Loading
The decisions as the council's minutes record them. A plain-language summary follows once it has been written.
RESOLVED That Pembrokeshire County Council (PCC) acknowledges that Major Events can raise the profile of Pembrokeshire as a place to visit and also generates additional spend within the local economy. We also recognise that for a number of residents and businesses there remain some concerns as to the impact of such events on their quality of life and the income they generate. In order to address these issues with the Long Course Wales (LCW) competition for 2025, both full Council and the Services Overview and Scrutiny Committee have discussed this matter in detail and in response to comments expressed at those meetings the following recommendations are proposed: (a) That the route for LCW for the 2025 event takes place along the same footprint as 2024, with further work/consultation to take place with affected Members to finalise the course and address significant concerns as soon as possible. (b) That a review of the PCC Major Events Strategy takes place as soon as capacity allows for this, in order to reflect the changing climate for events in the county and to incorporate – post event debriefs, a review of the provision of any direct (financial) and indirect (value in kind) support to events, introduction of host agreements to clarify responsibilities of event organisers and PCC. This review should be undertaken by Officers and initially draw on the Member Events Advisory Board, prior to being approved by Overview and Scrutiny and Cabinet. (c) That a formal host agreement between PCC and Activity Wales Events (AWE) is established prior to the LCW 2025. This agreement should clearly define event dates and provide a framework for future events. Furthermore, if both parties fail to reach an agreement ahead of LCW 2025, PCC will not support the event should AWE announce a 2026 date without a host agreement in place. This approach ensures clarity, mutual consent, and a structured partnership between PCC and AWE. (d) That the Host Agreement for 2025 be agreed by the relevant Director, in conjunction with the Cabinet Member for Residents Services, and for subsequent Host Agreements to be agreed by the Cabinet Member for Residents Services.
RESOLVED (a) That the Provisional Local Government Settlement for 2025-26 and its effect on the projected funding gap for 2025-26, be noted. (b) That the consultation response from the Council be determined, to be returned to Welsh Government by 24 January 2025, and that authority be delegated to the Director of Resources, in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Corporate Finance and Efficiencies, to respond to Welsh Government on behalf of the Council.
RESOLVED (a) That the inclusion of Westgate to Eastgate Levelling Up Fund (LUF) 3 scheme in the capital programme at a total project cost of £11,715,141, inclusive of an approval of Council match-funding of £1,171,514, be approved. (b) That it be noted that should the scheme cost exceed the amounts in the capital programme, a further report will be required seeking approval for any such additional funding and this approval must be received before the scheme is progressed. (c) That the decision to approve the signing of the Memorandum of Understanding of the UK Government Levelling Up Fund 3 award - Pembroke town Westgate to Eastgate project, be delegated to the Assistant Chief Executive, in conjunction with the Cabinet Member for Place, the Region, Climate Change and Rural Affairs. (d) That the approval of an Integrated Impact Assessment for the project, be delegated to the Assistant Chief Executive in conjunction with the Cabinet Member for Place, the Region, Climate Change and Rural Affairs.
RESOLVED (a) That the termination of the existing Legal Agreement be approved, such termination to be effective on 31st March 2025 and the delegation of powers and functions from the Partneriaeth Joint Committee be withdrawn. (b) That a Collaboration Agreement be entered into to replace the current Legal Agreement effective from 1 April 2025 be approved. (c) That authority be delegated to the Director of Education in conjunction with the Cabinet Member for Education and Welsh Language, to make any further necessary amendments to the Collaboration Agreement and authorises the Head of Law and Governance to enter into the agreement on behalf of the Council together with any ancillary legal documentation necessary to facilitate the new collaborative arrangements, provided the final draft is not materially different to the draft Collaboration Agreement set out in Appendix A to the report. (d) That Council be recommended to dissolve the Partneriaeth Joint Committee and Joint Scrutiny Committee.
RESOLVED (a) That Option 1, as set out in the report, be supported. (b) That the inclusion in the capital programme of Havens Head and Lower Priory Flood Alleviation Scheme be approved, and the amounts set out in Table 1 of the report. Noting that any existing budget in the capital programme will be replaced by these amounts. (c) That if the Expression of Interest is successful, the Authority will approve sign-off of the final grant submission, delegated to the Head of Infrastructure and Environment. (d) That it be noted that should the scheme cost exceed the amounts in the capital programme, a further report will be required seeking approval for any such additional funding and this approval must be received before the scheme is progressed. (e) That it be noted that an updated report will be provided to Cabinet once the approved Welsh Government Flood and Coastal Erosion Risk Management Grant Award letters have been issued, for information purposes only, and that no further match-funding requests will be made at that time. (f) That should the application be successful, the decision to invite and evaluate tenders and award the contract for construction phase, be delegated to the Head of Infrastructure and Environment.
RESOLVED (a) That the report be noted. (b) That authority be delegated to the Assistant Chief Executive in consultation with the Deputy Leader to determine the 2025-26 UKSPF allocation to Anchor Projects and the Open-Call. (c) That responsibility for approval of UKSPF Anchor projects for 2025-26 be delegated to the Director of Resources, in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Place, the Region, Climate Change and Rural Affairs. Capital programme to be updated to reflect any decisions that impact capital projects. (d) That, if possible, within the UKSPF allocation, an Open Call be launched with successful applications to be determined by Cabinet at an Extraordinary meeting on 31 March 2025. (e) That the policy on Project Change Requests be agreed, whereby: 1. Changes in project objectives are to be approved only by Cabinet in exceptional circumstances. 2. Approval for reductions in output and outcome targets are to be considered through the Individual Cabinet Member process. 3. Other significant changes, to include increases in individual budget lines beyond 15%, introduction of a new element compatible with the originally approved objectives of the project or any other significant change outside the scope of Recommendations 5a and 5b, are delegated to the Director of Resources in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Place, the Region, Climate Change and Rural Affairs. 4. Administrative changes are delegated to the UKSPF Lead Officer (External Funding Manager, Resources Directorate). (f) That the Pembrokeshire Eco-Park be approved in principle as a project to be part-financed by UKSPF, with the responsibility for formally approving the project delegated to the Director of Resources in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Place, the Region, Climate Change and Rural Affairs.
RESOLVED That matters relating to best practice and legal requirements around the use of DBS checks for elected Members be further explored by a referral to the Corporate Overview and Scrutiny Committee, before returning to Cabinet.
RESOLVED That the informal feedback from the people who have previously used the service at the Anchorage in Pembroke Dock, be noted. Whilst the information has been provided at an early stage in the transition from a building based service into a community focused model, early indications are positive; further evaluation will continue until the end of March 2025. All individuals are scheduled for a formal review of their care in October 2025.
There were no declarations of interest made at this point in the meeting.
Councillor Joshua Beynon Moved the Minutes; Seconded by Councillor Michelle Bateman. The vote was taken by way of a show of hands and carried. RESOLVED That the Minutes of the Cabinet Meeting held on 2 December 2024 be approved as a correct record.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED That Pembrokeshire County Council (PCC) acknowledges that Major Events can raise the profile of Pembrokeshire as a place to visit and also generates additional spend within the local economy. We also recognise that for a number of residents and businesses there remain some concerns as to the impact of such events on their quality of life and the income they generate. In order to address these issues with the Long Course Wales (LCW) competition for 2025, both full Council and the Services Overview and Scrutiny Committee have discussed this matter in detail and in response to comments expressed at those meetings the following recommendations are proposed: (a) That the route for LCW for the 2025 event takes place along the same footprint as 2024, with further work/consultation to take place with affected Members to finalise the course and address significant concerns as soon as possible. (b) That a review of the PCC Major Events Strategy takes place as soon as capacity allows for this, in order to reflect the changing climate for events in the county and to incorporate – post event debriefs, a review of the provision of any direct (financial) and indirect (value in kind) support to events, introduction of host agreements to clarify responsibilities of event organisers and PCC. This review should be undertaken by Officers and initially draw on the Member Events Advisory Board, prior to being approved by Overview and Scrutiny and Cabinet. (c) That a formal host agreement between PCC and Activity Wales Events (AWE) is established prior to the LCW 2025. This agreement should clearly define event dates and provide a framework for future events. Furthermore, if both parties fail to reach an agreement ahead of LCW 2025, PCC will not support the event should AWE announce a 2026 date without a host agreement in place. This approach ensures clarity, mutual consent, and a structured partnership between PCC and AWE. (d) That the Host Agreement for 2025 be agreed by the relevant Director, in conjunction with the Cabinet Member for Residents Services, and for subsequent Host Agreements to be agreed by the Cabinet Member for Residents Services.
Cabinet considered a report by the Head of Infrastructure and Environment which outlined the Notice of Motion (NOM) submitted by Councillors Alec Cormack and Chris Williams to Council on 12 December 2024, relating to the Withdrawal of Pembrokeshire County Council Support for Long Course Weekend. The NOM was also considered at an Extraordinary meeting of the Services Overview and Scrutiny Committee on 10 January 2025. The Notice of Motion was submitted as follows: In accordance with Section 4.19.6 (h) of the Constitution, I request that the Presiding Member allows this Notice of Motion to be dealt with at Full Council on 12 December 2024. This is due to the urgency of the matter, as the event organisers have already opened entries for the 2025 Long Course Weekend. Any delay in making a decision could result in incurred costs for both Pembrokeshire County Council (PCC) and the organisers. Long Course Weekend has been held annually in Pembrokeshire since 2010. This multi-day triathlon event, typically taking place in June, has been a significant success in terms of showcasing our county and promoting physical activity. However, as the event has grown in scale, it has increasingly led to disruption for residents and businesses along the course, many of whom report inconvenience or loss of trade due to road closures spanning up to three days. While Pembrokeshire County Council does not provide direct financial contributions to the event, it offers substantial "in-kind" support. Given the feedback from residents and businesses, it is evident that public support for the event has diminished. Additionally, in light of the council's ongoing financial pressures, it is no longer appropriate to allocate resources to support a profit-driven event at the expense of taxpayers. I propose that PCC withdraw all support for the Long Course Weekend moving forward, ensuring that council resources are directed towards services and initiatives that directly benefit the wider community. The originators of the Motion, Councillors Chris Williams and Alec Cormack, provided some background on the Long Course Weekend event. Councillor Williams highlighted the impacts of the event on Saundersfoot, Amroth, Wiseman’s Bridge and Coppet Hall, as well as his concerns. He also referred to the financial matters of the event and suggested that such matters needed to be scrutinised by Members going forward. Councillor Cormack added that the businesses in the area were losing money each year, and expressed the views of local business owners. He stated that he was pleased with the fact that the Long Course Weekend Organiser was proposing a switch to a longer single-lap route, which would greatly reduce the impact on all communities involved. He then stated that he simply wished for the Council to ensure that no one group of residents and businesses were disproportionately impacted each year. In response to the NOM, Councillor Rhys Sinnett, the Cabinet Member with responsibility for Residents’ Services, introduced the report and referred to the Extraordinary Services Overview and Scrutiny Committee meeting that took place on 10 January 2025, where the matter was debated in depth. He acknowledged the issue of events and the impact on local communities, especially businesses. He referred to the Major Events Strategy and that events brought visitors to Pembrokeshire, as well as stimulated local participation in sport and culture. He then highlighted the views of the Services Overview and Scrutiny Committee and stated that no one was against the event taking place, but there were two main issues: the route and the matter of value in kind. Councillor Sinnett then Moved the following Motion: That Pembrokeshire County Council (PCC) acknowledges that Major Events can raise the profile of Pembrokeshire as a place to visit and also generates additional spend within the local economy. We also recognise that for a number of residents and businesses there remain some concerns as to the impact of such events on their quality of life and the income they generate. In order to address these issues with the Long Course Wales (LCW) competition for 2025, both full Council and the Services Overview and Scrutiny Committee have discussed this matter in detail and in response to comments expressed at those meetings the following recommendations are proposed: (a) That the route for LCW for the 2025 event takes place along the same footprint as 2024, with further work/consultation to take place with affected Members to finalise the course and address significant concerns as soon as possible. (b) That a review of the PCC Major Events Strategy takes place as soon as capacity allows for this, in order to reflect the changing climate for events in the county and to incorporate – post event debriefs, a review of the provision of any direct (financial) and indirect (value in kind) support to events, introduction of host agreements to clarify responsibilities of event organisers and PCC. This review should be undertaken by Officers and initially draw on the Member Events Advisory Board, prior to being approved by Overview and Scrutiny and Cabinet. (c) That a formal host agreement between PCC and Activity Wales Events (AWE) is established prior to the LCW 2025. This agreement should clearly define event dates and provide a framework for future events. Furthermore, if both parties fail to reach an agreement ahead of LCW 2025, PCC will not support the event should AWE announce a 2026 date without a host agreement in place. This approach ensures clarity, mutual consent, and a structured partnership between PCC and AWE. The Public Realm Manager then added that this was a great opportunity to review the Major Events Strategy in order to build for the next five years, and that it would provide more stability in the events planning process. Councillor Michelle Bateman referred to the Extraordinary meeting of the Services Overview and Scrutiny Committee and stated that a valuable discussion was had, and that the suggested approach by Councillor Sinnett was fair. She also took on board the comments made at the meeting in regards to the route and that it should not be changed for 2025, but hoped that work could be done with the local Members to mitigate any impact on their communities for the 2025 event. She then stated her support for the proposal, and believed it was right to look more broadly at the Major Events Strategy. Councillor Jacob Williams referred to the financial side of the support provided by the Council, specifically in regards to the use of car parks, and sought clarification as to whether the host agreement would govern the use of car parks, and that the event should pay for the use of that Council asset. Councillor Williams also referred to concessions and that it could be a way for the Council to make money moving forward. In response, Councillor Sinnett confirmed that the host agreement would cover off such matters, and anticipated that following the 2025 event, the agreement would be rewritten following the consideration of the financial support and value in kind during the Events Strategy review. He agreed that there was a view that wherever possible, such events should be cost neutral to the Authority, however, Councillor Sinnett believed it was worth exploring what the implications of that could be on other events that may be coming or considering coming into the County. The Public Realm Manager clarified further that matters would be covered off within the host agreement, and noted Councillor Williams’ comment regarding concessions, and stated that such a matter would need to be reviewed in detail. Councillor Williams then referred to the discussion regarding a Working Group, and sought clarification as to where the matter of concessions would be reviewed. Councillor Sinnett confirmed that there was a Members Events Advisory Board where the majority of the strategy review would take place, with a view to taking it back to Overview and Scrutiny or Cabinet at the appropriate juncture. Councillor Williams then thanked the originators of the NOM for bringing the matter forward and agreed with the views of the Services Overview and Scrutiny Committee, as well as the comments made by Councillor Bateman, and believed that 2026 would be the best time for any changes to be brought in. The Leader also thanked Councillors Williams and Cormack for their NOM and believed that a good debate was had at the Extraordinary Services Overview and Scrutiny Committee meeting. He acknowledged the benefits of a potential single-lap route, and stated that there was a significant amount of work to be done in preparation for the 2026 event. In summing up, Councillor Chris Williams agreed that a host agreement was the way forward, as it wouldbenefit the Authority and Activity Wales, as well as protect the residents, businesses and those participating in the event. He stated his support for events, but highlighted that they needed to work for everyone involved. Councillor Cormack then thanked Cabinet for considering the matter, and stated his support for Councillor Sinnett’s proposal. Councillor Sinnett then wished to add to point (c) as follows: The Host Agreement for 2025 is to be agreed by the relevant Director in conjunction with the Cabinet Member for Residents’ Services. Councillor Jacob Williams believed that the host agreement should be approved by the Cabinet Member, rather than the Director, as the matter had been brought forward via an NOM. It would also allow for the matter to be subject to Member oversight through a call-in. The Leader highlighted that the Head of Law and Governance suggested that an Individual Cabinet Member decision (ICM) would cover off Member oversight. Councillor Sinnett highlighted that he did not wish for there to be any delays, as an ICM had specific timescales and processes in place, before a matter could be approved. Councillor Williams did not believe that there would be significant delays if a matter was called-in by Members, and wished for the wording to be amended as follows: The Host Agreement for 2025 is to be agreed by the Cabinet Member for Residents’ Services in conjunction with the relevant Director. Councillor Sinnett referred to the time required to create the draft host agreement, as well as being signed off formally, with oversight from Members, and believed that the timescales would be quite tight. The Public Realm Manager confirmed that drafting the host agreement could take some time, but that a host agreement was the best way forward. The Head of Infrastructure and Environment added that he had no issue with the amendment to the proposal, as it would focus minds in terms of timescale, as certain deadlines would have to be met. Councillor Sinnett reiterated his concerns regarding timescales, but was happy to support what Cabinet felt was good governance. He wished to emphasise that the 2025 agreement was being discussed, and therefore the timeline was close. He stated that work would then take place to create a more detailed host agreement, alongside the organisers, for the events post 2025. Councillor Paul Miller stated that he understood the concerns of Councillor Sinnett, and suggested that authority be delegated to the relevant Director for the 2025 event, and then authority be delegated to the Cabinet Member for Residents’ Services or Council for the event from 2026 onwards. Councillor Williams did not agree with the suggestion of potential delays, but recognised that there were tight timescales involved for 2025. He believed that more Member involvement would be beneficial. The Leader did not disagree with Councillor Williams, but was conscious of the timeline involved, as well as the amount of work that Officers would need to undertake. He also accepted Councillor Williams’ point regarding Member oversight. The Public Realm Manager wished to add that host agreements would also be looked into for various other events, as well as the Long Course Weekend event, as part of the general Event Strategy overview. He highlighted that the draft agreement that would be created could act as a template for other agreements. Councillor Williams believed that for events from 2026 onwards, the relevant Cabinet Member should have delegated authority, to ensure Member involvement. As a result of the debate, Councillor Sinnett wished to further amend his proposal to read as follows: The Host Agreement for 2025 be agreed by the relevant Director in conjunction with the Cabinet Member for Residents’ Services and for subsequent Host Agreements by the Cabinet Member for Residents’ Services. The Motion was Seconded by Councillor Paul Miller. The vote, undertaken by way of a roll call, was carried. The votes were recorded as follows: For the Motion: Councillors Jon Harvey, Paul Miller, Michelle Bateman, Joshua Beynon, Neil Prior, Rhys Sinnett, Jacob Williams and Guy Woodham [8] There were no votes against or abstentions. RESOLVED That Pembrokeshire County Council (PCC) acknowledges that Major Events can raise the profile of Pembrokeshire as a place to visit and also generates additional spend within the local economy. We also recognise that for a number of residents and businesses there remain some concerns as to the impact of such events on their quality of life and the income they generate. In order to address these issues with the Long Course Wales (LCW) competition for 2025, both full Council and the Services Overview and Scrutiny Committee have discussed this matter in detail and in response to comments expressed at those meetings the following recommendations are proposed: (a) That the route for LCW for the 2025 event takes place along the same footprint as 2024, with further work/consultation to take place with affected Members to finalise the course and address significant concerns as soon as possible. (b) That a review of the PCC Major Events Strategy takes place as soon as capacity allows for this, in order to reflect the changing climate for events in the county and to incorporate – post event debriefs, a review of the provision of any direct (financial) and indirect (value in kind) support to events, introduction of host agreements to clarify responsibilities of event organisers and PCC. This review should be undertaken by Officers and initially draw on the Member Events Advisory Board, prior to being approved by Overview and Scrutiny and Cabinet. (c) That a formal host agreement between PCC and Activity Wales Events (AWE) is established prior to the LCW 2025. This agreement should clearly define event dates and provide a framework for future events. Furthermore, if both parties fail to reach an agreement ahead of LCW 2025, PCC will not support the event should AWE announce a 2026 date without a host agreement in place. This approach ensures clarity, mutual consent, and a structured partnership between PCC and AWE. (d) That the Host Agreement for 2025 be agreed by the relevant Director, in conjunction with the Cabinet Member for Residents Services, and for subsequent Host Agreements to be agreed by the Cabinet Member for Residents Services.
The Leader announced that Item 8, Provisional Local Government Settlement 2025-26, would be taken as the next agenda item, as Councillor Joshua Beynon needed to leave the meeting at midday. The rest of the agenda would resume as normal following this item.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED (a) That the Provisional Local Government Settlement for 2025-26 and its effect on the projected funding gap for 2025-26, be noted. (b) That the consultation response from the Council be determined, to be returned to Welsh Government by 24 January 2025, and that authority be delegated to the Director of Resources, in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Corporate Finance and Efficiencies, to respond to Welsh Government on behalf of the Council.
Cabinet considered a report by Director of Resources which outlined the provisional Local Government Settlement for 2025-26. Councillor Joshua Beynon, the Cabinet Member with responsibility for Corporate Finance and Efficiencies, introduced the report and outlined the key points as follows: • The real term increase for Pembrokeshire was said to be 3.55% when adjusted for the 2025-26 tax base and transfers. • The 3.55% increase ranked Pembrokeshire 17th (16th in 2024-25). • The individual local authority allocations ranged from an increase of 2.6% to an increase of 5.6%, when adjusted for tax base movements. • Transfers into and out of the Settlement were highlighted. • Reference was made to specific grants, as outlined in Appendices D and E to the report. • Reference was made to increased Capital funding. • A response to Welsh Government was said to be submitted by Councillor Beynon and the Director of Resources, to outline any issues. • Reference was made to potential options to bridge the projected funding gap. Councillor Beynon added that the settlement was better than originally anticipated, however, it would not go a long way in terms of addressing all of the problems the Authority had. He stated that the concern was how this would look over the Medium Term Financial Plan (MTFP) for the following year. Councillor Joshua Beynon Moved the Recommendation as set out in the report with an amendment as follows: …that authority be delegated to the Director of Resources, in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Corporate Finance and Efficiencies, to respond to Welsh Government on behalf of the Council. The Director of Resources stated that the decisions made as part of the budget for 2025-26 would have an effect on the MTFP and the longer term sustainability of the Council. He commented that Reserves, no matter how small, were a sticking plaster, and would result in a budget pressure the following year. He also referred to the Provisional Settlement for 2025-26 and believed that the projections of a 4% increase may not be realistic over the MTFP, and stated that they would have to be revised down slightly, which would then increase the MTFP funding gap. The Leader recognised that it was a better settlement than first thought, however, the ongoing pressures would still result in some difficult decisions to be made in regards to savings measures and the level of Council Tax. He also added that Members needed to be mindful of the comments from Audit Wales in terms of financial sustainability going forward, when setting the Council Tax levels. Councillor Neil Prior referred to the budget pressures and stated that it was ongoing challenge that needed to be managed. He then stated his support for the Recommendations. The Motion was Seconded by Councillor Neil Prior. The vote, undertaken by way of a roll call, was carried. The votes were recorded as follows: For the Motion: Councillors Jon Harvey, Paul Miller, Michelle Bateman, Joshua Beynon, Neil Prior, Rhys Sinnett, Jacob Williams and Guy Woodham [8] There were no votes against or abstentions. RESOLVED (a) That the Provisional Local Government Settlement for 2025-26 and its effect on the projected funding gap for 2025-26, be noted. (b) That the consultation response from the Council be determined, to be returned to Welsh Government by 24 January 2025, and that authority be delegated to the Director of Resources, in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Corporate Finance and Efficiencies, to respond to Welsh Government on behalf of the Council.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED (a) That the inclusion of Westgate to Eastgate Levelling Up Fund (LUF) 3 scheme in the capital programme at a total project cost of £11,715,141, inclusive of an approval of Council match-funding of £1,171,514, be approved. (b) That it be noted that should the scheme cost exceed the amounts in the capital programme, a further report will be required seeking approval for any such additional funding and this approval must be received before the scheme is progressed. (c) That the decision to approve the signing of the Memorandum of Understanding of the UK Government Levelling Up Fund 3 award - Pembroke town Westgate to Eastgate project, be delegated to the Assistant Chief Executive, in conjunction with the Cabinet Member for Place, the Region, Climate Change and Rural Affairs. (d) That the approval of an Integrated Impact Assessment for the project, be delegated to the Assistant Chief Executive in conjunction with the Cabinet Member for Place, the Region, Climate Change and Rural Affairs.
[Councillor Neil Prior left the meeting for this item of business.] Cabinet considered a report by the Assistant Chief Executive which outlinedthe Memorandum of Understanding of the UK Government Levelling Up Fund 3 award - Pembroke town Westgate to Eastgate project. Councillor Paul Miller, the Cabinet Member with responsibility for Place, the Region, Climate Change and Rural Affairs, introduced the report and provided some background on the matter. He stated that UK Government were offering £10.5 million in grant funding, which the Authority would need to contribute around £1.17million, in order to unlock a 10% match. He then referred to the original grant submission in 2022 and highlighted that levels of inflation had increased since then. He also provided a timescale of the project and outlined the three packages of work that would be carried out, as outlined in the report. He highlighted that there was now a final opportunity to adjust and amend the proposals, accepting that the Authority needed to continue to meet the requirements of the grant funding offer. Councillor Paul Miller Moved the Recommendation, as set out in the report. The Head of Economic Development and Regeneration added that there were also some opportunities to work with local consultees and the Town Council, and stated that it was nice to get to a point where the project could be moved forward. Councillor Rhys Sinnett questioned whether there were any additional opportunities for value engineering aspects of some of the work packages moving forward, in order to contain or reduce costs further without compromising quality. In response, Councillor Miller explained that that aspect was now going to be looked into. He explained that the grant award was fixed and that UK Government were clear about that. He explained that the 10% match being provided by the Authority would provide a positive opportunity to work with the Local Members, as well as the wider community, in regards to what could be delivered for Pembroke. The Leader stated that, as the Local Member, he was extremely pleased about the Levelling Up money going into the town and that it was a welcome investment. He also highlighted the importance of working with the local communities in Pembroke and the Town Council, in terms of developing proposals. The Motion was Seconded by the Leader. The vote, undertaken by way of a roll call, was carried. The votes were recorded as follows: For the Motion: Councillors Jon Harvey, Paul Miller, Michelle Bateman, Joshua Beynon, Rhys Sinnett, Jacob Williams and Guy Woodham [7] There were no votes against or abstentions. RESOLVED (a) That the inclusion of Westgate to Eastgate Levelling Up Fund (LUF) 3 scheme in the capital programme at a total project cost of £11,715,141, inclusive of an approval of Council match-funding of £1,171,514, be approved. (b) That it be noted that should the scheme cost exceed the amounts in the capital programme, a further report will be required seeking approval for any such additional funding and this approval must be received before the scheme is progressed. (c) That the decision to approve the signing of the Memorandum of Understanding of the UK Government Levelling Up Fund 3 award - Pembroke town Westgate to Eastgate project, be delegated to the Assistant Chief Executive, in conjunction with the Cabinet Member for Place, the Region, Climate Change and Rural Affairs. (d) That the approval of an Integrated Impact Assessment for the project, be delegated to the Assistant Chief Executive in conjunction with the Cabinet Member for Place, the Region, Climate Change and Rural Affairs.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED (a) That the termination of the existing Legal Agreement be approved, such termination to be effective on 31st March 2025 and the delegation of powers and functions from the Partneriaeth Joint Committee be withdrawn. (b) That a Collaboration Agreement be entered into to replace the current Legal Agreement effective from 1 April 2025 be approved. (c) That authority be delegated to the Director of Education in conjunction with the Cabinet Member for Education and Welsh Language, to make any further necessary amendments to the Collaboration Agreement and authorises the Head of Law and Governance to enter into the agreement on behalf of the Council together with any ancillary legal documentation necessary to facilitate the new collaborative arrangements, provided the final draft is not materially different to the draft Collaboration Agreement set out in Appendix A to the report. (d) That Council be recommended to dissolve the Partneriaeth Joint Committee and Joint Scrutiny Committee.
Cabinet considered a report by the Director of Education which outlinedthe transfer from the Partneriaeth Legal Agreement to a new Collaboration Agreement. Councillor Guy Woodham, the Cabinet Member with responsibility for Education and Welsh Language, introduced the report and stated thatfollowing a review of the existing arrangements, Cabinet support was being sought to terminate the current agreement and to enter into a new collaboration agreement, which would take effect from 1 April 2025.He highlighted that the draft collaboration agreement was attached as Appendix A, which committed the Authority to continue to work in partnership with Carmarthenshire and Swansea Councils, to commission a regional workforce to support the delivery of the curriculum improvement function of each Council. Councillor Woodham also referred to reduced running costs and governance arrangements, due to the Partneriaeth workforce being reduced following a recent staff restructure. He then outlined some of the details of the new agreement, which included the level of governance, oversight, clear decision making arrangements, the services that would be delivered, and responsibilities of the Strategic Group. Councillor Woodham also wished to highlight the comments from the Director of Resources, as outlined in the report. Councillor Guy Woodham Moved the Recommendation as set out in the report; Seconded by Councillor Michelle Bateman. Councillor Rhys Sinnett referred to the potential loss of money coming into the Authority, and sought clarification in regards to the amount. In response, the Director of Resources explained that whilst he had flagged the loss of some of the service level agreement income as a potential issue, work had be undertaken with the Director of Education in order to plan for it moving forward, and so whilst it was considered a pressure, it was one that was being managed. The Director of Education also commented that the figure was around £80,000 over the course of the next few years. The Leader added that whilst there was a loss of income, that rationale behind the new arrangements was effectively a streamlining and cost savings exercise across the board, for the longer term. The vote, undertaken by way of a roll call, was carried. The votes were recorded as follows: For the Motion: Councillors Jon Harvey, Michelle Bateman, Joshua Beynon, Neil Prior, Rhys Sinnett, Jacob Williams and Guy Woodham [7] There were no votes against or abstentions. [Councillor Paul Miller was absent for the vote.] RESOLVED (a) That the termination of the existing Legal Agreement be approved, such termination to be effective on 31st March 2025 and the delegation of powers and functions from the Partneriaeth Joint Committee be withdrawn. (b) That a Collaboration Agreement be entered into to replace the current Legal Agreement effective from 1 April 2025 be approved. (c) That authority be delegated to the Director of Education in conjunction with the Cabinet Member for Education and Welsh Language, to make any further necessary amendments to the Collaboration Agreement and authorises the Head of Law and Governance to enter into the agreement on behalf of the Council together with any ancillary legal documentation necessary to facilitate the new collaborative arrangements, provided the final draft is not materially different to the draft Collaboration Agreement set out in Appendix A to the report. (d) That Council be recommended to dissolve the Partneriaeth Joint Committee and Joint Scrutiny Committee.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED (a) That Option 1, as set out in the report, be supported. (b) That the inclusion in the capital programme of Havens Head and Lower Priory Flood Alleviation Scheme be approved, and the amounts set out in Table 1 of the report. Noting that any existing budget in the capital programme will be replaced by these amounts. (c) That if the Expression of Interest is successful, the Authority will approve sign-off of the final grant submission, delegated to the Head of Infrastructure and Environment. (d) That it be noted that should the scheme cost exceed the amounts in the capital programme, a further report will be required seeking approval for any such additional funding and this approval must be received before the scheme is progressed. (e) That it be noted that an updated report will be provided to Cabinet once the approved Welsh Government Flood and Coastal Erosion Risk Management Grant Award letters have been issued, for information purposes only, and that no further match-funding requests will be made at that time. (f) That should the application be successful, the decision to invite and evaluate tenders and award the contract for construction phase, be delegated to the Head of Infrastructure and Environment.
Cabinet considered a report by the Head of Infrastructure and Environment which outlined an application to Welsh Government for the Flood and Coastal Erosion Risk Management (FCERM) Grant. Councillor Rhys Sinnett, the Cabinet Member with responsibility for Residents’ Services, introduced the report and provided some background on the matter. He highlighted that work had been undertaken to look into developing a scheme that would be sustainable going forward, and reduce the risk of such a catastrophic incident occurring again. He highlighted work that had been undertaken by the Port of Milford Haven to improve infrastructure, as well as engagement with Welsh Government to formulate a plan. The Head of Infrastructure and Environment then explained that an expression of interest application had been submitted to Welsh Government and, if invited to do so, the Council could then apply for the construction phase of the scheme through the grant funding stream. He highlighted that the estimated total cost of construction of the flood alleviation scheme was £1.657 million. He stated that the full business case and detailed design was currently under review by Welsh Government, however, the timescale for approval was unknown. He highlighted that Option 1, as outlined in the report, was the proposed option. The Head of Infrastructure and Environment then outlined some questions sent by Councillor Viv Stoddart, on behalf of the local residents. Councillor Sinnett hoped that the report showed that Cabinet was committed to delivering this scheme through the commitment to provide match funding. He stated that he was hopeful that the application would be approved. The Leader agreed that Cabinet was committed to the scheme and acknowledged the suffering of the local residents. He stated that the outlined submissions to Welsh Government was a good way forward. Councillor Rhys Sinnett Moved the Recommendation, as set out in the report, with an amendment to Recommendation (f) as follows: That should the application be successful, the decision to invite and evaluate tenders and award the contract for construction phase, be delegated to the Head of Infrastructure and Environment. The Motion was seconded by the Leader. The vote, undertaken by way of a roll call, was carried. The votes were recorded as follows: For the Motion: Councillors Jon Harvey, Paul Miller, Michelle Bateman, Joshua Beynon, Neil Prior, Rhys Sinnett, Jacob Williams and Guy Woodham [8] There were no votes against or abstentions. RESOLVED (a) That Option 1, as set out in the report, be supported. (b) That the inclusion in the capital programme of Havens Head and Lower Priory Flood Alleviation Scheme be approved, and the amounts set out in Table 1 of the report. Noting that any existing budget in the capital programme will be replaced by these amounts. (c) That if the Expression of Interest is successful, the Authority will approve sign-off of the final grant submission, delegated to the Head of Infrastructure and Environment. (d) That it be noted that should the scheme cost exceed the amounts in the capital programme, a further report will be required seeking approval for any such additional funding and this approval must be received before the scheme is progressed. (e) That it be noted that an updated report will be provided to Cabinet once the approved Welsh Government Flood and Coastal Erosion Risk Management Grant Award letters have been issued, for information purposes only, and that no further match-funding requests will be made at that time. (f) That should the application be successful, the decision to invite and evaluate tenders and award the contract for construction phase, be delegated to the Head of Infrastructure and Environment.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED (a) That the report be noted. (b) That authority be delegated to the Assistant Chief Executive in consultation with the Deputy Leader to determine the 2025-26 UKSPF allocation to Anchor Projects and the Open-Call. (c) That responsibility for approval of UKSPF Anchor projects for 2025-26 be delegated to the Director of Resources, in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Place, the Region, Climate Change and Rural Affairs. Capital programme to be updated to reflect any decisions that impact capital projects. (d) That, if possible, within the UKSPF allocation, an Open Call be launched with successful applications to be determined by Cabinet at an Extraordinary meeting on 31 March 2025. (e) That the policy on Project Change Requests be agreed, whereby: 1. Changes in project objectives are to be approved only by Cabinet in exceptional circumstances. 2. Approval for reductions in output and outcome targets are to be considered through the Individual Cabinet Member process. 3. Other significant changes, to include increases in individual budget lines beyond 15%, introduction of a new element compatible with the originally approved objectives of the project or any other significant change outside the scope of Recommendations 5a and 5b, are delegated to the Director of Resources in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Place, the Region, Climate Change and Rural Affairs. 4. Administrative changes are delegated to the UKSPF Lead Officer (External Funding Manager, Resources Directorate). (f) That the Pembrokeshire Eco-Park be approved in principle as a project to be part-financed by UKSPF, with the responsibility for formally approving the project delegated to the Director of Resources in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Place, the Region, Climate Change and Rural Affairs.
[Councillor Joshua Beynon left the meeting at this juncture.] Cabinet considered a report by the Head of Procurement and Revenue Services which outlined an update on announcements concerning the UK Shared Prosperity Fund (UKSPF). Councillor Paul Miller, the Cabinet Member with responsibility for Place, the Region, Climate Change and Rural Affairs, introduced the report and stated that UK Government had now confirmed that the UK Shared Prosperity Fund would continue in 2025-26 and that whilst a review of the scheme was being undertaken, they had decided to agree a one year extension of the existing scheme at around 60% of the previous funding level. He added that the Authority intended to operate this additional year under the same principles as the current arrangements, with a significant reduction to the funding envelopes, given the circumstances. Councillor Miller added that a number of individuals were currently employed by the Council to support the delivery of Shared Prosperity Fund projects on fixed-term contracts, and that it was a certainty that some of those fixed-term contracts would not be renewed. Councillor Miller also referred to the reference made in regards to the Eco Park, and explained that it was an exercise in ensuring that no underspend on the grant was returned to UK Government. Councillor Paul Miller Moved the Recommendation, as set out in the report, with an Amendment to point (2) as follows; That authority be delegated to the Assistant Chief Executive in consultation with the Deputy Leader to determine the 2025-26 UKSPF allocation to Anchor Projects and the Open-Call. The Motion was Seconded by the Leader. The Head of Human Resources outlined the human resources implications and stated that her team had been working closely with the Regeneration Team to understand the matter, whilst waiting for any future funding, and that work would be done in order to mitigate the impact of the situation. The Leader acknowledged why the funding was being reduced, but highlighted that the regeneration as a result of these projects must not be underestimated, as there had been some great schemes that had been approved through this process, to the benefit of Pembrokeshire and its residents. He then stated his general support for the scheme and understood the work undertaken in regards to the Eco Park. The vote, undertaken by way of a roll call, was carried. The votes were recorded as follows: For the Motion: Councillors Jon Harvey, Paul Miller, Michelle Bateman, Neil Prior, Rhys Sinnett, Jacob Williams and Guy Woodham [7] There were no votes against or abstentions. RESOLVED (a) That the report be noted. (b) That authority be delegated to the Assistant Chief Executive in consultation with the Deputy Leader to determine the 2025-26 UKSPF allocation to Anchor Projects and the Open-Call. (c) That responsibility for approval of UKSPF Anchor projects for 2025-26 be delegated to the Director of Resources, in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Place, the Region, Climate Change and Rural Affairs. Capital programme to be updated to reflect any decisions that impact capital projects. (d) That, if possible, within the UKSPF allocation, an Open Call be launched with successful applications to be determined by Cabinet at an Extraordinary meeting on 31 March 2025. (e) That the policy on Project Change Requests be agreed, whereby: 1. Changes in project objectives are to be approved only by Cabinet in exceptional circumstances. 2. Approval for reductions in output and outcome targets are to be considered through the Individual Cabinet Member process. 3. Other significant changes, to include increases in individual budget lines beyond 15%, introduction of a new element compatible with the originally approved objectives of the project or any other significant change outside the scope of Recommendations 5a and 5b, are delegated to the Director of Resources in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Place, the Region, Climate Change and Rural Affairs. 4. Administrative changes are delegated to the UKSPF Lead Officer (External Funding Manager, Resources Directorate). (f) That the Pembrokeshire Eco-Park be approved in principle as a project to be part-financed by UKSPF, with the responsibility for formally approving the project delegated to the Director of Resources in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Place, the Region, Climate Change and Rural Affairs.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED That matters relating to best practice and legal requirements around the use of DBS checks for elected Members be further explored by a referral to the Corporate Overview and Scrutiny Committee, before returning to Cabinet.
Cabinet considered a report by the Head of Human Resources which outlined a proposed change to the DBS renewal period for Members. The Head of Human Resources introduced the report and explained the background of the matter, and highlighted that the report had previously been considered at a meeting of the Democratic Services Committee on 11 November 2024. She indicated that the proposed change would result in a five-year renewal period for DBS checks for Members on Social Care or Education Committees, to be in line with Members’ term of office. She highlighted that there was a minimal level of saving in regards to this matter. Councillor Jacob Williams referred to page 195 of the Agenda which explained that Members who sat on Committees involved in the delivery of services to children or adults, required an Enhanced DBS without the barred list check. He questioned whether the Council had the authority to require this. In response, the Head of HR confirmed that it was a decision taken by Council a number of years ago, therefore the team had continued to request that Members on such Committees undertake those checks. Councillor Williams did not believe that the Council could not implement a rule that requires such checks. The Head of HR explained that the DBS guidance was followed in regards to these types of checks. Councillor Williams stated that the guidance outlined who was eligible for a check and believed it was not for the Council to decide. The Head of HR further explained that Members who sat on the outlined Committees were encouraged to undergo such checks. The Leader hoped that any Member who was appointed to such a Committee would undertake a DBS check, but that it would be down to the individual. Councillor Rhys Sinnett referred to substitute Members, and suggested that all 60 Members should undergo an enhanced DBS check. He also referred to the move to five-year renewal period for DBS checks and believed that that was a long period of time between checks. He then sought reassurance in regards to the process if something were to happen within the five-year period, and how Members would be informed. The Leader acknowledged the advantage of all Members having an enhanced DBS check, especially as Members would be involved with various aspects of their communities. In response, the Head of HR stated that the scope of eligibility was wide and therefore quite challenging. She added that the team were currently looking into how, within the guidance, an incident would be captured. Councillor Sinnett acknowledged that HR could only advise in this scenario, rather than mandate, and understood that it would be down to the Member to consider and undertake. Councillor Guy Woodham stated that he was not comfortable with the recommendation in regards to changing from a three-year to a five-year renewal period, due to safeguarding. He also agreed with Councillor Williams, and stated that he could not support the recommendation, as he did not see the purpose behind the proposed change. He suggested that the renewal period remained the same and that further work be undertaken to provide Members with a better understanding of the DBS process. He did not believe that it was appropriate for the Members of the outlined Committees to have an Enhanced DBS check, as he was unsure whether it met the requirements outlined in the guidance. He also believed there should be a more consistent approach. The Leader then sought clarification in regards to how the Democratic Services Committee came to the outlined recommendation. In response, the Head of HR explained that the original inquiry was a suggestion made at last year's budget setting process, as to whether reducing the number of DBS checks for Members would bring some level of cost saving and efficiency. She added that the Democratic Services Committee then considered this matter as a result of the suggestion. As a Member of that Committee, Councillor Michelle Bateman believed that there was some merit in Members sitting on Social Care and Education Committees having an Enhanced DBS check, due to the type of decisions made at such meetings, but acknowledged that it was difficult to know where to draw the line. The Leader then highlighted that the cost saving, as outlined in the report, was £202. Councillor Sinnett then highlighted the importance of safeguarding and that all Members needed to be fully engaged with that issue, and believed that all 60 Members needed to lead the way in terms of taking safeguarding seriously. The Leader supported Councillor Sinnett’s comments and agreed that all 60 Members should have an Enhanced DBS check. Councillor Bateman also referred to substitute and reserve Members on Committees, and suggested that that aspect also needed to be looked into in relation to DBS checks. Councillor Sinnett highlighted the comments made in regards to additional work on the matter, and suggested that it be referred back to the Democratic Services Committee or the Corporate Overview and Scrutiny Committee, in order to receive further details at a future Cabinet meeting. Councillor Williams believed that there was nothing to be decided and suggested that Cabinet let the matter lie. The Leader questioned the voting process and what would be required if the outlined recommendation was voted down. Councillors Sinnett and Woodham also questioned this and reiterated the need for more information on the matter moving forward. The Head of Law and Governance advised that it was up to Cabinet to move a Motion, and suggested that the relevant Committee to refer the matter to, if required, would be the Corporate Overview and Scrutiny Committee. Councillor Rhys Sinnett then Moved the following: That matters relating to best practice and legal requirements around the use of DBS checks for elected Members be further explored by a referral to the Corporate Overview and Scrutiny Committee, before returning to Cabinet. Seconded by Councillor Guy Woodham. The vote, undertaken by way of a roll call, was carried. The votes were recorded as follows: For the Motion: Councillors Jon Harvey, Paul Miller, Michelle Bateman, Neil Prior, Rhys Sinnett, Jacob Williams and Guy Woodham [7] There were no votes against or abstentions. RESOLVED That matters relating to best practice and legal requirements around the use of DBS checks for elected Members be further explored by a referral to the Corporate Overview and Scrutiny Committee, before returning to Cabinet.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED That the informal feedback from the people who have previously used the service at the Anchorage in Pembroke Dock, be noted. Whilst the information has been provided at an early stage in the transition from a building based service into a community focused model, early indications are positive; further evaluation will continue until the end of March 2025. All individuals are scheduled for a formal review of their care in October 2025.
[Councillor Paul Miller left the meeting at this juncture.] [Councillor Michelle Bateman declared a personal interest by virtue of being a trustee of the VC Gallery.] Cabinet considered a report by the Director of Social Care and Housing which outlined an update on the closure of the Anchorage Day Centre, following the Cabinet decision on 3 October 2024. The Director of Social Care and Housing introduced the report and stated that a new timetable and programme of activities was now in place, which was being utilised by the individuals that were attending the Anchorage Day Centre. He highlighted that the team had been working extremely hard to ensure a smooth transition for those individuals. He also referred to the previously outlined ‘taster days’ that were made available to service users, service user feedback which was largely positive, and some challenges around transport and increased journey times for some individuals. He also wished to provide assurance to Cabinet that all individuals had received a review from a Social Worker to identify if any needs and requirements had changed. The Director also provided an update on Bro Preseli and Lee Davies Centres. He added that the programme would continue to evolve and develop over time based on the needs and wants of the service users, and that the Authority would continue to support those service users to achieve what mattered to them. The Leader Moved the Recommendation as set out in the report; Seconded by Councillor Neil Prior. Councillor Rhys Sinnett stated that it was useful to have the service user feedback outlined in the report, and sought clarification as to whether any additional concerns could be overcome at this stage of the new arrangements being in place, or would be improved moving forward. In response, the Provider Services Manager stated that it was an evolving process in regards to service users and packages. He expected some movement in regards to people trying different things, and stated that it empowered individuals to make those choices, and that the service would support them in doing so. He also highlighted the challenges around transport and stated that the impacts were reviewed in order to alleviate any issues for people. Councillor Sinnett acknowledged that the nature of feedback was a continual process and questioned whether such feedback was collated and reported on, in order to ensure Member involvement. The Provider Services Manager clarified that it was informal feedback, but believed it would be sensible to formalise some of that feedback, potentially from across the County, and report back accordingly. The Leader agreed that any feedback, positive or negative, was important for Members to have sight of as the new model moved forward. He then commended the team on their good work and the ongoing support they provided for service users throughout their transition to new facilities. Councillor Sinnett referred to the comments in the report made by the Director of Resources, and sought clarification as to whether savings that were initially hoped for in relation to the Social Enterprise Model, would be carried forward to the following year if not realised for the current year. The Director of Resources clarified that any budget savings not achieved in the year would have been built into the base budget, and therefore rolled forward, unless the relevant Director had identified alternatives which had been implemented within the year. The Director of Social Care and Housing then explained the current situation in relation to the Social Enterprise Model to support the two organisations in Crymych and Narberth, and stated that the transition was still being worked on. He added that there were no other significant Day Centre reconfiguration plans for 2025-26. He also highlighted that with regards to the Anchorage saving, one of the reasons that the full year effect was not achieved, was as a result of the further engagement consultation. The vote, undertaken by way of a show of hands, was carried. RESOLVED That the informal feedback from the people who have previously used the service at the Anchorage in Pembroke Dock, be noted. Whilst the information has been provided at an early stage in the transition from a building based service into a community focused model, early indications are positive; further evaluation will continue until the end of March 2025. All individuals are scheduled for a formal review of their care in October 2025.
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.