Loading
The decisions as the council's minutes record them. A plain-language summary follows once it has been written.
RESOLVED That the matter be referred back to Cabinet for reconsideration, requesting that the original Services Overview and Scrutiny Committee recommendation be considered in full, as follows: (a) For Cabinet to undertake a review of fees and charges at Park Gwyn Crematorium, with particular regard to the cost of direct cremation, to ensure that pricing is competitive and broadly aligned with neighbouring crematoria. (b) For Cabinet to commission a comprehensive review of the Crematorium’s future operational model, including service delivery, efficiency, value for money, and long-term financial sustainability, with the findings to be reported to the Services Overview and Scrutiny Committee for consideration and scrutiny prior to any final Cabinet decision.
Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Elwyn Morse and Viv Stoddart.
Moved by Councillor Rhys Jordan; Seconded by Councillor Anji Tinley The vote was taken by way of a show of hands and carried. RESOLVED That Councillor Di Clements be duly elected as Vice-Chair for the ensuing Municipal Year.
There were no requests received.
The Assistant Chief Executive/Director of Place wished to place on record that following a recent article in the Herald Newspaper which suggested a potential conflict of interest due to the position he held within the Authority, he wished to clarify the position. It was stated that his wife was currently employed at the crematorium, a matter previously disclosed. It was stated that he was not aware of any direct benefit or disadvantage arising from the item under discussion but wished for the information to be placed on record for transparency.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED That the matter be referred back to Cabinet for reconsideration, requesting that the original Services Overview and Scrutiny Committee recommendation be considered in full, as follows: (a) For Cabinet to undertake a review of fees and charges at Park Gwyn Crematorium, with particular regard to the cost of direct cremation, to ensure that pricing is competitive and broadly aligned with neighbouring crematoria. (b) For Cabinet to commission a comprehensive review of the Crematorium’s future operational model, including service delivery, efficiency, value for money, and long-term financial sustainability, with the findings to be reported to the Services Overview and Scrutiny Committee for consideration and scrutiny prior to any final Cabinet decision.
The Committee considered a report by the Director of Place and Assistant Chief Executive relating to the call-in of a Cabinet Decision regarding Parc Gwyn Crematorium made on the 27 May 2026. The decision was called in on 27 May 2026 by Councillor Rhys Jordan with the support of Councillors Di Clements, Mark Carter, Nick Neumann, Claire George, David Howlett, David Bryan, Danny Young, Aled Thomas, Steve Yelland and Jonathan Grimes, on the following grounds: (i) The Cabinet report materially altered the original scrutiny recommendation; (ii) The decision was not supported by sufficient evidence or benchmarking; (iii) Financial considerations relating to “surplus” and “profit” were improperly weighted; (iv) Alternative operational models were prematurely excluded; and (v) Further scrutiny is required to ensure transparent, evidence-based, and constitutionally proper decision-making. The Chair invited Councillor Rhys Jordan as call-in submitter to present the reasons for calling in the decision. In addressing the Committee, Councillor Rhys Jordan clarified that the call-in was not about privatisation, pre-determining an outcome, or criticising Cabinet, but about whether Cabinet had been given a fair opportunity to consider a full operational review of the crematorium. It was noted that the original scrutiny concerns arose from residents choosing cremation services outside of the County, potentially due to lower costs, and that a comprehensive review had been requested to understand pricing, operations, and value for money. Concern was expressed that the officer report presented to Cabinet had narrowed the scope of the scrutiny recommendation by advising against undertaking the review that had been proposed and it was suggested that the report led Cabinet toward rejecting the review without fully weighing its merits. It was argued that the absence of evidence cited in the report was not a justification to avoid a review, but rather the reason such a review should take place. Questions regarding the crematorium’s financial model were raised, particularly the relationship between full cost recovery and reported surpluses, and greater transparency on cost allocations and income use was requested. Emphasising the importance of transparency and public confidence, itwas stated that a comprehensive review would either confirm the robustness of current arrangements or identify areas for improvement. In summing up, Councillor Rhys Jordan Moved that the matter be referred back to Cabinet for reconsideration, requesting that the original Services Overview and Scrutiny Committee recommendation be considered in full; which was Seconded by Councillor Di Clements. The Chair invited the Cabinet Member for Cabinet Member for Residents' Services to respond to the call-in. In response, the Cabinet Member for Residents' Services stated that he felt the Cabinet decision was properly considered, evidence-based, and consistent with governance arrangements, with no procedural or substantive flaws identified by the call-in. It was noted that Scrutiny’s recommendations were presented in full alongside Officer advice, and that it was felt that Cabinet had reached a balanced decision. It was emphasised that there was no evidence to justify reviewing alternative operating models and that doing so would not be a proportionate use of resources. The Cabinet Member expressed that public ownership should remain the preferred position unless a robust, evidence-based case demonstrated better outcomes, and reference was made to national evidence indicating limited competition and higher costs in the private sector. It was highlighted that the crematorium was financially sustainable, generated a surplus for community benefit, and offered comparatively favourable charges. In summing up, the Cabinet Member stated that in his opinion there was no identified problem, no new information, and no justification to revisit the decision, with the burden of proof resting on those advocating change. [Councillor Tom Tudor joined the meeting at this juncture.] The Assistant Chief Executive and Director of Place stated that the issue of residents using out-of-County cremation services could be addressed through the fees and charges review already agreed. It was emphasised that Officers must provide evidence-based advice and, in the absence of supporting evidence, could not recommend exploring alternative operating models. It was noted that current Local Authority provision represented good value for money and supported efficient service delivery, and it was highlighted that reviewing alternative models would require costly external consultancy, which could not be justified without clear evidence of benefit and it was stated that no such evidence had been presented and therefore a review was not warranted. The Committee debated the contents of the report and information provided and the key points were highlighted as follows: · The Chair sought clarification between the terms “full cost recovery” and “surplus,” noting potential confusion for both Members and the public. In response, the Assistant Chief Executive and Director of Place explained that most Council services were required to recover only the cost of delivery; however, crematoria was an exception where legislation permitted income to exceed costs over time. It was stated that full cost recovery referred to covering all operational and capital costs, while any additional income may generate a surplus across a longer period. Members were advised that the surplus generated was held in reserve and may be used for future investment or wider Council purposes, subject to financial decisions made by Council. The Finance Manager added that provision was made to allocate funding to a crematorium reserve to support future capital maintenance, and income above the full cost recovery level formed part of overall financial management and was used to support the Council’s wider budget, rather than being ring-fenced for specific services. · In response to clarification sought by Councillor Di Clements, the Assistant Chief Executive and Director of Place stated that families choosing to take their loved ones out of Pembrokeshire for cremation services wad due to competitive pricing. · Councillor John Cole sought further information regarding what percentage of cremation fees were being assigned to the general fund, as a surplus. It was agreed that the Assistant Chief Executive and Director of Place would request the information (AP). · Councillor Rhys Jordan challenged the explanation provided, referencing external guidance on Local Authority charging which suggested that income should not exceed the cost of service provision, and raised concern regarding the inconsistency between full cost recovery and generating a surplus, questioning whether there may be a governance issue in how charges are set. In response, the Head of Law and Governance confirmed that legal advice had previously been obtained, which clarified that the powers to charge for burial and crematorium services were not restricted by the provisions of the Local Government Act 2003 referenced. · In response to a question raised by Councillor Anji Tinley, the Assistant Chief Executive and Director of Place stated that decisions on how surpluses are used are a matter for Members as part of the budget-setting process, including whether to prioritise lower charges or wider Council spending. It was confirmed that national evidence, including the Competition and Markets Authority findings and recent benchmarking across Wales, indicated that publicly operated crematoria generally charge less than private providers for the majority of services. [Councillor John Cole left the meeting at this juncture.] · Councillor Scott Thorley expressed discomfort at the Council generating a surplus from cremation services, suggesting that in his opinions it was inappropriate to make a profit in such circumstances, and suggested that any surplus should instead be reinvested for public benefit, for example by supporting social care or providing assistance to residents who were unable to afford funeral costs. · In response to information sought by Councillor Tom Tudor in relation to the numbers of residents who elect for out of County services, the Strategic Business Manager advised that the Authority were not privy to such information. · Councillor Rhys Jordan expressed concern regarding the lack of clarity and consistency in the information presented in relation to the surplus generated, and the absence of clear answers to repeated questions and suggested that, if clarity could not be achieved internally, an independent review may be necessary to provide transparency and enable informed decision-making. In response, the Assistant Chief Executive and Director of Place expressed that there was no objection in principle to a review but stated that, given the significant cost, it should only proceed where there was clear evidence of potential benefit. It was noted that issues raised, largely related to fees and charges and it was confirmed that previous decisions had followed proper governance processes, including legal advice and consultation with Audit Wales. · In response to a question raised by the Chair, the Strategic Business Manager advised that it was hoped that the review of fees and charges would be concluded, for implementation, by April 2027. · Councillor Anji Tinley expressed that whilst she would not support a full operating model review, she would support a fees and charges review, but following discussion, she advised she did not wish to propose an amendment to the motion on the table. The Chair reiterated the motion which had been moved and seconded and invited Councillor Rhys Jordan to make any summing up remarks. In summing up, Councillor Rhys Jordan clarified that the decision concerned whether to undertake a comprehensive review, not to determine any specific operating model. It was stated that in his opinion a review was necessary to establish evidence and address ongoing concerns about affordability, competitiveness, and transparency. It was emphasised that scrutiny’s role was to ensure evidence-based and accountable decision-making, and that a review would either confirm current arrangements or identify improvements. The vote, undertaken by way of a roll call, was carried. The votes were recorded as follows: For the Motion:Councillors Di Clements, Rhys Jordan, Anji Tinley, Chris Williams and Aled Thomas [5] Against the Motion: Councillors Steve Alderman, Scott Thorley, Tom Tudor and Tony Wilcox [4] There were no abstentions. RESOLVED That the matter be referred back to Cabinet for reconsideration, requesting that the original Services Overview and Scrutiny Committee recommendation be considered in full, as follows: (a) For Cabinet to undertake a review of fees and charges at Park Gwyn Crematorium, with particular regard to the cost of direct cremation, to ensure that pricing is competitive and broadly aligned with neighbouring crematoria. (b) For Cabinet to commission a comprehensive review of the Crematorium’s future operational model, including service delivery, efficiency, value for money, and long-term financial sustainability, with the findings to be reported to the Services Overview and Scrutiny Committee for consideration and scrutiny prior to any final Cabinet decision.
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.