Loading
The decisions as the council's minutes record them. A plain-language summary follows once it has been written.
RESOLVED (a) That the new Constitution, set out in Appendix 1, be adopted from 13October 2023. (b) That authority be delegated to the Monitoring Officer to make any necessary typographical, formatting or numbering changes as required prior to publication on the website.
RESOLVED (a) That the revised Corporate Governance Improvement Plan be approved. (b) That the progress made on the actions be noted.
RESOLVED (a) That progress made and engagement undertaken by the Working Group in developing the Council Size Policy, be noted. (b) That the proposed Council Size Policy, as set out in Appendix C, be approved, subject to the below amendments to page 576 of the Agenda: (i) For Community Councils of less than 500 electors, expressions of interest in voluntary mergers will be sought. In the event of a Community Council of under less than 500 electors not wishing to voluntarily merge, the existing Council size policy will continue namely that for an electorate of less than 500 there will be six Community Councillors. (ii) For Community Councils of over 500 electors the ratio of councillors to electors will be between 1:80 and 1:160 with the aim to be as close as possible to 1:120. The minimum number of councillors will be six and the maximum number 12; wards within communities to be retained or created on a case by case basis.
RESOLVED That Council remain on the First Past the Post (FPTP) voting system for County Council elections in Pembrokeshire.
RESOLVED That the Annual Governance Statement (AGS) for 2022-23 be approved and signed.
RESOLVED That the annual self-assessment report 2022-23 be approved for publication, subject to the word ‘use’ being amended to ‘setting’ on page 602 of the Agenda.
RESOLVED That the plan to undertake a Panel Performance Assessment in mid-2025, be approved.
RESOLVED That the review of the Memorandum of Understanding between the Council and Pembrokeshire College is underway and, once complete, will be taken to the Schools and Learning Overview and Scrutiny Committee, and full Council, for consideration prior to final approval by Cabinet, be noted.
RESOLVED That the following be endorsed: (a) That one-third of in person attendees be required in order for a Multi-location meeting to be held. (b) That a 48 hours’ notice period be imposed for Members to confirm their preferred method of attending meetings. (c) That meetings will be held as fully remote meetings if the above thresholds are not met.
RESOLVED That the following be endorsed: (a) That a maximum of two months be imposed as the length of time for gathering signatures; (b) That a threshold of 500 signatures be imposed for a petition to be discussed at full Council; (c) That a threshold of 100 signatures be imposed for a petition to be discussed at the relevant Overview and Scrutiny Committee; (d) That a threshold of 99 signatures or below be imposed for the relevant Cabinet Member and/or Director to respond.
RESOLVED That the matter be deferred to the next meeting of Council. [Councillors Jamie Adams, Joshua Beynon and Iwan Ward left the meeting at this juncture.]
RESOLVED That Councillor Sam Skyrme-Blackhall be appointed to the Social Care Overview and Scrutiny Committee. There were no further nominations for the outstanding vacancies, and they would therefore be rolled over to the next meeting of Council. Councillor Thomas raised concern around the amount of vacancies on certain Overview and Scrutiny Committees and believed that it was unacceptable that unaffiliated Members were not putting themselves forward to be part of such Committees. He suggested that it could perhaps be an item for a future meeting of Council. The Presiding Member confirmed that the matter would first be scrutinised by the Legal Team. Councillor Jacob Williams stated that he disagreed with the points raised by Councillor Thomas. [Councillor David Howlett left the meeting at this juncture.]
RESOLVED That the Redundancy Payment be approved to support delivery of the Medium Term Financial Plan within the Education Directorate. The webcast of the meeting was then resumed. [Councillor Jordan Ryan left the meeting at this juncture.]
RESOLVED That the matter be referred to the Constitutional Review Committee. [Councillor Aled Thomas wished that his vote against the above decision was recorded.]
RESOLVED That the matter be referred to Cabinet.
RESOLVED That the matter be referred to Cabinet.
RESOLVED That the matter be referred to Cabinet.
Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Peter Morgan and Mike Stoddart.
In welcoming everyone to the meeting, the Chairman made the following announcements:
The Chair firstly congratulated Councillor Tessa Hodgson on her recent wedding, and wished her the best for the future on behalf of all Members. He also congratulated Councillor Michael Williams, who received the Lifetime Achievement Award at the recent Plaid Cymru conference. The award acknowledged the contribution of Plaid Cymru Members to the Party, their community and Wales. The Chair then highlighted his recent visits to many different communities and events and that it had been an honour to attend. He referred to Iron Man Wales and stated that it was a delight to see thousands of athletes take on one of the toughest Ironman events in the world, whilst their friends and families supported them. He then thanked Staff for their efforts in ensuring the event ran smoothly. He expressed that he was lucky enough to meet Their Royal Highnesses, The Prince and Princess of Wales, at St David’s Cathedral, as they marked the anniversary of the passing of Her Late Majesty. He stated that it was truly an honour to meet the royal couple and welcome them to Pembrokeshire. The Chair stated that he was also delighted to be invited to a special commemoration in Tenby, held to mark the 80th anniversary of the Belgian armed forces re-forming in the town. He stated that it had been a pleasure to attend various Town and Community Council events and highlighted that Community Councillors did a sterling job in representing and supporting their communities. He then referred to visits to Haverfordwest, Narberth, Tenby and Herbrandston Town Councils, as well as the Hub in Narberth to view their amazing facilities. The Chair also attended the official opening of the Royal Welsh Show, where he met the First Minister, Mr Mark Drakeford. He also attended the Pembrokeshire County Show and stated that it was outstanding to see all the various services the Authority provides to the people of Pembrokeshire. He highlighted that it was an honour and privilege to accept, with Councillor Simon Hancock, Armed Services Champion, the national flag of the United States of America. He stated that the flag would be housed in a case on the wall in the Chairman's room, accommodated with the certificates that were also presented. The Chair attended the National Eisteddfod of Wales, Annual Milford Haven Youth Council Bake Off, and the Haverfordwest Youth Centre, The Edge, for their charity car wash. He congratulated Amber Baker for winning the Bake off competition, as well as The Edge Youth Club for raising £175. He also attended the Fishguard and Goodwick Cruise Ship Welcome. He stated that he looked forward to seeing more of Pembrokeshire over the coming months and meeting more people. He then thanked Vice-Chair, Councillor Steve Alderman, for his support.
The following of declarations of interest were made: Item 10 – Review of Electoral Arrangements Councillor Rhys Sinnett declared a personal interest by virtue of being a Member of Milford Haven Town Council. Councillor Jordan Ryan declared a personal interest by virtue of being a Member of Fishguard and Goodwick Town Council. Councillor John Davies declared a personal interest by virtue of being a Member of Cilgerran Community Council. Councillor Nicola Gwynn declared a personal interest by virtue of being a Member of Fishguard and Goodwick Town Council. Councillor Neil Prior declared a personal interest by virtue of being the Chair of Llanrhian Community Council. Councillor Tony Wilcox declared a personal interest by virtue of being a Member of Pembroke Dock Town Council. Councillor Brian Hall declared a personal interest by virtue of being a Member of Pembroke Dock Town Council. Item 15 – Memorandum of Understanding – Delivery of Post 16 Education in Pembrokeshire Councillor Michael John declared a personal interest by virtue of being an LEA appointed Governor for Haverfordwest High School. Councillor Tessa Hodgson declared a personal interest by virtue of her sister working at Pembrokeshire College. Councillor Aled Thomas declared a personal interest by virtue of being an LEA appointed Governor for Ysgol Caer Elen. Councillor Thomas Tudor declared a personal interest by virtue of having a family member working at Pembrokeshire College. Councillor Huw Murphy declared a personal interest by virtue of being an LEA appointed Governor for Ysgol Bro Preseli. Councillor Bethan Price declared a personal interest by virtue of having family members working at Pembrokeshire College and Ysgol Penrhyn Dewi. She also stated that she was an LEA appointed Governor for Ysgol Penrhyn Dewi. Councillor Phil Kidney declared a personal interest by virtue of his brother working at Pembrokeshire College. Councillor Michele Wiggins declared a personal interest by virtue of her daughter working at Ysgol Harri Tudur. Councillor Alan Dennison declared a personal interest by virtue of being an LEA appointed Governor for Milford Haven School. Councillor Alec Cormack declared a personal interest by virtue of being an LEA appointed Governor for Ysgol Greenhill. Councillor Chris Williams declared a personal interest by virtue of an LEA appointed Governor for Ysgol Greenhill. Councillor Sam Skyrme-Blackhall declared personal interest by virtue of being an LEA appointed Governor for Ysgol Greenhill. Councillor Alistair Cameron declared a personal interest by virtue of being an LEA appointed Governor for Ysgol Greenhill. Councillor Steve Alderman declared a personal interest by virtue of being a Governor for Ysgol Penrhyn Dewi and by virtue of his daughter working at Cosheston V.C. School. Councillor Maureen Bowen declared a personal interest by virtue of her partner being a teacher at Ysgol Harri Tudur. Councillor Viv Stoddart declared a personal and prejudicial interest by virtue of her daughter working at Pembrokeshire College, and stated that she had a dispensation to speak but not to vote. Councillor Michelle Bateman declared a personal interest by virtue of being an LEA appointed Governor for Ysgol Bro Gwaun and by virtue of her daughter working at Ysgol Bro Gwaun. Councillor Jordan Ryan declared a personal interest by virtue of being a Governor for Ysgol Bro Gwaun. Councillor Iwan Ward declared a personal interest by virtue of being a Parent Governor for Ysgol Bro Preseli. Councillor Mike James declared a personal interest by virtue of being a Governor for Ysgol Bro Preseli. Councillor Shon Rees declared a personal interest by virtue of being Governor for Ysgol Bro Preseli and by virtue of his wife working at Ysgol Caer Elen. Item 18 – Senior Responsibility Allowance for Presiding Member Councillor Simon Hancock declared a personal interest by virtue of being the current Presiding Member of Council, but stated that he would leave the meeting for this item. Item 47 – Notice of Motion relating to Discretionary Relief Policy for Tourism Industry Councillor Alistair Cameron declared a personal and prejudicial interest by virtue of owning a holiday home and stated that he had dispensation to speak but not to vote. Councillor Jacob Williams sought clarification in regards to the declaration made by Councillor Simon Hancock in relation to Item 18, and whether all Members should declare an interest. In response, Councillor Hancock stated that he had received advice from the Head of Law and Governance that his declaration was a personal one only, but explained that he would feel uncomfortable to remain in the Chamber during the debate, therefore decided that he would leave the meeting at that juncture, where the Chair/Deputy Presiding Member would Chair the item. The Head of Law and Governance stated that it was a personal interest as it related to the current Presiding Member’s position. She highlighted that during the debate, other Members may feel the need to declare a personal interest, but assured Members that it was not a personal and prejudicial interest, as there was an exception under the Code, section 2B.
Council considered the Minutes of the meeting held on 13 July 2023. The Minutes were Moved by Councillor Simon Hancock; Seconded by Councillor Brian Hall. The vote, undertaken by way of a show of hands, was carried. RESOLVED That the Minutes of the Council Meeting held on 13 July 2023 be approved as a correct record.
Councillor Paul Miller, the relevant Cabinet Member, responded to a question submitted by a member of the public, Helen Meopham, prior to the meeting in accordance with the provisions of Council Procedure Rule 4.9 as follows: How many PCC staff are working on net zero, climate change, biodiversity or sustainability projects? Is there a dedicated Head of Service with a formal structure or are the staff spread across existing departments? In response, Councillor Miller stated that there was no formal structure and that staff were spread across existing departments. He stated that the agenda cross-cuts all aspects of the Council's business, and highlighted that the main resource deployed on the Net Zero aspects of energy and sustainability were the following Officers or teams, who were engaged in this agenda whilst also delivering other duties: · Energy & Sustainability Team Manager · Net Zero Project Manager · Energy Technical Officer Councillor Miller highlighted that there was no dedicated climate change Officer, but stated that there were a number of biodiversity Officers, as follows: · Biodiversity Officer (Development Planning team) · Biodiversity Implementation Officer (Pembrokeshire Nature Partnership / Planning team) · Nature Partnership Project Implementation Officer (Pembrokeshire Nature Partnership / Planning team) He also highlighted that there was no dedicated Sustainability Officer.
Councillor Rhys Sinnett, the relevant Cabinet Member, responded to questions submitted by a member of the public, Sharon Purcell, prior to the meeting in accordance with the provisions of Council Procedure Rule 4.9 as follows: 1. According to a recent FOI, £2,998,373 has been received from Welsh Government for ‘active travel’ in the 10 ‘designated settlements in Pembrokeshire since May 2020. How much money has PCC spent on active travel in the past five years in towns and villages outside the 10 ‘designated settlements’ 2. What is the maintenance budget for the ‘active travel’ paths funded by Welsh Government and have extra staff and resources been allocated to this? In response to question 1, Councillor Sinnett stated he believed the question to relate to the Welsh Government Funding for Active Travel. In this case, he stated the Grant Funding for Active Travel had only been used in the Active Travel localities. Under section 24 of the Active Travel Act, the Welsh Ministers were empowered to designate localities and the Council had a duty to map routes as specific to those designated localities. This was to ensure that there were plans in place for the creation of Active Travel networks in all of the most populous areas in each Authority. He explained that as the Active Travel guidance noted, it did not limit the Authority’s ability to develop network maps for other localities, where there was demand for Active Travel routes and a high potential for their use; however, in terms of Grant Funding, this was concentrated on those localities. In terms of the £2,998,373 of Active Travel Fund award received, the Authority had also contributed an additional £118,708 of Council Match Funding, which was referenced in the annual Cabinet reports, where approval was sought to submit Transport Grant Bids to Welsh Government. Councillor Sinnett stated that he would be happy to engage with Mrs Purcell further on this question and seek further clarity around it, if the answer did not fully address her query, and provide her with further feedback as required. In response to question 2, Councillor Sinnett stated that the maintenance of all highway infrastructure, including Active Travel routes, was included within the normal highway maintenance budgets. He explained that no additional funding or Staff had been funded or allocated, specifically as a direct result of the installation of Active Travel infrastructure.
Councillor Rhys Sinnett, the relevant Cabinet Member, responded to a question submitted by a member of the public, Nicola Lund, prior to the meeting in accordance with the provisions of Council Procedure Rule 4.9 as follows: In view of Welsh Government’s ‘Zero waste to landfill by 2025’ policy as outlined in their ‘Beyond Recycling’ publication of 2021, my question is about non-recyclable waste. I have heard it from a source in another local authority that their council is mooting the idea of charging for black bags. Is this something that is anticipated within the PCC area? In response, Councillor Sinnett stated Local Authorities had clear statutory duties, associated with the collection and disposal of Municipal Waste, as laid down in the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (as amended). The key policy drivers associated with this area were set out in the Waste Strategy for Wales ‘Towards Zero Waste’ and ‘Beyond Recycling’, which charted the path to zero waste by 2050. Through this and associated legislation, the Welsh Government had also set out Statutory Recycling Targets and Landfill diversion targets that Local Authorities must meet, or risk substantial fines. In light of this legislation, household waste and recycling had to be collected and targets had to be met. However, there was flexibility on the collection methodologies that could be implemented by Local Authorities. As a reminder, he stated that in Pembrokeshire, the Authority offered weekly kerbside sort recycling collections and a three weekly residual collection. These were provided free of charge to domestic households in Pembrokeshire, and there were no plans to charge for these collections for domestic waste in line with the legislative duties. Residual household waste; rubbish that cannot be recycled or composted, was collected in household provided black bags, or the grey bags previously supplied by the Authority. Households could put out up to three 60 litre bags of residual waste every three weeks, so it was important that everyone recycled. In regards to the grey bag issue, as part of the budget saving measures agreed by Council earlier this year, no further deliveries of grey bags would be made to households by the Authority. Once the current supply had been used up, households would need to purchase their own black bags in line with other Local Authorities across Wales, including Ceredigion and Carmarthenshire. With regard to the ceasing of grey bag provision, Councillor Sinnett stated that this information was already in the public domain and there was a Council press release on 20 September, as well as social media, e-mail and text alerts and an update on the website. Councillor Sinnett stated that the Authority was in the midst of updating the waste collection calendars, to be issued at the end of the month. He stated that until the current supply of grey bags were used up, they remained available, one role per household, from Waste and Recycling centres, as part of a pre-booked appointment, leisure centres, North Wing Reception at County Hall and at Thornton depot.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED (a) That the new Constitution, set out in Appendix 1, be adopted from 13October 2023. (b) That authority be delegated to the Monitoring Officer to make any necessary typographical, formatting or numbering changes as required prior to publication on the website.
Council considered a report by the Monitoring Officer which outlined the new Constitution for adoption by Council. The Chair of the Constitutional Review Committee, Councillor Alan Dennison, introduced the report and stated that reviewing the Constitution had been a huge task which required enormous commitment from Officers, as well as Members of the Constitutional Review Working Group. He thanked consultant Viv Geary for her expertise, as it was instrumental in the initial crafting of the document, as well as the Monitoring Officer and the Head of Democratic Services for the countless hours they had committed to the process. He also expressed his appreciation to the Constitutional Review Working Group for their scrutinising and refining of the document. Councillor Dennison also thanked previous Chair of the Committee, Councillor Jacob Williams, for guiding Members through a substantial part of the process, and considered the process a shining example of Officers and Members working together in an environment which was both respectful and inclusive. He stated that as a result of hard work, the new Constitution followed current best practice, reflected Pembrokeshire’s arrangements where appropriate, and believed it to be a comprehensive document which adhered to the principles of democracy, clarity, transparency and accountability. Councillor Alan Dennison Moved the Recommendation; Seconded by Councillor Simon Hancock. Councillor Jacob Williams sought clarification as to whether the PDF version of the document would still be available. The Head of Democratic Services stated that the new Constitution would be published online via the Modern.Gov platform, but confirmed that it would also still be available as a PDF document. 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, Pat Davies, John 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, Elwyn Morse, Huw Murphy, Mel Phillips, Bethan Price, Neil Prior, Shon Rees, Jordan Ryan, David Simpson, Rhys Sinnett, Sam Skyrme-Blackhall, Vivien 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 [56] There were no votes against or abstentions. RESOLVED (a) That the new Constitution, set out in Appendix 1, be adopted from 13October 2023. (b) That authority be delegated to the Monitoring Officer to make any necessary typographical, formatting or numbering changes as required prior to publication on the website.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED (a) That the revised Corporate Governance Improvement Plan be approved. (b) That the progress made on the actions be noted.
Council considered a joint report by the Assistant Chief Executive and the Head of Law and Governance which outlined an update on progress against the Corporate Governance Improvement Plan 2022-24, along with an updated Improvement Plan for consideration. Councillor Neil Prior, the Cabinet Member with responsibility for Corporate Improvement and Communities, introduced the report and stated that the plan itself was a lot clearer and highlighted the amount of work that had been done by Officers over the last couple of years. He stated that the revised Plan had been approved and recommended to Council by the Governance and Audit Committee on the 28 September 2023. Councillor Neil Prior Moved the Recommendation; Seconded by Councillor Jon Harvey. 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, Pat Davies, John 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, Elwyn Morse, Huw Murphy, Mel Phillips, Bethan Price, Neil Prior, Shon Rees, Jordan Ryan, David Simpson, Rhys Sinnett, Sam Skyrme-Blackhall, Vivien 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 [55] There were no votes against or abstentions. RESOLVED (a) That the revised Corporate Governance Improvement Plan be approved. (b) That the progress made on the actions be noted.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED (a) That progress made and engagement undertaken by the Working Group in developing the Council Size Policy, be noted. (b) That the proposed Council Size Policy, as set out in Appendix C, be approved, subject to the below amendments to page 576 of the Agenda: (i) For Community Councils of less than 500 electors, expressions of interest in voluntary mergers will be sought. In the event of a Community Council of under less than 500 electors not wishing to voluntarily merge, the existing Council size policy will continue namely that for an electorate of less than 500 there will be six Community Councillors. (ii) For Community Councils of over 500 electors the ratio of councillors to electors will be between 1:80 and 1:160 with the aim to be as close as possible to 1:120. The minimum number of councillors will be six and the maximum number 12; wards within communities to be retained or created on a case by case basis.
[Councillor Reg Owens declared an interest by virtue of being a Community Councillor for six wards]. Council considered a report by the Assistant Chief Executive which outlined an update on the work of the Communities Electoral Review Working Group, as well as the revised Council Size Policy. Councillor Neil Prior, the Cabinet Member with responsibility for Corporate Improvement and Communities, introduced the report and outlined the main considerations on page 569 of the Agenda pack, and stated that as per the Local Government and Elections (Wales) Act 2021 and the brief from Welsh Government, the effectiveness and convenience of Town and Community Councils was being examined. He also referred to meetings with the Communities Electoral Review Working Group, sessions with the Councillors affected, Members’ seminars and also seminars for Town, City and Community Councils. Councillor Prior highlighted that all the views put forward at such meetings had been listened to, and stated that as a result, that the proposed Size Policy was attached as Appendix C to the report. Councillor Prior explained that the proposed Size Policy was a point of reference for the Boundary Commission. He stated that it was impossible to have a ‘one size fits all’ policy, therefore wanted the proposed Policy to highlight to the Boundary Commission that certain challenges needed to be addressed, particularly in relation to effective smaller Town and Community Councils and Town and Community Councils in rural areas. Hethen highlighted the various issues that also needed to be addressed, such as lack of Elections, lack of recruitment for Clerks, the spend of the combined Town and Community Councils precept, and differing levels of effectiveness of Town and Community Councils across the County. Councillor Neil Prior Moved the Recommendation; Seconded by Councillor David Simpson. Councillor David Howlett thanked Councillor Prior and Officers for the work involved. He highlighted that the proposed Policy would result in Town and Community Councils of less than 480 people potentially being merged, and suggested that the Policy adopted by Council would be crucial to the Boundary Commission and the way they take the matter forward. Councillor Howlett raised concern that if the outlined Size Policy was adopted, that a major reduction in number of Town or Community Councils, especially in rural areas, would disenfranchise the people that were so crucial to such Communities. He stated that reducing the number of Councils would also create further challenge in finding Community Governors, resulting in fewer School Governors. He highlighted that some Councils would benefit from mergers, however, he did not wish to see forced mergers if not wanted by the relevant Town or Community Council. Councillor David Howlett Moved an Amendment to the Recommendation as follows: (1) For Community Councils of less than 500 electors, expressions of interest in voluntary mergers will be sought. In the event of a Community Council of under less than 500 electors not wishing to voluntarily merge, the existing Council size policy will continue, namely that for an electorate of less than 500 there will be six Community Councillors. (2) For Community Councils of over 500 electors the ratio of councillors to electors will be between 1:80 and 1:160 with the aim to be as close as possible to 1:120; The minimum number of councillors will be six and the maximum number 12; wards within communities to be retained or created on a case by case basis. The Amendment was Seconded by Councillor Phil Kidney. Councillor Jordan Ryan stated that fewer Town and Community Councils would be beneficial in relation to governance in Pembrokeshire and suggested that it would help with various issues, such as funding services in rural areas. Councillor Michael John welcomed the Amendment and stated that it was a sensible way forward for smaller Town and Community Councils. He then thanked Councillor Prior and Officers for delaying the matter to give Members the opportunity to have their say. Councillor John Davies stated that change was inevitable and that he agreed with the outlined Recommendation, and firmly believed in the interests of the taxpayer in relation to the cost of Town and Community Councils, as well as the cost of local elections. Councillor Reg Owens believed that there was no ‘one size fits all’ policy. He stated that he represented six Community Councils and none of them wished to be amalgamated with other Councils. Councillor Michelle Bateman stated that she was encouraged by Councillor Prior’s comments that the policy would be flexible. She also saw it as a positive policy that would strengthen local democracy, and safeguard Town and Community Councils from potentially being in a position where they could become unsustainable. She stated that there was a need to look ahead to safeguard community representation for the future. Councillor Alistair Cameron stated that he did not like the idea of forced mergers, and asked whether this could be incorporated into the Recommendation that mergers be voluntary. In response, Councillor Prior stated that he had no issues with the idea of voluntary mergers, but questioned whether any Councils would volunteer in reality. He stated that the decision of the matter was ultimately down to the Boundary Commission and raised concern around the unintended consequences of any amendments made by Members. The Chief Executive highlighted to Members that the Council Size Policy, once set by Council, would be used as a guide by the Boundary Commission in their work. Councillor Jamie Adams supported the Amendment and believed that it would allow for greater flexibility for Community Councils. He highlighted that the amount of Community Councillors could decrease if Councils were merged and become less centered on individual communities. Councillor Delme Harries highlighted the need to consider the effectiveness of Community Councils and the support on offer to those Councils, as well as ways to encourage more people to take on the role of Community Councillors. He also supported the Amendment. Councillor Tony Wilcox agreed with the comments by Councillor Davies and sought clarification in relation to individual Town and Community Council Reserves if merged. In response, the Assistant Chief Executive stated that if merged, any Reserves of the two Councils would also be merged and would become the joint ownership of the new Council. Councillor Phil Kidney sought clarification as to whether Councillor Prior had visited any Town and Community Councils to discuss the matter. In response, Councillor Prior stated that it was not practical for him to visit all Town and Community Councils and highlighted the various opportunities that were organised to engage Members of Town and Community Councils to discuss the Policy. Councillor Steve Alderman supported the Amendment and stated that he would appreciate the flexibility, however, he also agreed with the comments made by Councillor Davies, specifically in relation to efficiencies. Councillor Howlett believed that his Amendment was pragmatic and urged Members to support it. The vote for the Amendment, undertaken by way of an electronic vote, was carried. The votes were recorded as follows: For the Motion: Councillors Jamie Adams, Steve Alderman, David Bryan, Alistair Cameron, Aaron Carey, Mark Carter, Alan Dennison, Andrew Edwards, Jonathan Grimes, Brian Hall, Delme Harries, David Howlett, Mike John, Rhys Jordan, Phil Kidney, Elwyn Morse, Huw Murphy, Reg Owens, Mel Phillips, Bethan Price, Shon Rees, Sam Skyrme-Blackhall, Aled Thomas, Vanessa Thomas, Anji Tinley, Thomas Tudor, Iwan Ward, Chris Williams, Simon Wright, Steve Yelland and Danny Young [31] Against the Motion: Councillors Michelle Bateman, Joshua Beynon, Maureen Bowen, John Cole, Alec Cormack, Pat Davies, John Davies, Terry Davies, Tim Evans, Nicola Gwynn, Simon Hancock, Jon Harvey, Tessa Hodgson, Mike James, Paul Miller, Neil Prior, David Simpson, Rhys Sinnett, Vivien Stoddart, Marc Tierney, Michele Wiggins, Tony Wilcox, Michael Williams, Jacob Williams and Guy Woodham [25] There were no abstentions. The vote for the substantive Motion, undertaken by way of a show of hands, was carried. RESOLVED (a) That progress made and engagement undertaken by the Working Group in developing the Council Size Policy, be noted. (b) That the proposed Council Size Policy, as set out in Appendix C, be approved, subject to the below amendments to page 576 of the Agenda: (i) For Community Councils of less than 500 electors, expressions of interest in voluntary mergers will be sought. In the event of a Community Council of under less than 500 electors not wishing to voluntarily merge, the existing Council size policy will continue namely that for an electorate of less than 500 there will be six Community Councillors. (ii) For Community Councils of over 500 electors the ratio of councillors to electors will be between 1:80 and 1:160 with the aim to be as close as possible to 1:120. The minimum number of councillors will be six and the maximum number 12; wards within communities to be retained or created on a case by case basis.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED That Council remain on the First Past the Post (FPTP) voting system for County Council elections in Pembrokeshire.
Council considered a report by the Assistant Chief Executive which outlined detail around the recently commenced powers for Local Authorities to vary their electoral system for County Council elections. Councillor Neil Prior, the Cabinet Member with responsibility for Corporate Improvement and Communities, introduced the report and stated that it advised Members of the recently commenced powers for Local Authorities to vary their electoral system for County Council elections, and provided background information to inform discussion on this matter, with a view to determine if Members wished to move to adopt an alternative voting system. Councillor Neil Prior Moved the Recommendation; Seconded by Councillor Alan Dennison. Councillor Alistair Cameron Moved an Amendment to the Recommendation as follows: Council consults Local Government electors, Community Councils and other appropriate persons about the possibility of carry out County Council elections using the Single Transferable Vote (STV) system. The Amendment was Seconded by Councillor Alec Cormack. Councillor Di Clements did not agree with the proposed Amendment and stated that it would be costly. She stated that she would support the outlined Recommendation. Councillor Jacob Williams stated that the Amendment directly negated the Recommendation and believed that it was not appropriate to accept as an Amendment. The Chief Executive explained that if the Recommendation was not supported by Council, then, as indicated in the report, a period of public consultation would begin before bringing a report back to Council, at which point Council would vote to change the system to STV, however a two thirds majority was required to do so. The Presiding Member confirmed that the Amendment was not accepted. Councillor Cameron stated that he would vote against the Recommendation and believed that it was wrong for Council to decide on a voting system without consulting the people of Pembrokeshire. He then outlined the advantages of the STV system, which included how it would encourage more people to stand for County Council elections, would increase the choice of Councillors in larger wards, and ultimately improve democracy. Councillor Rhys Sinnett stated that he had agreed with the principles of STV, however, he stated that he was unsure of the type of resources the Authority would receive in terms of educating the electorate around the issues of STV, and highlighted the potential additional burden, both financially and in terms of Officer time and capacity. He stated that he would be interested to move to a consultation, however, he believed it was not the right time to do so. He then sought clarification from Councillor Jonathan Grimes as to how his multi-Member ward was working. In response, Councillor Grimes stated that it was working very well and highlighted that the shared workload was effective, and invited Councillor Sinnett to visit the ward. Councillor Alan Dennison stated that it would not cost the Authority to retain the current voting system, and highlighted the lack of resources that would be required to amend the system. Councillor Williams stated that he supported the Recommendation and believed that there was no public appetite for an alternative voting system. Councillor Aled Thomas also supported the 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, Maureen Bowen, David Bryan, Aaron Carey, Mark Carter, Di Clements, John Cole, Pat Davies, John 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, Elwyn Morse, Huw Murphy, Reg Owens, Mel Phillips, Bethan Price, Neil Prior, Shon Rees, Jordan Ryan, David Simpson, Rhys Sinnett, Sam Skyrme-Blackhall, Vivien 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 [53] Against the Motion: Councillors Michelle Bateman, Joshua Beynon, Alistair Cameron and Alec Cormack [4] Abstentions: Councillor Paul Miller [1] RESOLVED That Council remain on the First Past the Post (FPTP) voting system for County Council elections in Pembrokeshire.
The meeting was paused at 11:58am for a short comfort break and was resumed at 12:13pm.
Due to Councillor Neil Prior, presenter of Items 12 and 13, having technical difficulties, Agenda Item 14 – Annual Governance Statement (AGS) 2022-23, was taken next, with Agenda Items 12 - Annual Self-Assessment 2022-23 and 13 - Arrangements for undertaking a Panel Performance Assessment, to follow.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED That the Annual Governance Statement (AGS) for 2022-23 be approved and signed.
Council considered a joint report by the Director of Resources and the Audit Risk and Counter Fraud Manager, which outlined the Annual Governance Statement (AGS) for 2022-23. Councillor David Simpson, Leader and the Cabinet Member with responsibility for Corporate Matters, introduced the report and stated that in accordance with the Accounts and Audit (Wales) Regulations 2014, in order to compile the AGS for 2022-23, an annual review of the effectiveness of the Council’s Governance framework was undertaken, which included a review of its system of internal control, risk management and financial management arrangements. The Leader stated that the Governance and Audit Committee reviewed the draft AGS for 2022-2023 at its July meeting and resolved that there were no matters for consideration or inclusion prior to the AGS being submitted to Council for approval. Councillor David Simpson Moved the Recommendation; Seconded by Councillor Jon Harvey. Councillor Aled Thomas welcomed the fact that the document had been submitted to Council sooner than for the previous year’s AGS. He highlighted that there was no reference in the AGS to the lack of house building the Authority had undertaken over the last 20 years, and sought reassurance that this was a key priority. In response, Councillor Jon Harvey, the Cabinet Member with responsibility for Planning and Housing Delivery, stated that Local Authorities had only been allowed to build new Council housing over the last few years. He stated that Cabinet was committed to delivering the new Council house building programme, and highlighted that there were 458 new homes in the development programme up to the financial year of 2028-2029. He also referred to work with partners, grants received and the construction of affordable homes. 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, David Bryan, Alistair Cameron, Mark Carter, Di Clements, John Cole, Alec Cormack, Pat Davies, John 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, Elwyn Morse, Huw Murphy, Reg Owens, Mel Phillips, Bethan Price, Neil Prior, Shon Rees, Jordan Ryan, David Simpson, Rhys Sinnett, Sam Skyrme-Blackhall, 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 [55] There were no votes against or abstentions. RESOLVED That the Annual Governance Statement (AGS) for 2022-23 be approved and signed.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED That the annual self-assessment report 2022-23 be approved for publication, subject to the word ‘use’ being amended to ‘setting’ on page 602 of the Agenda.
Council considered a report by the Assistant Chief Executive which outlined the Council’s annual self-assessment report 2022-23 for publication. Councillor Neil Prior, the Cabinet Member with responsibility for Corporate Improvement and Communities, introduced the report and stated that the Council must produce an annual self-assessment report in respect of each financial year. He explained that the report must set out conclusions on the extent the Council had met its performance requirements during that financial year, and any actions it intended to take, or had already taken, to increase the extent of how the Council was meeting its performance requirements, as follows: • That the Council was exercising its functions effectively; • That the Council was using its resources economically, efficiently, and effectively; • That the Council’s governance was effective for securing the above. Councillor Prior highlighted that the report had been through a number of stakeholders as well as the Senior Leadership Team, the Extended Leadership Team, Cabinet, the Improvement and Transformation Board, the Corporate Overview and Scrutiny Committee and the Governance and Audit Committee. Councillor Neil Prior Moved the Recommendation; Seconded by Councillor Alec Cormack. Councillor Aled Thomas referred to page 602 of the Agenda and the following sentence: The use of second homes Council Tax premiums is also determined by Council. Councillor Thomas sought clarification as to whether this matter was a Council or Cabinet function, and wished for clarity within the report. In response, the Head of Law and Governance stated that setting Council Tax premium was a matter for Council as part of the overall budget, then once the high budget levels were set, it would be a matter for Cabinet. Councillor Thomas stated that the sentence referred to the ‘use of Second Homes Council Tax premiums’, which he believed to be a Cabinet function and wished for the words ‘use of’ to be amended to say ‘the setting of’. The Head of Law and Governance stated that she would look into the matter and discuss it further with the Director of Resources, but believed that the allocation of the Second Homes Council Tax premiums was a matter for Council to determine. Councillor Alec Cormack stated that the sentence in the report was correct and referred to the fact that he undertook to bring back the decision to Council each year for determination. Councillor Thomas wished for clarity on the matter prior to the upcoming budget discussions, as he believed that the setting of the percentage was a Council function, and how the money was used, once it was set by Council, was a Cabinet function. In response, the Chief Executive suggested an amendment to the wording as follows: The setting of Second Homes Council Tax premiums is also determined by Council. He then suggested that Officers could come back to Members separately to confirm who was entitled to set and amend the percentage split of the use of Second Homes Council Tax premiums. Councillor Thomas agreed that this would assist in part, however it did not answer his question regarding who could determine the use of the Second Homes Council Tax premiums and stated that he would not be comfortable voting on a report without absolute clarity. The Leader assured Members that he had no intention of altering any figures without first consulting Council. The Chief Executive reiterated that he would come back to Members with a definite answer following the meeting for clarity. The Presiding Member sought clarification from the Mover and Seconder of the Recommendation whether they would accept the amended wording in relation to page 602 of the Agenda. Councillors Prior and Cormack confirmed that they were content with the change. 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, Pat Davies, John 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, Elwyn Morse, Huw Murphy, Mel Phillips, Bethan Price, Neil Prior, Shon Rees, Jordan Ryan, David Simpson, Rhys Sinnett, Sam Skyrme-Blackhall, Vivien 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 [56] There were no votes against or abstentions. RESOLVED That the annual self-assessment report 2022-23 be approved for publication, subject to the word ‘use’ being amended to ‘setting’ on page 602 of the Agenda.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED That the plan to undertake a Panel Performance Assessment in mid-2025, be approved.
Council considered a report by the Assistant Chief Executive which outlined the arrangements for undertaking a Panel Performance Assessment. Councillor Neil Prior, the Cabinet Member with responsibility for Corporate Improvement and Communities, introduced the report and stated that the Authority had a legal requirement to complete a Panel Performance Assessment every Council term. He highlighted that it had been discussed at meetings of the Improvement and Transformation Programme Board, where it was concluded that the best time to conduct a Panel Performance Assessment would be the middle of 2025. Councillor Neil Prior Moved the Recommendation; Seconded by Councillor Michael John. 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, Pat Davies, John 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, Elwyn Morse, Huw Murphy, Reg Owens, Mel Phillips, Bethan Price, Neil Prior, Shon Rees, Jordan Ryan, David Simpson, Rhys Sinnett, Sam Skyrme-Blackhall, Vivien 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 [57] There were no votes against or abstentions. RESOLVED That the plan to undertake a Panel Performance Assessment in mid-2025, be approved.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED That the review of the Memorandum of Understanding between the Council and Pembrokeshire College is underway and, once complete, will be taken to the Schools and Learning Overview and Scrutiny Committee, and full Council, for consideration prior to final approval by Cabinet, be noted.
Council considered a report by the Head of Law and Governance which outlined the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for the delivery of Post 16 Education in Pembrokeshire. Councillor Guy Woodham, the Cabinet Member with responsibility for Education and Welsh Language, introduced the report and reminded Members that the MOU was last considered at the July Council meeting, where it was agreed that the review of the MOU would be undertaken, and that the decision on which body would approve the review be deferred for legal advice. He stated that following the Council meeting in July, Counsel’s advice was sought and confirmed the following view: If Council so wishes, it can of course ask for the MOU to be brought to full Council for the views and input of the wider membership, although the matter will continue to be considered by the relevant Overview and Scrutiny Committee and the final approval of the MOU will be for Cabinet. Councillor Guy Woodham Moved the Recommendation; Seconded by Councillor John Cole. Councillor Aled Thomas drew attention to the fact that Ysgol Caer Elen was misspelt in the MOU. The Presiding Member assured that it would be corrected. Councillor Viv Stoddart stated that she believed the MOU to be part of the school reorganisation portfolio and sought clarification from the Head of Law and Governance regarding the legal advice given. In response, the Head of Law and Governance explained that the majority of the advice was outlined in the report, and stated that the decision needed to be made on what the MOU should contain in the future between Pembrokeshire College and the Authority. She explained that if there needed to be a determination regarding school reorganisation, then that would certainly come to Council for a decision, however, the matter at hand was solely regarding the future arrangements between the College and the Authority, which was said to be a Cabinet function. Councillor Michael John agreed with Councillor Stoddart and sought clarification as to why the advice given was not received in writing. In response, the Chief Executive stated that cost was the reason as to why the advice received had not been done so in writing. Councillor Jacob Williams Moved an Amendment to include the words ‘and full Council’, to read as follows: That the review of the Memorandum of Understanding between the Council and Pembrokeshire College is underway and, once complete, will be taken to the Schools and Learning Overview and Scrutiny Committee, and full Council, for consideration prior to final approval by Cabinet, be noted. Councillor Woodham stated that he was happy to amend the Recommendation to include the above. Councillor Cole, as the Seconder of the Recommendation, agreed with the change. Councillor Jamie Adams stated that he understood the advice given by the Head of Law and Governance and also agreed with the words suggested by Councillor Williams. He believed that the opportunity to revisit the matter on an annual basis was important for Council. The vote, undertaken by way of a show of hands, was carried. RESOLVED That the review of the Memorandum of Understanding between the Council and Pembrokeshire College is underway and, once complete, will be taken to the Schools and Learning Overview and Scrutiny Committee, and full Council, for consideration prior to final approval by Cabinet, be noted.
The meeting was paused at 1:03pm for a lunch break and was resumed at 1:55pm.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED That the following be endorsed: (a) That one-third of in person attendees be required in order for a Multi-location meeting to be held. (b) That a 48 hours’ notice period be imposed for Members to confirm their preferred method of attending meetings. (c) That meetings will be held as fully remote meetings if the above thresholds are not met.
Council considered a report by the Head of Democratic Services which outlined the recommendation of the Democratic Services Committee to impose a threshold of in person attendees required for a multi-location (hybrid) meeting to be held, and a notice period for confirming their intention to join a meeting. The Head of Democratic Services introduced the report and stated that the Multi-Location Meetings Policy, adopted by Council in March 2023, would be reviewed after six months of operation. She stated that the Democratic Services Committee had met on 29 September and noted that Members and Officers were still not confirming with Democratic Services about how they planned to attend meetings, despite regular reminders. It was agreed by the Committee that this could waste resources in relation to organising meetings. Consequently, the Committee resolved to recommend to Council the following: (a) That one-third of in person attendees be required in order for a Multi-location meeting to be held. (b) That a 48 hours’ notice period be imposed for Members to confirm their preferred method of attending meetings. (c) That meetings will be held as fully remote meetings if the above thresholds are not met. Councillor Di Clements Moved the Recommendation; Seconded by Councillor Pat Davies. Councillor Clements urged Members to let Democratic Services know how they wished to attend meetings. Councillor Jamie Adams asked for the Chair of the Policy and Pre-Decision Overview and Scrutiny Committee and the Leader to comment on the reasons behind the higher number of remote meetings compared to hybrid meetings, respectively. In response, the Leader stated that it cut costs in relation to mileage, did not inconvenience Members or Officers and believed it to be the best way forward for meetings. Councillor Aled Thomas, as Vice-Chair of the Policy and Pre-Decision Overview and Scrutiny Committee, stated that the remote meetings of the Committee had been due to the decision of the Chair. Councillor Thomas sought clarification as to how non-Committee Members would attend a remote meeting if it went into private session. In response, the Head of Democratic Services explained that for a Committee meeting, a non-Committee Member would need to demonstrate a ‘need-to-know’ reason in order to attend. In regards to Cabinet, there was a mechanism in place, as all Members were entitled to be present to hear the discussion. Councillor Mike James stated that he welcomed online meetings and that they were very useful. Councillor Jamie Adams sought clarification in regards to the Chair’s discression for meetings and whether the Recommendation (a) replaced that option. The Presiding Member confirmed that to 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, Maureen Bowen, David Bryan, Alistair Cameron, Aaron Carey, Mark Carter, Di Clements, John Cole, Alec Cormack, Pat Davies, John 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, Elwyn Morse, Huw Murphy, Reg Owens, Mel Phillips, Bethan Price, Neil Prior, Shon Rees, Jordan Ryan, David Simpson, Rhys Sinnett, Sam Skyrme-Blackhall, Vivien Stoddart, Aled Thomas, Vanessa Thomas, Marc Tierney, Anji Tinley, Thomas Tudor, Iwan Ward, Michele Wiggins, Michael Williams, Chris Williams, Jacob Williams, Guy Woodham, Simon Wright and Danny Young [54] Abstentions: Councillor Paul Miller [1] There were no votes against. RESOLVED That the following be endorsed: (a) That one-third of in person attendees be required in order for a Multi-location meeting to be held. (b) That a 48 hours’ notice period be imposed for Members to confirm their preferred method of attending meetings. (c) That meetings will be held as fully remote meetings if the above thresholds are not met.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED That the following be endorsed: (a) That a maximum of two months be imposed as the length of time for gathering signatures; (b) That a threshold of 500 signatures be imposed for a petition to be discussed at full Council; (c) That a threshold of 100 signatures be imposed for a petition to be discussed at the relevant Overview and Scrutiny Committee; (d) That a threshold of 99 signatures or below be imposed for the relevant Cabinet Member and/or Director to respond.
Council considered a report by the Head of Democratic Services which outlined the recommendation of the Democratic Services Committee to amend the Petition Scheme in respect of the thresholds and time for gathering signatures. The Head of Democratic Services introduced the report and stated that the Authority had a duty to make and publish a petition scheme, which sets out how it intended to handle and respond to petitions, including electronic petitions. She highlighted that the Authority was required to keep its Petition Scheme under review from timeto time. As a result of the report being presented to the Democratic Services Committee on 29 September 2023, which included feedback from originators of petitions on their experiences in submitting an electronic petition, together with some comparative data on thresholds, the following changes were resolved to be recommended to Council: (a) That a maximum of two months be imposed as the length of time for gathering signatures; (b) That a threshold of 500 signatures be imposed for a petition to be discussed at full Council; (c) That a threshold of 100 signatures be imposed for a petition to be discussed at the relevant Overview and Scrutiny Committee; (d) That a threshold of 100 signatures or below be imposed for the relevant Cabinet Member and/or Director to respond. Councillor Di Clements Moved the Recommendation; Seconded by Councillor Pat Davies. Councillor Mark Carter sought clarification in regards to the administrative burden the scheme had on the Democratic Services Team and whether it was a costly process. In response, the Head of Democratic Services stated that there was no cost involved as the online system was already in place, however it was quite a large administrative burden on the Team. Councillor Viv Stoddart sought clarification in regards to Recommendation (d) and whether there was a mechanism in place to make Members aware of petitions and their responses. In response, the Head of Democratic Services stated that where there was an electronic petition, the response would be uploaded to the website, whereas paper petitions were currently not added due to the administrative burden. She stated that responses could, however, be shared with Members. Councillor Stoddart stated that it would be useful for Members to receive that information. Councillor Alec Cormack highlighted the difficulty in signing a petition online and suggested that an alternative system be used. The Head of Democratic Services stated that options for alternative systems could be looked into, but explained that it would incur additional costs. Councillor Michael John highlighted that Recommendation (d) should have a threshold of 99 of below, in order to avoid confusion with the threshold outlined in Recommendation (c). The Presiding Member sought clarification from the Mover and Seconder of the Recommendation that they were happy with the suggested amendment to the thresholds. Both Councillors Clements and Davies agreed to the change. 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, Pat Davies, John Davies, Terry Davies, 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, Elwyn Morse, Huw Murphy, Reg Owens, Mel Phillips, Bethan Price, Neil Prior, Shon Rees, Jordan Ryan, David Simpson, Rhys Sinnett, Sam Skyrme-Blackhall, Vivien Stoddart, Aled Thomas, Vanessa Thomas, Marc Tierney, Anji Tinley, Thomas Tudor, Iwan Ward, Michele Wiggins, Michael Williams, Chris Williams, Jacob Williams, Guy Woodham, Simon Wright and Danny Young [54] There were no votes against or abstentions. RESOLVED That the following be endorsed: (a) That a maximum of two months be imposed as the length of time for gathering signatures; (b) That a threshold of 500 signatures be imposed for a petition to be discussed at full Council; (c) That a threshold of 100 signatures be imposed for a petition to be discussed at the relevant Overview and Scrutiny Committee; (d) That a threshold of 99 signatures or below be imposed for the relevant Cabinet Member and/or Director to respond.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED That the matter be deferred to the next meeting of Council. [Councillors Jamie Adams, Joshua Beynon and Iwan Ward left the meeting at this juncture.]
[Having previously declared a personal interest in this item of business and wishing to leave the meeting, the Presiding Member, Councillor Simon Hancock, withdrew at this juncture. The Chair of Council, Councillor Thomas Tudor, presided over the meeting for this item only.] Council considered a report by the Head of Democratic Services which outlined the recommendation of the Constitutional Review Committee, to support the Presiding Member receiving a Senior Responsibility Allowance (SRA). Councillor Alan Dennison, Chair of the Constitutional Review Committee, introduced the report and referred to the discussion of the Constitutional Review Committee at the meeting on 2 October 2023. He highlighted that the Committee agreed that, given the complexity of the role in chairing lengthy and challenging Council meetings and the associated duties connected with the administration of Council meetings, it would seem reasonable that the role be remunerated. Councillor Dennison then referred to the five options to facilitate remuneration, as outlined in the report. Councillor Alan Dennison Moved the Recommendation; Seconded by Councillor Time Evans. Councillor Jamie Adams spoke in favour of Option 5, as outlined in the report, as follows: Council could determine to not have a Presiding Member and revert back to having the Chair of Council preside over Council meetings. Councillor Adams referred to the previous practice of Council where the Chair of Council would chair the Council meetings and stated that it gave the opportunity for Members to embrace all aspects of the role. He also believed it to be a sensible opportunity at this juncture to not to consider a further SRA. Councillor Adams then Moved Option 5 as an Amendment; Seconded by Councillor Di Clements. The Leader, Councillor David Simpson, stated that he believed the role should be remunerated and, if it was the will of Council, that he would be willing to relinquish one Cabinet Member role to allow for a Presiding Member SRA. He believed that Cabinet could function effectively with nine Members as opposed to ten, and stated that he had proved that over the past six years during his time as Leader. Councillor Reg Owens referred to when the Presiding Member post came about and stated that it was agreed at the time on the basis that the role would be of no cost to the Authority. He stated it was not the time to be spending money on something he believed to be unnecessary. Councillor Di Clements stated her support for Option 5 and highlighted that it would result in the Chair of Council being remunerated for the effort of the role. Councillor Pat Davies referred to the responsibility of the role and believed it to be a significant amount of work, and therefore stated that the post should be remunerated. She also suggested that the combined role of the Chair of Council and the Presiding Member, and the responsibility of both positions, could discourage some Members in putting themselves forward in the future. Councillor Aled Thomas sought clarification as to whether it was within the Leaders’ remit to determine the amount of Cabinet posts. It was advised that it would be the role of Council to determine. The Leader reiterated that he would be willing to reduce the number of Cabinet Members if it was the will of Council. Councillor Mark Carter stated that there was a need to give Members the opportunity to Chair Council meetings, and referred to this previous practice working well. Councillor Jordan Ryan believed the current Presiding Member role worked well and stated that it should be remunerated. Councillor Paul Miller highlighted the ability of some past Chairs and how reverting back would negatively impact the determination of Council business, as well as the Council’s reputation. He stated that the role of Chair and the role of Presiding Members were significantly different. He supported that the role should be remunerated and gave notice of his intention to propose the following if the Amendment failed: That Council proceed on the basis that a Cabinet SRA be utilised to facilitate the remuneration of the role. Councillor Jacob Williams also agreed that the role should be remunerated, and recognised the importance and responsibility of the role. He believed that the role of Presiding Member fulfilled many more functions than that of Overview and Scrutiny Committee Chairs, who automatically received an SRA. Councillor Alec Cormack also supported the remuneration of the Presiding Member role and highlighted the difficulty of the Chair of Council also having the role of Presiding Member. He agreed with the suggestion given by the Leader. Councillor Cormack then sought clarification in regards to the way forward procedurally in regards to what would be voted on first. Councillor John Davies was in favour of previous practice, where the Chair of Council would preside over Council meetings. He then sought clarification in regards to the difference between the proposed SRA for the Presiding Member and that of the SRA for a Cabinet Member, which was higher. In response, the Head of Democratic Services confirmed that, if paid, the Presiding Member role would be at Band 3, which was equivalent to that of an Overview and Scrutiny Committee Chair. Councillor Michael Williams also supported the remuneration of the Presiding Member role. Councillor Jacob Williams sought clarification in regards to Option 5 and whether, if agreed, it would result in there being no Presiding Member after the meeting. In response, Councillor Adams clarified that if his Amendment was agreed, the role should continue until the next Annual Meeting of Council in May 2024. Councillor Aled Thomas stated his support for the Amendment and referred to his suggestion of Option 5 at the 2 October 2023 meeting of the Constitutional Review Committee meeting. In response to Councillor Cormack’s query, the Head of Law and Governance clarified that Council was required to vote on the Amendment first, as follows: That Council determines not to have a Presiding Member and reverts back to having the Chair of Council preside over Council meetings, following the Annual Meeting of Council in 2024. She explained that if the Amendment was to fail, then the further Amendment from Councillor Paul Miller would be considered as follows: To remunerate the Presiding Member role under Option 1, as outlined in the report. Councillor Alec Cormack raised a point that Option 5 was not included in the original Recommendation from the Constitutional Review Committee, and suggested that the Amendment was not valid, as Option 5 seemed to negate the Recommendation of the Committee. The Head of Law and Governance stated that the Amendment had been accepted and therefore the vote for the Amendment should proceed. Councillor Jacob Williams wished for clarity in regards to what Council was voting on. Councillor Paul Miller questioned the procedural merits of taking an item regarding the SRA for the Presiding Member role and then determining the abolition of the role. He then asked for the Amendment to be taken off the table. Councillor Pat Davies stated that she agreed with Councillor Cormack’s comments. The Chair then announced that the meeting would pause at this juncture to consider legal advice. The webcast was paused at 3:19pm and reconvened at 3:30pm. The Head of Law and Governance explained that Option 5 was outlined within the report as a result of the Constitutional Review Committee wishing for all options to be outlined for Council’s determination. She stated that her advice to proceed with the vote on the Amendment was due to the fact that she did not believe the Amendment negated the Recommendation, and highlighted that if the Recommendation was voted against, it would not achieve the same outcome as the outlined Amendment. She reiterated that if the Amendment was to fail, then the further Amendment from Councillor Paul Miller could be considered. The Head of Law and Governance then re-read the proposed Amendment for Members’ clarity: That Council determines not to have a Presiding Member and revert back to having the Chair of Council preside over Council meetings, following the Annual Meeting of Council in 2024. Councillor Jacob Williams sought clarification as to why Option 5 had been included in the report to Council, and highlighted that it had not been voted on by the Constitutional Review Committee at the 2 October 2023 meeting. The Chair highlighted the complexity of the matter and suggested that it be deferred to the next meeting of Council. Councillor Thomas drew attention to the fact the Option 5 was discussed at the 2 October meeting of the Constitutional Review Committee, and that he voted against the remuneration of the post at that meeting. Councillor Rhys Sinnett agreed with Councillor Williams and Moved that the matter be deferred. This Motion was Seconded by Councillor Alec Cormack. The Chair stated that the matter would be deferred to the next meeting of Council to give Officers the opportunity to consult the webcast of the Constitutional Review Committee meeting of 2 October 2023. Councillor Miller Moved a closure motion, as per paragraph 4.21.11 of the Constitution to move to the next item of business. This Motion was Seconded by Councillor Maureen Bowen. The vote to move to the next item of business, undertaken by way of an electronic vote, was carried. The votes were recorded as follows: For the Motion: Councillors Steve Alderman, Michelle Bateman, Joshua Beynon, Maureen Bowen, Alistair Cameron, Aaron Carey, John Cole, Alec Cormack, Pat Davies, Terry Davies, Tim Evans, Nicola Gwynn, Jon Harvey, Tessa Hodgson, Phil Kidney, Paul Miller, Reg Owens, Bethan Price, Neil Prior, Shon Rees, Jordan Ryan, David Simpson, Rhys Sinnett, Sam Skyrme-Blackhall, Vivien Stoddart, Marc Tierney, Thomas Tudor, Michele Wiggins, Tony Wilcox, Chris Williams, Jacob Williams and Guy Woodham [32] Against the Motion: Councillors Jamie Adams, David Bryan, Mark Carter, Di Clements, John Davies, Alan Dennison, Andrew Edwards, Jonathan Grimes, Brian Hall, Delme Harries, David Howlett, Mike James, Mike John, Rhys Jordan, Elwyn Morse, Huw Murphy, Mel Phillips, Aled Thomas, Vanessa Thomas, Anji Tinley, Iwan Ward, Michael Williams, Simon Wright and Danny Young [24] There were no abstentions RESOLVED That the matter be deferred to the next meeting of Council. [Councillors Jamie Adams, Joshua Beynon and Iwan Ward left the meeting at this juncture.]
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED That Councillor Sam Skyrme-Blackhall be appointed to the Social Care Overview and Scrutiny Committee. There were no further nominations for the outstanding vacancies, and they would therefore be rolled over to the next meeting of Council. Councillor Thomas raised concern around the amount of vacancies on certain Overview and Scrutiny Committees and believed that it was unacceptable that unaffiliated Members were not putting themselves forward to be part of such Committees. He suggested that it could perhaps be an item for a future meeting of Council. The Presiding Member confirmed that the matter would first be scrutinised by the Legal Team. Councillor Jacob Williams stated that he disagreed with the points raised by Councillor Thomas. [Councillor David Howlett left the meeting at this juncture.]
[The Presiding Member, Councillor Simon Hancock, re-joined the meeting at this juncture.] Council considered a report by the Head of Democratic Services which outlined vacant seats on Committees and the appointment of Reserve Members to Committees where applicable. The Presiding Member sought nominations from Members not in a political group for the Social Care and Corporate Overview and Scrutiny Committees. Councillor Aled Thomas nominated Councillor Sam Skyrme-Blackhall to be appointed to the Social Care Overview and Scrutiny Committee; Seconded by Councillor Jacob Williams. The vote, undertaken by way of a show of hands, was carried. RESOLVED That Councillor Sam Skyrme-Blackhall be appointed to the Social Care Overview and Scrutiny Committee. There were no further nominations for the outstanding vacancies, and they would therefore be rolled over to the next meeting of Council. Councillor Thomas raised concern around the amount of vacancies on certain Overview and Scrutiny Committees and believed that it was unacceptable that unaffiliated Members were not putting themselves forward to be part of such Committees. He suggested that it could perhaps be an item for a future meeting of Council. The Presiding Member confirmed that the matter would first be scrutinised by the Legal Team. Councillor Jacob Williams stated that he disagreed with the points raised by Councillor Thomas. [Councillor David Howlett left the meeting at this juncture.]
Council considered excluding the public from the meeting for the following item of business in accordance with Section 100A (4) of the Local Government Act 1972, as it involved the likely disclosure of exempt information, as defined in Paragraphs 13 and 14 of Part 4 of Schedule 12A to the Act; and that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information. The Presiding Member Moved the Recommendation; Seconded by Councillor Di Clements. The vote, undertaken by way of a show of hands, was carried. RESOLVED That the public be excluded from the meeting for the following item of business in accordance with Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 as it involves the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraph 13 and 14 of Part 4 of Schedule 12A to the Act; and that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information. The webcast of the meeting was then paused.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED That the Redundancy Payment be approved to support delivery of the Medium Term Financial Plan within the Education Directorate. The webcast of the meeting was then resumed. [Councillor Jordan Ryan left the meeting at this juncture.]
Council considered a report by the Director of Education which outlined information regarding a compulsory redundancy payment. Councillor Guy Woodham, the Cabinet Member with responsibility for Education and Welsh Language, introduced the report and outlined the background of the matter, as well as the purpose of the report. Councillor Guy Woodham Moved the Recommendation; Seconded by Councillor Alec Cormack. The vote, undertaken by way of an electronic vote, was carried. The votes were recorded as follows: For the Motion: Councillors 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, Mike James, Mike John, Rhys Jordan, Phil Kidney, Paul Miller, Elwyn Morse, Huw Murphy, Reg Owens, Mel Phillips, Bethan Price, Neil Prior, Shon Rees, Jordan Ryan, David Simpson, Rhys Sinnett, Sam Skyrme-Blackhall, Vivien Stoddart, Aled Thomas, Vanessa Thomas, Marc Tierney, Thomas Tudor, Michele Wiggins, Tony Wilcox, Michael Williams, Chris Williams, Jacob Williams, Guy Woodham, Simon Wright and Danny Young [52] There were no votes against or abstentions. RESOLVED That the Redundancy Payment be approved to support delivery of the Medium Term Financial Plan within the Education Directorate. The webcast of the meeting was then resumed. [Councillor Jordan Ryan left the meeting at this juncture.]
Councillor Rhys Sinnett, the relevant Cabinet Member, responded to questions submitted by Councillor John Cole prior to the meeting in accordance with the provisions of Council Procedure Rule 4.10 as follows: With the introduction of parking charges introduced at County Hall can Council be informed of the following: 1) What is the current revenue received at the site since charges have been implemented with the breakdown to include revenue related to the Saturday/Sunday period. The use of the carpark over the Saturday / Sunday period has fallen dramatically since the introduction of charges, and surely means a drastically reduced footfall in our County Town. 2) Are there any assessments of impact to businesses within the town post charge introduction, for comparison against when the public had free parking? In response to question 1, Councillor Sinnett stated that the revenue amount for the period 5 May 2023 to 2 October 2023 was £7028.00 nett (as posted on the ledger); and the number of transactions between 5 May 2023 to 2 October 2023 was 4100. The car park is Pay and Display after 5:00pm until 7:00pm Monday to Friday; and 9:00am to 7:00pm weekends. The majority of charges and transaction will be for weekend parking. In response to question 2, Councillor Sinnett stated that he was unable to comment on the impact as there were no usage figures for the car park prior to the charging period starting. In response to a supplementary question on the specific amounts for the weekend parking, Councillor Sinnett advised that the figures provided were total figures and he advised that he would ask Officers to provide a more detailed breakdown of those costs. In response to a second supplementary question on monitoring figures, Councillor Sinnett advised that there were no assessments of usage as the car park was generally used as a staff car park. In general, he stated that car parking charges were not the only factor that impacted on businesses and he referred to Welsh Government research on ‘Assessing the Impact of Car Park Charges on town Centre Footfall, March 2015’ which reported that the general availability of spaces is felt by visitors to town centres to be more important than cost in their overall decision about visiting; and that whilst a ‘blanket’ free parking strategy has been suggested to encourage more car park users, these were generally found not to benefit target visitors (shoppers) and consequently had an unexpectedly negative impact on footfall. When free parking was provided, he stated that it was noticed this parking tended to be used by workers thereby pushing out the very customers the town was trying to attract. He advised that the matter would be kept under review and was happy to provide any further information when it became available.
Councillor Paul Miller, the relevant Cabinet Member, responded to a question submitted by Councillor John Cole prior to the meeting in accordance with the provisions of Council Procedure Rule 4.10 as follows: With the Shire hall being a prominent building within the town centre, and laying empty and looking neglected. Can the relevant member provide an answer to the following: Can it be confirmed if this building is under Council control ie rented / leased and if so, what conditions are included to ensure that the building is kept in good order / condition, including whether regular inspections are carried out? In response, Councillor Miller stated that the Shire Hall was let under the terms of a 999 year lease from 4 February 2010 pointing out that it was a decision made by the Independent Group when it was the Executive, before he was elected. He confirmed that the Council is the freeholder. He advised that the landlord has the right to inspect; however, no inspections had been carried out recently or are planned. Furthermore, he advised that the tenant has the same obligations to decorate and maintain the asset. It was noted that ultimately control is generally limited by the Council’s interest in the asset which in this case does not revert for almost 1000 years which Councillor Miller added gave a tenuous level of control over the asset right now. In response to a supplementary question on a programme of regular inspections to ensure the building is kept in good repair, Councillor Miller advised that unless there was damage that would affect the asset when it reverts in 1000 years, there was limited action that could be taken against the occupier. However, he gave assurance that he would take up the matter of regular inspections with the Property Team. [Having previously left the Chamber, Councillor Jamie Adams re-joined the meeting as a remote attendee at this juncture.]
Councillor Rhys Sinnett, 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: Pavement parking is a problem that will not go away. When vehicles are parked on pavements it presents real difficulties for certain elements of society. A fit and able person no doubt is not affected in the same way as parents with pushchairs, partially sighted people and residents using mobility scooters. To go along a pavement that is blocked means they have to step out into a usually busy and dangerous road on immediately curtail their journey. Roads are for vehicles. Pavements are for pedestrians. Selfish motorists who pay no regard to the consequences of their actions have no deterrent it seems. An affected person who can't get past the obstruction phones both the Police and the Council and from accounts I have received from residents, neither body seems interested. But some public body should be interested. Not only are lives being put at risk but the damage being done to pavements is costly for the local authority to repair. That damage could also involve costly liability claims if a resident sues for injuries brought about by uneven, broken pavements. Does PCC need this sort of expenditure in times of severe budget cuts? I am sure the Leader agrees with me that something needs to be done. It is no use waiting for the Welsh Government to take action. They started a review in 2019, decided to implement the results of that review in 2021 and then put it off to who knows when. A Sustrans survey across the UK of 24000 people resulted in 70% of people saying that banning the obstruction caused by pavement parking would encourage them to walk more. The Welsh Government says one of the reasons it has brought in 20mph limits is to encourage people to walk more. Pavement parking bans would surely go hand in hand. What action is being considered by PCC to ban pavement parking? In response, Councillor Sinnett agreed that roads are for vehicles and pavements are for pedestrians. He stated that from a Council perspective, the Authority could carry out enforcement using Civil Enforcement powers, but there needed to be parking restrictions (double yellow lines) on the highway. Hence, there is very little that can be done to prevent pavement parking where there are no parking restrictions (except to plaster the area with restrictions, which is also not necessarily desired). In theory, Councillor Sinnett stated that the Police have the power to enforce, but the issuing of a fixed penalty ticket will only be considered as a last resort. Police resources to address such matters are also presumably a concern he added and specific queries can be forwarded to the Neighbourhood Policing Sergeant. Although it is not an offence to park on pavements in Wales, he stated that the Deputy Minister for Economy and Transport announced in July 2019, the setting up of a Taskforce Group (TFG) to investigate the problems associated with pavement parking and put forward recommendations to find a solution. The TFG considered recommending prohibiting parking by way of primary legislation; however, reflecting on the experience in Scotland it was found to be a lengthy and complex process. They concluded that pavement parking is a serious problem across Wales and that the Welsh Government should take steps to address it. In April 2023, the Government announced that given the work on the 20mph default, it had decided to delay the consultation on pavement parking until next year. He added that in the meantime changing driver behaviour, through raising awareness that pavements are for pedestrians and not for parking vehicles is something which Welsh Government is considering through road safety training work. In response to a supplementary question on whether the way forward was to submit a Notice of Motion or for a petition to be organised to give people affected a chance to submit their views, Councillor Sinnett advised that either route would be acceptable. He advised that legislation would be helpful to allow the Authority to do more, as the situation would be challenging without Welsh Government leading on this.
Councillor Michelle Bateman, the relevant Cabinet Member, responded to a question submitted by Councillor Mark Carter prior to the meeting in accordance with the provisions of Council Procedure Rule 4.10 as follows: In the May 2023 full Council meeting, I questioned the Cabinet Member for Housing in respect of the error made in the late delivery of rent increase letters to tenants. The Cabinet Member stated there was a £380,000 potential loss to this Authority as a result of the lower amount of rent received due to the failure to give the required notice to tenants before 1st April 2023. The Cabinet member made an undertaking to provide an update on the recovery of this sum at a future date. Given how important it is to recover this money, please will the Cabinet Member now provide that update to Council? In response, Councillor Bateman stated that following the delivery failure of the housing rent letters, the Director of Resources and Head of Financial Services have been in regular dialogue with the mail delivery supplier. She stated that the mail delivery supplier undertook an investigation but has not been able to obtain any further clarification from Royal Mail who ultimately undertake the final delivery of the letters on their behalf. As a result, she stated that the Authority had taken external advice regarding its legal position and this advice is confidential and will be circulated to Members after the meeting. Since the incident took place, Councillor Bateman stated that Officers have worked with the mail provider to put processes in place to substantially reduce the risk of such an instance reoccurring. These include placing seed letters in future batches of notices to monitor delivery. Discussions were also occurring with the provider using an alternative method of posting to give the ability to track mailings. Councillor Bateman advised that the value of the rental income loss due to the rent increase not becoming operational until the 1st July is £312,000. The lower amount of loss is due to an adjustment to take account of New Build and acquisitions rental income, which has not been affected by the issue with late notification of rent and will be charged at the applicable rent when tenants move in. Due to the restrictions of the Renting Homes (Wales) Act, whereby rent increases for existing tenancies/contracts can only be increased once in a 12 month period, she added that the Council is now unable to increase rents for existing tenants until July 2024. The potential of putting forward a pilot project to Welsh Government for 2024/2025 is being explored which would focus on bringing those below the Council’s Standard Rent to Standard Rent at a much quicker rate, thereby re-couping the last income. A proposal was put to the HRA Working Group and further analysis and options have been asked for. Once they have been agreed, she stated that Officers will then approach Welsh Government with the proposal in order to obtain agreement. In response to a supplementary question seeking clarity on the exact cost of the delay, the Interim Director of Resources confirmed that the actual figure was £312,000.
Councillor Michelle Bateman, the relevant Cabinet Member, responded to questions submitted by Councillor Jacob Williams prior to the meeting in accordance with the provisions of Council Procedure Rule 4.10 as follows: At the May 2023 Full Council meeting, several questions were tabled by members probing the late delivery of this year's rent increase notification letters to Council tenants. On the Council's ability to reclaim any financial losses caused by this situation, the minutes record that: "...the Head of Financial Services stated that it was an ongoing situation but, once completed, he would be happy to report back." Could members please be told: a) The value of the financial loss to the Council, to date, as a result of the late delivery of the letters? b) What has been done to assess the liability for this costly error? c) What has been done to assess the prospect of recouping any financial losses? In response, Councillor Bateman stated that following the delivery failure of the housing rent letters, the Director of Resources and Head of Financial Services have been in regular dialogue with the mail delivery supplier. She stated that the mail delivery supplier undertook an investigation but has not been able to obtain any further clarification from Royal Mail who ultimately undertake the final delivery of the letters on their behalf. As a result, she stated that the Authority had taken external advice regarding its legal position and this advice is confidential and will be circulated to Members after the meeting. Since the incident took place, Councillor Bateman stated that Officers have worked with the mail provider to put processes in place to substantially reduce the risk of such an instance reoccurring. These include placing seed letters in future batches of notices to monitor delivery. Discussions were also occurring with the provider using an alternative method of posting to give the ability to track mailings. Councillor Bateman advised that the value of the rental income loss due to the rent increase not becoming operational until the 1st July is £312,000. The lower amount of loss is due to an adjustment to take account of New Build and acquisitions rental income, which has not been affected by the issue with late notification of rent and will be charged at the applicable rent when tenants move in. Due to the restrictions of the Renting Homes (Wales) Act, whereby rent increases for existing tenancies/contracts can only be increased once in a 12 month period, she added that the Council is now unable to increase rents for existing tenants until July 2024. The potential of putting forward a pilot project to Welsh Government for 2024/2025 is being explored which would focus on bringing those below the Council’s Standard Rent to Standard Rent at a much quicker rate, thereby re-couping the last income. A proposal was put to the HRA Working Group and further analysis and options have been asked for. Once they have been agreed, she stated that Officers will then approach Welsh Government with the proposal in order to obtain agreement. In response to the first supplementary question on how the Authority had become aware of the failure to deliver the letters to residents, Councillor Bateman stated that she had been made aware and asked Housing Officers to investigate the matter. In response to the second supplementary question on whether the contract with the third party had impressed the importance of the letters, the interim Director of Resources confirmed that the contract with the company stated that delivery was of the essence. He advised the failure was down to Royal Mail. In response to the third supplementary question on the agreement with Welsh Government to put the Authority on an even keel, Councillor Bateman stated that the matter was complex and advised that the Authority could not just add the lost rental income onto the next year given the overall rental income cap as part of the rent standard. As Pembrokeshire has a historic issue of large variation of rents across the housing stock, she advised that what the Authority was looking to do was to go to Welsh Government with a pilot to look to address increasing the rent of tenants on a lower income or lower rents while still maintaining income into the Housing Revenue Account. This would be over a period of time still to be decided which would involve breaching the overall rental income cap but it was hoped that a case could be made to Welsh Government that the loss of rent was impacting on the delivery of the Housing Revenue Account Business Plan and the delivery of new housing and the retrofit programme. She advised that a Seminar would be planned in due course to inform Members on the pilot.
Councillor Rhys Sinnett, 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: To ask the Cabinet member for Resident Services to re-assure council members and members of the public that the roll out of the 20mph blanket speed-limit in Wales and any other associated costs will not cost the council a single penny as per the press releases sent out by the council? Additional costs to the council as a result of the scheme should be considered as things such as, but not limited to: the cost of the signs, the cost of erecting the signs, the cost of any additional contractors required to complete the rollout, the cost of managerial time arranging the rollout across Pembrokeshire, overtime pay to PCC highways staff as a result of pressure on staff rotas, the cost of re-instating 30mph limits if and when PCC decide to revert or introduce exceptions, the cost of additional time paid to PCC bus drivers to ensure school children arrive in school on time, any other additional overtime payable to PCC staff as a result of the rollout. In response, Councillor Sinnett stated that all costs to date for the implementation of the scheme are covered by Welsh Government as outlined in the public question on the same topic above. He also stated that defaced or vandalised signs will need to be met within this budget and no additional funding will be made available from Welsh Government. In response to a supplementary question on whether the cost of any exceptions made in the future would be met by the Authority, Councillor Sinnett stated that the Authority would be pushing the Deputy Minister on the matter. He stated that he could not predict if there would be any traffic orders and that the scheme would need to bed in first. Without any additional funding, he confirmed the Authority would have to fund schemes.
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: To ask the Cabinet Member for Place, the Region and Climate Change and Deputy Leader of the Council if he and his Cabinet will immediately write to the Welsh Government asking them to de-restrict the £16.9 million pounds of Welsh Government funding for the Haverfordwest Transport Interchange Scheme by amending the business case to just a ground level car park and associated modern bus station so that the funds can be used for other transport capital projects that are desperately needed in Pembrokeshire such as enhancing the rail network at both Milford and Pembroke Dock stations, as well as the provision of newer, greener buses which would reduce maintenance cost pressures in the revenue budget? Councillor Miller responded that he would not do so. In response to a supplementary question asking if he would reconsider this approach recognising that it was not the best use of tax payers’ money at the current time, Councillor Miller stated that it would not be in the best interest of the County to do so as the money would be lost to Pembrokeshire and would be a disservice to the Town by not investing in the future. He stated that the scheme was about driving footfall in the Town in the future. On the subject of money, he stated that the Council’s outlay was in the region of £1.9m and it was expected the income from the Haverfordwest Transport Interchange could be in the order of £90,000 and given increases in car park charges it could be nearer £200,000. In terms of expenditure, he stated this should reduce with the introduction of the barrier system with less staffing required and that the net income was likely to be a minimum of £150,000 providing a return on investment of 8% which he considered acceptable. He rebutted the value for money argument and pointed out that the Transport Interchange was a key part of the reinvention and revitalising of Haverfordwest and he considered the investment made good financial sense. [Councillor Aaron Carey left the meeting at this juncture.]
Councillor Guy Woodham, 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 Leader said at the March 2023 Cabinet that his Cabinet was 'pursuing' the contractor that was allegedly involved with causing fire at Ysgol Manobier in relation to recouping the £200,000 loss to council funds paid in insurance excesses on rebuilding Ysgol Manobier. Can the leader update council members and members of the public on how many pounds of this £200,000 have been recouped to date and assure us that they are still pursuing the contractor for the money? In response, Councillor Woodham stated that to date, the Council has incurred little expenditure in dealing with the aftermath of the fire at Ysgol Manorbier. The possibility of pursuing the contractor for recovery of the Council’s losses, once known, and not covered by the Council’s insurance arrangements, continues to be investigated. External legal advice is now being sought on the likelihood of a successful recovery he added. Councillor Woodham stated that recovery is dependent on many factors, including the contractual arrangements in place with the contractors at the time of the fire, the actual cause of the fire (which is not determined – unfortunately, the fire service report in this regard was non-specific) and whether the contractor, if responsible, has the necessary financial resources to meet the Council’s losses. Councillor Thomas advised the meeting that as his supplementary question related to confidential information, he would provide a written question to Councillor Woodham for response to be circulated to all Members.
Councillor Guy Woodham, the relevant Cabinet Member, responded to a question submitted by Councillor Phillip Kidney prior to the meeting in accordance with the provisions of Council Procedure Rule 4.10 as follows: Could the Cabinet Member for Education please provide an update on the rebuild of Manorbier School over 12 months on from thedevastating fire? In response, Councillor Woodham stated that progress on realising Cabinet’s decision to reinstate the school has been hampered by the complexities arising from the school’s ownership, and that of the adjoining school house. Both properties are owned by the Diocese of St David’s, and as a result, officers have been required to reach agreement on a way forward, not only with the Diocese, but also the respective insurers. Following what is acknowledged to be a lengthy period of time since the fire, he stated that the Authority is now in a position where agreement has been reached on the first essential steps of making the two buildings safe for work to progress. This has commenced with the demolition of certain gable walls, then the clearance of debris from within and outside the buildings and the re-roofing of the school house. The project will be under taken in three phases, incorporating both Pembrokeshire County Council and Diocese works. Wye Valley Demolition commenced on site on 2nd October with CASS Scaffolding attending on site from Wednesday 4th October. The first phase of works, consisting of internal gable demolition, removal of overhanging materials, and scaffolding erected to various external gables, is now complete he stated. The site has now been handed over to the Diocese’s loss adjusters and appointed contractors to undertake work to the roof of the school house as part of phase two. Once the reinstatement of the School House roof is completed, he stated that the Council’s Professional Construction Services team will be able to safely undertake an assessment of the works required in order to reinstate the school. When the extent of reinstatement works and their cost is known, Councillor Woodham stated this will be included as part of a business case for further consideration by Cabinet. A Project Board has been established to oversee the project and the reinstatement phase. Councillor Woodham stated that a letter will be going today from the Director for Education to Members of the School Governing Body and Parents/Carers of children attending the school to update them on the latest position on the rebuild of Manorbier School. In response to a supplementary question on when the children would be able to return to the school, Councillor Woodham stated that it was difficult to give a firm date as there was insufficient information at this time but he hoped that September 2024 would be reasonable timescale. [Councillor Phil Kidney then left 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: In his email response to Mr William McNamara, on the 17th May 2023, the Deputy Leader stated ‘It’s unfortunate that recent questions to Council have generated a degree of negative publicity for you but it is incumbent upon us to respond openly and honestly, in the public domain, to questions raised by elected councillors’. The only question submitted referred to the share dividends received over the last 5 years. Can the Deputy Leader advise which part of this question he believes warranted such negative publicity against Bluestone? In response, Councillor Miller stated that Councillor Dennison was seeking to rewrite history. He pointed out that the only question he asked did indeed refer to dividends received, but in the context of asking what return on investment per annum had been received over the last five years in share dividends or any other form of income, he suspected that Councillor Dennison understood that a return on investment calculation requires consideration of the input investment dividends received and the present value of the original investment. He stated that the answer provided by Councillor Cormack covered all of those relevant points. He further stated that in his view it was inevitable that disclosure of the Council's current estimated value of its shareholding as required to answer the question would lead to some negative publicity, as indeed proved to be the case. In response to a supplementary question asking whether he would formally apologise to the Chief Executive of Bluestone for the negative publicity received over the valuation of the shares, Councillor Miller stated that he considers Bluestone an important part of the Pembrokeshire tourism offer and that he would be happy to have a debate on the reacquisition of the Council shareholding of the shares if desired.
Councillor David Simpson, the Leader of Council, 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: Did the Leader of the Council approve the response of the Cabinet Member for Finance to the question submitted by myself regarding the return to date over the last 5 years of the Bluestone shares held by this council, at the full Council meeting held on the 11th May 2023 and if so will he comment on the response from the CEO which appears to contradict the Cabinet members response? In response, the Leader stated that he did not screen or sanction the answers provided by Cabinet Members to specific questions presented in Council. Cabinet Members answer questions based on their own portfolio responsibilities he added. In responding to a supplementary question on the challenge from Bluestone on the value of the shares by the Cabinet Member for Finance, the Leader stated that he had every respect for the Chief Executive of Bluestone who did an excellent job for tourism and that he had every respect for the Cabinet Member for Finance. He pointed out that the Chief Executive of Bluestone had an opinion on the value of the Bluestone shares as did the Cabinet Member for Finance. To get the accurate price of the shares, he stated that they would need to be taken to the open market to achieve that.
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 Deputy Leader confirm the total costing for the proposed footbridge from the Argos side of the riverside to the Ocky White? In response, Councillor Miller stated that he was not in a positon to provide total costings as he was due to make a decision on the tendering the scheme later that week. He stated that the Authority’s internal estimate of the cost of the bridge and associated elements of the project were contained in a confidential Appendix to an Individual Cabinet Member decision report which Members had access to. He stated that it would not be appropriate to release that information publicly in advance of the tenders being sought. In response to a supplementary question on whether the project should be scrapped due to the significant costs and the money diverted to alternative projects such as public toilets, Councillor Miller responded that he had no intention of doing that.
Councillor Paul Miller, the relevant Cabinet Member, responded to questions submitted by Councillor Di Clements prior to the meeting in accordance with the provisions of Council Procedure Rule 4.10 as follows: I would be grateful for an update on the Ocky White development please. The Cabinet Member for Place, Region and Climate Change informed Council on the 2nd March 2023 in response to a question submitted by Cllr Andrew Edwards that the development would be nearing completion by the end of the year and as minuted: 'was confident the project would make a significant and positive contribution once completed.' As the end of the year’s fast approaching, can you therefore inform me: 1. If any tenants have been secured and contracts agreed? 2. The last approved budget as of 2nd March 2023 was £12.34 million. Does this include fitting out cost? 3. If PCC is to fund any fit out costs does the cabinet member have an estimate of that cost to the public purse? In response, Councillor Miller confirmed that contract works to the principal building were completed to schedule and handover of the main building was expected in about four weeks as there was some snagging etc still being completed. He stated that the next stage of work is the adjoining derelict warehouse and related public realm space which is due to commence soon, as is fit-out work on the main building. In terms of tenancies, he stated that viewings were going exceptionally well and a very positive number of expressions of interest had been received, with a number of local operators interested in various combinations of the warehouse and main building. Also, at least one but probably two nationals had confirmed interest. He was pleased to advise that a very significant number of local food and drink businesses had also registered an interest. Council was advised that the Authority is now proceeding to a more formal stage of discussion with those individuals and the target is to complete fit-out work and open the facility next summer. Taken together with a very positive response received from the market when discussing the now vacant Wilkinson Unit, Councillor Miller stated that developments were on the cusp in Haverfordwest and he considered that 2024 would be the year when everyone would start to see developments come together. He recognised that the town is changing significantly and for the better. In response to a supplementary question requesting more details, Councillor Miller advised that the fit-out costs were provided in the confidential Appendix referenced above. He stated that the contribution to fit-out costs was a live discussion with prospective tenants as part of the tenancy agreements. To date, he confirmed that no one had signed up; however, the strength of interest had been extremely positive. In response to a further supplementary question calling for sight of the fit-out costs, Councillor Miller confirmed that the papers were available to Members and he would ensure that they were supplied if Councillor Clements was unable to access them. [Councillors Di Clements and Danny Young left the meeting at this juncture.]
Councillor Jon Harvey, the relevant Cabinet Member, responded to questions submitted by Councillor David Howlett prior to the meeting in accordance with the provisions of Council Procedure Rule 4.10 as follows: The Welsh Government launched their Self Build Wales scheme in 2020 to supposedly create affordable opportunities for people to build their own houses. It is backed by a £40m investment from the Development Bank of Wales. The selfbuild.wales website gives details of plots potentially available for people to self-build their properties. In Pembrokeshire the only potential site listed is that of an anticipated six plots at the Brynhir development in Tenby. Some three years after the launch of the scheme not one property has been completed at all in Wales through this scheme. Julie James MS, Minister for Climate Change has advised that the Welsh Government is “continuing to work with Local Authorities, Registered Social Landlords and private landowners to identify and provide sites for the scheme.” (Senedd Written Question WQ88923) Please could I enquire: 1. What interaction has Pembrokeshire County Council had with the Welsh Government regarding this scheme? 2. More generally regarding housing provision in the county what steps has the authority taken to greatly increase the number of houses being built in the county whether by private developers, for social housing or for self-build projects? In response the first question, Councillor Harvey stated that over the past two years Officers from the Council have periodically met with staff from the Development Bank of Wales who administer the Self Build Wales (SBW) scheme on behalf of Welsh Government. He stated that the purpose of these meetings has been to provide an update on progress with Brynhir and to discuss other potential opportunities in the County. Furthermore, the SBW staff also attend all Wales briefing meetings with Housing Development Officers to promote the scheme. A further update meeting has been scheduled for late October between housing, property and planning officers with the SBW Operations Manager (who is newly appointed in post). The purpose of this meeting is further discuss the parameters of the SBW scheme in allowing private landowners to put forward potential sites. In response to question 2, Councillor Harvey stated that Members have previously been provided with updates on the Council’s Housing Development Programme as well as wider Social Housing Grant Programme which included detail of social and affordable housing programmes for the Council and its Housing Association partners. Furthermore, he stated there has been two workshops to engage Members with the development of the Housing Strategy that will be presented to Council in December and this document shows the achievements to date and priorities for the future that include increasing the supply of affordable housing. The Programme for Administration he pointed out also outlines the ambition to ‘Accelerate housing delivery as well as work with partners to increase the range of affordable housing projects including the development of housing projects including the development of Community Land Trusts (CLT’s) and making available smaller plots of Council land for those seeking self-build.’ Councillor Harvey stated that the Council’s housebuilding programme will result in the construction of 458 new homes up to the financial year 2028 to 2029 at an estimated cost of £122 million which includes external funding of £71 billion. It was noted that the Council will continue to work in partnership with the Housing Associations and, as mentioned earlier, the Authority administers the Social Housing Grant Programme on behalf of Welsh Government through the PDP and allocate grant money to part fund developments in the current PDP. Over the next three to four years, he added that the construction of 588 affordable homes would be seen by RSL partners. He reiterated the reference that £12.7 million of Social Housing Social Housing grant slippage money from Welsh government, which was the highest level given to any Council in Wales, will allow the delivery of affordable housing to be accelerated to bring additional new schemes into the programme, including the Slade Lane scheme in Haverfordwest mentioned earlier. In terms of planning policy, Councillor Harvey state that the Council is currently reviewing its Local Development Plan and will make reference to self-build in the replacement Plan (LDP 2). The Deposit (full public consultation draft) of the new plan that was published in 2020 included various references to self-build. While it is intended to repeat that stage of the Plan process next year, based on a revised draft plan, he added that it is likely that the references to self-build will be carried over into the new version of the Deposit plan. Councillor Harvey stated that at the start of the LDP review process, the Authority had invited the submission of Candidate Sites for the new plan and those proposing such sites for housing purposes were asked to indicate whether they would be prepared to see an element of self-build included. Where there was a positive answer to that question and the site in question survived the site assessment process and was included as a residential allocation in the Deposit Plan, the information on self-build was included in the new Plan’s policy text (policy GN 14 of the 2020 Deposit Plan). As well as policy GN 14 references, it was noted that self-build was also mentioned in other draft plan policies – specifically SP 9 on Local Villages and GN 11 on Residential Development. In response to a supplementary question on what steps were being taken to make the people of Pembrokeshire aware of the scheme and plots available, Councillor Harvey stated that in meetings with the Self-Build Wales team, the availability of self-build plots was discussed and he gave assurance that the Authority would publicise sites when they are identified. In response to a second supplementary question seeking an assurance that there will be an increase in the number of house completions in future years by private developers, social housing or self-build, Councillor Harvey replied that the purpose of the LDP is to allocate land for private housebuilding. He pointed out that the figure for Pembrokeshire will be determined based on the usual mechanism of household formation and population growth, and it will be for the private sector to pick up on that and deliver those sites. He further stated that within those sites there will be an element of affordable housing and a target will be set for each site. In respect of social housing, he pointed out that, this side of Christmas, the Authority will receive the keys for some of the houses at Cranham Park, Johnston, with tenants going in shortly thereafter. He pointed out that the Authority is well advanced on the Tiers Cross site and other schemes are now within the pipeline, including the Brynhir site. Councillor Harvey added that the Authority is committed to providing new housing as it is essential to deal with the housing crisis. On the point of self-build plots, Councillor Harvey gave assurance that the Authority will work with Welsh Government on the self-build scheme and identify plots where appropriate.
Councillor Rhys Sinnett, 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: Could the Cabinet Member for Resident Services please provide members with detailed information on the usage figures, income generated, and expenditures incurred for Tenby Multi-Storey Car Park and Haverfordwest Multi-Storey Car Park for the last five financial years? In response, Councillor Sinnett provided a breakdown of the key income and expenditure for each car park as follows: Cost centre description Account description 2022/23 2021/22 2020/21 2019/20 2018/19 Tenby Expenditure 49,949 70,930 66,261 63,551 67,693 Tenby Income 545,827 582,459 250,150 419,424 455,823 Haverfordwest Expenditure 26,596 31,794 42,512 50,682 46,342 Haverfordwest Income 15,816 61,971 31,624 87,990 95,548 In terms of the number of detailed usage figures (Pay and Display), Councillor Sinnett stated the information is available in terms of the number of transactions, rather than length of stay – i.e. one hour or all day. He pointed out that the Haverfordwest Multi storey had closed 20th June 2022. Councillor Sinnett then provided information on the key usage figures as follows: Car Park 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 Tenby 248952 278070 136731 311913 349685 Haverfordwest 13121* 69832 43915 128010 139615 In response to a supplementary question on the impact of the underutilised car park in Haverfordwest on other areas facing parking challenges, Councillor Sinnett stated that the car park account was a resource for the County as a whole and the figures were not hypothecated for a particular area so funds raised in one area were not entirely spent in that area. He advised that there were 94 car parks of which 36 were pay and display car parks and were required to be maintained. He also outlined investment being made in the Tenby area, including the park and ride service; the temporary parking office; and the North Beach, South Beach and Salterns car parks. He stated that he would be happy to engage with local Members on what could be done to improve the car park offer in Tenby and surrounding area.
Councillor Guy Woodham, the relevant Cabinet Member, responded to a question submitted by Councillor Viv Stoddart prior to the meeting in accordance with the provisions of Council Procedure Rule 4.10 as follows: The new Relationship and Sexual Education (RSE) curriculum is being rolled out in the county's secondary schools. During June's Schools and Learning Overview and Scrutiny Committee members were told that schools were being given professional support to engage with their communities. Given that education is everybody's business, will the Cabinet Member with responsibility for Education and the Welsh Language inform Council what engagement activities have our secondary schools hosted/plan to host in order to engage with their communities? In response, Councillor Woodham stated that the new RSE curriculum is a mandatory curriculum that is being rolled out across all schools for both primary and secondary school learners. Schools are maintaining open and transparent links with families and caregivers including what is being taught in terms of curriculum content. Schools have actively sought input and feedback from families and in a range of contexts the wider community. He stated that he understood that Councillor Stoddart had recently attended a session at Milford Haven School where a parents’ forum has been established. In schools where there is a faith dimension, he added that those schools have actively sought the support of their Diocese. Many of the family sessions at individual schools have been positively received with families appreciating opportunities and dialogue on the curriculum content. Schools have been working to ensure the curriculum is inclusive and culturally sensitive reflecting the needs and experiences of individual communities. Schools are using individual community representatives to support the delivery of the curriculum in relation to particular topics. Councillor Woodham stated that engaging learners in shaping the curriculum is also an important element of the work as their perspectives and feedback can help shape the curriculum so it meets their needs and addresses their concerns. School based meetings are also an important part of this work. There is professional development for staff provided by Partneriaeth in supporting staff and leaders who are responsible for the mandatory curriculum. He further stated that engaging communities in the RSE curriculum is a collaborative effort that requires ongoing communication, sensitivity and commitment to learners. Involving parents and the wider community on an ongoing basis, schools are creating a curriculum that meets the needs of all stakeholders. In response to a supplementary question seeking assurance that there is a genuine commitment to whole community engagement, Councillor Woodham stated that he had explained in his response above what was happening across schools collectively to engage with the community. The Director for Education then provided further information explaining that this was a new mandatory curriculum, which was taking time to engage with communities. He stated that it was taking time to engage with families which needed to be the first port of call in terms of that commitment. He further stated that in particular communities in Pembrokeshire there was strong engagement, such as those schools who have a large Gypsy Traveller population and faith schools, where they have engaged their local churches and their communities. He stated that schools will continue to engage with the communities, but he pointed out there was not a blanket approach and he reiterated that schools needed to engage with families first and foremost.
Councillor Guy Woodham, the relevant Cabinet Member, responded to a question submitted by Councillor Viv Stoddart prior to the meeting in accordance with the provisions of Council Procedure Rule 4.10 as follows: Will the Cabinet Member with responsibility for Education and the Welsh Language update members as to the time line for the urgently-needed new schools project for Milford Haven? In response, Councillor Woodham stated that Officers have been working on progressing the co-located primary and secondary school project in Milford Haven since these were approved by Council in October 2021. He stated that part of that approval by Full Council included the project being funded under the Mutual Investment Model (known as MiM) and this approach, given the forecasted cost of the Milford Haven project currently being circa £115m, has been given considerable consideration by Officers and the Sustainable Communities for Learning Project Board. As further and new information has been forthcoming about MiM, he stated that a view has been formed that there may now be significant merits for the project being funded via traditional capital funding as opposed to the originally agreed MiM approach. Councillor Woodham advised that the current timeline is for a full report on the proposed alternative capital funding approach, as opposed to MiM, to go to the November Cabinet meeting. Members will then be invited, at the December Full Council meeting, to review the previous decision of Full Council to finance the project under MiM, with the likely recommendation being that funding the project under the capital financing approach may now be a more financially beneficial approach for the Council. On the basis, he advised that the decision of Full Council in December is to amend the funding route of the project from MiM to capital financing, then the strategic outline case, outline business case and full business case will be completed and submitted to the Welsh Government Investment Panel. This approach being followed, Councillor Woodham stated that the current forecast is for the building work to commence in Quarter 2 of 2026, with occupation of the new schools from September 2028. The existing secondary school will then be demolished by September 2029. In conclusion, he stated that anything that can be done to speed up the building work commencing before Quarter 2 of 2026 would have his full support given, as Councillor Stoddart states in her question, that this is an urgently-needed new schools project for Milford Haven.
Councillor Alec Cormack, 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 Leader assure fellow Councillors and those involved in the retail, leisure & hospitality industry that he will make a request to Welsh Government to extend the current Hospitality Rates Relief in Wales scheme into the financial year 2024/25? This scheme is critical for the viability of many small businesses within Pembrokeshire as it currently offers a 75% discount on non-domestic rates which is a critical support measure for many small businesses to survive. We all acknowledge the importance of small businesses within Pembrokeshire for the contribution they make to the local economy and strong words of support from the Leader will re-assure small business owners that he is on their side during these challenging times and that WG announcing the extension of this rate relief scheme cannot come soon enough to allow businesses to plan for the 12 months ahead with some degree of certainty that they will not face high business rates from April 2024. In response, Councillor Cormack stated that this scheme is funded by Welsh Government who have not as yet indicated whether this relief will continue for 2024 to 2025. However, he confirmed that the Council will write to Welsh Government to request the continuation of this rate relief scheme. It was noted that the announcement was made by Welsh Government in the December prior to the financial year 2023 to 2024 that the relief would continue. Council was advised that a reminder is going out to businesses in the retail, leisure and hospitality sectors in Pembrokeshire to apply for this rate relief. Properties that can benefit include shops, pubs and restaurants, gyms, performance venues and hotels. He stated that relief will be granted to eligible businesses as a reduction to the rates bill based on occupation between 1 April 2023 to 31 March 2024. The scheme aims to provide support for eligible occupied properties by offering a discount of 75% on non-domestic rates bills. The closing date to apply is 31 March 2024 he added. He pointed out that more information on the scheme and the application form can be found on the Council’s website.
Councillor Guy Woodham, 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 Lead for Education please inform Councillors and residents of Pembrokeshire what impact the recent implementation of the new 20 mph speed limit has had on the delivery of education within Pembrokeshire? The change in legislation will probably be more keenly felt in Secondary Schools and rural Schools due to likely longer journey times, with pupils either having to catch bus transport earlier (on many occasions in dark weather) and arrive home later or alternatively the school teaching day will be reduced to avoid pupils catching bus transport earlier in the day and arriving home later in the afternoon. The new 20mph speed limit will inevitably have a consequence on education in Pembrokeshire, be it reduced teaching times or a longer day for pupils due to increased travelling times. In response, Councillor Woodham stated that, to date, there is no impact on the delivery of education across Pembrokeshire. The school day has not been impacted or altered. He stated that the School Transport team have not been made aware of any significant impact on the journey times to school by drivers or operators following the introduction of 20 mph limits.
Councillor Paul Miller, 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: Can Members please be assured that PCC led investments being delivered in Haverfordwest are on budget and on time and that the rationale supporting these schemes is regularly considered and modified where appropriate? In response, Councillor Miller stated that key County Council projects in Haverfordwest are currently proceeding in line with the most recent updates to Cabinet in July. He confirmed that schemes are regularly reviewed and considered and he stated that the Authority would not hesitate to modify proposals to take advantage of opportunities which present or changes in commercial dynamics. The exception to that, he stated, was potentially the heart of Pembrokeshire project element which excluded the bridge that was updated to Cabinet in March where some delays were being experienced. In responding to a supplementary question calling for updates on various projects in Haverfordwest, Councillor Miller stated that he acknowledged that car parks were not well used and neither was the town centre which he had already alluded to earlier in the meeting but he stated that the purpose of the intervention was to drive footfall and drive the offer to encourage more people to visit the town centre. He pointed out that the Authority was building for the future. Councillor Miller stated that parking had to be easy and convenient to visit the town centre and he pointed out that was the purpose of the Haverfordwest Transport Interchange which would provide a mix of offer. In terms of the open space requirement, he stated that significant enhancements to the public realm could be seen for the projects already underway; and phase 2, the Riverside project, the comments raised would be take on board. In terms of car parking, Councillor Miller advised that discussions were ongoing with interested parties in developing the space left behind; and in respect of the Wilkinson site, he stated that discussions were being held with interested parties including well-known multi-national retailers.
Councillor Paul Miller, 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: Could the Cabinet Member for Finance provide an assurance that he recognises the importance of the breadth of tourism offer which underpins the Visitor Economy of Pembrokeshire and that investment in facilities is a key driver to increasing the long term sustainability of the sector? In response, Councillor Miller stated that as this was his portfolio area he would respond to the question. He responded that the Cabinet Member for Finance and the whole of the Administration recognizes that tourism is one of the foundation elements of the Pembrokeshire economy and continued investment in facilities is important in sustaining the offer. In response to a supplementary question on whether he agreed with a statement made at a recent Planning Committee which stated that camping and caravan site visitors, being fish and chip shop customers, did not add much to the local economy, Councillor Miller advised that there was detailed research on this and that he did not subscribe to the comment made. He stated that a diverse range of accommodation offer is important. Furthermore, he stated that there is a legitimate debate to be had on the locations of types of development but pointed out that all Councillors were entitled to have a viewpoint.
Councillor David Simpson, the Leader of Council, 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: Could the Leader please outline the three main priorities that he will be focussing on for the next six months? In response, the Leader stated that the priorities he would be focussing on would be in relation to the budget as everything came back to the budget. Simplifying his priorities into the main three ones given the extraordinary demands and pressures being experienced by the Authority, he stated it is not a straight forward process and risks potentially over-simplifying the situation or appearing not to highlight some extremely pressing areas. However, he agreed with the inference that Councillor Adams placed in the question that focus on the substantial priorities is particularly important. Given the unprecedented financial challenges being experienced across the country and in particular in the public sector and by the public here in Pembrokeshire, and also taking into consideration the corporate areas of highest risk reflected in the Risk Register, the Leader stated that the main priorities for the next six months are: 1. The budget including the in-year position, next year’s budget and the Medium Term Financial Plan. He stated that the Authority was in unprecedented times in this respect with the highest inflation for 40 years. Establishing a sustainable budget and plan for the next four years while protecting service delivery for the public is going to be extremely difficult but essential. He expressed the importance of everybody working together and making a contribution in the future and especially in the next six months. 2. Maintaining high quality Social Care against increasing demand in both adults and children. He stated the Authority was witnessing increased demand for both adult and children’s social care. Additional support has been provided to meet this demand as well support the Health Board by providing more capacity to help ease the pressure in the Hospitals through Operation Nightingale. Maintaining that quantity and quality of care is a key priority he added. 3. Housing and reducing Homelessness. He stated that the Authority was witnessing unprecedented demand for primary residential dwellings in Pembrokeshire and the homelessness situation had risen significantly over the last four years. There were now over 600 people registered as homeless and requiring accommodation. 4. Workforce. The Leader stated that the Authority is the largest employer in the County with a committed, dedicated and selfless staff who have remained resilient and loyal to public service throughout a period of sustained national crisis. While the Authority has now emerged out of the pandemic, he stated that the pressures placed on our people to deliver more and more with less are significant. That is why, he added, that the Authority was placing high priority on our people and the Forward Workforce Plan.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED That the matter be referred to the Constitutional Review Committee. [Councillor Aled Thomas wished that his vote against the above decision was recorded.]
A Notice of Motion was submitted by Councillor Jacob Williams in the following terms: That Pembrokeshire County Council confers the title of Honorary Alderman to Mr. Peter Alan Stock of Haverfordwest, in recognition of his long service to local government in Pembrokeshire and his promotion of the county. Council was advised that it was recommended that the Notice of Motion be referred to the Constitutional Review Committee for consideration. Councillor Jacob Williams pointed out that it was a matter for Council to decide where a Notice of Motion was referred and he did not support the referral to the Constitutional Review Committee. He stated that under the terms of Section 249 of the Local Government Act 1972, Council had the power to confer the title of Honorary Alderman and that it required the decision to be made at an Extraordinary Meeting of Council. He then Moved that the matter be referred to an Extraordinary Meeting of Council; Seconded by Councillor Tim Evans. The Head of Law and Governance confirmed that a specially convened meeting of Council would need to be arranged for the purpose. She drew Council’s attention to a previous decision of Council in 2005 which had resolved not to confer any honorary titles on former Members. On that basis, she stated that there was no policy, procedure or criteria for considering such requests and recommended that it be referred to the Constitutional Review Committee in the first instance to consider the matter prior to an Extraordinary Meeting of Council. The decision of Council made on 19 May 2005 in this matter was outlined for Members’ information. The Chair of the Constitutional Review Committee advised that he was content for the Committee to consider the matter. Councillor Viv Stoddart stated that she did not support calling an additional Committee to consider the matter beforehand on the basis that Members could make up their own minds on the merits or otherwise of the Notice of Motion. Councillor Williams pointed out that the vote on the appointment would be undertaken by a secret ballot. Councillor Rhys Sinnett supported the referral to the Constitutional Review Committee to develop a policy as there were other worthy people who could be considered if there was a policy. The Leader concurred with developing a policy to look at the matter. Councillor Mark Carter expressed his support for the referral to the Constitutional Review Committee. Councillors Paul Miller and Reg Owens advised they did not support the Notice of Motion. Councillor Tim Evans advised that he was withdrawing his seconding of the Motion on the basis that he would prefer the matter to be discussed by the Committee in the first instance. Councillor Bethan Price advised that she would then second the Motion. On a point of clarification, the Head of Law and Governance outlined the role of an Honorary Alderman and the financial implications. [At this juncture, the meeting was advised that the remote attendees had left the meeting as the webcast had been stopped.] The Motion to refer the Notice of Motion to an Extraordinary Meeting of Council was put to the vote. The vote, undertaken by a way of an electronic vote, was lost. The votes were recorded as follows: For the Motion: Councillors Steve Alderman, Nicola Gwynn, Mel Phillips, Bethan Price, Sam Skyrme-Blackhall, Jacob Williams and Simon Wright [7] Against the Motion: Councillors Alistair Cameron, Mark Carter, Alec Cormack, Terry Davies, Alan Dennison, Tim Evans, Brian Hall, Simon Hancock, Delme Harries, Jon Harvey, Rhys Jordan, David Simpson, Rhys Sinnett, Aled Thomas, Vanessa Thomas and Chris Williams [16] Abstentions: Councillor Huw Murphy [1] The vote having been lost, the Presiding Member then Moved that the Notice of Motion be referred to the Constitutional Review Committee; Seconded by Councillor Brian Hall. The vote, undertaken by a way of a show of hands, was carried. RESOLVED That the matter be referred to the Constitutional Review Committee. [Councillor Aled Thomas wished that his vote against the above decision was recorded.]
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED That the matter be referred to Cabinet.
A Notice of Motion was submitted by Councillor Di Clements in the following terms: That this Council considers that properties which are used for self-catering accommodation, and are paying the second homes council tax premium, are entitled to a waste kerbside collection from Pembrokeshire County Council at no extra cost. Moved by Councillor Brian Hall; Seconded by the Presiding Member The vote, undertaken by a way of a show of hands, was carried. RESOLVED That the matter be referred to Cabinet.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED That the matter be referred to Cabinet.
A Notice of Motion was submitted by Councillor Mike Stoddart in the following terms: Given the large projected funding gap in next year's budget, this council resolves that any steps taken towards reducing its Carbon Dioxide emissions should be revenue neutral. Moved by Councillor Brian Hall; Seconded by Councillor Tim Evans The vote, undertaken by a way of a show of hands, was carried. RESOLVED That the matter be referred to Cabinet.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED That the matter be referred to Cabinet.
A Notice of Motion was submitted by Councillor Huw Murphy in the following terms: That PCC use its discretionary relief policy regarding the current 182-day occupancy limit for self-catering holiday accommodation that previously paid business rates and reduce the eligibility criteria to 140 days (20 weeks) within Pembrokeshire as being fairer and more supportive of the tourism industry within the County. Tourism is a key component of the Pembrokeshire economy since time immemorial, but more so on the coast and rural areas, and employ a significant number of people both full and part time and is key in supporting many small self-employed businesses. In the current economic crisis PCC need to use every tool at its disposal in supporting these businesses to survive and thrive and the reduction of the number of letting days to 140 required by self-catering accommodation providers to qualify for non-domestic rates would be welcomed by many involved in tourism in the County. Moved by Councillor Delme Harries; Seconded by Councillor Huw Murphy The vote, undertaken by a way of a show of hands, was carried. RESOLVED That the matter be referred to Cabinet.
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.