Loading
The decisions as the council's minutes record them. A plain-language summary follows once it has been written.
RESOLVED That the Corporate Strategy 2023-2028 be adopted with the inclusion of the word ‘all’ on page 135, point A8 in the report.
RESOLVED (a) That the amendments to the Constitution, as set out in Appendix B to the report, be approved. (b) That the words ‘Head of Legal and Democratic Services’ in the Constitution, be amended to ‘Head of Law and Governance’ or ‘Head of Democratic Services’ as appropriate, be approved. (c) That the words ‘Head of Paid Service’ in the Constitution, be amended to the ‘Chief Executive’, be approved. (d) That the changes to the Financial Procedure Rules, Appendix C to the report, be noted. (e) That the changes to the delegations to Individual Cabinet Members be noted.
RESOLVED (a) That the report and the forthcoming review be noted. (b) That the establishment of a politically balanced Communities Electoral Review Working Group of seven Members be approved and nominees be agreed at the Annual Meeting on 12 May 2023. (c) That the Working Group be authorised to recommend to Council in July, a finalised Terms of Reference and Size Policy on behalf of the Council and provide periodic updates to Council on progress.
RESOLVED That the adoption of the Protocol on Member and Officer Relations and associated appendices to replace the current protocol at Section 5 of the Constitution, be approved.
RESOLVED (a) That, following Cabinet agreement at its 24April 2023 meeting, the further revised Delivery Agreement for the Council’s replacement Local Development Plan be endorsed. (b) That the further revised Delivery Agreement be submitted to Welsh Government for endorsement.
RESOLVED That the Statement of Accounts for 2021-22 and the Tenby and Lower Fishguard Harbours’ Authority Annual Return for 2021-22 be approved and signed.
RESOLVED That the Statement of Accounts for 2021-22 for the Tenby and District Pool Trust be approved and signed by the Director of Resources and that the Annual Report 2021-22 be noted.
RESOLVED That Community Councils and Community Council Associations be consulted on the appointment of a Community Council representative to serve on the Standards Committee, and that applications be reviewed by the Appointment Panel, followed by Recommendations to full Council.
There were no apologies for absence.
In welcoming everyone to the meeting, the Presiding Member made the following announcements: Councillor Simon Hancock, the Presiding Member, thanked all Members for the way in which they had conducted themselves in the Chamber over the last 12 months. He then welcomed Mr Michael Gray, the new Director of Social Care and Housing and wished him the best in his new role. He also announced that Dr Steven Jones, the Director of Community Services, would be leaving his role and thanked him for his dedicated service to the Council and wished him well for the next chapter of his life. Councillor Pat Davies, Chair and Deputy Presiding Member, also welcomed Mr Gray to his new role and also thanked Dr Jones for his service. The Chairthanked all Members for the support offered to her during the last year. She then gave her thanks and expressed her pride in the actions of several members of staff who helped save the lives of two gentleman earlier this year. She gave thanks to Courtney Picton, Emily Baker, Chris Hughes and Catherine Mackie from Pembroke Leisure Centre, as well as Melissa Wright and Darren Bowen from Haverfordwest Leisure Centre. The Chair also highlighted her attendance at several engagements, which included the presentation of British Empire medals, the Queen's Platinum Jubilee medals and an OBE. She also attended the services in St David's Cathedral to mark the coronation of their Majesties, the King and Queen Consort.
The following of declarations of interest were made: Item 26 – QUESTION SUBMITTED BY COUNCILLOR ALAN DENNISON UNDER COUNCIL PROCEDURE RULE 4.10 –BLUESTONE RETURNS ON INVESTMENTS OVER LAST 5 YEARS Councillor Simon Hancock declared a personal interest by virtue of delivering heritage based events at Bluestone resort.
Council considered the Minutes of the meeting held on 2 March 2023. The Minutes were Moved by Councillor Simon Hancock; Seconded by Councillor Pat Davies. The vote, undertaken by way of a show of hands, was carried. RESOLVED That the Minutes of the Council Meeting held on 2 March 2023 be approved as a correct record.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED That the Corporate Strategy 2023-2028 be adopted with the inclusion of the word ‘all’ on page 135, point A8 in the report.
Council considered a report by the Assistant Chief Executive which outlined the 2023-2028 Corporate Strategy. Councillor Neil Prior, Cabinet Member with responsibility for Corporate Improvement and Communities, introduced the report and explained that it was a requirement of the Well-being of Future Generations Act and thanked officers for their work in compiling the comprehensive strategy. He outlined that Local Government had a responsibility to provide day to day services but also shape its place, working to legislative pressures, new burdens and an increasingly complex partnership landscape. Councillor Prior highlighted that the strategy was realistic and ambitious, balancing operational requirements and political ambition through the Programme for Administration. Councillor Neil Prior Moved the Recommendation; Seconded by Councillor Jon Harvey. Councillor Aled Thomas sought clarification in regards to page 141 of the Agenda and whether it should read ‘2030’ as opposed to ‘2033’. In response, Councillor Michelle Bateman stated that the 2033 target had been set by Welsh Government. Councillor Michael John stated that the objectives of the strategy were admirable but raised concerns regarding school provision and community engagement. In response, Councillor Prior stated that in regards to community engagement, a survey of all Town and Community Councils’ views had been conducted, which resulted in a 15% response rate to inform ongoing work. He highlighted that engagement was improving and mentioned progress with the Public Services Board (PSB) and partners. Councillor Guy Woodham explained the 21st Century Schools Band B and Capital Investment systems and assured Members that the priority was ensuring that schools were continuing to be able to deliver improvements and that the Council was supporting them as much as possible. Councillor Joshua Beynon sought clarification in regards to Workforce Strategy and cuts and what the graduate programme scheme involved. In response, the Director of Resources stated that work was being undertaken in this area, and highlighted the challenges in recruitment over recent years. He explained that the graduate programme may be extended and that the apprenticeship programme was already in place, with the aim to employ at a lower level and provide training for staff to move up to higher pay grades. The Chief Executive echoed these comments and stated that the Workforce Strategy was a high priority for the future. Councillor Marc Tierney stated that, as Anti-poverty Champion, he would have preferred to see a stronger focus on the economy in relation to reducing poverty. Councillor Miller agreed with Councillor Tierney. Councillor Prior stated that tackling poverty was one of the key priorities of the PSB and stated that he would take on board Councillor Tierney’s comments as well as meet with him and senior Officers to discuss. Councillor Huw Murphy mentioned an increase of social workers’ salaries to ensure safeguarding was given the priority it deserved. In response, Councillor Tessa Hodgson stated that it was not possible to increase salaries without the undertaking of an all-Council review. She stated that she was aware of the issue and that it would be a welcome step to increase payments to avoid competition with other Councils, but highlighted that it was not something that could be carried out at this time. Councillor Thomas Tudor sought clarification in regards to whether the Public Space Protection Order (PSPO) for the centre of Haverfordwest was underway. The Director of Community Services referred to delays in implementing the signage but assured Members that he would follow up on the start date as a matter of urgency. Councillor Jamie Adams sought clarification in regards to the potential loss of professional employment in the County in regards to Withybush Hospital, as well as a lack of investment for Pembrokeshire’s economy and transport sector. In response, Councillor Prior stated that it was not the remit of the PSB to know future provision for hospitals but stated that he would be happy to use PSB connections to gain further information for Members. In regards to Pembrokeshire’s economy, Councillor David Simpson stated that the Corporate Joint Committee (CJC) had a joint approach to working together for each County and highlighted that he urged the CJC to support transport connections to Pembrokeshire.Councillor Hodgson also mentioned the Regional Partnership Board in relation to health, social care and the third sector and highlighted that the Board was focused on integration for West Wales in terms of delivering integrated services. Councillor Reg Owens sought clarification in regards to lower social care salaries. In response, Councillor Hodgson stated that the Council worked extremely hard to recruit, retain and improve terms and conditions, to ensure that the dedicated and qualified workforce remained in Pembrokeshire.She highlighted that the terms and conditions could not be altered without undertaking an extensive exercise of pay regrading. The Chief Executive also highlighted that a pay review would have to be included in future budget conversations, however, it would not help the deficit the Council was currently in. Councillor Aled Thomas stated that the Council owned 4,000 acres of land across the County and sought clarification as to what the Council would do to ensure the natural environment was enhanced and protected. In response, Councillor Miller stated that the principal matter was that the land would be used to support the next generation of farmers on their journey into the industry.He mentioned forming a further Working Group through the Policy Overview and Scrutiny Committee to look into the matter, and suggested that a specific objective be included in regards to supporting farmers into the industry, as well as how to support the environment. Councillor Delme Harries wished for objective ‘A8’ to include the word ‘all’ on page 135 of the Agenda, to read as follows: We will focus resources on delivering core services such as highways, waste and recycling, public protection and leisure and culture that contribute to all communities’ quality of life, ensuring residents live in neighbourhoods that are clean, green, safe and active. Councillor Prior confirmed that this could be included. The vote, undertaken by way of an electronic vote, was carried. The votes were recorded as follows: For the Motion: Councillors Jamie Adams, Steve Alderman, Michelle Bateman, Josh Beynon, Maureen Bowen, David Bryan, Alistair Cameron, Aaron Carey, Mark Carter, Di Clements, John Cole, Alec Cormack, John Davies, Pat Davies, Terry Davies, Alan Dennison, Andrew Edwards, Tim Evans, Jonathan Grimes, Nicola Gwynn, Brian Hall, Simon Hancock, Delme Harries, Jon Harvey, Tessa Hodgson, David Howlett, Mike James, Mike John, Rhys Jordan, Phil Kidney, Paul Miller, Peter Morgan, Elwyn Morse, Huw Murphy, Reg Owens, Mel Phillips, Bethan Price, Neil Prior, Jordan Ryan, David Simpson, Rhys Sinnett, Sam Skyrme-Blackhall, Mike Stoddart, Viv Stoddart, Aled Thomas, Vanessa Thomas, Marc Tierney, Anji Tinley, Thomas Tudor, Iwan Ward, Michele Wiggins, Tony Wilcox, Chris Williams, Jacob Williams, Michael Williams, Guy Woodham, Simon Wright, Steve Yelland and Danny Young [59] Against the Motion: Councillor Shon Rees [1] There were no abstentions. RESOLVED That the Corporate Strategy 2023-2028 be adopted with the inclusion of the word ‘all’ on page 135, point A8 in the report.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED (a) That the amendments to the Constitution, as set out in Appendix B to the report, be approved. (b) That the words ‘Head of Legal and Democratic Services’ in the Constitution, be amended to ‘Head of Law and Governance’ or ‘Head of Democratic Services’ as appropriate, be approved. (c) That the words ‘Head of Paid Service’ in the Constitution, be amended to the ‘Chief Executive’, be approved. (d) That the changes to the Financial Procedure Rules, Appendix C to the report, be noted. (e) That the changes to the delegations to Individual Cabinet Members be noted.
Council considered a report by the Monitoring Officer which outlined amendments to the current Constitution to reflect the deletion of the role of Director of Community Services and the transfer of his functional portfolio to other Directors, in line with the new organisational Operating Model. Councillor David Simpson, Leader of Council and Cabinet Member with responsibility for Corporate Matters, introduced the report and stated that it outlined the transfer of the portfolio of the Director of Community Services following his retirement in June. It also sought to make some minor updates by replacing ‘Head of Paid Service’ with ‘Chief Executive’ and ‘Head of Legal and Democratic Services’ with ‘Head of Law and Governance’ or ‘Head of Democratic Services’ as appropriate. He also referred to the minor changes to the Individual Cabinet Member delegations to reflect the increase in the delegation to Officers, set out in the new Financial Procedure Rules, in respect of virements between budget heads and authorising bids for external funds. The Leader Moved the Recommendation; Seconded by Councillor Tessa Hodgson. The vote, undertaken by way of an electronic vote, was carried. The votes were recorded as follows: For the Motion: Councillors Jamie Adams, Steve Alderman, Michelle Bateman, Maureen Bowen, David Bryan, Alistair Cameron, Aaron Carey, Mark Carter, Di Clements, John Cole, Alec Cormack, John Davies, Pat Davies, Terry Davies, Alan Dennison, Andrew Edwards, Tim Evans, Jonathan Grimes, Nicola Gwynn, Brian Hall, Simon Hancock, Delme Harries, Jon Harvey, Tessa Hodgson, David Howlett, Mike James, Mike John, Rhys Jordan, Phil Kidney, Paul Miller, Peter Morgan, Elwyn Morse, Huw Murphy, Reg Owens, Mel Phillips, Bethan Price, Neil Prior, Shon Rees, Jordan Ryan, David Simpson, Rhys Sinnett, Sam Skyrme-Blackhall, Mike Stoddart, Viv Stoddart, Aled Thomas, Vanessa Thomas, Marc Tierney, Anji Tinley, Thomas Tudor, Iwan Ward, Michele Wiggins, Tony Wilcox, Michael Williams, Chris Williams, Jacob Williams, Guy Woodham, Simon Wright, Steve Yelland and Danny Young [58] There were no votes against or abstentions. RESOLVED (a) That the amendments to the Constitution, as set out in Appendix B to the report, be approved. (b) That the words ‘Head of Legal and Democratic Services’ in the Constitution, be amended to ‘Head of Law and Governance’ or ‘Head of Democratic Services’ as appropriate, be approved. (c) That the words ‘Head of Paid Service’ in the Constitution, be amended to the ‘Chief Executive’, be approved. (d) That the changes to the Financial Procedure Rules, Appendix C to the report, be noted. (e) That the changes to the delegations to Individual Cabinet Members be noted.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED (a) That the report and the forthcoming review be noted. (b) That the establishment of a politically balanced Communities Electoral Review Working Group of seven Members be approved and nominees be agreed at the Annual Meeting on 12 May 2023. (c) That the Working Group be authorised to recommend to Council in July, a finalised Terms of Reference and Size Policy on behalf of the Council and provide periodic updates to Council on progress.
Council considered a report by the Assistant Chief Executive which outlined the forthcoming review process for the electoral arrangements of Communities and the establishment of a politically balanced Community Review Working Group. Councillor Neil Prior, Cabinet Member with responsibility for Corporate Improvement and Communities, introduced the report and stated that the forthcoming review by the Local Democracy and Boundary Commission was to ensure effective and convenient Local Government, and highlighted that the review would assess the degree of electoral parity across communities in Pembrokeshire. Councillor Neil Prior Moved the Recommendation; Seconded by Councillor Michelle Bateman. Councillor Delme Harries suggested incorporating discussion into the Working Group aroundencouraging more people to stand for Community Council roles, as well as engaging with younger people to take an active role in Community Councils. In response, Councillor Prior stated that once the initial meeting had been set up, this specific aspect could be established in the Terms of Reference. Councillor Michael James made reference to the cost on page 235 of the Agenda. Councillor Prior confirmed that the cost was £13,500 and was being funded through the Electoral Services Reserve. Councillor Michael John sought clarification in regards to who had requested the review of Community Council arrangements. In response, the Assistant Chief Executive stated that he had requested the Boundary Commission to undertake the review for their expertise, as well as it being cost-saving. The vote, undertaken by way of an electronic vote, was carried. The votes were recorded as follows: For the Motion: Councillors Jamie Adams, Steve Alderman, Michelle Bateman, Maureen Bowen, David Bryan, Alistair Cameron, Aaron Carey, Mark Carter, Di Clements, John Cole, Alec Cormack, John Davies, Pat Davies, Terry Davies, Alan Dennison, Andrew Edwards, Tim Evans, Jonathan Grimes, Nicola Gwynn, Brian Hall, Simon Hancock, Delme Harries, Jon Harvey, Tessa Hodgson, David Howlett, Mike James, Mike John, Rhys Jordan, Phil Kidney, Paul Miller, Peter Morgan, Elwyn Morse, Huw Murphy, Reg Owens, Mel Phillips, Bethan Price, Neil Prior, Shon Rees, Jordan Ryan, David Simpson, Rhys Sinnett, Sam Skyrme-Blackhall, Mike Stoddart, Viv Stoddart, Aled Thomas, Vanessa Thomas, Marc Tierney, Anji Tinley, Thomas Tudor, Iwan Ward, Michele Wiggins, Tony Wilcox, Michael Williams, Chris Williams, Jacob Williams, Guy Woodham, Simon Wright, Steve Yelland and Danny Young [58] There were no votes against or abstentions. RESOLVED (a) That the report and the forthcoming review be noted. (b) That the establishment of a politically balanced Communities Electoral Review Working Group of seven Members be approved and nominees be agreed at the Annual Meeting on 12 May 2023. (c) That the Working Group be authorised to recommend to Council in July, a finalised Terms of Reference and Size Policy on behalf of the Council and provide periodic updates to Council on progress.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED That the adoption of the Protocol on Member and Officer Relations and associated appendices to replace the current protocol at Section 5 of the Constitution, be approved.
Council considered a report by the Monitoring Officer which outlined the new Protocol on Member/Officer relations to replace the protocol is section 5 of the current Constitution and an update on the progress made in reviewing the draft model Constitution. Councillor David Simpson, Leader of Council and Cabinet Member with responsibility for Corporate Matters, introduced the report and stated that Audit Wales, in their Public Interest Report, made a number of recommendations which had been incorporated into a Governance Action Plan. He stated that the new Protocol had been developed from the model protocol and had input from the Extended Leadership Team and met three of the recommendations set out in the report. He mentioned that the Protocol had input from a number of Committees, as well as the Constitutional Review Working Group. The Leader highlighted that the Constitutional Review Working Group had been meeting on a regular basis and aimed to bring the new Constitution to Council for approval in October 2023, with the intention of holding at least one Member seminar prior to that date. The Leader Moved the Recommendation; Seconded by Councillor Jon Harvey. Councillor Di Clements referenced point 22.7.3 on page 252 of the Agenda, which referred to Officer response times and sought clarification as to whether it was a realistic objective. In response, the Chief Executive stated that it was dependent on the complexity of the request as well as Officer capacity and therefore stated it would not always be achievable. He highlighted that it would be appropriate for Officers to acknowledge a request from a Member within two working days and seek to try and resolve the matter, if possible, within 10 working days. Councillor Michael John supported point four on page 258 of the Agenda and wished for it to be the default that Members be invited to any meetings regarding their ward. In response, the Chief Executive gave assurance to Members that this would be the case. The vote, undertaken by way of an electronic vote, was carried. The votes were recorded as follows: For the Motion: Councillors Jamie Adams, Steve Alderman, Michelle Bateman, Joshua Beynon, Maureen Bowen, David Bryan, Alistair Cameron, Aaron Carey, Mark Carter, Di Clements, John Cole, Alec Cormack, John Davies, Pat Davies, Terry Davies, Alan Dennison, Andrew Edwards, Tim Evans, Jonathan Grimes, Nicola Gwynn, Brian Hall, Simon Hancock, Delme Harries, Jon Harvey, Tessa Hodgson, David Howlett, Michael James, Michael John, Rhys Jordan, Phil Kidney, Paul Miller, Peter Morgan, Elwyn Morse, Huw Murphy, Reg Owens, Mel Phillips, Bethan Price, Neil Prior, Shon Rees, Jordan Ryan, David Simpson, Rhys Sinnett, Sam Skyrme-Blackhall, Michael Stoddart, Viv Stoddart, Aled Thomas, Vanessa Thomas, Marc Tierney, Angela Tinley, Thomas Tudor, Iwan Ward, Michele Wiggins, Tony Wilcox, Chris Williams, Jacob Williams, Michael Williams, Guy Woodham, Simon Wright, Steve Yelland and Danny Young [60] There were no votes against or abstentions. RESOLVED That the adoption of the Protocol on Member and Officer Relations and associated appendices to replace the current protocol at Section 5 of the Constitution, be approved.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED (a) That, following Cabinet agreement at its 24April 2023 meeting, the further revised Delivery Agreement for the Council’s replacement Local Development Plan be endorsed. (b) That the further revised Delivery Agreement be submitted to Welsh Government for endorsement.
Council considered a report by the Director of Community Services which outlined a further revised Delivery Agreement for the replacement Local Development Plan, (LDP) 2. Councillor Jon Harvey, Cabinet Member with responsibility for Planning and Housing Delivery, introduced the report and stated that following its endorsement, the revised Delivery Agreement would be sent to Welsh Government requesting their formal endorsement. He highlighted that Officers had recently met with Welsh Government’s Plans Team to discuss LDP 2, including the further revision to the Delivery Agreement. The broad advice received advised the need to reactivate the Plan process as a matter of priority, which was reflected in the revised timetable for the remaining parts of the Plan process. Councillor Jon Harvey Moved the Recommendation; Seconded by Councillor David Simpson. Councillor Michael James wished for Members to be updated once more information was available regarding the Phosphate matter. Councillor Harvey stated that progress was being made but assured Members that any new information would be shared as part of the LDP process, as well as a number of engagement sessions and seminars to inform all Members. Councillor Jamie Adams sought clarification as to why the matter had not yet been resolved. In response, Councillor Harvey highlighted delays due to the Covid-19 Pandemic and stated that it was vitally important to have an updated development plan. The Head of Planning then mentioned that Covid had caused a considerable amount of time to find solutions for the Phosphate issue. She stated that progress had been made and a report was going to Overview and Scrutiny in June 2023 to outline the work undertaken. She also referred to work with Partners and National Resources Wales (NRW), but highlighted that the Council needed to continue putting pressure and lobbying NRW and Welsh Government for additional support to resolve the issue. Councillor Adams then implored Councillor Harvey to have a conversation with the Head of Planning to ensure that emerging themes in the LDP 2 were given some consideration in regards to how the Planning Committee considered the merits of planning applications. Councillor Harvey assured that he would do so but mentioned that the LDP was not the only policy that affected planning applications. Councillor Aled Thomas suggested updating the Plan in regards to the Consultation Bodies, as well as including a reference to Councillor Harvey as Chair of the Nutrient Management Board. He then sought clarification as to how help regarding the phosphate load in the Cleddau River, could be included in the consultation. In response, Councillor Harvey confirmed that the Consultation Bodies would be reviewed and that reference to the Nutrient Management Board would be referenced in the Plan as it progressed. He also stated that he would be happy, along with Councillor Miller, to receive any technical advice or solutions regarding the phosphate load. Councillor Michael John sought an update in regards to the vulnerable zone being extended and therefore impacting developments around the Haven and local communities. He also sought assurance in relation to the Development Framework for Wales and that it would not be a detriment to Pembrokeshire in conforming to that framework. In response, Councillor Harvey stated that there had been no update in relation to the vulnerable zone being extended, but he would update Members once informed. He also assured Members that as the Development Framework for Wales progressed, he would be significantly involved and would ensure the best for Pembrokeshire. Councillor Alistair Cameron sought clarification as to whether the LDP 2 was sufficiently developed to assist with planning applications. Councillor Harvey stated that the current LDP was to be used in regards to development management until LDP2 was adopted. The vote, undertaken by way of an electronic vote, was carried. The votes were recorded as follows: For the Motion: Councillors Jamie Adams, Steve Alderman, Michelle Bateman, Josh Beynon, Maureen Bowen, David Bryan, Alistair Cameron, Aaron Carey, Mark Carter, Di Clements, John Cole, Alec Cormack, John Davies, Pat Davies, Terry Davies, Alan Dennison, Andrew Edwards, Tim Evans, Jonathan Grimes, Nicola Gwynn, Brian Hall, Simon Hancock, Delme Harries, Jon Harvey, Tessa Hodgson, David Howlett, Mike James, Mike John, Rhys Jordan, Phil Kidney, Paul Miller, Peter Morgan, Elwyn Morse, Huw Murphy, Reg Owens, Mel Phillips, Bethan Price, Neil Prior, Shon Rees, Jordan Ryan, David Simpson, Rhys Sinnett, Sam Skyrme-Blackhall, Mike Stoddart, Viv Stoddart, Aled Thomas, Vanessa Thomas, Marc Tierney, Anji Tinley, Iwan Ward, Michele Wiggins, Tony Wilcox, Michael Williams, Chris Williams, Guy Woodham, Simon Wright, Steve Yelland and Danny Young [58] There were no votes against or abstentions. RESOLVED (a) That, following Cabinet agreement at its 24April 2023 meeting, the further revised Delivery Agreement for the Council’s replacement Local Development Plan be endorsed. (b) That the further revised Delivery Agreement be submitted to Welsh Government for endorsement.
The meeting was paused at 12:03pm and reconvened at 12:20pm.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED That the Statement of Accounts for 2021-22 and the Tenby and Lower Fishguard Harbours’ Authority Annual Return for 2021-22 be approved and signed.
[Councillor Michael Williams declared a personal and prejudicial interest by virtue of the item referring to Tenby Harbour and stated that he had dispensation to speak but not to vote]. Council considered a report by the Director of Resources which outlined the review of the Statement of Accounts for 2021-22, including Tenby and Lower Fishguard Harbours’ Authority. Councillor Alec Cormack, Cabinet Member with responsibility for Corporate Finance, introduced the report and stated that the Tenby and Lower Fishguard Harbours Authority Annual Return and the Audit Wales Audit of Accounts Report and Audit Opinion (ISA260) had been considered by the Governance and Audit Committee and were now to be reviewed by Council. The Governance and Audit Committee considered the Statements at their April meeting and resolved that there were no comments or concerns. Councillor Alec Cormack Moved the Recommendation; Seconded by the Leader. Councillor Jamie Adams sought clarification as to whether the fee from Audit Wales of £67,000 for the Public Interest report, on page 437 of the Agenda, would be the cause for any further expenditure within the 2022-23 accounts. In response, the Director of Resources stated that he was not aware of anything additional to that fee but his team were currently in the process of compiling the Statement of Accounts for 2022-23. The Chief Executive added that regular review was undertaken of the Governance Improvement Action Plan through the Governance and Audit Committee, which in part, related to the Public Interest report. The vote, undertaken by way of an electronic vote, was carried. The votes were recorded as follows: For the Motion: Councillors Jamie Adams, Steve Alderman, Michelle Bateman, Josh Beynon, Maureen Bowen, David Bryan, Alistair Cameron, Aaron Carey, Mark Carter, Di Clements, John Cole, Alec Cormack, John Davies, Pat Davies, Terry Davies, Alan Dennison, Andrew Edwards, Tim Evans, Jonathan Grimes, Nicola Gwynn, Brian Hall, Simon Hancock, Delme Harries, Jon Harvey, Tessa Hodgson, David Howlett, Mike James, Mike John, Rhys Jordan, Phil Kidney, Paul Miller, Peter Morgan, Elwyn Morse, Huw Murphy, Reg Owens, Mel Phillips, Bethan Price, Neil Prior, Shon Rees, Jordan Ryan, David Simpson, Rhys Sinnett, Sam Skyrme-Blackhall, Mike Stoddart, Viv Stoddart, Aled Thomas, Vanessa Thomas, Marc Tierney, Anji Tinley, Thomas Tudor, Iwan Ward, Michele Wiggins, Tony Wilcox, Chris Williams, Jacob Williams, Guy Woodham, Simon Wright, Steve Yelland and Danny Young [59] There were no votes against or abstentions. RESOLVED That the Statement of Accounts for 2021-22 and the Tenby and Lower Fishguard Harbours’ Authority Annual Return for 2021-22 be approved and signed.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED That the Statement of Accounts for 2021-22 for the Tenby and District Pool Trust be approved and signed by the Director of Resources and that the Annual Report 2021-22 be noted.
Council considered a report by the Director of Resources which outlined the Statement of Accounts for 2021-22 for the Tenby and District Pool Trust and the Annual Report for 2021-22. Councillor Alec Cormack, Cabinet Member with responsibility for Corporate Finance, introduced the report and stated that the net running costs associated with the operation of the swimming pool were financed by a subsidy from the Council. He highlighted that for 2021-22, the subsidy was £76,000, a decrease of 8.84% on 2020-21. During 2021-22, the swimming pool continued to recover from the Covid-19 pandemic and its impact on income generation, with £85,000 being received from Welsh Government to replace lost income. Councillor Cormack stated that the net book value of the assets at 31 March 2022 was £1.708m, compared to the value at 31 March 2021 of £1.454m, due to an in year revaluation gain. He stated that the Statement of Accounts had been audited by an Independent Examiner whose report was included within the Statement of Accounts. Councillor Alec Cormack Moved the Recommendation; Seconded by Councillor the Leader. Councillor Rhys Jordan sought clarification in regards to how the Audit, Risk and Counter Fraud Manager for Pembrokeshire County Council could be an independent examiner. In response, the Director of Resources explained that the Audit, Risk and Counter Fraud Manager role was an independent one, as required under the Public Sector Internal Audit Standards. He stated that Audit Wales previously undertook this Audit but deemed it appropriate for the Council to utilise another source to undertake the Audit in order to save money. He then guaranteed that the Manager was independent. Councillor Jordan then sought clarification as to whether the Leisure Centre’s Trustee arrangement needed to be reviewed. The Director of Resources stated that he would discuss the matter with the Head of Law and Governance and determine if it could be undertaken. Councillor Jordan suggested that the Trustees be expanded to include a Town Council representative, as it was originally a community pool. Councillor Michael Stoddart sought clarification as to whether the net book value of the assets statement was correct, on page 527 of the Agenda. The Director confirmed that there was an error and it should read as follows: ‘The net book value of the assets at 31 March 2022 was £1.708m compared to the value at 31 March 2021 of £1.454m. This is due to an in year revaluation gain.’ Councillor Michael Williams agreed with Councillor Jordan and supported a review of the Trustee arrangement. The vote, undertaken by way of an electronic vote, was carried. The votes were recorded as follows: For the Motion: Councillors Jamie Adams, Steve Alderman, Michelle Bateman, Joshua Beynon, Maureen Bowen, David Bryan, Alistair Cameron, Aaron Carey, Mark Carter, Di Clements, John Cole, Alec Cormack, John Davies, Pat Davies, Terry Davies, Alan Dennison, Andrew Edwards, Tim Evans, Jonathan Grimes, Nicola Gwynn, Brian Hall, Simon Hancock, Delme Harries, Jon Harvey, Tessa Hodgson, David Howlett, Michael James, Michael John, Rhys Jordan, Phil Kidney, Paul Miller, Peter Morgan, Elwyn Morse, Huw Murphy, Reg Owens, Mel Phillips, Bethan Price, Neil Prior, Shon Rees, Jordan Ryan, David Simpson, Rhys Sinnett, Sam Skyrme-Blackhall, Michael Stoddart, Viv Stoddart, Aled Thomas, Vanessa Thomas, Marc Tierney, Angela Tinley, Thomas Tudor, Iwan Ward, Michele Wiggins, Tony Wilcox, Chris Williams, Jacob Williams, Michael Williams, Guy Woodham, Simon Wright, Steve Yelland and Danny Young [60] There were no votes against or abstentions. RESOLVED That the Statement of Accounts for 2021-22 for the Tenby and District Pool Trust be approved and signed by the Director of Resources and that the Annual Report 2021-22 be noted.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED That Community Councils and Community Council Associations be consulted on the appointment of a Community Council representative to serve on the Standards Committee, and that applications be reviewed by the Appointment Panel, followed by Recommendations to full Council.
Council considered a report by the Head of Democratic Services which outlined the recruitment of a Community Council Member to the Standards Committee. Councillor David Simpson, Leader of Council and Cabinet Member with responsibility for Corporate Matters, introduced the report and stated that there was a vacancy on the Standards Committee following the resignation of Community Councillor Hugh Watchman for Llawhaden Community Council. The Leader highlighted that the Council was required to consult Community Councils which were situated within the area and Community Council Associations established for and operating within the area, advertising the vacant position. He highlighted that an Appointments Panel would consider applications received and make a recommendation to Council in due course. The Leader Moved the Recommendation; Seconded by Councillor Paul Miller. Councillor Di Clements gave thanks to Community Councillor Watchman for his role on the Community Council and for his work on the Standards Committee. Councillor Jacob Williams sought clarification in regards to the advertisement process of the recruitment. In response, the Head of Law and Governance stated that there was no requirement to advertise for Community Councillors on the Standards Committee, therefore, Council would approve the appointment to the Committee in due course. Councillor Williams then sought clarification on the process once Community Councils had been consulted. The Head of Democratic Services explained that an Appointment Panel would be convened to interview any applicants, then the Recommendation would be considered by Council at the next meeting. Councillor Williams wished for the process following the advertisement to be included within the Recommendation. The Leader was happy to amend the Recommendation to read: That Community Councils and Community Council Associations be consulted on the appointment of a Community Council representative to serve on the Standards Committee, and that applications be reviewed by the Appointment Panel, followed by Recommendations to full Council. Councillor Michael Stoddart sought clarification as to what the consultation with Community Councils would achieve, other than informing them of the vacancy. In response, the Head of Democratic Services explained that in essence, the consultation related to expressions of interest from Community Councils, as well as One Voice Wales, as not all Community Councils would be representatives of One Voice Wales. Councillor Paul Miller seconded the amended Recommendation. The vote, undertaken by way of an electronic vote, was carried. The votes were recorded as follows: For the Motion: Councillors Jamie Adams, Steve Alderman, Michelle Bateman, Josh Beynon, Maureen Bowen, David Bryan, Alistair Cameron, Aaron Carey, Mark Carter, John Cole, Alec Cormack, John Davies, Pat Davies, Terry Davies, Alan Dennison, Andrew Edwards, Tim Evans, Jonathan Grimes, Nicola Gwynn, Brian Hall, Delme Harries, Jon Harvey, Tessa Hodgson, David Howlett, Mike James, Mike John, Rhys Jordan, Phil Kidney, Paul Miller, Peter Morgan, Elwyn Morse, Huw Murphy, Reg Owens, Mel Phillips, Bethan Price, Neil Prior, Shon Rees, Jordan Ryan, David Simpson, Rhys Sinnett, Sam Skyrme-Blackhall, Mike Stoddart, Viv Stoddart, Aled Thomas, Vanessa Thomas, Marc Tierney, Anji Tinley, Iwan Ward, Michele Wiggins, Tony Wilcox, Michael Williams, Chris Williams, Jacob Williams, Guy Woodham, Simon Wright, Steve Yelland and Danny Young [57] There were no votes against or abstentions. RESOLVED That Community Councils and Community Council Associations be consulted on the appointment of a Community Council representative to serve on the Standards Committee, and that applications be reviewed by the Appointment Panel, followed by Recommendations to full Council.
Councillor Jon Harvey, the relevant Cabinet Member, responded to a question submitted by Councillor Alistair Cameron prior to the meeting in accordance with the provisions of Council Procedure Rule 4.10 as follows: Discharge of untreated sewerage is a growing concern around Pembrokeshire’s coast and rivers. Please could the Leader or appropriate Cabinet Member arrange a seminar for all Members with Dwr Cymru / Welsh Water so that they can explain what they are doing to reduce the discharge of untreated sewerage? In response, Councillor Harvey stated that he sharedCouncillor Cameron's concern in relation to water quality within our rivers and oceans. He stated that Natural Resources Wales (NRW) would be the regulatory body for discharges of sewage effluent into coastal waters and Dwr Cyrmu was the operational body for sewage treatment facilities. NRW was also the responsible Authority for sampling what were known as designated beaches, which were essentially the beaches that had been designated by Welsh Government through an approval process, as the use was sufficiently high enough by bathers to warrant regular testing. He explained that the Council, through its leisure services, had historically made applications each year for beach awards, with the blue flags being the best known of these. These would generally also be designated beaches, which were sampled by NRW and part of the assessment process, which meant that the waters had to achieve consistent or consistently excellent water quality. The Council also had a role in managing beach areas and there was a defined role in these regulations to cover water quality, relating to signage and poor water quality warnings. Some of Pembrokeshire’s beaches had a model for predicting water quality design, which were Newport, Poppit and Broad Haven North. These models had been developed to make predictions on water quality, and any predictions where poor quality was shown, required the Council to put signage out warning bathers the potential for poor water quality. The Council would also provide warning signage for beach users on any other situation where they were discharged to base in areas such as sewage spills, contamination issues from shipping waste or private treatment facilities. There had been significant press coverage of discharge events within the UK and this had raised public awareness and resulted in increased numbers of questions from members of the public. There was a mobile app that could be downloaded provided by Surfers Against Sewage. He stated that it saw information from Welsh Water that alerted to discharges of storm water from what were known as combined storm overflows. The Public Protection Service and the Pollution Control Team at the request of Community Councils and Councillors, had attended community meetings also involving Welsh Water and NRW. They had been very well received as currently there were many misconceptions on the nature of the leases on the beaches, but the information that members of the public were responding to are, in fact, from storm water discharges and not necessarily sewage discharges. Following the submission of the question, Councillor Harvey stated that he had contacted Welsh Water, who confirmed that Steve Watson, their Managing Director of Wastewater, would be happy to attend a seminar. Given NRW’s role, he suggested that NRW was also invited to the seminar and would arrange for an invite to be sent directly to them. Currently, the 2nd of June was being held to put this seminar on as quickly as possible, which would work once NRW had confirmed that they were happy to attend on that date. Councillor Harvey then summarised a statement from Welsh Water in response to Councillor Cameron’s question, as follows: As a company, Welsh Water takes its responsibility to protect the environment seriously and invests around £1 million a day in improving and maintaining our networks and services. There were many different factors which contribute to river water quality, of which wastewater is one element. We have a strong environmental record and invest heavily to protect water quality in both our rivers and seas. This had delivered real improvements and helped ensure that Wales had over a third of the UK's blue flag beaches, while only having 15% of the coastline and that 40% of our rivers and water bodies meet good ecological status, compared to 16% in England. We recognise, however, that with environmental legislation tightening and customer expectations changing, more needs to be done. We plan to target our investment to those assets which have the biggest impact on the environment, whether that's storm overflows operating more than we'd like to or too much phosphorus leaving out treatment works. We understand we must improve the performance. That is why we launched our manifesto for rivers in Wales, which outlines our plans to help improve river quality. This includes investing 1.5 billion in the decade 2025 on our wastewater system, investing significantly to improve storm overflows, with 140 million pounds being invested between 2020-2025 with a further 420 million planned from 2025-2030, we have invested an additional 60 million specifically to reduce phosphorus in five failing SAC's. We are delivering a comprehensive programme of upgrades and introducing new permits to our treatment works that will reduce our phosphorus contribution by 90% by 2030. Our business operating model has allowed us to bring forward over 100 million pound additional investment in our waste water infrastructure. Over the past 18 months we updated our source apportionment geographical system to allow better understanding the impact of assets on yesterday's seas. to help improve the clarity between now and March 2025, we're investing in four of our sites located along the river, the wastewater treatment works are located at spittle will have 1.5 million pound investment, rose market with a 1 billion pounds investment, Letterston with a 3.9 million pound investments and Wolfscastle with an investment of 5 million pounds. In addition to our investment plans, we have been in touch and working with a number of organisations in the Pembrokeshire area, these include Llanrhian Community Council, Tenby Town Council, Pembroke Town Council, Amroth Community Council, Newport Town Council, Councillors and Officers at Pembrokeshire County Council, Local Authorities, the Public Health Department, local Officers from NRW, West Water, Rivers Trust, Beach Liaison Groups and local swimming groups. Our river quality liaison manager has continued to engage with anyone with queries around river quality and operations. In response to a supplementary question regarding issues in Members’ wards, Councillor Harvey stated that Members would hopefully receive the answers to their questions at the upcoming seminar with Welsh Water and NRW.
Councillor Paul Miller, the relevant Cabinet Member, responded to a question submitted by Councillor David Bryan prior to the meeting in accordance with the provisions of Council Procedure Rule 4.10 as follows: As a firm believer in clean, cheap energy I was delighted when the solar panels were installed on the roofing on the County Hall car park. Would the Leader please inform Members of the percentage of the County Council's estate that is likewise being used for PV solar energy production? In response, Councillor Miller stated that the 71 kilowatt solar PV canopy installed at County Hall was introduced alongside LED lighting. The project had seen energy use at County Hall reduced by 72% in the summer months, 26% due to the LED lights and 46% due to the solar canopy. In terms of the percentage aspect to the question, he stated that it was unclear whether Councillor Bryan was referring to buildings, social housing or car parks, but mentioned that he would be happy to get that answer to him. In terms of future plans, specifically on solar energy production, Councillor Miller stated that a PV Car Park canopy was scheduled to be installed at the Archives next month, and the team were exploring further such canopy installations. In addition to the current 500 kilowatts of rooftop solar installed across 30 rooftops, a tender exercise was currently underway with a view to installing a further 1,700 kilowatts of solar PV to a further 30 buildings this financial year. He highlighted that as well as the environmental benefit, he anticipated the Council's overall emissions from energy consumption in corporate buildings would be reduced by another 13%.
Councillor Paul Miller, the relevant Cabinet Member, responded to a question submitted by Councillor Jonathan Grimes prior to the meeting in accordance with the provisions of Council Procedure Rule 4.10 as follows: Could the relevant cabinet member update members on the cost so far of phase one of the South Quay Project in Pembroke? Of this cost, could this be broken down into what has been grant funded and what has been publically funded? Further, what is the anticipated cost to complete the project, including how much of this has secure grant funding and how much will the authority have to pay? In response, Councillor Miller stated that the South Quay project was the Administration addressing a cluster of listed buildings left to essentially fall down by the previousAdministration. He believed their action in that regard, or lack of any, to be negligent and that they made clear their interest and regard for the community of Pembroke. He stated that the current Administration was determined to support the community in Pembroke, to ensure the community of Pembroke know that the Council was interested in them and cared about their future and the town. Councillor Miller stated he was certain that the South Quay project, taken together with the Council’s activities to support regeneration and economic development across the County, and the efforts of the community in Pembroke too, meant that Pembroke could be looking forward to a much more positive future than the alternative.In terms of the figures, all figured had been provided in the Cabinet report, which set out in the public domain the state of play on the project as recently as last month.He then highlighted the following: · Project expenditure to this point was £4.7 million, of which £2.3 million had been sourced from Welsh Government’s Transforming Towns fund. · A further £250,000 had been sourced from Welsh Government Transformation Capital Grant Programme. · Council funding was there for the balance at £2.4 million, and was said to be approximately a fifty-fifty ratio. · Projected total cost for the overall scheme, including fit out, was £20.3 million, noting that the construction contract costs were subject to contractor agreement in June 2023. · The final split of funding is therefore expected to be in the order of 60/40 in the Council's favour, said to be 60% Council and 40% external funding. In response to a supplementary question regarding the Cabinet Member’s confidence in finding a replacement partner to run the exhibition, Councillor Miller confirmed his confidence.
Councillor Paul Miller, the relevant Cabinet Member, responded to a question submitted by Councillor Aled Thomas prior to the meeting in accordance with the provisions of Council Procedure Rule 4.10 as follows: The Welsh Government recently announced their intention to enforce a 10% tree coverage quota, across all farmland in Wales. As I’m sure the Cabinet Member is aware, a 10% cut in productive agriculture land would be extremely damaging to the majority of farmers across Pembrokeshire. Now that the Cabinet member has had adequate time to research the topic following their [refusal to] answer to the question in March's full Council meeting; What is the Cabinet Member for Place, Region and Climate Change's opinion on the proposed enforcement of the 10% blanket ruling, despite there being far more proven agronomical practices that could be used to reduce carbon and promote diversity, without slashing productive land availability? In response, Councillor Miller stated that this was a matter for Welsh Government, as the Minister had made a commitment to engage with the sector and co-design a final scheme. He stated that Government was planning a further three month consultation period later in the year. He then encouraged Councillor Thomas to respond to that consultation. Councillor Miller highlighted that from a Council perspective, the Policy Overview and Scrutiny Committee was considering the matter in June 2023, and through that process he would be interested to hear if the Committee had any specific views on the policy. In response to a supplementary question regarding the Cabinet Member supporting and working with local farmers, Councillor Miller stated that he would be happy to give that commitment.
Councillor Michelle Bateman, the relevant Cabinet Member, responded to a question submitted by Councillor Aled Thomas prior to the meeting in accordance with the provisions of Council Procedure Rule 4.10 as follows: Since the announcement that the rent increases would not go ahead as planned, I have had many residents show concern that they are going to be charged monthly more than what they owe, and they are also worried that they are being penalised for paying via Direct Debit when others will not. Please can the Cabinet Member for housing assure members that the taking of increased Rent and Service Charge payments over the next three months (estimated) via Direct Debits is legal practice, and that the relevant notice of change in Direct Debits was given? In response, Councillor Bateman stated that the relevant notice of change to direct debits was sent separately to the rent increase notice, therefore sufficient notice was given. Following consideration, she stated that the Council had continued with the increased charge, as to not take the direct debit would have resulted in no rent being received from those tenants. Therefore, any arrears due to non-payment would have resulted in higher direct debit payments for customers, on top of the rent increase and service charge increases, now due from 1 July 2023. Councillor Bateman explained that the Council was in the process of amending any direct debit payments affected, to lower the payments due between now and July, and was working through each individual account paid by direct debit. Any overpayment from direct debits would be taken into account when recalculating for the remainder of the financial year and no tenant will be disadvantaged. In response to a supplementary question regarding the Council using taxpayer money as an interest free loan, the Director of Resources stated that during deliberations of what was the best way to deal with the situation, it was decided that if no direct debit was taken, there was a risk of putting those tenants into an arrears situation if they did not start paying until the new increase came in. Therefore, there was an aim to protect the tenants, rather than utilise the additional payment.
Councillor Michelle Bateman, the relevant Cabinet Member, responded to questions submitted by Councillor Mark Carter prior to the meeting in accordance with the provisions of Council Procedure Rule 4.10 as follows: At the end of March this year an announcement was made that the required 2 month written notice of the 1st April rent rise to all Council tenants had not been correctly made. Given that a new letter would have to be drafted, it has now been suggested that the rent increase cannot be implemented until 1st July this year. A rough calculation suggests that the rent increase would provide an extra £500,000 for that 3 month period. Could the Cabinet member please: 1. Confirm how much the exact loss of rental income over the mentioned 3 month period is? 2. Please provide exact details how and from whom, this sum of money will be recovered if PCC is not to suffer the loss caused by this error? 3. Clarify why this mistake was not spotted or members were not made aware until a few days before the rent increase should have been implemented? In response to question one, Councillor Bateman stated that the loss of income over the three month period was estimated to be £380,000. In response to question two, Councillor Bateman stated thata full investigation was currently being undertaken with the print and postage supplier. She stated that no further details were available at this stage as it was important not to divulge information sensitive from commercial, financial and legal perspectives which could affect the Council’s position, should legal proceedings be necessary. In response to question three, Councillor Bateman stated thatthe notice was sent to the supplier who undertook the printing and postage and according to their portal, showed that they had been printed on 26January 2023. In early February 2023, the Council received the invoice for payment confirming the work had been undertaken and mailing posted. She highlighted that a query was raised by a tenant on 28March 2023. Checks were undertaken before the matter was escalated to the print and postage supplier and on 31 March 2023, Revenue Services staff experienced a high volume of calls from tenants advising they had only just received the notice. Councillor Bateman stated that further enquiries were made to our supplier and an investigation requested. The Council advised tenants and Members as soon as the team were aware of the issue through social media communications, Members were briefed and letters were sent to all tenants. In order to prevent a reoccurrence, seed letters would be included in future mailings of this nature. In response to supplementary question one regarding tenants pointing out errors, the Head of Financial Services stated that the Council had considered the work done since receiving the invoice and was not aware of any issues until calls were received from tenants. In response to supplementary question two regarding whether payments would be three months late every year to enforce a rent increase to tenants, Councillor Bateman confirmed that to be the case and stated that Welsh Government was aware of situation and was working with the Council to acquire some of the lost costs. In response to supplementary question three regarding updating Members when there was information relating to recovering the lost costs, Councillor Bateman assured Members that she would ask the Director of Resources to update Members on any subsequent action on how the matter proceeds.
[Councillor Brian Hall left the meeting at this juncture.] Councillor Michelle Bateman, the relevant Cabinet Member, responded to questions submitted by Councillor Delme Harries prior to the meeting in accordance with the provisions of Council Procedure Rule 4.10 as follows: Will the cabinet member responsible for housing please give a detailed explanation on how the embarrassing situation on the failure of delivering rental proposals arose? Does this failure to deliver notices impact the further notice period of rent increases? What lessons have been learnt and remedial action taken? In response to question one, Councillor Bateman stated that the answer was the same as the previous answer given to Councillor Mark Carter in terms of timescales. In response to question two, Councillor Bateman stated thatthe failure did impact the rent notice increases, as due to the provisions of the Renting Homes (Wales) Act 2016, the Council could not increase rent within the 365 days, therefore, the rent for existing tenants would not be increased until 1 July each year, unless there was a tenancy change. In response to question three, Councillor Bateman stated thatonce it became apparent that the required two month notice period of rent increase and one month service charge increase notice had not been given to tenants, the Council started taking remedial action immediately and have since reissued the notice with a rent increase effective from 1 July 2023. The notices have had “seed letters” planted in each batch and sent to two members of staff so successful delivery could be tracked. She highlighted that the Council was working with the print and postage supplier to understand why these notices were not delivered and was looking at what safeguards could be put in place to minimise the risk of any future recurrence of this situation. In response to a supplementary question regarding the impact of the situation in relation to rectifying the costs, the Head of Financial Services stated that it was an ongoing situation but, once completed, he would be happy to report back.
Councillor Paul Miller, the relevant Cabinet Member, responded to a question submitted by Councillor Rhys Jordan prior to the meeting in accordance with the provisions of Council Procedure Rule 4.10 as follows: Given the significant cost difference between the "bespoke bridge" planned for the “Heart Of Pembrokeshire” Project and the "Golden Bridge" constructed by Swansea City Council, there may be concerns among Pembrokeshire Residents that their resources are being used to part fund a bridge that prioritises aesthetics over practicality. In light of this, does the responsible cabinet member believe that Pembrokeshire Residents views an "instagramable" bridge as an essential item? In response, Councillor Miller stated that the pedestrian bridge linking eastern and western quaysides within the centre of Haverfordwest needed replacing. He explained that irrespective of any regeneration activity, the Council had successfully developed a scheme capable of attracting external grant funding, and as a result, 90% of the cost of replacing the bridge would be met through that grant funding. The bridge itself was a key part of the Heart of Pembrokeshire scheme and would, together with our other regeneration activity, support the transformation of Haverfordwest. Councillor Miller stated that he was pleased that the Heart of Pembrokeshire scheme attracted support from the community as well as from the Local MP, as was a requirement of the UK Government funding bid system. The Council had been successful in being awarded a Levelling Up Fund Grant for the Heart of Pembrokeshire scheme, in the order of £20 million. In response to a supplementary question regarding the phrase ‘Instagrammable bridge’, Councillor Miller stated that he had not used that phrase and explained that the bridge needed to be replaced and highlighted that the new bridge would be practical and attractive for the Town Centre.
[Councillors Tony Wilcox and Michele Wiggins left the meeting at this juncture.] Councillor Paul Miller, the relevant Cabinet Member, responded to a question submitted by Councillor Di Clements prior to the meeting in accordance with the provisions of Council Procedure Rule 4.10 as follows: In light of the leader's recent press statement that he is proud of the ability of members to scrutinise the current administrations decisions, does he feel that waiting over a month and requesting on four separate occasions the business case for the first UK Levelling Up Fund bids is acceptable? For his information I still have not received the information. In response, Councillor Miller stated thatwithin a couple of hours of the request, he had acceded to the information being made available and tasked the responsible Officer to provide it. He was aware that Councillor Clements was now in possession of the information. He highlighted that any suggestion that the Administration was anything other than completely open and transparent with opposition Members, was not correct and not supported by the facts. In terms of the Officers response, he was aware that Officers had correspondence with Councillor Clements, and that their view was that they responded as quickly as possible, despite annual leave and other commitments.
[Councillors Andrew Edwards, Phil Kidney and Iwan Ward left the meeting at this juncture.] Councillor Tessa Hodgson, the relevant Cabinet Member, responded to a question submitted by Councillor Huw Murphy prior to the meeting in accordance with the provisions of Council Procedure Rule 4.10 as follows: Can the Cabinet Member for Social Care and Safeguarding please explain her comments at the Corporate O&S on March 23, 2023 that her biggest safeguarding concern is attendance in our schools when at the Social Care O&S meeting of January 12th, 2023 information was presented which shows child care assessment team referrals are rising, that the number of young persons on the child protection register has risen and the number of initial child protection conferences following a S47 enquiry has increased significantly. Can the Cabinet member reassure myself as Safeguarding Champion and Pembrokeshire residents that she will focus her attention on where genuine risk exists for our most vulnerable young people and work with Social Services to achieve this goal? In response, Councillor Hodgson stated that she was well aware of the rising numbers of referrals to our teams and other safeguarding concerns. She explained that she meets regularly with Heads of Service and the Director to monitor and discuss this. The pressures on services were well-documented and understood and far from unique to Pembrokeshire, but stated that she had assurance from Officers and external inspectors such as the Care Inspectorate Wales, that the Council was providing an appropriate and timely safeguarding service. Councillor Hodgson highlighted that she was the Chair of the Council’s Safeguarding Group, of which Councillor Murphy was a member. In these meetings, she explained that the Group audited safeguarding across the whole Authority. The work was also monitored and inspected by Audit Wales and the Group was currently working through their latest recommendations. The specific question at the Corporate Overview and Scrutiny Committee meeting from Councillor Hancock, was what she considered the most pressing safeguarding concern at that one moment in time. She stated that she stood by her answer regarding school attendance and following an update of a recent figure, was even more concerned than she was in March. She stated that prior to the Covid-19 pandemic, attendance in secondary schools was in the region of 95%, however it was now averaging 89% and presenting a falling trend. In some schools it was below even that low figure. Having had their education so badly disrupted due to school closures during Covid, many children and families had simply not engaged back with schools and their education. Unfortunately for some children, school was the only stable and safe place available to them and sadly, the only environment where they were in the care of adults interested in their welfare and their education. Councillor Hodgson stated that it was no coincidence that most of the referrals for child protection issues came through schools. She highlighted that it was clear that if children were not in school, they were not seen. She stated that too many opportunities to protect them were missed. She stated that children who were out of school were also far more vulnerable to being sexually exploited, recruited to criminal gangs, lured into online pornography and gambling, as well as the permanent damage done to their life chances by missing out on their education. In her opening remarks to the Corporate Overview and Scrutiny Committee, she reminded Members that she was the Cabinet lead for Safeguarding and Councillor Murphy was the Safeguarding Champion, but safeguarding was everyone’s responsibility. She explained that she welcomed and encouraged any Member to suggest ideas on how to strengthen and improve safeguarding, however, her inbox was very light on responses. Councillor Hodgson concluded that school attendance remained the biggest challenge to safeguarding and the well-being and life chances of many of Pembrokeshire’s most vulnerable children. She would continue to speak out about the matter and highlight her concerns at every opportunity. In response to a supplementary question regarding school attendance as a safeguarding matter, Councillor Hodgson stated that she was aware of the figures and the Council was supporting and intervening with those children, however, it was the children they were not aware of that were of the most concern.
Councillor Tessa Hodgson, the relevant Cabinet Member, responded to a question submitted by Councillor Huw Murphy prior to the meeting in accordance with the provisions of Council Procedure Rule 4.10 as follows: As Safeguarding Champion can I be reassured that following the conclusion of a recent criminal trial resulting in the conviction for murder of a Pembrokeshire child that the report presented to Social Care O&S on November 12th, 2022 to safeguard and promote the welfare of children, young people and vulnerable adults will be acted upon and that the Child Practice Review (CPR) into this tragic event will be published on completion and returned to Social Care O&S to establish what lessons can be learnt to avoid such a tragedy in the future? In response, Councillor Hodgson stated thatfollowing the tragic death of a young child, a Child Practice Review was initiated. In this case, the Review was paused during criminal proceedings. Now that the trial and sentencing had concluded, the Review would restart. She stated that a learning event would be conducted as part of the Review. There would be meetings with wider family as part of the next steps. Councillor Hodgson highlighted that the Review would be led by an experienced Barrister and that the Chair of the Review Panel was a senior manager from Carmarthenshire. She stated that the process would be overseen by the West Wales Regional Safeguarding Board and on its completion, the report would be published.She explained that it was not her place to set the Forward Work Plan of the Social Care Overview and Scrutiny Committee, as that was for its Members and Councillor Bryan.
Councillor Michelle Bateman, the relevant Cabinet Member, responded to a question submitted by Councillor Aaron Carey prior to the meeting in accordance with the provisions of Council Procedure Rule 4.10 as follows: During the Governance and Audit Committee of 18th April, the potential costs of decarbonising our housing stock (approximately 5000 homes) was highlighted. Measures including but not limited to, ceasing the installation of fossil fuel boilers by 2026 and altering the fabric of buildings (resulting in increased void times). Current figures indicate the cost of this to be approaching 200 million pounds. Currently only £10 million of HRA money has been ring fenced over the next ten years. How is PCC going to afford this? In response, Councillor Bateman stated that a report was presented to the Governance and Audit Committee on 18 April 2023, which detailed the proposed short term programme for decarbonising the Council’s housing stock. As was discussed in the meeting, the Council was still waiting for confirmation from Welsh Government on the detail of the revised Welsh Housing Quality Standards (WHQS) further to their consultation. It was therefore unclear at this stage what timescale would be provided to Social Landlords to achieve improved energy standards in their housing stock. The date that had initially been suggested was 2033, but Social Landlords had been questioning Welsh Government on how realistic this target was, given the potential costs, capacity and availability of renewable technologies to achieve this ambition. As was explained in the report, the revised WHQS standard indicated a phased approach for energy improvements, beginning with a Whole Stock Assessment, followed by Target Energy Pathways for achieving Energy Performance Certificate A or as close to this as possible, utilising a fabric first approach. Councillor Bateman stated that the true costs of decarbonising the housing stock would not be known until the Council had undertaken the Whole Stock Assessment, as well as costed these Assessments and the Pathways proposed. It was acknowledged, based on the schemes that the Council was already progressing with, that costs would be high, hence why the Council was feeding back concerns to Welsh Government on the affordability of this ambitious programme and targets being set. They had provided a grant and future indicative funding through the Optimised Retrofit Programme of £2.5 million over the next two years. She explained that any costed programme for achieving the revised WHQS standard, was built into the 30 year Housing Revenue Account (HRA) Business Plan, which on an annual basis was reviewed and signed off by Cabinet and the Section 151 Officer, the Director of Resources, before being submitted to Welsh Government. Currently there was £67 million in the Business Pan for decarbonisation over the next 30 years (£10 million over the next 5 years). This Business Plan had to present a balanced financial position, taking into consideration the level of rental income and borrowing capacity for the Plan, balanced against the cost of the decarbonisation programme, on-going maintenance, estate improvements and new build investment. At this stage, until clarity was given by Welsh Government on the timescale for the revised WHQS implementation, and the Council knew the level of investment required, Councillor Bateman stated that she was not in a position to confirm the detail of the financial profiling required within the 30 year Business Plan. This was part of the ongoing work and would be reported through the HRA Working group and into Cabinet annually. Councillor Bateman highlighted that Councillor Carey was a Member of the HRA Working Group during the last term and would therefore be aware of the constant balancing act between investment in the building programme, improving the existing stock and estates, and any retrofit programme, She was sure that warm, energy efficient, low carbon and cost efficient housing for tenants was an aspiration shared by them both. In response to a supplementary question regarding concerns around how this would affect housing provisions, Councillor Bateman stated that it was a constant balancing act as a set amount of money, determined by rents, was given to balance the provision of new, much-needed affordable housing for tenants currently on the waiting list.She stated that the HRA Working Group was a valuable forum as Cabinet Member, and highlighted that it was a good sounding board with open and frank discussions with reports from Officers. She also referred to tenant engagement to help tenants understand the benefits of retrofitting.
[Councillors Steve Yelland and Alistair Cameron left the meeting at this juncture.] Councillor Jon Harvey, the relevant Cabinet Member, responded to a question submitted by Councillor Aaron Carey prior to the meeting in accordance with the provisions of Council Procedure Rule 4.10 as follows: Considering the figures quoted in my previous question to Councillor Bateman, and the static level of people stuck on the housing list, could Councillor Harvey please outline his plan for this authority to make a REAL impact on the county's social housing provision? In response, Councillor Harvey outlined some of the real reasons why the Council was suffering from a housing crisis which was not just limited to Pembrokeshire, but across the whole Country. He stated that just over 1 million council houses were built in the UK between 1920 and 1939, with 5.8 million council houses being built between 1946 and 1979. This compared to 4.5 million private homes and 260,000 housing association properties in the same time frame (1946 to 1979). During this time frame, the council house was the dominant force of British housing, but this all changed in 1979 when the Conservative Party under the leadership of Margaret Thatcher came to power. The Conservative Government introduced the Housing Act 1980 which became law in the autumn of 1980. The new law established a right to buy for most Council tenants, who had been in their home for more than three years to purchase their council property at a discount. The discount started at 33% and increased by 1% for each extra year they had lived in the property up to a maximum of 50%. The upshot of this Conservative policy was that 970,000 council properties were sold at a discount between 1980 and 1989. He stated that it could be argued that a home owning policy was laudable, but Local Authorities were not allowed to re-invest the totality of the discounted sale proceeds into the construction of new replacement council properties. By the 1990’s, Councils were only able to use 25% of the discounted receipts of council house sales for the construction of new properties. The result was that an average of 4,880 Council properties were constructed in the 1990’s compared to 39,000 in the 1980’s and 129,000 in the 1970’s. Conservative policy had also favoured the provision of affordable housing via housing associations, rather than through Local Authority construction and management. Housing Associations had maintained higher levels of building than Local Authorities, due to their ability to borrow privately and to access Government grant funding through the Social Housing Grant Programme. Councillor Harvey stated that the other reasons why there was a housing crises were wide and varied and could be attributed to, but not limited to, a number factors including: • Increasing private house prices making affordability to purchase a real issue for many; • Less than 5% of Government housing spending was allocated to social housing in 2016-2017, down from 82% in the 1970’s; • Population growth; • Significant rises in net immigration; • Rising private rental prices compared to low annual wage rises; • Restrictions imposed by the planning system on the amount of land available for house building; • Latterly, the consequential effects of the Renting Homes Act in Wales, which had resulted in a number of private landlords leaving the market due to increased burdens placed on landlords and increased tenant rights. This has resulted in a significant increase in the serving of Section 21 Notices and evictions; • Increasing numbers of people presenting as homeless. He stated that it was a shame that Councillor Carey did not attend the Council Housing Development Programme Members Seminar, held on 19April, although he may have watched the recording. Councillor Harvey stated that most of the answers he required were within the information presented at the seminar, but I understood the politics behind many of the questions being asked today. He highlighted that the Administration was committed to increasing the supply of affordable housing in the County and this aim was set out in the Programme for Administration which stated that the Council will, inter alia, in respect of housing delivery: ‘Directly develop up to 300 new build housing units by 2027’. ‘Accelerate housing delivery as well as work with partners to increase the range of affordable housing projects including the development of Community Land Trusts and making available smaller plots of Council land for those seeking self-build opportunities’. He stated that within the Planning Function element of the Programme for Administration, the Council would also commit to: ‘Set out an ambitious, unashamedly growth focused new Development Plan for Pembrokeshire (LDP2) which supports and enables significant housing growth and links seamlessly with those of our partners across the region and the Pembrokeshire Coast National Park.’ In regards to what the Administration had done and what were they continuing to do to make a real difference, Councillor Harvey stated that the Council’s own Council house building programme which the Administration commenced had around 400 affordable housing units identified in the business plan with sites in Johnston, Tiers Cross, Milford Haven, Haverfordwest, Tenby, Newport and Neyland in the active work programme, whilst currently on site in Johnston and Tiers Cross with completions later this year. Other sites in the programme were said to be: • The former Haycastle School Site • Former Hakin School Site • Former Hubberston School site • Former Riverside Hostel in Pembroke The total estimated cost of delivering the programme was £115m with external funding of £57m. The Council continued to work in partnership with those Housing Associations that operate in the County and administer the Social Housing Grant Programme through the Personal Development Plan (PDP). The Council allocated this grant money to allow the Registered Social Landlords (RSL’s) to part fund their developments. The current PDP over the next three to four years would see the construction of 588 affordable housing units by RSL partners. The Council would continue to assist them in the delivery of their housing development programme and had been extremely successful within the last few weeks in obtaining an additional £12,762,000 of Social Housing Grant slippage money from Welsh Government, which was the highest level of any Council in Wales. This would allow the Council to accelerate the RSL’s delivery of affordable housing and bring additional new schemes into the programme. One example of this was the Slade Lane site in Haverfordwest. Over the last few months the Council had meetings with Pobl Housing Association and Welsh Government, who had now completed the purchase of the site from Conygar. The exact number of affordable units to be provided on the overall site was subject to confirmation and detailed planning, but could be in excess of 500. As well as the Council’s own housing development programme and those of the RSL’s, the Council had also been actively purchasing properties. In financial year 2021/22, 57 properties were purchased made up of: • 11 individual properties purchased utilising Welsh Government Empty Homes Grant, totalling £1.4 million to cover the total cost of purchase. • 46 Cashfield properties purchased where Welsh Government grant was received, totalling £8.5 million. The Council’s Match Funding for the grant as per the grant application was £84,000. In financial year 2022/23, the Council purchased 21 properties and secured just over £2 million of grant aid monies for the purchase, resulting in an average cost per property to the Housing Revenue Account of £31,542. Seven of these properties had sitting tenants who were retained to stop them becoming homeless, as well as retaining the tenants we had raised the standard of the properties, and in most cases, the rent had dropped to a more sustainable level in line with Council rents. So far in the current financial year, the Council had purchased three properties with another 11 having offers accepted and working their way through the buying process. As identified in the recent Second Homes Premium Cabinet report on 13 February 2023, an element of the Second Homes Council Tax Premium would be utilised to accelerate the delivery of affordable housing through support for ‘turn-key’ developments. The Council had agreed prices on two different developments, for 14 units in total and should both start on site in 2023, subject to formal approval following the usual due diligence checks. In respect of Community Land Trusts (CLT), the Council had been working with the Solva CLT and had committed £3 million of Second Homes Tax monies to a scheme in Solva, where the CLT were working in partnership with Ateb to provide much needed affordable housing units for local people. The Council had also been in discussions with Nolton and Roch CLT and there would be a report to the next meeting of Cabinet on this particular scheme. The Council continued to provide affordable homes, as well as financial contributions towards the delivery of affordable homes through the planning system and the policies contained within the Local Development Plan. Between 2017 when the Administration came into being and April 2022, the Council had delivered planning permission via Section 106 obligations for 140 affordable homes and secured financial contributions in lieu of on-site provision of £3,684,000 which would be used for the delivery of affordable housing. Councillor Harvey stated that the above examples would continue make a real impact on the County’s social housing provision. He apologies for the lengthy reply but felt it was important to examine the context the Administration was working with and making a real impact on the provision of affordable housing, which in turn would make a real impact to people’s lives.
[Councillor Simon Hancock reiterated his declaration of interest at this juncture]. Councillor Alec Cormack, the relevant Cabinet Member, responded to a question submitted by Councillor Alan Dennison prior to the meeting in accordance with the provisions of Council Procedure Rule 4.10 as follows: Given the Council’s previous investment in Bluestone of a 1.9 million secured loan, now converted into shares, can the Cabinet Member advise what return on investment per annum has been received over the last 5 years in share dividends or any other form of income? In response, Councillor Cormack stated thatsince it was now over 20 years since the Council first agreed to invest in Bluestone, he felt some background would help Members appreciate the return on investment, and would provide for the last four or five years. He explained that the Council originally invested in Bluestone with two loans, as Councillor Dennison had indicated. The key justification was that Waterworld, now called Blue Lagoon, was to be an indoor venue accessible year-round to the general public of Pembrokeshire and at a fair price, which was actually written into the loan agreement. He stated that the investment was secured by a legal charge against Waterworld at the Land Registry. In November 2009, Bluestone was seeking additional investment. The Council was invited to participate in a joint venture by exchanging our loans for shares Bluestone at the financial restructuring event, which was scheduled to take place on 12 November 2009. This would have involved removing the legal charge the Council had over the land and the Council declined to participate but agreed to consider an investment in shares at the next Cabinet meeting. By the time the Cabinet met on 30 November, Bluestone had successfully refinanced with an additional £10 million. It was now a growing concern and was looking to expand its business. The Council’s legal charge over Waterworld, which was necessary for Bluestone to operate that business, fully guaranteed the Council’s money. The Cabinet report was confidential, so Councillor Cormack stated that he could not disclose the content. However, he highlighted the following aspects not included in the report: • There was no clear justification for buying the shares, nor for giving up the legal charge guaranteeing our previous loans. • No evaluation of the pros and cons. • No assessment of a fair share price. • No explanation of the risk of giving up our secured creditor status. Councillor stated that both Councillor Jamie Adams and Councillor John Davies were present when the Independent Group (IPG) Cabinet decided to purchase those shares in 2009. They spent £1.9 million of the Council's money on those shares, which were estimated by the Council’s Finance team to be worth under £70,000 today. The Council had received £19,000 in dividends over the last five years. The highest dividend the Council had ever received was in 2019/20 when it received £5,250. Taking account of all the dividends received and adding in the current share valuation, the Council was said to have lost over £1.8 million of the £1.9 million, or roughly 95% of this IPG investment. Councillor Cormack stated that it simultaneously lost the public their guaranteed right to use the Blue Lagoon Pool. He highlighted that if the Council took the maximum dividend amount of £5,250 pounds, the Council would get its money back in roughly 340 years. In response to a supplementary question regarding future plans for the shares, Councillor Cormack stated that there had not been much interest in anyone purchasing them and explained that being a minority shareholder in a private limited company was a very weak position to be in. The Director of Resources explained that he had discussed potential options a few years ago with the Finance Manager of Bluestone, however the shareholding would equate to in the region of only £70,000.
Councillor Jon Harvey, the relevant Cabinet Member, responded to a question submitted by Councillor Alan Dennison prior to the meeting in accordance with the provisions of Council Procedure Rule 4.10 as follows: A recent application to open a new bijou restaurant on a site of 3 previous restaurants in Fulke Street was refused on the basis that it was not in Charles St. Can the Cabinet Member advise if it is PCC policy to refuse all hospitality or other small retail business planning applications within Milford Haven unless they are located in Charles Street and what would be the grounds for such refusal? In response, Councillor Harvey stated that there had been no recent refusals of planning permissions in Fulke Street, Milford Haven for a change of use to a restaurant. In terms of policy position, Fulke Street was partly located within the Town Centre boundary of Milford Haven, as defined in the adopted Local Development Plan (LDP). Consequently, the principle of a restaurant use at this location was acceptable, subject to other material considerations, such as impact on residential amenity. The Town Centre boundary for Milford Haven included Charles Street, Priory Street, Hamilton Terrace and part of Fulke Street, so it was not Council policy to refuse all hospitality or other small retail business planning applications within Milford Haven, unless they were located in Charles Street. He stated that the policy framework for Town Centres followed a town centre first approach, which was reflected in ‘Future Wales – The National Plan 2040’. The Future Wales, Policy 6 promoted a ‘town centre first’ approach for the location of new retail and complementary uses. The Planning Policy Wales (PPW) paragraphs 4.3.19 and 4.3.21, and Technical Advice Note 4, required the applicant to undertake a sequential test to demonstrate that all potential premises within the nearest Town Centre had been considered prior to a proposed location outside of a Town Centre boundary. In terms of the Councils LDP, Policy GN.12 stated that in the reasoned justification to the policy, the Town Centre boundaries represented the most suitable locations for new retail, commercial and leisure development as they already had strong concentrations of these uses and were located near sustainable transport links. In terms of the Annual Retail Survey conducted in Milford Haven in August 2021, there was a high increase in the number of vacant A-class units in the Town Centre, with a total of 28 A-class units recorded as being vacant, resulting in a vacancy rate of 29%, which had increased from 22% in the 2020 Retail Survey.
[Councillor Iwan Ward re-joined the meeting at this juncture.] Councillor Paul Miller, the relevant Cabinet Member, responded to a question submitted by Councillor Alan Dennison prior to the meeting in accordance with the provisions of Council Procedure Rule 4.10 as follows: Can the Cabinet Member advise what plans are in place for the two shops numbered 16 and 18 Bridge Street which were bought at a cost of £372k to be demolished for the Castle entrance and are not now going to be demolished? In response, Councillor Miller stated thatmost of the cost of the purchase of the two buildings was met through Welsh Government grant, so the Council’s cost in the acquisition was very significantly less than that quoted in the Member's question. There were never, under the Heart of Pembrokeshire scheme, plans to demolish those buildings. The intention was to create an arcade through number 16 Bridge Street but retain the upper floors and to retain number 18 completely. Cabinet agreed in March 2023 to make pragmatic changes to the Heart of Pembrokeshire scheme, recognising the risk associated with delivery and escalating costs. He highlighted that whilst the Council was still in discussion with the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities on those changes, it was intended to remove the arcade and Castle Walk element of the plan. The intention was for the buildings in question to become part of the future Transforming Towns funding application, minus the walkway and arcade, but similarly, as envisaged originally, to create residential units on the upper floors, probably with some retained refurbished ground-floor retail space. In response to a supplementary question regarding the rent and advertising of Poundland, Councillor Miller stated that if Councillor Dennison was referring to the former Poundland within the Riverside shopping centre, he highlighted that he could not comment on how the Council had marketed it, but confirmed that a tenant was lined up and the contracts had either been signed or were due to be signed. He then made Members aware that that acquisition had cost the Council £700,000, and there was currently a return of over £200,000 per annum.
[Councillor Aaron Carey declared a personal interest at this juncture, by virtue of being an Authority Appointed Governor for Ysgol Bro Penfro.] Councillor Guy Woodham, the relevant Cabinet Member, responded to a question submitted by Councillor Jamie Adams prior to the meeting in accordance with the provisions of Council Procedure Rule 4.10 as follows: On October 28th, 2022, an Extraordinary Meeting (EM) of the Schools O&S Committee was held following a "call in request by Cllr J Williams, Cllr Alderman, Cllrs Stoddart & Stoddart, Cllr Dennison & Cllr Cole. This Extraordinary Meeting was to scrutinise a Cabinet decision of October 17th, 2022, that the new capital project cost of £13,985,815 for Ysgol Bro Penfro be met by the Authority be approved. This additional cost has resulted in an additional borrowing requirement of over £3 million to be funded by PCC taxpayers. Following the Schools & Learning O&S EM on October 28th, 2022, the decision of PCC Cabinet of Oct 17th, 2022, was upheld. However, in Cabinet meeting, dated December 5th, 2022 agenda item 13 refers to land required for the proposed development of Ysgol Bro Penfro was subject of a Farm Business Tenancy granted by PCC for a period of 15 years on March 25th, 2015. The development of Ysgol Bro Penfro was reliant on quote; "agreement is being sought from the tenant to voluntarily agree a surrender of the existing Farm Business Tenancy." The issue of the land subject of the Farm Business Tenancy was not made known to the Schools & Learning O&S Extraordinary Meeting held on October 28th, 2022 and therefore not open to scrutiny. Therefore, can the Cabinet member for education please inform Council why was the potential cost of farm tenancy surrender not included in the agenda item of the Schools & Learning O&S EGM of October 28th, 2022 for scrutiny to take place and to now confirm if the land has been "voluntarily surrendered" and if so at what cost to the authority and has this additional cost now been added to the additional borrowings for the Ysgol Bro Penfro project? In response, Councillor Woodham stated that the call-in request considered by the Schools and Learning Overview and Scrutiny Committee on 28 October 2022, was in relation to four specific points, as follows: • To examine the reasons for the uplift in the cost of the project from an initial £6.65 million to the latest estimate of £13.9 million; • To seek to establish the true contractual position (in relation to the appointment of Morgan Sindall) which seemed to indicate that the contract had been finalised; • To seek assurances from Officers that this unscheduled requirement for some £3 million from the Council’s own Capital Funds would not impact adversely on other aspects of the Council’s Capital Programme; • To clarify the constitutional position regarding Cabinet’s purported decision. It was considered that the matter of the Farm Business Tenancy had no relevance to the scope of the call-in, particularly as negotiations were still on-going at the time of the meeting. It was also the case, that unless the additional Capital Funding was approved by Cabinet, it was likely that the project would not proceed. Following the decision of the Schools and Learning Overview and Scrutiny Committee to uphold Cabinet’s decision to meet the additional cost of the project, negotiations began in earnest, with the tenant on a surrender and re-grant of the farm business tenancy with fair consideration given to his business interests, which included a number of agricultural and other enterprises, but also the need to ensure that these were reasonable from the Council’s perspective. The following represented examples of the works and items included as part of the compensation: • Stock-proof fencing • Access tracks • Relocation of camping pods • Appropriate ground works, e.g. water and electric supplies to adjacent tenanted land. On the basis of the sensitive ecology on the site, and in order to comply with various licences, it was agreed that some of the works would be carried out by the appointed contractor, whilst others could be carried out by the tenant. For example, the tenant’s camping pods were recently removed by the contractor having regard to and ensuring compliance with various ecology licences. The surrender of the land in question took place on 13December 2022, following a period of constructive negotiations with the tenant and following an agreement of a reasonable and fair compensation payment of £90,000. This was approved as part of a Delegated Director’s Decision by the Director of Community Services, with the surrender of the existing lease and re-granting of a new 15 year tenancy with a rental uplift. The compensation payment was made in two tranches: • 50% on the date of the completion of the Deed of Surrender; • 50% upon the removal of various items from the surrendered land and as set out in the Deed of Surrender. Both payments had been made. This cost would not be added to the ‘additional borrowing’ for the school project, but would be met within the cost of the project. In response to a supplementary question regarding whether the £90,000 the Cabinet Member quoted included the fencing, removal of glamping pods and the provision of water and services, Councillor Woodham believed that to be the case. The Director of Community Services stated that he would check this matter outside of the meeting to confirm.
A Notice of Motion was submitted by Councillor Michael Williams in the following terms: That PCC urgently review their policy of selling residents parking permits to visitors. Upon the terms of Council Procedure Rule 10.4, the Motion having been Moved by Councillor Joshua Beynon; Seconded by Councillor Michelle Bateman then stood referred to Cabinet.
A Notice of Motion was submitted by Councillor Huw Murphy n the following terms: That the Council in recognition of public concern place a moratorium on the proposed closure of all Public Toilets listed in “Group 2” of Agenda item 10 of Cabinet meeting, dated Feb 13th, 2023. This Notice proposes that all “Group 2” toilets be kept open until March 31st, 2025 to allow ample time to identify selected public toilets for seamless transfer into the possession of external organisations eg: PCNPA, Town/Community Councils (subject to affordability), etc. The timescales proposed with regards to “Public Toilet Funding” on Feb 13th, 2023 if strictly enforced will lead to unnecessary closures with the consequence of disadvantaging many vulnerable residents and visitors. This Notice of Motion is a reflection of public disquiet and concern, hence the moratorium request. This Notice of Motion is therefore a request that the 5 recommendations approved by Cabinet on Feb 13th, 2023 be replaced by an unambiguous moratorium, and that all Group 2 toilets are retained until March 31st, 2025 to allow for a measured transfer of those toilets suitable for transfer to external organisations eg PCNPA be completed; and allow for further value engineering on those not suitable for transfer to establish how many can be retained by PCC. The timescales as approved by Cabinet on Feb 13th, 2023 is simply unrealistic. This Notice of Motion was withdrawn at the meeting due to the call-in being successful.
A Notice of Motion was submitted by Councillor Aaron Carey in the following terms: The UK produced 331.5 million tonnes of CO2 last year (approximately 1% of the world output). Of that, Pembrokeshire produced 673,601 tonnes (approximately 0.2% of the UK output, or 0.00002% of the world output). Given the amount of pressure on our statutory services, staff, and budgets, along with potential costs running into the hundreds of millions of pounds, I propose that a full cost/benefit analysis be brought to full council for us to understand the true financial cost of the 'climate emergency' which was passed in May 2019. Upon the terms of Council Procedure Rule 10.4, the Motion having been Moved by Councillor Michael James; Seconded by Councillor Peter Morgan then stood referred to Corporate Overview and Scrutiny Committee.
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.
Lists the council's current councillors only. Co-opted members, officers and former councillors aren't shown.