Loading
The decisions as the council's minutes record them. A plain-language summary follows once it has been written.
RESOLVED That the Action Log be noted.
RESOLVED (a) That the Forward Work Programme be noted. (b) That a Forward Work Programme session be organised with Committee Members prior to the next meeting. (c) That a question and answer session be held with the Head of Housing and Public Protection in regards to the housing sector.
RESOLVED That the update be noted.
RESOLVED (a) That the update and evaluation findings be noted. (b) That Option 1 be supported as the preferred approach.
RESOLVED (a) That the report be noted and that a further item on the matter be added to the March Forward Work Programme to discuss questions from Members. (b) That a site visit be organised prior to the March meeting. [Councillors Huw Murphy and Chris Williams left the meeting at this juncture.]
RESOLVED That the contents of the report be noted; and that the fees for riding establishments continuing to be set based on a full cost recovery model be supported. [Councillor Nick Neumann left the meeting at this juncture.]
RESOLVED That the current provision and management of statutory allotments and non-statutory allotments and the potential benefits of increased local involvement in their future stewardship be noted. [Councillor Di Clements left the meeting at this juncture.]
RESOLVED (a) That the content of the report and the positive impact achieved for town centres be noted. (b) That the case for a continued focus on the placemaking agenda for maintaining the urban quality of our town centres be acknowledged.
The Chair announced that Item 10 (Local Authority Allotments) would be moved to the end of Agenda, just before Item 13 (Haverfordwest Regeneration Projects Update).
Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Terry Davies, Brian Hall and Thomas Tudor.
There were no Councillors in attendance to speak to any items.
There were no declarations of interest.
Councillor Di Clements Moved the Minutes; Seconded by Councillor Steve Alderman. The vote was taken by way of a show of hands and carried. RESOLVED That the English and Welsh Minutes of the meeting held on 23 September 2025 be approved as a correct record.
There were no public submissions.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED That the Action Log be noted.
The Chair introduced the report and highlighted that all the actions in the log had been completed. The Committee then raised the following points: • Councillor Di Clements referred to the Strategic Asset Management Group Minutes that had been circulated to the Committee ahead of the meeting, and sought clarification as to when the next meeting of the Group would be. In response, the Head of Democratic Services stated that it would likely be in the new year. • Councillor Clements also sought clarification as to whether the previously agreed Environmental Crime Task and Finish Group and the Rural Areas Working Group had both met since the last Committee meeting. In response, the Head of Democratic Services stated the that Environmental Crime Task and Finish Group was due to meet in December, and that a date was yet to be confirmed for the Rural Areas Working Group. Councillor Di Clements Moved the Recommendation; Seconded by Councillor Mark Carter. The vote, undertaken by way of a show of hands, was carried. RESOLVED That the Action Log be noted.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED (a) That the Forward Work Programme be noted. (b) That a Forward Work Programme session be organised with Committee Members prior to the next meeting. (c) That a question and answer session be held with the Head of Housing and Public Protection in regards to the housing sector.
The Chair introduced the Forward Work Programme and invited questions from Members. The Head of Democratic Services wished to highlight a referral from the Policy and Pre-Decision Overview and Scrutiny Committee regarding the inclusion of allotments on a future agenda. She highlighted to that Committee that the matter was due to be considered later in the meeting and suggested that the referral be revisited under the relevant item in the Agenda. The Committee then raised the following points: • Councillor Di Clements referred to the Environmental Crime Task and Finish Group update being scheduled for January and raised concerns about the feasibility of receiving recommendations at that meeting due to timing. She also requested a review of previous scrutiny items, including a list of topics and dates, to consider whether any required revisiting. • In response, the Head of Democratic Services suggested holding a Forward Work Programme session to review priorities, consider items scrutinised over the past 12 to 18 months, and align future work with the Corporate Risk Register. • Councillor Clements suggested that that be added to the Recommendation. • Councillor Tony Wilcox referred to the ongoing housing crisis, particularly the shortage of one-bedroom accommodation, and requested an update on actions taken over the past 12 months. He noted the high demand, with approximately 1,000 individuals currently on the waiting list, and wished for this issue to be considered for the Forward Work Programme. • The Chair agreed that the housing situation should be revisited due to its complexity, and requested a dedicated session with the Head of Housing and Public Protection to provide clarity on policies, constraints, and progress. • In regards to Councillor Clements’ earlier comment regarding the Environmental Crime Task and Finish Group, the Head of Transport and Environment explained that the Group would review the four options outlined in the September report and provide recommendations at the January meeting for discussion, prior to submission to Cabinet for decision. She stated that the aim was to implement changes for the 2026 season. • The Head of Democratic Services sought clarification as to what Members would like specifically from the Head of Housing and Public Protection in regards to the Housing sector, as it was a broad area. • In response, the Chair suggested that a question-and-answer session would be more beneficial than a seminar, to allow Committee Members to seek clarification on housing policies and constraints and improve understanding. • Councillor Wilcox suggested that that be added to the Recommendation. • Councillor Clements noted that Housing updates were provided regularly through existing reports and suggested that, rather than requesting additional reports from Officers, Members should review those reports and prepare questions for discussion with Officers outside formal meetings. • The Chair agreed. Councillor Di Clements Moved the Recommendation; Seconded by Councillor Tony Wilcox. The vote, undertaken by way of a show of hands, was carried. RESOLVED (a) That the Forward Work Programme be noted. (b) That a Forward Work Programme session be organised with Committee Members prior to the next meeting. (c) That a question and answer session be held with the Head of Housing and Public Protection in regards to the housing sector.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED That the update be noted.
Councillor Rhys Sinnett, Cabinet Member for Resident’s Services, introduced the report and stated that a report would be presented to the upcoming December Cabinet meeting to confirm match funding from the Council. He stated that following resolution of site access issues, the tender was reissued and five bids had been evaluated. He added that subject to Cabinet approval and Welsh Government agreement of the final business case, the contract would be awarded, with the aim of commencing work before the end of the financial year. The Coastal, Rivers and Drainage Team Manager added that the full business case for the Havens Head Flood Alleviation Scheme would be submitted to Welsh Government by the end of the week, with Cabinet scheduled to consider match funding the following week. She also highlighted the urgency and ongoing efforts to progress the scheme in a timely manner. The Committee then raised the following points: • Councillor Tony Wilcox commented on the time taken to progress the scheme, noting that despite recent severe weather events exceeding those of the original incident, the area had coped well. He acknowledged, however, the importance of completing the planned works. • Councillor Sinnett noted that the scheme had been in development since 2018 and acknowledged the ongoing risk of severe weather events. He stressed that the scheme was designed to reduce, not eliminate, flood risk, and that vigilance from the Port Authority alongside planned engineering works would help minimise future incidents. • The Chair queried whether Welsh Government match funding for the scheme was guaranteed or subject to approval. • In response, the Head of Transport and Environment advised that Welsh Government had funded the design and initial business case for the scheme in full. In regards to the construction phase, she explained that funding would be provided on an 85% Welsh Government and 15% Council match funding basis. She stated that the expression of interest had been accepted and the project had progressed to the full business case stage, and that while discussions with Welsh Government were positive, approval would depend on assessment of the submitted business case. • The Chair then asked whether, if Welsh Government approval was confirmed by the end of the financial year, construction could commence immediately and whether indicative start dates were provided during the tender process. • The Head of Transport and Environment stated that, subject to Welsh Government approval, construction could commence early next year. • Councillor Viv Stoddart acknowledged the efforts being made but noted that recent flooding had reinforced residents’ concerns. She sought clarification on the timescale for reviewing grant submissions and provisionally awarding a contract, as the report indicated completion before the end of November. • The Coastal, Rivers and Drainage Team Manager reiterated that the full business case would be submitted to Welsh Government by the end of the week, and that a tender review process had been completed, and the matter now rests with procurement. • Councillor Stoddart queried the funding arrangements and sought confirmation that the total project cost was £1.66 million, which Officers confirmed to be the case. The Head of Transport and Environment explained that the report was returning to Cabinet due to the overall values changing following the tender exercise, although the Council match funding requirement was not affected. • Councillor Stoddart also expressed concern that, despite the project being designed to mitigate flooding issues, funding could still be uncertain given the current political climate and the possibility of a change in administration following next year’s Senedd elections. • The Coastal, Rivers and Drainage Team Manager noted that while funding could not be guaranteed, discussions with Welsh Government had been positive and the scheme had received support throughout its development. She highlighted that the scheme would serve as a strong example of flood alleviation in Pembrokeshire, and it would therefore be in the interest of Welsh Government to go ahead with the scheme. • Councillor Stoddart also sought clarification in regards to the start date of the scheme, if the application was successful. In response, Councillor Sinnett stated that the works were likely to span two financial years (2025 to 2026 and 2026 to 2027). • Councillor Stoddart then welcomed a previous offer from the Group Engineering Manager to meet with residents after the contract had been awarded, in order to review the proposed works and timescales. She also expressed appreciation for the Committee’s continued interest in the matter. The Group Engineering Manager added that two construction options had been proposed: the original open trench method for installing the culvert, and an alternative tunnelling method suggested by some contractors, which would reduce disruption and allow quicker installation. He explained that if tunnelling was selected, the contractor would need approximately six weeks for design work before visible activity begins on site. Councillor Mark Carter Moved the Recommendation; Seconded by Councillor John Cole. The vote, undertaken by way of a show of hands, was carried. RESOLVED That the update be noted.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED (a) That the update and evaluation findings be noted. (b) That Option 1 be supported as the preferred approach.
Councillor Rhys Sinnett, Cabinet Member for Resident’s Services, introduced the report and stated that the scheme invited applications from persons with disabilities, with a target of ten bays per year, and included consultation with applicants and neighbouring residents. He stated that 20 bays had been installed at a cost of £20 per application, with estimated annual Officer time costs of £30,000. He added that the review highlighted challenges, including assessment of medical evidence and neighbourhood impacts, and noted that the current approach did not align with the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. He stated that the preferred option to adopt was Option one: transition to category-based bays for Blue Badge holders. The Committee then raised the following points: • Councillor Di Clements expressed support for Option one, but raised concerns regarding the legality of the pilot scheme, noting that it appeared to have operated outside the scope of UK legislation for the past two years. She also referred to the high setup costs, lack of appropriate resources and expertise to assess applications, as Traffic Officers were required to review medical evidence without specialist qualifications. She also emphasised the need to consider budget constraints and compliance with legislation in future schemes. • In response, the Group Engineering Manager explained that the pilot scheme was based on models used elsewhere in the Country. However, he highlighted that a recent legal challenge in a London Borough clarified that it was unlawful to allocate a section of public highway to an individual, though allocation to a group remained permissible. He stated that this informed the recommendation to transition to category-based bays, and that the pilot was always intended to test the approach. • Councillor John Cole queried the overall cost per bay, noting that when Officer time was included, the figure could be as high as £7,500 per bay, which he believed to be excessive. He also raised concerns about the practical implications of moving to category-based bays, as this could lead to competition for a single bay among multiple disabled residents on the same street. • In response, the Head of Transport and Environment clarified that the £5,500 cost referenced in the report was in relation to the cost of the full bay installation. She also confirmed that the transition would be to bays designated for Blue Badge holders rather than individual residents, in line with recent legislative clarification. She also referenced the potential to implement these bays alongside residents’ parking schemes, which could limit access to those holding both a Blue Badge and a residents’ permit, thereby reducing demand and potential conflicts. • Councillor Cole also referenced the £20 charge for the disabled bay scheme, compared to the higher charge for resident bays. The Head of Transport and Environment stated that it was something that could be looked into, however, prior to the trial starting, it was deemed that the scheme be charged at a lower rate. • The Chair agreed that the cost of the bays should be equal. • Councillor Mark Carter also expressed concern that unqualified Officers were required to determine eligibility for bays, and queried whether the estimated Officer time cost was a one-off or an annual expenditure if the scheme continued. Concerns were also raised about fairness and practicality under the proposed category-based system. • In response, the Head of Transport and Environment explained that the previous Officer time costs were linked to the individual assessment process under the pilot scheme. She stated that under the proposed category-based approach, costs were expected to be significantly lower as eligibility would be determined by Blue Badge status rather than individual needs. • Councillor Carter then expressed support for Option One, noting that the transition to a Blue Badge-based system, combined with residents’ permits where applicable, would significantly reduce costs and provide a fairer approach. • The Head of Transport and Environment noted that residents’ parking schemes were not present on every street in Pembrokeshire, but requests could be considered where appropriate. • Councillor Tony Wilcox supported Option One and queried whether any enforcement tickets had been issued in the bays during the pilot period, noting that if so, they may be open to challenge given the legal position. • Councillor Alan Dennisonqueried the distinction between general Blue Badge bays and those within residents’ permit schemes, expressing concern that general bays could be used by individuals whose disability does not affect mobility, potentially disadvantaging residents who required parking close to their property. • The Head of Transport and Environment clarified that the proposed scheme would operate under a single Blue Badge system. In areas with residents’ parking schemes, designated bays would require both a Blue Badge and a residents’ permit, ensuring priority for local residents while maintaining compliance with legislation. • Councillor Dennison questioned what the criteria would be for applying for a disabled bay on the street. In response, the Head of Transport and Environment explained that under the proposed approach, assessments would be based on compliance with traffic regulations and the feasibility of installing a bay on the highway, rather than on individual medical needs. She added that eligibility for the scheme would be determined through the Blue Badge process. She explained that the scheme aimed to install approximately 10 bays per year, based on an application process, and that applications that meet requirements but could not be accommodated immediately may be placed on a waiting list, with prioritisation based on feasibility and timescales. • Councillor Clements wished to endorse Option one with the following addition: That the annual permit fee for disabled bays be equal to the standard residential permit fee. • Councillor Sinnett wished to highlight that it was currently £20 for disabled persons parking bays, with resident only parking being £46, therefore the Committee had suggested an increase of over 100%. • The Chair noted that residents currently pay £46 per year for residents’ bays on a first-come, first-served basis and suggested that, rather than implementing a significant increase immediately, consideration could be given to phasing in any increase over the next two years to ensure fairness. Councillor Di Clements Moved Option one with a view to investigating increasing the disabled bay permit amount to align with a standard residential permit. • The Senior Traffic Engineer believed that there was no requirement to amend the recommendation, as in streets with residents’ parking schemes, all residents may purchase a permit, which provided an opportunity to park in that area. The addition of a disabled bay would offer further opportunity for Blue Badge holders, including visitors, to park nearby, but would not confer exclusive rights. On the basis of that clarification, Councillor Di Clements Moved the Recommendation. • Councillor Clements asked that residents paying £20 for a disabled bay be communicated with to help them understand the change. • The Head of Transport and Environment explained that the pilot scheme was not linked to residents’ parking schemes and that participants were informed their bays were temporary for a 12-month period. She stated that any future arrangements would be communicated clearly to affected individuals. She added that the proposed approach was considered fairer, aligned with legislation, and addressed concerns raised during the trial, as bays would no longer be reserved for one individual but available to any Blue Badge holder (and, where applicable, those with a residents’ permit). She stated that pricing during the trial reflected the standalone nature of the scheme, whereas future arrangements would align with existing residents’ permit pricing. • The Senior Traffic Engineer added that the pilot scheme had highlighted a genuine need for disabled parking provision within residential areas, and that the exercise had been valuable in identifying these needs and will inform future policy. • Councillor Wilcox sought clarification as to whether charges for a residential parking permit and disabled bay would both apply in certain cases. The Head of Transport and Environment explained Blue Badge applications were free of charge in Wales, and the associated fee would therefore relate to the residents’ parking permit. However, if a disabled bay was requested, the current charge of £20 would still apply. • Councillor Alan Dennison sought clarification in regards to the cost for parking permits being equal for all applicants, avoiding any risk of discrimination. He also questioned the responsibility for funding additional disabled parking bays on private land, such as libraries, and queried whether such costs would be met by the landowner or the Council. • The Senior Traffic Engineer explained that the Council’s responsibility was limited to the public highway, and that for bays on private land, contributions would be sought from the landowner. She stated that where bays were linked to Council facilities, costs would be met from the Council budget. • Councillor Dennison further queried whether the Council would proceed with installing disabled bays on private land, if contributions from landowners were refused. The Head of Transport and Environment confirmed that the Council would not install disabled bays on behalf of private businesses such as supermarkets, as it would be their responsibility. The Motion was 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, Alan Dennison, Huw Murphy, Nick Neumann, Viv Stoddart, Anji Tinley, Tony Wilcox and Chris Williams [11] There were no votes against or abstentions. RESOLVED (a) That the update and evaluation findings be noted. (b) That Option 1 be supported as the preferred approach.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED (a) That the report be noted and that a further item on the matter be added to the March Forward Work Programme to discuss questions from Members. (b) That a site visit be organised prior to the March meeting. [Councillors Huw Murphy and Chris Williams left the meeting at this juncture.]
Councillor Rhys Sinnett, Cabinet Member for Resident’s Services, introduced the report and provided an overview of the history and current operation of cremation and burial services managed by the Council. He outlined market trends, including the shift from burial to cremation and the rise of direct cremation services, as well as feedback from Funeral Directors regarding service improvements at Parc Gwyn Crematorium. He also referred to operational challenges, fee structures, and strategic considerations for future service provision, and noted that the Council manages 11 cemeteries, some of which were nearing capacity, creating financial and land-use challenges. He also referred to options for addressing budget deficits in cemetery maintenance, and suggested a site visit for the Committee to Parc Gwyn in order to view the facilities. The Committee then raised the following points: • Councillor Di Clements highlighted the need to ensure sufficient resources for cremation and burial services both now and in the future. She questioned the competitiveness of the Council’s direct cremation charges compared to other providers, and whether reducing fees could increase usage and revenue. She also queried the feasibility of achieving an additional 30 direct cremations to offset potential income loss if fees were reduced, and expressed concern about Pembrokeshire residents being cremated outside the County. She also questioned the provision for future cremation equipment costs, whether such costs were factored into current fees, progress towards full cost recovery for burials and cremations, and how future maintenance of cemeteries was funded. She then sought clarification on the current process for reviewing fees and charges ahead of the planned review for the 2026 to 2027 financial year. • Councillor Sinnett stated that the Council prioritises high-quality service delivery at Parc Gwyn Crematorium and expressed caution about reducing fees at the expense of quality. He confirmed that annual contributions were made to Reserves to fund future cremator replacement, estimated at £2 million in approximately ten years. He then referred to balancing quality with competitiveness and maximising use of existing facilities, given lower throughput compared to other areas in West and Mid Wales. • Councillor Clements wished to clarify that her concerns related to maximising use of Parc Gwyn Crematorium for direct cremations, rather than reducing service quality. She queried whether capacity constraints prevented additional direct cremations and suggested exploring options to utilise available time outside standard operating hours, and highlighted that the aim was to retain local cremations within Pembrokeshire. • The Assistant Chief Executive and Director of Place outlined the current operating model at Parc Gwyn, noting that 94% of cremations included a service, reflecting focus on high-quality provision. He explained that while reducing prices for direct cremations could undercut private providers, this would require an additional 90 cremations annually, and may not be viable given market trends and geographic limitations. He stated that direct cremation models succeeded where high-volume processing was possible, and that the Council’s current model offered significant savings for attended services compared to competitors, and that operational costs for direct cremations remained similar to attended services due to staffing and infrastructure requirements. • Councillor Clements noted that further information was needed on the number of cremations being directed to other providers, and suggested that understanding this trend was essential to assess any potential business case for pricing changes. She also reiterated concerns about insufficient income from current fees to cover future cemetery maintenance, and highlighted the importance of planning for long-term sustainability. • The Chair then referred to receiving Minutes from meetings with Funeral Directors. Councillor Sinnett highlighted that key points raised by Funeral Directors had been added to the report, but suggested that if the Funeral Directors Group were happy with the Minutes being shared, then those could be circulated. He noted that there were mixed views from Funeral Directors on current arrangements, and while they welcomed some aspects of the service, they raised concerns about charges and suggested process improvements at the Crematorium. • The Assistant Chief Executive and Director of Placediscussed the importance of ensuring that any changes to direct cremation pricing were supported by a clear understanding of costs and Reserves to avoid operating at a loss. He noted that while an interim review would take place for April 2026 to reflect inflation, a more detailed review was planned for April 2027. He also highlighted the need to incorporate long-term maintenance and infrastructure costs into future planning. • Councillor John Cole highlighted that while the Council’s cremation fees appeared lower than competitors, the shorter service time meant that the cost per minute was higher. He raised concerns about the impact of further fee increases on families, and suggested that adding an additional cremation slot per day could increase income, and queried whether there was scope to achieve this. • In response, the Assistant Chief Executive and Director of Place confirmed that there was no scope to add extra cremation slots due to a significant reduction in overall cremation numbers, which reflected a wider market shift towards direct cremations, where the Council could not compete. He stated that while service times could be extended to one hour, this would reduce daily capacity and potentially increase waiting times, particularly during peak winter months. He added that a variable model could be considered, but the current focus remained on overall income rather than cost per minute. • Councillor Cole noted that extending service slots to one hour might align with competitor practice but could reduce daily capacity and not offset income lost from fewer slots. He then raised a query about future-proofing investment, including consideration of emerging technologies when planning for cremator replacement over the next ten years. • In response, the Assistant Chief Executive and Director of Place confirmed that when cremators required replacement, an options appraisal would be undertaken to review available technologies. He added that any future changes would involve full consultation with the public, to ensure acceptability and respect for bereavement practices. • Councillor Alan Dennison queried the destination of net savings shown in the report, asking whether these contributions were allocated to general Reserves or specific crematorium and cemetery funds. He also expressed concern that people may choose crematoriums outside Pembrokeshire, purely on cost grounds. He suggested that reducing direct cremation fees at Parc Gwyn could increase local uptake and revenue, aligning with market trends. He also highlighted the environmental impact of longer travel distances in the context of the Council’s net zero commitment by 2030 and queried whether future cremator replacement should consider low-carbon technologies. • The Assistant Chief Executive and Director of Placethenasked whether the Committee’s steer was for the Council to actively compete with private sector and seek to increase market share for cremations within Pembrokeshire. • Councillor Dennison believed that this was already the case in other service areas. • The Assistant Chief Executive and Director of Place noted that previous guidance from Members had been not to compete directly with the private sector, but to complement existing provision. He highlighted that reducing prices to undercut competitors would represent a significant policy shift and questioned whether the Committee wished to pursue this approach. • The Chair acknowledged that the discussion raised significant strategic questions, and suggested that no decisions be made at this meeting due to the complexity and sensitivity of the issue. She highlighted that Officers had confirmed that further debate and guidance from Members would be required for future direction. • Councillor Mark Carter noted significant price differences for direct cremations between the Council and other providers, and suggested that Officers engage with Swansea Council to understand their pricing model and whether full cost recovery was achieved, given the disparity. He also requested that this information be brought back for further discussion before any decisions were made. • In response, the Assistant Chief Executive and Director of Place believed that Swansea Council was subsidising their cremator. Heclarified that Swansea’s lower direct cremation fees likely reflected a conscious decision to operate at a loss, subsidising the service for wider community benefit. He noted that reducing the Council’s prices would require cross-subsidy from other Council services, which may not target those most in need. He added that the current model prioritises attended services (94% of cremations) and had not sought to compete with private sector providers on direct cremations. • Councillor Viv Stoddart requested further clarification on crematorium Reserves, including who determined the contributions, where the funds were held, and confirmation of the cumulative total. In response, the Assistant Chief Executive and Director of Place stated that the apportionment into Reserves was a finance decision rather than a service decision. He stated that there was currently over £1.5 million in Reserves, and that the forthcoming Fees and Charges Review would determine whether this amount was sufficient, whether funds could be released, or if additional reserves need to be allocated. He added that it was a ring fenced Reserve specifically for the crematorium. • Councillor Stoddart suggested that the forthcoming Fees and Charges Review should also consider what constitutes a reasonable level of Reserves and whether reducing contributions could help lower overall costs. • The Assistant Chief Executive and Director of Place suggested that the review also consider development opportunities at Parc Gwyn, including investment in facilities and options for future management, which would influence Reserve planning and long-term ambitions for the site. • Councillor Tony Wilcox queried whether data was available on the number of funerals from Pembrokeshire to other Counties. In relation to Reserves, he agreed that maintaining a contingency fund for Parc Gwyn was prudent to mitigating risks of operational breakdowns. • The Assistant Chief Executive and Director of Place stated that there was no central database or requirement to record where services were provided or when families choose national providers. He added that while death rates and market share trends could be analysed, detailed information on cremations or burials outside the County was not readily available. • Councillor Cole expressed concern about the growth of direct cremation services and the potential impact on traditional crematorium services. He suggested that the Council should explore the feasibility of offering a direct cremation service locally to ensure affordability, rather than competing with private providers. • Councillor Clements noted recent investment in the crematorium and improvements to the grounds, but raised concern about future investment. She suggested that further engagement with Funeral Directors and the public was needed to understand demand and options, including potential outsourcing and pricing models. She requested that Officers undertake additional work on these options and report back before any significant investment decisions were made. • The Chair agreed that a broader public consultation would better inform future decisions, and not just consultation with Funeral Directors. • Councillor Dennison referred to the use of outdoor spaces at the crematorium and questioned whether investment in those areas provided value for money, and suggested that data on visitor numbers outside of funeral services would help inform decisions. He suggested establishing a Task and Finish Group to review options. He also sought clarification on the allocation of funds, particularly the difference between Reserves and other expenditure. • The Assistant Chief Executive and Director of Placenoted concerns about potential monopolies and price increases if a private operator was to manage the crematorium. He highlighted that the current model provided high-quality, in-person services in well-maintained grounds, which remained popular. He reported that recent investment included over £500,000 from a Nature Partnership grant, supporting the site’s dual role as a crematorium and nature reserve. • Councillor Sinnett reiterated the importance of public consultation to ensure services reflected the wishes of Pembrokeshire residents. He agreed that feedback should not rely solely on Funeral Directors or bereaved families, and suggested that future work should explore consultation methods, financial implications, and service models as part of the Committee’s Forward Work Programme. • The Chair noted the sensitivity of the topic and the importance of considering public expectations, and suggested deferring the item for further discussion until March 2026 to allow time for review of the report and submission of questions to Officers. • The Assistant Chief Executive and Director of Place reiterated the suggestion of a site visit to Parc Gwyn to gain a better understanding of the facilities and services, and proposed that the visit take place ahead of the March Committee meeting. • Councillor Carter suggested that consideration be given to providing a small catering facility at the site, which could offer refreshments for visitors attending funerals, as well as a space for informal gatherings for those who do not wish to hold a formal wake. He noted that such a facility could also encourage visitors to make use of the grounds for reflection. • The Assistant Chief Executive and Director of Place explained that plans had already been drawn up for a potential catering facility at the site, potentially a tea shop-style offering, and that the business case for this proposal would be explored further. • Councillor Dennison expressed uncertainty regarding the proposal for a tea shop, stating that a privately leased arrangement would be acceptable, as opposed to being operated by the Council. • Councillor Wilcox referenced the growing trend towards direct cremation which was expected to continue, and that this trend should be considered when assessing the viability of any additional facilities, to avoid overinvestment. The Chair Moved the Recommendation; Seconded by Councillor Mark Carter. 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, Alan Dennison, Huw Murphy, Nick Neumann, Viv Stoddart, Anji Tinley, Tony Wilcox and Chris Williams [11] There were no votes against or abstentions. RESOLVED (a) That the report be noted and that a further item on the matter be added to the March Forward Work Programme to discuss questions from Members. (b) That a site visit be organised prior to the March meeting. [Councillors Huw Murphy and Chris Williams left the meeting at this juncture.]
The meeting was paused at 12:52pm and resumed at 1:25pm.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED That the contents of the report be noted; and that the fees for riding establishments continuing to be set based on a full cost recovery model be supported. [Councillor Nick Neumann left the meeting at this juncture.]
The Head of Housing and Public Protection introduced the report and stated that it outlined the process for setting riding establishment licence fees, following a previous Scrutiny request for further background information. She stated that the report explained the legislative framework and the use of a fees toolkit to ensure transparency and consistency. She added that a phased fee structure was in place, based on the size of the establishment and the number of horses. The report also highlighted the current number of establishments in the County, which had recently increased to seven. The Committee then raised the following points: • The Chair read out the following message on behalf of Councillor Huw Murphy who had to leave the meeting: I have been informed that the figures provided that a riding establishment could make £7,200 per day are wholly inaccurate and the question they want me to ask is: has this figure been provided from a PCC riding establishment or simply an assumption by the author (PCC)? I cannot make clear how upset some Pembrokeshire riding establishment owners are by the figures being presented by PCC in defence of higher fees other than local authorities, for example, Bridgend at £353 or Ceredigion, which is similar to Bridgend. • The Head of Housing and Public Protection noted that the figures cited by Councillor Murphy did not align with those held by Officers. She explained that the Council’s current fee for establishments with up to ten horses was £583, compared to £570 in Ceredigion and £600 in Carmarthenshire, with fees increasing incrementally based on size. She added that inspections of riding establishments were carried out at least annually by Animal Health Officers, with additional visits as required, and that the fee figures referenced in the report were informed by regular communication with proprietors during these inspections. • Councillor Di Clements raised concern regarding the assumptions in the final paragraph on page 64 of the Agenda, noting that the projected number of rides per day appeared unrealistic and potentially misleading. She highlighted that animal welfare considerations and seasonal demand would limit activity, and the figures should be reviewed. She commented that the breakdown of fees and charges was helpful and appeared reasonable. • The Head of Housing and Public Protection acknowledged the concerns raised and confirmed that the figures were intended as a snapshot, which could be significantly affected by seasonal variations unless internal facilities were available. She agreed that the paragraph in question would be withdrawn. She also noted that the substantial costs involved in operating riding establishments, but clarified that these did not affect the method used to set licence fees. • The Cabinet Member for Planning and Regulatory Services, Councillor Jacob Williams, commented that the earnings figure in the report lacked sufficient context and suggested that a comparison of licence fees across all 22 Welsh Local Authorities would have been more useful, although acknowledged this would require additional effort to compile. He also noted that the report found no evidence that businesses were closing due to current fees. • Councillor Tony Wilcox noted that the Council’s current fee of £583 for establishments with up to ten horses was competitive compared to neighbouring Authorities, and queried the origin of fees of around £300, as these did not correspond with the data held by Officers. • Councillor Alan Dennison queried whether the Council’s fees were set on a cost?recovery basis or generated a surplus. Specifically, he asked whether the £583 fee for establishments with up to ten horses reflected the full cost of issuing the licence, and why larger establishments incurred only a modest additional charge. • The Head of Housing and Public Protectionclarified that licence fees were calculated on a full cost-recovery basis using a nationally developed fees toolkit, which applied time apportionment based on Officer salary grades and the size of the establishment. She stated that the toolkit, developed by the Wales Heads of Environmental Health Licensing Subgroup, ensured transparency and consistency across Local Authorities, and confirmed that no profit was generated from these fees. • Councillor Dennison noted that while charges varied across Authorities, comparisons should be applied consistently across different services. He also reiterated that the Council should not seek to make a profit from licensing businesses. • The Chair stressed the importance of ensuring that the licensing system was fair and queried whether any recent feedback had been received from businesses, noting that the report referenced feedback from 2017. She also highlighted that the policy was ten years old and suggested that it should be reviewed and updated to reflect current circumstances. She then asked Officers to confirm whether consultations with business owners had taken place. • In response, the Public Protection Manager confirmed that a large-scale consultation exercise was undertaken in 2016 as part of a corporate review of fees and charges, which included engagement with all affected businesses. He added that no significant objections were raised at that time, and that while the consultation had not been repeated, Officers had reviewed the processes mapped out in 2017 to ensure they remained current and considered opportunities for streamlining. He also noted that the fees reflected the cost of administering licences and inspections, excluding additional costs associated with non-compliance, which were dealt with separately. • Councillor John Cole highlighted the valuable role riding establishments played in supporting activities such as riding for disabled individuals and promoting mental health, and noted the significant costs involved in operating such businesses. • The Chair suggested that the data on licence numbers should include how many horses each licence covers, as this would provide a clearer context. She noted that licence numbers had begun to increase following the pandemic, and suggested that applicants be asked to complete a short consultation to provide feedback. • The Head of Housing and Public Protection confirmed that more detailed information on the size of licensed establishments could be provided. She noted that no formal complaints about fees had been received, although costs were occasionally raised during inspections, alongside rising insurance costs due to the high-risk nature of horse riding. She also agreed to feed back comments regarding the Income Generation Strategy to Finance colleagues, and confirm whether a review was due. • Councillor Mark Carter sought clarification as to whether the fees outlined in the report on page 63 were annual or five yearly. The Head of Housing and Public Protection confirmed that it was an annual fee. He also questioned whether the cost of approximately £300 for having a vet out was also annual, to which the Head of Housing and Public Protection confirmed to be the case. • Councillor Dennison noted that the fees appeared to have increased broadly in line with inflation and suggested that it would have been helpful to see the starting fee in 2016 compared to the current figure, and commented that, if the increase was inflation-linked, the cost was not considered excessive. • The Chair queried the reference in the conclusion regarding future opportunities for introducing artificial intelligence to model service activities and achieve potential cost savings, asking for clarification on what this would mean in practical terms. • In response, the Public Protection Manager explained that the reference to artificial intelligence related to potential future use of digital tools to streamline administrative processes. He stated that such efficiencies could reduce manual workload, although any associated costs may need to be reflected in future fees. • The Chair queried whether this would result in replacing a member of staff. • The Head of Housing and Public Protection noted that the exploration of technology formed part of a wider corporate review aimed at delivering efficiencies and savings in response to budget pressures. She stated that findings from this review were expected to be presented to Members in the New Year, and mentioned that while efficiencies may be achieved, potentially including reduced staffing costs, the precise impact and associated risks had yet to be determined. Councillor Di Clements Moved the Recommendation; Seconded by Councillor Mark Carter. The vote, undertaken by way of a show of hands, was carried. RESOLVED That the contents of the report be noted; and that the fees for riding establishments continuing to be set based on a full cost recovery model be supported. [Councillor Nick Neumann left the meeting at this juncture.]
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED That the current provision and management of statutory allotments and non-statutory allotments and the potential benefits of increased local involvement in their future stewardship be noted. [Councillor Di Clements left the meeting at this juncture.]
Councillor Paul Miller, Cabinet Member for Place, the Region, Climate Change and Rural Affairs, introduced the report and stated that it provided an overview of the current position regarding allotments, including numbers and management arrangements. He suggested that consideration might be given to exploring a more locally managed model in the future and welcomed the Committee’s views on this. The Committee then raised the following points: • Councillor Di Clements believed that allotments were a local matter and supported exploring the transfer of management to Town and Community Councils. She raised concerns about whether this would involve a Community Asset Transfer process, noting previous challenges with such transfers and the need to avoid additional costs and delays. She also queried whether sufficient resources were available to implement this efficiently, and highlighted that if some Councils declined to take on allotments, the current charge of £32 per plot appeared very low and suggested reviewing this in line with the full cost recovery strategy adopted in 2016. • In response, the Head of Property and Construction explained that there were two potential approaches, either through catchments or via a management agreement, and further work would be needed to assess resource requirements. In relation to fees, she confirmed that these could be reviewed, with the possibility of increasing them subject to further consideration. • Councillor John Cole sought clarification in regards to the difference between a statutory and non-statutory allotment. In response, the Head of Property and Construction advised that she would have to report back with the answer. • Councillor Mark Carter emphasised the need for a streamlined process for transferring allotments to Town and Community Councils, citing previous delays with similar transfers. He suggested considering a simple mechanism, such as a long-term lease at a nominal rent, to avoid unnecessary complexity and Officer time. He also proposed that Local Members identify unused Council land that could be licensed to Town and Community Councils for allotments, noting the benefits for community wellbeing and the high demand for allotments in some areas. • The Chair queried whether non-statutory allotments could be sold to private entrepreneurs, subject to restrictions preventing development, so that the land remained designated for allotment use. The Head of Property and Construction advised that it was something that could be looked into. • Councillor Tony Wilcox shared a recent positive experience of establishing seven allotments with support from the Council and Pembroke Dock Town Council. He stated that although the plots were not serviced, they had proven to be highly beneficial, particularly for wellbeing. • The Head of Democratic Services reminded Members of a referral from the Policy and Pre-Decision Overview and Scrutiny Committee requesting that allotments be added to the agenda. She stated that the referral, originally suggested by Councillor Huw Murphy, highlighted high demand for allotments, their contribution to wellbeing and future generations, the potential use of unused Council land, and the opportunity to generate revenue. She added that Members were asked to provide feedback for reporting back to the Committee. • Councillor Alan Dennison supported the benefits of allotments but raised concerns about the current management model. He queried the cost of this subsidy and questioned what incentive Town or Community Councils would have to take on allotments if they involved significant expense. He also reiterated that the current fee of £32 per year did not achieve cost recovery and suggested that fees should be reviewed for those allotments not transferred. • The Head of Property and Construction advised that work was currently underway to establish the exact cost of allotment maintenance, and acknowledged that allotments were heavily subsidised, but precise figures would be available shortly. • The Chair reflected on the current allotment fees, noting they had remained unchanged for decades, and suggested exploring options to remove or reduce the subsidy rather than significantly increasing charges. • The Head of Property and Constructionconfirmed that once the actual cost of running allotments was established over the coming weeks, the level of subsidy and other options could be considered accordingly. • Councillor Carter suggested that rather than viewing allotments primarily as a source of income, the focus should be on leasing them to Town and Community Councils to enable the establishment of local allotment associations. He believed this would give allotment holders greater autonomy and reduce cost considerations, and proposed revisiting the matter in six months and adding it to the forward work programme. • In response to statutory and non-statutory allotments, the Assistant Chief Executive and Director of Place explained that statutory allotments were formally designated under the Allotments Act and had strong legal protection, requiring alternative land if removed. He stated that non-statutory allotments were on land allocated for allotment use at the Council’s discretion, operating similarly to a tenancy. He added that rent levels were not restricted by statutory status, other than being reasonable, and increases required twelve months’ notice. He suggested bringing back a paper proposing a revised fee structure aligned with full cost recovery. • The Chair suggested a significant rent increase, such as doubling the current fee, in order to help address the waiting list by discouraging non-committed tenants, while attracting new applicants willing to pay a reasonable amount. • Councillor Dennison queried why all allotments were charged the same annual fee of £32 despite variations in size, usage, and condition. He suggested that fees should be based on plot size to ensure fairness. • Councillor Cole agreed that the matter should be added to the Forward Work Programme and suggested Officers calculate costs on a per-square-metre basis to ensure fairness. He noted that larger plots should attract proportionally higher fees and emphasised the need for more detailed cost recovery information to inform future rent structures. • Councillor Wilcox noted that in Pembroke Dock, allotments were charged at £50 per year and suggested that Town Councils could set their own fees. He highlighted issues with plots that had remained uncultivated for extended periods and proposed notifying tenants who were not actively using their allotments. • Councillor Miller reflected on the points raised and reiterated that a local management model would be more effective, as the Authority lacked resources to monitor all sites. He noted that the success of local arrangements in Pembroke Dock was an example to replicate. He also summarised the Committee’s views as supporting a move to local management, pursuing full cost recovery for retained allotments, and bringing a progress report back in six months, agreeing that a streamlined process was essential. • Councillor Dennison sought clarification on whether the proposed transfer to local management would apply to all allotments collectively or be considered on a case-by-case basis. • The Head of Property and Construction advised that transfers would be considered on a case-by-case basis. She added that typically, an entire allotment site would be transferred to the relevant Town or Community Council rather than splitting sites. • Councillor Dennison then asked whether, in cases where a Town or Community Council had multiple allotment sites within its area, they would be required to take on all sites or could choose to manage individual sites separately. • The Head of Property and Constructionconfirmed that such decisions would be based on discussions with the relevant Town or Community Council. • Councillor Miller agreed and stated that while the preference would be to transfer all sites within an area, flexibility may be required, and arrangements could be negotiated on a case-by-case basis. Councillor John Cole Moved the Recommendation; Seconded by Councillor Steve Alderman. The vote, undertaken by way of a show of hands, was carried. RESOLVED That the current provision and management of statutory allotments and non-statutory allotments and the potential benefits of increased local involvement in their future stewardship be noted. [Councillor Di Clements left the meeting at this juncture.]
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED (a) That the content of the report and the positive impact achieved for town centres be noted. (b) That the case for a continued focus on the placemaking agenda for maintaining the urban quality of our town centres be acknowledged.
Councillor Paul Miller, Cabinet Member for Place, the Region, Climate Change and Rural Affairs, introduced the report and clarified a factual correction in the report, noting that the reference should be to Tenby Brewing Company rather than Tenby Harbour Brewery. He reported that previous delays in construction had been resolved and progress was positive. He added that Western Quayside was fully let, with one tenancy awaiting final legal completion, and that the car park and castle projects remained on schedule. The Committee then raised the following points: • The Chair welcomed progress on finding a new occupant for the former Wilko site and queried the cost of the new brewery refit, asking who would be responsible for the expense and, if the Council was funding it, why was this the case given that it was a private business. • In response, Councillor Miller explained that a fit-out budget was included from the outset of the project to cover integral fixtures within commercial spaces, and that contributions had been provided to previous tenants and would also apply to the brewery and upper floors of Western Quayside. • The Chair sought clarification as to whether the fit-out contribution covered essential building elements such as utilities and toilet facilities, which were necessary to make the premises rentable. • Councillor Miller noted that the current model included essential fit-out works such as toilet installations and utility connections. He added that while budgets and prices may fluctuate during the process, the fit-out budget had consistently been maintained to ensure the quality of tenancies and to provide an appropriate commercial offer for prospective tenants. • Councillor Mark Carter raised a question regarding how the success of work undertaken in Haverfordwest was being measured. He sought clarification as to whether figures were available for town footfall and the financial benefits achieved. • Councillor Miller confirmed that footfall data was available for the Riverside Shopping Centre, as well as ongoing engagement with tenants regarding trading conditions. He stated that while an uplift had been observed, it was noted that the overall project was not yet complete, with key elements such as filling the Wilko building and completing the car park still outstanding, and that success of the area would be better measured once these works were finished in the summer. • Councillor Carter sought further clarification on whether data was available to compare average spending per visit in the town now versus two years ago. He noted that while footfall figures could demonstrate increased visitor numbers, additional information would be required to evidence changes in spending patterns. • Councillor Millerexplained that spending data was typically based on survey-level information rather than actual figures, as retailers did not usually share detailed transactional data. He added that footfall data was also collected through surveys in line with industry standards, and Officers could provide details on the methodology. • Councillor Carter raised a further question regarding whether town centre Wi-Fi could be used to capture data on the number of mobile devices passing through, as a measure of visitor numbers. • In response, Councillor Miller noted that a town centre Wi-Fi project was introduced around 2015–2016, but expressed uncertainty about whether the system remained in place, what data it captured, or its current functionality. • Councillor John Cole queried the interest in using the upper floors of Western Quayside to create an innovation business hub and sought clarification on its potential impact on HaverHub, specifically whether it would compete with or provide an alternative to the existing offer. He also asked whether this proposal indicated a change from the original plans for office space and residential accommodation above. • Councillor Miller clarified that living accommodation was never part of the plan, but office space was, and confirmed that an agreement in principle had been reached to utilise the upper floors for serviced office accommodation and hot-desking, with legal work currently underway. He stated that while HaverHub offered some similar facilities, this was not considered its core business, and the new hub was expected to complement existing provision and attract a different type of footfall to the town centre. • Councillor Cole raised a further question regarding the refurbishment of Glan-yr-Afon Library. Councillor Miller advised that he was not the current portfolio holder for libraries but understood that any refurbishment was likely short-term and linked to installing e-gates to address anti-social behaviour issues. • Councillor Alan Dennison sought clarification on the regeneration update regarding 16–18 Bridge Street, asking for details of the proposed repurposing of the two shops and the costs incurred to date, including architectural fees. • In response, Councillor Miller explained that a new plan had been developed for 16–18 Bridge Street to retain commercial units on the ground floor, as required by planning guidance, and to create residential units on the upper floors. To date, he highlighted that spend had been minimal and that future costs would depend on the scope of refurbishment and the type of housing delivered. • The Assistant Chief Executive and Director of Place confirmed that tenders for architectural services had been received but not yet awarded, as the process remained in commercial evaluation. He stated that the intention was to develop design concepts to identify the most effective use of the site and maximise opportunities for Haverfordwest. He added that funding options would also be explored once end uses were determined. • Councillor Dennison requested details of the costs for architectural services and internal refurbishment for 16–18 Bridge Street, and expressed concern about the point at which the project might be considered too expensive relative to the anticipated benefits. • Councillor Miller noted that a report would be brought to Cabinet at the appropriate stage to include the project in the Capital Programme, once design work and a quantity surveyor’s cost estimates were available. At that point, he advised that full details would be provided, and authorisation would be sought to invite and evaluate tenders. • The Assistant Chief Executive and Director of Place then wished to clarify that the two-week closure of Glan-yr-Afon Library in December was for minor works, including closing off one of the doors, installing access gates, and relocating the staff area to improve visibility and accessibility, and was not a major refurbishment. • Councillor Dennison then requested details of the costs associated with the Glan-yr-Afon Library fit-out and asked how many access points would remain following the closure of one door. • In response, the Assistant Chief Executive and Director of Place clarified that the door being closed was at the rear entrance, which would remain available as an emergency exit only. He added that costs for the works were not currently available, but Officers would report back to the Committee once confirmed. • Councillor Steve Alderman commended the success of the streetscape improvements, noting the significant visual enhancement in Pembroke and other areas, and the positive public feedback received. He acknowledged that the works had contributed to creating a more attractive environment and encouraging visitors to the town. He also made reference to the possibility of a further scheme being introduced in the future, which was welcomed. • The Regeneration Co-ordinator for Placehighlighted that the streetscape scheme had been highly successful and was a source of pride for the team. She stated that a positive knock-on effect has been observed, with neighbouring properties that did not participate in the scheme investing their own funds in maintenance and improvements, contributing further to the overall enhancement of the area. • Councillor Dennison praised the streetscape scheme for creating a bright and attractive environment. He then highlighted Milford Haven’s non-participation, which was due to delays in submitting applications, and that moving forward he would advise that early applications were essential for future schemes. • Councillor Tony Wilcox expressed disappointment at the limited uptake of the Pembroke Dock scheme and suggested a stronger promotional push through the Town Council for future rounds, but noted that difficulties in contacting landlords and vacant properties contributed to the low participation. • Councillor Mark Carter observed that Fishguard had achieved a notably high level of participation in the scheme, and asked for the reasons behind its success. • In response, the Regeneration Co-ordinator for Placeconfirmed that the scheme operated on a first-come, first-served basis last year with a very short application window, and that Fishguard’s success was attributed to having all required documentation and due diligence completed promptly. • Councillor Cole then wished to amend the Recommendation to remove the word ‘positive’, and questioned whether the scheme had improved the town centre that much. • Councillor Miller welcomed the positive feedback from the Committee on the scheme and thanked Officers, particularly the Regeneration Co-ordinator for Place, for leading the process efficiently. He noted that the strong uptake resulted in funds being fully allocated, which was considered a positive outcome. He added that if funding becomes available under the UK Shared Prosperity Fund next year, a similar scheme may be run to address remaining properties. He then emphasised the importance of such interventions in tackling market failure and preventing town centres from becoming derelict. • Councillor Cole acknowledged the visual improvements from the paint scheme but expressed concern about the number of empty properties remaining, citing business rates as a significant barrier to town centre vitality. He suggested that the Welsh Government’s rating system offered limited flexibility and that reducing or removing rates for active town centre businesses could help sustain employment and commercial activity. • Councillor Dennison noted that while the paint scheme had improved the appearance of properties, underlying issues remained. He raised concerns about the difficulty of engaging property owners and the need to consider measures, such as compulsory purchase or surcharges on empty commercial properties to encourage occupation and investment. • Councillor Miller highlighted the scale of intervention required to regenerate town centres, and stated that larger urban towns required significant investment and direct intervention in buildings, infrastructure, and regulatory measures. He acknowledged resource limitations, but explained that strategic choices were made to focus on Pembroke and Haverfordwest. He stated that while some enforcement work was underway, including letters to property owners regarding building conditions, more extensive measures such as compulsory purchase would require substantial resources and future decisions beyond the current Council term. He added that the Committee discussion emphasised the complexity and scale of work needed to transition town centres from their historic state to a sustainable future. • Councillor Cole then retracted his previous request to remove the word ‘positive’ from the Recommendation. Councillor John Cole Moved the Recommendation; Seconded by Councillor Steve Alderman. The vote, undertaken by way of a show of hands, was carried. RESOLVED (a) That the content of the report and the positive impact achieved for town centres be noted. (b) That the case for a continued focus on the placemaking agenda for maintaining the urban quality of our town centres be acknowledged.
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.