Loading
The decisions as the council's minutes record them. A plain-language summary follows once it has been written.
RESOLVED that the Committee: I. refers the decision relating to the planning application for a permanent residential Gypsy and Traveller Site back to the decision maker, with the recommendation that the decision be referred, as a key decision, for determination by Cabinet and II. that Communities Scrutiny Committee recommends to Cabinet that they should be the decision maker in respect of the planning application. Meeting Concluded 15:05
Apologies were received from Councillors Brian Jones, Merfyn Parry and Hugh Evans.
Councillor Carol Holliday declared a personal interest as a local ward member.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED that the Committee: I. refers the decision relating to the planning application for a permanent residential Gypsy and Traveller Site back to the decision maker, with the recommendation that the decision be referred, as a key decision, for determination by Cabinet and II. that Communities Scrutiny Committee recommends to Cabinet that they should be the decision maker in respect of the planning application. Meeting Concluded 15:05
The Chair welcomed everyone to a special meeting of the Communities Scrutiny Committee, convened to review the call-in of a Lead Officer Decision under the Council’s Call-In Procedure Rules. The decision related to the approval of an application for planning permission for a permanent residential Gypsy and Traveller Site. She welcomed the Corporate Director: Economy & Environment, Tony Ward, on behalf of the delegated decision's Lead Officer, alongside the Lead Member for Local Development and Planning, Councillor Alan James, and the Lead Officer for Housing Development, Mark Dixon. The Scrutiny Co-ordinator explained the format that the meeting would follow. She informed the Committee that the Council's rules of decision-making, as set out in the Constitution, included the 'Call-In Procedure Rules' in Section 7.25. A decision that had been called in could not be implemented until the call-in process had been completed. The decision taken on 15 July 2026 by the Head of Housing and Communities Service, relating to the approval of an application for planning permission for a permanent residential Gypsy and Traveller Site, had led to the call-in. For a call-in to be valid, it had to be submitted within five working days of the decision being made and supported by the signatures of five non-Cabinet members. The call-in paused the implementation of the decision pending its review by scrutiny. This call-in had been signed by six non-Cabinet members, Councillors: • Gareth Sandilands • Andrea Tomlin • Carol Holliday • Jon Harland • Anton Sampson • Ben Williams Under the procedure, the review of the decision had to be heard within five working days of being called in, to enable the conclusions of the scrutiny review to be reported back to the decision-maker before the decision was implemented. As there had been no scrutiny committees scheduled within that five-working-day timeframe, a special meeting of the Communities Scrutiny Committee had been convened. The focus of the discussion was the decision taken by the Head of Housing and Communities Service. The Chair would invite the lead signatory of the call-in request, Councillor Gareth Sandilands, to give a brief introduction and background to the request to call the decision in for scrutiny. Following this, the Chair would invite the co-signatories to provide a summary of why they supported the call-in of the decision. The Corporate Director: Economy and Environment would then respond to questions and points raised by the signatories. The Chair would open the discussion to questions from members of the Communities Scrutiny Committee. At the Chair's discretion, non-committee members were also invited to submit questions. Following the discussion, each side would be asked to summarise their case and the Chair summarising the relevant points made. The Committee would be asked to determine whether there were grounds to refer the decision back to the decision-maker for review. The three possible outcomes were: • that there were no grounds for the decision to be referred back, in which case the decision would stand and could be implemented immediately. • that the decision be allowed to proceed, with recommendations made as to how concerns raised might be mitigated; or • that the decision be referred back for review with clearly formulated recommendations. It was advised that, once scrutiny had considered the call-in request, the matter could not be referred back to scrutiny at a later date. The Monitoring Officer advised members that the location of the site had been withheld from the public report as it contained exempt information that may potentially identify an individual and would therefore be exempt under Local Government Legislation. He further advised that the Committee's consideration should focus on the decision-making process rather than the planning merits of the site, which would be matters for the Planning Committee should an application proceed. The Chair invited the lead signatory, Councillor Gareth Sandilands, to present the case for the call-in: • Lack of Member Engagement - The proposed site had not been agreed with the local members or the relevant Town/Community Council, despite the significant local implications of the proposal. • Insufficient Democratic Scrutiny - The matter had previously been considered by Scrutiny on more than one occasion, with concerns raised regarding the process for identifying a suitable site. Those concerns had not been satisfactorily resolved before progressing to a planning application. • Lack of Public Transparency - There had been no public engagement or communication prior to the Council deciding to submit a planning application. Given the significant community interest and likely impact, greater transparency should have been exercised before this stage was reached. • Significant Change in Intended Use of Council Land - The land had previously been identified for supported living/council housing. Progressing a planning application for an alternative use represented a significant change in the Council's intended use of its own land and warranted Member consideration. • Governance and Decision-Making - The decision had been taken by a recently appointed Head of Service who had not been involved in the historical assessment, site selection process, discussions with ward members, or previous Member discussions relating to this proposal. Given the complex history and level of public interest, it would have been appropriate for the decision to be referred to Members rather than determined solely under delegated authority. • Reputational and Community Impact - The proposal was likely to attract substantial public interest and had the potential to affect confidence in the Council's decision-making processes if Members were not afforded the opportunity to scrutinise the basis upon which the planning application was being submitted. The Members requesting the call-in were not seeking to determine the outcome of any future planning application. Rather, they sought assurance that the decision to submit the application had been made following an appropriate, transparent and robust governance process, with due regard to Member engagement, public confidence and the Council's own decision-making procedures. Councillor Andrea Tomlin, Vice-Chair of the Prestatyn Member Area Group (MAG) and a co-signatory to the call-in request, addressed the Committee as one of the local ward members. She advised that neither she nor her ward co-member felt that their representations had been adequately reflected throughout the process, despite concerns having been raised on a number of occasions. She stated that local members felt they had been heard but not listened to and advised that this view was shared by the other co-signatories to the call-in request. Councillor Tomlin expressed the view that, given the significance and sensitivity of the proposal, its potential impact on the local community and the Council's reputation, and the likelihood of attracting media interest, the decision should not have been determined under officer delegated powers. She considered the matter to be a key decision which should be determined by elected members. She requested that the Committee recommend that the decision be referred back to the decision-maker with a recommendation that it be treated as a key decision and referred for determination by members through the appropriate political decision-making process. In support of the request, she referred to the proposed change in the use of Council-owned land, previously identified for supported living/council housing purposes, together with the potential impact on the local community and the level of public interest in the proposal. Councillor Carol Holliday expressed concerns regarding transparency and the change from previous proposals discussed during earlier scrutiny and member discussions. Councillor John Harland stated his view that the issue was too significant to be determined solely by an officer and should instead be referred to Cabinet. The Corporate Director: Economy and Environment responded to the grounds for the call-in: In relation to the alleged lack of member engagement, he acknowledged that the proposed site had not been agreed with local members or the relevant Town/Community Council. However, he advised that such agreement was not a requirement for the submission of a planning application and that the Head of Service had authority under the Council's Scheme of Delegation to submit a planning application on Council-owned land. Responding to concerns regarding insufficient democratic scrutiny, he advised that the matter had been subject to consideration by the relevant Member Area Group (MAG), a Task and Finish Group, the Communities Scrutiny Committee on two occasions, and Cabinet Briefing. Whilst differing views had been expressed throughout the process; he considered that sufficient democratic scrutiny had taken place to support the submission of a planning application. He reminded members that the ultimate decision on the suitability of the site would rest with the Planning Committee. Regarding the lack of public transparency, he acknowledged that no public engagement or communication had taken place before the planning application was submitted. He explained, however, that there was no requirement to undertake public consultation at that stage of the process, as public consultation would form part of the statutory planning process following the submission of an application. With respect to the proposed change in the use of Council-owned land, he accepted that progressing a planning application for an alternative use represented a significant change from previous proposals for the site. He advised that the matter had been discussed extensively by both the Member Task and Finish Group and the Communities Scrutiny Committee and considered that the suitability of the site was a matter for determination through the planning process. Addressing concerns regarding governance and decision-making arrangements, he acknowledged members' views that the decision should have been referred to elected members rather than determined under delegated powers. However, he advised that the Head of Service had acted within the powers delegated under the Council's Constitution and Scheme of Delegation. Whilst the matter could have been determined through a Lead Member or Cabinet decision, he did not consider this to have been a requirement. In response to concerns regarding reputational and community impact, he advised that opportunities for member scrutiny had been provided through the work of the MAG, Task and Finish Group, Communities Scrutiny Committee and Cabinet Briefing. He therefore considered that members had been afforded opportunities to scrutinise the matter prior to the decision being taken, whilst recognising that members might hold differing views on that conclusion. The Chair opened the discussion up to members of the Committee. The Corporate Director advised that: • The Lead Officer had sought advice from the Corporate Management Team, relevant officers and Lead Members before making the decision. • No pressure had been applied by the Welsh Government regarding the timing or manner of the decision. • The decision had been published specifically to allow democratic scrutiny through the call-in process. The Committee discussed the definition of a ‘key’ decision under the Authority’s constitution. They agreed that the application for planning permission for a permanent Gypsy and Traveller site met the criteria of a ‘key’ decision and as such it should be made by Cabinet. The Monitoring Officer advised that, while the decision had been lawfully delegated to the Head of Service, the Committee could refer the matter back to the decision-maker and could also make recommendations directly to Cabinet. RESOLVED that the Committee: I. refers the decision relating to the planning application for a permanent residential Gypsy and Traveller Site back to the decision maker, with the recommendation that the decision be referred, as a key decision, for determination by Cabinet and II. that Communities Scrutiny Committee recommends to Cabinet that they should be the decision maker in respect of the planning application. Meeting Concluded 15:05
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.