Loading
The decisions as the council's minutes record them. A plain-language summary follows once it has been written.
RESOLVED that the minutes of the meeting held on 23 September 2025 be received and confirmed as a correct record.
RESOLVED having considered the contents of the report and its associated appendices, along with the representations made at the meeting and the answers provided to questions raised, to – Recommend that Cabinet: (i) commit to keeping Cefndy open for a sufficient period of time to enable all alternative options proposed by staff, in particular consolidation, diversification, and use of the site to support local business to be fully and independently explored (including examination by county councillors); and (ii) that a costs and benefits analysis is undertaken comparing the options referred to in (i) above with financial and social costs and impact of closure” Councillor Sandilands added that it had been a difficult meeting to chair due to the overwhelming emotive feeling of the majority present, to change and face closure as a very last resort. He also submitted apologies from Councillor Ellie Chard and read out a statement on her behalf in which she urged Cabinet not to close the workplace community but for them to consider the consolidation proposals put forward by Unison and other ideas put forward by staff. Finally, he added that the late Councillor Hugh Irving had great admiration for Cefndy and they both agreed it was a great community service that the Council should be proud of. The Leader opened up the debate to questions and discussion. Cabinet reiterated that it was a difficult and emotive decision to make which needed to be evidence based taking into account a range of considerations, including financial impacts and viability of Cefndy going forward, together with the workforce at the heart of this. Cabinet thanked officers for the comprehensive work carried out as part of this review and high level of detail contained in the report and supporting appendices. During a detailed debate Cabinet raised questions with the officers and challenged the processes undertaken and outcome of the viability review and considered the proposals put forward by Unison and Performance Scrutiny’s recommendations. Officers responded to Cabinet members’ questions and comments as follows – · provided an overview of the numerous reviews of Cefndy over the period since 2010 during which various models, approaches and options had been tested and explored, including independent consultants, restructures, diversification, social enterprise, private sector transfer and partnership working (Appendix 3 to the report) – none of which had delivered long term sustainability · provided an analysis of the proposals put forward via Unison on behalf of staff which had been carefully considered: consolidation, diversification, reduction and replacement. Meifod, CESI and Cefndy were very different and could not share a workforce as staff had different skills sets and the Cefndy site was not big enough to accommodate all three services together; diversification had been tried but product development required substantial investment and there was no appetite to invest in British manufacturing with a focus on the Far East with high-volume manufacturing and low import costs; three formal restructures had resulted in a much reduced the workforce (Appendix 4 to the report) · staff numbers had been reduced over time to try and reduce overheads and whilst it may be possible to lose one or two staff members, the loss of one or two staff in key roles including management, engineering, or welding would be hard to replace due to a skills shortage in the sector and Cefndy unable to compete with private sector salaries; it also presented a health and safety risk · some financial context was given with Cefndy having a significant turnover, but also significant costs and much hard work had been carried out to keep within budget in difficult financial times. However, sales were declining as Cefndy could no longer be competitive in the market but the core costs remained and in 2025/26 they were moving to a deficit position of £250k; the viability report showed no option had been found that would enable Cefndy to return to covering its costs. To keep operating safely investment was needed in the building estimated at £250k and in equipment estimated between £750k - £1m just to retain the current position. If alternative options were to be explored a separate budget would likely be required for that purpose and an independent consultant could cost between £40k - £100k. Financial forecasts indicated a rise in pressures of £388k in 2026/27 and just under £500k in 2027/28 based on current trends. The impact of the new pay scales under consultation had not been taken into account and could result in additional staffing costs of £50k · commodes were selling for £17.00 whereas Cefndy made them for £27.50, and at a recent European trade sale Chinese suppliers were selling them at £10.00 and Cefndy could not compete even when quality was taken into account; whilst investment had been made in marketing Cefndy was competing against international companies with marketing departments, similarly those companies had departments looking at product developments and new products and Cefndy could not complete at that level even with significant investment · in addition to a Wellbeing Impact Assessment (Appendix 2 to the report) a detailed Equality Impact Assessment (Appendix 6 to the report) had been undertaken which had involved internal officers, Unison, external partners and relevant professionals and it remained a live document. An overview was provided of the measures to mitigate the negative impacts of the closure of Cefndy which involved support being provided to staff by HR and Working Denbighshire in addition to the college which included tailored support for each staff member affected to secure the right outcomes for them such as finding meaningful alternative employment/redeployment, training/retraining, financial assistance to overcome barriers to employment and facilitating early retirement · in the event of closure Cabinet stressed the importance of monitoring staff over time to ensure those best outcomes were achieved, possibly through Cabinet and/or Scrutiny and sought assurances in that regard. Officers gave that commitment, and the Principal Manager Working Denbighshire and HR Services Manager elaborated on the support which had already been provided to staff together with potential next steps and intensive support provision moving forward. Reference was made to the Council being a Disability Confident Employer and the integrated and inclusive approach to employing disabled people. There were limited opportunities to progress at Cefndy and its closure may provide some positive opportunities for staff to explore new avenues/skills, retrain, diversify, or leave on a package of redundancy/retirement · in response to questions from Councillor Emrys Wynne on behalf of a parent of one of the workers at Cefndy, officers confirmed that staff had not been defined as key workers during the pandemic but a decision was made to allow Cefndy to operate during that period for staff where it was safe to do so given the type of equipment they were manufacturing; the impact of the loss of Cefndy had been considered on emergency planning in the event of another pandemic and the Council would still be able to continue the Community Equipment Service as it did not buy much stock from Cefndy due to the type of products it manufactured · the option of reducing the workforce was further discussed which had been considered to try and reduce overhead costs. However, the workforce was at a stage where reducing numbers could make the service unproductive or unsafe to continue operating and the loss of key roles would ultimately mean closure. Previous restructures had resulted in short term impact but not long term growth and reducing the workforce would not address the decline in sales and significant investment required in the building and machinery. A reduction may have some impact on this year’s pressures but would not impact on future years · reference was made to the Sayce Report (Disability employment support fit for the future) and the Trades Union congress position that there was no need to choose between either support in open employment or supported businesses and officers confirmed a range of policies and procedures to actively support people with disabilities in the workplace across council services. The Sayce report also caveated that businesses must have a market and the potential with business support to be viable and the importance of integration was highlighted. Cabinet considered that the numerous reviews undertaken since 2010 clearly demonstrated the importance of Cefndy to the Council and a great deal of care had been taken to try and find a long-term viable solution. It was accepted that the inability to find a sustainable solution had not been due to lack of effort or will and that the challenges facing Cefndy were significant and ongoing. Whilst financial considerations were one element of a wider picture, the financial pressure facing the Council and its ability to fund services needed to be taken into account, and the financial pressures going forward were significant. Investment could not be made from allocated reserves and the smaller pot of unallocated reserves served a different purpose. The diminishing workforce and risk of losing key staff with specific skills sets which could not be replaced together with the potential impact on health and safety requirements and subsequent closure was another consideration. Cabinet had been given assurances that in the event of closure of Cefndy, intensive and ongoing support would be given to staff to achieve the right outcomes for them. At this point the Leader invited Unison’s Branch Secretary to address Cabinet. The Branch Secretary welcomed the trade unions involvement in the spirit of social partnership to ensure a decision was made with the full voice of staff. Staff believed Cefndy was a good model that worked and wanted it to continue and provide opportunities in the future. The key point in the Sayce Report was there should be a range of options for disabled people and Cefndy was one of a range of options. Global issues were affecting Cefndy and there was a need to re-examine Cefndy and the possibility of organising it in different ways to ensure it continued to be viable as it had been in the past and had changed multiple times. He thanked staff for their response and proposals following their involvement in the consultation in early September and given that late stage the Scrutiny Committee had agreed that it was necessary to provide sufficient time to undertake a detailed options appraisal of their proposals. This was important because the staff had very different views on some of the details and assumptions in the report. He also questioned whether the decision would have been taken in this way had the college offer not been made. With regard to financial implications the options put forward would require change and investment and it was a political decision whether or not to invest in Cefndy. If the decision was taken to close Cefndy there needed to be a legacy to maintain the level of provision currently in the local authority to support disabled people and directly replace those jobs that were currently in Cefndy. Finally, Cabinet was urged to consider all the points raised and the proposals put forward by staff. The Leader thanked the Branch Secretary for his contributions and all the issues raised would be considered as part of the very difficult decision facing Cabinet. He agreed with the need for a legacy to ensure that if the decision was closure then all would work together with staff to secure meaningful alternative employment. The Leader opened the debate to non-Cabinet members who took the opportunity to express their views and raise questions on the proposals. In summary – Councillor Brian Jones reported on the groundswell of opinion that Cefndy’s fortunes could be turned around and he urged Cabinet to set up a group of with private sector experience, including councillors, to explore options with staff in line with the Scrutiny Committee’s recommendations. Councillor Andrea Tomlin referred to the positive Cefndy annual report to Performance Scrutiny Committee in July 2024 with Cefndy on target for the next year and planning for the future. Apart from being approached by the college to sell the site she asked what had occurred to cause such a tragic downturn of events in only twelve months. Councillor Gwyneth Ellis confirmed that the last Cefndy annual report indicated the potential for Cefndy to operate on a cost neutral basis and the outlook since then had changed beyond recognition. From the debate she felt that Cabinet had already made their decision and by engaging in talks about the future for workers and also felt there was a perception that the college offer to buy the site had influenced debate. She urged Cabinet to listen to the trade union and staff and to Performance Scrutiny Committee and explore those options. Councillor Gareth Sandilands believed Cefndy had a future and agreed with the need for an alternative model; he queried the steps to engage co-operative partners. Officers and Cabinet responded to the comments/questions raised as follows – · numerous reviews had already been carried out over a long period involving those with private sector knowledge, experience and expertise and the fact was that Cefndy could not remain competitive in the global market · the management team had done as much as it could to manage costs, but it could not be sustained longer term; there had been an initial decline in sales with a significant decline in 2024/25 and a substantial change in global markets coupled with significant cost increases and changes in customer behaviour. Cefndy annual reports had been presented with the caveat of ongoing review · the college had been approached to engage in partnership working with Cefndy as part of exploring ways to make Cefndy sustainable but had not been interested. However, they later approached the Council to express an interest in the land should for whatever reason Cefndy was closed. Cabinet was clear that the potential for a capital receipt in the future did not play a part in their decision · the Cabinet debate had focused on the report recommendations and all the supporting documentation and it was appropriate that the impact on staff in the event of closure was considered to ensure the necessary protections and support was in place; there had also been much debate on the finances, viability and the numerous options considered to find a sustainable long-term solution; the potential to sell the site had not formed any part of that decision making · numerous individuals, organisations and companies had been approached in exploring alternative delivery models/options. However, there were providers of third sector organisations who operated very different models to Cefndy and co-options for example did not provide permanent employment for individuals which was why they had not been approached as part of that process. At the close of debate the Leader thanked everyone for their contributions. Councillor Rhys Thomas proposed an amendment to strengthen the wording of recommendation 3.3, to show Cabinet’s commitment to supporting staff currently working at Cefndy and provide personalised and ongoing support throughout the process, seconded by Councillor Elen Heaton. Cabinet approved that amendment. RESOLVED that Cabinet – (a) confirms that it has read, understood, and taken account of the Wellbeing Impact Assessment (Appendix 2 to the report) and the Equality Impact Assessment (Appendix 6 to the report) as part of its consideration; (b) agrees with the Cefndy Viability Report and the recommendation that Option 5 – Closure of Cefndy is the only viable option for Cefndy as a service within Adult Social Care and Homelessness, having also considered the recommendation from the Performance Scrutiny Committee (Appendix 5 to the report) on 18 September 2025, and (c) that Cabinet is given assurance that personalised support is provided by HR and Working Denbighshire throughout this process in order to secure the right outcomes for each member of staff. At this point (12.25pm) the meeting adjourned for a refreshment break.
RESOLVED that Cabinet note the contents of the report.
RESOLVED that Cabinet – (a) confirms it has read, understood and taken account of the Well-being Impact Assessment (Appendix 6 to the report) as part of its consideration, and (b) approves the re-designation of the Additional Licensing Scheme for the current areas and to extend the scheme county-wide in Denbighshire.
RESOLVED that Cabinet – (a) approves that the Catering Service can progress to undertake a procurement exercise for the Procurement of Groceries, Chilled and Frozen Foods, which covers supply to all 54 schools including all Primary, Secondary and All through schools, and (b) delegate authority to the Head of Service for Highways and Environment to agree to let the contract to the successful Supplier following completion of the tender process.
RESOLVED that Cabinet approves the Medium Term Financial Strategy and Medium Term Financial Plan included at Appendices 1 and 2 to the report and notes the ongoing work to set a balanced budget in 2026/27.
RESOLVED that Cabinet note the budgets set for 2025/26 and progress against the agreed strategy.
RESOLVED that Cabinet’s forward work programme be noted. The meeting concluded at 1.35 pm.
There were no apologies.
No declarations of interest had been raised.
No urgent matters had been raised.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED that the minutes of the meeting held on 23 September 2025 be received and confirmed as a correct record.
The minutes of the Cabinet meeting held on 23 September 2025 were submitted. RESOLVED that the minutes of the meeting held on 23 September 2025 be received and confirmed as a correct record.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED having considered the contents of the report and its associated appendices, along with the representations made at the meeting and the answers provided to questions raised, to – Recommend that Cabinet: (i) commit to keeping Cefndy open for a sufficient period of time to enable all alternative options proposed by staff, in particular consolidation, diversification, and use of the site to support local business to be fully and independently explored (including examination by county councillors); and (ii) that a costs and benefits analysis is undertaken comparing the options referred to in (i) above with financial and social costs and impact of closure” Councillor Sandilands added that it had been a difficult meeting to chair due to the overwhelming emotive feeling of the majority present, to change and face closure as a very last resort. He also submitted apologies from Councillor Ellie Chard and read out a statement on her behalf in which she urged Cabinet not to close the workplace community but for them to consider the consolidation proposals put forward by Unison and other ideas put forward by staff. Finally, he added that the late Councillor Hugh Irving had great admiration for Cefndy and they both agreed it was a great community service that the Council should be proud of. The Leader opened up the debate to questions and discussion. Cabinet reiterated that it was a difficult and emotive decision to make which needed to be evidence based taking into account a range of considerations, including financial impacts and viability of Cefndy going forward, together with the workforce at the heart of this. Cabinet thanked officers for the comprehensive work carried out as part of this review and high level of detail contained in the report and supporting appendices. During a detailed debate Cabinet raised questions with the officers and challenged the processes undertaken and outcome of the viability review and considered the proposals put forward by Unison and Performance Scrutiny’s recommendations. Officers responded to Cabinet members’ questions and comments as follows – · provided an overview of the numerous reviews of Cefndy over the period since 2010 during which various models, approaches and options had been tested and explored, including independent consultants, restructures, diversification, social enterprise, private sector transfer and partnership working (Appendix 3 to the report) – none of which had delivered long term sustainability · provided an analysis of the proposals put forward via Unison on behalf of staff which had been carefully considered: consolidation, diversification, reduction and replacement. Meifod, CESI and Cefndy were very different and could not share a workforce as staff had different skills sets and the Cefndy site was not big enough to accommodate all three services together; diversification had been tried but product development required substantial investment and there was no appetite to invest in British manufacturing with a focus on the Far East with high-volume manufacturing and low import costs; three formal restructures had resulted in a much reduced the workforce (Appendix 4 to the report) · staff numbers had been reduced over time to try and reduce overheads and whilst it may be possible to lose one or two staff members, the loss of one or two staff in key roles including management, engineering, or welding would be hard to replace due to a skills shortage in the sector and Cefndy unable to compete with private sector salaries; it also presented a health and safety risk · some financial context was given with Cefndy having a significant turnover, but also significant costs and much hard work had been carried out to keep within budget in difficult financial times. However, sales were declining as Cefndy could no longer be competitive in the market but the core costs remained and in 2025/26 they were moving to a deficit position of £250k; the viability report showed no option had been found that would enable Cefndy to return to covering its costs. To keep operating safely investment was needed in the building estimated at £250k and in equipment estimated between £750k - £1m just to retain the current position. If alternative options were to be explored a separate budget would likely be required for that purpose and an independent consultant could cost between £40k - £100k. Financial forecasts indicated a rise in pressures of £388k in 2026/27 and just under £500k in 2027/28 based on current trends. The impact of the new pay scales under consultation had not been taken into account and could result in additional staffing costs of £50k · commodes were selling for £17.00 whereas Cefndy made them for £27.50, and at a recent European trade sale Chinese suppliers were selling them at £10.00 and Cefndy could not compete even when quality was taken into account; whilst investment had been made in marketing Cefndy was competing against international companies with marketing departments, similarly those companies had departments looking at product developments and new products and Cefndy could not complete at that level even with significant investment · in addition to a Wellbeing Impact Assessment (Appendix 2 to the report) a detailed Equality Impact Assessment (Appendix 6 to the report) had been undertaken which had involved internal officers, Unison, external partners and relevant professionals and it remained a live document. An overview was provided of the measures to mitigate the negative impacts of the closure of Cefndy which involved support being provided to staff by HR and Working Denbighshire in addition to the college which included tailored support for each staff member affected to secure the right outcomes for them such as finding meaningful alternative employment/redeployment, training/retraining, financial assistance to overcome barriers to employment and facilitating early retirement · in the event of closure Cabinet stressed the importance of monitoring staff over time to ensure those best outcomes were achieved, possibly through Cabinet and/or Scrutiny and sought assurances in that regard. Officers gave that commitment, and the Principal Manager Working Denbighshire and HR Services Manager elaborated on the support which had already been provided to staff together with potential next steps and intensive support provision moving forward. Reference was made to the Council being a Disability Confident Employer and the integrated and inclusive approach to employing disabled people. There were limited opportunities to progress at Cefndy and its closure may provide some positive opportunities for staff to explore new avenues/skills, retrain, diversify, or leave on a package of redundancy/retirement · in response to questions from Councillor Emrys Wynne on behalf of a parent of one of the workers at Cefndy, officers confirmed that staff had not been defined as key workers during the pandemic but a decision was made to allow Cefndy to operate during that period for staff where it was safe to do so given the type of equipment they were manufacturing; the impact of the loss of Cefndy had been considered on emergency planning in the event of another pandemic and the Council would still be able to continue the Community Equipment Service as it did not buy much stock from Cefndy due to the type of products it manufactured · the option of reducing the workforce was further discussed which had been considered to try and reduce overhead costs. However, the workforce was at a stage where reducing numbers could make the service unproductive or unsafe to continue operating and the loss of key roles would ultimately mean closure. Previous restructures had resulted in short term impact but not long term growth and reducing the workforce would not address the decline in sales and significant investment required in the building and machinery. A reduction may have some impact on this year’s pressures but would not impact on future years · reference was made to the Sayce Report (Disability employment support fit for the future) and the Trades Union congress position that there was no need to choose between either support in open employment or supported businesses and officers confirmed a range of policies and procedures to actively support people with disabilities in the workplace across council services. The Sayce report also caveated that businesses must have a market and the potential with business support to be viable and the importance of integration was highlighted. Cabinet considered that the numerous reviews undertaken since 2010 clearly demonstrated the importance of Cefndy to the Council and a great deal of care had been taken to try and find a long-term viable solution. It was accepted that the inability to find a sustainable solution had not been due to lack of effort or will and that the challenges facing Cefndy were significant and ongoing. Whilst financial considerations were one element of a wider picture, the financial pressure facing the Council and its ability to fund services needed to be taken into account, and the financial pressures going forward were significant. Investment could not be made from allocated reserves and the smaller pot of unallocated reserves served a different purpose. The diminishing workforce and risk of losing key staff with specific skills sets which could not be replaced together with the potential impact on health and safety requirements and subsequent closure was another consideration. Cabinet had been given assurances that in the event of closure of Cefndy, intensive and ongoing support would be given to staff to achieve the right outcomes for them. At this point the Leader invited Unison’s Branch Secretary to address Cabinet. The Branch Secretary welcomed the trade unions involvement in the spirit of social partnership to ensure a decision was made with the full voice of staff. Staff believed Cefndy was a good model that worked and wanted it to continue and provide opportunities in the future. The key point in the Sayce Report was there should be a range of options for disabled people and Cefndy was one of a range of options. Global issues were affecting Cefndy and there was a need to re-examine Cefndy and the possibility of organising it in different ways to ensure it continued to be viable as it had been in the past and had changed multiple times. He thanked staff for their response and proposals following their involvement in the consultation in early September and given that late stage the Scrutiny Committee had agreed that it was necessary to provide sufficient time to undertake a detailed options appraisal of their proposals. This was important because the staff had very different views on some of the details and assumptions in the report. He also questioned whether the decision would have been taken in this way had the college offer not been made. With regard to financial implications the options put forward would require change and investment and it was a political decision whether or not to invest in Cefndy. If the decision was taken to close Cefndy there needed to be a legacy to maintain the level of provision currently in the local authority to support disabled people and directly replace those jobs that were currently in Cefndy. Finally, Cabinet was urged to consider all the points raised and the proposals put forward by staff. The Leader thanked the Branch Secretary for his contributions and all the issues raised would be considered as part of the very difficult decision facing Cabinet. He agreed with the need for a legacy to ensure that if the decision was closure then all would work together with staff to secure meaningful alternative employment. The Leader opened the debate to non-Cabinet members who took the opportunity to express their views and raise questions on the proposals. In summary – Councillor Brian Jones reported on the groundswell of opinion that Cefndy’s fortunes could be turned around and he urged Cabinet to set up a group of with private sector experience, including councillors, to explore options with staff in line with the Scrutiny Committee’s recommendations. Councillor Andrea Tomlin referred to the positive Cefndy annual report to Performance Scrutiny Committee in July 2024 with Cefndy on target for the next year and planning for the future. Apart from being approached by the college to sell the site she asked what had occurred to cause such a tragic downturn of events in only twelve months. Councillor Gwyneth Ellis confirmed that the last Cefndy annual report indicated the potential for Cefndy to operate on a cost neutral basis and the outlook since then had changed beyond recognition. From the debate she felt that Cabinet had already made their decision and by engaging in talks about the future for workers and also felt there was a perception that the college offer to buy the site had influenced debate. She urged Cabinet to listen to the trade union and staff and to Performance Scrutiny Committee and explore those options. Councillor Gareth Sandilands believed Cefndy had a future and agreed with the need for an alternative model; he queried the steps to engage co-operative partners. Officers and Cabinet responded to the comments/questions raised as follows – · numerous reviews had already been carried out over a long period involving those with private sector knowledge, experience and expertise and the fact was that Cefndy could not remain competitive in the global market · the management team had done as much as it could to manage costs, but it could not be sustained longer term; there had been an initial decline in sales with a significant decline in 2024/25 and a substantial change in global markets coupled with significant cost increases and changes in customer behaviour. Cefndy annual reports had been presented with the caveat of ongoing review · the college had been approached to engage in partnership working with Cefndy as part of exploring ways to make Cefndy sustainable but had not been interested. However, they later approached the Council to express an interest in the land should for whatever reason Cefndy was closed. Cabinet was clear that the potential for a capital receipt in the future did not play a part in their decision · the Cabinet debate had focused on the report recommendations and all the supporting documentation and it was appropriate that the impact on staff in the event of closure was considered to ensure the necessary protections and support was in place; there had also been much debate on the finances, viability and the numerous options considered to find a sustainable long-term solution; the potential to sell the site had not formed any part of that decision making · numerous individuals, organisations and companies had been approached in exploring alternative delivery models/options. However, there were providers of third sector organisations who operated very different models to Cefndy and co-options for example did not provide permanent employment for individuals which was why they had not been approached as part of that process. At the close of debate the Leader thanked everyone for their contributions. Councillor Rhys Thomas proposed an amendment to strengthen the wording of recommendation 3.3, to show Cabinet’s commitment to supporting staff currently working at Cefndy and provide personalised and ongoing support throughout the process, seconded by Councillor Elen Heaton. Cabinet approved that amendment. RESOLVED that Cabinet – (a) confirms that it has read, understood, and taken account of the Wellbeing Impact Assessment (Appendix 2 to the report) and the Equality Impact Assessment (Appendix 6 to the report) as part of its consideration; (b) agrees with the Cefndy Viability Report and the recommendation that Option 5 – Closure of Cefndy is the only viable option for Cefndy as a service within Adult Social Care and Homelessness, having also considered the recommendation from the Performance Scrutiny Committee (Appendix 5 to the report) on 18 September 2025, and (c) that Cabinet is given assurance that personalised support is provided by HR and Working Denbighshire throughout this process in order to secure the right outcomes for each member of staff. At this point (12.25pm) the meeting adjourned for a refreshment break.
Councillor Elen Heaton presented the viability report and associated documentation on the future of Cefndy Healthcare in Rhyl which faced serious challenges. The viability review of Cefndy had been based on four considerations – Economic, Financial, Workforce and Alternative Delivery Models. The viability report presented five options: Option 1: Do nothing; Option 2: Investment from the Council; Option 3: Reduction in Workforce; Option 4: Alternative Delivery Model, and Option 5: Closure of Cefndy. Option 5 had been recommended as the only viable option. Other supporting documentation included an analysis and response to staff proposals and Performance Scrutiny Committee’s recommendations. The report also highlighted the conclusions of the Wellbeing and Equality Impact Assessments and the additional support being provided to staff by HR and Working Denbighshire. Councillor Heaton advised that it was the most difficult report she had brought to Cabinet with a decision required on a long standing service with a proud history and staff who would be directly affected by the outcome. The viability review had been thorough, involving feedback from staff, trade unions and members and had been clear in its evidence that Cefndy was not financially or operationally sustainable. Some further background was provided. Sales had declined sharply; production costs had risen, and significant investment was needed to modernise and maintain Cefndy but even with that investment it would not be able to sustain itself as it could not compete with global suppliers. Numerous reviews had been undertaken over the past fifteen years exploring a range of options with three restructures in the last six years, none of which had delivered long-term sustainability. The supporting appendices evidenced the range of options explored and Cabinet was asked to decide if it agreed with the evidence presented and outcome of the viability review. There was also a need to consider if Cefndy’s model of supported employment remained the most effective way of achieving inclusion with practices having shifted towards more integrated approaches. Throughout discussions the wellbeing of staff had been central and there had been close working with the trade unions and staff who had shared proposals which had been carefully considered; members had also been engaged with Performance Scrutiny Committee also providing recommendations for Cabinet to consider. However, none of the proposals or suggestions addressed the full range of challenges Cefndy faced in the long term. If Cabinet agreed the recommendations staff would have a personalised support plan on next steps and that support would continue beyond closure if needed. HR, Unison, Working Denbighshire and Grŵp Llandrillo Menai were all involved offering redeployment, retraining, upskilling and retirement support where that was appropriate. Looking ahead the proposed sale of the site to the college would bring new investment into Rhyl and create opportunities for learning and skills locally for generations to come. It had been a difficult process and a hard recommendation to consider but it reflected the evidence and the reality of the situation. The Corporate Director: Social Services and Education; Head of Adult Social Care and Homelessness; Principal Manager Working Denbighshire, and HR Services Manager attended for this item. The Head of Service added that it was a difficult report, but officers had exhausted all opportunities to ensure a sustainable future for Cefndy and the requirement for ongoing financial support continued to rise. Staff numbers had been reduced to less than half since its peak to minimise overheads and operating costs but the significant costs Cefndy had to absorb had not been able to be recovered within product sales to allow it to remain competitive. The high-volume manufacturing and low import costs from the Far East had eroded the UK’s manufacturing industry. Since completion of the viability report further work had been carried out on the options presented via Unison on behalf of staff (Appendix 4 to the report); the first three options had all been tried at some point with limited success and the final option of replacement reflected the outdated supported employment model with the Council already having a policy around a fully inclusive and integrated workforce in place. Performance Scrutiny Committee had made recommendations to defer the decision pending investigation into the options put forward by Union (Appendix 5 to the report) but that work had already been carried out with any deferral likely to cost circa £720k over the next 12/18 months but could also result in closure given the need for restructure. No one had come into public service to make such decisions and assurances were given that officers had explored and exhausted every option. Supporting staff remained top priority and that work would continue going forward. The Leader invited Councillor Gareth Sandilands to present the recommendations of Performance Scrutiny Committee following its review of the Cefndy Viability Report on 18 September 2025 (Appendix 5 to the report referred). Councillor Sandilands summaried the lengthy discussion of the Scrutiny Committee via the draft minutes which had resulted in the following recommendations – “RESOLVED having considered the contents of the report and its associated appendices, along with the representations made at the meeting and the answers provided to questions raised, to – Recommend that Cabinet: (i) commit to keeping Cefndy open for a sufficient period of time to enable all alternative options proposed by staff, in particular consolidation, diversification, and use of the site to support local business to be fully and independently explored (including examination by county councillors); and (ii) that a costs and benefits analysis is undertaken comparing the options referred to in (i) above with financial and social costs and impact of closure” Councillor Sandilands added that it had been a difficult meeting to chair due to the overwhelming emotive feeling of the majority present, to change and face closure as a very last resort. He also submitted apologies from Councillor Ellie Chard and read out a statement on her behalf in which she urged Cabinet not to close the workplace community but for them to consider the consolidation proposals put forward by Unison and other ideas put forward by staff. Finally, he added that the late Councillor Hugh Irving had great admiration for Cefndy and they both agreed it was a great community service that the Council should be proud of. The Leader opened up the debate to questions and discussion. Cabinet reiterated that it was a difficult and emotive decision to make which needed to be evidence based taking into account a range of considerations, including financial impacts and viability of Cefndy going forward, together with the workforce at the heart of this. Cabinet thanked officers for the comprehensive work carried out as part of this review and high level of detail contained in the report and supporting appendices. During a detailed debate Cabinet raised questions with the officers and challenged the processes undertaken and outcome of the viability review and considered the proposals put forward by Unison and Performance Scrutiny’s recommendations. Officers responded to Cabinet members’ questions and comments as follows – · provided an overview of the numerous reviews of Cefndy over the period since 2010 during which various models, approaches and options had been tested and explored, including independent consultants, restructures, diversification, social enterprise, private sector transfer and partnership working (Appendix 3 to the report) – none of which had delivered long term sustainability · provided an analysis of the proposals put forward via Unison on behalf of staff which had been carefully considered: consolidation, diversification, reduction and replacement. Meifod, CESI and Cefndy were very different and could not share a workforce as staff had different skills sets and the Cefndy site was not big enough to accommodate all three services together; diversification had been tried but product development required substantial investment and there was no appetite to invest in British manufacturing with a focus on the Far East with high-volume manufacturing and low import costs; three formal restructures had resulted in a much reduced the workforce (Appendix 4 to the report) · staff numbers had been reduced over time to try and reduce overheads and whilst it may be possible to lose one or two staff members, the loss of one or two staff in key roles including management, engineering, or welding would be hard to replace due to a skills shortage in the sector and Cefndy unable to compete with private sector salaries; it also presented a health and safety risk · some financial context was given with Cefndy having a significant turnover, but also significant costs and much hard work had been carried out to keep within budget in difficult financial times. However, sales were declining as Cefndy could no longer be competitive in the market but the core costs remained and in 2025/26 they were moving to a deficit position of £250k; the viability report showed no option had been found that would enable Cefndy to return to covering its costs. To keep operating safely investment was needed in the building estimated at £250k and in equipment estimated between £750k - £1m just to retain the current position. If alternative options were to be explored a separate budget would likely be required for that purpose and an independent consultant could cost between £40k - £100k. Financial forecasts indicated a rise in pressures of £388k in 2026/27 and just under £500k in 2027/28 based on current trends. The impact of the new pay scales under consultation had not been taken into account and could result in additional staffing costs of £50k · commodes were selling for £17.00 whereas Cefndy made them for £27.50, and at a recent European trade sale Chinese suppliers were selling them at £10.00 and Cefndy could not compete even when quality was taken into account; whilst investment had been made in marketing Cefndy was competing against international companies with marketing departments, similarly those companies had departments looking at product developments and new products and Cefndy could not complete at that level even with significant investment · in addition to a Wellbeing Impact Assessment (Appendix 2 to the report) a detailed Equality Impact Assessment (Appendix 6 to the report) had been undertaken which had involved internal officers, Unison, external partners and relevant professionals and it remained a live document. An overview was provided of the measures to mitigate the negative impacts of the closure of Cefndy which involved support being provided to staff by HR and Working Denbighshire in addition to the college which included tailored support for each staff member affected to secure the right outcomes for them such as finding meaningful alternative employment/redeployment, training/retraining, financial assistance to overcome barriers to employment and facilitating early retirement · in the event of closure Cabinet stressed the importance of monitoring staff over time to ensure those best outcomes were achieved, possibly through Cabinet and/or Scrutiny and sought assurances in that regard. Officers gave that commitment, and the Principal Manager Working Denbighshire and HR Services Manager elaborated on the support which had already been provided to staff together with potential next steps and intensive support provision moving forward. Reference was made to the Council being a Disability Confident Employer and the integrated and inclusive approach to employing disabled people. There were limited opportunities to progress at Cefndy and its closure may provide some positive opportunities for staff to explore new avenues/skills, retrain, diversify, or leave on a package of redundancy/retirement · in response to questions from Councillor Emrys Wynne on behalf of a parent of one of the workers at Cefndy, officers confirmed that staff had not been defined as key workers during the pandemic but a decision was made to allow Cefndy to operate during that period for staff where it was safe to do so given the type of equipment they were manufacturing; the impact of the loss of Cefndy had been considered on emergency planning in the event of another pandemic and the Council would still be able to continue the Community Equipment Service as it did not buy much stock from Cefndy due to the type of products it manufactured · the option of reducing the workforce was further discussed which had been considered to try and reduce overhead costs. However, the workforce was at a stage where reducing numbers could make the service unproductive or unsafe to continue operating and the loss of key roles would ultimately mean closure. Previous restructures had resulted in short term impact but not long term growth and reducing the workforce would not address the decline in sales and significant investment required in the building and machinery. A reduction may have some impact on this year’s pressures but would not impact on future years · reference was made to the Sayce Report (Disability employment support fit for the future) and the Trades Union congress position that there was no need to choose between either support in open employment or supported businesses and officers confirmed a range of policies and procedures to actively support people with disabilities in the workplace across council services. The Sayce report also caveated that businesses must have a market and the potential with business support to be viable and the importance of integration was highlighted. Cabinet considered that the numerous reviews undertaken since 2010 clearly demonstrated the importance of Cefndy to the Council and a great deal of care had been taken to try and find a long-term viable solution. It was accepted that the inability to find a sustainable solution had not been due to lack of effort or will and that the challenges facing Cefndy were significant and ongoing. Whilst financial considerations were one element of a wider picture, the financial pressure facing the Council and its ability to fund services needed to be taken into account, and the financial pressures going forward were significant. Investment could not be made from allocated reserves and the smaller pot of unallocated reserves served a different purpose. The diminishing workforce and risk of losing key staff with specific skills sets which could not be replaced together with the potential impact on health and safety requirements and subsequent closure was another consideration. Cabinet had been given assurances that in the event of closure of Cefndy, intensive and ongoing support would be given to staff to achieve the right outcomes for them. At this point the Leader invited Unison’s Branch Secretary to address Cabinet. The Branch Secretary welcomed the trade unions involvement in the spirit of social partnership to ensure a decision was made with the full voice of staff. Staff believed Cefndy was a good model that worked and wanted it to continue and provide opportunities in the future. The key point in the Sayce Report was there should be a range of options for disabled people and Cefndy was one of a range of options. Global issues were affecting Cefndy and there was a need to re-examine Cefndy and the possibility of organising it in different ways to ensure it continued to be viable as it had been in the past and had changed multiple times. He thanked staff for their response and proposals following their involvement in the consultation in early September and given that late stage the Scrutiny Committee had agreed that it was necessary to provide sufficient time to undertake a detailed options appraisal of their proposals. This was important because the staff had very different views on some of the details and assumptions in the report. He also questioned whether the decision would have been taken in this way had the college offer not been made. With regard to financial implications the options put forward would require change and investment and it was a political decision whether or not to invest in Cefndy. If the decision was taken to close Cefndy there needed to be a legacy to maintain the level of provision currently in the local authority to support disabled people and directly replace those jobs that were currently in Cefndy. Finally, Cabinet was urged to consider all the points raised and the proposals put forward by staff. The Leader thanked the Branch Secretary for his contributions and all the issues raised would be considered as part of the very difficult decision facing Cabinet. He agreed with the need for a legacy to ensure that if the decision was closure then all would work together with staff to secure meaningful alternative employment. The Leader opened the debate to non-Cabinet members who took the opportunity to express their views and raise questions on the proposals. In summary – Councillor Brian Jones reported on the groundswell of opinion that Cefndy’s fortunes could be turned around and he urged Cabinet to set up a group of with private sector experience, including councillors, to explore options with staff in line with the Scrutiny Committee’s recommendations. Councillor Andrea Tomlin referred to the positive Cefndy annual report to Performance Scrutiny Committee in July 2024 with Cefndy on target for the next year and planning for the future. Apart from being approached by the college to sell the site she asked what had occurred to cause such a tragic downturn of events in only twelve months. Councillor Gwyneth Ellis confirmed that the last Cefndy annual report indicated the potential for Cefndy to operate on a cost neutral basis and the outlook since then had changed beyond recognition. From the debate she felt that Cabinet had already made their decision and by engaging in talks about the future for workers and also felt there was a perception that the college offer to buy the site had influenced debate. She urged Cabinet to listen to the trade union and staff and to Performance Scrutiny Committee and explore those options. Councillor Gareth Sandilands believed Cefndy had a future and agreed with the need for an alternative model; he queried the steps to engage co-operative partners. Officers and Cabinet responded to the comments/questions raised as follows – · numerous reviews had already been carried out over a long period involving those with private sector knowledge, experience and expertise and the fact was that Cefndy could not remain competitive in the global market · the management team had done as much as it could to manage costs, but it could not be sustained longer term; there had been an initial decline in sales with a significant decline in 2024/25 and a substantial change in global markets coupled with significant cost increases and changes in customer behaviour. Cefndy annual reports had been presented with the caveat of ongoing review · the college had been approached to engage in partnership working with Cefndy as part of exploring ways to make Cefndy sustainable but had not been interested. However, they later approached the Council to express an interest in the land should for whatever reason Cefndy was closed. Cabinet was clear that the potential for a capital receipt in the future did not play a part in their decision · the Cabinet debate had focused on the report recommendations and all the supporting documentation and it was appropriate that the impact on staff in the event of closure was considered to ensure the necessary protections and support was in place; there had also been much debate on the finances, viability and the numerous options considered to find a sustainable long-term solution; the potential to sell the site had not formed any part of that decision making · numerous individuals, organisations and companies had been approached in exploring alternative delivery models/options. However, there were providers of third sector organisations who operated very different models to Cefndy and co-options for example did not provide permanent employment for individuals which was why they had not been approached as part of that process. At the close of debate the Leader thanked everyone for their contributions. Councillor Rhys Thomas proposed an amendment to strengthen the wording of recommendation 3.3, to show Cabinet’s commitment to supporting staff currently working at Cefndy and provide personalised and ongoing support throughout the process, seconded by Councillor Elen Heaton. Cabinet approved that amendment. RESOLVED that Cabinet – (a) confirms that it has read, understood, and taken account of the Wellbeing Impact Assessment (Appendix 2 to the report) and the Equality Impact Assessment (Appendix 6 to the report) as part of its consideration; (b) agrees with the Cefndy Viability Report and the recommendation that Option 5 – Closure of Cefndy is the only viable option for Cefndy as a service within Adult Social Care and Homelessness, having also considered the recommendation from the Performance Scrutiny Committee (Appendix 5 to the report) on 18 September 2025, and (c) that Cabinet is given assurance that personalised support is provided by HR and Working Denbighshire throughout this process in order to secure the right outcomes for each member of staff. At this point (12.25pm) the meeting adjourned for a refreshment break.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED that Cabinet note the contents of the report.
Councillor Julie Matthews presented the report on the Public Services Ombudsman for Wales (PSOW) Annual Letter 2024/25 and an overview of complaints received by the Council under the customer feedback policy ‘Your Voice’ during 2024/25, and Social Services complaints received under its statutory complaints procedure. The increase in complaints for 2024/25 was as expected and related to Waste Services. Other service performance was broadly in line with previous years. The Head of Adult Social Care and Homelessness highlighted the following – · Governance and Audit Committee had received the PSOW Annual Letter in September and asked for representations to be made to the PSOW because the inappropriate complaints and those made too early (which were not dealt with) were counted in the number of complaints which impacted on performance · the PSOW had made 10 recommendations relating to 6 complaints, 8 of which were due in year and 4 were late responses, 3 of which related to one complaint · the main lesson learned related to the waste service project and steps had been taken to ensure that any such future service change and large scale projects had a robust complaints process with appropriate resource built into the implementation plan as part of the project planning process. The Monitoring Officer added that the element of the PSOW Annual Letter which related to complaints made about county councillors and town/city/community councillors would be submitted to the next meeting of the Standards Committee. RESOLVED that Cabinet note the contents of the report.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED that Cabinet – (a) confirms it has read, understood and taken account of the Well-being Impact Assessment (Appendix 6 to the report) as part of its consideration, and (b) approves the re-designation of the Additional Licensing Scheme for the current areas and to extend the scheme county-wide in Denbighshire.
Councillor Rhys Thomas presented the report seeking Cabinet approval on redesignating an Additional Licensing Scheme for Houses in Multiple Occupation in Rhyl, Prestatyn, Denbigh and Llangollen and extending the scheme countywide. Some background was provided regarding the legislative provisions laid down by the Housing Act 2004 and the duties placed on local authorities to operate a mandatory licensing scheme for certain types of HMOs. The Act also enabled local authorities to extend a licensing scheme to other categories of HMO to address particular problems and required that designation be reviewed every 5 years. An additional licensing scheme for Rhyl had been operating since 2010 and in 2020 the area was expanded to include Prestatyn, Denbigh and Llangollen with the current scheme expiring November 2025. The purpose of the recommendation was to make it easier to regulate properties and safeguard tenants and letters of support had been received from both the North Wales Police and Fire and Rescue Service. The Public Protection, Regeneration and Economic Development Manager reported on the scheme’s operation since 2010 and provided some statistical information to support the recommendation to extend the scheme county-wide given the likelihood of HMOs operating in the rest of the county and to provide a greater protection for tenants in matters such as fire safety. In response to questions officers confirmed that given the likely number of additional properties for licensing and renewals staggered throughout the year there was confidence that there was sufficient capacity to manage the additional workload within existing resources. In terms of monitoring and enforcement a proactive approach was taken with a full inspection carried out prior to licensing which included a risk assessment which informed the level of future inspections required to aid the management of resources. A licence could be revoked in the event that the conditions were not complied with. Cabinet welcomed the additional licensing scheme and its extension county-wide as a means to ensure proper management and provision of suitable facilities and fire safety arrangements for tenants. Cabinet thanked officers for the clear and comprehensive report which had been well received. RESOLVED that Cabinet – (a) confirms it has read, understood and taken account of the Well-being Impact Assessment (Appendix 6 to the report) as part of its consideration, and (b) approves the re-designation of the Additional Licensing Scheme for the current areas and to extend the scheme county-wide in Denbighshire.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED that Cabinet – (a) approves that the Catering Service can progress to undertake a procurement exercise for the Procurement of Groceries, Chilled and Frozen Foods, which covers supply to all 54 schools including all Primary, Secondary and All through schools, and (b) delegate authority to the Head of Service for Highways and Environment to agree to let the contract to the successful Supplier following completion of the tender process.
Councillor Diane King presented the report seeking Cabinet approval to undertake a procurement exercise for the Procurement of Groceries, Chilled and Frozen Foods to cover supply to the Council’s 54 schools. Denbighshire Catering Services was an award-winning service which served an average 13,500 meals per day to pupils in 54 school kitchens across the county. The option to extend the existing contract was currently being utilised which ended on 31 August 2026. All food items must have full traceability, with delivery guaranteed and prices aligned with the food market. The contract would be let via the TUCO framework (The University Caterers Organisation) which was a UK recognised procurement specialist and experts in that field at no cost to the service. The Head of Highways and Environmental Services added that the roll out of the Universal Free school meals project in primary schools had resulted in significant increase of food items purchased and details were provided of the contract which was estimated to be circa £8.8m over the term of a 5-year contract. The benefits of working with TUCO were highlighted together with the intention to support the local economy wherever possible to purchase local produce with flexibility in the contract where that was not possible to ensure a constant supply of food for schools. Councillor Emrys Wynne recognised that TUCO was very aware of the need to ensure local produce in their contracts and highlighted the importance of supporting local food industries. The Head of Service gave assurances that local producers and food stuffs would always be the primary focus where possible, and the Lead Member referred to a number of bespoke lines from local producers. The Leader referred to the introduction of universal free school meals to all primary school pupils in the current council term and congratulated the service on meeting that challenge and serving an average 13,500 meals per day to Denbighshire pupils. RESOLVED that Cabinet – (a) approves that the Catering Service can progress to undertake a procurement exercise for the Procurement of Groceries, Chilled and Frozen Foods, which covers supply to all 54 schools including all Primary, Secondary and All through schools, and (b) delegate authority to the Head of Service for Highways and Environment to agree to let the contract to the successful Supplier following completion of the tender process.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED that Cabinet approves the Medium Term Financial Strategy and Medium Term Financial Plan included at Appendices 1 and 2 to the report and notes the ongoing work to set a balanced budget in 2026/27.
Councillor Delyth Jones presented the report seeking Cabinet’s consideration and approval of the Medium Term Financial Strategy (MTFS) and Medium Term Financial Plan (MTFP) for 2026/27 – 2028/29. Cabinet was guided through the report detail which focused on the following – · the high-level MTFP which contained current budget projections along with a range of assumptions to provide a low, medium, and high estimate of each cost pressure together with the impact of estimated increases in Council Tax and funding from the Welsh Government (Appendix 1 to the report) · the second iteration of MTFS set out the Council’s strategic approach to the management of its finances and outlined some of the financial issues that would face the Council over the next three years and had been compiled with data and information available as at end of September 2025 (Appendix 2 to the report) Councillor Jones explained that along with all other local authorities the Council faced unprecedented financial challenges with demand and increased costs of service delivery in areas such as Education, Social Care and Homelessness dominating spending. It was not possible to fund these high budget pressures from additional government funding and Council Tax increases alone, so spend on other valued services was having to be reduced in order to provide statutory services for the most vulnerable and there was a need to continue to work hard to deliver a balanced budget. She thanked the Head of Finance and her team for their work. The Head of Finance gave an update on the latest figures in the MTFP and budget gap forecasts over the next 3 financial years which remained extremely challenging together with the impact of estimated Council Tax increases in line with the pressures as a proportion of the 2025/26 budget. The draft budget had been set out the previous week by Welsh Government which indicated the settlement could be closer to 2.5% which was more positive than the 2% forecast. She also referred to the second iteration of the MTFS which had been updated to explain the latest position and also included an update on the transformation programme which some members had requested with further information to be included in future iterations. The Leader thanked the Lead Member and Head of Finance for the comprehensive overview and whilst the financial situation was challenging the Council continued to invest in its priorities such as education. Councillor Gwyneth Ellis highlighted the importance of the transformation programme and asked whether that could also be included in the MTFP. The Lead Member agreed that the transformation programme was vitally important in terms of future budget setting and although it had been a lengthy process the business case stage would allow for figures to be brought forward and included within the MTFP. The Head of Finance confirmed at the appropriate stage the different projects and expected savings could be included and it was hoped that detail could be provided in the next iteration. RESOLVED that Cabinet approves the Medium Term Financial Strategy and Medium Term Financial Plan included at Appendices 1 and 2 to the report and notes the ongoing work to set a balanced budget in 2026/27.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED that Cabinet note the budgets set for 2025/26 and progress against the agreed strategy.
Councillor Delyth Jones presented the monitoring report for 2025/26 detailing the latest financial position and progress against the agreed budget strategy. A summary of the Council’s financial position was provided as follows – · the net revenue budget for 2025/26 was £290.735m (£271.021m in 2024/25) · an underspend of £3.828m (previously £3.420m underspend) was forecast for service and corporate budgets with the movement mainly due to the release of contingency held for pensions and savings in Highways and Environment offset by pressures in Children’s and Adult Social Care Services · savings and efficiencies for the 2025/26 budget (£4.170m) and progress in delivering savings approved with ongoing tracking/monitoring · current risks and assumptions relating to corporate budgets and service areas · an update on Schools, Housing Revenue Account, Treasury Management and the Council’s Capital Plan. The Head of Finance reported on ongoing work to improve reporting of the capital programme with the intention to submit a quarterly update to Cabinet. The current update as at July 2025 provided a summary of the original capital plan and spend together with any revisions and provided a summary across service areas and funding streams. Councillor Gwyneth Ellis felt it would be useful to include capital receipts in the update and for transparency clarify borrowing which was funded via Welsh Government block allocation/grants and borrowing the Council funded. It was confirmed that reporting of the capital plan in this way was a work in progress and agreed to take those matters into consideration as it was developed further. However, it was also important to ensure a balance between providing more information without it becoming overly complicated and that the information was presented in such a way to avoid any ambiguity and ensure the right context. RESOLVED that Cabinet note the budgets set for 2025/26 and progress against the agreed strategy.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED that Cabinet’s forward work programme be noted. The meeting concluded at 1.35 pm.
The Cabinet forward work programme was presented for consideration. RESOLVED that Cabinet’s forward work programme be noted. The meeting concluded at 1.35 pm.
Councillors must say when they have a personal link to something being discussed, such as a job, a property or a family member. A prejudicial interest is one strong enough that the councillor usually leaves the room and takes no part.
Declarations are read from the minutes once they are published.
The council hasn't recorded attendance for this meeting.
Lists the council's current councillors only. Co-opted members, officers and former councillors aren't shown.