Loading
The decisions as the council's minutes record them. A plain-language summary follows once it has been written.
RESOLVED That the public be excluded from the meeting for the following item of business pursuant to Section 100A (4) of the Local Government Act 1972 as it involves the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraph 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. The meeting then resumed in open session and the webcast restarted. In response to Councillor Edwards, Councillor Carter clarified that he owned 50% of the company who ran the business in Newgale, three family members owned 11% each and one owned 17%. Community Councillor Edwards expressed his concern that Councillor Carter had expressed pre-determination as he was immediately against the County Council plan. Councillor Carter stated that the final decision was made by the National Park Authority and not by the County Council. He confirmed that he was not a member of the National Park. Regarding the resident’s alternative plans, Councillor Carter said that he was not involved with the plans at all and was only made aware of them a couple of weeks ago. The plans themselves were with the National Park Planning Team and he wanted to be able to support his residents as a Councillor. Mr Nick Watt noted that Councillor Carter could speak on this issue as a business owner already. He queried how Councillor Carter would carry himself as a Councillor with a business that would be affected by the scheme. Councillor Carter stated that he was open with this and was happy to share how he was affected by the scheme. Councillor Carter concluded that if he was granted a dispensation to speak, then he would like it to run until the next County Council election in May 2027. Councillor Mark Carter left the meeting so the Committee could discuss his application. Community Councillor Edwards stated that he was wary of granting a dispensation because the public perception would be that he had a strong interest in speaking against the County Council scheme. Mr Nick Watt concurred with this. He noted that Councillor Carter had a responsibility to speak on behalf of his constituents. However, Mr Nick Watt noted that as Councillor Carter owned the building that housed the business he had shares in. Therefore, he was unsure on granting dispensation. Community Councillor Sarah Snow noted that he could be challenged by a constituent of being biased because of his business. Councillor Vanessa Thomas stated that Councillor Carter would be able to speak at the National Park Planning meeting when this scheme was presented as a property owner who would be affected. However, she was unsure if dispensation should be granted. Ms Sian Vaughan said that he was very entrenched in the scheme so she would find it difficult to grant a dispensation to speak as a Councillor. The Chair concurred with this and that the public perception could be that he would use his influence as a Councillor to affect the scheme. The Chair confirmed that Councillor Carter could speak as a businessman in the area on the scheme. Ms Sian Vaughan stated that this should give him enough leeway. It was confirmed by the Legal Services Manager and Deputy Monitoring Officer that Councillor Carter would need to declare a personal and prejudicial interest if this scheme was discussed at a Community or County Council meeting. It was Moved by Ms Sian Vaughan that Councillor Carter’s application be refused. Seconded by Community Councillor David Edwards. The vote, undertaken by way of a roll call, was carried. The votes were recorded as follows: For the Motion – Community Councillor David Edwards, Community Councillor Sarah Snow, Ms Sian Vaughan and Ms Corinna Kershaw [4] Abstaining – Mr Nick Watt and Councillor Vanessa Thomas [2] The vote, undertaken by way of a roll-call, was carried, the votes were recorded as follows: RESOLVED That Councillor Mark Carter be not granted dispensation to speak in relation to the proposed Newgale Road Diversion Scheme.
RESOLVED That the report be noted.
RESOLVED That the Forward Work Programme be noted.
The Chair sought nominations for the role of Vice-Chair. Community Councillor David Edwards Moved that Mr Nick Watt be duly elected; Seconded by Councillor Vanessa Thomas. The vote, undertaken by way of a roll call, was carried. The votes were recorded as follows: For – Community Councillor David Edwards, Community Councillor Sarah Snow, Councillor Vanessa Thomas, Ms Sian Vaughan and Ms Corinna Kershaw [5] Abstaining – Mr Nick Watt [1] There were no votes against. RESOLVED Mr Nick Watt be elected Vice-Chair for the ensuing Municipal Year.
There were no declarations of interest received.
Moved by Community Councillor David Edwards; Seconded by Mr Nick Watt. The vote, by way of show of hands, was carried. RESOLVED That the Minutes of the Meeting held on 11 December 2023 be approved as a correct record.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED That the public be excluded from the meeting for the following item of business pursuant to Section 100A (4) of the Local Government Act 1972 as it involves the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraph 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. The meeting then resumed in open session and the webcast restarted. In response to Councillor Edwards, Councillor Carter clarified that he owned 50% of the company who ran the business in Newgale, three family members owned 11% each and one owned 17%. Community Councillor Edwards expressed his concern that Councillor Carter had expressed pre-determination as he was immediately against the County Council plan. Councillor Carter stated that the final decision was made by the National Park Authority and not by the County Council. He confirmed that he was not a member of the National Park. Regarding the resident’s alternative plans, Councillor Carter said that he was not involved with the plans at all and was only made aware of them a couple of weeks ago. The plans themselves were with the National Park Planning Team and he wanted to be able to support his residents as a Councillor. Mr Nick Watt noted that Councillor Carter could speak on this issue as a business owner already. He queried how Councillor Carter would carry himself as a Councillor with a business that would be affected by the scheme. Councillor Carter stated that he was open with this and was happy to share how he was affected by the scheme. Councillor Carter concluded that if he was granted a dispensation to speak, then he would like it to run until the next County Council election in May 2027. Councillor Mark Carter left the meeting so the Committee could discuss his application. Community Councillor Edwards stated that he was wary of granting a dispensation because the public perception would be that he had a strong interest in speaking against the County Council scheme. Mr Nick Watt concurred with this. He noted that Councillor Carter had a responsibility to speak on behalf of his constituents. However, Mr Nick Watt noted that as Councillor Carter owned the building that housed the business he had shares in. Therefore, he was unsure on granting dispensation. Community Councillor Sarah Snow noted that he could be challenged by a constituent of being biased because of his business. Councillor Vanessa Thomas stated that Councillor Carter would be able to speak at the National Park Planning meeting when this scheme was presented as a property owner who would be affected. However, she was unsure if dispensation should be granted. Ms Sian Vaughan said that he was very entrenched in the scheme so she would find it difficult to grant a dispensation to speak as a Councillor. The Chair concurred with this and that the public perception could be that he would use his influence as a Councillor to affect the scheme. The Chair confirmed that Councillor Carter could speak as a businessman in the area on the scheme. Ms Sian Vaughan stated that this should give him enough leeway. It was confirmed by the Legal Services Manager and Deputy Monitoring Officer that Councillor Carter would need to declare a personal and prejudicial interest if this scheme was discussed at a Community or County Council meeting. It was Moved by Ms Sian Vaughan that Councillor Carter’s application be refused. Seconded by Community Councillor David Edwards. The vote, undertaken by way of a roll call, was carried. The votes were recorded as follows: For the Motion – Community Councillor David Edwards, Community Councillor Sarah Snow, Ms Sian Vaughan and Ms Corinna Kershaw [4] Abstaining – Mr Nick Watt and Councillor Vanessa Thomas [2] The vote, undertaken by way of a roll-call, was carried, the votes were recorded as follows: RESOLVED That Councillor Mark Carter be not granted dispensation to speak in relation to the proposed Newgale Road Diversion Scheme.
The Committee considered an application by Councillor Mark Carter for dispensation to speak on matters relating to the proposed Newgale Road Diversion Scheme. On invitation of the Chair, Councillor Carter addressed the Committee in support of his application; and to explain the purpose of his application. After a wave hit a bus on the road, Councillor Carter stated that a County Council investigation was undertaken into the viability of the pebble bank between the sea and the road. Councillor Carter owned a business on this road which would be affected by the road change if the scheme was implemented. He continued that the original plan was for the old road to remain; however, it was now planned for the old road to be demolished which Councillor Carter said would split the village. Councillor Carter added that local residents had hired a civil engineer who developed an alternative road route and they were keen for his support. They estimated this plan to cost £150,000 compared to the £30 million that County Council would spend. Residents in Newgale did not want the County Council proposed route and Councillor Carter concurred with them. In order to hear the commercially sensitive information for the dispensation, Community Councillor David Edwards Proposed the public be excluded from the meeting. This was Seconded by Mr Nick Watt. The vote, undertaken by way of a roll-call, was carried. The votes were recorded as follows: For the Motion – Community Councillor David Edwards, Ms Sian Vaughan, Councillor Vanessa Thomas, Community Councillor Sarah Snow, Mr Nick Watt and Ms Corinna Kershaw [6] There were no votes against or abstaining RESOLVED That the public be excluded from the meeting for the following item of business pursuant to Section 100A (4) of the Local Government Act 1972 as it involves the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraph 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. The meeting then resumed in open session and the webcast restarted. In response to Councillor Edwards, Councillor Carter clarified that he owned 50% of the company who ran the business in Newgale, three family members owned 11% each and one owned 17%. Community Councillor Edwards expressed his concern that Councillor Carter had expressed pre-determination as he was immediately against the County Council plan. Councillor Carter stated that the final decision was made by the National Park Authority and not by the County Council. He confirmed that he was not a member of the National Park. Regarding the resident’s alternative plans, Councillor Carter said that he was not involved with the plans at all and was only made aware of them a couple of weeks ago. The plans themselves were with the National Park Planning Team and he wanted to be able to support his residents as a Councillor. Mr Nick Watt noted that Councillor Carter could speak on this issue as a business owner already. He queried how Councillor Carter would carry himself as a Councillor with a business that would be affected by the scheme. Councillor Carter stated that he was open with this and was happy to share how he was affected by the scheme. Councillor Carter concluded that if he was granted a dispensation to speak, then he would like it to run until the next County Council election in May 2027. Councillor Mark Carter left the meeting so the Committee could discuss his application. Community Councillor Edwards stated that he was wary of granting a dispensation because the public perception would be that he had a strong interest in speaking against the County Council scheme. Mr Nick Watt concurred with this. He noted that Councillor Carter had a responsibility to speak on behalf of his constituents. However, Mr Nick Watt noted that as Councillor Carter owned the building that housed the business he had shares in. Therefore, he was unsure on granting dispensation. Community Councillor Sarah Snow noted that he could be challenged by a constituent of being biased because of his business. Councillor Vanessa Thomas stated that Councillor Carter would be able to speak at the National Park Planning meeting when this scheme was presented as a property owner who would be affected. However, she was unsure if dispensation should be granted. Ms Sian Vaughan said that he was very entrenched in the scheme so she would find it difficult to grant a dispensation to speak as a Councillor. The Chair concurred with this and that the public perception could be that he would use his influence as a Councillor to affect the scheme. The Chair confirmed that Councillor Carter could speak as a businessman in the area on the scheme. Ms Sian Vaughan stated that this should give him enough leeway. It was confirmed by the Legal Services Manager and Deputy Monitoring Officer that Councillor Carter would need to declare a personal and prejudicial interest if this scheme was discussed at a Community or County Council meeting. It was Moved by Ms Sian Vaughan that Councillor Carter’s application be refused. Seconded by Community Councillor David Edwards. The vote, undertaken by way of a roll call, was carried. The votes were recorded as follows: For the Motion – Community Councillor David Edwards, Community Councillor Sarah Snow, Ms Sian Vaughan and Ms Corinna Kershaw [4] Abstaining – Mr Nick Watt and Councillor Vanessa Thomas [2] The vote, undertaken by way of a roll-call, was carried, the votes were recorded as follows: RESOLVED That Councillor Mark Carter be not granted dispensation to speak in relation to the proposed Newgale Road Diversion Scheme.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED That the report be noted.
The Legal Services Manger & Deputy Monitoring Officer presented the Overview of Ombudsman Code of Conduct Cases. The meeting of the Standards Committee Chairs in Wales took place in late January 2024 and the Chair suggested that the Code of Conduct training was being undertaken as there were less complaints of Code of Conduct behaviour in Pembrokeshire than before. She added that there were less referrals to the Ombudsman too. The Recommendation was Moved by Mr Nick Watt; Seconded by Community Councillor David Edwards. The vote, undertaken by way of a show of hands, was carried. RESOLVED That the report be noted.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED That the Forward Work Programme be noted.
The Chair informed the Committee that the revised Standards Hearing Procedure Rules were planned to be presented to Full Council on 7 March 2024 for its approval. In response to a question from Mr Nick Watt on the group party leaders report, the Legal Services Manger & Deputy Monitoring Officer stated that a meeting was being held with the group leaders in mid-March 2023 and they would aim to put their report into the annual report at April’s meeting. The Recommendation was Moved by Mr Nick Watt; Seconded by Community Councillor David Edwards. The vote, undertaken by way of a show of hands, was carried. RESOLVED That the Forward Work Programme be noted.
30th April 2024
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.