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 to the Constitutional Review Committee for further consideration.
RESOLVED That the public be excluded from the meeting as it involved the likely disclosure of exempt information relating to an individual (Paragraphs 12 and 13 of Part 4 of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972 refers). Having excluded the public from the meeting, the Chief Executive and Leader responded to questions relating to the structure of the Authority’s Operating Model at the Senior level, the capacity of the post holders to take on the additional responsibility and the costs involved. [Councillor Di Clements left the meeting at this juncture.] The meeting then reconvened in open session for further discussion. Councillor Jamie Adams thanked Members and Officers for the responses provided in private session. He then sought further assurance regarding the capacity and capability of the current Head of Property to take on the additional responsibilities for economic development and regeneration. He noted that the post holder had been in position for approximately nine months and expressed concern that, as many members may have limited direct interaction with the role, there was insufficient publicly available assurance regarding performance and ability to take on the expanded portfolio. In response, the Leader advised that she had been part of the interview panel for the appointment of the Head of Property and was satisfied, based on the candidate’s detailed application and experience, that they were capable of undertaking the expanded role. She cautioned, however, that detailed discussion of an individual officer’s performance would be more appropriate in private session. The Chief Executive supplemented this by explaining that the proposed restructure included a rebalancing of responsibilities to address capacity concerns. Specifically, the Professional Construction Services function was proposed to be repositioned to report directly to the Director, thereby reducing the breadth of responsibilities under the Head of Service. He emphasised that this adjustment was intended to ensure the role remained manageable and effective, given the scale and cross-cutting nature of construction services across the organisation. Councillor Adams reiterated that, while he did not object to the principle of the proposal, he required clearer assurance regarding the individual’s performance and ability to meet expectations before supporting the recommendation. He maintained that such information was necessary for Members to make an informed decision. Consequently, Councillor Adams Moved a further procedural motion to return to private session to allow this matter to be considered appropriately. This motion was Seconded by Councillor Alan Dennison. The vote to exclude the public, undertaken by way of an electronic vote, was carried. For the Motion: Councillors Jamie Adams, Michelle Bateman, Maureen Bowen, David Bryan, Alistair Cameron, Aaron Carey, Pat Davies, John Davies, Alan Dennison, Tim Evans, Claire George, Simon Hancock, Delme Harries, Tessa Hodgson, David Howlett, Michael James, Michael John, Rhys Jordan, Phil Kidney, Paul Miller, Elwyn Morse, Huw Murphy, Nick Neumann, David Simpson, Scott Thorley, Anji Tinley, Marc Tierney, Vanessa Thomas, Guy Woodham, Tony Wilcox, Jacob Williams, Michael Williams, Simon Wright, Steve Yelland [34] Against the Motion: Councillors Steve Alderman, Joshua Beynon, Alec Cormack, Billy Shaw, Rhys Sinnett, Aled Thomas [6] There were no abstentions. RESOLVED That the public be excluded from the meeting as it involved the likely disclosure of exempt information relating to an individual (Paragraphs 12 and 13 of Part 4 of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972 refers). Having excluded the public from the meeting, the Chief Executive and Leader responded to further questions relating to the capacity of the post holders to take on the additional responsibility, arrangements for outsourcing work to third parties and salary costs. [Councillor Thomas Tudor joined the meeting during the closed session and Councillors Rhys Jordan and Tony Wilcox left the meeting.] The meeting then resumed in open session. Having thanked the Chief Executive, Leader and other Members for their answers and comments, Councillor Jamie Adams advised that he was supportive of the proposals. The vote for the Recommendations, undertaken by way of an electronic vote, was carried. For the Motion: Councillors Jamie Adams, Steve Alderman, Michelle Bateman, Joshua Beynon, David Bryan, Alistair Cameron, Aaron Carey, Alec Cormack, Pat Davies, John Davies, Alan Dennison, Tim Evans, Claire George, Simon Hancock, Delme Harries, Jon Harvey, Tessa Hodgson, David Howlett, Michael James, Michael John, Phillip Kidney, Paul Miller, Elwyn Morse, Huw Murphy, Nick Neumann, Billy Shaw, David Simpson, Rhys Sinnett, Marc Tierney, Scott Thorley, Aled Thomas, Vanessa Thomas, Thomas Tudor, Guy Woodham, Jacob Williams, Michael Williams, Simon Wright, Steve Yelland [38] Against the Motion: Councillor Anji Tinley [1] There were no abstentions. RESOLVED (a) That the redesignation and regrading of the Professional Construction Services Manager role to a Corporate Manager post reporting directly to the Director of Place/Assistant Chief Executive be noted. (b) That the proposed senior management restructuring as set out in the report, including the transfer of Economic Development and Regeneration to the Head of Property, be approved. (c) That the post be redesignated as Head of Property, Economic Development and Regeneration.
RESOLVED (a) That the redesignation of the Director of Place / Assistant Chief Executive to Deputy Chief Executive and Director of Place; and the revised organisational structure as set out in Appendix 3 of the report be approved. (b) That the advertisement of and recruitment to the post of Deputy Chief Executive and Director of Place on existing terms and conditions (Director scale) at the earliest opportunity and against the revised job description at Appendix 4, be approved. (c) That the Chief Executive overseeing the Place Directorate during any gap of director be approved. (d) That the Chief Executive be granted delegated authority to reallocate the Election Service and any responsibilities from the Corporate Operations and Resilience area across the Senior Leadership Team as deemed appropriate. (e) That the proposed changes are cost neutral, with no additional financial implications arising from the reallocation of responsibilities, at this stage, be noted. (f) That the Chief Executive will continue to review the operating model and organisational structure and will make further recommendations in due course be noted.
There were no declarations of interest made.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED That the matter be referred to the Constitutional Review Committee for further consideration.
Council considered a report of the Senior Staff Committee seeking to clarify the arrangements for the appointment of Senior Staff on a temporary basis and agreement to amend to the Constitution accordingly. As Chair of the Senior Staff Committee, the Leader introduced the report explaining that it sought a modest amendment to the Constitution to clarify arrangements for temporary appointments at Head of Service level. She noted that there are occasions where short-term cover is required, such as maternity leave, sickness absence, or while recruitment to a permanent post is ongoing. The proposal would allow the Chief Executive to make temporary appointments for up to 12 months to ensure continuity and effective service delivery. Councillor Hodgson emphasised that the change would not affect permanent appointments, which would remain the responsibility of the Senior Staff Committee, nor would it apply to Director-level roles. She also highlighted that any temporary appointments would be reported to the Committee as soon as reasonably practicable. The Leader Moved the Recommendation as set out in the report; Seconded by Councillor Jon Harvey. Council discussed the report and the following key points were noted: Councillor Anji Tinley spoke in opposition, raising concerns about governance and democratic oversight. She argued that the proposal represented a shift from a system of prior member approval to one of retrospective notification, which she viewed as a fundamental change rather than a minor clarification. Councillor Tinley also referred to historical issues with the political balance of the Senior Staff Committee, stating that Cabinet Members had previously outnumbered non-executive Members in several meetings. She expressed concern that the proposals could increase executive control over senior appointments and pointed to what she described as a pattern of temporary roles and ongoing restructuring within the Authority. She questioned whether the Committee would retain meaningful oversight if it was only informed of decisions after they had been made. In response, the Head of Law and Governance confirmed that the previously identified issue regarding the political balance of the Senior Staff Committee had been investigated and resolved some time ago. She indicated that there was limited benefit in revisiting that matter. The Chief Executive addressed the wider concerns, clarifying that the proposal did not remove the democratic role of Members in appointing senior officers on a permanent basis. He explained that the change related only to temporary appointments, typically required at short notice, and aimed to strike a practical balance between timely operational decision-making and appropriate governance. He emphasised that the purpose was to provide clarity on existing delegated powers and enable a proportionate response to short-term staffing needs, rather than to centralise control. The Leader, in summing up, reiterated that the discussion at the Senior Staff Committee had centred on achieving the right balance between Member oversight and the Chief Executive’s ability to respond quickly to organisational challenges. She stated that the 12-month limit was considered appropriate to allow flexibility while maintaining safeguards. She stressed again that the proposal was about clarity in the Constitution and did not alter the arrangements for permanent appointments. She acknowledged the wider concerns raised by Councillor Tinley but noted that these would be more appropriately addressed under subsequent agenda items relating to organisational structure. Councillor Michael John sought clarification on the purpose of the proposal, noting an apparent contradiction between the justification of avoiding operational delays and the explanation that the change was about clarifying the Constitution. He questioned whether the change was necessary, suggesting that the Council is now able to convene Senior Staff Committee meetings quickly, often within three to four days via remote meetings. He asked whether the proposal might be disproportionate to the problem it was seeking to address. In response, the Chief Executive explained that the proposal was intended both to enable timely operational decisions where required and to provide clarity within the Constitution, which is currently not explicit on this matter. He emphasised that the report sought the Council’s view on delegating authority for temporary appointments and ensuring that this was clearly set out in the Constitution going forward. Councillor Jamie Adams also raised concerns, focusing on the argument around urgency and timeliness. After clarification from the Head of Law and Governance that a meeting of the Senior Staff Committee can be convened with three clear days’ notice, he questioned whether this undermined the justification for the change. He argued that in cases such as maternity leave or long-term sickness, a three-day timeframe would not materially impact decision-making, and suggested that the argument around urgency was not convincing. Councillor Paul Miller stated that he was relaxed about the proposal. He acknowledged the concerns raised by Councillor Tinley but felt that, on balance, it was reasonable and proportionate to allow the Chief Executive to make temporary appointments of less than 12 months. He noted that the key issue was that the Constitution was currently unclear, and that it was more important to establish clarity and consistency, regardless of which approach was ultimately taken. Councillor Pat Davies queried whether the matter should have been considered by the Constitutional Review Committee, given that it involved a change to the Constitution. While indicating that she had no strong objection to the recommendations themselves, she questioned the process and the role of that Committee in reviewing such changes. In response, the Head of Law and Governance advised that while the matter could have been referred to the Constitutional Review Committee, it was considered more appropriate for the Senior Staff Committee in this instance. She explained that the proposal directly related to responsibilities currently associated with that Committee, and that the constitutional change itself was not considered complex. Councillor Elwyn Morse sought clarification on whether there had been any complaints about the Senior Staff Committee meeting unnecessarily to make appointments, or any instances where delays had adversely affected staffing decisions. He also supported the view that constitutional changes might more appropriately be considered by the Constitutional Review Committee before being ratified by full Council. In response, both the Head of Law and Governance and the Chief Executive confirmed that they were not aware of any complaints regarding the Senior Staff Committee meeting unnecessarily. Councillor Morse followed up by asking whether there had been any cases where opportunities or post changes had been negatively affected by delays in convening the committee. The Chief Executive confirmed that this was not the case and stated that there was no suggestion that the Committee was too slow or ineffective. The Chief Executive added that, while there had been considerable focus on timeliness during the discussion, the proposal should be seen primarily as a matter of judgement about where decision-making responsibility should lie. He emphasised that the report was not a criticism of the Senior Staff Committee or its processes, but rather an effort to ensure clarity and appropriateness in decision-making arrangements, supported by corresponding amendments to the Constitution. Councillor Michael Williams spoke in support of the recommendations, describing them as reasonable and proportionate. He stated that the proposal would provide flexibility without undermining the democratic process. He queried whether the Constitutional Review Committee would subsequently consider the amendment but was advised by the Head of Law and Governance that this would only occur if Council specifically resolved for the matter to be referred. Otherwise, if approved, the change would be incorporated directly into the Constitution. Councillor Michael Williams indicated that he would be more comfortable if the proposed constitutional amendment was also considered by the Constitutional Review Committee, suggesting this would provide a “belt and braces” approach and additional democratic input. The Head of Law and Governance advised that this could not be incorporated as a simple amendment to the existing recommendations. Instead, if Members wished to refer the matter to the Constitutional Review Committee, this would need to be proposed as a separate motion, which could be moved and seconded, and would effectively defer a final decision by Council. Councillor Jamie Adams reiterated his earlier concerns, stating that references within the report to urgency and timeliness had been unhelpful and risked misleading Members. He suggested that the issue should be presented more clearly as a matter of addressing a gap in the Constitution. He indicated that, while he may wish to move an alternative motion to refer the matter to the Constitutional Review Committee, this would depend on the outcome of the current motion, as there was no mechanism to combine the two approaches within the existing proposal. Councillor Joshua Beynon spoke in favour of proceeding with the recommendations, arguing that the issue was relatively straightforward. He stated that Members should decide whether or not to grant the Chief Executive the authority for temporary appointments, rather than add further procedural steps. He expressed the view that the proposal addressed a clear gap in the Constitution and would enable decisions to be made more efficiently, without impacting permanent appointments. Councillor Di Clements similarly cautioned against adding unnecessary bureaucracy, noting that over-complication of processes can attract criticism from the public. She suggested that some of the concerns raised appeared to reflect a lack of trust, and emphasised the need for clarity. She sought further explanation of the term “reasonably practicable” within the recommendation. In response, the Head of Law and Governance clarified that “reasonably practicable” is a recognised legal term meaning as soon as it is practically possible, taking into account all relevant circumstances, including governance requirements and other operational considerations. On a point of clarity, the Head of Law and Governance confirmed that her interpretation was that notification could take place outside of the Committee. Councillor Anji Tinley reiterated her opposition, referring to previous discussions at the Senior Staff Committee where she believed it had been indicated that the Head of Law and Governance would have the authority to amend the Constitution following approval. She emphasised her view that the proposed change was significant and expressed concern that such powers would not be recoverable once granted. She argued that the justification of urgency was unconvincing and maintained that any constitutional amendment should be referred to the Constitutional Review Committee to ensure clarity and appropriate member oversight. In response, the Head of Law and Governance clarified that any decision on the matter would be made by full Council, not by officers. She explained that her role would be limited to making consequential or technical amendments to the Constitution to reflect whatever decision Council reached. Councillor Aled Thomas sought procedural clarity on whether an amendment could be moved at that stage of the debate, noting some confusion in earlier advice. He also expressed concern that the proposals were broad in scope and may not have been fully examined by Members. He indicated support for referring the matter to the Constitutional Review Committee to allow more detailed consideration. The Head of Law and Governance advised that, procedurally, it may be clearer to first consider a motion to refer the matter to the Constitutional Review Committee. If that motion was unsuccessful, Council could then proceed to determine the original recommendations. This approach was intended to avoid confusion and ensure a clear decision-making process. As proposer of the Motion, the Leader acknowledged the concerns raised during the debate and she agreed that referring the matter to the Constitutional Review Committee would be acceptable and offered to withdraw the original Motion to facilitate this. Councillor Paul Miller sought clarification that the proposal under discussion related only to the first report on temporary appointments and not to the subsequent items on the agenda. This was confirmed. He also responded to concerns raised earlier, clarifying that the Chief Executive would not be able to create or redesign posts through this proposal, as those matters are governed by separate approval processes. He emphasised that the proposal was limited to temporary appointments within existing structures. Councillor Jamie Adams then Moved that the matter be referred to the Constitutional Review Committee for further consideration; Seconded by Councillor Anji Tinley. The vote, undertaken by way of an electronic vote, was carried. For the Motion: Councillors Jamie Adams, Michelle Bateman, Alistair Cameron, Di Clements, Pat Davies, John Davies, Alan Dennison, Tim Evans, Claire George, Delme Harries, David Howlett, Mike James, Michael John, Rhys Jordan, Phillip Kidney, Elwyn Morse, Huw Murphy, Nick Neumann, Billy Shaw, Rhys Sinnett, Vanessa Thomas, Aled Thomas, Scott Thorley, Marc Tierney, Anji Tinley, Tony Wilcox, Jacob Williams, Michael Williams, Guy Woodham, Simon Wright [30] Against the Motion: Councillors Steve Alderman, Joshua Beynon, David Bryan, Aaron Carey, Alec Cormack, Simon Hancock, Jon Harvey, Tessa Hodgson, Paul Miller, David Simpson [10] There were no abstentions. RESOLVED That the matter be referred to the Constitutional Review Committee for further consideration.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED That the public be excluded from the meeting as it involved the likely disclosure of exempt information relating to an individual (Paragraphs 12 and 13 of Part 4 of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972 refers). Having excluded the public from the meeting, the Chief Executive and Leader responded to questions relating to the structure of the Authority’s Operating Model at the Senior level, the capacity of the post holders to take on the additional responsibility and the costs involved. [Councillor Di Clements left the meeting at this juncture.] The meeting then reconvened in open session for further discussion. Councillor Jamie Adams thanked Members and Officers for the responses provided in private session. He then sought further assurance regarding the capacity and capability of the current Head of Property to take on the additional responsibilities for economic development and regeneration. He noted that the post holder had been in position for approximately nine months and expressed concern that, as many members may have limited direct interaction with the role, there was insufficient publicly available assurance regarding performance and ability to take on the expanded portfolio. In response, the Leader advised that she had been part of the interview panel for the appointment of the Head of Property and was satisfied, based on the candidate’s detailed application and experience, that they were capable of undertaking the expanded role. She cautioned, however, that detailed discussion of an individual officer’s performance would be more appropriate in private session. The Chief Executive supplemented this by explaining that the proposed restructure included a rebalancing of responsibilities to address capacity concerns. Specifically, the Professional Construction Services function was proposed to be repositioned to report directly to the Director, thereby reducing the breadth of responsibilities under the Head of Service. He emphasised that this adjustment was intended to ensure the role remained manageable and effective, given the scale and cross-cutting nature of construction services across the organisation. Councillor Adams reiterated that, while he did not object to the principle of the proposal, he required clearer assurance regarding the individual’s performance and ability to meet expectations before supporting the recommendation. He maintained that such information was necessary for Members to make an informed decision. Consequently, Councillor Adams Moved a further procedural motion to return to private session to allow this matter to be considered appropriately. This motion was Seconded by Councillor Alan Dennison. The vote to exclude the public, undertaken by way of an electronic vote, was carried. For the Motion: Councillors Jamie Adams, Michelle Bateman, Maureen Bowen, David Bryan, Alistair Cameron, Aaron Carey, Pat Davies, John Davies, Alan Dennison, Tim Evans, Claire George, Simon Hancock, Delme Harries, Tessa Hodgson, David Howlett, Michael James, Michael John, Rhys Jordan, Phil Kidney, Paul Miller, Elwyn Morse, Huw Murphy, Nick Neumann, David Simpson, Scott Thorley, Anji Tinley, Marc Tierney, Vanessa Thomas, Guy Woodham, Tony Wilcox, Jacob Williams, Michael Williams, Simon Wright, Steve Yelland [34] Against the Motion: Councillors Steve Alderman, Joshua Beynon, Alec Cormack, Billy Shaw, Rhys Sinnett, Aled Thomas [6] There were no abstentions. RESOLVED That the public be excluded from the meeting as it involved the likely disclosure of exempt information relating to an individual (Paragraphs 12 and 13 of Part 4 of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972 refers). Having excluded the public from the meeting, the Chief Executive and Leader responded to further questions relating to the capacity of the post holders to take on the additional responsibility, arrangements for outsourcing work to third parties and salary costs. [Councillor Thomas Tudor joined the meeting during the closed session and Councillors Rhys Jordan and Tony Wilcox left the meeting.] The meeting then resumed in open session. Having thanked the Chief Executive, Leader and other Members for their answers and comments, Councillor Jamie Adams advised that he was supportive of the proposals. The vote for the Recommendations, undertaken by way of an electronic vote, was carried. For the Motion: Councillors Jamie Adams, Steve Alderman, Michelle Bateman, Joshua Beynon, David Bryan, Alistair Cameron, Aaron Carey, Alec Cormack, Pat Davies, John Davies, Alan Dennison, Tim Evans, Claire George, Simon Hancock, Delme Harries, Jon Harvey, Tessa Hodgson, David Howlett, Michael James, Michael John, Phillip Kidney, Paul Miller, Elwyn Morse, Huw Murphy, Nick Neumann, Billy Shaw, David Simpson, Rhys Sinnett, Marc Tierney, Scott Thorley, Aled Thomas, Vanessa Thomas, Thomas Tudor, Guy Woodham, Jacob Williams, Michael Williams, Simon Wright, Steve Yelland [38] Against the Motion: Councillor Anji Tinley [1] There were no abstentions. RESOLVED (a) That the redesignation and regrading of the Professional Construction Services Manager role to a Corporate Manager post reporting directly to the Director of Place/Assistant Chief Executive be noted. (b) That the proposed senior management restructuring as set out in the report, including the transfer of Economic Development and Regeneration to the Head of Property, be approved. (c) That the post be redesignated as Head of Property, Economic Development and Regeneration.
Council considered a report by the Senior Staff Committee seeking approval for proposed changes to the Head of Property role and associated senior management arrangements. The Leader, as Chair of the Senior Staff Committee, introduced the report of the Committee. She explained that, following the 2025 operating model review, economic development and regeneration functions had been operating under interim arrangements. A subsequent review identified a strong alignment between these functions and the Council’s property and estate management responsibilities. The proposal, therefore, recommended bringing these services together under a single Head of Service to strengthen accountability, improve integration, and support delivery of place-based priorities. In addition, the report proposed repositioning the Professional Construction Services function as a Corporate Manager role, reporting directly to the Assistant Chief Executive/Director of Place, to reflect its scale and importance in overseeing capital delivery, governance and assurance. The Leader emphasised that these changes would create a more coherent senior management structure and confirmed that there would be no change to the remuneration of the Head of Service role. She then Moved the recommendations as set out in the report; Seconded by Councillor Joshua Beynon. Council discussed the report and the following key points were noted: Councillor Alec Cormack sought clarification on whether the salary of the Professional Construction Services Manager was fully capitalised. The Chief Executive advised that while he could not confirm whether the entire salary was capitalised, the proposal was that the additional grade uplift (approximately £25,000) would be capitalised. It was confirmed later that the uplift was fully capitalised. Councillor Jamie Adams added that, historically, such roles are often charged against capital projects, which may explain the cost-neutral position for the revenue budget. Councillor Adams then raised a potential issue involving matters that could relate to an identifiable individual and sought legal advice on whether discussion should proceed in public session. The Head of Law and Governance advised that where discussion could involve personal or exempt information, Council should consider moving into private session in accordance with the public interest test. At this juncture, it was Moved by Councillor Jamie Adams; Seconded by Councillor Elwyn Morse that the public be excluded from the meeting in order to receive exempt information relating to an individual. The vote to exclude the public, undertaken by way of an electronic vote, was carried. For the Motion: [32] Against the Motion: Councillors [6] Abstentions: [1] [Due to a technical error, the names were not recorded.] RESOLVED That the public be excluded from the meeting as it involved the likely disclosure of exempt information relating to an individual (Paragraphs 12 and 13 of Part 4 of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972 refers). Having excluded the public from the meeting, the Chief Executive and Leader responded to questions relating to the structure of the Authority’s Operating Model at the Senior level, the capacity of the post holders to take on the additional responsibility and the costs involved. [Councillor Di Clements left the meeting at this juncture.] The meeting then reconvened in open session for further discussion. Councillor Jamie Adams thanked Members and Officers for the responses provided in private session. He then sought further assurance regarding the capacity and capability of the current Head of Property to take on the additional responsibilities for economic development and regeneration. He noted that the post holder had been in position for approximately nine months and expressed concern that, as many members may have limited direct interaction with the role, there was insufficient publicly available assurance regarding performance and ability to take on the expanded portfolio. In response, the Leader advised that she had been part of the interview panel for the appointment of the Head of Property and was satisfied, based on the candidate’s detailed application and experience, that they were capable of undertaking the expanded role. She cautioned, however, that detailed discussion of an individual officer’s performance would be more appropriate in private session. The Chief Executive supplemented this by explaining that the proposed restructure included a rebalancing of responsibilities to address capacity concerns. Specifically, the Professional Construction Services function was proposed to be repositioned to report directly to the Director, thereby reducing the breadth of responsibilities under the Head of Service. He emphasised that this adjustment was intended to ensure the role remained manageable and effective, given the scale and cross-cutting nature of construction services across the organisation. Councillor Adams reiterated that, while he did not object to the principle of the proposal, he required clearer assurance regarding the individual’s performance and ability to meet expectations before supporting the recommendation. He maintained that such information was necessary for Members to make an informed decision. Consequently, Councillor Adams Moved a further procedural motion to return to private session to allow this matter to be considered appropriately. This motion was Seconded by Councillor Alan Dennison. The vote to exclude the public, undertaken by way of an electronic vote, was carried. For the Motion: Councillors Jamie Adams, Michelle Bateman, Maureen Bowen, David Bryan, Alistair Cameron, Aaron Carey, Pat Davies, John Davies, Alan Dennison, Tim Evans, Claire George, Simon Hancock, Delme Harries, Tessa Hodgson, David Howlett, Michael James, Michael John, Rhys Jordan, Phil Kidney, Paul Miller, Elwyn Morse, Huw Murphy, Nick Neumann, David Simpson, Scott Thorley, Anji Tinley, Marc Tierney, Vanessa Thomas, Guy Woodham, Tony Wilcox, Jacob Williams, Michael Williams, Simon Wright, Steve Yelland [34] Against the Motion: Councillors Steve Alderman, Joshua Beynon, Alec Cormack, Billy Shaw, Rhys Sinnett, Aled Thomas [6] There were no abstentions. RESOLVED That the public be excluded from the meeting as it involved the likely disclosure of exempt information relating to an individual (Paragraphs 12 and 13 of Part 4 of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972 refers). Having excluded the public from the meeting, the Chief Executive and Leader responded to further questions relating to the capacity of the post holders to take on the additional responsibility, arrangements for outsourcing work to third parties and salary costs. [Councillor Thomas Tudor joined the meeting during the closed session and Councillors Rhys Jordan and Tony Wilcox left the meeting.] The meeting then resumed in open session. Having thanked the Chief Executive, Leader and other Members for their answers and comments, Councillor Jamie Adams advised that he was supportive of the proposals. The vote for the Recommendations, undertaken by way of an electronic vote, was carried. For the Motion: Councillors Jamie Adams, Steve Alderman, Michelle Bateman, Joshua Beynon, David Bryan, Alistair Cameron, Aaron Carey, Alec Cormack, Pat Davies, John Davies, Alan Dennison, Tim Evans, Claire George, Simon Hancock, Delme Harries, Jon Harvey, Tessa Hodgson, David Howlett, Michael James, Michael John, Phillip Kidney, Paul Miller, Elwyn Morse, Huw Murphy, Nick Neumann, Billy Shaw, David Simpson, Rhys Sinnett, Marc Tierney, Scott Thorley, Aled Thomas, Vanessa Thomas, Thomas Tudor, Guy Woodham, Jacob Williams, Michael Williams, Simon Wright, Steve Yelland [38] Against the Motion: Councillor Anji Tinley [1] There were no abstentions. RESOLVED (a) That the redesignation and regrading of the Professional Construction Services Manager role to a Corporate Manager post reporting directly to the Director of Place/Assistant Chief Executive be noted. (b) That the proposed senior management restructuring as set out in the report, including the transfer of Economic Development and Regeneration to the Head of Property, be approved. (c) That the post be redesignated as Head of Property, Economic Development and Regeneration.
The meeting adjourned at 12:20pm for a short break and reconvened at 12:34pm. Councillors David Bryan and Rhys Sinnett left the meeting at this juncture.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED (a) That the redesignation of the Director of Place / Assistant Chief Executive to Deputy Chief Executive and Director of Place; and the revised organisational structure as set out in Appendix 3 of the report be approved. (b) That the advertisement of and recruitment to the post of Deputy Chief Executive and Director of Place on existing terms and conditions (Director scale) at the earliest opportunity and against the revised job description at Appendix 4, be approved. (c) That the Chief Executive overseeing the Place Directorate during any gap of director be approved. (d) That the Chief Executive be granted delegated authority to reallocate the Election Service and any responsibilities from the Corporate Operations and Resilience area across the Senior Leadership Team as deemed appropriate. (e) That the proposed changes are cost neutral, with no additional financial implications arising from the reallocation of responsibilities, at this stage, be noted. (f) That the Chief Executive will continue to review the operating model and organisational structure and will make further recommendations in due course be noted.
Council considered a report of the Senior Staff Committee seeking approval to proceed with the recruitment of a new Assistant Chief Executive/Director of Place in order to ensure continuity of strategic leadership and delivery of key services. The Leader, as Chair of the Senior Staff Committee, introduced the report concerning the forthcoming retirement of the current Assistant Chief Executive/Director of Place at the end of September 2026 and the arrangements to ensure continuity of leadership. The Committee had considered the matter on 22 June and agreed both the necessity to recruit to the post and the opportunity to review the role, its designation, and aspects of the Council’s wider operating model. It was proposed that the post be redesignated as Deputy Chief Executive and Director of Place to strengthen clarity around deputising arrangements for the Chief Executive while maintaining strategic leadership of the Place Directorate. Recruitment would proceed at the earliest opportunity on existing terms and conditions to minimise any leadership gap, with interim oversight provided by the Chief Executive. The proposals were intended to maintain service continuity, strengthen leadership resilience and support the evolution of the operating model on a broadly cost-neutral basis. The Leader Moved the recommendations as set out in the report; Seconded by Councillor Jon Harvey. Council discussed the report and the following key points were noted: Councillor Alec Cormack queried whether the role could be absorbed within the existing senior leadership structure. In response, the Leader advised that the Committee had unanimously supported retaining and redesignating the post in light of capacity considerations and the need for senior-level continuity. The vote, undertaken by way of an electronic vote, was carried. For the Motion: Councillors Jamie Adams, Steve Alderman, Michelle Bateman, Joshua Beynon, Maureen Bowen, Alistair Cameron, Aaron Carey, Alec Cormack, Pat Davies, John Davies, Tim Evans, Claire George, Simon Hancock, Delme Harries, Jon Harvey, Tessa Hodgson, David Howlett, Michael John, Phil Kidney, Paul Miller, Elwyn Morse, Huw Murphy, Nick Neumann, Billy Shaw, David Simpson, Aled Thomas, Anji Tinley, Marc Tierney, Guy Woodham, Jacob Williams, Michael Williams, Simon Wright, Steve Yelland [33] Against the Motion: Councillor Scott Thorley [1] Abstentions: Councillors Alan Dennison and Vanessa Thomas [2] RESOLVED (a) That the redesignation of the Director of Place / Assistant Chief Executive to Deputy Chief Executive and Director of Place; and the revised organisational structure as set out in Appendix 3 of the report be approved. (b) That the advertisement of and recruitment to the post of Deputy Chief Executive and Director of Place on existing terms and conditions (Director scale) at the earliest opportunity and against the revised job description at Appendix 4, be approved. (c) That the Chief Executive overseeing the Place Directorate during any gap of director be approved. (d) That the Chief Executive be granted delegated authority to reallocate the Election Service and any responsibilities from the Corporate Operations and Resilience area across the Senior Leadership Team as deemed appropriate. (e) That the proposed changes are cost neutral, with no additional financial implications arising from the reallocation of responsibilities, at this stage, be noted. (f) That the Chief Executive will continue to review the operating model and organisational structure and will make further recommendations in due course be noted.
Councillors must say when they have a personal link to something being discussed, such as a job, a property or a family member. A prejudicial interest is one strong enough that the councillor usually leaves the room and takes no part.
Declarations are read from the minutes once they are published.
Lists the council's current councillors only. Co-opted members, officers and former councillors aren't shown.