Loading
The decisions as the council's minutes record them. A plain-language summary follows once it has been written.
RESOLVED (a) That the matter be referred back to Cabinet for further clarification around the quotes and cost estimations to maintain the bridge to ensure that statements that have been made by Cabinet Members in the public realm are accurate. This will be the only method for Members to see these figures. (b) That while the Committee appreciate the Cabinet Member was not in attendance at the meeting where this was awarded, the statements have been made nonetheless and the public deserve honesty and clarity on this matter. (c) That Cabinet should also discuss the financial implications of this project on the budget going forward as this was not discussed at the previous Cabinet meeting where it was proposed. [The Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Place, the Region and Climate Change left the meeting at this juncture]
RESOLVED That the Action Log be moved to end of the Committee meeting.
RESOLVED That the report be noted. [The meeting adjourned for a short break at this juncture]
RESOLVED That Option 4 – to lease to an existing stakeholder and established aviation company, be pursued.
RESOLVED (a) That the Committee endorse the work of the Pembrokeshire Nature Partnership and the role of Pembrokeshire County Council (PCC) in hosting it, recognising the benefits to the Authority and to the wildlife and communities of Pembrokeshire. (b) That the Committee recommend continued financial and management support to the Pembrokeshire Nature Partnership at least at current levels and, if possible, rising to reflect the commitments made under the Edinburgh Declaration and to support actions under the Environment (Wales) Act S6 Duty and the Wellbeing of Future Generations (Wales) Act (2015). [Councillors Shon Rees and Chris Williams left the meeting at this juncture]
RESOLVED That the Action Log be approved.
RESOLVED That the following be noted: (a) That the works necessary to comply with the NRW Notice are on schedule and expected to be completed by 5 April, following which it is expected that the odour problems will be resolved. (b) That the close working arrangements with NRW, including on air quality monitoring, continue for the foreseeable future beyond 5 April in order to ascertain that the steps taken have resolved the odours from the site giving cause to complaint. (c) That in the event that following the 5 April the problem remains unresolved and there are reasonable grounds to believe that odours are causing a nuisance or pose a risk to health offsite, the Committee recommends that legal advice is urgently sought on the Council pursuing its own action against the site operators and the next steps open to us. This is to ensure that all practicable available steps are being pursued in order to expedite this unacceptable situation as a matter of the greatest urgency. (d) That engagement with the organisers of the action group, including around the monitoring of air quality, and also improved public communications with local communities impacted be ongoing. (e) That a written update on the situation be circulated to the Committee within two weeks of the expiry date of the NRW Notice and the matter be brought back to the next meeting in June for further consideration. (f) That this be reported to Council on 9 May 2024.
RESOLVED (a) That the Forward Work Programme be approved subject to the following additions: i. That an update on the situation at Withyhedge Landfill be included at the next meeting. ii. That the weed spraying of grass verges and pathways be reviewed in September 2024. (b) That the Committee refer the Housing Crisis and ways to alleviate the accommodation crisis to the Policy and Pre-Decision Overview and Scrutiny Committee.
Item 7 Haverfordwest Airport Councillor Mark Carter declared a personal interest by virtue of his Sister’s Partner being employed at the Airport.
Moved by Councillor Mark Carter; Seconded by Councillor Brian Hall The vote, undertaken by way of a show of hands, was carried. RESOLVED That the English and Welsh Minutes of the meeting held on 14 November 2023 be approved as a correct record. Moved by Councillor Mark Carter; Seconded by Councillor Steve Alderman The vote, undertaken by way of a show of hands, was carried. RESOLVED That the English and Welsh Minutes of the meeting held on 16 January 2024 be approved as a correct record.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED (a) That the matter be referred back to Cabinet for further clarification around the quotes and cost estimations to maintain the bridge to ensure that statements that have been made by Cabinet Members in the public realm are accurate. This will be the only method for Members to see these figures. (b) That while the Committee appreciate the Cabinet Member was not in attendance at the meeting where this was awarded, the statements have been made nonetheless and the public deserve honesty and clarity on this matter. (c) That Cabinet should also discuss the financial implications of this project on the budget going forward as this was not discussed at the previous Cabinet meeting where it was proposed. [The Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Place, the Region and Climate Change left the meeting at this juncture]
[During the debate, Councillor Tim Evans declared a personal interest in this item by virtue of being Chair of the Trustees of Haverfordwest Museum.] The Chair welcomed Members from the Welsh Conservative Group and the Independent Political Group (IPG) to the meeting to present their respective call-ins to the Committee. The first call-in was submitted by Councillor Aled Thomas, supported by Councillors Di Clements, Mark Carter, Rhys Jordan, Aaron Carey, Steve Yelland, David Bryan, Jonathan Grimes, David Howlett, Danny Young and Andrew Edwards. The second submitted by Councillor Alan Dennison, supported by Councillors Terry Davies, Shon Rees, Brian Hall, Huw Murphy and Jamie Adams. These were in relation to the following decision made by Cabinet on 11 March 2024: That the award of the contract for construction services as detailed in the Cabinet report to Walters Group Ltd, be authorised. The Chair invited Councillor Aled Thomas to the meeting to present the call-in on behalf of the Welsh Conservative Group. The key points were highlighted as follows: · The group was concerned that the proposed funding methods for the bridge were becoming increasingly unviable to the Council. · They were disappointed that there had been little to no discussion by the Cabinet in terms of the financing costs noting that the Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Place, the Region and Climate Change had not been in attendance. · As with many other projects, the price of the project had increased quite considerably. · Other elements of the Heart of Pembrokeshire Projects including making the Castle Wall safe and Bridge Street Link walkway have been dropped from the project for the sake of the footbridge. · It has been highlighted in meetings that the cost of maintaining the bridge is higher than the 10% required for the levelling up project. · That no quotes had been sighted regarding quotes or cost estimations on repairing of the existing bridge. · Councillor Thomas highlighted that documents provided did evidence that the bridge was in a relatively poor state of repair noting that the report stated that some shot blasting and painting would suffice to keep the bridge going for the time being. · The Group requested the following: o An exploration of where the £1.1M which had been committed to date, had been spent. o An assurance on the accuracy of the statements made by the Leader regarding it would cost more not to do the project than to do it. o Confirmation from the Finance Team regarding the impact of the project on the ongoing budgetary pressures. o What procedures were in place should the project not come in on budget and where any shortfall would be met. The Chair then invited the Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member with responsibility for Place, the Region and Climate Change to respond. In response to queries regarding the funding of the project, the Deputy Leader advised that 90% of the funding was from the successful application to the UK Government’s levelling-up fund which had required a robust business case submission. He noted that following the acquisition of the Riverside Shopping Centre, the Authority had received a surplus revenue in the region of a quarter of a million pounds per year, although that was anticipated to be lower in the current financial year. The Deputy Leader highlighted the condition report for the bridge noted that it was in poor condition and that it did not aid the flow of people through the town centre. He again emphasised that 90% of the funding towards the bridge was from the UK Government with the remaining 10% from the Council funds. If it was necessary to borrow the 10% matched funds, he advised that the cost would be approximately £40K per annum. The Deputy Leader emphasised that it was not ‘the bridge at all costs’ as suggested and that in the current climate, some elements of the project had needed to be paused and that advice had been taken from experts. The Chair then invited the Head of Infrastructure and Environment to respond and he advised that the project was on budget. He advised that as part of the tender submission, the contractors had provided a value engineering submission with a ‘like for like’ replacement of the bridge which would have cost £931K. The Engineer (Highways) additionally advised that £1.1M had been spent on professional design fees for stages 1-4 which had included various surveys and advertisements The Deputy Leader clarified that in order to replace the bridge with the same, the cost would be approximately £2M due to costs incurred to date and that it would cease to be eligible for grant funding. Councillor Thomas confirmed that the total Heart of Pembrokeshire fund had been £21.7M and that this had increased as a whole to £25.4M. He further advised that statements had been made by both the Leader of the Authority and the Chief Executive had highlighted that repairs to the bridge would cost in excess of £500-600K. These quotes, to date, had not been sighted and the Cabinet Member again highlighted that he had not been in attendance at the Cabinet Meeting but noted that he would have stressed that not proceeding with the project would have cost more than to proceed. He further highlighted that even with repairs, it would not provide a long life to the bridge. In response to a concern raised by Councillor Thomas regarding the rising costs, the Head of Infrastructure and Environment clarified that the contract would be awarded as a fixed sum life contract and would therefore mean that the costs would not change following award, unless the Authority made any amendments to the contract. He further highlighted that due to the poor condition of the bridge life cycle costs to clean and paint the steel bridge every five years remained. The Chair then invited Councillor Alan Dennison to outline the Independent Group’s reason for the call-in. Councillor Dennison raised a number of questions including: · Had consideration been given to removing the bridge completely without replacing it? · Request to have sight of the three tenders received. · Were contracts offered to local businesses? · Request to have sight of written evidence of the costs of repair. · What was the life span of the bridge in its current state? · At what stage would the bridge be closed as unsafe? · With a similar bridge from County Hall to Quay Street, would this have similar issues? · Had any other inspections been undertaken since 2001? In response, the Deputy Leader advised that removal of the bridge in its entirety was an option; however, there would still be costs incurred with no grants available. He emphasised that the bridge remained an important element of the development plans for the town as it directly linked Western Quayside to the interchange and was an important part of the pedestrian flow. The Head of Infrastructure and Environment responded to Councillor Dennison that the tender list had gone to a number of contractors, some of whom were based in South Wales and that the preferred award was to a South Wales contractor. He noted that, due to the innovative engineering of the bridge, the pool of contractors was limited and all tenders had been checked to ensure suitability to provide the necessary works. On consideration of removing the bridge in its entirety, the bridge was necessary for accessibility within the town. The inspection report provided was conducted in 2021 and, as the Riverside Quay had not been owned by the Authority until recently, any inspections undertaken by the previous owners had not been provided. Councillor Dennison reiterated his request to understand the lifespan of the bridge and the cost of repairs. He emphasised the Engineers’ comments in the report of 2021 as stating ‘the structure appears to be in fair to poor condition’. He further requested that a detailed report for the underside of the bridge be undertaken before proceeding as Pembrokeshire residents were paying for the repairs to the bridge. In response, the Cabinet Member advised that the cost to do anything other than complete the project would be more than £500K. The cost to the Authority to complete the works was approximately £250K. The Chair then invited Members that had signed either Call-In to address the Committee. Councillor Di Clements thanked the Head of Infrastructure and Environment for the assurances that costs would not exceed the proposed amount and highlighted that, as the original business case had changed and Haverfordwest Castle was no longer included in the project, the flow of visitors through the town, as discussed, had ceased. The Deputy Leader concurred that the project had changed but noted this had not was not due to increasing costs of the bridge. This had been due to the increase in costs and the risk element of ground works around the castle wall, which had ceased. In response to a further question from Councillor Clements regarding the ongoing maintenance costs of the new bridge following implementation and the revenue budget to ensure ongoing maintenance of green spaces, the Deputy Leader advised that the design of the bridge was durable and low maintenance to reduce ongoing maintenance costs. He further noted that these costs were not available at this time but would be provided when possible. In response to a further concern raised by Councillor Clements regarding the implication that, as elements of the bridge could be reused in future projects following deconstruction, the bridge may not be in the poor state that had been reported, the Head of Infrastructure and Environment highlighted the environmental sustainability contained within the report. He noted the proposed plan to reuse or recycle construction waste where possible. In response to a concern raised by Councillor Clements regarding the original bid not including £1M towards the costs of the crane, the Deputy Leader explained that he believed that to be towards the castle but would confirm this outside of the meeting. In response to a question from Councillor Brian Hall regarding the installation of the original bridge, the Head of Infrastructure and Environment advised that it had been at the time of the construction of the original shopping centre in approximately 1989. In response to a further question from Councillor Hall regarding when maintenance had last taken place on the bridge, the Head of Infrastructure and Environment reiterated that no history had been provided by the previous owners. The Chief Property Officer confirmed that ongoing maintenance costs were included in the service charge to Riverside and the Western Quayside. However, he highlighted that this was with the caveat that if not fully tenanted then the Authority would pick up the cost. In response to a further question from Councillor Hall regarding the costs to fix the current bridge, how long the bridge would last and any additional costs, the Deputy Leader advised that 90% of the bid price of £5.7M was agreed. However, he noted that £1.2M had been committed to the project and, if the project was stopped, the Authority would need to fund this as they would no longer be eligible for the grant from Welsh Government which was only available with the build of a new bridge. The Chair then invited the next Call-In Member, Councillor Shon Rees to address the Committee. Councillor Rees questioned the lack of a flow of pedestrians within the County Town, and why the asset that the River Cleddau provides to the town was not being better utilised. The Deputy Leader responded that the UK Government had made grants of up to £20M available and the Authority had been successful with an award of £19.9M. Many other successful grant applications had been submitted. The Authority was putting in place the building blocks around the River corridor and heightening the contribution that the Castle makes to the town. In response to a point of clarification from Councillor Aled Thomas regarding a compensation event clause contained within the contract, the Head of Infrastructure and Environment explained that this could be exceptionally adverse weather, unforeseen ground conditions which had been mitigated against all of which would form part of the risk register. The Head of Infrastructure and Environment emphasised that once the Authority was at the point of contract award, there had not been a return to Council for further funding. Councillor Thomas further questioned the funding percentages of various projects that were being undertaken by the Authority ranging from 50% to 10%. The Deputy Leader advised that those elements that were on budget were 90% funded, elements that had overspent were at a cost to the Authority. In response to a question raised by Councillor Hall regarding toilet facilities in Haverfordwest, the Deputy Leader advised that discussions were ongoing regarding tenants within Riverside and that there was Changing Places provision within Western Quayside and new toilet provision as part of the interchange. The Committee then debated the contents of the report and the discussions that had been undertaken. In response to a question from the Chair regarding removal of the bridge and funnelling more pedestrians to Bridge Street to help those shops and businesses, the Deputy Leader advised that a number of studies had been undertaken on pedestrian flow, noting one bridge was primarily for pedestrians and one a highway. He further highlighted that all designs were for ease of access into the town centre as a whole. Clarification was sought by Councillor Vanessa Thomas on the costings and the Deputy Leader confirmed that the costs to date was what had been committed and the £6M was the total cost of the project. He clarified that the £1.2M would increase as the project progressed until it reached the approved project budget of £6M. Councillor Rhys Jordan thanked the Deputy Leader for the detail that had been provided and sought clarification on the bench marking as to the success of the project. The Deputy Leader advised that this was a specific project to support regeneration of the town centre. He further highlighted a number of other developments and investments that had taken place throughout the town. The following Motion was Moved by Councillor Di Clements; Seconded by Councillor Rhys Jordan: (a) That the matter be referred back to Cabinet for further clarification around the quotes and cost estimations to maintain the bridge to ensure that statements that have been made by Cabinet Members in the public realm are accurate. This will be the only method for Members to see these figures. (b) That while the Committee appreciate the Cabinet Member was not in attendance at the meeting where this was awarded, the statements have been made nonetheless and the public deserve honesty and clarity on this matter. (c) That Cabinet should also discuss the financial implications of this project on the budget going forward as this was not discussed at the previous cabinet meeting where it was proposed. The vote, undertaken by way of a roll-call, was carried. The votes were recorded as follows: For the Motion: Councillors Mark Carter, Di Clements, Terry Davies, Brian Hall, Rhys Jordan, Shon Rees and Vanessa Thomas [7] Against the Motion: Councillors Steve Alderman, Tim Evans, Tony Wilcox and Chris Williams [4] RESOLVED (a) That the matter be referred back to Cabinet for further clarification around the quotes and cost estimations to maintain the bridge to ensure that statements that have been made by Cabinet Members in the public realm are accurate. This will be the only method for Members to see these figures. (b) That while the Committee appreciate the Cabinet Member was not in attendance at the meeting where this was awarded, the statements have been made nonetheless and the public deserve honesty and clarity on this matter. (c) That Cabinet should also discuss the financial implications of this project on the budget going forward as this was not discussed at the previous Cabinet meeting where it was proposed. [The Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Place, the Region and Climate Change left the meeting at this juncture]
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED That the Action Log be moved to end of the Committee meeting.
The Committee agreed a change to the order of business as follows to allow full consideration to be given to other items of business. Moved by Cllr Mark Carter; Seconded by Cllr Rhys Jordan RESOLVED That the Action Log be moved to end of the Committee meeting.
The Committee noted there were seven submissions received for discussion as part of the agenda item on Withyhedge Landfill Site.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED That the report be noted. [The meeting adjourned for a short break at this juncture]
The Chair updated the Committee that a number of Members had attended the Site Visit to Havens Head and Lower Priory on 18 March 2024 with Officers and Councillor Viv Stoddart and the Cabinet Member for Residents Services had also been in attendance as local Members. The Chair read out the statement provided by Councillor Stoddart in her absence which thanked Councillor Carter and the Democratic Services and Scrutiny Officer for facilitating the site visit. Thanks were also conveyed to all Members that had attended. The Chair highlighted the benefits to seeing first-hand the issues being faced by residents and speaking with a resident providing clarity on the difficulties that had been faced. The Cabinet Member emphasised the opportunity to see the topography and geography of the area and noted the benefits it had provided. He further noted that they were waiting the outcome of the report from Welsh Government on the flood defences where match-funding had already been committed. Councillor Di Clements thanked the Officers that had been in attendance and to appreciate the work that had taken place. Moved by Councillor Mark Carter; Seconded by Councillor Rhys Jordan The vote, undertaken by way of a show of hands, was carried. RESOLVED That the report be noted. [The meeting adjourned for a short break at this juncture]
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED That Option 4 – to lease to an existing stakeholder and established aviation company, be pursued.
The Chair welcomed the Cabinet Member for Planning and Housing Delivery to the meeting to present the report on the Haverfordwest Airport to the Committee. He highlighted that the Airport was owned and operated by the Authority but was not a statutory service. The Airport provided an operational base for emergency services in Pembrokeshire, it promoted the economic opportunities for the region and it provided commercial and private operators with a facility to fly in and out of the County. The Cabinet Member advised that an extensive review of the Airport had been undertaken reducing the loss considerably however, it did continue to operate at a loss of £119K in the financial year 2023/24. The report presented four options to be scrutinised by the Committee and the Cabinet Member clarified the recommended option. The Chief Property Officer then presented the report with the key elements noted as follows: · There were four options available to the Committee as noted in the report. · The Airport was required to operate at a cost neutral level. · The recommended option would allow the benefits of the Airport to remain available to the County. · Significant investment was required to improve the airport runway lights, replace the fuel storage tanks due to corrosion and the works required on the hangar doors and water ingress to the hangars. · The preferred Option was to lease the airport to a current stakeholder who would be considered a special purchaser. · They would then be responsible to undertake the necessary repairs. · If approved, the lease would then be dealt with under delegated authority. Councillor Clements then moved the Recommendation for Option Four highlighting the increasing costs and the capital costs required to maintain the airport; Seconded by Councillor Rhys Jordan. Councillor Jordan then thanked the Officers for the speed in which the options had been provided and researched since being raised under the Services Overview and Scrutiny Committee and the site visit that had been undertaken. He further highlighted the excellent work taking place and the provision available at the site with organ transfer and patient repatriation services. The Assistant Chief Executive also paid tribute to the former Chief Property Officer, the Interim Chief Property Officer and the Accountants who had recognised the excellent work at the Airport noting that the Authority was confident that they would be able to conclude the situation with no reduction in services. He noted that, following approval, Option Four would be developed into a full business case and that, working with the Trade Unions, the staff would be given the opportunity to address the Committee on proposals and concerns to ensure understanding. In response to a question from Councillor Tim Evans regarding the navigation system installation, the Chief Property Officer advised that this had not been installed yet; however, the final piece of work had been approved. The Chair highlighted an error contained within the report that it had been Services Overview and Scrutiny Committee that had undertaken the site visit and not Policy and Pre-Decision Overview and Scrutiny Committee and that it had taken place on 1 November 2023 and not 11 November 2023. The vote, undertaken by way of a roll call, was carried. The votes were recorded as follows: For the Motion: Councillors Steve Alderman, Mark Carter, Di Clements, Terry Davies, Tim Evans, Brian Hall, Rhys Jordan, Shon Rees, Vanessa Thomas, Tom Tudor, Tony Wilcox and Chris Williams [12] There were no votes against and no abstentions. RESOLVED That Option 4 – to lease to an existing stakeholder and established aviation company, be pursued.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED (a) That the Committee endorse the work of the Pembrokeshire Nature Partnership and the role of Pembrokeshire County Council (PCC) in hosting it, recognising the benefits to the Authority and to the wildlife and communities of Pembrokeshire. (b) That the Committee recommend continued financial and management support to the Pembrokeshire Nature Partnership at least at current levels and, if possible, rising to reflect the commitments made under the Edinburgh Declaration and to support actions under the Environment (Wales) Act S6 Duty and the Wellbeing of Future Generations (Wales) Act (2015). [Councillors Shon Rees and Chris Williams left the meeting at this juncture]
The Chair welcomed the Cabinet Member for Planning and Housing Delivery, the Biodiversity Implementation Officer and the Head of Planning to the meeting to give a presentation on the work of the Pembrokeshire Nature Partnership. The Cabinet Member advised that we were in the middle of a Nature emergency amidst an ongoing decline in all major groups of plants and animals. He further highlighted that the Senedd had declared a climate emergency on 30 June 2021 and that the Authority had signed the Edinburgh declaration in October 2021. The Authority had a statutory duty under Section 6 of the Environment (Wales) Act 2016. He further highlighted the benefits to tourism and the economy. The Biodiversity Implementation Officer then presented the report to the Committee highlighting the responsibility for the Authority and for Wales in the Wellbeing of future generations act. He further advised of an update to the Global Economic Forum’s Global Risk Report which provided an assessment of the biggest economic risks to the global economy over the next two and 10 years. The 2024 update reported it was now considered that biodiversity loss and ecosystem collapse was the third greatest risk to the global economy over the next 10 years. The Biodiversity Implementation Officer explained the role of the Nature Partnership noting that they had been hosted by the Authority for the last 24 years. The aim of the Partnership is to coordinate, promote and record existing and new actions to conserve promote and enhance nature in the County of Pembrokeshire and have written a nature recovery action plan. He further highlighted the contribution that the Authority had made allowing them to retain staff in the long term. The Committee then debated the contents of the report and the key points were noted as follows: In response to a question from Councillor Rhys Jordan regarding making a crematorium more sustainable, the Biodiversity Implementation Officer explained that this was more about broadening the offer with a natural garden setting when bereaved friends and relatives visit. Providing a different setting during a person’s time of need. In response to a question from Councillor Di Clements regarding the funding that had been secured, the Biodiversity Implementation Officer explained that the funding situation had changed in the last three years. At present, the Local Places of Nature programmes funding came straight from the First Minister’s Agenda and the Barnett Formula. He further highlighted that having Officers in post provides the opportunity to seek funding. Councillor Clements noted the excellent work being undertaken by a small team. In response to a comment from Councillor Clements regarding the link between Planning and Biodiversity, the Head of Planning highlighted the fundamental work of the Biodiversity Team to achieve the Authority’s Section 6 duty under the Environment Act. Councillor Clements then Moved the Recommendation with a proposal for an increased budget; Seconded by Councillor Steve Alderman. Councillor Mark Carter highlighted the height of the grass in the centre of the frolic, which was problematic on visibility for dog owners. The Biodiversity Implementation Officer explained that a lot of work had been undertaken and the natural areas were wind pollinated and flowering areas were needed for pollinators. Where the grass was allowed to grow, this had been supplemented with flowering species to increase diversity and reduce grass growth long term. Councillor Tim Evans raised concerns that increasing the budget did not fall within the remit of this Committee. The vote, undertaken by way of a show of hands, was not carried. The Cabinet Member for Planning and Housing Delivery advised the Committee that Cabinet would consider any resolution agreed by the Committee as part of the budget review and the Cabinet Member for Residents’ Services concurred with that advice. The Recommendation as set out in the report was then Moved by Councillor Rhys Jordan; Seconded by Councillor Chris Williams. The vote, undertaken by way of a show of hands, was carried. RESOLVED (a) That the Committee endorse the work of the Pembrokeshire Nature Partnership and the role of Pembrokeshire County Council (PCC) in hosting it, recognising the benefits to the Authority and to the wildlife and communities of Pembrokeshire. (b) That the Committee recommend continued financial and management support to the Pembrokeshire Nature Partnership at least at current levels and, if possible, rising to reflect the commitments made under the Edinburgh Declaration and to support actions under the Environment (Wales) Act S6 Duty and the Wellbeing of Future Generations (Wales) Act (2015). [Councillors Shon Rees and Chris Williams left the meeting at this juncture]
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED That the Action Log be approved.
The Chair presented the Action Log Update to the Committee with updates provided where applicable. Moved by Councillor Mark Carter; Seconded by Councillor Rhys Jordan The vote, undertaken by way of a show of hands, was carried. RESOLVED That the Action Log be approved.
The meeting adjourned at 12:50pm and reconvened at 2.00pm. Councillors Alan Dennison (Remote replacing Councillor Shon Rees), Michael James (Remote replacing Councillor Vanessa Thomas) and Jacob Williams (In Person replacing Councillor Viv Stoddart) joined the meeting at this juncture Councillors David Howlett (Remote) and Steve Yelland (In Person) joined the meeting at this juncture as Local Members for the following item Officers: Gaynor Toft – Head of Housing and Public Protection (Part of Meeting)(In Person) Nathan Miles – Pollution Control Manager (Part of Meeting)(In Person) Sam Pitchford – Solicitor (Part of Meeting)(Remote) External Attendees: David Neal – Director of Resources Management Limited (RML) (Part of Meeting)(In Person) Ben Maizey – DAUSON/RML Community Liaison (Part of Meeting)(In Person) Erin Smith-Evans – National Resources Wales (NRW) Industry Regulation Team Leader (Part of Meeting)(In Person) Caroline Drayton – NRW Operations Manager, South West Wales (Part of Meeting)(In Person) Kristian James – Public Health Wales (PHW) Principal Environmental Health Specialist (Part of Meeting)(Remote) Paul Callow – PHW Principal Environmental Health Specialist (Part of Meeting)(Remote) Colin Barnett – Withyhedge Petition Organiser (Part of Meeting)(In Person) Hannah Nicholas – Nominated spokesperson for Public Submissions (Part of Meeting)(In Person)
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED That the following be noted: (a) That the works necessary to comply with the NRW Notice are on schedule and expected to be completed by 5 April, following which it is expected that the odour problems will be resolved. (b) That the close working arrangements with NRW, including on air quality monitoring, continue for the foreseeable future beyond 5 April in order to ascertain that the steps taken have resolved the odours from the site giving cause to complaint. (c) That in the event that following the 5 April the problem remains unresolved and there are reasonable grounds to believe that odours are causing a nuisance or pose a risk to health offsite, the Committee recommends that legal advice is urgently sought on the Council pursuing its own action against the site operators and the next steps open to us. This is to ensure that all practicable available steps are being pursued in order to expedite this unacceptable situation as a matter of the greatest urgency. (d) That engagement with the organisers of the action group, including around the monitoring of air quality, and also improved public communications with local communities impacted be ongoing. (e) That a written update on the situation be circulated to the Committee within two weeks of the expiry date of the NRW Notice and the matter be brought back to the next meeting in June for further consideration. (f) That this be reported to Council on 9 May 2024.
The Chair then outlined the process for the meeting. Firstly, the Pollution Control Manager outlined the developments that had occurred in terms of what the Council and the Company had been doing. The Director of Dauson Group then gave an unreserved apology to the residents for the smells they had to endure. The Chair then invited Mr Colin Barnett to address the Committee and the key points were noted as follows: · The landfill site has had non-confirming waste entering the site. · The site had been non-compliant with its permit. · It was not suitable for the increase in landfill. · Residents had been highlighting concerns on their health for the past eight months. · No independent monitoring had been undertaken. · No incident response plan had been sighted from the Authority, PHW or NRW. · No support information of value ad been received when breathing in the toxic air. · The hotline to NRW has remained faulty and inaccessible. · Community regulation was in place and residents were advised to sort their recyclable waste however, the Dauson group carry waste from all over England and Wales to the Withyhedge Landfill site with a breach of conditions. · No single public service is not complicit, in their opinion, in allowing this to continue. · The root cause of the issues is the placing of additional waste on top of an already full landfill. The Chair then invited the representatives from Dauson/RML to respond and the Director advised that the waste moving around Wales was moving both in and out of Pembrokeshire. The residual waste from Pembrokeshire was transported for incineration in Cardiff with the ash then moved to Avonmouth for processing. The Director further advised that landfill was going to reduce with recycling and reuse increasing in parallel. In response to the question regarding tonnage, the Director advised that this would change over time. The Community Liaison Representative explained that they had commissioned an independent specialist to monitor the air quality in consultation with the regulator and the Authority. The Director further highlighted that they were confident that the odour would be resolved by the enforcement deadline of 5 April and gave reassurance that following the deadline, the odour would not be affecting the residents. In response to a question from Mr Barnett regarding the accountability for the decision to overfill the cell, the Director of RML explained that they had not anticipated the new cell taking so long and that there had been an element of over-tipping. He further noted the obligations that the landfill have to various customers, including the Authority to receive waste. The Chair sought clarification on whether RML/Dauson had knowingly overfilled the cell and the Director explained that it was a ‘moving beast’ with numerous complexities. The Chair then invited the representative of local businesses to address the Committee and the key points were highlighted as follows: · The issue of the odour had only become apparent in the last eight months. · No assurances had been received from either the regulator or the operator that they would not return to similar problems in the future following resolution. · Most local businesses have concerns on financial repercussions for speaking out as well as reputational damage. The Chair invited the Director and Customer Liaison Officer to respond and the Customer Liaison Officer explained that they appreciated that the confidence in RML/Dauson had been lost. His role was to build that confidence back and highlighted a number of plans that had been shared during drop-in sessions with the community. The site would be open to residents at the end of April with two dates in the first instance to provide the opportunity to speak with the operators and the Geo-technical experts. He provided further reassurance that these issues would not happen again. A Community Liaison Committee was to be introduced to work with residents and businesses. The Chair highlighted that residents needed to know when the odour would no longer be an issue. The Director of RML/Dauson advised that it would be resolved by 5 April 2024 and invited members of the public to visit the site. The Chair then invited the representatives of NRW to address the Committee and delivered a presentation, and the key points were highlighted as follows: · The Authority had not taken action due to the action that had been undertaken by NRW as the regulatory body. · NRW were an evidence based organisation. · Withyhedge operated under an Environmental Permit no.MP3330WP. · The conditions of the permit were explained. · The root cause of the odour had been identified in December 2023 and early 2024. · NRW had continued to work with RML/Dauson with an enforcement notice served on 13 February 2024 for completion by 5 April 2024. · Permit breaches were being investigated and that they were of a criminal nature. The Chair clarified that questions regarding what would happen following 5 April 2024 would not be allowed as well as unavailability of phonelines to NRW. Mr Barnett highlighted a Freedom Of Information Act (FOI) request in 2023 which had advised that the site had only been visited in January 2023 and November 2023 by NRW. In response to a further question from Mr Barnett regarding the breach of the permit, NRW explained that they were unable to comment on the obligation to continue to accept waste, as this was part of the ongoing enquiry. In response to a question from the local Business representative regarding who NRW were accountable to, the NRW Operations Manager, South West Wales explained that a two stage complaints process was in place and that they were answerable to the Ombudsman. In response to questions from the Chair, the Pollution Control Manager explained the history of events as follows: · An unusually high number of complaints were received in November 2023. · The Authority began communication with the operator and NRW. · December 2023 - A site visit was undertaken · January 2024 - A regulator meeting was held. · An Air Quality Cell meeting took place including representatives from Hywel Dda Health Board, NRW and the Authority. · The operator commissioned GeoTech to conduct independent monitoring. · Diffusion monitors were set up both on and off site by the analysis company. · The results were sent direct to the Authority. · Low levels were being recorded on site and very low levels off site. · The Authority had procured a Gerome Monitor for testing. A number of concerns were raised by Mr Barnett and the local Business representative regarding the reported low level gas results, a worthless complaints process and the nausea and fear of leaving home due to mental health. The Pollution Control Manager explained that they had engaged with Public Health Wales and it had taken time to source the Gerome monitor. The Head of Housing and Public Protection reiterated that the Authority did acknowledge the concerns raised and highlighted that they were working with NRW and PHW. She outlined the statutory powers of the Authority and highlighted that the primary regulator NRW had undertaken enforcement action and this would need to be reviewed following the expiry of the deadline. The Principal Solicitor explained that NRW can prosecute for a permit offence, but the Authority would be unable to prosecute under the Environment Act without permission from the Welsh Ministers. The PHW Principal Environmental Health Specialists advised that they relied on outside agencies for data as they did not have the ability to go onsite personally. The generic advice from PHW was to seek medical advice. In response to a question from the local Business representative regarding when PHW were first engaged with NRW, the specialist advised that this was on 12 January 2024. Mr Barnett highlighted concerns regarding how long it takes to address the issue as it had now been eight months and that Authorities across the Country were dealing with similar issues. He further noted the possibility to apply to the Secretary of State for permission to prosecute. The Committee then debated the discussions and reports with the key points noted as followed: Councillor Tony Wilcox highlighted that, with all of the recording and agencies engaged, if the smell was not present, we would not be in this position and emphasised that the residents were living, eating and sleeping with this odour. He further requested clarity on the historical issues and the overfilling of the identified cell. The RML Director explained that issues had been identified with the historic cells but requested that this be answered by technical officers on site. He further highlighted the timeliness of a landfill when moving from one cell to the next and that there had been delays which had caused the odour. Councillor Jacob Williams raised a number of concerns including the increase in tonnage to the site, potential planning breaches and the continued use of a cell that had been identified as a problem. In response to a question from Councillor Williams regarding what NRW were investigating, NRW explained that they had reviewed a potential pollution event in early December 2023 and highlighted two areas of concern for the community as the odour and potential contamination of the adjacent brook. Identified permit breaches were linked to the enforcement notice but this could not be placed in the public domain at this time due to potential prejudice of ongoing investigations. NRW emphasised that regular visits were being undertaken and that Step One of the enforcement notice had been completed. Councillor Di Clements thanked the Operators for welcoming the Committee to the site. In response to a concern raised by Councillor Clements regarding notification of the cell problems, NRW advised that this was a part of the ongoing enquiry and could not comment. NRW clarified that the site have two permits, a landfill permit and a waste transfer permit which had allowed the Authority to sort kerbside recycling, which no longer took place at this site. The Landfill has a permit for 250,000 Tonnes per annum and the waste transfer permit allows 150,000 Tonnes per annum. Additionally the waste transfer station has a lower diversity of waste allowed. Councillor Clements further highlighted concerns that RML had continued to fill the cell where there was a known issue, and questioned the commitment to the businesses that waste was taken from versus the commitment to the residents of Pembrokeshire. In response to a request from Councillor Clements, the RML Director has apologised and again apologised unreservedly and acknowledged everything that the residents and business owners had experienced. They will be implementing a community fund and would be seeking to engage the community he stated. Clarification was sought by Councillors Tim Evans, Thomas Tudor, Steve Yelland and David Howlett regarding what action could be taken following the enforcement deadline of 5 April 2024 if the odour persists. In response to a concern raised by Councillors Steve Yelland and Mark Carter regarding the issue of lorries parked in laybys around the County, the RML Director clarified that there was a design for extending the concrete at RML which would be going to tender to provide facilities for lorry drivers. In response to a concern raised by Councillor Alan Dennison regarding the new waste regulations, the Community Liaison Officer explained that Welsh Government legislation would dictate what would be permitted at the landfill site. He further advised that it was the obligation of the company that all waste received is identified by customer and location and all waste leaving the site which was reported quarterly to NRW. Councillor David Howlett highlighted the landfill tax and the lorries transporting waste along the M4 corridor and the interaction with the tax levying body from NRW who explained that the Wales Revenue Authority operate separately to NRW but noted the differing abilities of each body. She further noted that there was an information sharing agreement in place. The Chair gave RML/Dauson, NRW, PHW and the representatives for the campaign and local businesses the opportunity to address the Committee with any final comments. Moved by Councillor Mark Carter; Seconded by Councillor Brian Hall The vote, undertaken by way of a roll-call, was carried. The votes were recorded as follows: For the Motion: Councillors Steve Alderman, Mark Carter, Di Clements, Terry Davies, Tim Evans, Brian Hall, Mike James, Rhys Jordan, Alan Dennison, Thomas Tudor, Tony Wilcox, Jacob Williams [12] There were no votes against and no abstentions. RESOLVED That the following be noted: (a) That the works necessary to comply with the NRW Notice are on schedule and expected to be completed by 5 April, following which it is expected that the odour problems will be resolved. (b) That the close working arrangements with NRW, including on air quality monitoring, continue for the foreseeable future beyond 5 April in order to ascertain that the steps taken have resolved the odours from the site giving cause to complaint. (c) That in the event that following the 5 April the problem remains unresolved and there are reasonable grounds to believe that odours are causing a nuisance or pose a risk to health offsite, the Committee recommends that legal advice is urgently sought on the Council pursuing its own action against the site operators and the next steps open to us. This is to ensure that all practicable available steps are being pursued in order to expedite this unacceptable situation as a matter of the greatest urgency. (d) That engagement with the organisers of the action group, including around the monitoring of air quality, and also improved public communications with local communities impacted be ongoing. (e) That a written update on the situation be circulated to the Committee within two weeks of the expiry date of the NRW Notice and the matter be brought back to the next meeting in June for further consideration. (f) That this be reported to Council on 9 May 2024.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED (a) That the Forward Work Programme be approved subject to the following additions: i. That an update on the situation at Withyhedge Landfill be included at the next meeting. ii. That the weed spraying of grass verges and pathways be reviewed in September 2024. (b) That the Committee refer the Housing Crisis and ways to alleviate the accommodation crisis to the Policy and Pre-Decision Overview and Scrutiny Committee.
The Chair presented the Forward Work Programme to the Committee and Councillor Clements highlighted that an update on Withyhedge Landfill be included. Councillor Tony Wilcox asked for the housing crisis and a way to alleviate the accommodation problem and the Head of Democratic Services advised that this would be referred to the Policy and Pre-Decision Committee. Councillor Tom Tudor requested that there had been an issue that the weed killer used by the Authority was causing staining and raised concerns of harm to wildlife and the Chair advised that this be reviewed in September. Moved by Councillor Mark Carter; Seconded by Councillor Tom Tudor The vote, undertaken by way of a show of hands, was carried. RESOLVED (a) That the Forward Work Programme be approved subject to the following additions: i. That an update on the situation at Withyhedge Landfill be included at the next meeting. ii. That the weed spraying of grass verges and pathways be reviewed in September 2024. (b) That the Committee refer the Housing Crisis and ways to alleviate the accommodation crisis to the 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.