Loading
The decisions as the council's minutes record them. A plain-language summary follows once it has been written.
RESOLVED That Councillor Mark Carter be duly elected as Chair for the ensuing Municipal Year.
RESOLVED That the Housing Building Maintenance Service performance update be noted.
RESOLVED That the work and activities taking place in the implementation of the Housing Services’ decarbonisation of Council stock be noted.
RESOLVED That the progress be noted and that a further summary progress report be brought to the Committee in six months’ time.
RESOLVED That the oral update be noted and that a written response be provided to the questions submitted by the member of the public.
RESOLVED That the update on the Environmental Enforcement Team’s progress be noted.
RESOLVED That the Annual Report 2023-24 be endorsed, prior to consideration by Council.
RESOLVED That the Forward Work Programme be approved, subject to the following amendments: · That the Planning Service update regarding phosphates issues item, be deferred to the January 2025 meeting of the Committee. · That the Public and Highways Maintenance item be deferred to the January 2025 meeting of the Committee, and that the Democratic Services Officer confirms whether it is still required. · That the Update on the percentage of staff now working out of County Hall item be removed, as it is a legacy item.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED That Councillor Mark Carter be duly elected as Chair for the ensuing Municipal Year.
The Head of Democratic Services opened the meeting and sought nominations for the election of Chair for the ensuing municipal year. Councillor Anji Tinley nominated Councillor John Cole; Seconded by Councillor Terry Davies. Councillor Di Clements nominated Councillor Mark Carter; Seconded by Councillor Rhys Jordan. The meeting was then paused for the vote to be taken by a secret ballot. RESOLVED That Councillor Mark Carter be duly elected as Chair for the ensuing Municipal Year.
The Chair sought nominations for the election of Vice-Chair for the ensuing municipal year. Councillor Rhys Jordan nominated Councillor Chris Williams; Seconded by Councillor Tony Wilcox. RESOLVED That Councillor Chris Williams be duly elected as Vice-Chair for the ensuing Municipal Year.
The following declaration was made: Item 10 – Regeneration Programme Councillor Viv Stoddart declared a personal interest by virtue of owning a town centre property in Milford Haven.
In regards to item 5a on page 11 of the Agenda, Councillor Di Clements sought clarification as to whether there was an update in regards to the cost of the crane. The Chair stated that this would be followed up with Officers in order to update Members. The Chair Moved the Minutes; Seconded by Councillor Di Clements. The vote was taken by way of a show of hands and carried. RESOLVED That the English and Welsh Minutes of the meeting held on 26 March 2024 be approved as a correct record. Councillor Di Clements Moved the Minutes; Seconded by Councillor Tony Wilcox. The vote was taken by way of a show of hands and carried. Abstention: Councillor Rhys Jordan. RESOLVED That the English and Welsh Minutes of the Extraordinary Meeting held on 7 May 2024 be approved as a correct record.
The Chair introduced the report and stated that the purpose was to note actions arising from the last meeting, as well as referrals. He then outlined each of the actions and noted their progress. The Committee then raised the following points: • Councillor Di Clements referred to the Strategic Asset Management Group (SAMG) and asked if there was a timeline of when the work would be completed. The Head of Democratic Services explained that a meeting had been convened for 24 October 2024, and suggested that due to the recent hiatus of the group, that the Committee request a six month review of the group’s activities to be added to the Forward Work Programme. • The Head of Democratic Services also highlighted a referral from the Partnership Panel that the topic of Homelessness and Evictions be reviewed, relating specifically to changes to legislation under the Renting Homes Act Section 21. She informed Members that the Head of Housing and Public Protection had offered to do a report for a future meeting of the Committee, and suggested that it be brought to the November meeting. The Committee noted the update.
The Chair advised the Committee that the public correspondence that had been received would be dealt with during Item 11 – Withyhedge Landfill Site – Verbal Update.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED That the Housing Building Maintenance Service performance update be noted.
Councillor Michelle Bateman, the Cabinet Member with responsibility for Housing, introduced the report and stated that it outlined in detail the scope of what the Building Maintenance Service covered, including inspections, asbestos in public buildings, and repairs. It also highlighted the number of repairs and maintenance calls that the Services deals with. Councillor Bateman also highlighted the recent restructure of the Service, recruitment challenges and positive progress. The Building Maintenance Service Operations Manager then gave a detailed overview of various elements within the report, including what the Service covers, Capital improvements, maintenance work on the housing stock, tenancy changes, turnover of voids, decarbonisation, as well as the maintenance on schools, public buildings and other assets. He also referred to recruitment and succession planning through apprenticeships and training, as well as the data around the sheer volume of work. The Committee then raised the following points: • Councillor Rhys Jordan sought clarification as to whether there were any issues with new build properties, and what was being done to amend the issues and ensure that they would not be repeated in the future. He also wished to determine who was responsible for amending any issues. In response, the Head of Housing and Public Protection explained that the programme delivery element in relation to new builds came under the Professional Construction Services and that any issues would be picked up by this team and passed on to the contractor during the warranty period. She highlighted that there had been issues, however fortnightly meetings were said to take place to discuss such matters. She also referred to lessons learned from the recently completed new build developments, and mentioned that designs were being reviewed and developed for future properties. The Building Maintenance Team were also said to be involved in the ongoing conversations on a regular basis, to ensure that they were aware of the details for each property. Councillor Bateman advised Members that a New Homes Officer was also in place, who was said to be on hand for the first 12 months for new tenants to pass any issues on to the Building Maintenance Team. Councillor Jordan wished to confirm that any issues in current new builds would be of no cost to the Authority, as it would fall under the responsibility of the contractor. The Head of Housing and Public Protection confirmed this to be the case. • Councillor Jordan then referred to properties being brought back into stock and questioned what the average cost of refurbishment was for such a property, in order to ensure they were of the same standard as new build properties. In response, Councillor Bateman explained that properties were firstly assessed by the Building Maintenance Team, in order to determine whether the cost and process of refurbishing the property would be suitable. The Head of Housing and Public Protection explained that the average void cost for acquisitions purchased by the Authority would need to be provided outside of the meeting.She highlighted that by the end of the financial year, in excess of 100 properties would have been bought back by the Authority, and that the Service had been very proactive in doing so. She commented that the average cost of refurbishment in regards to tenancy change properties had increased, largely due to the cost of materials and the future proof standards. Councillor Jordan congratulated the Team on the amount of properties that had been bought back and suggested that it needed to be communicated more effectively, as well as the timeline of refurbishment of such properties. • Councillor John Cole sought clarification in relation to the length of the contractor’s warranty. The Building Maintenance Service Operations Manager stated that the warranty was usually 12 months, but it depended on the type of contract. Councillor Cole also asked whether the Building Inspectors were proactive in regularly inspecting the properties, which was confirmed by the Building Maintenance Service Operations Manager. • Councillor Di Clements congratulated the team for their work, specifically in regards to repairs and the work on damp and mould. She then questioned whether full kitchen and bathroom updates on void properties were required on a regular basis. She also sought clarification as to the average age of a kitchen or bathroom when an upgrade was needed, as well as whether the Welsh Housing Quality Standard (WHQS) requirements would increase the cost of each void overtime, and whether resources and timeframes had been taken into account. She then referred to complaints and what they were predominantly in relation to and if there was a particular trend. In response, the Building Maintenance Service Operations Manager explained that there was a timescale within the WHQS for replacing kitchens and bathrooms, and that the housing stock would be assessed in order to determine the programme of works required for the next five, ten and fifteen years. The Decarbonisation Programme Manager then stated that void properties provided the opportunity to replace kitchens and bathrooms without disturbing a family. He also highlighted that it was more economic to replace an entire kitchen, rather than replacing elements of a kitchen as and when required. • Councillor Clements questioned whether tenants had the responsibility to look after the property. In response, the Head of Head of Housing and Public Protection explained that there was an obligation in the tenancy contracts. She highlighted that the upcoming stock condition surveys on the housing stock would provide the relevant information in regards to the average age for replacements such as kitchens and bathrooms, and explained that the six year timescale outlined in the report was mainly for external works on the properties. In relation to the resources available, the Head of Housing and Public Protection explained that some restructuring had been undertaken within the Service, but highlighted that there was not sufficient resources available, however additional resources were being sought. She mentioned that the main issue was recruitment, but referred to the successful apprenticeship scheme and that it would be beneficial to continue. In response to Councillor Clements’ question regarding complaints, the Head of Housing and Public Protection explained that there was a continuing high level of complaints with the biggest reason being lack of communication and quality of service, mainly due to the volume of work coming into the Service. She highlighted that the focused work being undertaken to improve this aspect of the Service was ongoing. • Councillor Chris Williams wished to highlight the good work that the Service had been doing, especially in regards to buying back properties, and believed that the positive work should be promoted. Councillor Bateman thanked Councillor Williams for his comments and stated that a press release was due to be released, highlighting the acquisitions programme and the huge amount of grant funding that the Service had achieved. • In response to a question from Councillor Tony Wilcox regarding sitting tenants, the Head of Housing and Public Protection explained that if a property was acquired with sitting tenants, it would be due to homelessness prevention. She then explained the process of purchasing properties in this situation, and highlighted that additional funding was available to acquire transitional accommodation in order to prevent homelessness. Councillor Wilcox welcomed this, along with the increased amount of approved contractors. • Councillor Steve Alderman referred to the County Farm holding and sought clarification as to whether the Building Maintenance Team were involved in that aspect of the Authority’s assets. In response, the Head of Housing and Public Protection stated that the County Farm holding was under the Property Services portfolio, and highlighted that the Building Maintenance Team struggled with capacity and the specialism required for farm buildings. She highlighted that it also depended on the contracts, leases or tenancies in place, but that Building Maintenance were only involved for emergency and responsive repairs on the farmhouses, and under exceptional circumstances, the outbuildings. She added that there was an ongoing dialogue with the Property Services Team in regards to this aspect. Councillor Alderman commented that he would appreciate a system similar to that of the Council’s Housing Stock in regards to repairs, that would be as efficient. • Councillor Cole referred to the apprenticeships scheme and sought clarification as to whether Pembrokeshire College was used for this scheme or whether apprentices were taught on the job. The Building Maintenance Service Operations Manager explained that the College had been used previously, however theywere unable to provide the same opportunity this year. He highlighted that the current apprentice’s, however, were in the office and on site for four days a week. • Councillor Cole also sought clarification in regards to some void properties receiving full refurbishment and some receiving only partial. In response, the Building Maintenance Service Operations Manager stated that any aspect of the property that needed to be removed in order for the work to be undertaken, would be replaced prior to a tenant moving back into the property, once the work had been completed. • Councillor Jordan referred to customer complaints and suggested the need for a progress tracking system for customers to view and know when their complaint would be dealt with, which could ultimately ease the pressure for Officers. He then questioned how many opportunities there were for more properties to be built across the County. In response, the Building Maintenance Service Operations Manager explained that in regards to customer communication, a text message service was being implemented that would notify tenants of the various stages of their repair. In regards to new houses being built in the future, Councillor Bateman highlighted these as outlined on page 100 of the Agenda. She then provided some detail as to the types of housing the properties would be, as well as the pressure of balancing new builds and achieving WHQS2. The Head of Housing and Public Protection then offered to bring a more detailed report, specifically on the Housing Development Programme, to a future meeting.She referred to the additional costs being faced by Social Landlords and the press coverage of the Welsh Government target of 20,000 new homes being unlikely to be met. Councillor Jordan stated that it was important that the public were aware of such aspects of building new homes across the County, and suggested that updates and plans needed to be shared. Councillor Bateman agreed and suggested that more could be done to explain certain terms and phrases that the public would not necessarily be aware of. • Councillor Wilcox referred to the need for one-bedroom properties, and also suggested modular housing. The Head of Housing and Public Protection stated that 60% of the housing register was in need for one-bedroom properties, and also highlighted the challenge around also needing larger properties. She also commented on bespoke modular units and highlighted that planning permission would still be a requirement but it was an option that was being looked at, however it would come down to cost. She also mentioned that town centre properties were also being looked into. Councillor Bateman then referred to a leasing scheme and also an amendment to the Allocations Policy. • The Chair then referred to ground source heat pumps and sought clarification as to whether they were more reliable than previous systems. The Decarbonisation Programme Manager explained that it was too early for reliability data in regards to air source heat pumps, but stated that he was not expecting any particular issues beyond normal heating systems. The Chair then asked whether tenants were happy with the new system, to which the Decarbonisation Programme Manager stated that no tenants had asked to revert back to a previous heating system. • The Chair also sought clarification as to whether a kitchen or bathroom ever needed to be replaced after 12 months due to it being neglected, and how this would be dealt with and whether there was any recourse against the tenant. The Head of Housing and Public Protection explained that if a property was vandalised then the tenant would be recharged and the cost would go onto their rent account. He also questioned whether the Service received consistent smaller complaints and asked how they would be dealt with. The Building Maintenance Service Operations Manager explained that the demands of customers had increased significantly, as well as heightened expectations, and that there was a process to deal with such matters. Councillor Di Clements Moved the Recommendation; Seconded by Councillor John Cole. The vote, undertaken by way of a show of hands, was carried. RESOLVED That the Housing Building Maintenance Service performance update be noted.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED That the work and activities taking place in the implementation of the Housing Services’ decarbonisation of Council stock be noted.
Councillor Michelle Bateman, the Cabinet Member with responsibility for Housing, introduced the report and stated that it outlined the current position of the Authority and the timescales of what needed to be achieved. The Decarbonisation Programme Manager explained the detail within the report which included the three deadlines set by the Welsh Housing Quality Standard (WHQS), the programme of works, funding and Capital voids. The Committee then raised the following points: • Councillor Di Clements commented on the cost of the decarbonisation of the Council Housing Stock, as well as the targets set by Welsh Government in relation to the matter. The Head of Housing and Public Protection responded and referred to the cost allocated within the business plan for decarbonising the housing stock, and balancing that against the ambition in relation to housing development. She mentioned meetings with Welsh Government and that they had made aware the fact that decarbonisation and developing could not be done at the same time at the pace they had set out, without additional funding. • Councillor Clements suggested that the outcomes of such conversations with Welsh Government could be brought to the Committee in the future. She sought clarification as to whether there were consequences if the Welsh Government targets were not met. In response, the Head of Housing and Public Protection highlighted that there had been no official response from Welsh Government, but there had been acknowledgement that it was an ambitious programme. In regards to consequences, she explained that the Authority received an annual grant from Welsh Government of £4 million for the Major Repairs Allowance, which ensured the Authority’s compliance with the scheme. Councillor Bateman wished to reassure Members that regular meetings took place with Housing Cabinet colleagues across Wales with the Housing Minister, and that the point of funding was always raised, however an answer as to where the funding was coming from was yet to be confirmed. • Councillor John Cole questioned whether Council tenants who met the criteria could be used to apply for grant funding, in order to receive solar panels or air source heat pumps. The Decarbonisation Programme Manager explained that that particular grant funding was being looked into for some of the housing stock, however, the energy performance rating of a property had to be extremely poor in order to be eligible for the grant, which Council properties were not. He highlighted that only E, F and G energy rated properties were eligible for such funding. • Councillor Cole then referred to export tariffs in relation to solar panels and sought clarification as to whether the Authority’s Housing Revenue Account (HRA) or the tenants would receive the funding from the tariffs. The Decarbonisation Programme Manager stated that it was dependent on when the panels were installed, however further meetings were organised in order to resolve the matter. Councillor Cole believed that the funding should be shared in order to continue progressing the HRA. Councillor Di Clements Moved the Recommendation; Seconded by Councillor Tony Wilcox. The vote, undertaken by way of a show of hands, was carried. RESOLVED That the work and activities taking place in the implementation of the Housing Services’ decarbonisation of Council stock be noted.
The meeting was paused at 11:57am and resumed at 12:21pm. Councillor John Cole left the meeting at this juncture and returned remotely. Councillor Nicola Gwynn left the meeting.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED That the progress be noted and that a further summary progress report be brought to the Committee in six months’ time.
Councillor Paul Miller, the Cabinet Member with responsibility for Place, the Region and Climate Change, introduced the report and highlighted a few key achievements as well as challenges going forward. He referred to the Celtic Freeport, Pembroke Dock Marine Scheme, digital connectivity, town centre projects and tenancies on the Riverside, Haverfordwest. The Committee then raised the following points: • The Chair sought clarification in relation to what tenancies on the Riverside had been signed recently. In response, Councillor Miller explained that a tenancy had been signed for the unit previously occupied by Boots and Pound Stretcher, and discussions were currently taking place in relation to the upper floors of the Western Quayside, as well as for the former Wilkinson’s building. • The Head ofEconomic Development and Regeneration then outlined more detail in relation to the various projects, particularly the amount of positive work that had been undertaken through the Shared Prosperity Fund Anchor Projects. She also referred to the good relationships being built with community groups and local businesses. • Councillor Di Clements suggested that one element of the Regeneration Programme be chosen by the Committee to be reported on in more detail, rather than one report focusing a wide range of elements. She stated that the Celtic Freeport was a great opportunity and was pleased to see it progressing, but highlighted the broadband issues in many areas were still ongoing. Councillor Clements then referred to the Bridge Innovation Centre in Pembroke Dock and asked for an update on the essential roof repairs, as well as whether a cost recovery approach was being achieved. She also wished to clarify whether events held at the centre were free. In response, the Head ofEconomic Development and Regeneration clarified that the Authority was still moving towards a cost recovery approach, but highlighted that work to the roof and work for insurance damage had held things up. She also added that the Authority did charge for events and highlighted that the team were looking innovatively at how the space could also be let, as well as receiving various enquiries from companies. The Head ofEconomic Development and Regeneration also accepted that it was a complex report and would be happy to focus on a single element at a future meeting. Councillor Miller also informed Members that partnership arrangements were being explored in relation to running the Bridge Innovation Centre, as well as the potential for a second Centre. • In regards to an update on broadband, Councillor Miller highlighted that progress was impacted when the Broadway partners went into administration, therefore the Authority was instead working with Openreach on their Community Scheme. He outlined the areas that were currently being worked on and assured Members that it was a priority for the Authority. • The Chair wished for confirmation that the Bridge Innovation Centre roof was now watertight. The Head ofEconomic Development and Regeneration confirmed that the main roof was, however the area with storm damage currently had a temporary fix and would be fully fixed during the winter period. • Councillor Rhys Jordan sought clarification as to what had been the biggest challenge since the last update and what was being done to resolve it. The Head ofEconomic Development and Regeneration stated that the team were always dealing with challenging projects and went on to refer to past and future challenges, including recruitment and retention, short term grants and building challenges. In regards to projects such as the Celtic Freeport, she explained that forward planning would help to solve any challenges. • Councillor Jordan also questioned whether it was a challenge to attract new businesses into Haverfordwest, and what was being done to overcome the fact that there were empty properties in the town centre. The Head of Economic Development and Regeneration stated that some significant changes were imminent in Haverfordwest, and highlighted that certain initiatives would be finalised over the next two years, such as Haverfordwest Castle, which would provide a different reason for people to visit the town. She also referred to the paint scheme which made the town look more vibrant and therefore showed that businesses were investing. • Councillor Steve Alderman referred to Blue Gem Wind and sought clarification as to their involvement with the Celtic Freeport. In response, the Head ofEconomic Development and Regeneration stated that she would contact Blue Gem Wind as soon as possible to clarify their position. Councillor Alderman stated that delays were not helping matters and that timelines continued to be extended. • The Chair referred to the former Wilkinson’s building and wished to clarify why the space was still not occupied. In response, Councillor Miller explained that six expressions of interest were received initially and that conversations were ongoing with some of the bidders. He stated that he was reasonably confident that a tenant would be lined up by the end of 2024. The Chair then questioned who was currently paying the building rate of £89,920 per year, with the building having been empty for 12 months. Councillor Miller stated that there was a six-month exemption period, then confirmed that the Authority would have to cover that cost following that period. He stated that the Chief Property Officer would need to confirm whether the Authority was now paying that cost, however, he explained that the Riverside Shopping Centre continued to show a revenue surplus. • The Chair then wished to clarify the reasons behind the extended timescales in relation to buildings being leased, specifically in regards to Specsavers. Councillor Miller responded by explaining that, overall, the site that had been acquired was in a revenue positive position, and highlighted that there was no delay on the Authority’s side in regards to the Specsavers lease, however, there was some delay on the franchise holder’s side, but the lease had been executed. The Chair also sought clarification as to whether the Authority was flexible when leasing out buildings, as the main aim was to increase footfall in the town. Councillor Miller confirmed that the Authority was extremely flexible in the approach to tenancies. • Councillor John Cole questioned whether any leisure facilities would be implemented in the area. Councillor Miller responded by referring to the upcoming Local Development Plan 2, and highlighted that it allowed tenants more diverse opportunities under the planning categories. He believed that the future of town centres would be more than just retail and would likely involve leisure and service offers as well. In response to a further question from Councillor Cole regarding the income of the Riverside, Councill Miller stated that in previous years it had been around £200,000 per annum, and once certain buildings were being leased, it would be around a similar figure once again. • Councillor Cole also sought clarification as to whether town centres received rate relief. In response, Councillor Miller stated that there was six months’ rent relief for vacant properties. Councillor Di Clements Moved the Recommendation; Seconded by Councillor Vanessa Thomas. The vote, undertaken by way of a show of hands, was carried. RESOLVED That the progress be noted and that a further summary progress report be brought to the Committee in six months’ time.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED That the oral update be noted and that a written response be provided to the questions submitted by the member of the public.
The Chair introduced the matter and stated that the Committee had received public correspondence from Sue Lewis. He then read out the questions from the member of the public as follows: 1: Given the history of their non-compliance with environmental permits and also their terrible Health and Safety record: (two recent deaths one of which is currently under investigation by the police) can we, the residents of Pembrokeshire, be assured that no publicly funded contracts be awarded to any of the Dauson Environmental Group of companies or any companies under the Directorship of David Neal in the future? Can we be assured that all Dauson Environmental companies and those where David Neal is a Director have now been removed from any approved suppliers lists and that all council staff with budgetary responsibilities are properly trained how to carry out due diligence checks? 2: The air quality monitoring reports now suggest the levels of gas experienced by local people do not actually damage health and are just an annoyance. Do the council and NRW not believe the reports received that the levels of landfill gases experienced by local people made them physically sick, aggravated skin conditions and caused breathing conditions to be worsened? If believed, then logically either the levels being reported are wholly inaccurate or the threshold levels whereby residents will experience ill health are set too high? 3: Has the Council Planning Department been consulted and inspected the new lagoons that have recently been built next to the Rudbaxton stream to catch the additional ‘run off’ water that apparently needs to be ‘treated’? If it’s just ‘run off’ water why does it need treating? If it’s leachate then why is it not being taken off site? Why would any planner allow potentially toxic lagoons to be built next to a water way that feeds into a river from where our drinking water is taken further downstream? 4: According to some rumours this landfill site when under Council ownership breached planning by being too high. If so, who was responsible for that error? What penalties were imposed? Regardless of the previous breach in planned height under previous ownership what penalty was given for RML’s breach of planned height? 5: The gas management system in place appears to be coping better but there are still some reports of landfill gas being detected by some residents. This is a breach of the permit if only one person experiences the smell. The deadline set by NRW for zero smell was clearly not met. Why are the public not being told in broad terms of NRW’s criminal proceedings now presumably in process against RML? 6: Whilst under investigation and whilst criminal proceedings are in process can the Council pause any business contracts that have been awarded to RML? 7: Will the council be investigating a lack of thoroughness by decision makers when planning permission for the extension of the landfill site was approved? Landfill is a now an outdated method of waste management can said planning permissions be rescinded? Have PCC Planning and Legal teams looked into this matter as a solution to the problem? 8: Is RML being investigated for Landfill Tax irregularities? Given that NRW acknowledge there is waste on site that ought not be there can the Council ask for a thorough audit of their tax returns? 9: Where is the fire services report following their visit to the site when the capping material was stretched like a ballon full of flammable gas? Will Bramble asked to see this and their risk assessment at a previous cabinet meeting. 10: If there was a fire at the site do the Council plan to share with local communities their evacuation plan? Councillor Rhys Sinnet, the Cabinet Member with responsibility for Residents’ Services highlighted that the Authority was still awaiting court action, due to take place on 19 September 2024. He hoped that a further update could be brought to Council and the Committee during the next cycle of meetings. The Legal Solicitor then gave an overview of the legal position to date, which included application for disclosure of documents, the submission of an interim injunction application, and witness statements from residents who had been affected. He explained that there was no change of position by Resource Management Limited (RML) and that they continued to oppose both the disclosure of documents and any voluntary injunctive relief. The Head of Housing and Public Protection then gave an overview of work recently undertaken in relation to the matter, which included monthly reports of the air quality perspective, independent static monitoring by the Authority and Natural Resources Wales (NRW) monitoring. She highlighted that due to the site currently not accepting waste, readings were showing low levels of hydrogen sulphide in the area and that the reports in regards to the monitoring of the air quality were published on the Authority’s website. She also referred to the Construction Quality Assurance Validation report which was being considered by NRW, which would determine whether the site could reopen in the future. The Head of Housing and Public Protection then gave the answers to the public submission as follows: 1: When awarding public contracts, the Council must comply with relevant procurement legislation. For procurements commenced prior to 28th October 2024, this is the Public Contract Regulations 2015, and for procurement activity commenced on or after that date, it will be the Procurement Act 2023. Both pieces of legislation have detailed provisions about when a supplier must be or could be excluded from a procurement process, including provision as to whether any assessment is made as against the supplier only, or whether the considerations extend to directors, persons with significant control, parent or subsidiary undertakings and others. The relevant legislation will be applied to any future procurement activity. Procurement officers with an understanding of the legislative requirements will be involved in the process. Dauson Environmental Group companies do not feature on any Council approved supplier list. The Council does not have any such approved lists and has not done so for many years. The Council uses frameworks and dynamic purchasing systems (DPSs) some we have awarded ourselves and others in collaboration with other public bodies. Cardiff Demolition are on the South West Wales regional civil engineering framework. However they have not been successful in any competitive exercises within this lot for Pembrokeshire County Council. 2: Public Health Wales has provided its comments and opinion on the air quality monitoring undertaken by Geotechnology Ltd. These reports are also considered by the multi-agency Air Quality Group, with advice and guidance provided on the monitoring strategy to ensure a consistent and accurate programme is in place. NRW and the Council have also jointly commissioned further air quality monitoring and the reports indicate no breaches of odour annoyance levels. These reports and further information is provided on the Council webpages. We will continue with this monitoring programme together with additional monitoring put in place as required over the coming months. The odour annoyance level is a recognised international air quality monitoring values agreed by the World Health Organisation. 3: The planning permission includes the provision of a number of lagoons which have been constructed. The Local Planning Authority is aware of more recent ground works being undertaken next to one of the authorised lagoons and is currently investigating this matter as part of a live enforcement case. Should the investigation conclude that unauthorised development has taken place the Local Planning Authority will decide what appropriate action should be taken to address the breach of planning control. 4: The Local Planning Authority has no record of the alleged historical breach of planning being referred to. The Local Planning Authority has not found the development to be in breach of the terms of the planning permission in respect of the height of the waste material. A condition of the permission stipulates finished levels and profiles only. 5: This question would be need to be answered by NRW who are responsible for the permit requirements. 6: The Council does not have any current contracts with RML / Resources Management Ltd. The last payment to RML was the 6th June 2024 which corresponds to the expiry of the contract in May 2024 and there are no payments to any other company within the Dauson group. 7: The decision to grant planning permission for an extension to the landfill was taken on 14th March 2006. The appropriate route for challenge of any decision to grant planning permission is judicial review. The deadline to do so is 6 weeks from the grant of permission. That deadline was passed some 18 years ago. Therefore, the Local Planning Authority (“LPA”) do not intend to review the decision. The LPA can discontinue planning permission under s.102 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (“TCPA”). The test for discontinuance is expediency ‘in the interests of the proper planning of their area (including the interests of amenity)’. The LPA must have regard to its development plan and any other material considerations. Finally, the Secretary of State’s confirmation is required under s.103 of the TCPA. The LPA do not consider the test of expediency met. There are alternative means to address the detrimental impact on amenity of the odour. 8: The Council is not and would not be aware of this. It is suggested that queries of this nature are directed to the Welsh Revenue Authority who are responsible for the collection of the Landfill Disposals Tax in Wales. 9: This is not a document the Council would possess, and it is suggested that the question be directed to the MWWFRS or NRW as the regulator. 10: The Council do not (and are not required to have) have any detailed evacuation plans for local communities in the event of a fire at the site. Emergency Planning do maintain plans to support evacuations from a range of scenarios, but any decision would be a dynamic one based upon best available data, information, and professional advice. The focus of any evacuation is always on supporting the most vulnerable to be removed to a place of safety. Experience shows that if circumstances support a recommendation for a community to evacuate, the vast majority of people will self-evacuate to friends and family etc. Where individuals may be evacuated to by responding agencies is dependent upon many factors including the specifics of the circumstances, weather and forecasted conditions, time of day, available options etc. etc. and the personal circumstances of the individuals impacted. There have been fires at the site previously but these have never necessitated the evacuation of local communities. Councillor Tony Wilcox Moved the Recommendation; Seconded by Councillor Terry Davies. The Chair then made an Amendment to the Recommendation as follows: That the oral update be noted and that a written response be provided to the questions submitted by the member of public. The Amendment was accepted and added to the original Motion. Councillor Di Clements wished to thank the Head of Housing and Public Protection for providing answers so quickly. The vote, undertaken by way of a show of hands, was carried. RESOLVED That the oral update be noted and that a written response be provided to the questions submitted by the member of the public.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED That the update on the Environmental Enforcement Team’s progress be noted.
Councillor Rhys Sinnett, the Cabinet Member with responsibility for Residents’ Services introduced the report and stated that it outlined the first year of the operation of the Enviro-crime service, and that due to the nature of the contract, a further update report would be brought to the Committee in 12 months’ time, where Members would need to advise whether they wish for the contract to continue or not. He stated that the report highlighted key issues and challenges that the Service had encountered, as well as provided data in relation to offence numbers and responses. The Public Realm Manager then gave a general overview of the past year and stated that it had been a challenging new service to deliver. He referred to public pushback, beach enforcement, retention of staff within the Waste Investigation Support and Enforcement (WISE) Company, level of complaints, body cameras, and theCommunication Plan in regards to beach restrictions. He then went on to outline the figures within the report in regards to fixed penalty notices (FPN), as well as some court cases being taken forward. He also referred to fly-tipping and that 58 FPN’s had been issued, and highlighted that it was an area that would assist with budget pressures. The Head of Infrastructure and Environment also referred to the difficulty with physical enforcement as it was more personal, but highlighted that the service provided publicity and education, however enforcement was the action that seemed to ensure compliance. The Committee then raised the following points: • Councillor Rhys Jordan referred to the amount of cancelled fines and sought clarification as to why this was the case, as well as how the fine process was managed within the Authority. The Public Realm Manager explained that representation could be made in regards to a fine, which would then be managed by WISE. He highlighted that some fines showing as cancelled could be that a representation had been accepted. Councillor Jordan raised concern around public perception and the message being portrayed around fines, and that consequences to people’s actions needed to take place. The Head of Infrastructure and Environment added that signage in regards to this particular aspect of enforcement was compliant, however in some areas it had improved. • Councillor Di Clements referred to the retention of staff within WISE and sought clarification as to whether it was affecting the ability of the Company to support the Authority. The Public Realm Manager explained that the amount of staff was not at the right level in accordance with the contract, but explained that the WISE Company had a recruitment plan in place, however this type of enforcement was difficult to deliver. He added that he would speak to colleagues in other parts of Wales to understand how they manage in comparison. Councillor Clements then questioned whether the service would suffer if there was not enough staff to run it. In response, the Public Realm Manager believed that more could be done in regards to education, as well as improvement on the community aspect of enforcement, which would ultimately be developed over the next six months. • Councillor Clements sought clarification as to how much the WISE Company was being paid, and mentioned that she was mindful of the lack of staff and whether the Authority was paying for full capacity. The Public Realm Manager explained that there was a fee structure for correctly issued FPN’s and depending on the type of fine, the fee structure was different. He suggested that the fee structure would need to be reviewed and brought back to the Committee in 2025. • Councillor Tony Wilcox stated his support for the service and wished for a breakdown in regards to estimated patrol times on all beaches. In response, the Public Realm Manager stated that there was a breakdown of such times by ward; however it needed to be amended, but it could be shared with Members outside of the meeting. • Councillor John Cole sought clarification in regards to what the Company was responsible for in terms of issuing fines, sorting appeals and court cases, and questioned whether the contract was a partnership contract. The Public Realm Manager explained that prosecutions were handled by the Authority, however, complaints and the issuing of letters was handled by the Company. In response to a further question from Councillor Cole regarding repeat offenders, the Public Realm Manager explained that repeat offenders (more than three FPN’s) would be identified by the Company and communicated to the Authority, however there were no figures for repeat offenders at this time. [Councillor Shon Rees left the meeting at this juncture.] • Councillor Terry Davies referred to body camera footage and wished for clarity as to whether the footage would be used in regards to any complaints made by a member of the public. The Public Realm Manager confirmed that the Authority could access such footage in order to check if an Enforcement Officer was being reasonable and professional, and to assist in dealing with the matter if there was an issue. He explained that if there was an issue, the Officer’s authorisation card would be withdrawn and discussions with the Company would take place to identify the problem and resolve it. • Councillor Chris Williams referred to waste from commercial properties and second homes / holiday homes, and questioned whether any information had been received regarding waste being thrown out of cars and if action was being taken to resolve the issue. The Public Realm Manager explained that such a matter was based on people being caught in the act. He also highlighted that one bag of waste from a commercial property would be considered littering, and more than two bags would be considered fly-tipping. He referred to the amount of work behind the process to catch fly-tippers and mentioned that 58 fines had been issued, as well as identifying certain hotspots to WISE. He then urged Members to let the team know of any other problem areas, as all information was useful to the service. Councillor Williams understood the amount of work going into this area of enforcement, but suggested that work needed to be focused on holiday accommodation and second homes. Councillor Williams also referred to dog restrictions on beaches and that beaches in Saundersfoot had improved, however he believed that additional signage was required to determine the different zones to reduce numbers even further. In relation to rubbish being thrown out of vehicles, the Head of Infrastructure and Environment wished to highlight that number plates could not be used to catch offenders. He also noted the reference to additional signage. • Councillor Jordan sought clarification in regards to the types of fines in relation to offences such as dog fouling and cigarette butts, and whether the Committee could review the levels of different fines or whether they were set by WISE. In response, the Public Realm Manager explained that the level of fines were the same, and that ‘caught in the act’ offences, such as dog fouling, were always difficult to fine and therefore fine levels were low, however hotspots were noted which assisted the service. • The Chair referred to the maximum fine of £150 with the discretion of reducing to £75 if paid within 14 days, and suggested that the discretion be removed for dog fouling fines. The Public Realm Manager stated that he would have to check the Constitution to see how those fees were set. • In response to Councillor Cole who questioned when the body cameras were active, the Public Realm Manager explained that they would not be active for the entire shift of an Enforcement Officer, and would just be used to gather evidence in relation to an offence. He highlighted that work was being undertaken with WISE to instil the need in Enforcement Officers to be visible. • Councillor Wilcox referred to rubbish and bins being left out and sought clarification as to how that would be picked up and by who. The Public Realm Manager assured Members that there was a process in place, and that such a matter was reported to the service by a supervisor, the bins would be investigated to see if there was any evidence of a local business, then the information would be sent on to WISE. He explained that it was a new process that would continue to be improved. [Councillor John Cole left the meeting at this juncture.] • Councillor Williams referred to Enforcement Officers being more visible and questioned whether a change to their uniform or a high visibility jacket would increase noticeability. The Public Realm Manager stated that he welcomed comments on this matter, but highlighted that Parking Services Officers were previously in yellow and felt like targets, and believed the current uniform to be smart and representative of the Authority. Councillor Williams agreed that Officers looked professional. • Councillor Anji Tinley sought clarification as to whether WISE was paid a large sum by the Authority and whether the money for the fines went directly to the Company. In response, the Public Realm Manager explained that no large sum of money was paid to the Company, and they were instead paid according to each correctly issued FPN. She also stated that she had seen no Enforcement Officers in her ward where fly-tipping was rife, and that Officers were waiting outside local primary schools. The Public Realm Manager asked for Councillor Tinley to contact him outside of the meeting so that issue could be resolved. Councillor Tinley then wished to know how many fines had been issued in regards to cigarette butts. The Chair referred to Appendix A to the report and stated that issued fines for cigarette butts was 1438. Councillor Tinley also wished to know the number of complaints against WISE’s code of conduct against the public. The Public Realm Manager stated that he did not have that figure but would circulate via email to Committee Members. • The Chair referred to the breakdown of cigarette butt fines and how many were correctly issued, how many were outstanding and cancelled or written off, and sought clarification as to whether the Company was paid for cancelled fines. The Public Realm Manager confirmed this to be the case. The Chair also stated that some of the figures in the Appendix did not add up and that, without reference to the figures on dogs on leads and on beaches, cigarette butt littering made up over 94% of overall offences. The Chair also referenced the beach map outlining various zones for dog owners and stated that it was unclear, and suggested that more signs be added to the beaches for dog owners. The Public Realm Manager explained that cigarette butt littering was always high and referred to the need for a behavioural change. He then stated that signage in regards to beaches had been improved, lifeguards had been briefed to communicate with dog owners, signs had been added to toilet blocks, and information had been given to Community Councils to inform their residents. In regards to the beach map, the Chair and Public Realm Manager agreed that the map be shared with the Committee Members outside of the meeting for Members to offer constructive criticism, in order to make it clearer for dog owners. • Councillor Williams suggested having signage across beaches to inform members of the public when they were entering different zones. The Public Realm Manager offered to meet with Councillors in person over the next three months to look into issues surrounding signage in their wards. • Councillor Jordan then suggested that an item on dog restrictions on beaches, signage and restriction management be added to the Committee’s Forward Work Programme. • Councillor Clements commented on the potential overuse of signs and did not want coastal areas to be over-urbanised. • The Public Realm Manager wished to highlight that Pembrokeshire was a dog friendly County and that the restrictions were minimal, with a total of ten beaches with restrictions in place, with only two or three with total restrictions, but agreed that further work could be done to review the suitability of the signs. Councillor Rhys Jordan Moved the Recommendation; Seconded by Councillor Di Clements. The vote, undertaken by way of a show of hands, was carried. RESOLVED That the update on the Environmental Enforcement Team’s progress be noted.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED That the Annual Report 2023-24 be endorsed, prior to consideration by Council.
The Head of Democratic Services introduced the report and stated that it outlined the details of scrutiny activities over the past year. She highlighted that the section on the Services Overview and Scrutiny Committee captured the work undertaken, the areas of work scrutinised at each meeting, a commentary on some of the good practice and positive outcomes which had been achieved, as well as highlighting future challenges. She also referred to the three call-ins the Committee had considered, site visits undertaken, as well as targeted communications from the Democratic Services Team to inform the public of topics coming forward to improve engagement. She then stated that the Services Overview and Scrutiny Committee was one of the most viewed Committees. The Committee then raised the following points: • Councillor Di Clements stated that she was happy with the report. • Councillor Rhys Jordan gave his thanks to Democratic Services Team, and was pleased that engagement via social media had grown and that members of the public were engaging with the Committee. • The Chair agreed with Councillor Jordan’s comments and stated that his aim as Chair was to make meetings interesting and informative and to encourage good attendance. Councillor Di Clements Moved the Recommendation; Seconded by Councillor Rhys Jordan. The vote, undertaken by way of a show of hands, was carried. RESOLVED That the Annual Report 2023-24 be endorsed, prior to consideration by Council.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED That the Forward Work Programme be approved, subject to the following amendments: · That the Planning Service update regarding phosphates issues item, be deferred to the January 2025 meeting of the Committee. · That the Public and Highways Maintenance item be deferred to the January 2025 meeting of the Committee, and that the Democratic Services Officer confirms whether it is still required. · That the Update on the percentage of staff now working out of County Hall item be removed, as it is a legacy item.
The Chair introduced the report and outlined items currently on the Agenda for the November meeting. The Head of Democratic Services advised Members that the Update on the percentage of staff now working out of County Hall item could be removed, as it was a legacy item. She also suggested that the Homelessness and Housing Support item remain for the November meeting, and that the Committee had agreed to include an Strategic Asset Management Group Update, which would go to the meeting in March 2025. She advised that to undertake good scrutiny, some items should be deferred to 2025. The Committee then raised the following points: • Councillor Rhys Jordan suggested that the Planning Service update regarding phosphates issues item be deferred if there was no substantial update. Councillor Clements agreed and suggested that it be moved to January in line with the Planning Service item currently on there. • The Chair suggested that the Service Performance Data item be deferred, but Councillor Clements highlighted that it had been over a year since the last review and would be useful for it to remain on the agenda for November. • Councillor Clements also suggested that Public and Highways Maintenance item be deferred to the January 2025 meeting. Councillor Jordan highlighted that this item came as a result of a request from Councillor Tom Tudor and that a Members Seminar had since been undertaken to respond to his query. The Chair agreed that it be moved to the January meeting, but asked the Democratic Services Officer to determine with relevant Officers whether the item was still required. • The Chair then outlined the final items on the Agenda for the November 2024 meeting. He suggested that the report on Homelessness and Housing Support be added as the first item on the Agenda, as it was an important matter. Councillor Di Clements Moved the Recommendation; Seconded by Councillor Tony Wilcox. The vote, undertaken by way of a show of hands, was carried. RESOLVED That the Forward Work Programme be approved, subject to the following amendments: · That the Planning Service update regarding phosphates issues item, be deferred to the January 2025 meeting of the Committee. · That the Public and Highways Maintenance item be deferred to the January 2025 meeting of the Committee, and that the Democratic Services Officer confirms whether it is still required. · That the Update on the percentage of staff now working out of County Hall item be removed, as it is a legacy item.
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.