Loading
The decisions as the council's minutes record them. A plain-language summary follows once it has been written.
RESOLVED That it be recommended to Council that the Presiding Member post be remunerated. The Head of Law and Governance sought clarification from Members as to how they would like the matter to be taken forward, in terms of Officers bringing more information on the outlined options to a further meeting of the Committee. Councillor Dennison confirmed that to be the way forward and mentioned the suggestion of a fifth option by Councillor Thomas, and that it should also be considered. The Head of Law and Governance suggested another option would be to put forward the agreed Recommendation to Council, along with the options as to how the post could be remunerated, or bring the options back to a further Committee meeting to discuss that aspect further. Councillor Dennison stated that the Recommendation be taken straight to Council. Councillor Stoddart agreed and stated that if it was agreed at Council in October that the role be remunerated, then the options as to how the post could be remunerated could be discussed at a later date.
RESOLVED That in relation to 3.6 on page 343, the eligibility of speakers for each meeting be considered separately from any prior meetings. The following points were also raised: • The Monitoring Officer then referred to Appendix three to Section 20, paragraph (e) on page 341 of the Agenda, and sought clarification from Members as to whether that sentence should remain. Councillor Williams suggested that paragraph (e) be revised in order to clarify who would be considered a statutory consultee. • Councillor Dennison raised concern that more elements of the draft Constitution were being amended, and sought clarification as to whether this matter needed to be revised prior to the Council meeting in October. Councillor Williams suggested that the word ‘will’ be amended to ‘may’. Councillor Dennison suggested ‘may be asked to’, to which Councillor Williams agreed. Councillor Jacob Williams Moved a Motion to the effect that in relation to paragraph (e) on page 341, the wording be amended to read, ‘Statutory consultees may be asked to advise on relevant matters of fact’. The Motion was Seconded by Councillor Alan Dennison. The vote, undertaken by way of a roll-call, was carried. The votes were recorded as follows: For the Motion: Councillors Alan Dennison, Steve Alderman, Joshua Beynon, David Howlett, Huw Murphy, Mike Stoddart, Aled Thomas, Anji Tinley and Jacob Williams [9] There were no votes against or abstentions. RESOLVED That in relation to paragraph (e) on page 341, the wording be amended to read, ‘Statutory consultees may be asked to advise on relevant matters of fact’. Councillor Alan Dennison Moved the original Recommendation. The following points were then raised: • Councillor Jacob Williams highlighted an outstanding item of business in relation to paragraph (d) under point 5.9.2 on page 75 of the Agenda. The Monitoring Officer stated that Members were previously minded to amend the section which related to the call-in of Officer Decisions, however, an email was circulated by the Monitoring Officer which suggested that it was not amended at this stage, and that instead, suggested wording from Councillor Dennison be used as follows: ‘Delegated Executive Functions including functions delegated to officers may be subject to scrutiny by the relevant Overview and Scrutiny Committee.’ • Councillor Williams stated that he did not support the amended wording, as it was not clear what the threshold was or what the factors were which would determine whether the call-in of an Officer decision would be eligible for Overview and Scrutiny. • The Monitoring Officer stated that any delegated Executive function could be subject to review by Overview and Scrutiny if Members had concerns. She then suggested that the matter be added to the Forward Work Programme of the Constitutional Review Working Group, to be addressed at a further meeting. • Councillor Stoddart suggested that the word ‘may’ be amended to ‘shall be’, in order to be clearer. • The Monitoring Officer suggested that this matter not be amended at this stage and explained that decisions currently being delegated to Officers were mainly operational. She stated that more time was required to consider the implications of the change and to design a suitable system that would deal with such matters, rather than adding a sentence that could cause major problems for operational matters. Councillor Dennison agreed and was happy for it to be added to the Forward Work Programme, as previously mentioned. The Recommendation was Seconded by Councillor Anji Tinley. The vote, undertaken by way of a roll-call, was carried. The votes were recorded as follows: For the Motion: Councillors Alan Dennison, Steve Alderman, Joshua Beynon, David Howlett, Huw Murphy, Mike Stoddart, Aled Thomas, Anji Tinley and Jacob Williams [9] There were no votes against or abstentions. RESOLVED That the adoption of the new Constitution, as set out in Appendix 1, be recommended to full Council, subject to the amendments above.
Apologies were received from Councillors Aaron Carey, Pat Davies and Elwyn Morse.
There were no declarations of interest received.
Moved by Councillor Aled Thomas; Seconded by Councillor Huw Murphy. The vote, undertaken by way of a show of hands, was carried. RESOLVED That the Minutes of the Meeting held on 26 May 2023 be approved as a correct record.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED That it be recommended to Council that the Presiding Member post be remunerated. The Head of Law and Governance sought clarification from Members as to how they would like the matter to be taken forward, in terms of Officers bringing more information on the outlined options to a further meeting of the Committee. Councillor Dennison confirmed that to be the way forward and mentioned the suggestion of a fifth option by Councillor Thomas, and that it should also be considered. The Head of Law and Governance suggested another option would be to put forward the agreed Recommendation to Council, along with the options as to how the post could be remunerated, or bring the options back to a further Committee meeting to discuss that aspect further. Councillor Dennison stated that the Recommendation be taken straight to Council. Councillor Stoddart agreed and stated that if it was agreed at Council in October that the role be remunerated, then the options as to how the post could be remunerated could be discussed at a later date.
[Councillor Anji Tinley joined the meeting at this juncture.] The Committee considered a report by the Head of Democratic Services on whether the Presiding Member should receive a Senior Responsibility Allowance (SRA). The Head of Democratic Services introduced the report and reminded Members that at its meeting on 13 December 2018, Council resolved to establish the Presiding Member role, and highlighted point B within the report, which stated that the position should not be eligible for remuneration. She then explained that if the post was to be remunerated, it would come under salary band 3, with the basic salary of £17,600 and the £8,800 SRA element, therefore totalling £26,400. At the meeting of the Constitutional Review Working Group on 14 September 2023, it was said that the group supported the remuneration of the Presiding Member role, either on a full or half SRA, and that if paid, the payment should be deferred until after the next Annual Meeting of Council. The Head of Democratic Services stated that she had contacted the Independent Remuneration Panel for Wales (IRPW) to confirm whether the role could be paid as a half salary, to which they confirmed that the post would have to be paid in full, however the person in the role could forfeit all, half or some of their payment. She highlighted that the Panel was going to consider this further and provide final advice in due course. The Head of Democratic Services then referred to the options outlined in the report on page 11, in regards to facilitating the remuneration of the Presiding Member role. In relation to option one, she highlighted that the Leader had indicated that he wished to retain the flexibility to appoint a tenth Cabinet Member, if the need arose. The Committee then raised the following points: • Councillor Mike Stoddart referred to the Leader’s wish to retain the tenth Cabinet position and sought clarification as to whether that would be the decision of Council. The Head of Democratic Services agreed that the final decision would be that of Council. • Councillor Alan Dennison highlighted that if Cabinet was at full capacity, option one would not be available. The Head of Democratic Services agreed and stated that the matter would be defaulted to option four; to make a case to the IRPW for an additional senior salary. • Councillor Jacob Williams sought clarification in regards to the payment of the role, to which the Head of Democratic Services confirmed that if Council was minded to support the remuneration, payment would have to be the full amount outlined in the report. She stated that half pay was not a viable option, and reiterated that the advice provided by the IRPW was draft advice, with the final advice pending. • In response to questions from Councillors Stoddart and Dennison regarding an additional Cabinet Member, the Head of Democratic Services stated that the Leader could decide to appoint a tenth Cabinet Member at any time, as that was within his powers as Leader. • Councillor David Howlett sought clarification as to whether the Presiding Member role had additional responsibilities to that of an Overview and Scrutiny Committee Chair. In response, the Head of Law and Governance highlighted that there were decision making responsibilities, as well as various pre-meetings to attend. The Head of Democratic Services added that there was a significant amount of administrative work and that the Presiding Member would also automatically sit on the Family Absence Complaints Panel. • In regards to Councillor Howlett’s point, Councillor Stoddart commented that it would be difficult to compare the role to that of an Overview and Scrutiny Committee Chair, as they had varying responsibilities. • Councillor Aled Thomas sought clarification as to whether a fifth option should be considered and recommended to Council that the role of Presiding Member be removed, and that the original way of having the Chair of Council preside over each Council meeting be reinstated. The Head of Democratic Services highlighted that the Working Group had been through the Constitution and the role of Presiding Member remained, however, such a recommendation could be made to Council. • Councillor Thomas sought clarification in regards to whether option one was available to choose. The Head of Democratic Services confirmed that this option was available and that it would be a matter for Council to determine. The Head of Law and Governance suggested checking that the ability of the Leader to appoint a tenth Cabinet Member would override a decision by Council to remunerate the Presiding Member role. The Head of Democratic Services agreed. Councillor Dennison wished for this aspect to be checked before a final decision was made by the Committee. • Councillor Stoddart suggested that option one could be chosen with the caveat that if the Leader decided to appoint a tenth Cabinet Member, the decision could be reverted to another option of the Committee’s choosing. The Head of Democratic Services agreed that this could be done. • Councillor Williams suggested that option two should include the ability to also review the number of Cabinet Members, as he believed Cabinet seats came from the same SRA pool as Committee Chairs, as well as it also being the ability of Council to set the amount of Cabinet Members. • Councillor Thomas raised concern around option three and stated that reducing the amount of Overview and Scrutiny Committees would not be appropriate, as meetings would be longer and items would not be scrutinised efficiently, therefore he would not support that option. Councillor Mike Stoddart Moved a proposal to the effect that Council review the number of remunerated positions, to include Cabinet and Overview and Scrutiny Committees. • Councillor Howlett sought clarification around reviewing the amount of Cabinet Members the Leader was able to appoint, and what the advantage would be. In response, Councillor Stoddart explained that Council had control over the number of Cabinet seats, and if reduced to nine seats, he would be unable to appoint another Member, therefore making available an SRA. • Councillor Dennison sought clarification as to whether an Overview and Scrutiny Committee Chair could also be the Presiding Member. The Head of Democratic Services confirmed this to be possible and explained that it would be two posts with only one SRA. • Councillor Williams wished for a decision to be made at this juncture and stated that it should be simply recommended to Council that the Presiding Member post be remunerated, and that the number of Cabinet Members the Leader could appoint be reduced. • Councillor Huw Murphy agreed that a decision should be made and stated that he did not agree with option four, but would support reducing the number of Cabinet positions in order to remunerate the Presiding Member post. • The Head of Law and Governance highlighted that the report outlined the payment of the position to start in May 2024 if agreed, therefore if there was an option the Committee wished to have more information on, this could be done, as it was not vital for the item to go to Council in October 2023. • Councillor Stoddart agreed with Councillor Williams that the principle of remunerating the post be established, prior to discussing and deciding on the finer details. Councillor Mike Stoddart Moved a Motion to the effect that it be recommended to Council that the post of Presiding Member be remunerated. This Motion was Seconded by Councillor Huw Murphy. The vote, undertaken by way of a roll-call, was carried. The votes were recorded as follows: For the Motion: Councillors Steve Alderman, Huw Murphy, Mike Stoddart, Jacob Williams and Alan Dennison [5] Against the Motion: Councillors Aled Thomas, David Howlett and Anji Tinley [3] There were no abstentions. RESOLVED That it be recommended to Council that the Presiding Member post be remunerated. The Head of Law and Governance sought clarification from Members as to how they would like the matter to be taken forward, in terms of Officers bringing more information on the outlined options to a further meeting of the Committee. Councillor Dennison confirmed that to be the way forward and mentioned the suggestion of a fifth option by Councillor Thomas, and that it should also be considered. The Head of Law and Governance suggested another option would be to put forward the agreed Recommendation to Council, along with the options as to how the post could be remunerated, or bring the options back to a further Committee meeting to discuss that aspect further. Councillor Dennison stated that the Recommendation be taken straight to Council. Councillor Stoddart agreed and stated that if it was agreed at Council in October that the role be remunerated, then the options as to how the post could be remunerated could be discussed at a later date.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED That in relation to 3.6 on page 343, the eligibility of speakers for each meeting be considered separately from any prior meetings. The following points were also raised: • The Monitoring Officer then referred to Appendix three to Section 20, paragraph (e) on page 341 of the Agenda, and sought clarification from Members as to whether that sentence should remain. Councillor Williams suggested that paragraph (e) be revised in order to clarify who would be considered a statutory consultee. • Councillor Dennison raised concern that more elements of the draft Constitution were being amended, and sought clarification as to whether this matter needed to be revised prior to the Council meeting in October. Councillor Williams suggested that the word ‘will’ be amended to ‘may’. Councillor Dennison suggested ‘may be asked to’, to which Councillor Williams agreed. Councillor Jacob Williams Moved a Motion to the effect that in relation to paragraph (e) on page 341, the wording be amended to read, ‘Statutory consultees may be asked to advise on relevant matters of fact’. The Motion was Seconded by Councillor Alan Dennison. The vote, undertaken by way of a roll-call, was carried. The votes were recorded as follows: For the Motion: Councillors Alan Dennison, Steve Alderman, Joshua Beynon, David Howlett, Huw Murphy, Mike Stoddart, Aled Thomas, Anji Tinley and Jacob Williams [9] There were no votes against or abstentions. RESOLVED That in relation to paragraph (e) on page 341, the wording be amended to read, ‘Statutory consultees may be asked to advise on relevant matters of fact’. Councillor Alan Dennison Moved the original Recommendation. The following points were then raised: • Councillor Jacob Williams highlighted an outstanding item of business in relation to paragraph (d) under point 5.9.2 on page 75 of the Agenda. The Monitoring Officer stated that Members were previously minded to amend the section which related to the call-in of Officer Decisions, however, an email was circulated by the Monitoring Officer which suggested that it was not amended at this stage, and that instead, suggested wording from Councillor Dennison be used as follows: ‘Delegated Executive Functions including functions delegated to officers may be subject to scrutiny by the relevant Overview and Scrutiny Committee.’ • Councillor Williams stated that he did not support the amended wording, as it was not clear what the threshold was or what the factors were which would determine whether the call-in of an Officer decision would be eligible for Overview and Scrutiny. • The Monitoring Officer stated that any delegated Executive function could be subject to review by Overview and Scrutiny if Members had concerns. She then suggested that the matter be added to the Forward Work Programme of the Constitutional Review Working Group, to be addressed at a further meeting. • Councillor Stoddart suggested that the word ‘may’ be amended to ‘shall be’, in order to be clearer. • The Monitoring Officer suggested that this matter not be amended at this stage and explained that decisions currently being delegated to Officers were mainly operational. She stated that more time was required to consider the implications of the change and to design a suitable system that would deal with such matters, rather than adding a sentence that could cause major problems for operational matters. Councillor Dennison agreed and was happy for it to be added to the Forward Work Programme, as previously mentioned. The Recommendation was Seconded by Councillor Anji Tinley. The vote, undertaken by way of a roll-call, was carried. The votes were recorded as follows: For the Motion: Councillors Alan Dennison, Steve Alderman, Joshua Beynon, David Howlett, Huw Murphy, Mike Stoddart, Aled Thomas, Anji Tinley and Jacob Williams [9] There were no votes against or abstentions. RESOLVED That the adoption of the new Constitution, as set out in Appendix 1, be recommended to full Council, subject to the amendments above.
[Councillor Joshua Beynon joined the meeting at this juncture.] The Committee considered a report by the Monitoring Officer regarding the draft Constitution, as a result of the work of the Constitutional Review Working Group. She highlighted that on page 14 of the Agenda, it was outlined where the arrangements in the Constitution differed from the model, as well as areas that had been highlighted that differed from the arrangements in the current Constitution. She also explained that there were still formatting and numbering issues that would be resolved, and stated that the new Constitution would be published using Modern.Gov and would be presented to Council in October for approval. The Monitoring Officer then highlighted paragraph 3.6 on page 343 of the Agenda, which referred to a matter regarding the Planning Code of Practice which needed to be addressed and made clearer, as per a request from Councillor Jacob Williams. The Committee then raised the following points: • In regards to paragraph 3.6 on page 343 of the Agenda, Councillor Williams stated that he wished to amend the point and explained that if a speaker was eligible to speak at the first Planning Committee meeting, whether or not they had registered, then that speaker should be allowed to speak to the relevant application at subsequent meetings of the Committee. • Councillor Alan Dennison suggested that if a speaker was eligible, they should be allowed to speak at any Committee meeting. Councillor Williams highlighted that paragraph 3.6 only related to returning applications, therefore the Monitoring Officer needed to amend the paragraph in a way she deemed appropriate. • Councillor Mike Stoddart and David Howlett agreed with Councillor Williams’ suggestion. • Councillor Williams suggested that the matter could be dealt with by removing paragraph 3.6, which would result in each meeting being treated separately in relation to eligible speakers. The Monitoring Officer stated that she would look into this aspect. Councillor Jacob Williams Moved a Motion to the effect that 3.6 on page 343, the eligibility of speakers for each meeting be considered separately from any prior meetings. This Motion was Seconded by Councillor Steve Alderman. The vote, undertaken by way of a roll-call, was carried. The votes were recorded as follows: For the Motion: Councillors Alan Dennison, Steve Alderman, Joshua Beynon, David Howlett, Huw Murphy, Mike Stoddart, Aled Thomas, Anji Tinley and Jacob Williams [9] There were no votes against or abstentions. RESOLVED That in relation to 3.6 on page 343, the eligibility of speakers for each meeting be considered separately from any prior meetings. The following points were also raised: • The Monitoring Officer then referred to Appendix three to Section 20, paragraph (e) on page 341 of the Agenda, and sought clarification from Members as to whether that sentence should remain. Councillor Williams suggested that paragraph (e) be revised in order to clarify who would be considered a statutory consultee. • Councillor Dennison raised concern that more elements of the draft Constitution were being amended, and sought clarification as to whether this matter needed to be revised prior to the Council meeting in October. Councillor Williams suggested that the word ‘will’ be amended to ‘may’. Councillor Dennison suggested ‘may be asked to’, to which Councillor Williams agreed. Councillor Jacob Williams Moved a Motion to the effect that in relation to paragraph (e) on page 341, the wording be amended to read, ‘Statutory consultees may be asked to advise on relevant matters of fact’. The Motion was Seconded by Councillor Alan Dennison. The vote, undertaken by way of a roll-call, was carried. The votes were recorded as follows: For the Motion: Councillors Alan Dennison, Steve Alderman, Joshua Beynon, David Howlett, Huw Murphy, Mike Stoddart, Aled Thomas, Anji Tinley and Jacob Williams [9] There were no votes against or abstentions. RESOLVED That in relation to paragraph (e) on page 341, the wording be amended to read, ‘Statutory consultees may be asked to advise on relevant matters of fact’. Councillor Alan Dennison Moved the original Recommendation. The following points were then raised: • Councillor Jacob Williams highlighted an outstanding item of business in relation to paragraph (d) under point 5.9.2 on page 75 of the Agenda. The Monitoring Officer stated that Members were previously minded to amend the section which related to the call-in of Officer Decisions, however, an email was circulated by the Monitoring Officer which suggested that it was not amended at this stage, and that instead, suggested wording from Councillor Dennison be used as follows: ‘Delegated Executive Functions including functions delegated to officers may be subject to scrutiny by the relevant Overview and Scrutiny Committee.’ • Councillor Williams stated that he did not support the amended wording, as it was not clear what the threshold was or what the factors were which would determine whether the call-in of an Officer decision would be eligible for Overview and Scrutiny. • The Monitoring Officer stated that any delegated Executive function could be subject to review by Overview and Scrutiny if Members had concerns. She then suggested that the matter be added to the Forward Work Programme of the Constitutional Review Working Group, to be addressed at a further meeting. • Councillor Stoddart suggested that the word ‘may’ be amended to ‘shall be’, in order to be clearer. • The Monitoring Officer suggested that this matter not be amended at this stage and explained that decisions currently being delegated to Officers were mainly operational. She stated that more time was required to consider the implications of the change and to design a suitable system that would deal with such matters, rather than adding a sentence that could cause major problems for operational matters. Councillor Dennison agreed and was happy for it to be added to the Forward Work Programme, as previously mentioned. The Recommendation was Seconded by Councillor Anji Tinley. The vote, undertaken by way of a roll-call, was carried. The votes were recorded as follows: For the Motion: Councillors Alan Dennison, Steve Alderman, Joshua Beynon, David Howlett, Huw Murphy, Mike Stoddart, Aled Thomas, Anji Tinley and Jacob Williams [9] There were no votes against or abstentions. RESOLVED That the adoption of the new Constitution, as set out in Appendix 1, be recommended to full Council, subject to the amendments above.
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.