Loading
The decisions as the council's minutes record them. A plain-language summary follows once it has been written.
RESOLVED That the progress being made on the revised Corporate Governance Improvement Plan, be noted.
RESOLVED That the report be noted and that the legal action outlined be supported.
RESOLVED That the resolution of the Planning Committee be endorsed, subject to the conditions outlined below: • Time period for implementation • Compliance with approved plans / documents • Lifetime of the consent limited to 25 years. • An updated traffic management plan to be submitted for approval • An aviation charting and safety management scheme to be submitted for approval • Blades, nacelle and the supporting mast to be painted white • Aviation lighting details to be submitted for approval and implemented as approved • An operational phase monitoring scheme to protect biodiversity interests to be submitted for approval • A curtailment protocol to protect biodiversity interests to be submitted for approval • A blade management protocol to accommodate high wind speeds to be submitted for approval • Provision and retention of biodiversity enhancement measures
RESOLVED That the Strategic Equalities Action Plan Working Group consider the Notice of Motion and develop an Anti-Racist Action Plan; and that the membership of the Group be increased to include elected Members. [Councillor Jamie Adams left the meeting at this juncture.]
RESOLVED That the proposed guidance for flag raising and County Hall light up requests, be approved, subject to the following amendment: 14. Any flag flying will be carried out in the most cost effective manner. With regards to other requests, the requester must pay for the flag, however the Council will identify the flag that complies with the appropriate standard. The payment and flag must be provided a working week before it is raised.
RESOLVED That an increase in the funding envelope for Band B of the Sustainable Communities for Learning Programme be approved, to reflect the new project cost of the Portfield School redevelopment of £28,881,940.
RESOLVED (a) That the Statement of Accounts for 2022-23 and the Tenby and Lower Fishguard Harbour’s Authority Annual Return for 2022-23, be reviewed, and that the Audit Wales Audit of Accounts Report and Audit Opinion (ISA 260) be considered. (b) That the Statement of Accounts for 2022-23 and the Tenby and Lower Fishguard Harbours’ Authority Annual Return for 2022-23, be approved and signed.
RESOLVED That, in accordance with Section 2.4.2 of the Constitution, the updated Financial Procedure Rules be noted.
RESOLVED That Councillor Mike Stoddart be appointed to the Joint Scrutiny Committee for Celtic Freeport as the Unaffiliated Member. The vote for the Recommendation, undertaken by way of an electronic vote, was carried. The votes were recorded as follows: For the Motion: Councillors Steve Alderman, Maureen Bowen, Alistair Cameron, Aaron Carey, Di Clements, John Cole, Alec Cormack, John Davies, Pat Davies, Terry Davies, Alan Dennison, Tim Evans, Claire George, Jonathan Grimes, Nicola Gwynn, Brian Hall, Simon Hancock, Delme Harries, Jon Harvey, Tessa Hodgson, David Howlett, Mike James, Mike John, Rhys Jordan, Paul Miller, Elwyn Morse, Huw Murphy, Mel Phillips, Bethan Price, Neil Prior, Shon Rees, David Simpson, Rhys Sinnett, Sam Skyrme-Blackhall, Mike Stoddart, Viv Stoddart, Vanessa Thomas, Marc Tierney, Thomas Tudor, Iwan Ward, Michele Wiggins, Tony Wilcox, Michael Williams, Chris Williams, Jacob Williams, Simon Wright, Steve Yelland and Danny Young [48] There were no votes against or abstentions. RESOLVED (a) That the establishment of a Joint Scrutiny Committee for the Celtic Freeport Joint Committee, be approved on the terms identified in the Joint Committee Establishment Agreement attached at Appendix 1 to the report. (b) That four Members are appointed to the Joint Scrutiny Committee as set out in paragraph 9 of the report.
RESOLVED That the Assistant Chief Executive’s appointment in April 2022, to be retrospectively started at Spinal Point 2 with appropriate annual adjustments to spinal points thereafter and the payment of appropriate back pay, be authorised.
RESOLVED That Voluntary Severance Applications 1 and 2, as outlined in the report, be approved. The webcast was then resumed.
In welcoming everyone to the meeting, the Presiding Member made the following announcements:
The Presiding Member firstly wished to express his sincere condolences to the family of Anna Wilson who sadly passed away recently. He stated that she was a very professional and wonderful person, who had worked for the Council in the Communications Team for over 20 years, and that it was a tragic loss. He extended his deepest and sincerest condolences to her partner and children. The Presiding Member also wished to extend deep condolences to the Vice Chair, Councillor Steve Alderman and his family, on the recent death of his mother-in-law. The Presiding Member then welcomed the newly Elected Member, Councillor Claire George, for the St Ishmael’s Ward.
The Chair wished to express his sincere condolences to the family of Anna Wilson, and Councillor Steve Alderman and his family, for their recent losses. He then welcomed the newly Elected Member, Councillor Claire George. The Chair then thanked all those involved with the organisation and the supporting of the recent Police and Crime Commissioner Election. He also wished to congratulate the Scolton Manor Museum service for a very successful accreditation process, and praised the impressive service, commitment and delivery engagement. The Chair then outlined his recent engagements, which included an opening exhibition of the lyrical life of Dylan Thomas at Llanafan, a visit to Pembrokeshire College unlocking the potential of community youth voice and participation, and the unveiling of a Covid-19 memorial stone and plaque in memory of those who lost their lives during the Covid-19 pandemic. He also visited the Maritime Museum in Pembroke Dock, officiated at the Freeman of Pembroke Ceremony, attended the 10th Anniversary of the Pembroke Dock Heritage Centre, and officially opened the NHS 111 Wales Service Centre, which was based in the Haverfordwest Ambulance Station. The Chair also attended the opening of the Hywel Dda Health Board Acute Fertility Unit at Withybush General Hospital, as well as a meeting at County Hall with Dr Neil Wooding, the newly appointed Chair of the Health Board. He also officially opened the Milford Haven School GCSE art exhibition for 2024 and congratulated all on their excellent work. The Chair then highlighted a visit to the Haverfordwest Fire Station, where a presentation was provided by the Mid and West Wales Fire and Rescue Service, as well as a demonstration of current equipment.
The following declarations were made: Item 19 – Sustainable Communities for Learning Rolling Programme Portfield School Redevelopment Councillor Tim Evans declared a personal interest by virtue of being a Governor of Portfield School. Item 22 – Establishment of Joint Scrutiny Committee for Celtic Freeport Councillor Tessa Hodgson declared a personal and prejudicial interest by virtue of her husband working for the Milford Haven Port Authority, but stated that she had dispensation to speak and vote. Item 35 – Question submitted by Councillor Alan Dennison under Council Procedure Rule 4.18 - Costs for increased domiciliary care Councillor Paul Miller declared a personal and prejudicial interest by virtue of being the Director of the Neyland Community Interest Care (CIC). Councillor Tom Tudor referred to the Hywel Dda Health Board during Item 2 (Chair’s Announcements) and therefore declared a personal and prejudicial interest by virtue of being employed by the Health Board.
Council considered the Minutes of the meeting held on 7 March 2024. The Minutes were Moved by Councillor Simon Hancock; Seconded by Councillor Brian Hall. Councillor Michael Stoddart wished to correct his declaration as follows: Councillor Michael Stoddart declared a personal and prejudicial interest by virtue of his daughter being employed at Pembrokeshire College and advised that he had a dispensation to speak only. Councillor Michael John highlighted that the incorrect Committee had been quoted in regards to the Notice of Motion relating to Anti-Racist Pembrokeshire County Council Action Plan, and wished to amend to say the Corporate Overview and Scrutiny Committee, rather than Cabinet. The vote, undertaken by way of a show of hands, was carried. RESOLVED That the Minutes of the Meeting held on 7 March 2024 be approved as a correct record, subject to the following corrections: • Minute 133 Item 16 – Revised Memorandum of Understanding for the delivery of Post-16 Education in Pembrokeshire Councillor Michael Stoddart declared a personal and prejudicial interest by virtue of his daughter being employed at Pembrokeshire College and advised that he had a dispensation to speak only. • Minute 163 Notice of Motion relating to Anti-Racist Pembrokeshire County Council Action Plan Upon the terms of Council Procedure Rule 4.19.6, the Motion having been Moved by Councillor Simon Hancock; Seconded by Councillor John Harvey then stood referred to the Corporate Overview and Scrutiny Committee.
Councillor Guy Woodham the relevant Cabinet Member, responded to a question submitted by a member of the public, Valerie Sutherland, prior to the meeting in accordance with the provisions of Council Procedure Rule 4.17 as follows: Given the legal challenge to the RSE curriculum by concerned parents against Welsh Government, can you confirm the Council's safeguarding team are happy that the RSE education provided is both age appropriate and does not constitute grooming? Secondly, given that a number of parents are unhappy about the content of the new curriculum and the loss of their right to withdraw children from classes, particularly in light of the Cass Review, how are you ensuring that parents’ values are respected and that trust in schools is not eroded? In response, Councillor Woodham stated that the Safeguarding in Education Team had been actively involved in supporting the development of age appropriate content with schools. In Faith Schools, he stated that work had been done with each diocese to ensure that an appropriate curriculum was being followed. For example, in the Catholic Sector, ten resources were being used and these had been shared with families. He stated that each school had created and developed a curriculum plan for RSE and had shared this with parents of learners at their schools. He stated that parents had been provided with information by their school about how to raise concerns about the RSE curriculum, following the decision to make RSE mandatory for all learners. Councillor Woodham highlighted that schools were working with families through the challenges that this brings. Each school community was said to have provided sessions for parents on the RSE curriculum, and when changes were made to the curriculum, parents were being informed and were provided with opportunities to discuss with the school. He explained that respectful and trusting relationships had been built by nearly all schools around the RSE curriculum, and encouraged parents to follow the school complaints policy, should they have any concerns.
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 4.17 as follows: Are Councillors aware of the extent of the proposed boundary of the Celtic Freeport and if so could they provide me with a boundary map? I understand that PCC have a seat on the board of the Celtic Freeport. Considering the Freeport boundary may include residential areas and that planning and/or other regulations may be “relaxed” in the Freeport area how will Council avoid and resolve any conflict between Freeport interest and resident interests? In response, Councillor Miller stated that the boundary map would not be published until after the Outline Business Case was approved, and until tax sites had been designated by His Majesty's Revenue and Customs, which was anticipated in early summer. He explained that the Freeport tax sites themselves would not include any residential areas, and the current position, as understood, was that there was unlikely to be any relaxation of planning controls across the Freeport area as a whole. Councillor Miller stated that he and the team remained in dialogue with both Welsh and UK Governments to establish that, and highlighted that the Authority would be kept informed as usual.
Councillor Rhys Sinnett, the relevant Cabinet Member, responded to a question submitted by a member of the public, Sharon Purcell, prior to the meeting in accordance with the provisions of Council Procedure Rule 4.17 as follows: In relation to the Environment (Air Quality and Soundscapes) (Wales) Bill, what advice has the Council received regarding planned clean air zones or road user charging with a view to introducing schemes to address these issues in the future? In response, Councillor Sinnett stated that there were currently no charging clean air zones in Wales, and that there were no plans for any that the Authority was aware of. In terms of road user charging, he explained that the Welsh Government commissioned a report of an independent review into road user charging in Wales in 2020. In addition, Councillor Sinnett highlighted the Welsh Government's Wales Transport Strategy, referred to developing a framework for fair and equitable road user charging in Wales. He stated that Welsh Government thought that road charges could fund improvements in public transport and reduce the number of vehicles on the road, however there were currently no plans across Wales for any, and no guidance had been received.
Councillor Rhys Sinnett, the relevant Cabinet Member, responded to a question submitted by a member of the public, Sharon Purcell, prior to the meeting in accordance with the provisions of Council Procedure Rule 4.17 as follows: Are there any plans for Local Traffic Neighbourhoods to be introduced and if so, where? In response, Councillor Sinnett stated that no local traffic neighbourhoods or low traffic neighbourhoods were planned for Pembrokeshire. He explained that they did not feature in any current guidance or strategy that the Authority was aware of for Wales.
Councillor Guy Woodham, 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 4.17 as follows: Last year for Clean Air Day, the coalition Healthy Air Cymru organised a competition for schoolchildren. The results can be seen on their website:- Wales’s polluted primary schools take action on Clean Air Day healthyair.cymru However, the children had been given misinformation regarding air pollution and are quoting over 2,000 deaths per year from AP which contradicts Public Health Wales estimates. (https://phw.nhs.wales/services-and-teams/environmental-public-health/air-quality/air-pollution-and-health-fact-sheet/) Can the cabinet assure parents in Pembrokeshire that schools are reminded of the importance of teaching children incontrovertible facts regarding scientific information, rather than hyperbole? I ask this as a former teacher and a grandmother. In response, Councillor Woodham provided assurance that all schools took into account a range of factors when looking at scientific information. When designing a curriculum, he stated that the practitioner’s knowledge and understanding of the topic to being taught was essential, and that school staff were required to gather information from a range of sources when a particular topic was being taught. The role of staff was to help learners to discern what was fact from what was not. He explained that children were now being taught the skills to help them work out whether a source was biased in some way or not, or whether it had any particular challenges or limitations to those facts. Councillor Woodham stated that the curriculum was now designed in such a way that this was done in a progressive and cyclical manner, so that the required skills and knowledge to make judgements about knowledge that they come across from a range of sources. He stated that learners were provided with opportunities to challenge information that they found from a range of sources, and this was especially true of sources of information that they or school staff found on the internet. This was said to be increasingly important, as mis-information and biased information could be found all over the internet. Ready access to vast amounts of data required all learners to be able to assess inputs critically, understand the basis of information presented as fact, and make informed judgements that impact their own behaviours and values. Learners needed to be able to evaluate scientific claims to help make informed decisions that affected the environment and well-being, including regarding the climate and nature emergency. The choices learners made depended on many factors, including moral viewpoints and personal beliefs. However, Councillor Woodham stated that rigorous and robust evidence-based research provided a solid foundation on which to base decisions. He explained that progression was demonstrated by learners exploring and experiencing increasingly complex ideas and concepts that sat within the statements of what matters. Knowledge moved through exploration from a personal understanding of the world to an abstract view, which enabled learners to conceptualise and justify their understandings. Councillor Woodham stated that progression of learning was not linear but cyclical, with learners revisiting existing knowledge, linking this with their new learning, and adjusting schema in light of new discovery. Investigative skills and domain specific knowledge, which were developed within the context of what matters statements, were built upon so knowledge was acquired and then could be applied. Problems within science and technology involve ethical or moral dilemmas, and it was an increased understanding in the way in which these dilemmas were or even should be approached, which would signify progression. Councillor Woodham stated that descriptions of learning provided guidance on how learners should progress within each statement of what matters, as they journey through the continuum of learning. In Being Curious and Searching for Answers is Essential to Understanding and Predicting Phenomena, he stated that the progression was clearly identified at each of the five progression steps that enabled learners to effectively acquire scientific knowledge and facts, such as those related to air pollution as mentioned in the question. Overtime, Councillor Woodham highlighted that learners would be expected to be able to effectively challenge both sources of information, as neither might contain incontrovertible facts.
Councillor Rhys Sinnett, the relevant Cabinet Member, responded to a question submitted by a member of the public, Fran Hathaway, prior to the meeting in accordance with the provisions of Council Procedure Rule 4.17 as follows: When is PCC going to protect my right as a resident to clean air? I am being slowly poisoned in my own home and garden. The situation at Withyhedge Landfill Site is totally unacceptable. I would like to know why on earth you feel you have no power to stop the lorries coming - or indeed why do you not feel able to stand up to NRW and RML? In response, Councillor Rhys Sinnett stated that the Authority recognised the frustration and distress that the ongoing malodour and operations had on local residents and businesses, which was why the Authority was committed towards seeking a resolution to this ongoing situation. He referred to the Council report included as Agenda item 15 of the meeting, where an update position on Withyhedge would be provided, and further debate would take place. He explained that the report outlined the current position and legal steps the Council was taking. Councillor Sinnett stated that a press statement was issued on the 2 May 2024, which detailed the Authority’s position, and that the Authority had served Resources Management Limited (RML) with a letter of claim and invited them to give legally binding undertakings to abate the odour nuisance or face legal proceedings. The Authority also asked for disclosure of documents relevant to the proceedings, including records of waste brought in or removed from the landfill. Unfortunately, it was said that the legal powers of the Authority, and that of the highways or other environmental legislation, would not allow the Authority to stop the volume or flow of lorries to the site. He stated that the Authority also continued to work closely with Natural Resources Wales (NRW) as the site regulator, to do everything possible to compel the company to take the necessary corrective action. He explained that the Authority would continue to formally assess the situation through to and beyond the new deadline given to RML of 14 May 2024, to comply with the latest NRW enforcement notice.
Councillor Rhys Sinnett, the relevant Cabinet Member, responded to a question submitted by a member of the public, Lesley Newcombe, prior to the meeting in accordance with the provisions of Council Procedure Rule 4.17 as follows: The Council extended the planning permission on the waste recycling facility and waste transfer station at Withyhedge by 20 years (until 2040) in 2019. This planning extension was argued for, on the basis that there was a continued need for a recycling facility and that concerns about traffic were not enough to deny the application. As the site is now being used for a completely different purpose by RML Ltd (Dauson Group), basically a dumping ground for Landfill waste (with a separate environmental permit) does this not constitute a change of the intended use of the MRFWTS in planning terms? If the planning permission had not been extended in 2019, would the Council not agree that RML Ltd would not be able to use current practices, that is, they would have to deliver straight onto the landfill with smaller, better adapted vehicles? In response, Councillor Sinnett stated that the use of the Material Recycling Facility and Waste Transfer Station (MRFWTS), for the depositing of waste prior to landfill, was an integral part of the operations of the recycling facility. He explained that even though recycling operations had ceased at the site, the continued deposition of waste did not constitute a material change of use in planning terms. He explained that had the planning permission not been extended in 2019, the Local Planning Authority was of the opinion that the waste could still have been deposited at the site, prior to landfill.
Councillor Rhys Sinnett, the relevant Cabinet Member, responded to a question submitted by a member of the public, Allen Alcock, prior to the meeting in accordance with the provisions of Council Procedure Rule 4.17 as follows: Will this Council agree that it is has violated the rights of those living and working in and around the environs of the Withyhedge Landfill site of up to 10 miles radius, rights granted under the European Convention on Human Rights and the Human Rights Act (H.R.A.) 1998 Protocol 1 Article 1 which states “Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions or enjoyment thereof, except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law’, and therefore will instruct it’s legal department to voluntarily submits itself to judicial review to determine an appropriate level and format of redress, compensation, and other remedies, to remedy as far as possible the rights that have been breached? Will this Council further agree to encourage other parties involved in the above violation of the European Convention on Human Rights and the Human Rights Act 1998 Protocol 1 Article 1, such as National Resources Wales, and the various companies owned/managed by Mr David Neal (note Mr. Neal’s companies are subject to the H.R.A. as waste disposal is considered a public function) to submit themselves to judicial review to determine an appropriate level and format of redress, compensation, and other , to remedy as far as possible the rights that have been breached? In response, Councillor Sinnett stated that Article 1 of Protocol 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights, prohibits the unlawful seizure or interference with private property by the state. He explained that when private individuals infringe upon these rights, the state's obligation was limited to ensuring adequate protection of the victim's property rights through civil remedies, as established in the case of Blumberga v. Latvia. As justice in Wales was reserved to Westminster, he stated that the obligation did not extend to the Authority. He stated that the Authority had conducted a thorough examination to ascertain any potential breaches of other articles within the convention, and had concluded it had met its obligations. This included a consideration of precedents set from relevant case law from similar circumstances across the UK. The Authority had acted in that it had referred matters to Natural Resources Wales (NRW) as regulator, ensuring appropriate steps were being taken, and was taking additional steps to address the odour issues. Councillor Sinnett explained that last month, the Authority served a letter of claim and invited the operator to give legally binding undertakings by 14 May 2024, or else the Authority would start legal proceedings. He explained that the Authority would not comment on the legal position in respect of NRW or Resources Management Limited (RML), and that the Authority did not accept any breach of the Human Rights Act convention, and would not submit itself to judicial review.
Councillor Tessa Hodgson, the relevant Cabinet Member, responded to a question submitted by a member of the public, Peter Walsh, prior to the meeting in accordance with the provisions of Council Procedure Rule 4.17 as follows: Is the Council aware of the huge impact the impending closure of the Anchorage Adult Day-care Centre in Pembroke Dock is already having to the health and mental wellbeing of my daughter and 20 other vulnerable adults with special needs and learning difficulties, who are unable to cope with changes to routine, or to process and understand what is happening to them, and would the Council, therefore, please review its closure decision and retain the Centre and the vital and invaluable service it provides not only to the individuals concerned but also to the parents? If not, what specific measures does the cabinet member have in place to support my daughter and these other individuals who need extra assistance to enable them to maintain their independence, value & allow their carers to have valuable respite from their caring responsibilities and what are the estimated costs for these substitute measures? In response, Councillor Hodgson stated that engagement with service users, carers and families commenced immediately after staff were informed of the potential closure of the Anchorage Day Centre, following the Council's budget setting decision on 7 March 2024. She stated that two events were arranged at the Anchorage, the first on 10 April 2024, which confirmed that people attending the day centre would meet with their allocated worker to review their current care and support plans, and to have a conversation about what a good day looked like in terms of structure. She explained that carers and families were also made aware of the proposal of closure. The second event was said to have taken place on 17 April 2024, in the first instance to discuss the proposed closure for those unable to make the first date, and also to explore a long list of alternative day opportunities already available in the community. Councillor Hodgson then confirmed that all people attending the Anchorage would have the opportunity to attend short sessions in other day services, so that they were able to fully explore which service was best suited to their needs and wants. She stated that families would be actively encouraged to attend these sessions if they were able, and that all service users who attended the Anchorage would be offered alternative day services, in order to maintain their own independence and also to support the caring needs of their families. Councillor Hodgson explained that these assessments were still taking place and were likely to do so until at least the end of May. Councillor Hodgson stated that she was not currently able to quantify the estimated cost of these new arrangements, until all the assessments and new care plans were in place. She stated that she would be very happy to give an update to Mr Welsh and Council when that information was available.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED That the progress being made on the revised Corporate Governance Improvement Plan, be noted.
Council considered a joint report by the Assistant Chief Executive and the Head of Law and Governance, which provided an update on progress against the Corporate Governance Improvement Plan 2022-24, along with a revised updated Improvement Plan for consideration. Councillor Neil Prior, Cabinet Member with responsibility for Corporate Improvement and Communities, introduced the report and stated that Members had been kept informed of this topic since February 2022, with frequent scrutiny by full Council and the Governance and Audit Committee. Councillor Prior then referenced the progress made on the plan, and stated that much progress had been made relating to the implementation of the new Constitution. He then drew Members’ attention to the next event being the Audit Wales follow up review. Councillor Neil Prior Moved the Recommendation; Seconded by Councillor Jon Harvey. Councillor Alistair Cameron referred to Part 1-A2 of the plan, which outlined Member / Officer Protocol, and sought clarification as to what had been done to review the budget setting procedures, and questioned whether this aspect should continue as a live item. Councillor Prior stated that from a Cabinet point of view, Officer / Member relationships were very strong and very productive. He believed this matter had recently been to the Governance and Audit Committee, as well as there being a Notice of Motion relating to this topic, which was being progressed. The Chief Executive stated that progress was being made on the matter and that Audit Wales was due to conduct a further assessment in relation to the public interest report recommendations, the results of which would come before Council later in the year, before the plan was concluded. He also referred to a few other elements that had not yet been concluded, therefore a view from Audit Wales would be taken later in the year and then brought to Council. Councillor Aled Thomas referred to a few points in the plan where the actions had not yet been completed, and asked how confident the Cabinet Member was in terms of the outstanding actions being completed. In response, Councillor Prior stated that he was confident that significant progress had been made over the last few years, and was confident in the actions of Officers. He acknowledged that there was going to be delays due to diminishing resources, increased pressures and the notable financial challenges being faced. However, he believed that the work of Officers should be applauded and reiterated his confidence in the actions being completed. The vote, undertaken by way of a show of hands, was carried. RESOLVED That the progress being made on the revised Corporate Governance Improvement Plan, be noted.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED That the report be noted and that the legal action outlined be supported.
[Councillor John Davies joined the meeting remotely, and Councillor Joshua Beynon joined the meeting in person at this juncture.] Council considered a joint report by the Assistant Chief Executive, the Head of Housing and Public Protection, and the Chair of the Services Overview and Scrutiny Committee, which outlined an update regarding the Withyhedge Landfill Site. Councillor Rhys Sinnett, Cabinet Member with responsibility for Residents’ Services, introduced the report and stated that it related to the matter of ongoing community concerns in respect of activities arising from the Withyhedge Landfill Site, specifically related to odour and air quality impacts on health. He then referred to the detailed consideration of actions taken to date, as outlined in the report, which included enforcement notices, press releases from Natural Resources Wales (NRW) detailing their actions and next steps, and Council Officers working closely with NRW and Public Health Wales. Councillor Sinnett also highlighted that air quality monitoring had commenced, with the results to be shared with ‘Stop the Stink’ representatives, as well as it being included on the Council webpages. The Authority had also commissioned an external specialist company, Ricardo, who had significant experience of assessing air quality of a site with a similar problem, with the funding of this work said to be jointly shared by the Council and NRW. Councillor Sinnett stated that the report also outlined the outcome of legal advice sought, if the malodour persisted following the 14 May deadline. He explained that the recommendation from King's Counsel on the most suitable course of action for the Authority, was to issue a claim for public nuisance at common law. Councillor Rhys Sinnett Moved the Recommendation; Seconded by Councillor Simon Hancock. Councillor Peter Morgan sought clarification as to whether it was possible for applications to be put forward in the future in relation to the site. In response, Councillor Sinnett stated that the site was owned by Resources Management Limited (RML) and was unaware that any other operators were involved. The Head of Housing and Public Protection then stated that it would be down to NRW as a regulatory function in regards to issuing permits, or changes to a permit. Councillor Steve Yelland referred to a meeting with the resident group on the matter, and stated that he was not confident that NRW would issue a Section 37 Notice, which would limit operations at the site. He welcomed the progress the Authority had made however, and thanked the Chief Executive for being keen to resolve the issue. Councillor Tom Tudor welcomed the report and the work done by the Authority. He then referenced risk of spontaneous combustion, as raised by his constituents, and asked for a report to be received from the Fire Authority on the topic. In response, the Assistant Chief Executive explained that fires in waste from spontaneous combustion was a risk, but stated that it should be part of the site’s risk assessment for management of the site. He suggested that this particular matter would be taken away as an action to review and feedback to Council. Councillor Michael John stated that he was fully supportive of the ‘Stop the Stink’ campaign and highlighted that the problems continued and had become worse since the original cut off of 5 April for the company to improve. He also stated his support for the outlined legal action to be taken by the Authority. Councillor John then sought clarification as to whether there was any further legal action that could be undertaken to overcome the issue, and questioned whether the costs for such legal action should be passed over to the company, or claimed back after the fact. In response, the Solicitor explained that the best option, as recommended by external legal advice, was the common law public nuisance claim, as case law indicated that when there was an environmental regulator like NRW taking action, it was not for the Local Authority to get in the way. The Solicitor stated that he had received a letter from the company’s solicitors, stating that they would respond to the Authority’s letter of claim within the time stipulated. In response to the question regarding the cost of the legal advice, the Chief Executive stated that he would seek to recover the costs where possible. Councillor Jacob Williams asked how the response from the company would be legally encapsulated. The Solicitor explained that potentially a Part 8 claim could be issued, which was a type of claim where all the facts were agreed whilst a legal remedy was being established. He stated that if such a claim was issued and the company was to breach the claim, they would then be guilty of contempt of court. Councillor Jacob Williams then referred to the letter attached to the report as Appendix A, and believed that there could be more reference to the impact on residents’ physical health as a result of the ongoing issue. He suggested that the letter from the Authority could be contested without direct threat to physical health. In response, the Solicitor believed that the lack of evidence regarding the impact on health would not harm the Authority’s case, and stated that there was other clear evidence for a public nuisance claim. The Head of Housing and Public Protection referred to the current monitoring that was being undertaken, in order to collate further data regarding health issues, as a result of the malodour. The Chief Executive added that the additional level of monitoring undertaken with NRW, under the Authority’s complete control, would seek to gather as much possible evidence on gas emissions, which would then be taken forward for discussions with Public Health Wales. Councillor Alistair Cameron referred to the traffic side of the issue and the amount of lorries visiting the site, and questioned whether this aspect was being monitored. In response, the Chief Executive explained that the amount of lorries visiting the site was currently within their legal permit, as some were necessary for NRW, with the site permitted to take a certain amount of rubbish per year. He then referred to the longer term issue of how the site would be run in the future. Councillor Michelle Bateman asked how confident the Authority was that NRW would push forward with some of the options that they had articulated if the deadlines were not met. She also sought clarification in regards to the process going forward, in terms of a further report on information received by the company’s solicitors going to the relevant Overview and Scrutiny Committee or full Council. In response, the Chief Executive stated that the enforcement notices issued by NRW required the company to undertake a series of technical actions, under a Section 36 Notice. He also referred to the fact that NRW had said publicly that they were considering a Section 37 Notice, which would essentially remove the company’s current permit. Councillor Elwyn Morse sought clarification as to what proportion of waste at Withyhedge Landfill was organic matter, and whether there was a handle on what type of waste was being added to the site. In response, Councillor Sinnett stated that it had been confirmed by RML that the waste was commercial only, but there no evidence whether there was any organic matter within that commercial waste. In regards to the amount of waste, the Assistant Chief Executive stated that the site was permitted to receive around 250,000 tons a year. He explained that organic matter was not the only cause of hydrogen sulphide. The Presiding Member then informed Members that information on the matter would be brought to each Council meeting, in order to brief Members and keep them informed on the latest developments. Councillor Aled Thomas sought clarification as to what representations the Leader had made to Welsh Government to resolve this issue. In response, the Leader explained that he had brought the issue up on several occasions during meetings in Cardiff with Welsh Government representatives. He stated that it was up to the appropriate Cabinet Member to make representations, and highlighted the work going on behind the scenes, as well as the Chief Executive also making various representations. Councillor Tim Evans sought clarification as to what percentage of Pembrokeshire’s waste went to the Withyhedge Landfill site. In response, the Assistant Chief Executive stated that the amount was around 1,500 tonnes over the last 12 months. The vote, undertaken by way of a show of hands, was carried. RESOLVED That the report be noted and that the legal action outlined be supported.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED That the resolution of the Planning Committee be endorsed, subject to the conditions outlined below: • Time period for implementation • Compliance with approved plans / documents • Lifetime of the consent limited to 25 years. • An updated traffic management plan to be submitted for approval • An aviation charting and safety management scheme to be submitted for approval • Blades, nacelle and the supporting mast to be painted white • Aviation lighting details to be submitted for approval and implemented as approved • An operational phase monitoring scheme to protect biodiversity interests to be submitted for approval • A curtailment protocol to protect biodiversity interests to be submitted for approval • A blade management protocol to accommodate high wind speeds to be submitted for approval • Provision and retention of biodiversity enhancement measures
Council considered a report by the Head of Planning which outlined a Planning Application proposal relating to a single wind turbine and associated infrastructure. Councillor Jacob Williams, Chair of the Planning Committee, introduced the report and stated that the matter went before the Planning Committee on 9 January 2024, with the Recommendation being a refusal, however Members resolved to undertake a site visit. At the 12 March 2024 meeting, following the site visit, Members resolved that they were minded to support the approval of the application, with the reasoning outlined in the report. Councillor Williams also referred to the 25 year limit on consent should it be granted, which was resolved at the April meeting of the Planning Committee. Councillor Jacob Williams Moved Recommendation B endorsing the decision of the Planning Committee; Seconded by Councillor Brian Hall. Councillors Jordan Ryan and Peter Morgan stated their support for the application. As the local Member, Councillor John Davies also stated his support for the application and referred to the ethos of the site and how the turbine would tie in with all aspects of the site, specifically the environmental aspect, which he suggested significantly outweighed the marginal impact on the setting of the Grade II listed building. The Head of Planning then wished to highlight the Council’s Historic Buildings and Conservation Officer’s view, which was that the proposed wind turbine would have a negative impact on the setting of the Grade II listed building. In her opinion, the impact of the turbine would be significant, and explained that Council, by law, must have special regard to the importance of preserving the setting of a listed building. She also referred to the fact that no substantive evidence had been provided by the applicant to substantiate claims of the economic benefits. Councillor Alistair Cameron stated that he was minded to support the application, and as a result of the Planning Committee site visit, he believed that the impact would not be significant against the building. He also referred to the need to tackle climate change. Councillor Tony Wilcox pointed out that the turbine could not be viewed from the building. Councillor Di Clements sought clarification as to how the site would provide social benefits. Councillor John Davies explained the community benefits of the site, which included the function centre for events and community activities, the solar farm, national musical activities and that the building attracted television companies. Councillor Alec Cormack sought clarification as to whether economic benefits were material consideration or not. In response, the Head of Planning confirmed that any personal financial benefits of the applicant would not be considered material planning consideration. Councillor Mark Carter referred to the site visit and stated his full support for the application. Councillor Tessa Hodgson questioned how the turbine would compare to the turbines along the Haven, for example, in order for Members to compare the scale. She also sought clarification in regards to whether the electricity produced would be required for the sustainability of Rhosygilwen. In response, the Head of Planning explained that the scale of the turbine would have a hub height of 40 metres and a blade tip height of 62 metres, and would therefore be considered an industrial scale structure within the proposed rural landscape. She highlighted that it would be comparable in size to some of the turbines along the Haven, but would be considered a medium scale turbine, and would be approximately 400 metres away from the listed building. The Head of Planning then referred to the renewable energy generated from the turbine, and stated that the applicant had indicated that 90% of the electricity generated would go to the national grid, with 10% going into the running costs of providing energy for Rhosygilwen and the adjacent events centre. She pointed out that Officers did not have the information in terms of the energy needs for Rhosygilwen, in order to make a judgement. The Chief Planning Officer then confirmed that some of the turbines along the Haven, specifically Wear Point, were 40% larger than the proposed turbine for Rhosygilwen. Councillor John Cole also referred to the site visit of the Planning Committee and commented on the potential site location of the turbine. Councillor Mike Stoddart highlighted that the electricity produced by the turbine would be a small amount, and suggested that this aspect should be weighed against any harm to the environment of the listed building. Councillor Ryan referred to the appearance of the turbine and highlighted that it would be in place for only 25 years. He believed that if it reduced the amount of carbon dioxide going into the atmosphere then it should be done. The vote for Recommendation B, undertaken by way of an electronic vote, was carried. The votes were recorded as follows: For the Motion: Councillors Jamie Adams, Steve Alderman, Josh Beynon, Alistair Cameron, Aaron Carey, Mark Carter, John Cole, John Davies, Pat Davies, Terry Davies, Alan Dennison, Andrew Edwards, Tim Evans, Jonathan Grimes, Nicola Gwynn, Brian Hall, Delme Harries, David Howlett, Mike James, Mike John, Peter Morgan, Elwyn Morse, Mel Phillips, Bethan Price, Shon Rees, Jordan Ryan, Sam Skyrme-Blackhall, Aled Thomas, Vanessa Thomas, Marc Tierney, Anji Tinley, Iwan Ward, Michele Wiggins, Chris Williams, Jacob Williams, Simon Wright and Danny Young [37] Against the Motion: Councillors Michelle Bateman, Maureen Bowen, Di Clements, Alec Cormack, Simon Hancock, Jon Harvey, Tessa Hodgson, Rhys Jordan, Paul Miller, Neil Prior, David Simpson, Rhys Sinnett, Mike Stoddart, Viv Stoddart, Tony Wilcox, Michael Williams, Guy Woodham and Steve Yelland [18] Abstentions: Councillors Huw Murphy and Thomas Tudor [2] RESOLVED That the resolution of the Planning Committee be endorsed, subject to the conditions outlined below: • Time period for implementation • Compliance with approved plans / documents • Lifetime of the consent limited to 25 years. • An updated traffic management plan to be submitted for approval • An aviation charting and safety management scheme to be submitted for approval • Blades, nacelle and the supporting mast to be painted white • Aviation lighting details to be submitted for approval and implemented as approved • An operational phase monitoring scheme to protect biodiversity interests to be submitted for approval • A curtailment protocol to protect biodiversity interests to be submitted for approval • A blade management protocol to accommodate high wind speeds to be submitted for approval • Provision and retention of biodiversity enhancement measures
The meeting was paused at 12:11pm and resumed at 12:27pm.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED That the Strategic Equalities Action Plan Working Group consider the Notice of Motion and develop an Anti-Racist Action Plan; and that the membership of the Group be increased to include elected Members. [Councillor Jamie Adams left the meeting at this juncture.]
Council considered a report by the Head of Democratic Services which outlined the recommendation of the Corporate Overview and Scrutiny Committee in respect of the Notice of Motion (NOM) relating to an Anti-Racist Action Plan for Pembrokeshire County Council. Councillor Tom Tudor, originator of the NOM, introduced the report outlining the Motion and supporting statement, and welcomed the recommendation to develop an Anti-racism Action Plan, as well as improve Member representation on the Working Group. He then urged all Members to complete the mandatory training online. Councillor Michael John, the Chair of the Corporate Overview and Scrutiny Committee, referred to the Recommendation of the Committee at their last meeting and hoped that all Members would welcome the NOM. He also highlighted the need to increase the Membership of the Strategic Equalities Action Plan Working Group and for the Group to take on the development of an Anti-Racist Action Plan. Councillor Michael John Moved the Recommendation; Seconded by Councillor Guy Woodham. Councillor Guy Woodham asked whether it was within the power of the Working Group to set its Membership and to instigate the Recommendation of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee. In response, the Presiding Member advised that Membership was down to expressions of interest by Members. Councillor Woodham stated that if the Recommendation was approved, he would undertake to organise a meeting of the Working Group as soon as possible, in order to progress the matter. Councillor Alan Dennison questioned how many racism issues there had been in Pembrokeshire over the last 12 months. Councillor Woodham explained that the approach was not about looking at what had happened, but rather understanding that all Members had a part to play in ensuring that society was as equal as possible. He highlighted that the Working Group would consider all angles of the issue. The Director of Education added that the reporting of incidents where they involved a Local Authority staff or School staff member, were reported as part of the Strategic Equality Plan. He explained that the work of the Working Group was to ensure that an anti-racist lens was applied to all policies, practices and procedures, to secure the right training for Members and Officers within the Council, in order to provide the right support. Councillor Jonathan Grimes questioned whether the NOM included anti-Semitism. The Presiding Member explained that the NOM included any form of discrimination. Councillor Jamie Adams sought clarification as to whether the Welsh language was included within the scope of the NOM. Councillor Tudor confirmed this to be the case. Councillor John also referred to the mandatory Member training on the matter and also encouraged Members to complete it. Councillor Pat Davies asked who was the Equality Champion, to which the Presiding Member confirmed it to be Councillor Tom Tudor. Councillor Alec Cormack referenced the anti-racism workshop that took place in February 2024, and stated that it was an excellent session in enabling people to identify both conscious and unconscious racism, and to be prepared to stand up to people and challenge that sort of behaviour. Councillor Alan Dennison expressed his support for the NOM and wished to highlight that incidents often occurred without being recorded by staff members. Councillor Mike James stated his interest in being a Member on the Working Group. Councillor Tom Tudor encouraged people to join the Working Group in order to help with the aims of the NOM, and also stated his interest to be a part of the group. The vote, undertaken by way of an electronic vote, was carried. The votes were recorded as follows: For the Motion: Councillors Jamie Adams, Steve Alderman, Michelle Bateman, Josh Beynon, Maureen Bowen, Alistair Cameron, Aaron Carey, Mark Carter, Di Clements, John Cole, Alec Cormack, Pat Davies, Terry Davies, Alan Dennison, Andrew Edwards, Tim Evans, Claire George, Jonathan Grimes, Nicola Gwynn, Brian Hall, Simon Hancock, Delme Harries, Jon Harvey, Tessa Hodgson, David Howlett, Mike James, Mike John, Rhys Jordan, Paul Miller, Peter Morgan, Elwyn Morse, Huw Murphy, Mel Phillips, Bethan Price, Neil Prior, Shon Rees, Jordan Ryan, David Simpson, Rhys Sinnett, Sam Skyrme-Blackhall, Viv Stoddart, Aled Thomas, Vanessa Thomas, Marc Tierney, Anji Tinley, Thomas Tudor, Iwan Ward, Michele Wiggins, Tony Wilcox, Michael Williams, Chris Williams, Jacob Williams, Guy Woodham, Simon Wright, Steve Yelland and Danny Young [56] Against the Motion: Councillor Mike Stoddart [1] There were no abstentions. RESOLVED That the Strategic Equalities Action Plan Working Group consider the Notice of Motion and develop an Anti-Racist Action Plan; and that the membership of the Group be increased to include elected Members. [Councillor Jamie Adams left the meeting at this juncture.]
The meeting was paused at 12:57pm and resumed at 1:55pm. Councillor Mark Carter gave his apologies for the rest of the meeting. Councillors Andrew Edwards and Jordan Ryan were not present for the rest of the meeting.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED That the proposed guidance for flag raising and County Hall light up requests, be approved, subject to the following amendment: 14. Any flag flying will be carried out in the most cost effective manner. With regards to other requests, the requester must pay for the flag, however the Council will identify the flag that complies with the appropriate standard. The payment and flag must be provided a working week before it is raised.
Council considered a report by the Assistant Chief Executive which outlined proposed guidance for flag raising and County Hall light up requests, following the Recommendation from the Policy and Pre-Decision Overview and Scrutiny Committee. Councillor Joshua Beynon, Chair of the Policy and Pre-Decision Overview and Scrutiny Committee, introduced the report and stated that it came as a result of a question from Councillor Huw Murphy at the last full Council meeting in March 2024, and subsequent approval of the Recommendation from Policy and Pre-Decision Overview and Scrutiny Committee. He explained that a Task And Finish Group of cross party Members was established, and this group met on three occasions in April to consider the draft operational guidance. Councillor Beynon highlighted that the Presiding Member was in attendance as a non-voting member, as well as attending in his capacity as Member Champion for the Armed Forces. He stated that this matter was discussed and debated over the three meetings, followed by an Extraordinary Meeting of the Policy and Pre-Decision Overview and Scrutiny Committee to agree the outcome of the proposed policy. Councillor Joshua Beynon Moved the Recommendation; Seconded by Councillor David Simpson. Councillor Jordan Ryan stated that he was happy to support the Recommendation, and thanked Councillor Huw Murphy for bringing forward the matter. Councillor Huw Murphy extended his appreciation for the good work of Officers and the Assistant Chief Executive in preparing the policy. Councillor Aled Thomas referred to point 14 of the policy and wished to amend the wording to ensure that it was clear that Charities did not have to pay for a flag. The Assistant Chief Executive then suggested the following change: With regards to other requests, the requester must pay for the flag, however the Council will identify the flag that complies with the appropriate standard. The payment and flag must be provided a working week before it is raised. The Mover and Seconder confirmed that they were in agreement with the amendment. 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, Josh Beynon, Maureen Bowen, Alistair Cameron, Aaron Carey, Mark Carter, Di Clements, John Cole, Alec Cormack, Pat Davies, Terry Davies, Alan Dennison, Tim Evans, Claire George, Jonathan Grimes, Nicola Gwynn, Brian Hall, Simon Hancock, Delme Harries, Jon Harvey, Tessa Hodgson, Mike James, Mike John, Paul Miller, Peter Morgan, Elwyn Morse, Huw Murphy, Mel Phillips, Bethan Price, Neil Prior, Shon Rees, Jordan Ryan, David Simpson, Rhys Sinnett, Sam Skyrme-Blackhall, Mike Stoddart, Viv Stoddart, Aled Thomas, Vanessa Thomas, Marc Tierney, Anji Tinley, Thomas Tudor, Iwan Ward, Michele Wiggins, Tony Wilcox, Chris Williams, Jacob Williams, Guy Woodham, Simon Wright, Steve Yelland and Danny Young [52] Abstentions: Councillors Rhys Jordan and Michael Williams [2] There were no votes against. RESOLVED That the proposed guidance for flag raising and County Hall light up requests, be approved, subject to the following amendment: 14. Any flag flying will be carried out in the most cost effective manner. With regards to other requests, the requester must pay for the flag, however the Council will identify the flag that complies with the appropriate standard. The payment and flag must be provided a working week before it is raised.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED That an increase in the funding envelope for Band B of the Sustainable Communities for Learning Programme be approved, to reflect the new project cost of the Portfield School redevelopment of £28,881,940.
[Councillors Rhys Jordan and Steve Yelland joined remotely at this juncture.] [Councillor Tony Wilcox declared a personal and prejudicial interest by virtue of his grandchild attending Portfield School and withdrew from the meeting for this item of business.] Council considered a joint report by the Director of Education, the Director of Resources and the Director of Social Care and Housing, which outlined a potential increase of the funding envelope for Band B of the Sustainable Communities for Learning Programme, in order to allow the redevelopment of Portfield School to take place. Councillor Guy Woodham, Cabinet Member with responsibility for Education and Welsh Language, introduced the report and wished to draw Members’ attention to the summary of the current funding available for the Portfield project on page 260 of the Agenda, as well as the report considered by the Sustainable Communities For Learning Strategic Programme Board, contained at Appendix 1, page 270 of the Agenda, which outlined the current estimated cost for the redevelopment of Portfield School. Councillor Woodham explained that due to additional checks carried out in readiness for the submission of the Full Business Case, the current estimated cost had been amended to £28,981,637. He then outlined the main considerations and referred to the identified options, with the preferred option, option 1, being endorsed by the Board and supported by Cabinet. Councillor Guy Woodham Moved the Recommendation; Seconded by Councillor Tessa Hodgson. Councillor Tessa Hodgson stated her support for the Recommendation and referred to the budget pressures being faced by the Social Care Directorate. She believed that the Business Case and Recommendation would build and strengthen the Authority's ability to provide appropriate residential care for children in need within Pembrokeshire. Councillor Alec Cormack also referred to the importance of the social care elements of the project and strongly supported the Recommendation. Councillor Tim Evans stated his support for the Recommendation and hoped that other Members would too, and suggested that a delayed start on the project would be catastrophic for the school. Councillor Di Clements commended the Board for their decision, and stated that it was the right thing to do for Pembrokeshire’s most vulnerable young people, and urged Members to support the Recommendation. Councillor Pat Davies also welcomed and supported the Recommendation, and was pleased to see that Holly House would be used in the process. 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, Josh Beynon, Maureen Bowen, Alistair Cameron, Aaron Carey, Di Clements, John Cole, Alec Cormack, John Davies, Pat Davies, Terry Davies, Alan Dennison, Tim Evans, Claire George, Jonathan Grimes, Nicola Gwynn, Brian Hall, Simon Hancock, Delme Harries, Jon Harvey, Tessa Hodgson, David Howlett, Mike James, Mike John, Paul Miller, Peter Morgan, Elwyn Morse, Huw Murphy, Mel Phillips, Bethan Price, Neil Prior, Shon Rees, David Simpson, Rhys Sinnett, Sam Skyrme-Blackhall, Mike Stoddart, Viv Stoddart, Aled Thomas, Vanessa Thomas, Marc Tierney, Anji Tinley, Thomas Tudor, Iwan Ward, Michele Wiggins, Michael Williams, Chris Williams, Jacob Williams, Guy Woodham, Simon Wright, Steve Yelland and Danny Young [52] There were no votes against or abstentions. RESOLVED That an increase in the funding envelope for Band B of the Sustainable Communities for Learning Programme be approved, to reflect the new project cost of the Portfield School redevelopment of £28,881,940.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED (a) That the Statement of Accounts for 2022-23 and the Tenby and Lower Fishguard Harbour’s Authority Annual Return for 2022-23, be reviewed, and that the Audit Wales Audit of Accounts Report and Audit Opinion (ISA 260) be considered. (b) That the Statement of Accounts for 2022-23 and the Tenby and Lower Fishguard Harbours’ Authority Annual Return for 2022-23, be approved and signed.
Council considered a report by the Director of Resources which outlined the Review of Statement of Accounts for 2022-23, including Tenby and Lower Fishguard Harbours’ Authority. Councillor Alec Cormack, Cabinet Member with responsibility for Corporate Finance, introduced the report and stated that on 21 December 2023, the Council published the draft Statement of Accounts for 2022-23, shown at Appendix A, and the Tenby and Lower Fishguard Harbours Authority Annual Return for 2022-23, shown at Appendix B. He stated that these had been audited by Audit Wales, who had issued their Audit of Accounts Report and Audit Opinion (ISA 260), attached as Appendix C. Councillor Cormack wished to highlight that there was one anomaly in the Constitution in respect of the approval of the Statement of Accounts, with Council and the Governance and Audit Committee both having the authority to do so. He explained that the function of approving the Statement of Accounts would be included in the upcoming review of a number of constitutional matters. Councillor Cormack stated that at their meeting on 18 April 2024, the Governance and Audit Committee reviewed the draft Statements, where it was determined that there were no concerns arising from the financial statements, or from the audit that needed to be brought to the attention of Council. Councillor Alec Cormack Moved the Recommendation; Seconded by the Leader. Councillor Aled Thomas sought clarification as to how confident Officers were in regards to meeting the 30June 2024 deadline for the Statement of Accounts for 2023-24. In response, the Director of Resources explained that an action plan was in place to address the deadline issues from the previous year, therefore he was confident that the timetable would be met. The vote, undertaken by way of an electronic vote, was carried. The votes were recorded as follows: For the Motion: Councillors Michelle Bateman, Josh Beynon, Maureen Bowen, Alistair Cameron, Aaron Carey, Di Clements, John Cole, Alec Cormack, John Davies, Pat Davies, Terry Davies, Alan Dennison, Tim Evans, Claire George, Jonathan Grimes, Nicola Gwynn, Brian Hall, Simon Hancock, Delme Harries, Jon Harvey, Tessa Hodgson, David Howlett, Mike James, Mike John, Paul Miller, Peter Morgan, Elwyn Morse, Huw Murphy, Mel Phillips, Bethan Price, Neil Prior, Shon Rees, David Simpson, Rhys Sinnett, Sam Skyrme-Blackhall, Mike Stoddart, Viv Stoddart, Aled Thomas, Vanessa Thomas, Marc Tierney, Anji Tinley, Thomas Tudor, Iwan Ward, Michele Wiggins, Tony Wilcox, Michael Williams, Chris Williams, Jacob Williams, Guy Woodham, Simon Wright, Steve Yelland and Danny Young [53] There were no votes against or abstentions. RESOLVED (a) That the Statement of Accounts for 2022-23 and the Tenby and Lower Fishguard Harbour’s Authority Annual Return for 2022-23, be reviewed, and that the Audit Wales Audit of Accounts Report and Audit Opinion (ISA 260) be considered. (b) That the Statement of Accounts for 2022-23 and the Tenby and Lower Fishguard Harbours’ Authority Annual Return for 2022-23, be approved and signed.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED That, in accordance with Section 2.4.2 of the Constitution, the updated Financial Procedure Rules be noted.
Council considered a report by the Director of Resources which outlined the updated Financial Procedure Rules. Councillor Alec Cormack, Cabinet Member with responsibility for Corporate Finance, introduced the report and stated that the updated Financial Procedure Rules, shown at Appendix A, outlined amendments in red and deleted words with a strikethrough, and stated that there were 12 amendments in total which were highlighted in yellow. He explained that the amendments were discussed and agreed by the Senior Leadership Team, and approved by the Governance and Audit Committee at their 18 April 2024 meeting. Councillor Cormack highlighted that the changes to the budget virement authorisation limits had received approval from the Leader, where appropriate. He stated that the Constitution would be updated accordingly if approved. Councillor Alec Cormack Moved the Recommendation; Seconded by Councillor Guy Woodham. Councillor Aled Thomas referred to section (d) on page 498 of the Agenda, and wished to clarify whether the Governance and Audit Committee would need to forward the draft Statement of Accounts to Council for review going forward. In response, Councillor Cormack explained that the Constitution currently identified two separate bodies giving approval on the Statements, which could result in differing decisions. The Director of Resources highlighted that a review of this aspect would be undertaken during the summer period, which would then be brought to the Governance and Audit Committee for further review and to hopefully clarify the matter. The vote, undertaken by way of a show of hands, was carried. RESOLVED That, in accordance with Section 2.4.2 of the Constitution, the updated Financial Procedure Rules be noted.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED That Councillor Mike Stoddart be appointed to the Joint Scrutiny Committee for Celtic Freeport as the Unaffiliated Member. The vote for the Recommendation, undertaken by way of an electronic vote, was carried. The votes were recorded as follows: For the Motion: Councillors Steve Alderman, Maureen Bowen, Alistair Cameron, Aaron Carey, Di Clements, John Cole, Alec Cormack, John Davies, Pat Davies, Terry Davies, Alan Dennison, Tim Evans, Claire George, Jonathan Grimes, Nicola Gwynn, Brian Hall, Simon Hancock, Delme Harries, Jon Harvey, Tessa Hodgson, David Howlett, Mike James, Mike John, Rhys Jordan, Paul Miller, Elwyn Morse, Huw Murphy, Mel Phillips, Bethan Price, Neil Prior, Shon Rees, David Simpson, Rhys Sinnett, Sam Skyrme-Blackhall, Mike Stoddart, Viv Stoddart, Vanessa Thomas, Marc Tierney, Thomas Tudor, Iwan Ward, Michele Wiggins, Tony Wilcox, Michael Williams, Chris Williams, Jacob Williams, Simon Wright, Steve Yelland and Danny Young [48] There were no votes against or abstentions. RESOLVED (a) That the establishment of a Joint Scrutiny Committee for the Celtic Freeport Joint Committee, be approved on the terms identified in the Joint Committee Establishment Agreement attached at Appendix 1 to the report. (b) That four Members are appointed to the Joint Scrutiny Committee as set out in paragraph 9 of the report.
Council considered a joint report by the Assistant Chief Executive and the Head of Law and Governance, which outlined the establishment of an Overview and Scrutiny Committee of the Celtic Freeport Joint Committee. Councillor Paul Miller, Cabinet Member with responsibility for Place, the Region and Climate Change, introduced the report and referred to the recent Extraordinary Cabinet meeting which outlined next steps for the establishment of the Freeport Company, as well as the Public Funds Committee. He stated that the report focused on the establishment of a Joint Scrutiny Committee for the Celtic Freeport, and explained that it would work in the same way as the Executive and Scrutiny functions within the Council. He highlighted that Council was asked to set up the outlined Scrutiny arrangement and to agree the proposed composition, as set out in the report. Councillor Paul Miller Moved the Recommendation; Seconded by Councillor Alec Cormack. The Presiding Member then sought expressions of interest from Unaffiliated Members for the Joint Committee. Councillor Jacob Williams nominated Councillor Mike Stoddart; Seconded by Councillor Tim Evans. The vote, undertaken by way of a show of hands, was carried. RESOLVED That Councillor Mike Stoddart be appointed to the Joint Scrutiny Committee for Celtic Freeport as the Unaffiliated Member. The vote for the Recommendation, undertaken by way of an electronic vote, was carried. The votes were recorded as follows: For the Motion: Councillors Steve Alderman, Maureen Bowen, Alistair Cameron, Aaron Carey, Di Clements, John Cole, Alec Cormack, John Davies, Pat Davies, Terry Davies, Alan Dennison, Tim Evans, Claire George, Jonathan Grimes, Nicola Gwynn, Brian Hall, Simon Hancock, Delme Harries, Jon Harvey, Tessa Hodgson, David Howlett, Mike James, Mike John, Rhys Jordan, Paul Miller, Elwyn Morse, Huw Murphy, Mel Phillips, Bethan Price, Neil Prior, Shon Rees, David Simpson, Rhys Sinnett, Sam Skyrme-Blackhall, Mike Stoddart, Viv Stoddart, Vanessa Thomas, Marc Tierney, Thomas Tudor, Iwan Ward, Michele Wiggins, Tony Wilcox, Michael Williams, Chris Williams, Jacob Williams, Simon Wright, Steve Yelland and Danny Young [48] There were no votes against or abstentions. RESOLVED (a) That the establishment of a Joint Scrutiny Committee for the Celtic Freeport Joint Committee, be approved on the terms identified in the Joint Committee Establishment Agreement attached at Appendix 1 to the report. (b) That four Members are appointed to the Joint Scrutiny Committee as set out in paragraph 9 of the report.
Council considered excluding the public from the meeting for the next two items of business, as the reports involved the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraphs 12 and 14 of Part 4 of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972; and that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighed the public interest in disclosing the information. The Presiding Member Moved the Recommendation; Seconded by Councillor Guy Woodham. The vote, undertaken by way of a show of hands, was carried. RESOLVED That the public be excluded from the meeting for the following two items of business in accordance with Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, as they involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraphs 12 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 was paused at this juncture.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED That the Assistant Chief Executive’s appointment in April 2022, to be retrospectively started at Spinal Point 2 with appropriate annual adjustments to spinal points thereafter and the payment of appropriate back pay, be authorised.
[The Assistant Chief Executive withdrew from the meeting for this item of business.] Having convened in private session in accordance with Paragraphs 12 and 14 of Part 4 of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972, Council considered the exempt report and associated appendices. Councillor Paul Miller, Chair of the Senior Staff Committee, introduced the report and outlined the key points. Councillor Paul Miller Moved the Recommendation; Seconded by Councillor Elwyn Morse. 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, Josh Beynon, Maureen Bowen, Alistair Cameron, Aaron Carey, Di Clements, John Cole, Alec Cormack, John Davies, Pat Davies, Terry Davies, Alan Dennison, Tim Evans, Claire George, Jonathan Grimes, Nicola Gwynn, Brian Hall, Simon Hancock, Delme Harries, Jon Harvey, Tessa Hodgson, David Howlett, Mike James, Mike John, Rhys Jordan, Paul Miller, Elwyn Morse, Huw Murphy, Mel Phillips, Bethan Price, Neil Prior, Shon Rees, David Simpson, Rhys Sinnett, Sam Skyrme-Blackhall, Mike Stoddart, Viv Stoddart, Aled Thomas, Vanessa Thomas, Marc Tierney, Anji Tinley, Thomas Tudor, Iwan Ward, Michele Wiggins, Tony Wilcox, Michael Williams, Chris Williams, Jacob Williams, Guy Woodham, Simon Wright, Steve Yelland and Danny Young [53] Abstentions: Councillor Peter Morgan [1] There were no votes against. RESOLVED That the Assistant Chief Executive’s appointment in April 2022, to be retrospectively started at Spinal Point 2 with appropriate annual adjustments to spinal points thereafter and the payment of appropriate back pay, be authorised.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED That Voluntary Severance Applications 1 and 2, as outlined in the report, be approved. The webcast was then resumed.
Having convened in private session in accordance with Paragraphs 12 and 14 of Part 4 of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972, Council considered the exempt report and associated appendices. Councillor Guy Woodham, Cabinet Member with responsibility for Education and Welsh Language, introduced the report and outlined the key points. Councillor Guy Woodham Moved the Recommendation for Applications 1 and 2; Seconded by Councillor Elwyn Morse. Questions from Members were answered by the Head of Human Resources. 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, Josh Beynon, Maureen Bowen, Alistair Cameron, Aaron Carey, Di Clements, John Cole, Alec Cormack, John Davies, Pat Davies, Terry Davies, Alan Dennison, Tim Evans, Claire George, Jonathan Grimes, Nicola Gwynn, Brian Hall, Simon Hancock, Delme Harries, Jon Harvey, Tessa Hodgson, David Howlett, Mike James, Mike John, Rhys Jordan, Paul Miller, Peter Morgan, Elwyn Morse, Huw Murphy, Mel Phillips, Bethan Price, Neil Prior, Shon Rees, David Simpson, Rhys Sinnett, Sam Skyrme-Blackhall, Mike Stoddart, Viv Stoddart, Aled Thomas, Vanessa Thomas, Marc Tierney, Anji Tinley, Thomas Tudor, Iwan Ward, Michele Wiggins, Tony Wilcox, Michael Williams, Chris Williams, Jacob Williams, Guy Woodham, Simon Wright, Steve Yelland and Danny Young [54] There were no votes against or abstentions. RESOLVED That Voluntary Severance Applications 1 and 2, as outlined in the report, be approved. The webcast was then resumed.
Councillor Michelle Bateman, 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 4.18 as follows: In the budget seminars. It was reported that the Council has serious rental arrears that are over £2 million. Can I ask the Member for Housing: 1) What amount of arrears are attributed to housing benefit not being passed on to the council by tenants? 2) What is the highest, lowest and average amount of arrears owed and number of tenants in arrears? 3) Would it not be prudent to have a clause in Tenancy agreements? That tenants agree that housing benefit rents are made directly to the Council, there by negating the arrears occurring in the first instance. In response to Question 1, Councillor Bateman stated that the answer was none, as any tenant in receipt of housing benefit would not receive the housing benefit, as it was credited directly to the rent account. In response to Question 2, Councillor Bateman stated that as of 31 March 2024, the number of current tenants in arrears was 2,618, the lowest arrears amount was one pence, the average arrears amount was £959.10, and the highest arrears amount was £18,058.16. However, Councillor Bateman explained that this was a complex case involving a vulnerable individual, and was the subject of a multi-agency approach, currently being reviewed by the Head of Adult Services. She stated that the high amount skewed the average arrears amount, however for context, she highlighted that around 60% of those in arrears were less than £500. In response to Question 3, Councillor Bateman stated that housing benefit was directly paid to the tenant's rent account. However, many tenants had transferred over to Universal Credit Housing Costs, which was administered and paid by the Department of Work and Pensions. She explained that housing costs were normally paid to the tenant in arrears with their universal credit payments, and it was only by exemption that it was paid directly to the landlord, who had to apply for alternative payment arrangements (APA). She stated that the Authority did apply for payment directly in certain circumstances, such as if the tenant was in arrears, where it was known that the tenant was vulnerable, or where there was a history of non-payment.
Councillor Alec Cormack, the relevant Cabinet Member, responded to questions submitted by Councillor Joshua Beynon prior to the meeting in accordance with the provisions of Council Procedure Rule 4.18 as follows: Setting a budget is always a difficult process. Ever reducing central government funding since 2010 has meant difficult decisions for the Council on Service Cuts and Council Tax Rises. Despite the difficulties, the Leader, Cabinet Member for Finance and the Administration generally has in my view always taken the necessary difficult decisions to do what’s in the best interests of Pembrokeshire. That approach is the opposite of that taken by the Independent Political Group. We now know that Cllr Murphy had organised to support a 12.78% Council tax rise but when it came to this administration proposing 12.5%, he and his fellow members voted against it on mass. Does the Cabinet member agree with me that this revelation is surprising? Councillor Huw Murphy declared a point of order under Paragraph 4.18.7 (b) of the Constitution, and asked that the question be struck. Councillor Murphy then explained the reasons as to why he wished for the question to be excluded from the meeting, which included some inaccuracies within the question. He stated that the Independent Group did not vote on mass and highlighted that the Independent Political Group voted for the proposals set out by Councillor Paul Miller at March’s Council meeting. He also stated that he did not submit an alternative budget proposal, and disagreed with the suggestion that the Independent Group refused to make difficult decisions for the best interests of Pembrokeshire. Councillor Beynon then withdrew the question.
The Leader, the relevant Cabinet Member, responded to questions submitted by Councillor Maureen Bowen prior to the meeting in accordance with the provisions of Council Procedure Rule 4.18 as follows: Under the previous Independent Political Group Administration the Pembroke Dock Commercial Property Grant Scheme was defrauded in a way the report to last Council described as ‘extremely unsophisticated and simplistic’ not only did the Independent Political Group Administration defend the scheme, they actually took to their feet in the Council chamber to attack those highlighting shortcomings in the scheme. Later in the report the author also states: ‘the evidence is staggering and shows utter incompetence bordering on complicity’. Does the Leader agree with me that it’s every Members’ duty to prevent any return to the dark days of Independent Political Group control of Pembrokeshire Council? Councillor Alan Dennison declared a point of order under Paragraph 4.18.7 (b) of the Constitution. Councillor Dennison then explained the reasons as to why he wished for the question to be excluded from the meeting, which included the suggestion that current Independent Group Members were responsible for the past, and believed the question to be vexatious. The Presiding Member allowed the question to be answered. In response to Councillor Bowen’s question, the Leader stated that the issues relating to the grant scheme reflected extremely poorly on the Council and all those involved. He stated that he was pleased that under the current Administration, the Authority had been open to the truth in relation to that scheme, and open about learning the lessons that could be learned, to ensure that it would never happen again.
Councillor Guy Woodham, the relevant Cabinet Member, responded to questions submitted by Councillor Aled Thomas prior to the meeting in accordance with the provisions of Council Procedure Rule 4.18 as follows: To ask the Cabinet Member for Education and the Welsh Language to update the chamber on what progress the Cabinet have made in recouping the £200,000 insurance excess paid following the devastating non-fault fire at Manorbier school. In response, Councillor Guy Woodham stated that he was limited in the information that could be made public, as the matter of issuing proceedings to recover uninsured losses remained under active consideration, and as such, there could be some issue in answering the question in any more detail, without potentially prejudicing the Council’s position. However, Councillor Woodham confirmed that the Council had not outlaid any such sum, but was in the process of reinstating the school building. He stated that the source of funding for any insurance excess outlay, emanated from reserves already held specifically to cover uninsured losses. He also explained that the likely position was that a future Cabinet decision would need to be taken on whether to pursue the contractor for uninsured losses, taking into account the likelihood of success, and the ability of the contractor to meet any such claim. Councillor Woodham highlighted that solicitors were being readied to take the appropriate steps, once instructed. In response to a supplementary question regarding recommitting that the Authority would do everything to retrieve the insurance cost, Councillor Woodham stated that he expected every effort to be made by the Authority to try to recoup any losses that had been encountered through this incident. [Councillor Claire George left the meeting at this juncture.]
Councillor Alec Cormack, the relevant Cabinet Member, responded to questions submitted by Councillor Aled Thomas prior to the meeting in accordance with the provisions of Council Procedure Rule 4.18 as follows: To ask the Cabinet member for Finance to update the Chamber on what options are being considered for the last minute £1 million “operating model and structured budget review savings” which was announced at March council to be fulfilled. In response, Councillor Alec Cormack stated that work on the operating model and structured budget review savings to fund the £1 million had commenced, with there being three distinct elements, outlined by Councillor Cormack as follows: • The voluntary severance scheme was promoted in 2023-24 and was continuing in 2024-25 with applications to the scheme being considered by the Senior Leadership Team. Approved applications to the scheme, which were not directly related to any budget savings appended to the 2024-25 budget approved by Council in March 2024, should contribute at least £0.4 million to the £1 million. The cost of the exit payments were capitalised using the Capitalisation Directive and funded from capital receipts. • The Structured Budget Review programme led by Financial Services commenced in 2023-24, looking at some Directorate budgets and would continue into 2024-25 looking at others. Financial Services worked with individual services to identify any areas where existing budgets could be reduced without significant impact, where budgets could be realigned to match existing demand and pressures, and where the financial ledger could be reorganised in order to better reflect current Council structures and operations. This programme should make a contribution to the £1 million, but this was not identified at this point. • Utilisation of a methodology from Vanguard Cymru to provide an objective perspective around unexplored opportunities for improvement, which would challenge existing assumptions about the design and management of work. Using data to support decision making would lead to informed choices being made on where efficiency and effectiveness opportunities could be realised. This work commenced in the Social Services and Housing Directorate during 2023-24 and would commence Authority wide during summer 2024-25, with the anticipation of some financial benefits being realised during 2024-25 and contributing to the £1 million, and others being realised as part of the budget savings for 2025-26. In response to a supplementary question regarding how the savings would be made, Councillor Cormack stated that it was being worked on and an update would be received later in the year. The Chief Executive added that he was confident that the £1 million of savings would be found. [Councillor Rhys Jordan left the meeting at this juncture.]
Councillor Alec Cormack, 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 4.18 as follows: Can the Cabinet member for Finance please provide me with the number of properties that have applied for a council tax exemption since the delivery of this year’s council tax bill? This should be split out by properties that were charged a second homes premium and properties which were not charged a second homes premium. In response, Councillor Alec Cormack stated that Officers had clarified with Councillor Clements that the question was related to second homes, and therefore highlighted that the relevant term used in the legislation was exceptions, rather than exemptions. He stated that the annual Council tax bills were dated and posted on 18 March 2024, and explained that he would compare figures for exemptions granted as at 1 March with those as at 1 May. He pointed out that applications were not separately recorded. Councillor Cormack referred to the seven classes of Council tax exceptions and stated that details of all seven would be circulated to Members via email. He explained that of the seven classes, five had remained relatively static, with two having changed significantly as follows: • Class 1 – Properties for sale: was 34 on 1 March had increased to 81 on 1 May • Class 6 – Properties with a planning condition restricting occupancy: 402 on 1 March increased to 417 on 1 May. He stated that the figures for “Properties for sale” was clearly subject to seasonal variation, therefore he was pleased to report that these figures were being recorded on a monthly basis and would feed into the Council’s review of the impact of the Welsh Government’s 182 day rule, which would take place before 2025-26, and would be communicated to Members and going forward. [Councillor Bethan Price left the meeting at this juncture.]
Councillor Alec Cormack, 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 4.18 as follows: a) Can the Cabinet member for Finance provide me with the current number of properties in council tax arrears and the total figure of such arrears? b) What were the above figures a year ago, and what are the estimated figures a year from now? In response, Councillor Alec Cormack stated that the number of Council taxpayers in arrears at 31 March 2023 was 9,458 and stood at 9,860 as at 31 March 2024. He explained that the provisional Council tax arrears figure for 2023-24 was £8.819 million, and that the closure of the accounts for 2023-24 was being undertaken and that the work should be completed within the next month, in line with the existing closure timetable, whereby it would be reported as part of the Outturn Report to Cabinet on 1 July 2024. Councillor Cormack stated that historically, the actual arrears figure was less than the provisional figure, however, the figure would certainly be higher than the previous years. He stated that a significant part of the increase was due to approximately 90 properties moving from Non-Domestic Rates to Council Tax in February/March, following a Valuation Office review and thereby receiving a bill for the whole of the financial year 2023-24, together with the Second Homes Premium. He stated that timescales had meant very few were able to pay by the end of March, when the provisional arrears figure was calculated. It was said that final audited Council Tax Arrears in the financial year 2022-23 was £7.175 million. Councillor Cormack stated that while the Council could not provide an estimate of the arrears figure in a year’s time, it could be advised that the collection rate for the last financial year stood at 96.55%, which saw the Council tenth out of the 22 Local Authorities. In response to a supplementary question regarding what had been put in place to help people manage their rent debt, Councillor Cormack referred to the Revenue and Benefits Team, who were providing support and payment plans. [Councillor Aled Thomas joined the meeting online. Councillor Iwan Ward left the meeting at this juncture.]
[Having declared a personal and prejudicial interest in this item of business, Councillor Paul Miller left the meeting.] Councillor Alec Cormack, the relevant Cabinet Member, responded to questions submitted by Councillor Alan Dennison prior to the meeting in accordance with the provisions of Council Procedure Rule 4.18 as follows: I would like to thank the Cabinet Member for clarifying the £678k given to the Neyland Community Interest company is a capital investment which covers the advance rent for 50yrs use of the building for Neyland library and one other office. Can the Cabinet Member please advise what the office is used for and what is the apportioned cost of renting this office for 50yrs. In response, Councillor Alec Cormack stated that the agreement with Neyland Community Interest company, in addition to hosting the library, included the right for the Council (or other organisations specified by the Council) to utilise additional space within the building, free of charge, for up to 50 years. He explained that the agreement did not specify any single office or room outside of the library, and stated that the rental “credit” associated with the agreement was used by, among others, the Pembrokeshire Learning Centre, Neyland Community School and Sport Pembrokeshire. Councillor Cormack highlighted that the Council did not track the apportioned cost of the rooms utilised. In response to a supplementary question regarding other similar arrangements and the associated business cases, Councillor Cormack stated that he was not aware of any other arrangements similar to this one, and believed that the project was finalised in 2018 by the current Administration, despite the original project commencing prior to the current Administration being in place. He suggested that the project was allowed to proceed in order to provide the community with the benefits it was currently providing.
Councillor Tessa Hodgson, the relevant Cabinet Member, responded to questions submitted by Councillor Alan Dennison prior to the meeting in accordance with the provisions of Council Procedure Rule 4.18 as follows: Given this Council has decided to close the 2 Learning Disability Day Centres, and every older persons day centres, can the Cabinet member for Social Care & Safeguarding advise what are the estimated total costs incurred for the increased domiciliary care needed for those individuals who will now no longer be able to attend the day centres and transportation costs for those with learning difficulties to travel to alternative locations? In response, Councillor Tessa Hodgson stated that the number of service users who attended building based day services across the Authority, had decreased significantly since 2019. She highlighted that pre-Covid-19, the total number of older people attending the day centres was 207, and the total number of people with a learning disability was 127. She explained that post Covid-19, the corresponding numbers were 76 for older people and 69 for people with a learning disability, resulting in a reduction of over half, and highlighted that the total numbers of people using day centres had been 334 and was now 145. She highlighted that currently, all service users in the Anchorage and Meadow Park were having their care and support plans reviewed by a team of Social Workers and Care Assessors, to understand individual strengths and interests. She stated that there were a great number of alternative day opportunities available across Pembrokeshire that could offer suitable alternatives to service users, and for families providing care. Councillor Hodgson added that such alternative options had been discussed with each individual, and stated that the need to support individual independence was critical, and that domiciliary care would not be an alternative to day services. She highlighted that the Authority was currently proactively working with two centres, Bro Preseli and the Lee Davis Centre in Narberth, to establish a social enterprise as an alternative to the current conventional day service model, which would have no impact for the service user attendance at either centre. She explained that the team were currently developing a transportation plan which would minimise any additional costs, but would be finalised once alternative services were identified for all service users. In response to a supplementary question regarding support for carers, Councillor Hodgson stated that, as previously highlighted, there were a huge range of alternative day provisions available in Pembrokeshire, including the day centres at Havenhurst and Hillside in Fishguard, which would also provide that service, should people be unable to be cared for in a community day opportunity setting.
Councillor Rhys Sinnett, the relevant Cabinet Member, responded to questions submitted by Councillor Alan Dennison prior to the meeting in accordance with the provisions of Council Procedure Rule 4.18 as follows: The budget approved by council in March meant severe cuts in services to the ratepayers of Pembrokeshire, one of which was the increase to 4 weekly collection of general non-recyclable waste. Can the Cabinet Member advise what the total cost of rescheduling the collection service, to include any new larger vehicles required, and will this extension mean potential redundancies within the organisation and if so at what cost to the council. In response, Councillor Rhys Sinnett stated that the planned move to four weekly residual waste collections, was being based on the results of the analysis undertaken during the last significant waste service change in 2019. As part of those discussions, he explained that the potential for four weekly collections was included in the analysis work, undertaken and reviewed by Members through the cross-party Waste Working Group, a sub-group of the Policy and Pre-decision Overview and Scrutiny Committee. Councillor Sinnett stated that the savings options for 2024-25 onwards had been based on this modelling, but the work was being reviewed, with a routing exercise undertaken by Officers, with support from Waste and Recycling Action Programme (WRAP). He highlighted that this was funded by the Welsh Government’s Collaborative Change Programme, at no additional cost to the Authority. With regards to the questions surrounding whether or not any new larger vehicles would be required, he stated that the previous modelling did not require additional vehicles to enable this change. In respect of staffing, Councillor Sinnett explained that the saving had been calculated on the removal of one collection vehicle, and based on the turnover of staff within the Waste Service areas, and that it was not anticipated that there would be a need for redundancies. Councillor Sinnett stated that the only cost identified with the move to four weekly residual collection by Environmental Services, based on the current household provided black bags containment solution, would be associated with the communication of such service change to educate and inform the residents of Pembrokeshire. He stated that as with all changes, there would be a review of potential impacts on other services, including the contact centre, cleansing including fly tipping, and public protection, which would be based on the lessons learnt from the Waste Service change in 2019, and Phase 2 of the service change which had been rolled out to estates and flats in 2023-24. In response to a supplementary question regarding the suggested £0 saving according to the Budget Modeller, Councillor Sinnett confirmed that there would be a saving associated with the change to four weekly waste collections. He stated that the removal of one collection vehicle was due to save £115,000 as the full year cost improvement of collection costs, which was shown on the Budget Modeller.
A Notice of Motion was submitted by Councillor John Cole in the following terms: With the Council’s unanimous decision to increase the empty property council tax, at the last March council meeting. It would appear that even though the decision was right and proper, as empty homes serve no purpose in the community etc. it would seem that a number of such properties are in fact under renovation by owners to bring back into use. As per an email received by one family in that position outlying their concerns of having such a charge on the property. Putting their renovation plans and dreams in jeopardy. Renovation is a costly and time consuming in many instances, and having to use funds for renovation to pay such an additional cost, as they are already liable for council tax. Will lead to delays, and abandonment of renovations. I would like to put forward the following: That Council revenue officers have the authority to exempt such properties proved to be under renovation for eventual use as a main home from the extra charges on top of the standard property charge. Time frame on a case by case basis. In consultation with such projects undertaken. Upon the terms of Council Procedure Rule 4.19, the Motion having been Moved by Councillor John Cole; Seconded by Councillor Tim Evans then stood referred to Cabinet.
A Notice of Motion was submitted by Councillor Huw Murphy in the following terms: This Notice of Motion is submitted under point 4.22.1 (Motion to Rescind a Previous Decision) & point 4.19 (Motions on Notice) of the Pembrokeshire County Council (PCC) Constitution asking that PCC undertake a full review of the amended 2024/25 budget put before Full Council without notice by the Deputy Leader on March 7th, 2024. The proposals put forward by the Deputy Leader in his amended budget committed the authority to sourcing £1 million in savings, the use of £1.5 million in reserves and further efficiency savings of £300k from PCC Leisure Services defined by Cllr Miller on March 7th, 2024 as "minor re-structuring." The savings of £1 million to be achieved through what Cllr Miller called an "Operational Review" to be undertaken by the Chief Executive. This NoM is a request that a previous decision made by Council be rescinded unless further detailed clarification and assurances can be provided of the extent of the "Operational Review" and which departments within PCC will be required to furnish the £1 million in savings and what cuts in service will be the result and possible loss of employment by PCC staff. Furthermore, this NoM requires further information with regards to how the £300k efficiency savings in Leisure Services through "minor re-restructuring" will be achieved and for Councillors and the public to be informed if any services will be reduced and any potential reduction in staff within PCC Leisure Services and the impact this will have upon the wellbeing of leisure services users. Approaching 7 weeks have now elapsed since the budget of March 7th, 2024 and it's hoped that Councillors will now be provided with further information and if not we request that the previous decision by Council be rescinded. The manner of how the amended budget was presented to Full Council has caused much concern and this Motion is submitted to seek further information and for further scrutiny to take place to fully identify the consequences of the amendment put forward by Cllr Miller on March 7th, 2024 in the interests of openness and transparency for both Councillors and the residents of Pembrokeshire. This motion is submitted to rescind a decision made at a meeting of Council is made having been signed by the following Independent County Councillors who exceed the minimum of 25% of County Councillors required to be signatories to such a motion. Upon the terms of Council Procedure Rule 4.19, the Motion having been Moved by Councillor Huw Murphy; Seconded by Councillor Alan Dennison then stood referred to Policy and Pre-Decision Overview and Scrutiny Committee.
Councillors must say when they have a personal link to something being discussed, such as a job, a property or a family member. A prejudicial interest is one strong enough that the councillor usually leaves the room and takes no part.
Declarations are read from the minutes once they are published.
Lists the council's current councillors only. Co-opted members, officers and former councillors aren't shown.