i cofnodwyd
RESOLVED – T H A T the Statement of Licensing Policy 2026-2031, as detailed in Appendix B to the report, be approved. Reason for decision To ensure that the Council fulfilled its duty as a Licensing Authority under the Licensing Act 2003.
The Cabinet Member for Community Engagement, Equalities and Regulatory Services presented the report, a reference from Statutory Licencing Committee, and noted that there was a requirement for the Council to publish a Statement of Licensing Policy with respect to the exercise of its licensing functions, which was required to be reviewed on a 5 yearly basis. The Policy was last revised in 2021 and was now due for review. The report also advised on the consultation responses to the draft Policy and subsequent amendments and sought approval for its adoption. RESOLVED – T H A T the Statement of Licensing Policy 2026-2031, as detailed in Appendix B to the report, be approved. Reason for decision To ensure that the Council fulfilled its duty as a Licensing Authority under the Licensing Act 2003.
Y penderfyniad fel y'i cofnodwyd
RESOLVED – T H A T the use of the Urgent Decision Procedure (Cabinet Minute No. C252, 26th March, 2026 (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 use of the Urgent Decision Procedure (Cabinet Minute No. C252, 26th March, 2026 (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.
Y penderfyniad fel y'i cofnodwyd
RESOLVED – T H A T the use of the Urgent Decision Procedure (Cabinet Minute No. C265, 16th April, 2026 (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 use of the Urgent Decision Procedure (Cabinet Minute No. C265, 16th April, 2026 (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.
Y penderfyniad fel y'i cofnodwyd
RESOLVED – T H A T the use of the Urgent Decision Procedure (Cabinet Minute No. C289, 25th May, 2026 (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 use of the Urgent Decision Procedure (Cabinet Minute No. C289, 25th May, 2026 (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.
Rhan o fater a ddilynwyd ar draws 2 cyfarfod
Y penderfyniad fel y'i cofnodwyd
RESOLVED – (1) T H A T the Council work with partners across the county, region and nationally who shared its determination to deliver support to children and young people with Additional Learning Needs (ALN). (2) T H A T the Leader of the Council write to the First Minister urging the Welsh Government to ensure that the full value of any SEND/ALN related consequentials received from the UK Government be allocated to Local Authorities. (3) T H A T copies of the letter be sent to all Members of the Senedd and MPs for the Vale of Glamorgan. (4) T H A T copies of the letter be forwarded to all Members of the Vale of Glamorgan Council, to all schools and to the School Budget Forum. Reason for decisions (1-5) Having regard to the discussions at the meeting.
The below Notice of Motion, moved by Councillor L. Burnett and seconded by Councillor R. Birch at the meeting, was debated. “Additional Learning Needs (ALN) Funding This Council notes: The receipt of a ‘one-off’ amount of £322m consequential funding by Welsh Government (WG) relating to additional Special Education Needs and Disabilities (SEND) spending in England. • That in England, accumulated high-needs deficits (estimated at over £3.3 billion by 2025/26) are now being addressed through national interventions such as the use of a statutory override. • That the Local Government Association in England has estimated that 8 out 10 Councils would be bankrupt without such action. This Council further notes that: While schools and education services are funded differently in Wales compared to England the challenges and deficits are similar. • In Wales, these pressures have been absorbed over a sustained period within core local government and education budgets. Unlike England, where high- needs deficits have accumulated separately, Welsh Local Authorities have managed this demand within existing resources, at significant cost to wider services and to financial resilience. • As a result the equivalent funding shortfall facing Welsh Local Government is at least the same, if not higher than the £322 million consequential. • The absence of formal deficits does not reflect an absence of pressure; rather, it demonstrates the extent to which Councils and schools have already accommodated growth in need within constrained funding envelopes • The funding for ALN provision is an enormous budgetary pressure with more than 60% of schools in some areas carrying negative balances. This Council believes that • This funding is not only for new provision, but also to address cumulative pressures and to sustain the ALN system and statutory entitlements. • There is a strong evidence-based case for directing these funds through Councils, where the statutory responsibility and most acute pressures sit. • A strong Welsh narrative would therefore be that available funding should be directed to Local Authorities where the most acute statutory and system-level pressures sit, and because the wider financial evidence, including the deterioration in school reserves, points to a system that is already absorbing strain rather than one that has capacity to carry more without additional support. This Council therefore resolves to • Work with partners across the county, region and nationally who share our determination to deliver support to children and young people with ALN. • Request the Leader of the Council writes to the First Minister urging the WG to ensure that the full value of any SEND/ALN related consequentials received from the UK Government are allocated to Local Authorities. • Request that copies of the letter are sent to all Members of the Senedd and MPs for the Vale of Glamorgan. • Request that copies of the letter are forwarded to all Members of the Vale of Glamorgan Council, to all schools and to the School Budget Forum.” The Leader moved the Motion, and highlighted that the Council had been aware of this one-off consequential funding since late March. They expressed deep disappointment with the Welsh Government’s handling of the funding, disputing claims that the deficit was different in Wales compared to England. They emphasised that the funding must be directed to children via Local Authorities and requested a Recorded Vote. Councillor Birch spoke about the critical need for ALN funding, noting that the Council was finally recognising the needs of young people who were previously disengaged or isolated, and argued that adequate funding was essential for meaningful education. Councillor Payne supported the Motion framing ALN funding as an equality issue. She noted that underfunding disproportionately impacted female carers, affecting their employment and well-being, and praised the current ALN provision in the Vale of Glamorgan as exemplary. Councillor Dr. Johnson criticised the Motion as "politicking" by the Labour Group, noting that Labour had been in power in the Senedd for 27 years. They argued that the proposal was unrealistic and suggested a more "reasonable" approach regarding the Welsh Government's current budget proposals. During the debate, they proposed an Amendment to the Motion as follows: Replacement of bullet point 2: Instead of the original wording, the Council would resolve to "request the Leader of the Council writes to the First Minister welcoming the £120 million of additional ALN funding". Councillor Carroll indicated that they did not accept the proposed Amendment as they believed the money provided by UK Government for this purpose should be spent in this way. Councillor John agreed with this sentiment. Councillor S. Hodges argued that the debate was characterised by 'politicking' rather than genuine concern for the children of the Vale, and expressed support for the amendment, criticising the original Motion as being based on 'fantasy figures' and failing to address the long-term history of underfunding in the region. Councillor N. Hodges reiterated that both education and the NHS had been consistently underfunded by the Welsh Government, which had been led by the opposition party until two months prior. They described the opposition's actions as 'politicking'. A Recorded Vote on the Amendment to the Motion was undertaken as below: Member For Against Abstain A. Asbrey √ J. Aviet √ G. Ball √ R. Birch √ B. Brooks √ G. Bruce √ I. Buckley √ L. Burnett √ S. Campbell √ G. Carroll √ C. Cave Did not Vote C. Champion √ J. Charles √ A. Collins √ M. Cowpe √ B. Dodd Did not Vote P. Drake √ V. Driscoll √ R. Fisher √ C. Franks √ R. Godfrey √ Emma Goodjohn √ Member For Against Abstain Ewan Goodjohn √ S. Haines √ S. Hanks √ N. Hodges √ S. Hodges √ C. Iannucci-Williams √ G. John √ I. Johnson √ S. Lloyd-Selby √ B. Loveluck-Edwards √ J. Lynch-Wilson √ K. Mahoney √ N. Marshallsea √ J. Norman √ H. Payne √ E. Penn √ S. Perkes √ I. Perry Did not Vote J. Protheroe √ R. Sivagnanam √ C. Stallard √ N. Thomas √ R. Thomas √ S. Wiliam √ M. Wilkinson √ E. Williams √ M. Wilson √ N. Wood Did not Vote TOTAL 8 37 1 The original Motion was debated. Councillor Carroll expressed his support and emphasised the significant funding pressures currently facing the education sector in the Vale of Glamorgan and argued that it was critical for any money provided by the Westminster Government to Senedd Ministers to be passed directly to schools, which he described as the ultimate destination for this funding. Councillor John confirmed support for the Motion, noting that the Council had made significant progress in expanding ALN facilities over the years. They highlighted the growth in provision within their own constituency and stressed that the additional funding was desperately needed to sustain these essential services. Councillor Asbrey acknowledged the importance of investing in ALN, expressed some disappointment that the Motion did not formally recognise the 'excellent work' already undertaken by members of the Task and Finish Group who investigated ALN resource bases earlier in the year. They argued that an evidence-led approach was crucial for addressing these complex challenges. Councillor Perkes placed an emphasis upon children and their life chances, and the need for funding sufficiency. They suggested that while others may need to fight for funding elsewhere, the available consequential money must be prioritised for the children who relied on it to succeed in school. Councillor Goodjohn shared that he was respected devolution and fair funding, but urged for all Members to prioritise young people, including expanding free school meals provision, and improving ALN funding and teacher pay, which could lead to staff industrial action. The Leader stated that the proposed amendment was unnecessary because the Council was already in constant communication with the Welsh Government through active engagement with Welsh Local Government Association and believed that simply "welcoming" funding did not resolve the underlying issue of how those resources were distributed to children in need. They reiterated that the primary concern was not the political process, but ensuring that consequential funding originating from Westminster was fully passed through to Local Authorities to support Additional Learning Needs as intended, and expressed frustration that this funding had not been adequately protected for its specific purpose. A Recorded Vote was taken as below – Member For Against Abstain A. Asbrey √ J. Aviet √ G. Ball √ R. Birch √ B. Brooks √ G. Bruce √ I. Buckley √ L. Burnett √ S. Campbell √ Member For Against Abstain G. Carroll √ C. Cave Did not Vote C. Champion √ J. Charles √ A. Collins √ M. Cowpe √ B. Dodd Did not Vote P. Drake √ V. Driscoll √ R. Fisher √ C. Franks √ R. Godfrey √ Emma Goodjohn √ Ewan Goodjohn √ S. Haines √ S. Hanks √ N. Hodges √ S. Hodges √ C. Iannucci-Williams √ G. John √ I. Johnson √ S. Lloyd-Selby √ B. Loveluck-Edwards √ J. Lynch-Wilson √ K. Mahoney √ N. Marshallsea √ J. Norman √ H. Payne √ E. Penn √ S. Perkes √ I. Perry Did not Vote J. Protheroe √ R. Sivagnanam √ Member For Against Abstain C. Stallard √ N. Thomas √ R. Thomas Did not Vote S. Wiliam √ M. Wilkinson √ E. Williams √ M. Wilson √ N. Wood Did not Vote TOTAL 36 9 RESOLVED – (1) T H A T the Council work with partners across the county, region and nationally who shared its determination to deliver support to children and young people with Additional Learning Needs (ALN). (2) T H A T the Leader of the Council write to the First Minister urging the Welsh Government to ensure that the full value of any SEND/ALN related consequentials received from the UK Government be allocated to Local Authorities. (3) T H A T copies of the letter be sent to all Members of the Senedd and MPs for the Vale of Glamorgan. (4) T H A T copies of the letter be forwarded to all Members of the Vale of Glamorgan Council, to all schools and to the School Budget Forum. Reason for decisions (1-5) Having regard to the discussions at the meeting.
Y penderfyniad fel y'i cofnodwyd
RESOLVED – (1) T H A T the Council review what evidence was required by its departments and why, so that staff and residents were clear on why they were necessary. (2) T H A T the Council, wherever possible, accept other forms of evidence such as a copy of PIP/Pension Credit correspondence from the DWP. (3) T H A T the Council create a basic guide that explains, in plain language, to residents why it asks for certain evidence. (4) T H A T the Council Contact the LMC (Local Medical Committee) a representative body of GPs across Cardiff and Vale Health Board to raise awareness and secure a long-term solution that removes the financial pressures our most vulnerable residents face because of the charges a GP practice may impose. Reason for decisions (1-4) Having regard to the discussions at the meeting.
The below Notice of Motion, moved by Councillor B. Loveluck-Edwards and seconded by Councillor J. Protheroe at the meeting, was debated. “Evidence of Need That this Council recognises requiring a person with a Disability or underlying health condition to secure written testimony from a GP (such as to qualify for specific adaptations or adjustments to their Council property), creates some delays as they wait for the information to be processed by their local GP practice, causing anxiety and a cost attached by the GP practice. Recent feedback from GP practices suggests that drafting and signing letters increasingly takes them away from their core activity. The average charge was £40, most severely impacting those who can least afford it, including those reliant on Welfare. Therefore this Motion asks that the Council: 1. Review what evidence is required by our departments and why, so that staff and residents are clear on why they are necessary. 2. To wherever possible accept other forms of evidence such as a copy of PIP/Pension Credit correspondence from the DWP. 3. Create a basic guide that explains, in plain language, to residents why we ask for certain evidence. 4. Contact the LMC (Local Medical Committee) a representative body of GPs across Cardiff and Vale Health Board to raise awareness and secure a long- term solution that removes the financial pressures our most vulnerable residents face because of the charges a GP practice may impose.” Councillor Loveluck-Edwards opened the debate by sharing data from the Vale Food Bank, noting that 44% of their users had been charged for GP letters, 86% of whom were disabled. They argued that these requests fell outside core NHS contracts, creating unfair financial barriers for vulnerable residents. Councillor Protheroe seconded the Motion, emphasising that many residents were in distress and that requiring paid medical letters punished them for being in need. They stressed that a clearer, more efficient system was a matter of both ethics and Local Authority responsibility. The Leader clarified that GPs were often not the most appropriate professionals to assess specific adaptations; Occupational Therapists were better suited for this. They noted that the Council should focus on evidence of need rather than relying solely on medical letters. Councillor Hodges highlighted the inconsistency in the quality of GP letters and expressed her support for a policy change that prioritised the testimony and self- reporting of disabled individuals. Councillor Carroll acknowledged the need for efficiency and a balance between avoiding unnecessary bureaucracy and maintaining proper checks and balances. They supported the call for a review of existing systems to explore alternative evidence. Councillor Wilson suggested that residents should lobby organisations like Llais to represent patient views on the charging issue, and while they voiced concerns about a "blanket" approach to accepting all claims without verification, they agreed to support the review. Councillor Mahoney expressed scepticism about the feasibility of the proposal, noting that they would abstain from the vote until more concrete details on the review's scope and proposed changes are presented. Councillor Perkes supported the Motion from a social housing perspective, noting that it would be beneficial to review what specific types of information from various agencies could satisfy housing evidence requirements. In her closing, Councillor Loveluck-Edwards addressed concerns by clarifying that the Motion did not propose accepting claims without evidence, but rather focused on a consistent, compassionate approach. She emphasised that many vulnerable residents were already assessed through other established frameworks (like PIP), and the review would aim to identify where the Council could reduce gaps and make the process more accessible and gentler for those in need. Following a vote, it was: RESOLVED – (1) T H A T the Council review what evidence was required by its departments and why, so that staff and residents were clear on why they were necessary. (2) T H A T the Council, wherever possible, accept other forms of evidence such as a copy of PIP/Pension Credit correspondence from the DWP. (3) T H A T the Council create a basic guide that explains, in plain language, to residents why it asks for certain evidence. (4) T H A T the Council Contact the LMC (Local Medical Committee) a representative body of GPs across Cardiff and Vale Health Board to raise awareness and secure a long-term solution that removes the financial pressures our most vulnerable residents face because of the charges a GP practice may impose. Reason for decisions (1-4) Having regard to the discussions at the meeting.
Rhaid i gynghorwyr ddweud pan fydd ganddyn nhw gysylltiad personol â rhywbeth sy'n cael ei drafod, fel swydd, eiddo neu aelod o'r teulu. Mae buddiant sy'n rhagfarnu yn ddigon cryf i'r cynghorydd adael yr ystafell fel arfer a pheidio â chymryd rhan.
Caiff datganiadau eu darllen o'r cofnodion unwaith y byddan nhw wedi'u cyhoeddi.
Yn rhestru cynghorwyr presennol y cyngor yn unig. Nid yw aelodau cyfetholedig, swyddogion a chyn-gynghorwyr yn cael eu dangos.