Loading
The decisions as the council's minutes record them. A plain-language summary follows once it has been written.
RESOLVED That the report be noted.
RESOLVED That the Forward Work Programme be noted.
RESOLVED That Cabinet be recommended to ringfence the interest obtained from second home council tax premiums for housing developments. In terms of LTEP tax exemptions, Councillor Dennison queried what classified as an unfurnished property and how this was applied if the homeowner was in a care home. He also queried how long it would be before this resident would not need to pay Council tax. He concluded that 60% of respondents said they would not meet the 182-day occupancy threshold. In response, the Revenues & Benefits Manager clarified that there was no definition of unfurnished and this was the officer’s decision. This is based on the size of the property and the furniture in it. Regarding the LTEP exemption, she said that this was if the resident in the care home was no longer using their property as their main residence. The Corporate Planning Manager agreed to address the other points in the report that will be presented to Cabinet. Councillor Dennison noted that LTEP owners could list their properties for an extortionate amount to prevent genuine buyers and then pay minimal tax. In response, Councillor Beynon said that these properties needed to be listed near to the market value in order for the exemption to apply. He added that if they altered the 182 day threshold, this could make the Council subject to a judicial review and it would go against Welsh Government policy.
RESOLVED That Council be recommended that the 2024/25 Budget set by Council on the 7th March 2024 be accepted. [The Meeting adjourned at 16:26 and reconvened at 16:38]
RESOLVED That the new Community Asset Transfer Policy and Process be supported.
RESOLVED That the report be noted.
RESOLVED a) That the report be noted. That Councillors Andrew Edwards and Viv Stoddart be appointed to the working group.
Councillor Michael Williams Moved that Councillor Aled Thomas be duly elected; Seconded by Councillor Claire George. The vote, undertaken by way of a show of hands, was carried. RESOLVED That Councillor Aled Thomas be elected Vice-Chair for the ensuing Municipal Year.
The following declarations of interest were made in respect of Agenda Item No. 10 – Community Asset Transfer Policy and Process: Councillor Michael Williams declared a personal interest by virtue of the fact that he is the Chairman of Tenby Museum Trust which was in the process of going through a Community Asset Transfer (CAT). Councillor Jordan Ryan declared a personal interest by virtue of the fact that he is a member of Fishguard and Goodwick Town Council which may go through a CAT in the near future. Councillor Nicola Gwynn declared a personal interest by virtue of the fact that she is a member of Fishguard and Goodwick Town Council which may go through a CAT in the near future. Councillor Michele Wiggins declared a personal interest by virtue of the fact that she is a trustee of a Heritage Centre which was trying to obtain a CAT. Councillor Viv Stoddart declared a personal interest by virtue of the fact that she is a member of a forum that was applying for a CAT. Councillor Bethan Price declared a personal interest by virtue of the fact that she is a representative for a group at Porthmawr which was going through a CAT and St David’s Scout Hut which may go through a CAT in the near future. Councillor Andrew Edwards declared a personal interest by virtue of the fact that he was going to attend a meeting regarding Prendergast Park which may go through a CAT in the near future.
Councillor Maureen Bowen Moved that the Minutes of the Meeting held on 19 March 2024 be approved as a correct record; Seconded by Councillor Mike James. The vote, undertaken by way of a show of hands, was carried. RESOLVED That the Minutes of the Meeting held on 19 March 2024 be approved as a correct record. Councillor Maureen Bowen Moved that the Minutes of the Meeting held on 9 April 2024 be approved as a correct record; Seconded by Councillor Mike James. The vote, undertaken by way of a show of hands, was carried. RESOLVED That the Minutes of the Meeting held on 9 April 2024 be approved as a correct record. Councillor Maureen Bowen Moved that the Minutes of the Meeting held on 29 April 2024 be approved as a correct record; Seconded by Councillor Mike James. The vote, undertaken by way of a show of hands, was carried. RESOLVED That the Minutes of the Meeting held on 29 April 2024 be approved as a correct record.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED That the report be noted.
The Recommendation was Moved by Councillor Bethan Price; Seconded by Councillor Maureen Bowen. The votes, undertaken by way of a show of hands, were carried. RESOLVED That the report be noted.
The Democratic Services and Scrutiny Officer read a letter from Mr Bob Marshall-Andrews KC regarding Second Homes in Pembrokeshire, the economic boost second homeowners bring to Pembrokeshire and his disapproval of the 200% council tax increase for second homes. In response to his queries, the Head of Financial Services provided a response to Mr Marshall Andrews which was also read out to the Committee.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED That the Forward Work Programme be noted.
The Recommendation was Moved by Councillor Aled Thomas; Seconded by Councillor Michael Williams. The votes, undertaken by way of a show of hands, were carried. RESOLVED That the Forward Work Programme be noted.
In order to accommodate the Finance Team, it was agreed that Item No. - 9 Second Home Council Tax Review, would be taken first.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED That Cabinet be recommended to ringfence the interest obtained from second home council tax premiums for housing developments. In terms of LTEP tax exemptions, Councillor Dennison queried what classified as an unfurnished property and how this was applied if the homeowner was in a care home. He also queried how long it would be before this resident would not need to pay Council tax. He concluded that 60% of respondents said they would not meet the 182-day occupancy threshold. In response, the Revenues & Benefits Manager clarified that there was no definition of unfurnished and this was the officer’s decision. This is based on the size of the property and the furniture in it. Regarding the LTEP exemption, she said that this was if the resident in the care home was no longer using their property as their main residence. The Corporate Planning Manager agreed to address the other points in the report that will be presented to Cabinet. Councillor Dennison noted that LTEP owners could list their properties for an extortionate amount to prevent genuine buyers and then pay minimal tax. In response, Councillor Beynon said that these properties needed to be listed near to the market value in order for the exemption to apply. He added that if they altered the 182 day threshold, this could make the Council subject to a judicial review and it would go against Welsh Government policy.
The Committee considered a report by the Head of Financial Services on the Second Home Council Tax Review. The Chair welcomed Councillor Joshua Beynon, the relevant Cabinet Member with responsibility for Finance & Equalities and the Head of Financial Services who outlined the key points of the report and welcomed questions from Members. The Committee debated the contents of the report and the key points were highlighted as follows: Councillor Mike James noted that he had received emails from residents who inherited second homes and paid the tax premium. These residents had argued that they should not be charged as much as those who bought their second homes. In response, Councillor Beynon highlighted the legislation states that the tax premium applied was to all non-primary residences. He acknowledged that it could be emotive, and that Council had the power to apply discretion, but it could get very complicated. The Finance Team were supporting people who struggled with costs. In response to a question from Councillor James regarding inherited houses, Councillor Beynon acknowledged that it was a ‘blunt tool’ to solve the housing issue, but Council would need to determine the premium when the item is presented. Councillor Thomas queried the costs of rolling out the premiums as 200 houses on Tax Band D would cost the authority £700,000 to £800,000 with the subsidies for the Police and Crime Commissioner and local Community Councils. He questioned how many second homes would pay the premiums for this financial year. In response, the Head of Financial Services said that second homes were coming out of NDR and into Council tax. Some that have moved would be exempt from the premium as they were put onto the market. He stated that they predicted that they would not get 100% collection rate so no major shortfall was expected. The financial figure would be provided. Regarding long term empty properties (LTEPs), Councillor Thomas stated that they only needed to be resided in for six weeks in order to avoid paying the tax premium. He disputed the idea that this would increase housing. He questioned how much money the Council made from the premiums and how many houses were built since it was introduced. In response Councillor Beynon reiterated that this policy’s purpose was to help build houses. The money generated so far was going into providing services, especially homelessness. He noted that they did not have the legal ability to put the money into the housing revenue account; the Leader of the Council had written to Welsh Government requesting the ability. Councillor Beynon stated that in 2023/24, £5.7 million out of £6.1 million was collected as part of the tax premium debit. In June 2024 this was £13.9 million, this figure is monitored throughout the year due to changes in accounts with Council and business tax rates. The tax collected from the LTEP premium was £0.583 million with cash collected being £0.520 million and the debit rates for June 2024 was £2.4 million. He agreed to share these figures. Regarding money for building houses, Councillor Thomas said that 100% of the money was meant to go towards building but it has only been 75%. He queried how much money was generated since the introduction of the second home council tax rate. Councillor Beynon stated that £8.3 million had already been ringfenced for housing developments but they could not legally do this yet. The interest accumulated from the ringfenced money was going into the general fund. Councillor Thomas noted that there was a lack of visible action with the money collected from the premiums as houses had not been built. It was noted that the Council could not change mortgage rates and it did not want to crash the local housing market. Councillor Beynon said that he was aiming to find a middle ground as he had some members of the public write to him saying they could get into the housing market and some saying they would not mind paying a bit more as second homeowners. He reiterated that legally, they could not spend the ringfenced money on housing yet. The Chair noted the difficulties in the housing market, especially how more affluent people could afford to buy ex-council houses to rent out. He added that the rent in some locations was more than mortgage repayments. With regards to rented out properties, Councillor Thomas noted that landlords paid normal levels of Council tax, not the premium. Regarding the tax exemptions, Councillor Claire George questioned what exemptions would be workable and the added value regarding the tax premiums. In response, the Head of Financial Services clarified that there were statutory exemptions covered in the legislation and there is the Council’s own discretionary policy. Cabinet will review the Council’s discretionary discount in October 2024. The Revenues & Benefits Manager added that there were exemptions to the tax premium if the property owner was carrying out repair works or renovating properties which are exemptions for 12 months (class 1 exemption). There are six other exemption reasons for properties; property is up for sale (class 2), the property has an adjoining annex, there's internal access through, and it is all used as part the main residence (class 3), the property owner and resident is deployed abroad with the armed forces (class 4), occupied caravan/boat moorings (class 5), there are planning restrictions on the property which restricts it from being a permanent residence (class 6), and the property owner and resident needs to live abroad as part of their work (class 7). It was noted that any discretionary would be a loss of income to the Council and Members would need to determine the discretion. All discretions needed to have rational behind them otherwise they could be challenged and they needed to be in line with Welsh Government policy. Councillor Alan Dennison reference the mention of a future ‘full report’ in the presented report and queried why this was not presented to the Committee. In response, Councillor Beynon stated that the report focused on the consultation responses regarding the second home tax premium and that the Committee should consider what recommendations it wants to propose. He noted that the report would go to the Council Tax Working Group too. There was a discussion on the OSC receiving the correct papers for scrutiny. The Head of Financial Services clarified that the ‘full report’ would include a more detailed analysis of the consultation responses. This could not be presented at this meeting due to timeframe constraints. The ‘full report’ will go to Cabinet and Full Council. To add to this, the Corporate Planning Manager stated that some personal details in the consultation responses needed to be redacted so personal information was not made public. More work had been done across the population, for example, having more detail on protected characteristics impact assessments i.e. age. He highlighted that it took 100,000 hours of work to collate all the responses and a lot of second homeowners had pre-existing family links to the area, including residents who inherited their properties. Councillor Dennison noted that they needed to comply with the Wellbeing of Future Generations Act 2015, and he was not happy that they were doing this until the ‘full report’ was presented to the Committee. Int was confirmed that the report would go to Cabinet and Full Council in October 2024. Councillor Beynon reiterated that the process being carried out with the consultation responses was the same process carried out last year. He added that it was common to not have the full report at this stage. There was a discussion around the ‘full report’ and when members of the Committee would see it. Regarding the consultation, Councillor Wiggins said that as 721 local residents had responded, the Committee should consider further exemptions for them and that should be decided in this meeting. Councillor Thomas stated that he was uncomfortable to make a recommendation in the meeting to be implemented in April 2025. Most consultee responses were against being charged 100% Council tax rate and this included Pembrokeshire residents. With regards to holiday lets, Councillor Thomas queried if a discussion was due as it would be open for judicial review on the consultation as it would be an evidence base for the number of days a holiday let needs to be occupied. This could then be presented to Welsh Government. Councillor Huw Murphy stated that the Second Home Council Tax rates was working in parts as houses in his ward that were previously second homes, were now permanent residences, some with young children. He added that the LTEP tax had improved since his group’s amendments. Regarding the 182-occupancy threshold for holiday lets, Councillor Murphy stated that the Council had the power to reduce this in Pembrokeshire. He suggested that the Council consider reducing the tax rate from 200% and that the Small Business Rate Relief should be scrapped as some homes were registered as businesses and meeting the 182-day threshold were not paying tax. He highlighted that this penalised properties, based on their location and that the houses on business rates in more affluent areas were not paying tax. Councillor Maureen Bowen supported the currents Council tax premiums rates as residents who could afford two homes should contribute to maintaining Pembrokeshire. She noted that second homes diminished communities and she expressed her surprise at the amount of exemptions. A Motion was Moved by Councillor Alan Dennison To the effect – That the Committee hold an Extraordinary Meeting to receive the full documentation regarding the Council Tax Premiums. Seconded by Councillor Mike James. The votes were recorded as follows: For the Motion – Councillors Alan Dennison, Mike James, Aled Thomas, Andrew Edwards and Claire George [5] Against the Motion – Councillors Maureen Bowen, Michele Wiggins, Michael Williams, Viv Stoddart, Nicola Gwynn, Jordan Ryan and Bethan Price [7] Abstaining – Councillor Brian Hall [1] The Motion was lost. Councillor Dennison highlighted the need for any decision to be fair and equitable and that the Second Home Council Tax rate was only discussed in percentages rather that monetary value. This had let to an increase in tax between £7000 to £11,000. He noted that second homes that were put on the market were not affordable to first time buyers. The 11% increase in Council tax would ‘wipe’ the savings made, and the Police precept goes up with the increase of Council tax. He concluded that the 182 days occupation limit should be reduced. Councillor Stoddart concurred that Council tax was a ‘blunt tool’ on people who had inherited homes and that 200% was too high. She expressed her desire in more houses being built on brownfield sites and sites that had disused buildings on them. In response to a question from Councillor Thomas on the 182 days threshold, the Corporate Planning Manager confirmed that the consultation asked for feedback on this. 40% of second homeowners/holiday let owners felt that they would meet the threshold. He reiterated that the consultation was not looking at altering the 182-day threshold that was set by Welsh Government and it was focusing on whether it was desirable for the Council if a property transferred from holiday let to Council Tax without an exemption. Regarding a reduced threshold, the Corporate Planning Manager said that 28% of respondents said the occupancy threshold should be between 70-99 days, 32% between 100-150 days, and 21% between 151-181 days. 14% of respondents disagreed with all Council discretions. A Motion was Moved by Councillor Aled Thomas To the effect – That Cabinet be recommended to ringfence the interest obtained from second home council tax premiums for housing developments. Seconded by Councillor Viv Stoddart. The votes were recorded as follows: For the Motion – Councillors Alan Dennison, Aled Thomas, Viv Stoddart, Mike James, Bethan Price, Michele Wiggins, Brian Hall, Michael Williams, Claire George, Jordan Ryan, Nicola Gwynn and Andrew Edwards [12] Against the Motion – Councillor Maureen Bowen [1] There were no abstentions. RESOLVED That Cabinet be recommended to ringfence the interest obtained from second home council tax premiums for housing developments. In terms of LTEP tax exemptions, Councillor Dennison queried what classified as an unfurnished property and how this was applied if the homeowner was in a care home. He also queried how long it would be before this resident would not need to pay Council tax. He concluded that 60% of respondents said they would not meet the 182-day occupancy threshold. In response, the Revenues & Benefits Manager clarified that there was no definition of unfurnished and this was the officer’s decision. This is based on the size of the property and the furniture in it. Regarding the LTEP exemption, she said that this was if the resident in the care home was no longer using their property as their main residence. The Corporate Planning Manager agreed to address the other points in the report that will be presented to Cabinet. Councillor Dennison noted that LTEP owners could list their properties for an extortionate amount to prevent genuine buyers and then pay minimal tax. In response, Councillor Beynon said that these properties needed to be listed near to the market value in order for the exemption to apply. He added that if they altered the 182 day threshold, this could make the Council subject to a judicial review and it would go against Welsh Government policy.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED That Council be recommended that the 2024/25 Budget set by Council on the 7th March 2024 be accepted. [The Meeting adjourned at 16:26 and reconvened at 16:38]
The Committee considered a Notice of Motion (NOM) report relating to A full review of the amended 2024/25 Budget. The Chair welcomed the Director of Resources who outlined the key points of the report and welcomed questions from Members. The Committee debated the contents of the report, and the key points were highlighted as follows: Councillor Murphy stated that the NOM was submitted because of the nature that the way that the budget was passed. In respect of leisure services, some comments were positive, which centred around income generation, but some were negative around how many people would sign up to the service. He noted that there was no mention on utilising the underspend from previous years. With regards to the reserves, Councillor Murphy reference the mention to using £1.5 million in reserves and paying this back and the 14% tax increase would not pay this back. Regarding the leisure underspend, the Director of Resources clarified that they were positive about the increased usage and not the underspend. He concurred that the £1.5 million in the reserves was not being replenished and there was no plan to do so. Councillor Murphy questioned if more people were using the leisure centres this year compared to last. It was clarified that the 0.34% underspend in leisure was used as a target. Councillor Dennison queried how much the Voluntary Severance Scheme (VSS) costed and how would they know what they would save without knowing the areas cuts would be made. He questioned whether the closures of the day centres were part of the £1 million savings planned. He noted that the Statement of Accounts referenced £2.1 million in the reserves. In response, Director of Resources agreed to get the numbers for the VSS, and this was not reference in the previous budget because it was an ongoing exercise. The Structured Budget Review was ongoing too and that they estimated savings in service areas based on research done last year. In terms of the operating model review, most services were in the early stages of the Vanguard process, and they will have estimates for savings next year after the process has completed. Services can change budget savings, but it would need Cabinet or Full Council approval. Regarding the £1.5 million in reserves, the Director of Resources stated that £0.6 million was already in the budget and plugged the gap in the budget, the savings would be realised in 2025/26. Councillor Dennison said that the passed budget stipulated £1.5 million so the other £600,000 did not come into it. It was confirmed that the passed budget was an amendment to the proposed budget included in the Council papers. Councillor Paul Miller reiterated that the underspend in leisure services led to them reusing numbers as it was believed this was achievable/deliverable. In terms of paying back the reserves, he said that they ensured that the use of the reserves did not impact future budget setting processes, otherwise all future budgets would require £1.5 million annually. Councillor Millar concluded that the NOM was a complaint against council tax increases being reduced. Councillor Andrew Edwards stated that they were informed previously that they could not include reserves in the budget, but he accepted Councillor Millar’s clarification. With regards to reserves, Councillor Beynon stated that using reserves is discouraged due to negative consequences, but it could be done. The Head of Democratic Services confirmed that the NOM would be going back to Full Council in October 2024 and a vote was needed to either adopt the NOM or not. A Motion was Moved by Councillor Viv Stoddart To the effect – That Council be recommended that the 2024/25 Budget set by Council on the 7th March 2024 be accepted. Seconded by Councillor Maureen Bowen. Councillor Thomas concurred with the concerns raised by other Members but that asking the budget to be rescinded would not be affective. He expressed his disapproval with how the budget was presented. With future budget setting reports, Councillor Dennison requested that members read the effects of the budget cuts as they had led to the closure of day care centres. Councillor Murphy stated that all budget decisions were made as a Council as a whole and that he hoped next year’s budget would be better. Councillor Miller noted that last year’s budget dd have a majority vote. The vote, undertaken by way of a roll-call, was carried. The votes were recorded as follows: For the Motion – Councillors Aled Thomas, Michele Wiggins, Claire George, Bethan Price, Mike James, Viv Stoddart, Maureen Bowen, Brian Hall, Michael Williams, Nicola Gwynn and Jordan Ryan [11] Abstaining – Councillors Alan Dennison and Andrew Edwards [2] There were no votes against the motion. RESOLVED That Council be recommended that the 2024/25 Budget set by Council on the 7th March 2024 be accepted. [The Meeting adjourned at 16:26 and reconvened at 16:38]
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED That the new Community Asset Transfer Policy and Process be supported.
The Chief Property Officer presented a report to the Committee on the Community Asset Transfer Policy and Process. He outlined the key points of the report and welcomed questions from Members. The Committee debated the contents of the report and the key points were highlighted as follows: Councillor Brian Hall highlighted the difficulties that residents in his ward had had trying to contact the Chief Property Officer regarding property purchases they wanted to action, and repair works they were taking out. The Chief Property Officer agreed to speak to Councillor Hall on this matter. Councillor Dennison queried if a site with a CAT had a building built on it was eligible for relief rates. In response, the Chief Property Officer stated that this depended on who took after the site’s lease. For example, charities were exempt from business rates, but a Town or Community Council would have to. However, if the site was made into something link a park there would be no business rates. He noted that the processes needed to be clear, and the new one would need to be sustainable in the long term. Regarding timescales, Councillor George noted that expected timeframes for the CAT process should be set out. She queried why facilities had not been brought back into use. The Chief Property Officer said that the new policy should fix these issues as it was previously done on a ‘ad-hoc’ basis. Councillor George stated that the Council’s assets should be used to promote Pembrokeshire either socially, economically or environmentally. The Chair concurred with this. In response to a question from Councillor Thomas regarding statutory services, the Chief Property Officer confirmed that sites that provided these services would not be appropriate for a CAT. He added that when a CAT request was made for a service, it was important that the Council had an expert to advise on these requests. With regards to CATs, the Chair queried if it would be appropriate to have a cross-party member group advise on CAT requests with all the information presented from different departments. In response, the Chief Property Officer noted that the new process should simplify CAT applications and make them easier to find and follow on the Council’s website. In terms of a working group, he confirmed that there was a group looking at asset disposal that sought to see if CATs were appropriate if disposal was not. He continued that local groups or Councils were engaged with if there were green spaces that had local interests. In response to a questions from Councillor Price regarding the desire for a ‘financial benefit to the Council’, the Chief Property Officer clarified, for example, that a play area was transferred as part of a CAT, this would financially benefit the Council as they would save money by not being required to cut the grass or collect the bins. He continued that the Council did not have a lot of assets it could transfer for financial benefits i.e. rent out, so they would save money if services did not need to be provided. It was confirmed that Members of the Committee with personal interests could vote on the recommendations. The Recommendation was Moved by Councillor Jordan Ryan; Seconded by Councillor Maureen Bowen. The vote, undertaken by way of a show of hands, was carried. Councillors Michael Williams, Jordan Ryan and Andrew Edwards abstained from voting. RESOLVED That the new Community Asset Transfer Policy and Process be supported.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED That the report be noted.
The Committee considered a report by the Head of Infrastructure & Environment on the Update on Work streams Feeding into the Transport Plan. The Chair welcomed him and Councillor Rhys Sinnett, the relevant Cabinet Member with responsibility for Resident Services, who presented the report and took questions from Members. The Committee debated the contents of the report and the key points were highlighted as follows: Councillor Dennison queried if the Phase Two connection between Steynton and Johnston was the final route and whether Phase Two would include Johnston to Haverfordwest. In response, the Group Engineer confirmed that Phase Two was the full scheme and Johnston to Haverfordwest was connectivity alongside the trunk road and/or into the path toward Brunelle. He added that the Steynton to Johnston route was the first part of the scheme, and it should start in October 2024. In response to a question from Councillor George around resources, Councillor Sinnett confirmed that there were regional capacity issues around the scheme as the whole scheme covered Neath Port Talbot, Swansea, Carmarthenshire and Pembrokeshire. The staff shortages had led to delays with the delivery timetable. Financially, Councillor Sinnett continued that they applied for Welsh Government transport grants annually, but it was unknown what finances would be available from them next year. Additionally, the Council needed to match funding to obtain transport grants, and the Council needed to find the money to do this. Regarding scheme leads, the Head of Infrastructure & Environment confirmed that Swansea was leading the scheme, and the Leader of Carmarthenshire County Council was leading the scheme politically. The scheme’s Corporate Joint Committee (CJC) had been presented with proposals in terms of what was needed to undertake the regional transport planning work and there wasn't enough funding to fund that level of work. In terms of capacity issues, the Head of Infrastructure & Environment stated that officer support was needed which no authority could provide. Therefore, an external consultant was hired to ease capacity issues. Councillor James queried whether there were plans for the T5 bus route to go via rural areas to pick up passengers who could not get to the main road. He also stated that some rural areas needed to keep the 20mph speed limit that was implemented. Regarding rail schemes, Councillor Williams queried whether the Council was actively involved with Transport for Wales (TfW) in enhancing and improving the current system. In response, Councillor Sinnett concurred that the Council was engaging with TfW and other operators to improve services. The Head of Infrastructure & Environment added that the Council attended regional and national meetings wit TfW and they met monthly with them. They focused of reliability, more routes and more frequency. He continued that discussions were also had with Great Western Railway (GWR) who terminated services at Tenby and the Council was seeking their express service to extend from Carmarthen to Milford Haven. Pembrokeshire and Carmarthenshire were cooperating to improve rail services as they were both rural communities. With regards to 20mph, the Head of Infrastructure & Environment noted that Welsh Government contacted all Community Councils asking for their views on it and some briefings were had with Welsh Government on changing the speed limit. He stated that any changes would be sensible and not all limits would be reverted from 20mph. Regarding the T5 bus route, the Head of Infrastructure & Environment stated that there were flexi-buses that transported rural residents to the T5 bus route. Councillor Williams noted that GWR services were limited because of the ‘permanent way’ and that more regular services provided by GWR should be focused on. He added that there was a shortage of train drivers which led to services being cancelled. In response, the Head of Infrastructure & Environment stated that GWR had done gauge clearance for their trains and The Chair questioned whether there were plans for rail services if they were brought back into public ownership. The Head of Infrastructure & Environment stated that it was unknown how the new rail system would work yet but there would be contractual arrangements. However, work had started on it. Councillor Miller added that he was engaging with Central and Welsh Government to obtain more rail services and the future with new routes. He said that rail nationalisation will be looked at in the future, but no immediate change was expected. It was noted by Councillor Bowen that Pembroke Dock had an historically, unreliable train services. Bus services were needed to travel between Pembroke Dock and Milford Haven. She continued that some residents relied on buses to get to work and back home in the evenings. Councillor Sinnett highlighted that the Council subsidised some bus routes in order to keep them running. Councillor Thomas stated that a lot of trains were replaced by buses. Regarding the Steynton to Johnston route, Councillor Thomas queried how the Council was kept up to date with works and the future rollout of EV charging points outside of Haverfordwest. In response, the Group Engineer clarified that the Steynton to Johnston route was all on trunk road apart from the addition to Brunelle. Updates were frequently obtained regarding the progress of the works and the scheme was being funded through Welsh Government. Regarding EV charging point installations, the Head of Infrastructure & Environment said that rollout had slowed down in 2024 but more EV charging points were put in the Council depots for the Council and public sector partners to use. Councillor Price noted that St David’s did not have a train service and there would be a reliance on bus services for people travelling to the GP in Solva from October 2024. [Councillor Maureen Bowen left the meeting at this juncture at 17:49] Councillor Dennison suggested that the length of the trains might be a reason why they were not coming to Pembrokeshire and some platforms were not long enough. Councillor Miller noted that as the trains in Pembrokeshire were older, line clearance needed to be done. For longer trains, they needed to make sure they were safe to have at station in Pembrokeshire. He concluded that works were ongoing with the Department for Transport to get a four-hour train service from Pembrokeshire to London. The Recommendation was Moved by Councillor Alan Dennison; Seconded by Councillor Mike James. The vote, undertaken by way of a show of hands, was carried. RESOLVED That the report be noted.
Due to the length of the meeting, it was agreed that this item would be pushed back to October’s meeting.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED a) That the report be noted. That Councillors Andrew Edwards and Viv Stoddart be appointed to the working group.
Councillor Aled Thomas presented a report to the Committee from the County Farms Working Group. He highlighted that in order for the group to meet, they needed at lease two new members as the Group lost members following the Committee reshuffle. Councillor Thomas Moved that Councillors Andrew Edwards and Viv Stoddart be appointed to the Group. Seconded by Councillor Alan Dennison. The vote, undertaken by way of a show of hands, was carried. RESOLVED a) That the report be noted. That Councillors Andrew Edwards and Viv Stoddart be appointed to the working group.
Due to the length of the meeting, it was agreed that this item would be pushed back to October’s meeting.
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.