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 approved, subject to the following amendments: · That an item regarding dog restrictions on beaches, signage and restriction management, be added to the January 2025 meeting. · That the Public and Highways Maintenance report go to the March 2025 meeting. · That the Pembrokeshire Housing Strategy 2023-2027 be added to the March 2025 meeting. · That an item regarding fly-grazing be added to the March 2025 meeting.
RESOLVED That the Committee notes the petition, and suggests that the Cabinet Member, in conjunction with the relevant Officers, reviews the current speed limit and signage and makes changes as appropriate.
RESOLVED That the Committee notes the petition, and suggests that the Cabinet Member, in conjunction with the relevant Officers, reviews the current speed limit and signage and makes changes as appropriate.
RESOLVED That the report be noted and that any issues or concerns be raised with the Cabinet Member.
RESOLVED (a) That the work and activities taking place related to homelessness and housing support in fulfilment of the Council’s statutory functions contained within the Housing (Wales) Act 2014 (Part 2), and Housing Support Programme activities aimed at preventing homelessness, be noted. (b) That all options for modular and temporary structures be explored, and that a relaxation of permitted development rules be considered.
RESOLVED (a) That the data currently gathered and limited financial impact values available to ascertain true cost of vandalism on corporate assets, be noted. (b) That an update be brought back to the Committee in six months’ time.
RESOLVED (a) That the report be noted. (b) That a review be undertaken with recommendations following the completion of the two-year pilot, be reported back to a future committee for consideration.
RESOLVED That the update be noted.
RESOLVED That the service performance data be noted.
RESOLVED That the actions being pursued to address the community concerns regarding persistent odour and nuisance arising from the Withyhedge Landfill Site, be noted.
There were no apologies for absence.
The Chair announced that Councillors Neil Prior and Nick Neumann were present to speak during the meeting, in relation to the Porthgain Petition and the Broadway Petition, respectively.
The following declarations were made: Item 11 – Homelessness Rapid Rehousing Transition and Housing Support Programme Progress reports 2024 Councillor Mark Carter declared a personal interest by virtue of being a private landlord. [Amended by Minute 4 of the Committee – 23 January 2025] Item 12 – Visit Pembrokeshire year 4 update Councillor Huw Murphy declared a personal interest by virtue of being a member of Visit Pembrokeshire. Councillor Di Clements declared a personal interest by virtue of being on the Board of Visit Pembrokeshire.
The Chair Moved the Minutes; Seconded by Councillor Brian Hall. The vote was taken by way of a show of hands and carried. Councillor Huw Murphy abstained from the vote, as he was not present at the previous meeting. RESOLVED That the English and Welsh Minutes of the meeting held on 5 September 2024 be approved as a correct record.
The Chair stated that the public correspondence that had been received, in relation to Flood Mitigation at Havens Head and Lower Priory, Milford Haven, would be dealt with during Item 6 – Action Log Update.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED That the report be noted.
The Chair introduced the report and asked the Head of Infrastructure and Environment to provide an update on Havens Head and Lower Priory in Milford Haven. The Head of Infrastructure and Environment explained that Welsh Government was still reviewing the Full Business Case for the Havens Head and Lower Priory flood alleviation scheme. Due to the time elapsed during the review process, the Authority would need to submit a new Expression of Interest application for funding, to ensure it was kept live in their programme. He added that the application would be submitted by 29 November 2024 and explained that the full business case still needed to be approved by Welsh Government to progress to the next phase of work, which would be construction. He stated that once approved, this would be communicated to the Cabinet Member, Local Member and to the Committee for an update. The Committee then raised the following points: • The Chair referred to the Public Correspondence received by Councillor Viv Stoddart, on behalf of the residents of Havens Head and Lower Priory, and highlighted that it was attached to the Agenda. • Councillor Viv Stoddart thanked the Head of Infrastructure and Environment for the update, and stated that it was matter of great concern for the residents of the area, but appreciated that Officers were doing what they could. • The Chair agreed that this needed to be closely monitored for the residents. • The Chair then went through the rest of the Action Log. Councillor Di Clements referred to the Regeneration Programme – Question from Councillor Steve Alderman, and asked that a deadline be implemented to receive an answer. The Chair agreed and asked the Democratic Services Officer to chase the relevant Officer for an answer, and subsequently email to the Committee. Councillor Steve Alderman Moved the Recommendation; Seconded by Councillor John Cole. The vote, undertaken by way of a show of hands, was carried. RESOLVED That the report be noted.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED That the Forward Work Programme be approved, subject to the following amendments: · That an item regarding dog restrictions on beaches, signage and restriction management, be added to the January 2025 meeting. · That the Public and Highways Maintenance report go to the March 2025 meeting. · That the Pembrokeshire Housing Strategy 2023-2027 be added to the March 2025 meeting. · That an item regarding fly-grazing be added to the March 2025 meeting.
The Chair introduced the report and outlined the items currently on the Forward Work Programme for the next two meetings. The Committee then raised the following points: • Councillor Di Clements referred to her suggestionfrom the previous meeting, that one element of the Regeneration Programme be reported on to provide more detail. She suggested that a separate meeting be held in order for the Committee to discuss which aspects of the Programme would be the most beneficial to add to the Forward Work Programme. • The Chair suggested that the Democratic Services Officer organise a separate meeting for the Committee to discuss their priorities in regards to the Regeneration Programme. The Chair also suggested that Members email the Democratic Services Officer with their suggestions. Councillor Clements agreed and stated that it would be useful to get some background information on the suggestions before deciding which element to scrutinise. Members agreed. • Councillor Steve Alderman requested an update in regards to Developments of National Significance, and asked that it be included under the Planning Service Update item scheduled for March 2025, in order to understand that Planning Officers were going to be fully compensated for the time they put in to local impact reports. • The Chair referred to the items in the report to be determined, the Acquisition of Housing Stock and a detailed report on the Housing Development Programme, and suggested that following the meeting, the Committee decide whether these items were still required, as similar items were on the agenda for this meeting. Members agreed. • The Chair then referred to Councillor Rhys Jordan’s suggestion that an item be added in relation to dog restrictions on beaches, signage and restriction management. Councillor Jordan believed that the item should be brought to the Committee sooner rather than later, due to the rules coming into effect from May 2025. The Chair suggested January, and Councillor Jordan agreed. The Head of Infrastructure and Environment stated that it would useful to have Members’ views on the matter, and agreed that a report could be brought to the January meeting. • Councillor Clements referred to the Leisure and Library Service item currently scheduled for the January meeting, and questioned whether it was still required due to the matter being covered under the Service Data item, which would be discussed later on in the meeting. The Chair again suggested that following the meeting, the Committee could decide whether the item was still necessary, if more information was required. • Councillor Chris Williams referred to issues regarding the Iron Man event in relation to dog restrictions. The Chair stated that this would be covered in January. • The Chair then announced that the Public and Highways Maintenance item and the Pembrokeshire Draft Housing Strategy 2023-2027, were on the Forward Work Programme for the March meeting. • Councillor Tony Wilcox raised issues around fly-grazing and asked for a report to be brought to the Committee in June 2025. Councillors Steve Alderman and Brian Hall supported this and outlined the issues in their wards. The Head of Democratic Services suggested that as a Public Protection issue, it could be brought to the January meeting, in conjunction with the dog restrictions report. The Head of Infrastructure and Environment explained that it was a cross-cutting issue amongst various departments and suggested that it would be a separate issue to dog restrictions, and stated that a report could be brought to the March meeting instead. Councillor Anji Tinley stated that there were also issues in her ward. Councillor Tony Wilcox Moved the Recommendation; Seconded by Councillor Steve Alderman. The vote, undertaken by way of a roll call, was carried. The votes were recorded as follows: For the Motion: Councillors Steve Alderman, Mark Carter, Di Clements, John Cole, Terry Davies, Brian Hall, Rhys Jordan, Huw Murphy, Viv Stoddart, Anji Tinley, Chris Williams and Tony Wilcox [12] There were no votes against or abstentions. RESOLVED That the Forward Work Programme be approved, subject to the following amendments: · That an item regarding dog restrictions on beaches, signage and restriction management, be added to the January 2025 meeting. · That the Public and Highways Maintenance report go to the March 2025 meeting. · That the Pembrokeshire Housing Strategy 2023-2027 be added to the March 2025 meeting. · That an item regarding fly-grazing be added to the March 2025 meeting.
The Chair introduced the petition and invited Mr Rob Jones, attending on behalf of the petition organiser, to address the Committee in support of the petition. The petition called for the Council to stop the proposed plans for Porthgain. In addressing the Committee, Mr Jones referred to the character of the village, a survey undertaken by Councillor Neil Prior (the Local Member), the background of the matter, his issues with the proposed plans and the planning application. He concluded by stating that he wished for the character of the village to remain the same, which would also secure the safety of the people who live, work and visit Porthgain. [At this juncture, Councillors Di Clements and Chris Williams each declared a personal and prejudicial interest by virtue of being a Member of the Pembrokeshire Coast National Park Authority, as the application was considered at its Planning Committee. They then left the meeting for this item of business.] The Committee then raised the following points: • Councillor John Cole referred the number of residents in the area and asked if the survey set up by the Local Member was open to all. Mr Jones confirmed this to be the case. Councillor Cole then referred to the planning application and stated that no one from the Pobl Porthgain Group attended the meeting, arranged by the Local Member. Mr Jones stated that representation was sent to the Planning Committee but highlighted that it was not mentioned during the meeting. Councillor Cole then questioned whether Mr Jones was against any changes to Porthgain, and referenced holiday makers. In response, Mr Jones stated that he wished for the village to remain the same. • Councillor Huw Murphy referred to the traffic in Porthgain and questioned whether there had been any recorded road traffic collisions in the area. Mr Jones believed that there were no incidents, that he was aware of. He then referred to a crash map by the Authority that showed no incidents in Porthgain for the last 23 years. • Councillor Steve Alderman wished to know whether there was any consensus in the village in regards to a proposal that would appeal to the residents. Mr Jones believed that there were no issues to fix in the area. He referred to the people living in the centre of the village near the Sloop Inn and appreciated that it was difficult at peak times, but believed that regimented parking spaces would not stop people parking elsewhere. • Councillor Rhys Jordan wished to clarify that Councillors Steve Alderman, Tony Wilcox and himself, as previous Members of the Pembrokeshire Coast National Park Authority, were not involved in the decision when the planning application went to the Planning Committee. • The Local Member, Councillor Neil Prior, then put forward his views on the matter and stated that his intention from the start was to do all that was possible to respond to the queries of Porthgain residents, in regards to congestion issues that were arising in the area. He referred to the survey he set up, and believed the entire process had been a thorough exercise, over the last few years, to ascertain the view of the majority and to achieve a consensus within the village. Councillor Prior added that the plans referred to protecting the character of the village, and he stated that he did not wish to see Porthgain lose that character. He referred to safety concerns raised by residents and stated that the consultation that took place in regards to the plans for the village, resulted in a consensus. He then referenced a revised plan around parking improvements, and wished to come to a conclusion on the matter, and believed that the majority of residents would like to see some improvements to the village. Councillor Prior then referred to various inaccurate information on social media, such as parking charges, and believed that the petition was not based on the truth and that it should not have been accepted in the first instance. • Councillor Cole referred to the online petition and questioned whether it was open to all, or just residents of the area. Councillor Prior stated that he had seen the petition on Facebook and believed that anyone was able to sign it, but highlighted that it was not based on accurate information, and added that there were a lot of signatures from tourists. • Councillor Cole then asked whether the survey Councillor Prior had created was open to all residents, and sought clarification as to whether the majority of residents were in favour of the proposed plans. Councillor Prior explained that the survey was sent to the residents of Porthgain, and stated that the questions asked in that survey were to simply get a view from the residents about the area and if they would like anything to be improved. • Councillor Anji Tinley referred to the survey and questioned how it resulted in the outlined petition. In response, Councillor Prior explained that the survey was a starting point for a way of engaging the community to make a positive difference in the area. He believed that the survey was the best way to get the views of residents and learn what was important to them. • Councillor Tony Wilcox believed that petitions were beneficial, but believed that the wording used for the outlined petition was not accurate, and believed it had resulted in a bigger issue because of that, and therefore questioned the validity of the petition, as it was not based on facts. Councillor Prior agreed. • Councillor Brian Hall believed that Councillor Prior should speak to the local residents again on the matter. Councillor Prior assured Members that he was in frequent dialogue with residents across his ward. • Councillor Wilcox questioned where the suggestion of car parking charges, zebra crossings and pavements had come from and asked whether it was based on fact. In response, Mr Jones believed that the petition organiser was emotional and got his words wrong. • The Cabinet Member with responsibility for Residents’ Services, Councillor Rhys Sinnett provided some background on the matter and referred to the successful funding bid from Welsh Government, which should be celebrated. He then reassured Members that Officers had undertaken work to try and progress a scheme that had been agreed by the Local Member, and the local community. Councillor Sinnett understood that there were mixed views on the matter, but highlighted that there was limited time left to make use of the secured funding. He believed that a conversation could have taken place outside of the meeting to agree on suitable changes for the area, in order to come to a timely conclusion. He added that if the community says that the proposed measures were not wanted, then that would result in a loss of the funding, and the loss of the ability to deal with some of the challenges that a number of people within the community had brought forward. • Mr Jones then summarised by suggesting that the money be used elsewhere. • Councillor Sinnett explained that it was not as simple as allocating the money elsewhere, as the funding was specifically for the proposed changes. If not used, Councillor Sinnett stated that it would need to be returned to Welsh Government. • Councillor Murphy stated that the money would be used elsewhere, as if it was returned to Welsh Government it would be allocated to another project. • The Chair then sought clarification from the Head of Democratic Services in regards to next steps. She explained that as the Committee was not a decision making body, a recommendation could be made to Cabinet in this instance, and suggested that further meetings be held with the petitioners to look into a resolution. • Councillor Sinnett wished for a conclusion to be made as soon as possible and believed that making a recommendation to Cabinet would only delay the process further. The Chair agreed. • Councillor Cole suggested that the process continue. • Councillor Hall suggested that the petition should be adhered to and the process stopped, as he believed that the community did not want the changes. • The Chair then suggested the following Motion: That the Committee notes the contents of the petition and both the petitioner and the Local Member are encouraged to agree what modifications could be agreed to the infrastructure of Porthgain to aid visitors, albeit possibly in a reduced form to the current proposal. • Councillor Sinnett agreed with the proposed wording but suggested adding a reference to no agreement, if one could not be reached. • The Chair suggested including the following: That if no agreement could be reached, then the scheme be dropped. • The Chair believed that a village arguing about such proposals was not the best way forward, and stated that he would like to see one more attempt to agree a way forward, as there was funding available. • The Chair questioned Mr Jones as to whether a reduced version of the scheme had been considered. Mr Jones believed that the alternative version of the scheme still resulted in safety issues. • Councillor Wilcox agreed with the Chair’s Motion and stated that he was not satisfied with the wording of the petition. Councillor Tony Wilcox then Moved the following Motion; Seconded by Councillor Steve Alderman: That the Committee notes the contents of the petition and both the petitioner and the Local Member are encouraged to agree what modifications could be agreed to the infrastructure of Porthgain to aid visitors, albeit in a reduced form. If no agreement is reached in a reasonable time, then the funding should be returned to Welsh Government. • The Chair clarified that the petitioner referred to in the Motion was Mr Andrew Harries, the originator of the petition. • Councillor Prior wished to highlight that the first part of the Motion was something that he had already been doing, but was happy to continue to do so. • Councillor Rhys Jordan questioned how much Officer time had been taken up in regards to this matter, and highlighted that the project had gone through various consultations, as well as being recommended for approval by the Pembrokeshire Coast National ParksAuthority’s Planning Committee. He stated his concerns in regards to going against the approval, and added that he did not support the Motion. The vote, undertaken by way of a roll call, was lost. The votes were recorded as follows: For the Motion: Councillors Steve Alderman, Mark Carter and Tony Wilcox [3] Against the Motion: Councillors John Cole, Terry Davies, Brian Hall, Rhys Jordan, Huw Murphy and Anji Tinley [6] Abstentions: Councillor Viv Stoddart [1] Councillor Huw Murphy then Moved that the petition be noted; Seconded by Councillor John Cole. The vote, undertaken by way of a show of hands, was carried. DECISION That the contents of the petition be noted.
The meeting was adjourned at 11:47am and was resumed at 11:57am.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED That the Committee notes the petition, and suggests that the Cabinet Member, in conjunction with the relevant Officers, reviews the current speed limit and signage and makes changes as appropriate.
The Chair introduced the petition and invited Ms Emma Tannahill, the petition organiser, to address the Committee in support of the petition. Before leaving the meeting during the previous item, Councillor Prior stated his support for the petition as the Local Member. The petition called for the Council to reduce the current speed limit of 50 miles per hour on the main road (A487) through Square and Compass. In addressing the Committee, Ms Tannahill explained the safety concerns of the many young families that live in the area, mainly in regards to the young children in the area, as well as the various dangers on that stretch of road, including unsuitable pavements and crossing areas for school children. She added that the aim was for the speed limit to be reduced to 40mph. The Committee then raised the following points: • Councillor John Cole suggested that the speed limit be reduced further to 20mph. He asked Ms Tannahill whether she had been in contact with the Local Assembly Member, as he was unsure whether the Authority would be able to amend the speed limit on a trunk road. Ms Tannahill explained that she had only been in contact with the Local Member, Councillor Neil Prior, who had been working on this matter for the last three years, and was said to be in support. • Councillor Di Clements questioned what survey work had been undertaken by the Authority in regards to this matter, as it provided a good evidence base to promote change if needed. Ms Tannahill stated that Councillor Prior had said that snap traps had been put in place, as well as speed cameras, and that the information gathered supported a reduction. • The Chair then stated his support for a reduction of the speed limit in that area. • Councillor Clements wished for clarification as to whether the road was a trunk road that was dealt with by Welsh Government or the Authority, as it would make a significant difference as to what could be done. The Head of Infrastructure and Environment clarified that the A487 through Square and Compass was County Highway, and therefore the Authority had the responsibility of setting the speed limit on this section of road. • Councillor Tony Wilcox referred to the petition scheme generally and suggested that a lot of petitions could now be received over the next 12 months in regards to speed limits, potentially asking for some to be raised, and highlighted the potential need to filter some petitions. In response, the Head of Democratic Services explained that it was legislation for the Authority to have an electronic petition scheme, but stated that it was a broad scheme and that she had given an undertaking, at the most recent Democratic Services Committee meeting, to review the scheme. • The Cabinet Member with responsibility for Residents’ Services, Councillor Rhys Sinnett, highlighted that the Traffic Team were working their way through requests, however the work undertaken in regards to the new 20mph limits had increased their workload. He explained that once the Senior Traffic and Road Engineer was in a position to finalise the review in regards to Square and Compass, a summary proposal would be forwarded to the Local Member, Councillor Prior, for his views and support. • The Head of Infrastructure and Environment then outlined the process followed in regards to setting speed limits, as well as the criteria and how it was managed. The Group Engineering Manager then explained the process of this particular matter, and stated that since the Local Member had approached Officers prior to the petition, on behalf of the residents of Square and Compass, Officers were ahead of the matter and the majority of the technical assessments had already been completed. He referred to speed surveys, the assessment of accidents, the geometry of the road, and built environment, and highlighted that the next step of the plan was to formulate that information in order to introduce a new traffic regulation order, and stated that 40mph would be recommended. He added that petitions did not necessarily assist with the technical process, and suggested that the best way to highlight any issues would be to contact the Local Member. In regards to the 20mph regulation, he highlighted that certain locations would not currently be supported, due to the current guidance on 20mph zones. • Councillor Cole stated his support for the petition. • Councillor Rhys Jordan also stated his support for the petition. He referred to the criteria that the Head of Infrastructure and Environment previously mentioned, specifically accident numbers, and stated his concerns around this element and believed that speed limits should be reviewed before any accidents occur. He suggested that more information on this matter would be useful for members of the public, as it would ensure that the right petitions were brought to the attention of the Committee. In response, the Head of Infrastructure and Environment explained the reasons as to why the accident record was used, but stated that Councillor Jordan’s point was fair. He added that it was about assessing the perception of risk, and referred to the data used by Officers to determine that aspect, such as member input and communication from Community Councils and local residents. The Senior Traffic Engineer added that accident data was part of the bigger review of setting a speed limit, and highlighted that there were various other sets of data that could be used to do so, and added that it was useful to have information on historical trends that may support an application to lower a speed limit. • In summing up, Ms Tannahill then reiterated the safety concerns within the area, and stated that she would be happy if the speed limit was reduced to 40mph. The Chair then Moved the following: That the Committee notes the petition, and suggests that the Cabinet Member, in conjunction with the relevant Officers, reviews the current speed limit and signage and makes changes as appropriate. Seconded by Councillor John Cole. The vote, undertaken by way of a roll call, was carried. The votes were recorded as follows: For the Motion: Councillors Steve Alderman, Mark Carter, Di Clements, John Cole, Terry Davies, Brian Hall, Rhys Jordan, Huw Murphy, Viv Stoddart, Anji Tinley, Tony Wilcox and Chris Williams [12] There were no votes against or abstentions. RESOLVED That the Committee notes the petition, and suggests that the Cabinet Member, in conjunction with the relevant Officers, reviews the current speed limit and signage and makes changes as appropriate.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED That the Committee notes the petition, and suggests that the Cabinet Member, in conjunction with the relevant Officers, reviews the current speed limit and signage and makes changes as appropriate.
The Chair introduced the petition and invited Ms Emma Pritchard, the petition organiser, to address the Committee in support of the petition. The petition called for the Council to reduce the speed limit through the community of Broadway. In addressing the Committee, Ms Pritchard explained that the road through Broadway was a two-way single carriageway with no footpath and a speed limit of 40mph. She highlighted that the nearest local amenities were less than a one-mile walk, however, the lack of pavement meant that the walk was very dangerous for pedestrians. She then referred to road collisions, school children being ineligible for school transport, lack of a bus stop, and the potential for increased traffic in the area due to a proposed new development in Broad Haven. She then highlighted a survey that had been undertaken with local people to gain their views on road safety, where 83% of people who participated said they had concerns or had already witnessed an unsafe situation for road users. The Local Member, Councillor Nick Neuman, then outlined his support for the petition and referred to road safety in the area, infrastructure, school children having to navigate the road, the number of vehicles passing through the area, and the local development that would result in an increase in traffic. He believed that it was vitally important to ensure that the speed of vehicles was managed appropriately, to reduce the likelihood of accidents in the area, and went on to outline the Welsh Government rationale behind the lowering of speed limits. He stated that a reduction would make Broadway a safer place for the local families and the wider community, and suggested that a longer-term solution would be to install a pavement to get pedestrians off the busy road, via a Section 106 contribution from the developments in the pipeline. The Committee then raised the following points: • Councillor Tony Wilcox questioned whether a Section 106 agreement in relation to the development proposed for Broad Haven had been sought. In response, the Group Engineering Manager stated that Officers would be looking for a Section 106 agreement to improve highway safety in the general area, and explained that there would be no reason as to why it could not be diverted to include Broadway. • The Cabinet Member with responsibility for Residents’ Services, Councillor Rhys Sinnett, referred to the work pressures within the Traffic Team which meant that it had been difficult to progress the work on this matter. He stated that once the relevant work was completed, the result would be put to Councillor Neumann and the residents for their consultation. He also agreed with Section 106 monies being sought to enhance the pathways in the area, and stated his support for the aims of the petition. Councillor Brian Hall Moved the Recommendation; Seconded by Councillor John Cole. The vote, undertaken by way of a roll call, was carried. The votes were recorded as follows: For the Motion: Councillors Steve Alderman, Mark Carter, Di Clements, John Cole, Terry Davies, Brian Hall, Rhys Jordan, Huw Murphy, Viv Stoddart, Anji Tinley, Tony Wilcox and Chris Williams [12] There were no votes against or abstentions. RESOLVED That the Committee notes the petition, and suggests that the Cabinet Member, in conjunction with the relevant Officers, reviews the current speed limit and signage and makes changes as appropriate.
The Chair announced that the next item would be the Visit Pembrokeshire year 4 update, followed by the Homelessness Rapid Rehousing Transition and Housing Support Programme Progress reports 2024. The rest of the items would then continue in order.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED That the report be noted and that any issues or concerns be raised with the Cabinet Member.
The Chair introduced the Chief Executive, Emma Thornton, and Chair, Jane Rees-Baynes, of Visit Pembrokeshire, who outlined the presentation as set out in the Agenda. Ms Thornton updated the Committee on the past year and highlighted what had been delivered and achieved, and how the organisation had been moved forward. She then went on to provide a detailed overview of business engagement, increased membership, marketing activity, an update on the five-year strategy, the Open to All project, the Croeso Awards, leadership and advocacy, research, the value of the organisation and priorities for 2025. The Committee then raised the following points: • Councillor Tony Wilcox referred to micro-businesses and questioned whether that would include Airbnb’s. Ms Thornton explained that as Airbnb’s were registered businesses, she was unsure whether they would be classed as micro-businesses. • Councillor Chris Williams questioned how more people could be attracted to Pembrokeshire during the out of season months, and asked how much work was currently being undertaken to ensure that Pembrokeshire was a destination to visit 12 months of the year. He also believed that events should be advertised. In response, Ms Thornton stated that all Visit Pembrokeshire messaging promoted Pembrokeshire as a place to visit all year round, and stated that it was a priority for the organisation. She highlighted some of the challenges around this aspect and stated that many businesses were unable to open in months such as January or February. She believed that this was an issue across the UK and highlighted that the organisation was working closely with local communities. In regards to advertising events, she explained that the current website would not support an events page to advertise, however the new website would be able to support such adverts. She added that social media could also be used to promote events, and that once the new website was live, event organisers would be encouraged to add their events to the site. • Councillor Viv Stoddart sought more detail in regards to the final audit of the Milford Haven Waterfront, as mentioned in the presentation. In response, Ms Thornton explained that it was an access audit in regards to physical accessibility and site impairment, and highlighted that she could put Councillor Stoddart in touch with the project lead for further details. • Councillor Stoddart also referred to the visitor levy and the announcement that was mentioned during the presentation. She sought clarification as to whether the announcement was from Welsh Government and how Members could find out more about the latest position. Ms Thornton explained that it was from Welsh Government and that they were looking to take forward the visitor levy. She stated that the levy was due to be discussed in the Senedd soon, and that no more was currently known, but believed that it would be coming to the Council for a decision in the future. Councillor Stoddart highlighted her disappointment that it was being progressed. • Councillor Rhys Jordan asked what the total income was from membership alone. He also questioned whether Visit Pembrokeshire would oppose the tourism tax, given that it could provide the funding for the organisation in the future, given the financial pressures on the Council. He also referred to strategic and corporate partners and whether any new partnerships had been agreed since the presentation had been put together. In respect of total income as a result of membership, Ms Thornton stated that if the income from strategic partners and membership was combined, it was £98,000 in the financial year, which ended in August 2024. She explained that strategic partners resulted in £40,000 and £58,000 from general membership. In regards to the tourism tax, she stated that she was keen to work with the Authority to facilitate and ensure a robust consultation is undertaken with the trade, and believed that it was a time to work together as a destination to ensure fully informed decisions for the best outcome for Pembrokeshire.In terms of new strategic partners, she highlighted that there were three in the pipeline, but did not confirm that they were definite. • Councillor Huw Murphy questioned how the reduction of second home Council Tax premium had been received within the industry, and how it would be moving forward in years to come. In response, Ms Thornton stated that a lot of representation had been received in regards to the 182 day rule, and the impact it was having on genuine tourism providers. She highlighted that the reduction of second home Council Tax premium had been well received by members, and had provided slight relief in a challenging tourism landscape for businesses. • Councillor Murphy also questioned how the recently proposed budget had been received by the tourism and hospitality sector in Pembrokeshire and the potential impact of the national insurance contribution aspect. In response, Ms Rees-Baynes from Visit Pembrokeshireexplained that tourism operators were shocked and concerned about the implications, and stated that there did not seem to be any positives coming from the budget, and that it would be interesting to see what happens moving forward. Councillor Murphy highlighted the significance of tourism and stated that it was critical for the economy in Pembrokeshire. • Councillor Rhys Sinnett, the Cabinet Member for Residents’ Services, stated that the Authority recognised the importance of the tourist sector in relation to the Pembrokeshire economy, and referred to supporting Pembrokeshire, both through grant funding and partnership work. • Councillor Murphy then asked when negotiations would take place between Visit Pembrokeshire and the Authority, in regards to the contract. Ms Thornton understood that conversations were currently ongoing in relation to the matter of contracts. • Ms Thornton concluded by highlighting the economic value of Pembrokeshire in 2023 to be £604 million, and stated that the top 11 tourism businesses in Pembrokeshire, plus the Visit Pembrokeshire membership, accounted for 69% of that economic value, therefore highlighting the value of the organisation. Councillor John Cole Moved the Recommendation; Seconded by Councillor Terry Davies. The vote, undertaken by way of a show of hands, was carried. RESOLVED That the report be noted and that any issues or concerns be raised with the Cabinet Member.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED (a) That the work and activities taking place related to homelessness and housing support in fulfilment of the Council’s statutory functions contained within the Housing (Wales) Act 2014 (Part 2), and Housing Support Programme activities aimed at preventing homelessness, be noted. (b) That all options for modular and temporary structures be explored, and that a relaxation of permitted development rules be considered.
The Chair introduced Councillor Michelle Bateman, the Cabinet Member for Housing, who wished to highlight some key points. She outlined the scale of the homelessness issues that the Authority was dealing with, and the high housing demand, with it being a complex situation. There were various elements to consider, including the prevention work being undertaken, and the ongoing support services provided when people were rehoused. She also highlighted what was being done generally to increase housing availability across the County and referenced the workload on staff and the number of cases being dealt with currently, but highlighted that the challenges were not decreasing. The Head of Housing and Public Protection wished to highlight some points that were raised from the Partnership Panel, as well as the ongoing queries that had been received in relation to the Acquisition Programme. She outlined the detail of the situation in relation to the impact of evictions on homelessness case numbers, ongoing withdrawal and reduction in the number of private rented sector properties, and the pressures in regards to finding suitable temporary accommodation. She stated that the advice given to those who had been served a notice of eviction, was to remain in the property until court proceedings were completed and a court order was served. She appreciated that it was not a popular piece of advice, but highlighted that it was legal advice provided to tenants. She added that the Authority would mediate the position between the landlord and the tenant if possible, in order to avoid the homelessness position. She also outlined detail in regards to compensation for landlords, as well as the cost of court proceedings paid for on behalf of the tenant. She highlighted that this practice was not unique to Pembrokeshire and explained that it cost the Authority in excess of £2 million a year to fund temporary accommodation, hence the current budget pressures. The Head of Housing and Public Protection then outlined the measures being implemented to address housing supply. The Committee then raised the following points: • The Chair sought clarification in regards to the definition of homeless at home. Councillor Bateman explained that it referred to someone living with a family member, friends or sofa surfing, where they were not in temporary accommodation or on the streets. She stated that in terms of the homeless legislation, they would be classed as homeless if they did not have a permanent and secure residence to live in. • Councillor Anji Tinley sought further clarification in regards to the advice given to landlords if they wished to take back their property, even if the correct process was followed. The Team Manager for Housing and Public Protection confirmed that in certain circumstances, that advice would be given to tenants. She added that the Authority would advise the tenant to stay put whilst alternative options were looked into. The Head of Housing and Public Protection referred to the process to be undertaken from the landlords’ perspective, under the Renting Home (Wales) Act, and stated that the Authority would ensure that the landlord was following the appropriate steps, as well as preparing to potentially rehouse the tenant in suitable temporary accommodation. She wished to highlight the number of cases being dealt with, which resulted in the Team having to give that advice, as there was not enough temporary accommodation available. • Councillor Bateman wished to clarify that no one who had tenants in their property would be paying the second home Council Tax premium, due to it not being classed as a second home, as there was a permanent tenant. She also added that the outlined advice for tenants to remain in the property, would only be given in extreme circumstances, and that all other steps were first considered before that point. • The Chair referred to Officers encouraging tenants to stay put until court action was taken, and questioned whether that tenant would be gaining County Court Judgements against them, and asked whether that would make a tenant less appealing to another private landlord. The Head of Housing and Public Protection stated that she was not aware that a tenant would receive a County Court Judgement in such an instance, and highlighted that tenants being advised to stay in a property was quite rare. [At this juncture, Councillor Viv Stoddart declared a personal interest by virtue of being a landlord.] • Councillor Tony Wilcox stated his support for the buyback scheme and asked whether there were any statistics in regards to the time between a house being bought, to it being occupied. He also referred to modular homes and asked for further information, and questioned whether log cabins would be a quick fix as opposed to modular homes. In response, the Head of Housing and Public Protection explained that void property turnover times could be provided soon, as she had made a commitment to report on such figures from April onwards. In regards to modular homes, she stated that homes similar to that which had been implemented in Cardiff recently, were being looked into, and the Team were currently exploring the suppliers and manufacturers that Cardiff and the Vale had used to determine prices of the structures that would be used for temporary accommodation. Councillor Wilcox questioned whether any other types of structures, such as log cabins and caravans, were being considered. The Head of Housing and Public Protection stated that log cabins were being looked into, but referred to the planning criteria and requirements of such structures, and that a meeting was scheduled with Planning to discuss such developments. Councillor Bateman wished to add that buying properties had been looked into, however suitably sized properties on the market required significant maintenance work and were therefore financially unviable. She also referred to the support needs of people on the waiting list for temporary accommodation, and stated that it needed to be considered when looking into this type of accommodation. • Councillor Di Clements referred to table 2.2.1 on page 66 of the Agenda, Reasons for Homelessness, and questioned how many people were in the category of remaining in their houses, with their landlords wanting to sell or move their tenants out of the property. She also questioned how true the figure was in relation to loss of tenancy. In response, the Team Manager for Housing and Public Protection confirmed that the figures had been done to 31 July 2024 for loss of rented or tied accommodation, and stated that it was 92, and therefore it was coming down quite significantly compared to 2023/24. • Councillor Tinley questioned why housing in its entirety was not being treated as a crisis. The Head of Housing and Public Protection stated that the housing crisis had been ongoing for a number of years and referred to increases in demand since Covid-19, which had continued due to the Renting Homes Act, the cost of living and various other factors. She stated that it was a corporate priority, however some of the planning requirements were outside her remit and were potentially a discussion at government level. She added that some issues had been highlighted to Welsh Government, with them asking for further information as to why the Authority was unable to bring housing developments and supply issues forward quicker. The Head of Housing and Public Protection also highlighted that there were a significant amount of requirements, managed by a small team in the midst of the current financial challenges. Councillor Bateman wished to reassure Members that housing was a priority and referred to the various constraints that the Authority had to face, as well as the hard work undertaken by the Housing team. • Councillor Rhys Jordan supported Councillor Bateman’s comments and stated that a lot of the issues being faced by the Authority were unintended consequences of national and Welsh Government policy. He highlighted that there were no incentives for private landlords, and believed that the policies in place needed to be reviewed and amended, as they were causing problems across Wales. The Chair and Councillor Bateman agreed. • Councillor Tinley wished to clarify that she was not insinuating that no work was being done, and stated that her point was, if housing was being treated as a crisis, could the rules be ignored in order to provide housing for people as soon as possible. • Councillor Huw Murphy sought clarification as to what ‘other’ meant in relation to table 2.2.1, Reasons for homelessness, on page 78 of the Agenda, and questioned the reason behind the increasing trend. • In response to Councillor Tinley’s remarks, the Head of Housing and Public Protection explained that discussions were taking place with Planning colleagues to ascertain whether permitted development rights could be reviewed, to bring forward sites for modular homes. In response to Councillor Murphy’s question, she explained that the increased trend in the ‘other’ category, was linked to the numbers of refugees now registered as part of the resettlement scheme. • Councillor Murphy also sought clarification in regards to the reasons behind the increased number of prison leavers in regards to homelessness. The Head of Housing and Public Protection explained that it would not all be linked to the early prison release policy, and explained that there were established processes behind the duties of the Authority in regards to prison leavers. • Councillor Steve Alderman questioned the reduced number of private landlords and asked whether it was due to frustrations with Rent Smart Wales and the legislation in place. The Head of Housing and Public Protection explained that there were multiple reasons as to why private landlords were leaving the market, with the Renting Homes Act being one of the most significant drivers, and stated that it was a challenging environment for landlords. She added that issues were fed back to Welsh Government to see whether any reviews of the legislative framework could be implemented. Councillor Alderman stated that he was pleased that complaints were being referred to Welsh Government. The Head of Housing and Public Protection also highlighted the Leasing Scheme initiative and outlined some of the benefits. Councillor Bateman added that the Authority was trying to support landlords as much as possible. Councillor John Cole Moved the Recommendation; Seconded by Councillor Steve Alderman. • Councillor Wilcox wished include in the Recommendation that all types of modular homes be explored. • Councillor Murphy agreed and also wished to add that a relaxation of permitted development rules be considered. Councillors Cole and Alderman accepted the amendments to the Recommendation. The vote, undertaken by way of a roll call, was carried. The votes were recorded as follows: For the Motion: Councillors Steve Alderman, Mark Carter, Di Clements, John Cole, Terry Davies, Brian Hall, Rhys Jordan, Huw Murphy, Viv Stoddart, Anji Tinley, Chris Williams and Tony Wilcox [12] There were no votes against or abstentions. RESOLVED (a) That the work and activities taking place related to homelessness and housing support in fulfilment of the Council’s statutory functions contained within the Housing (Wales) Act 2014 (Part 2), and Housing Support Programme activities aimed at preventing homelessness, be noted. (b) That all options for modular and temporary structures be explored, and that a relaxation of permitted development rules be considered.
The meeting adjourned at 2:32pm for a lunch break, and resumed at 3:26pm. Councillors Steve Alderman and John cole left the meeting in person and re-joined online. Councillors Di Clements and Rhys Jordan left the meeting at this juncture.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED (a) That the data currently gathered and limited financial impact values available to ascertain true cost of vandalism on corporate assets, be noted. (b) That an update be brought back to the Committee in six months’ time.
The Chair introduced the Business Change Manager who outlined the key points in the report, which included the Northgate System, the reporting of graffiti and vandalism, and the other areas being looking into, such as highway assets through to property, library services and education. She believed that some underreporting was taking place but that it was an area of focus for the Team, and highlighted that work was taking place with Finance colleagues to try and identify the costs for repairs and replacements as a result of vandalism. The Head of Infrastructure and Environment wished to add that since the 20mph default speed limit had been introduced, there had been a big increase in vandalism in regards to signage. He wished to highlight that it was costing public money to fix the signs. The Committee then raised the following points: • Councillor Viv Stoddart also highlighted the cost associated with anti-social behaviour and vandalism. She then referred to damage to public toilets and sought clarification as to whether DANFO, the managers of those facilities, would pay for such repairs and if the costs were high, would there be negotiations with the Authority. In response, the Head of Infrastructure and Environment explained that DANFO was expected to take on a reasonable amount of repair work, however in extreme cases of vandalism, discussions would take place with DANFO to determine costs. • Councillor Chris Williams agreed with the Head of Infrastructure and Environment’s comments in regards to the vandalism of signs. In relation to damage done at the toilets in Wiseman’s Bridge about 12 months’ ago, he questioned whether any money had been received from prosecutions, to offset the cost of the repairs. The Head of Infrastructure and Environment explained that he was not aware of any prosecutions, and stated that the Authority had not received any restitution. The Business Change Manager added that conversations with the contractors would allow the Authority to quantify such costs, and stated that some cases were referred to the police. • The Chair wished to add that graffiti was rarer in Pembrokeshire compared to other parts of the Country, and that it was removed quickly by the Authority. • Councillor Stoddart stated that she was pleased with the report and the associated data, and hoped that the reporting would continue as progress was being made. She suggested that an update report be brought back to the Committee in 6 or 12 months’ time. She also thanked Officers for compiling the data. The Chair was happy with an update to the Committee in 6 months’ time. • Councillor Anji Tinley sought clarification as to how many offenders were caught and what the consequences were as a result. The Business Change Manager stated that she would endeavour to work with Partners and colleagues to identify the number of offenders and any court action, and would include it in the report moving forward, but highlighted that the Authority may not have the substantive data, but that it would provide an explanation in regards to consequences. Councillor Viv Stoddart Moved the Recommendation; Seconded by Councillor Anji Tinley. The vote, undertaken by way of a roll call, was carried. The votes were recorded as follows: For the Motion: Councillors Mark Carter, John Cole, Terry Davies, Brian Hall, Huw Murphy, Viv Stoddart, Anji Tinley, Chris Williams and Tony Wilcox [9] There were no votes against or abstentions. RESOLVED (a) That the data currently gathered and limited financial impact values available to ascertain true cost of vandalism on corporate assets, be noted. (b) That an update be brought back to the Committee in six months’ time.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED (a) That the report be noted. (b) That a review be undertaken with recommendations following the completion of the two-year pilot, be reported back to a future committee for consideration.
The Chair introduced the Cabinet Member with responsibility for Residents’ Services, Councillor Rhys Sinnett, who outlined the key points in the report. He referred to objections, the medical information required, a fuller evaluation of the scheme due in the following year, and the proposed amendments to the original scheme, as outlined on page 132 of the Agenda. He added that it was not a high cost scheme, but explained that it would significantly improve the quality of life of those who use it. The Group Engineering Manager then outlined the detail of the process so far, which included the amount of applications, the size of the bays, the criteria in place, feedback from residents, evidence of condition and necessity for the parking bay, the associated costs, and the required enforcement. Councillor Sinnett added that there was a Member oversight function in relation to the scheme, and stated that if there were any neighbourhood disputes or issues, then those should be referred to the Highways Team. The Group Engineering Manager then explained that a universal bay was a space available for any blue badge holder. The Head of Infrastructure and Environment added that he had to overrule two objections from members of the public in one location, which highlighted the diversity of views on this matter, as not everyone was happy with the location of the bays, due to the impact on the on-street resident parking spaces. The Committee then raised the following points: • The Chair stated that his concern around the scheme was in relation to the enforcement of it, and questioned whether there was a specific procedure in place for certain conflicts. In response, the Head of Infrastructure and Environment explained that it was straightforward enforcement, as a civil enforcement officer would know if someone was parked in a bay without the relevant permit. He highlighted the times that enforcement occurred during the week and on weekends, and explained that if there was intelligence of abuse occurring in particular locations or bays, which also applied to resident parking schemes, then targeted enforcement would be implemented. The Senior Traffic Engineer wished to add that on demand enforcement was a service that could not be delivered, and stated that the messaging in regards to dedicated bays was important and that people were relying on the goodwill of neighbours to abide by the on-street restrictions. • Councillor Tony Wilcox asked whether a photo of such abuse would be sufficient in order to prosecute, to which the Head of Infrastructure and Environment explained that it would not be suitable, and that a notice would need to be applied in person by a trained officer. Councillor Tony Wilcox Moved the Recommendation; Seconded by the Chair. The vote, undertaken by way of a show of hands, was carried. RESOLVED (a) That the report be noted. (b) That a review be undertaken with recommendations following the completion of the two-year pilot, be reported back to a future committee for consideration.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED That the update be noted.
The Chair introduced the Cabinet Member with responsibility for Residents’ Services, Councillor Rhys Sinnett, who outlined the key points in the report. He referred to the action taken since the last update, the challenges outside of the Authority’s control, particularly in terms of driver recruitment, training, retention and testing, but believed that the Authority was in a better position compared to 2022. The Integrated Transport Unit Manager then expanded on some of the key actions that had been taken, which included a restructure within the Integrated Transport Unit Team, a new Operations Manager which had assisted with previous issues, the appointment of an additional PCV technician within the garage, recruitment of drivers, driver shortage issues, the lack of suitable vehicles and extra routes. The Committee then raised the following points: • The Chair stated that the Team had done a great job in making the acquisition work, and highlighted that the service was been being provided at a reasonable cost, and that no routes had been taken away. He then sought clarification as to whether the Authority was tendering for its own routes. In response, the Integrated Transport Unit Manager confirmed that to be the case and explained that it was done to justify value for money in terms of the in-house routes. He stated that the Authority’s routes were put out for tender in order to provide an idea of the baseline and the demand for routes, in order to ascertain whether what was being done was cost effective. The Head of Infrastructure and Environment added that the Authority was not trying to displace private sector operators. Councillor Sinnett wished to highlight page 136 of the Agenda, which outlined the additional efficiencies that had been made as a result of bringing the service in-house. The Chair Moved the Recommendation; Seconded by Councillor Terry Davies. The vote, undertaken by way of a show of hands, was carried. Councillor Tony Wilcox abstained from the vote. RESOLVED That the update be noted.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED That the service performance data be noted.
The Chair introduced the Chief Executive who outlined the key points in the report stating that the report referred to a number of service areas, with the wider data outlined, particularly in regards to education, social care and corporate services. The Committee then raised the following points: • The Chair referred to the issue with car park ticket machines, where the data of sales was unable to be produced from July and September, as highlighted in the report, and questioned if money had been lost as a result. The Chief Executive explained that it was just the data that was not able to be recorded, and stated that there was no loss of income. • Councillor Viv Stoddart referred to fly tipping and sought clarification in regards to the criteria for recording it, specifically in relation to fly tipping on private property. In response, the Chief Executive explained that it was recorded if reported to the Authority, but the collection of fly tipping on private property was not organised unless done so and paid for by the land owner. He added that if recorded, an attempt to investigate would be made. Councillor Stoddart believed that incidents of fly tipping had increased over the last 12 months, however the overall figure in the report was low. The Chief Executive stated that he would provide the information to Members, in regards to the increasing trend, outside of the meeting. • Councillor Chris Williams wished to praise the work done by Officers in regards to issues of fly tipping in his local area, which was said to have slowed down considerably. He referred to the work that had been done in regards to second home owners and the trade waste agreements, and said that it had helped a lot and the feedback had been very positive. • Councillor Tony Wilcox highlighted that Pembroke Dock Town Council had employed someone to pick up on cases of fly tipping without it needing to be reported. • The Cabinet Member with responsibility for Residents’ Services, Councillor Rhys Sinnett, wished to highlight that the Team had seen the fly tipping figures increase due to the rollout of the kerb side sort and three weekly residual collections in estates and flats, however the figures were now decreasing. He added that the Enviro Crime Team was now also dealing with fly tipping, therefore the enforcement work was increasing. • In regards to Councillor Wilcox’s point, the Chief Executive urged such incidents to be reported, as the Team relied on such information to determine hotspots and also used the information to ascertain repeat trends, patterns and repeat incidents. The Chair Moved the Recommendation; Seconded by Councillor Brian Hall. The vote, undertaken by way of a show of hands, was carried. RESOLVED That the service performance data be noted.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED That the actions being pursued to address the community concerns regarding persistent odour and nuisance arising from the Withyhedge Landfill Site, be noted.
The Chair introduced the Cabinet Member with responsibility for Residents’ Services, Councillor Rhys Sinnett, who provided an update on the Withyhedge Landfill Site. He explained that the site remained closed, however Natural Resources Wales had received documentation from RML regarding the sign-off of Cell 9, which would enable waste acceptance to be resumed. He stated that the report also summarised the legal position as a result of the Authority's County Court action against RML, and the opinion of the judge. Councillor Sinnett added that the Council's Barrister had disagreed with the decision of the judge and advised appealing to the High Court. The Authority was now considering whether to appeal in consideration of public interests. He also referred to ongoing air quality monitoring, and that a report was currently being produced which would be shared with Members at full Council, and a community event that was also being planned for late November / early December. The Chair stated that this matter remained an important issue, and highlighted that it had been a very traumatic experience for the residents involved, and appreciated the updates being brought to the attention of the Committee and to full Council. Councillor Terry Davies Moved the Recommendation; Seconded by Councillor Anji Tinley. The vote, undertaken by way of a show of hands, was carried. RESOLVED That the actions being pursued to address the community concerns regarding persistent odour and nuisance arising from the Withyhedge Landfill Site, be noted.
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.