Loading
The decisions as the council's minutes record them. A plain-language summary follows once it has been written.
RESOLVED That the revised Programme for Administration 2022-27 be approved.
RESOLVED (a) That the update on the implications of nitrogen neutrality for Pembrokeshire be noted. (b) That the proposed action plan that seeks to find a way forward for the delivery of development in Pembrokeshire, be endorsed.
RESOLVED That the following option be approved: Option 2: Enter into a 40 year full repairing and insuring lease with the Haverfordwest Castle CIO incorporating a profit share rent, together with a 5 year contract for services, the contract sum being a maximum of £210,000, with payments made in line with the attached business plan cash flow projections. The actual contract sum payable would be equal to the funding gap, (i.e., the difference between monies raised by the trust, for the purpose of early years financial sustainability, and £210,000).
RESOLVED (a) That responding to the statutory consultation on the Wales Bus Network Plan to endorse proposals to maintain the current network and level of provision in Pembrokeshire be authorised. The response should largely be in the format of the draft provided in Appendix A to the report. (b) That the Bus Network Plan for South West Wales be endorsed, provided that no changes are proposed to the network plan for Pembrokeshire as a result of the statutory consultation or public engagement.
RESOLVED That the public be excluded from the meeting in accordance with Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 as Appendix E involves the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraph 16 of Part 4 of Schedule 12A to the Act; and that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information. The webcast was paused at this juncture. Having convened in private session in accordance with Paragraph 16 of Part 4 of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972, Cabinet considered the exempt Appendix. The webcast was then resumed. Councillor Cameron stated that following consideration of the legal advice, the Overview and Scrutiny Committee’s proposal to apply a discretionary discount did not appear to fully assess relevant factors, such as the balance between revenue impact and economic benefit, and may conflict with the policy objectives of the Housing Act. He stated that the Council Tax Working Group’s proposal to reduce the premium from 150% to 100% was also not supported, as it was felt this would weaken the effectiveness of the premium in reducing the number of non-permanently occupied homes. He then noted that the premium had contributed to a modest reduction in such properties and generates approximately £2.6 million in revenue, equivalent to a 3% Council tax rise, which supported key services including homelessness prevention and education. The Leader advised that once the debate had ended, the votes for each aspect listed in the Recommendations would be taken separately. The Leader Moved the Recommendation; Seconded by Councillor Rhys Sinnett. Councillor Hodgson sought clarification in regards to Councillor Cameron’s comments regarding 40% of second homes in Lamphey, and questioned whether the figure included Trewent Park. Councillor Cameron stated that he had retrieved the information from the table in the report and assumed that that figure included all of the area covered by Lamphey Community Council. Councillor Hodgson highlighted that Trewent Park, a large holiday park within her ward, contained properties with occupancy restrictions and therefore does not fall within the typical definition of second homes, potentially distorting local data. She expressed sympathy with the Council Tax Working Group’s concerns regarding the Welsh Government’s 182-day threshold for non-domestic rates, which was considered too high for most holiday cottages outside key tourist areas. She believed that the proposed three-year rolling average was viewed as unlikely to have meaningful impact and potentially burdensome for property owners and the Valuation Office, and expressed reservations about the second homes premium, noting that many owners had longstanding ties to Pembrokeshire or operate small holiday businesses that contributed to the local economy. While not supporting unilateral changes to the qualifying threshold, Councillor Hodgson supported a reduction of the premium to 100%, and ideally its removal. She also raised concern about the Council’s reliance on this income within the general fund, which now influenced budget-setting timelines. Regarding the discretion for properties occupied fewer than 182 days, Councillor Paul Miller stated that he initially supported the idea but remained convinced that it was not feasible, particularly due to administrative burdens on the Local Authority. He disagreed with Councillor Hodgson’s view on the Welsh Government’s current consultation, and believed that the proposed changes were practical and beneficial. He commented that the concept of a three-year rollover was already successfully applied in other areas, such as pension allowances, and would help avoid the abrupt transition caused by a single day’s difference in occupancy, and therefore welcomed the proposed changes. As for the premium level itself, he explained that his position was shaped by a few key considerations, which he believed would significantly influence the impact of any future changes. He added that the Council set out its position on this matter some years ago, and on balance, the Administration believed that introducing the changes was the right course of action, and that they would further policy objectives, namely, encouraging the return of second homes and underused properties to full-time residential use. He stated that while he did not support last year’s reduction in the premium rate, he strongly advised against any further adjustments, and suggested that a stable tax and regulatory environment was essential for effective planning, both for the Authority and for current and prospective property investors. He therefore supported maintaining the current arrangements for the 2026–27 financial year, and welcomed the Welsh Government’s proposed reforms, which he believed represented a meaningful improvement. The Leader then sought clarification as to the financial implications if the second homes Council Tax premium was to drop from 150% to 100%. In response, Councillor Cameron explained that it would be £2.6 million, equal to a 3% Council Tax rise. The Leader highlighted that if it was to be reduced, savings would have to be made elsewhere. Councillor Cameron stated that the main thing to consider was whether this policy was working or not, and what it was doing to address the housing situation in Pembrokeshire. He believed it would be best to keep it stable for a few years and see what the impact would be on the number of unoccupied properties in the County. Councillor Jacob Williams echoed Councillor Hodgson’s comments and stated that as the only Councillor who originally voted against the introduction of the second homes premium, and as a member of the Council Tax Working Group, he wished to clarify his position. He stated that the Working Group did not support the proposal for discretionary relief, as they considered it overly burdensome and impractical to implement; however, he stated his support for a 100% premium. He stated that it had become a significant source of revenue, one now relied on, and while this funding was intended to offset the impact of second home ownership, he questioned whether those impacts had been clearly identified or whether the funds were being used effectively for that purpose. He added that in many cases, second home owners already contributed fully through Council Tax without placing significant demand on local services. Therefore, he stated his support the 100% premium, as endorsed by the Working Group, but recognised that Cabinet and Council may prefer to retain the 150% rate. Councillor Miller stated that while Councillors Hodgson and Williams were not incorrect, this process had become closely tied to the budget, which had never been his primary concern, and explained that his focus had always been on the policy objective. He stated that if robust evidence showed that the measure brought properties back into full, year-round use, he would remain supportive, but if not, he would support ending the tax regime. He added that for him this was not a revenue-raising exercise, but instead it was about addressing the housing availability issue in Pembrokeshire. Councillor Miller believed that encouraging year-round occupancy was more beneficial to the region’s growth than maintaining a high number of partially occupied properties. The Recommendations, undertaken by way of four individual roll calls, were carried. The votes were recorded as follows: Level of Council Tax Premiums for 2026-27 Second Homes 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, Rhys Sinnett, Marc Tierney [5] Against the Motion: Councillors Tessa Hodgson and Jacob Williams [2] Abstentions: Councillor Alistair Cameron [1] RESOLVED That the results of the consultation exercise be noted and the following recommendation be made to Council: Option 1 - remain as current (150%) Long Term Empty Properties 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, Alistair Cameron, Tessa Hodgson, Rhys Sinnett, Marc Tierney and Jacob Williams [7] Abstentions: Councillor Michelle Bateman [1] There were no votes against. RESOLVED That the following recommendation be made to Council: Option 2 - to remain as current (300%) Use of Council Tax Premiums for 2026-27 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, Tessa Hodgson, Rhys Sinnett, Marc Tierney and Jacob Williams [7] Abstentions: Councillor Alistair Cameron [1] There were no votes against. RESOLVED That the following recommendation be made to Council: Option 1 - No change. Discretionary Discount Policy 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, Tessa Hodgson, Rhys Sinnett, Marc Tierney and Jacob Williams [7] Abstentions: Councillor Alistair Cameron [1] There were no votes against or abstentions. RESOLVED That the Council’s discretionary discount policy for 2026-27 be approved: Option 1 - No change in our policy for properties that transfer from self-catering units (NDR) to Council Tax.
RESOLVED That the annual self-assessment report for 2024-25 be endorsed.
RESOLVED That the report be received and the progress, which continues to be made, on the improvement of the delivery of Social Services during 2024/25, be noted.
RESOLVED (a) That approval be given for the invitation and evaluation of tenders for a Minor Works Framework as described in this report, with authority delegated to the Director of Social Services and Housing to make minor amendments to the proposed framework as he considers appropriate. (b) That the subsequent award of the framework be delegated to the Director of Social Services and Housing. (c) That the award of call-off contracts under the framework that are not already a matter for the Director, be delegated to the Director of Social Services and Housing.
RESOLVED That the public be excluded from the meeting in accordance with Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 as Appendix A involves the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraph 14 of Part 4 of Schedule 12A to the Act; and that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information. The webcast was paused at this juncture. Having convened in private session in accordance with Paragraph 14 of Part 4 of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972, Cabinet considered the exempt Appendix. The webcast was then resumed. Councillor Bateman wished to add that it would be a Social Housing Grant that would be the preferred strategy for accessing grant funding towards this acquisition, particularly if there was slippage within that system caused by some of the delays due to the nitrates issue. She also wished to note that the Authority could use an intermediate rent on some of those properties that have a garage that were likely to be a higher specification than what the Authority would normally provide. Councillor Tessa Hodgson stated that the site was currently listed as under construction, and sought clarification as to how close it was to completion. In regards to Rosemarket, she stated that it lacked essential facilities such as a shop, school, and possibly even public transport, though there may still be a pub. She acknowledged the evolving landscape, particularly in relation to nitrate concerns, but questioned whether if there was freedom of choice, whether Rosemarket would be a location the Authority would actively select for purchasing or developing social housing. In response, Councillor Bateman stated that it was important to note that housing need existed across all areas of Pembrokeshire, as outlined in the report. She explained that the allocation process was largely self-selecting, and that individuals on the housing register typically bid for properties in locations they were familiar with and that suit their transport needs. She stated that although demand was highest in towns due to community cohesion and available services, increasing social housing in smaller, rural communities remained significant, especially where other affordable housing options were limited. She added that a development of around ten units in Rosemarket was considered reasonable, and that in regards to the construction status, some units were already completed, with the remainder expected to be finished by December, allowing the funding to be utilised within this financial year. The Head of Housing and Public Protection added that she had spoken with the local Councillor, who was supportive of the proposal. She explained that it was the intention to implement a local lettings policy for the initial allocation of these properties, to strengthen local connections and community resilience, a policy that had been positively received in previous developments. She explained that the housing register, including the restricted section of the report, highlighted a strong demand in the area, particularly among applicants in the gold and silver bands. She added that the local housing market area had been assessed, including Rosemarket, Johnston, Burton, Langham, and Hook, and the data supported a clear and significant housing need in this vicinity. The Recommendation was Seconded by Councillor Marc Tierney. 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, Alistair Cameron, Tessa Hodgson, Rhys Sinnett, Marc Tierney and Jacob Williams [8] There were no votes against or abstentions. RESOLVED That the decision to acquire the 10 units in Rosemarket be delegated to the Director of Place and Assistant Chief Executive, once the Director is satisfied as to the due diligence which has been conducted, and subject to the purchase price specified in Appendix A.
The following declarations were made: Item 5 – Nitrogen Neutrality in the Milford Haven Inner Waterbody Councillor Marc Tierney declared a personal interest by virtue of being employed by Senedd Member Eluned Morgan. Item 8 – Review of Council Tax Premiums for Second Homes and Long-Term Empty Properties and Discretionary Discount Policy Councillor Alistair Cameron declared a personal and prejudicial interest by virtue of owning a holiday let in Saundersfoot, but stated that he had dispensation to speak but not vote. Councillor Michelle Bateman declared a personal and prejudicial interest by virtue of having a family member who owns an empty property, but stated that she had dispensation to speak but not vote. Councillor Tessa Hodgson declared a personal interest by virtue of having a family member who owns an empty property.
The Leader Moved the Minutes; Seconded by Councillor Alistair Cameron. The vote was taken by way of a show of hands and carried. RESOLVED That the Minutes of the Cabinet Meeting held on 8 September 2025 be approved as a correct record.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED That the revised Programme for Administration 2022-27 be approved.
Cabinet considered a report by the Leader which outlined the revised Programme for Administration for 2022-2027. The Leader, the Cabinet Member with responsibility for Corporate Matters, introduced the report and stated that the document outlines the Cabinet’s collective aims and aspirations, guiding Officers on delivery throughout the political term. He highlighted that a revised version had since been produced, placing greater emphasis on outcomes achieved to date and updating forward-looking priorities to reflect emerging issues. He added that key achievements included the establishment of the Celtic Freeport, regeneration projects in Haverfordwest and Pembroke, broadband improvements (with 95% coverage), the construction and acquisition of new Council housing, homelessness prevention efforts, expansion of micro-enterprises, development of the Waterston Eco Park, and enhancements to recycling infrastructure. He also referred to additional milestones, including new community libraries, children’s residential care facilities, the rollout of free school meals to all primary pupils, and progress on education infrastructure. He commented that the revised programme also reflected changes in Cabinet portfolios and aligned with the Council’s statutory wellbeing objectives and corporate strategy. The Leader Moved the Recommendation; Seconded by Councillor Marc Tierney. Councillor Alistair Cameron addressed the financial aspect of the Council’s work, noting recent progress in managing expenditure, particularly within Social Care. He then acknowledged the significant financial challenges ahead, which would require collective responsibility from all Members, and highlighted ongoing efforts to improve service efficiency, including the adoption of new technologies such as AI. Additionally, Councillor Cameron stressed the importance of supporting Council staff, recognising that the effectiveness of the Authority depended on the wellbeing and capacity of its workforce. The Leader agreed with Councillor Cameron and believed that good progress had been made, despite the financial challenges that all Local Authorities were facing. He then referred to the Senedd Elections and hoped that the Welsh Government would recognise the need for appropriate funding for Local Government, despite current indications not being encouraging. He stated that the Authority would persist in lobbying, both independently and through the WLGA, for a fair settlement to support future work. Councillor Rhys Sinnett stated that it was encouraging to see a document that highlighted the positive work being carried out, especially given the challenging financial climate. He commented that while some developments remained in progress and may attract criticism, they held significant long-term potential, particularly in areas such as the regeneration of Haverfordwest, projects in Milford Haven, and improvements to schools. He stated that these initiatives reflected the dedication of Council staff working under difficult circumstances, and believed it was important for Members to support their efforts rather than focus solely on negativity. The Leader agreed and stated that there was excellent work underway, particularly in regeneration, which, despite attracting criticism on social media and elsewhere, had been largely funded through substantial grant aid secured by Officers from both Welsh and UK Governments. He stated that the cost to Pembrokeshire Council taxpayers had been relatively modest given the scale of these projects, and that this was something that should rightly be celebrated. He added that once completed, the schemes would bring about a noticeable and positive transformation in Pembrokeshire’s towns, and he remained optimistic about the benefits they would deliver. Councillor Tessa Hodgson believed that the document reflected a substantial amount of work across all Directorates, and highlighted the achievements in Adult Social Care, notably the 'Grow Our Own Social Worker' programme, which now supported 16 trainees who earned while they learned and would go on to deliver vital services within Pembrokeshire. She stated that the upcoming Director’s Report would provide further detail on the breadth and depth of services offered by the Social Care teams, whose work deserves recognition and appreciation. Councillor Marc Tierney stated that the document provided a valuable opportunity to reflect on achievements and to look ahead at the Administration’s goals for the current electoral term. He commented that as a new Cabinet Member, he had revisited the priorities, particularly around prevention, which remained a critical focus. He explained that a recent report on poverty highlighted the ongoing challenges being faced, with approximately 30% of young people in Pembrokeshire still living in poverty, and that new strategies were being implemented to address this, with communities playing a vital role in supporting this work. He added that the recent launch of the volunteering scheme with PAVS, alongside closer collaboration with Town and Community Councils, would help build resilience and drive progress. The Leader then gave credit to the Officers for collating the Programme for Administration and progressing with the aims and ambitions of Cabinet. He stated that whilst there was more to be done, within a very constrained financial climate, Cabinet should be proud of what had been achieved so far. 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, Alistair Cameron, Tessa Hodgson, Rhys Sinnett, Marc Tierney and Jacob Williams [7] There were no votes against or abstentions. RESOLVED That the revised Programme for Administration 2022-27 be approved.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED (a) That the update on the implications of nitrogen neutrality for Pembrokeshire be noted. (b) That the proposed action plan that seeks to find a way forward for the delivery of development in Pembrokeshire, be endorsed.
[Councillor Paul Miller joined the meeting remotely at this juncture.] Cabinet considered a report by the Head of Planning which outlined an update on the implications and risks for Pembrokeshire in relation to the Nitrogen Neutrality in the Milford Haven Inner Waterbody. Councillor Jacob Williams, the Cabinet Member with responsibility for Planning and Regulatory Services, introduced the report and stated that Natural Resources Wales had identified that the Milford Haven inner water body failed ecological standards due to excessive dissolved inorganic nitrogen, and as a result, nitrogen neutrality must now be demonstrated for new developments within the affected catchment, which was said to cover approximately 75% of Pembrokeshire. He explained that due to the lack of formal guidance from the Welsh Government, Planning Authorities were unable to assess nitrogen neutrality in applications, resulting in a moratorium affecting 200 live applications, including 50 housing proposals. He added that around 600 homes, 220 of which were affordable, were at risk, along with £25 million in social housing investment and thousands of jobs. He stated that achieving nitrogen neutrality was costly, and that mitigation options such as nutrient offsetting, wetland creation, and land use changes were being explored, but without a Welsh nutrient trading system, smaller developers faced viability issues. He highlighted that a taskforce had been established by the First Minister to explore short-term solutions, but progress was expected to be slow. He added that data suggested that 97% of pollutants originated from agriculture, making the impact of housing developments minimal, estimated at just 0.15%. Councillor Williams stated that Cabinet was being asked to endorse the action plan outlined in the report, including commissioning consultants to develop a mitigation guide and strategic package. He stated that an internal Officer taskforce would oversee progress, with estimated costs of £394,000, partially funded by Welsh Government and the Pembrokeshire Coast National Park Authority. He added that a Motion on the matter would be going to the upcoming full Council meeting to express dissatisfaction with the current situation and to urge the First Minister to reconsider the approach, given the disproportionate impact on development and the local economy. Councillor Jacob Williams Moved the Recommendation; Seconded by the Leader. The Head of Planning then explained that evidence and advice was published by Natural Resources Wales in June and July this year, which highlighted significant water quality concerns in marine protected areas across Wales, primarily due to excessive nutrient loading. She stated that this had triggered a legal requirement for Planning Authorities to undertake assessments under the Habitats Regulations to ensure site integrity was not adversely affected, as a result, many planning applications were currently paused until nutrient neutrality for nitrogen could be demonstrated. She highlighted that this had major implications for the Council’s replacement Local Development Plan, with policies and allocations now needing to reflect this requirement. She added that the issue presents considerable challenges for Local Authorities, particularly in Pembrokeshire due to the geographical extent of the affected areas, but that a national task force had been established by Welsh Ministers to explore long-term solutions, though short to medium-term mitigation was currently seen as the most viable approach. She stated that an action plan had therefore been developed to address the issue locally, and that Cabinet endorsement was sought to implement this plan in collaboration with consultants. Councillor Tessa Hodgson expressed concern over the disproportionate impact of the requirements, describing the situation as unreasonable and economically damaging. She highlighted that the measures were expected to significantly affect developers, the construction sector, and local employment, and noted the high cost of mitigation, including £400,000 for consultancy alone, and questioned the focus on development when agriculture was identified as the primary source of nutrient pollution. She then called for Welsh Government support to help the farming sector address the root causes. Councillor Paul Miller expressed frustration at the situation, describing it as both unreasonable and embarrassing. He raised concern over the legislative process that led to the current position, which was seen as blocking development in Pembrokeshire without delivering meaningful environmental benefit. He also noted that housebuilding was not the primary cause of nutrient pollution. Councillor Michelle Bateman highlighted the serious implications for social housing delivery in Pembrokeshire, noting that the sudden introduction of these requirements had disrupted well-established development programmes and funding allocations. She stated that the impact on affordable housing, an administrative and Welsh Government priority, was described as disproportionate, given the minimal contribution of such developments to nutrient pollution. She also raised concern about the wider economic effects on contractors and the local supply chain. The Leader referred to the fragility of the local housebuilding sector, which was largely made up of small, local firms, and warned of the serious challenges they now faced. He noted that extensive representations had been made to Welsh Government Ministers, including the First Minister and Deputy First Minister, highlighting the disproportionate impact of the guidance. He added that while the establishment of a national task force was welcomed, concerns remained about the pace of progress and the need for urgent action. He stated his support for the proposed mitigation measures but stressed the importance of securing dedicated funding for Pembrokeshire. He also criticised the lack of prior consultation, and described the overall approach as poorly thought out, with significant implications for housing delivery and the wider economy. Councillor Rhys Sinnett suggested that, alongside ongoing lobbying efforts, consideration should be given to how the implications of the guidance were communicated to potential applicants and the wider public. He noted that while agents may advise clients, clearer and more accessible information could empower communities to engage directly with their elected representatives, and that simplifying the message could support wider lobbying efforts and raise awareness of the challenges faced. The Head of Planning assured Members that applicants and agents were being kept informed through regular Planning and Agents’ Forum meetings, held jointly with Pembrokeshire Coast National Park Authority. She stated that an initial briefing was held shortly after the guidance was issued, and ongoing updates were being provided, as well as a communication strategy being developed, with updates to the Council’s planning webpages underway. She added that a pop-up alert was already in place to inform users of the new requirements, and further detailed guidance would be made available to support applicants and encourage wider awareness. Councillor Sinnett suggested that informing the public in an accessible way could encourage wider community engagement and lobbying for change. He emphasised that public awareness and advocacy, alongside formal lobbying by the Council and industry stakeholders, could help influence future policy direction. The Leader acknowledged the lobbying efforts already underway by the Home Builders Federation and others, and stressed the importance of highlighting the real-world consequences of the guidance. He also emphasised that the contribution of housebuilding to nutrient pollution was minimal, yet the impact on the sector and the delivery of social housing was severe, and noted that some schemes may become undeliverable, risking the loss of allocated grant funding. Councillor Williams expressed deep concern over the disproportionate impact of the guidance on housing development, particularly given that the majority of nutrient pollution was understood to originate from agriculture. While supporting the goal of improving river quality, he questioned the fairness and rationale of placing the burden on the housing sector, especially when the data underpinning the policy was outdated. Councillor Williams called for urgent action from Welsh Government, including consideration of emergency legislation or legal challenge, and criticised the lack of timely intervention. He also noted that the current situation risked undermining confidence in the local housing market, with serious consequences for small developers and the wider economy. The Head of Planning confirmed that D?r Cymru Welsh Water was currently undertaking source apportionment work in the Cleddau catchment, with sampling ongoing through this year and into next. She explained that modelling would follow, with results anticipated by March 2027, however, discussions were underway with Welsh Government to explore options for accelerating this timeline. She clarified that the current requirements stem not from new legislation, but from the release of updated evidence by Natural Resources Wales regarding the condition of marine protected areas. She added that this evidence must now be considered under existing legislation, specifically the Habitats Regulations which required Local Authorities to undertake appropriate assessments to ensure site integrity was not adversely affected. Councillor Hodgson emphasised that the responsibility for resolving the issue was with Welsh Government Ministers, who had the authority to enact meaningful change. While acknowledging that Ministers were likely aware of the situation’s severity, she stressed the need for urgent action to address the disproportionate impact of the current approach on Local Authorities and the housing sector. The Leader expressed support for the points raised, acknowledging that lawmakers ultimately hold the decision-making power. He added that the purpose of the report was to explore potential local-level solutions to progress planning applications currently on hold, although it was noted that no immediate resolution was available. Councillor Miller believed that the immediate cause of this was the publication of the data, but that the requirement stems from legislation, and agreed with Councillor Williams that primary legislations would likely be fixed. He then raised concern that while additional funding may help offset Local Authority costs, it would not alleviate the burden on private developers and homeowners in West Wales, where build costs remained elevated post-pandemic, and that this added legislative requirement presented a significant financial strain. Councillor Williams added the legislative requirement would not help developers or improve the quality of rivers. 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, Alistair Cameron, Tessa Hodgson, Rhys Sinnett, Marc Tierney and Jacob Williams [8] There were no votes against or abstentions. RESOLVED (a) That the update on the implications of nitrogen neutrality for Pembrokeshire be noted. (b) That the proposed action plan that seeks to find a way forward for the delivery of development in Pembrokeshire, be endorsed.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED That the following option be approved: Option 2: Enter into a 40 year full repairing and insuring lease with the Haverfordwest Castle CIO incorporating a profit share rent, together with a 5 year contract for services, the contract sum being a maximum of £210,000, with payments made in line with the attached business plan cash flow projections. The actual contract sum payable would be equal to the funding gap, (i.e., the difference between monies raised by the trust, for the purpose of early years financial sustainability, and £210,000).
Cabinet considered a report by the Head of Cultural, Leisure and Registration Services which outlined approval for funding, if required, up to a maximum of £210,000, from the Initiative Fund Reserve, to ensure financial sustainability in the first three years of operation of Haverfordwest Castle, by the Haverfordwest Castle CIO (Trust), following completion of two linked development schemes. Councillor Paul Miller, the Deputy Leader, introduced the report and stated that the delivery of the restoration of the Haverfordwest Castle was placed under the Heart of Pembrokeshire scheme, and highlighted significant EU-funded enhancements such as outdoor event spaces. He explained that work was ongoing to establish a new charity, Haverfordwest Castle CIO, which would operate the development moving forward, as outlined in the detailed business plans. He acknowledged that the development would take time to become established, and initial financial support may be required from the Council to assist with setup. While no guarantees of funding were made, Councillor Miller suggested that some assurance may be needed to support the organisation in its early stages. Councillor Paul Miller Moved the Recommendation; Seconded by Councillor Alistair Cameron. The Leader questioned whether this was similar to what was carried out in Pembroke with the Henry Tudor Trust in terms of effectively priming the operator for a number of years until they became established. In response, the Head of Cultural, Leisure and Registration Services explained that the outlined proposal shared similarities with the Pembroke Henry Tudor Centre agreement and was in the Council’s best interest. He stated that operating the visitor attraction through a charitable organisation offered fiscal advantages, including rate relief and access to external funding, which were not available to the Council. He added that charities were also better positioned to attract and retain volunteers, and that it was considered sensible to identify an operator with appropriate governance and to ensure early years funding was in place to support long-term sustainability. He stated that this would help secure the success of the development following significant capital investment in the castle, aligned with the Council’s town centre regeneration priorities. The Leader then sought clarification that the outlined £210,000 support was a maximum figure, and could be less depending on any fundraising that the operator may be able to obtain. The Head of Cultural, Leisure and Registration Services confirmed that to be the case and explained that it was essentially an underwriting of up to £210,000, and the charity will be tasked with and will have to evidence active fundraising to show that it has made every attempt to bring in that £210,000 itself. He stated that if there was a shortfall, then the Authority would need to fund the gap and it therefore reduces exposure and would support the charity in those bids. 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, Alistair Cameron, Tessa Hodgson, Rhys Sinnett, Marc Tierney and Jacob Williams [8] There were no votes against or abstentions. RESOLVED That the following option be approved: Option 2: Enter into a 40 year full repairing and insuring lease with the Haverfordwest Castle CIO incorporating a profit share rent, together with a 5 year contract for services, the contract sum being a maximum of £210,000, with payments made in line with the attached business plan cash flow projections. The actual contract sum payable would be equal to the funding gap, (i.e., the difference between monies raised by the trust, for the purpose of early years financial sustainability, and £210,000).
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED (a) That responding to the statutory consultation on the Wales Bus Network Plan to endorse proposals to maintain the current network and level of provision in Pembrokeshire be authorised. The response should largely be in the format of the draft provided in Appendix A to the report. (b) That the Bus Network Plan for South West Wales be endorsed, provided that no changes are proposed to the network plan for Pembrokeshire as a result of the statutory consultation or public engagement.
Cabinet considered a report by the Head of Transport and Environment which outlined the Authority’s proposed response to the Wales Bus Network Plan Statutory Consultation, as well as the proposed Bus Network Plan for the Pembrokeshire area. Councillor Rhys Sinnett, the Cabinet Member with responsibility for Residents’ Services, introduced the report and stated that, under Section 14 of the Constitution, Cabinet approval was required for responses to consultations from Welsh Government and other external bodies. He explained that Welsh Government was progressing with bus franchising, under which Transport for Wales would assume responsibility for routes, timetables, fares, hours of operation, and service standards. He stated that the proposed network plan for Pembrokeshire remained unchanged from the base franchise network approved in November 2024, reflecting the current service levels and the design to operate within existing funding. He stated that an aspirational network had also been developed, outlining potential future improvements subject to additional funding. He also acknowledged that rising operating costs may impact service levels when routes were retendered in 2027. Councillor Rhys Sinnett Moved the Recommendation; Seconded by Councillor Alistair Cameron. The Leader believed the report to be straightforward in terms of the consultation process, and that the key point was that there was no change to the existing bus network. Councillor Sinnett confirmed this to be the case. 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, Alistair Cameron, Tessa Hodgson, Rhys Sinnett, Marc Tierney and Jacob Williams [8] There were no votes against or abstentions. RESOLVED (a) That responding to the statutory consultation on the Wales Bus Network Plan to endorse proposals to maintain the current network and level of provision in Pembrokeshire be authorised. The response should largely be in the format of the draft provided in Appendix A to the report. (b) That the Bus Network Plan for South West Wales be endorsed, provided that no changes are proposed to the network plan for Pembrokeshire as a result of the statutory consultation or public engagement.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED That the public be excluded from the meeting in accordance with Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 as Appendix E involves the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraph 16 of Part 4 of Schedule 12A to the Act; and that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information. The webcast was paused at this juncture. Having convened in private session in accordance with Paragraph 16 of Part 4 of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972, Cabinet considered the exempt Appendix. The webcast was then resumed. Councillor Cameron stated that following consideration of the legal advice, the Overview and Scrutiny Committee’s proposal to apply a discretionary discount did not appear to fully assess relevant factors, such as the balance between revenue impact and economic benefit, and may conflict with the policy objectives of the Housing Act. He stated that the Council Tax Working Group’s proposal to reduce the premium from 150% to 100% was also not supported, as it was felt this would weaken the effectiveness of the premium in reducing the number of non-permanently occupied homes. He then noted that the premium had contributed to a modest reduction in such properties and generates approximately £2.6 million in revenue, equivalent to a 3% Council tax rise, which supported key services including homelessness prevention and education. The Leader advised that once the debate had ended, the votes for each aspect listed in the Recommendations would be taken separately. The Leader Moved the Recommendation; Seconded by Councillor Rhys Sinnett. Councillor Hodgson sought clarification in regards to Councillor Cameron’s comments regarding 40% of second homes in Lamphey, and questioned whether the figure included Trewent Park. Councillor Cameron stated that he had retrieved the information from the table in the report and assumed that that figure included all of the area covered by Lamphey Community Council. Councillor Hodgson highlighted that Trewent Park, a large holiday park within her ward, contained properties with occupancy restrictions and therefore does not fall within the typical definition of second homes, potentially distorting local data. She expressed sympathy with the Council Tax Working Group’s concerns regarding the Welsh Government’s 182-day threshold for non-domestic rates, which was considered too high for most holiday cottages outside key tourist areas. She believed that the proposed three-year rolling average was viewed as unlikely to have meaningful impact and potentially burdensome for property owners and the Valuation Office, and expressed reservations about the second homes premium, noting that many owners had longstanding ties to Pembrokeshire or operate small holiday businesses that contributed to the local economy. While not supporting unilateral changes to the qualifying threshold, Councillor Hodgson supported a reduction of the premium to 100%, and ideally its removal. She also raised concern about the Council’s reliance on this income within the general fund, which now influenced budget-setting timelines. Regarding the discretion for properties occupied fewer than 182 days, Councillor Paul Miller stated that he initially supported the idea but remained convinced that it was not feasible, particularly due to administrative burdens on the Local Authority. He disagreed with Councillor Hodgson’s view on the Welsh Government’s current consultation, and believed that the proposed changes were practical and beneficial. He commented that the concept of a three-year rollover was already successfully applied in other areas, such as pension allowances, and would help avoid the abrupt transition caused by a single day’s difference in occupancy, and therefore welcomed the proposed changes. As for the premium level itself, he explained that his position was shaped by a few key considerations, which he believed would significantly influence the impact of any future changes. He added that the Council set out its position on this matter some years ago, and on balance, the Administration believed that introducing the changes was the right course of action, and that they would further policy objectives, namely, encouraging the return of second homes and underused properties to full-time residential use. He stated that while he did not support last year’s reduction in the premium rate, he strongly advised against any further adjustments, and suggested that a stable tax and regulatory environment was essential for effective planning, both for the Authority and for current and prospective property investors. He therefore supported maintaining the current arrangements for the 2026–27 financial year, and welcomed the Welsh Government’s proposed reforms, which he believed represented a meaningful improvement. The Leader then sought clarification as to the financial implications if the second homes Council Tax premium was to drop from 150% to 100%. In response, Councillor Cameron explained that it would be £2.6 million, equal to a 3% Council Tax rise. The Leader highlighted that if it was to be reduced, savings would have to be made elsewhere. Councillor Cameron stated that the main thing to consider was whether this policy was working or not, and what it was doing to address the housing situation in Pembrokeshire. He believed it would be best to keep it stable for a few years and see what the impact would be on the number of unoccupied properties in the County. Councillor Jacob Williams echoed Councillor Hodgson’s comments and stated that as the only Councillor who originally voted against the introduction of the second homes premium, and as a member of the Council Tax Working Group, he wished to clarify his position. He stated that the Working Group did not support the proposal for discretionary relief, as they considered it overly burdensome and impractical to implement; however, he stated his support for a 100% premium. He stated that it had become a significant source of revenue, one now relied on, and while this funding was intended to offset the impact of second home ownership, he questioned whether those impacts had been clearly identified or whether the funds were being used effectively for that purpose. He added that in many cases, second home owners already contributed fully through Council Tax without placing significant demand on local services. Therefore, he stated his support the 100% premium, as endorsed by the Working Group, but recognised that Cabinet and Council may prefer to retain the 150% rate. Councillor Miller stated that while Councillors Hodgson and Williams were not incorrect, this process had become closely tied to the budget, which had never been his primary concern, and explained that his focus had always been on the policy objective. He stated that if robust evidence showed that the measure brought properties back into full, year-round use, he would remain supportive, but if not, he would support ending the tax regime. He added that for him this was not a revenue-raising exercise, but instead it was about addressing the housing availability issue in Pembrokeshire. Councillor Miller believed that encouraging year-round occupancy was more beneficial to the region’s growth than maintaining a high number of partially occupied properties. The Recommendations, undertaken by way of four individual roll calls, were carried. The votes were recorded as follows: Level of Council Tax Premiums for 2026-27 Second Homes 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, Rhys Sinnett, Marc Tierney [5] Against the Motion: Councillors Tessa Hodgson and Jacob Williams [2] Abstentions: Councillor Alistair Cameron [1] RESOLVED That the results of the consultation exercise be noted and the following recommendation be made to Council: Option 1 - remain as current (150%) Long Term Empty Properties 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, Alistair Cameron, Tessa Hodgson, Rhys Sinnett, Marc Tierney and Jacob Williams [7] Abstentions: Councillor Michelle Bateman [1] There were no votes against. RESOLVED That the following recommendation be made to Council: Option 2 - to remain as current (300%) Use of Council Tax Premiums for 2026-27 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, Tessa Hodgson, Rhys Sinnett, Marc Tierney and Jacob Williams [7] Abstentions: Councillor Alistair Cameron [1] There were no votes against. RESOLVED That the following recommendation be made to Council: Option 1 - No change. Discretionary Discount Policy 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, Tessa Hodgson, Rhys Sinnett, Marc Tierney and Jacob Williams [7] Abstentions: Councillor Alistair Cameron [1] There were no votes against or abstentions. RESOLVED That the Council’s discretionary discount policy for 2026-27 be approved: Option 1 - No change in our policy for properties that transfer from self-catering units (NDR) to Council Tax.
Cabinet considered a report by the Head of Procurement and Revenue Serviceswhich outlined the findings of the Public Consultation held on Council Tax premiums for second homes and long-term empty properties. Councillor Alistair Cameron, the Cabinet Member with responsibility for Corporate Finance and Efficiencies, introduced the report and stated that Cabinet was asked to consider the outcome of the public consultation on second homes and long-term empty properties, which received 2,375 responses. He stated that the majority of respondents (44%) favoured no premium, while 24% supported a 50% premium, 18% a 100% premium, 3% a 150% premium (the current rate), and 11% supported a higher premium. He explained that Welsh Government was currently consulting on changes to the classification of self-catering properties, including averaging the 182-day letting threshold over three years, and that the purpose of the premiums, as outlined in national guidance, was to bring empty properties back into use, support affordable housing supply, and enhance community sustainability. Councillor Cameron added that since 2023, the proportion of homes without a usual resident had decreased from 14.6% to 13.8%, suggesting some impact from the premium policy. He stated that over £11 million had been allocated to housing schemes, contributing to 232 new affordable homes in 2024 to 2025, but that the geographical distribution of second homes, particularly in coastal areas, raised concerns about community sustainability, public services, and the Welsh language. He also referred to the recommendation from the Policy and Pre-decision Overview and Scrutiny Committee to apply a 50% discretionary relief to properties let for 140–182 days, however, this was deemed unworkable due to administrative complexity, potential income loss, and legal concerns. Councillor Tessa Hodgson appreciated the need to go into private session but asked that Cabinet remain in public session for as long as possible whilst there were points to debate. Councillor Cameron referred to the recommendation from the Overview and Scrutiny Committee and that the legal advice needed to be looked at carefully, as there were various paragraphs in the legal advice that he wished to refer to that would inform Cabinet’s decision. He agreed that as much as possible of the debate should be in public session, but there was a need to safeguard the Authority’s position in regards to the legal advice. The Leader suggested that the meeting be moved into private session briefly to safeguard the legal advice, then the meeting could resume in public session for the debate. The Chief Executive agreed and suggested the Cabinet Members would then be aware of the specific aspects of the legal advice that Councillor Cameron wished to highlight, ahead of the debate in public session. Cabinet then considered excluding the public from the meeting in accordance with Section 100A (4) of the Local Government Act 1972, as Appendix E involves the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraph 16 of Part 4 of Schedule 12A to the Act; and that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information. Councillor Michelle Bateman Moved to exclude the public; Seconded by Councillor Marc Tierney. 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, Rhys Sinnett, Marc Tierney and Jacob Williams [6] Against the Motion: Councillor Tessa Hodgson [1] There were no votes against or abstentions. RESOLVED That the public be excluded from the meeting in accordance with Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 as Appendix E involves the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraph 16 of Part 4 of Schedule 12A to the Act; and that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information. The webcast was paused at this juncture. Having convened in private session in accordance with Paragraph 16 of Part 4 of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972, Cabinet considered the exempt Appendix. The webcast was then resumed. Councillor Cameron stated that following consideration of the legal advice, the Overview and Scrutiny Committee’s proposal to apply a discretionary discount did not appear to fully assess relevant factors, such as the balance between revenue impact and economic benefit, and may conflict with the policy objectives of the Housing Act. He stated that the Council Tax Working Group’s proposal to reduce the premium from 150% to 100% was also not supported, as it was felt this would weaken the effectiveness of the premium in reducing the number of non-permanently occupied homes. He then noted that the premium had contributed to a modest reduction in such properties and generates approximately £2.6 million in revenue, equivalent to a 3% Council tax rise, which supported key services including homelessness prevention and education. The Leader advised that once the debate had ended, the votes for each aspect listed in the Recommendations would be taken separately. The Leader Moved the Recommendation; Seconded by Councillor Rhys Sinnett. Councillor Hodgson sought clarification in regards to Councillor Cameron’s comments regarding 40% of second homes in Lamphey, and questioned whether the figure included Trewent Park. Councillor Cameron stated that he had retrieved the information from the table in the report and assumed that that figure included all of the area covered by Lamphey Community Council. Councillor Hodgson highlighted that Trewent Park, a large holiday park within her ward, contained properties with occupancy restrictions and therefore does not fall within the typical definition of second homes, potentially distorting local data. She expressed sympathy with the Council Tax Working Group’s concerns regarding the Welsh Government’s 182-day threshold for non-domestic rates, which was considered too high for most holiday cottages outside key tourist areas. She believed that the proposed three-year rolling average was viewed as unlikely to have meaningful impact and potentially burdensome for property owners and the Valuation Office, and expressed reservations about the second homes premium, noting that many owners had longstanding ties to Pembrokeshire or operate small holiday businesses that contributed to the local economy. While not supporting unilateral changes to the qualifying threshold, Councillor Hodgson supported a reduction of the premium to 100%, and ideally its removal. She also raised concern about the Council’s reliance on this income within the general fund, which now influenced budget-setting timelines. Regarding the discretion for properties occupied fewer than 182 days, Councillor Paul Miller stated that he initially supported the idea but remained convinced that it was not feasible, particularly due to administrative burdens on the Local Authority. He disagreed with Councillor Hodgson’s view on the Welsh Government’s current consultation, and believed that the proposed changes were practical and beneficial. He commented that the concept of a three-year rollover was already successfully applied in other areas, such as pension allowances, and would help avoid the abrupt transition caused by a single day’s difference in occupancy, and therefore welcomed the proposed changes. As for the premium level itself, he explained that his position was shaped by a few key considerations, which he believed would significantly influence the impact of any future changes. He added that the Council set out its position on this matter some years ago, and on balance, the Administration believed that introducing the changes was the right course of action, and that they would further policy objectives, namely, encouraging the return of second homes and underused properties to full-time residential use. He stated that while he did not support last year’s reduction in the premium rate, he strongly advised against any further adjustments, and suggested that a stable tax and regulatory environment was essential for effective planning, both for the Authority and for current and prospective property investors. He therefore supported maintaining the current arrangements for the 2026–27 financial year, and welcomed the Welsh Government’s proposed reforms, which he believed represented a meaningful improvement. The Leader then sought clarification as to the financial implications if the second homes Council Tax premium was to drop from 150% to 100%. In response, Councillor Cameron explained that it would be £2.6 million, equal to a 3% Council Tax rise. The Leader highlighted that if it was to be reduced, savings would have to be made elsewhere. Councillor Cameron stated that the main thing to consider was whether this policy was working or not, and what it was doing to address the housing situation in Pembrokeshire. He believed it would be best to keep it stable for a few years and see what the impact would be on the number of unoccupied properties in the County. Councillor Jacob Williams echoed Councillor Hodgson’s comments and stated that as the only Councillor who originally voted against the introduction of the second homes premium, and as a member of the Council Tax Working Group, he wished to clarify his position. He stated that the Working Group did not support the proposal for discretionary relief, as they considered it overly burdensome and impractical to implement; however, he stated his support for a 100% premium. He stated that it had become a significant source of revenue, one now relied on, and while this funding was intended to offset the impact of second home ownership, he questioned whether those impacts had been clearly identified or whether the funds were being used effectively for that purpose. He added that in many cases, second home owners already contributed fully through Council Tax without placing significant demand on local services. Therefore, he stated his support the 100% premium, as endorsed by the Working Group, but recognised that Cabinet and Council may prefer to retain the 150% rate. Councillor Miller stated that while Councillors Hodgson and Williams were not incorrect, this process had become closely tied to the budget, which had never been his primary concern, and explained that his focus had always been on the policy objective. He stated that if robust evidence showed that the measure brought properties back into full, year-round use, he would remain supportive, but if not, he would support ending the tax regime. He added that for him this was not a revenue-raising exercise, but instead it was about addressing the housing availability issue in Pembrokeshire. Councillor Miller believed that encouraging year-round occupancy was more beneficial to the region’s growth than maintaining a high number of partially occupied properties. The Recommendations, undertaken by way of four individual roll calls, were carried. The votes were recorded as follows: Level of Council Tax Premiums for 2026-27 Second Homes 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, Rhys Sinnett, Marc Tierney [5] Against the Motion: Councillors Tessa Hodgson and Jacob Williams [2] Abstentions: Councillor Alistair Cameron [1] RESOLVED That the results of the consultation exercise be noted and the following recommendation be made to Council: Option 1 - remain as current (150%) Long Term Empty Properties 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, Alistair Cameron, Tessa Hodgson, Rhys Sinnett, Marc Tierney and Jacob Williams [7] Abstentions: Councillor Michelle Bateman [1] There were no votes against. RESOLVED That the following recommendation be made to Council: Option 2 - to remain as current (300%) Use of Council Tax Premiums for 2026-27 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, Tessa Hodgson, Rhys Sinnett, Marc Tierney and Jacob Williams [7] Abstentions: Councillor Alistair Cameron [1] There were no votes against. RESOLVED That the following recommendation be made to Council: Option 1 - No change. Discretionary Discount Policy 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, Tessa Hodgson, Rhys Sinnett, Marc Tierney and Jacob Williams [7] Abstentions: Councillor Alistair Cameron [1] There were no votes against or abstentions. RESOLVED That the Council’s discretionary discount policy for 2026-27 be approved: Option 1 - No change in our policy for properties that transfer from self-catering units (NDR) to Council Tax.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED That the annual self-assessment report for 2024-25 be endorsed.
Cabinet considered a report by the Director of Resources which outlined the annual self-assessment report for 2024-25. The Leader, the Cabinet Member with responsibility for Corporate Matters, introduced the report and stated that this was the Council’s fourth annual self-assessment report, produced in line with the Authority’s statutory duty under the Local Government and Elections Act. He stated that while approval rests with full Council, it was important that Cabinet supports and endorses its findings, given its status as a key corporate document. The Leader explained that the report evaluates how well the Council met its performance requirements during the financial year and outlines actions taken or planned to improve performance. Structured around key corporate and organisational themes, he stated that the report had undergone extensive consultation with stakeholders, including the Extended Leadership Team, the relevant Overview and Scrutiny Committee, and the Social Partnership Forum, as well as Cabinet reviewing and commenting on a draft version. He highlighted that the Governance and Audit Committee, which had a statutory role in the process, reviewed the report on 30 September and offered positive feedback with no formal recommendations. He also added that despite ongoing financial pressures, the report highlighted strong performance in areas such as waste and recycling, and improvements in education, planning, social care, and housing. The Leader Moved the Recommendation; Seconded by Councillor Marc Tierney. Councillor Alistair Cameron wished to add that the Governance and Audit Committee was very complimentary in regards to the way in which the report was set out, and found it easy to follow. 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, Alistair Cameron, Tessa Hodgson, Rhys Sinnett, Marc Tierney and Jacob Williams [8] There were no votes against or abstentions. RESOLVED That the annual self-assessment report for 2024-25 be endorsed.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED That the report be received and the progress, which continues to be made, on the improvement of the delivery of Social Services during 2024/25, be noted.
[Councillor Paul Miller declared a personal and prejudicial interest by virtue of being involved in the care market in Pembrokeshire, but stated that he had dispensation to speak but not vote.] Cabinet considered a report by the Director of Social Care and Housing which outlined the Annual Report of the Statutory Director of Social Services and Housing for 2024-25. Councillor Marc Tierney, the Cabinet Member with responsibility for Young People, Community, Well-being and Future Generations, introduced the report and highlighted both the achievements and challenges within the report, particularly in relation to his portfolio. He commented that the report reflected the Authority’s commitment to listening to residents’ lived experiences, as seen in the Significant Change Project, and that one key area of focus was improving transitions between Children’s and Adult Services, with work underway on an options paper for a 0–25 service model. He then wished to thank the Social Workers and Care Teams for their dedication during a particularly demanding period, especially in 2024–25, which saw a sharp rise in referrals, with over 2,100 additional cases in Children’s Social Care. He stated that this underscores the importance of the Authority’s Prevention Agenda, and highlighted the active engagement with child protection academics to refine the practice models and ensure timely, effective interventions. Councillor Tessa Hodgson, the Cabinet Member with responsibility for Adult Social Care, introduced the report and stated that a key focus for 2024–25 was reducing the number of adults awaiting assessment, and that the data showed clear progress in this area. She highlighted that the number of adults with a care and support plan had slightly decreased, supported by a strengthened multi-disciplinary front door that enabled greater access to community-based alternatives. She stated that since the 2024 Care Inspectorate Wales inspection, the Service had also made notable improvements in reducing assessment and review backlogs, and in enhancing the adult safeguarding approach, aided by the Vanguard review methodology. She also wished to acknowledge the vital role of unpaid Carers, with 203 now having support plans in place, which was said to be a significant increase from 114 in March 2024. She added that the Service continued to raise awareness of the support available to Carers, and wished to thank the Chief Officer for Social Care Business Operations and Migration and her team for compiling the comprehensive and accessible report, with case studies that vividly illustrated the real-life impact of the Services. Councillor Tierney wished to add that some of the interventions highlighted in the report, such as the parent and baby intervention project and the Authority’s investment at the front door of services, were already driving meaningful change. He stated that these initiatives were not just about addressing immediate needs but were part of a longer-term strategy to deliver sustainable policy outcomes and improve lives across Pembrokeshire. He highlighted that poverty and housing were deeply interconnected, both locally and beyond, and that there was significant work ahead in this area. He added that the Service was also building wider support around families and young people who need it most, and that the paper clearly outlined next steps and reaffirms the Authority’s commitment, through the Programme for Administration, to championing an approach that meets the real needs of people in Pembrokeshire. Councillor Michelle Bateman commented that one of the key strengths of the report was that it brings the scale and scope of Social Care work into the public domain, and that each year it serves as a valuable reminder, to both Cabinet and the wider public, of the breadth of services delivered across Adult and Children’s Social Care. In regards to Council Tax, she commented that few would recognise that Social Care, alongside Education, accounts for around 75% of total expenditure, and that this report helps to highlight how central Social Care is to the Council’s work and how significantly it shapes the allocation of public funding. The Leader agreed with Councillor Bateman and stated that Social Care was often overlooked unless someone was directly involved with the system, and added that the work being done was outstanding, despite the challenges. He referred to the decision to separate Adult and Children’s Care into two Cabinet portfolios, and highlighted that it had helped bring renewed focus, and echoed the thanks to staff, not only for compiling the report, but for their ongoing dedication to delivering vital services. He commented that the challenges were significant, particularly given Pembrokeshire’s demographic pressures on Adult Care, but meaningful progress was being made. The Director of Social Care and Housing stated that as highlighted in the report, the Service remained committed to technology-enabled care, which played a vital role in supporting individuals, both children and adults, to live independently and with dignity in their communities for as long as possible. He explained that none of this work happens in isolation, and wished to thank our partners, particularly the Health Boards, PAVS, and the wider voluntary and community sector. He stated that the Services’ strong partnership working was recently recognised at the West Wales Regional Partnership Board Awards, where collaborative efforts across hospital, community, and Adult Services received the award for Partnership Working. In terms of accessibility, he highlighted that the Service had also developed a version of the report to ensure it was more user-friendly and widely accessible. He then wished to note a minor correction: the recommendation should refer to the 2024–25 period, not 2023–24, and this should be reflected in the Minutes. Councillor Marc Tierney Moved the Recommendation; Seconded by Councillor Tessa Hodgson. The vote, undertaken by way of a show of hands, was carried. Abstention: Councillor Paul Miller RESOLVED That the report be received and the progress, which continues to be made, on the improvement of the delivery of Social Services during 2024/25, be noted.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED (a) That approval be given for the invitation and evaluation of tenders for a Minor Works Framework as described in this report, with authority delegated to the Director of Social Services and Housing to make minor amendments to the proposed framework as he considers appropriate. (b) That the subsequent award of the framework be delegated to the Director of Social Services and Housing. (c) That the award of call-off contracts under the framework that are not already a matter for the Director, be delegated to the Director of Social Services and Housing.
Cabinet considered a report by the Director of Social Services and Housing which outlined the procurement of Minor Works Contractors for the Building Maintenance Framework. Councillor Michelle Bateman, the Cabinet Member with responsibility for Housing, introduced the report and stated that she was seeking approval under the Authority’s Contract Procedure Rules to invite and evaluate tenders, and to delegate the subsequent award of a framework to the Director of Social Services and Housing. She stated the framework would cover repair, upgrade, and refurbishment works across the Authority’s housing, education, and corporate asset portfolio, and that it would run for three years, with the option of a 12-month extension, and had an estimated total value of £95 million over the potential four-year term. She explained that the report outlined a few minor changes, and wished to note that under the current framework, over 30 contractors were engaged across all lots, 80% of which were Pembrokeshire-based. She highlighted that during the previous award, the Authority undertook significant engagement with the sector, including drop-in sessions across three towns, to support local contractors in joining the framework, and added that this proactive approach had laid strong foundations for the upcoming tender process. Councillor Michelle Bateman Moved the Recommendation; Seconded by the Leader. The Leader commented on the fact that 80% of contractors involved were Pembrokeshire based, and stated that it was really positive 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, Alistair Cameron, Tessa Hodgson, Rhys Sinnett, Marc Tierney and Jacob Williams [8] There were no votes against or abstentions. RESOLVED (a) That approval be given for the invitation and evaluation of tenders for a Minor Works Framework as described in this report, with authority delegated to the Director of Social Services and Housing to make minor amendments to the proposed framework as he considers appropriate. (b) That the subsequent award of the framework be delegated to the Director of Social Services and Housing. (c) That the award of call-off contracts under the framework that are not already a matter for the Director, be delegated to the Director of Social Services and Housing.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED That the public be excluded from the meeting in accordance with Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 as Appendix A involves the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraph 14 of Part 4 of Schedule 12A to the Act; and that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information. The webcast was paused at this juncture. Having convened in private session in accordance with Paragraph 14 of Part 4 of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972, Cabinet considered the exempt Appendix. The webcast was then resumed. Councillor Bateman wished to add that it would be a Social Housing Grant that would be the preferred strategy for accessing grant funding towards this acquisition, particularly if there was slippage within that system caused by some of the delays due to the nitrates issue. She also wished to note that the Authority could use an intermediate rent on some of those properties that have a garage that were likely to be a higher specification than what the Authority would normally provide. Councillor Tessa Hodgson stated that the site was currently listed as under construction, and sought clarification as to how close it was to completion. In regards to Rosemarket, she stated that it lacked essential facilities such as a shop, school, and possibly even public transport, though there may still be a pub. She acknowledged the evolving landscape, particularly in relation to nitrate concerns, but questioned whether if there was freedom of choice, whether Rosemarket would be a location the Authority would actively select for purchasing or developing social housing. In response, Councillor Bateman stated that it was important to note that housing need existed across all areas of Pembrokeshire, as outlined in the report. She explained that the allocation process was largely self-selecting, and that individuals on the housing register typically bid for properties in locations they were familiar with and that suit their transport needs. She stated that although demand was highest in towns due to community cohesion and available services, increasing social housing in smaller, rural communities remained significant, especially where other affordable housing options were limited. She added that a development of around ten units in Rosemarket was considered reasonable, and that in regards to the construction status, some units were already completed, with the remainder expected to be finished by December, allowing the funding to be utilised within this financial year. The Head of Housing and Public Protection added that she had spoken with the local Councillor, who was supportive of the proposal. She explained that it was the intention to implement a local lettings policy for the initial allocation of these properties, to strengthen local connections and community resilience, a policy that had been positively received in previous developments. She explained that the housing register, including the restricted section of the report, highlighted a strong demand in the area, particularly among applicants in the gold and silver bands. She added that the local housing market area had been assessed, including Rosemarket, Johnston, Burton, Langham, and Hook, and the data supported a clear and significant housing need in this vicinity. The Recommendation was Seconded by Councillor Marc Tierney. 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, Alistair Cameron, Tessa Hodgson, Rhys Sinnett, Marc Tierney and Jacob Williams [8] There were no votes against or abstentions. RESOLVED That the decision to acquire the 10 units in Rosemarket be delegated to the Director of Place and Assistant Chief Executive, once the Director is satisfied as to the due diligence which has been conducted, and subject to the purchase price specified in Appendix A.
Cabinet considered a report by the Director of Social Services and Housing which outlineda proposal to enter into an agreement for the acquisition of 10 new build housing units currently under construction as an Off the Shelf deal at Rose Haven, Rosemarket. Councillor Michelle Bateman, the Cabinet Member with responsibility for Housing, introduced the report and stated that there was an opportunity to acquire 10 new-build housing units currently under construction at Rose haven in Rosemarket, through an off-the-shelf deal. She stated that this approach, similar to others previously brought to Cabinet, offered an effective means of increasing the affordable housing stock. She stated that given the seriousness of the earlier paper regarding the wider challenges facing affordable housing in Pembroke, it was even more important that the Authority seized opportunities like this. She explained that these units had already progressed through the planning process and were unaffected by the current nitrates issue, making this a timely and strategic acquisition to support housing objectives. Councillor Michelle Bateman Moved the Recommendation. The Head of Law and Governance highlighted that excluding the public in this instance was only relevant to Paragraph 14 and not 16. Cabinet considered excluding the public from the meeting in accordance with Section 100A (4) of the Local Government Act 1972, as Appendix A involved the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraph 14 of Part 4 of Schedule 12A to the Act; and that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information. The Leader Moved to exclude the public; Seconded by Councillor Michelle Bateman. 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, Alistair Cameron, Tessa Hodgson, Rhys Sinnett, Marc Tierney and Jacob Williams [8] There were no votes against or abstentions. RESOLVED That the public be excluded from the meeting in accordance with Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 as Appendix A involves the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraph 14 of Part 4 of Schedule 12A to the Act; and that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information. The webcast was paused at this juncture. Having convened in private session in accordance with Paragraph 14 of Part 4 of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972, Cabinet considered the exempt Appendix. The webcast was then resumed. Councillor Bateman wished to add that it would be a Social Housing Grant that would be the preferred strategy for accessing grant funding towards this acquisition, particularly if there was slippage within that system caused by some of the delays due to the nitrates issue. She also wished to note that the Authority could use an intermediate rent on some of those properties that have a garage that were likely to be a higher specification than what the Authority would normally provide. Councillor Tessa Hodgson stated that the site was currently listed as under construction, and sought clarification as to how close it was to completion. In regards to Rosemarket, she stated that it lacked essential facilities such as a shop, school, and possibly even public transport, though there may still be a pub. She acknowledged the evolving landscape, particularly in relation to nitrate concerns, but questioned whether if there was freedom of choice, whether Rosemarket would be a location the Authority would actively select for purchasing or developing social housing. In response, Councillor Bateman stated that it was important to note that housing need existed across all areas of Pembrokeshire, as outlined in the report. She explained that the allocation process was largely self-selecting, and that individuals on the housing register typically bid for properties in locations they were familiar with and that suit their transport needs. She stated that although demand was highest in towns due to community cohesion and available services, increasing social housing in smaller, rural communities remained significant, especially where other affordable housing options were limited. She added that a development of around ten units in Rosemarket was considered reasonable, and that in regards to the construction status, some units were already completed, with the remainder expected to be finished by December, allowing the funding to be utilised within this financial year. The Head of Housing and Public Protection added that she had spoken with the local Councillor, who was supportive of the proposal. She explained that it was the intention to implement a local lettings policy for the initial allocation of these properties, to strengthen local connections and community resilience, a policy that had been positively received in previous developments. She explained that the housing register, including the restricted section of the report, highlighted a strong demand in the area, particularly among applicants in the gold and silver bands. She added that the local housing market area had been assessed, including Rosemarket, Johnston, Burton, Langham, and Hook, and the data supported a clear and significant housing need in this vicinity. The Recommendation was Seconded by Councillor Marc Tierney. 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, Alistair Cameron, Tessa Hodgson, Rhys Sinnett, Marc Tierney and Jacob Williams [8] There were no votes against or abstentions. RESOLVED That the decision to acquire the 10 units in Rosemarket be delegated to the Director of Place and Assistant Chief Executive, once the Director is satisfied as to the due diligence which has been conducted, and subject to the purchase price specified in Appendix A.
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.