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 the 4 September 2025 be received and approved as a true and correct record of the proceedings.
RESOLVED that Communities Scrutiny Committee: I. noted the proposed scope of work, the timescales and available funding for the Royal Alexandra Hospital Development and II. consideration be given to feedback from members of Communities Scrutiny Committee whilst progressing implementation of the project.
RESOLVED that: • acknowledges the operational costs of each public convenience, as detailed in Appendix 1 to the report; and • having considered and discussed the current position of each city, town and community council and the proposed recommendations relating to each public convenience (as detailed in Appendix 2 to the report) requests that the Committee’s concerns along with its observations in respect of the proposals be reported to Cabinet prior to it taking a decision on the future provision of public conveniences in the county.
RESOLVED: that the Committee • Note the proposed amendments to the Waste and Recycling End of Lane Provision Policy, and • Recommend that where a risk has been identified that necessitates a change to End of Lane Collection that the local ward member be consulted before any change is implemented.
RESOLVED: that the Communities Scrutiny Committee forward work programme be agreed.
Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Hugh Evans.
No items of an urgent nature had been raised with the Chair or the Scrutiny Coordinator prior to the commencement of the meeting.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED: that the minutes of the meeting held on the 4 September 2025 be received and approved as a true and correct record of the proceedings.
The minutes of the Communities Scrutiny Committee meeting held on the 4 September 2025 were submitted. Matters arising – Members mentioned that the cost of the project had been widely publicised in the media and asked for a breakdown of the total cost of the project for both the Council and Welsh Government. RESOLVED: that the minutes of the meeting held on the 4 September 2025 be received and approved as a true and correct record of the proceedings.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED that Communities Scrutiny Committee: I. noted the proposed scope of work, the timescales and available funding for the Royal Alexandra Hospital Development and II. consideration be given to feedback from members of Communities Scrutiny Committee whilst progressing implementation of the project.
Councillor Elen Heaton, the Lead Member for Health and Social Care, alongside the Head of Adult Social Care & Homelessness Service and the Integrated Health Community Director from Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board presented the Royal Alexandra Hospital Development report (previously circulated). The report shared the progress and plans for the development of the Royal Alexandra Hospital (RAH) – also known as the North Denbighshire Hospital - site in Rhyl. Members were reminded that officers had attended a Partnership Scrutiny Committee earlier in the year to update members on progress regarding the RAH, and that day’s item was a continuation of the matter. Officers and members agreed that the project had been long-awaited, that progress had been made, and that it remained a top priority of the Council. Members were guided through a presentation that highlighted key areas relating to the RAH project, including delivery progress, Welsh Government (WG) funding, and the anticipated project timeline. Members were that the business case had originally been submitted for the RAH in 2021; however, there had been insufficient capital available for the scale of the planned work. WG had wanted the project to deliver an affordable proposal while achieving most of the benefits of the original plan. In April 2024, an options appraisal was submitted, demonstrating a reduced scope that could still achieve benefits. This proposal had an estimated cost of £60m. Officers informed the committee that WG had agreed to two separate full business case addendums, which led to the project being phased. Those phases were: • Phase 1 – work related to the RAH’s new build • Phase 2 – work associated with the existing building The strategic investment objectives of the project were to: • provide safe and sustainable services in response to the current and future health and well-being needs of the local population • further develop multi-agency, integrated, responsive primary and community care services in the area • increase the range of local services, thereby reducing reliance on the DGH • deliver services in an environment that was fit for purpose and enhanced health and well-being for service users and staff • move care closer to people's homes • improve economic, social, environmental, and cultural well-being, as outlined in "The Future Generations Act" Officers highlighted some of the planned benefits of the RAH project, including bringing care closer to home and helping shift some activity away from Ysbyty Glan Clwyd (YGC). Officers detailed what had been planned for Phase 1 of the RAH project: • The proposal had been reviewed and endorsed by the RPB. Within the Health Board, it had been scrutinised by the Project Board, Capital Investment Group, Executive Team, PFIG, and the Board itself before submission to the Welsh Government. • The Phase 1 addendum sought up to £35.907m (inc. VAT) in capital investment for a new clinical building and energy centre at the RAH site. • Following correspondence with the Welsh Government, 29% of this figure had been proposed for funding through the IRCF Grant. The scope of work for Phase 1 included: • Minor Injuries and Ailments Unit (MIAU) • Community Reablement Facility – "Ready to Go Home" beds • Radiology – relocated and expanded (from RAH Existing Building) • Dental Services – relocated and expanded (from Edith Vizard Building, on RAH site) • Reception, Café, and Third Sector Hub • Staff Rest Areas, Patient Rest Areas, and welfare facilities The proposed timelines for Phase 1 were: • BCUHB approval of Phase 1 Proposal and appointment of the contractor – September 2025 • Targeted Planning Application approval – November 2025 • Possible Welsh Government approval of Phase 1 addendum – December 2025 • Mobilisation – Quarter 4, 2025/26 • Handover of new unit – Quarter 4, 2026/27 • New unit fully commissioned – Quarter 1, 2027/28 Towards the end of the presentation, officers identified the work planned for Phase 2 of the project: • Work to confirm the full scope and procurement activities was planned to begin after 10 November 2025 • £600k TEF funding had been agreed over two years by the Welsh Government for external works (windows, rainwater goods, masonry). Works were planned to commence in Q4, 2025/26 • Additional scope and works under review included: • Floor structure repairs • External fabric repairs • New electrical and heating infrastructure • Refurbishment of unoccupied areas The Chair thanked officers for the presentation and asked for the presentation to be circulated to members following the meeting. Members discussed the following points: • Members expressed disappointment that the presentation had not been circulated beforehand. Officers apologised and reassured members that the information presented was publicly available. • Timescales were raised, as they had changed following the earlier meeting in the year. Members queried whether officers were confident they would not slip further. Officers clarified that there had been delays in procurement, but the overall timescale for completing Phase 1 remained unchanged. • Members were concerned that the fourteen beds proposed at the site would not alleviate issues at YGC related to bed blocking. • Members queried whether there was any financial risk to the authority with the project. Officers clarified that there was no risk to Denbighshire. • Members asked when they would receive further information regarding Phase 2. Officers stated that they would be happy to circulate any additional information they had. • Concerns were raised about the current infrastructure and roads surrounding the RAH, including parking challenges. The committee asked whether there were plans to mitigate further issues with the proposed developments. Officers clarified that plans were in place to encourage active travel and that they were in regular conversations with the highways team in Denbighshire. Discussions were also ongoing with the Pavilion in Rhyl about using their car park to alleviate issues. Officers noted that while work was ongoing, parking would be reduced, and even after completion, there would be fewer parking spaces than previously. • Members expressed unease about the number of beds proposed for the RAH project. Officers clarified that the number had been determined based on bed modelling, and they were confident it would meet needs. • It was suggested that the RAH should be open 24/7rather than the current plan. Officers clarified that although a 24/7 opening sounded beneficial, data showed that demand dropped significantly after 10 pm. • Officers responded to further queries regarding the proposed 14 beds, clarifying that additional work was needed on reablement and supporting care at home to reduce bed usage at YGC and the RAH. RESOLVED that Communities Scrutiny Committee: I. noted the proposed scope of work, the timescales and available funding for the Royal Alexandra Hospital Development and II. consideration be given to feedback from members of Communities Scrutiny Committee whilst progressing implementation of the project.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED that: • acknowledges the operational costs of each public convenience, as detailed in Appendix 1 to the report; and • having considered and discussed the current position of each city, town and community council and the proposed recommendations relating to each public convenience (as detailed in Appendix 2 to the report) requests that the Committee’s concerns along with its observations in respect of the proposals be reported to Cabinet prior to it taking a decision on the future provision of public conveniences in the county.
The Lead Member for Environment and Transport introduced the report (previously circulated) advising that although Public conveniences was a service that the Authority was not statutorily obliged to provide it was acknowledged that it was a service valued by residents often used by people with significant health and wellbeing issues. However Denbighshire were facing significant budgetary pressures which had led to the review of the provision of the facilities within the County. There had been many consultations undertaken with the public, scrutiny committees and the City, Town and Community Councils. The report provided an update on the outcome of those consultations and recommendations to the future of each facility within the County. The Head of Highways and Environmental Services reminded the Committee that on 27th May 2025, Cabinet considered recommendations made following a call-in of the decision, heard at Partnerships Scrutiny Committee on 22nd May 2025, and agreed to add 3 further recommendations to its decision made on the 29th April 2025. Those recommendations were: 1. that officers continue to have meaningful discussions with relevant City, Town and Community Councils (CTCCs) and any other relevant third party on the options for keeping the public conveniences in question open and the outcomes of these discussions to be reported back to a future Scrutiny Committee; 2. that the recommendation made by Partnerships Scrutiny Committee to fund the public conveniences via an increase in Council Tax forms part of the Council’s annual budget setting process for 2026/27; and 3. that the public conveniences in question will remain open until the discussions referred to in (1) and (2) above were concluded to the satisfaction of Cabinet. The report focussed on the first recommendation outlined above. The Committee were advised that communications were still ongoing with some (CTCCs). The Committee heard that most of the budget for public conveniences had been removed as part of the 2024/25 budget setting process which meant that the Highways and Environment Service was covering the cost of provision which ultimately was not sustainable. A long term solution to keeping the PCs open was needed, in that vein discussions had been had with CTCCs with a view to assistance in retaining PCs in their area. As part of the review they had considered the operational costs of facilities based on a proposed charge of £1 together with the installation of a contactless cashless payment system. The estimated income from charges was used to calculate the budget gap at each facility which was used as the basis of discussion with each CTCC in an attempt to keep the service cost neutral to the Authority. The cost of implementing the contactless payment system had been approved by the Capital Scrutiny Group. However their installation would only be viable if the CTCCs agreed to bridge the budget gap. The options presented to the CTCCs were: 1. The CTCC take ownership of the asset by way of a Community Asset Transfer (CAT); 2. DCC would retain ownership of the asset and remain responsible for management and running costs of the PC(s) with a contracted Service Level Agreement with the CTCC for the provision; or 3. Closure of the facility. If no agreement could be made there was no further option than to recommend closure of facilities from 31st March 2026. The Corporate Director: Economy and Environment extended his thanks to CTCCs for engaging in a positive manner. He expected a final position from all CTCCs to be known prior to the recommendations being presented to Cabinet on 18th November 2025. Members of the Committee made the following observations: · Further consideration of the impact on people with complex needs did not appear to be addressed, despite being raised at previous scrutiny committees. · There was a need to consider the social and wellbeing cost of closure of facilities as well as operational costs. Closing a facility in a community could lead to aged or disabled residents etc. avoiding trips away from home and lead to social isolation. · Members were disappointed that the discussions held with CTCCs had not changed over the course of the year – the options presented being for them to fund the facilities themselves or face closure – rather than a transformative approach to resolution. · There would be a lack of equity across the County in terms of the cost of use of the facilities as well as the cost to residents who will ultimately cover the cost of the service through their CTCC precepts. · The legal bill for transferring assets to CTCCs could be greater than the cost of maintaining the Service. · The potential income generation for chargeable facilities did not appear to be based on any factual data. If the number of visits was unknown it was impossible to ascertain what the actual budget gap would be to make an informed decision. · It was proposed that the Service should start the charging of facilities on a year’s trial basis in the first instance. Then once the actual numbers were collated meaningful negotiations could be considered. · The options presented to CTCCs were to cover the budget gap (dependent on facility charge) or close the facility. · Members who also sat on the CTCCs felt that that they had been pitted against each other, effectively held to ransom by the options provided by the Authority. · The narrative that Denbighshire County Council (DCC) were trying to keep PCs open was misleading. PCs would close under DCC without CTCC intervention. · There was no evidence that any option had been considered other than proposing that CTCCs take on responsibility for the facilities. · There had been no exploration of income generation such as advertising sponsorships etc. · The proposals were short sighted inasmuch as the CTCCs would be facing the same budgetary restraints as DCC in two years with no options other than closure. · PC access in County buildings were limited to mostly 9am to 5pm Monday to Friday, unavailable all weekend. Responding to Members’ questions officers advised: · Local businesses had been contacted to ask them to consider joining the Community Toilet Scheme. · Previously 3rd party businesses had been approached to assess whether the whole service could be outsourced but had not been successful due to operating costs increasing the further the business was from the locality. The option of offering the service to 3rd party local businesses had not been explored. However CTCCs had been advised of that option if they wanted to take it forward themselves. · Community Asset Transfers could take up to 2 years to complete, they were dependent on condition surveys for viability. · Efforts had been focussed on trying to keep the facilities open rather than the potential disposal of assets. · All areas of potential external grant funding continued to be explored. · Estimates of income generation had been very conservative. · The previous proposal by scrutiny to fund PCs by an additional increase to Council Tax would need to go through the normal budget setting process. · The staffing costs referred to in the report pertained to the associated costs of 4 staff that covered Rhyl (except the Town Hall) and Prestatyn. · In order to keep the facilities cost neutral they would need to be run on a cashless basis, thus eliminating the requirement for staffing. · In the event of technological failure barriers could be unlocked for free entry. · Prestatyn Town Council had yet to confirm their position but it was expected that their response would be presented imminently. · If the usage of the facilities is greater than the conservative estimate it would reduce the potential demand on CTCCs financial contribution. · A trial of charging for facilities could not be undertaken without the budget to run the Service. CTCCs would be refunded in the event of more usage (income generation) than anticipated. · The next 2 years would provide actual information on usage data, income generation, impact of change and relationships with CTCCs that would inform long term sustainable relationships with the CTCCs. Following an in-depth discussion it was RESOLVED that: • acknowledges the operational costs of each public convenience, as detailed in Appendix 1 to the report; and • having considered and discussed the current position of each city, town and community council and the proposed recommendations relating to each public convenience (as detailed in Appendix 2 to the report) requests that the Committee’s concerns along with its observations in respect of the proposals be reported to Cabinet prior to it taking a decision on the future provision of public conveniences in the county.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED: that the Committee • Note the proposed amendments to the Waste and Recycling End of Lane Provision Policy, and • Recommend that where a risk has been identified that necessitates a change to End of Lane Collection that the local ward member be consulted before any change is implemented.
Councillor Barry Mellor, Lead Member for Environment and Transport, alongside the Head of Highways & Environmental Services and the Waste Operations Manager, presented the Waste and Recycling End of Lane Policy Revision report (previously circulated). This report outlined the proposed revisions to the waste and recycling policy related to End of Lane collections, taking into account feedback from Elected Members, service users, and operators. The policy had been in place for approximately two years. It was agreed upon in September 2023, before the formal rollout of the new waste model in June 2024. Since operating the new service, there have been some challenges to the policy from various parties, and a recognised need has arisen to tighten the wording and adapt or amend the associated operational processes. The policy currently only made explicit reference to End of Lane collections in relation to unadopted or private roads. The policy was redrafted to state that the decision to collect waste from any particular property—whether on adopted, unadopted, or private land—was based on the criteria outlined in Appendix 1. That decision rested with the Service Manager following a thorough and documented risk assessment. The policy also stated that the service did not operate on private property and had the authority under Section 46 of the Environmental Protection Act (1990) to determine where public waste should be presented for collection. However, that had proved unpopular with some residents and Councillors and at times created difficulties for the waste collection service to operate. That feedback was taken into consideration and led to a review and revision of that stance. The new policy proposal stated that the service might relax that approach and operate on private land where a full risk assessment had been conducted, indicating it was safe to access the private land, and where written consent had been obtained from the resident whose property might be entered. All other Section 46 principles remained unchanged. The following points were addressed: • Officers reassured members that there was no plan to curtail any collections; the process of revising the policy was to tighten the wording. • Councillor Gwyneth Ellis highlighted that the work which the policy aimed to revise was still ongoing, and the change was not needed as it could lead to differing interpretations by others later. Councillor Ellis stated that no change was required and that any concerns should be discussed with the affected residents and their elected ward members. • Members were informed that there had been no change in the number of end-of-lane collections for a while. The policy change was aimed at tightening the wording. If any changes were made to collections for residents, it would be done openly and transparently, following a discussion with those residents prior to any change being implemented. • Members suggested that there needed to be a clear definition of what end-of-lane collection entailed. It was also suggested that the recommendation be amended to allow discussion between officers, residents and notification sent to local members before any change to waste collection was carried out. Officers clarified that the revision aimed to add clarity to the policy and that officers would look into the notification system with local members. RESOLVED: that the Committee • Note the proposed amendments to the Waste and Recycling End of Lane Provision Policy, and • Recommend that where a risk has been identified that necessitates a change to End of Lane Collection that the local ward member be consulted before any change is implemented.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED: that the Communities Scrutiny Committee forward work programme be agreed.
The Scrutiny Coordinator guided members through the Committee Forward Work Programme (previously circulated). The next meeting of Communities Scrutiny Committee was scheduled for the 11 December 2025. There were four items on the Committee’s Forward Work Programme – 1. Effectiveness of Parking Enforcement Activities 2. Denbighshire Youth Services 3. Housing Rent Increase and Budgets 2026/ 27 4. GTSA Members were informed that the next Scrutiny Chairs and Vice-Chairs Group (SCVCG) was organised for the 10th of November, and if members had any items, they wished to discuss they could fill the Member Proposal Form for Scrutiny Forward Work Programme. RESOLVED: that the Communities Scrutiny Committee forward work programme be agreed.
None. Meeting concluded at 13:50
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.