Loading
The decisions as the council's minutes record them. A plain-language summary follows once it has been written.
RESOLVED That the public be excluded from the meeting in accordance with Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 as Appendix C 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 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, the Committee considered the exempt Appendix. The webcast was then resumed at this juncture. The Chair then invited Councillor Huw Murphy, as the call-in submitter, to make any summing up remarks. In summing up, Councillor Murphy stated that the value of the call-in should be judged on the quality of the debate it had generated. He considered that the discussion had been constructive, had enabled information to be explored in greater detail and had provided Members with additional reassurances regarding the proposal. Councillor Murphy further commented that there appeared to be broad agreement amongst Members, Officers and the Cabinet Member that the Authority should proceed cautiously in relation to electric vehicle technologies. He thanked Members and Officers for their contributions to the debate. The Chair commented that the debate had provided useful discussion and reassurance on a number of matters raised through the call-in process. He suggested that Members may benefit from additional information on vehicle procurement, replacement programmes and emerging vehicle technologies. In response, the Assistant Chief Executive and Director of Place advised that Officers would arrange a seminar for Members. It was explained that the seminar could include information from the Welsh Government Energy Service regarding the assessment and evaluation of vehicle technologies together with additional information on fleet replacement programmes, vehicle utilisation and issues raised during the debate. The Cabinet Member suggested that any future seminar should include detailed information regarding electric vehicles, together with the background and origins of the Authority's policy relating to vehicles under 3.5 tonnes. The vote, undertaken by way of a roll call, was carried. The votes were recorded as follows: For the Motion: Councillors Steve Alderman, Mark Carter, John Cole, Rhys Jordan, Elwyn Morse, Nick Neumann, Shon Rees, Anji Tinley, Thomas Tudor and Tony Wilcox [10] There were no votes against or abstentions. RESOLVED That the decision of Cabinet, in regard to the Procurement of Passenger Carrying Vehicles – Vehicle replacement programme (three-year programme)from the 6 July 2026 meeting, be upheld, in the following terms: (a) That procurement of up to £2.4m of passenger carrying vehicles over a three-year period be approved. (b) That authorisation be granted for officers to undertake the procurement process for the supply of passenger carrying vehicles. (c) That authority be delegated to the Assistant Chief Executive and Director of Place to award contracts following completion of the procurement exercises. (d) That the procurement forms part of the approved Vehicle Replacement Programme and that the required capital funding has already been agreed within the Council’s Capital Programme, be noted.
Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Viv Stoddart and Chris Williams. Councillor Di Clements was substituted for this meeting only by Councillor Nick Neumann.
Councillor Huw Murphy, as the author of the call-in, was present to speak at the meeting with the Chair’s consent.
There were no declarations of interest made at this point in the meeting.
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 C 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 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, the Committee considered the exempt Appendix. The webcast was then resumed at this juncture. The Chair then invited Councillor Huw Murphy, as the call-in submitter, to make any summing up remarks. In summing up, Councillor Murphy stated that the value of the call-in should be judged on the quality of the debate it had generated. He considered that the discussion had been constructive, had enabled information to be explored in greater detail and had provided Members with additional reassurances regarding the proposal. Councillor Murphy further commented that there appeared to be broad agreement amongst Members, Officers and the Cabinet Member that the Authority should proceed cautiously in relation to electric vehicle technologies. He thanked Members and Officers for their contributions to the debate. The Chair commented that the debate had provided useful discussion and reassurance on a number of matters raised through the call-in process. He suggested that Members may benefit from additional information on vehicle procurement, replacement programmes and emerging vehicle technologies. In response, the Assistant Chief Executive and Director of Place advised that Officers would arrange a seminar for Members. It was explained that the seminar could include information from the Welsh Government Energy Service regarding the assessment and evaluation of vehicle technologies together with additional information on fleet replacement programmes, vehicle utilisation and issues raised during the debate. The Cabinet Member suggested that any future seminar should include detailed information regarding electric vehicles, together with the background and origins of the Authority's policy relating to vehicles under 3.5 tonnes. The vote, undertaken by way of a roll call, was carried. The votes were recorded as follows: For the Motion: Councillors Steve Alderman, Mark Carter, John Cole, Rhys Jordan, Elwyn Morse, Nick Neumann, Shon Rees, Anji Tinley, Thomas Tudor and Tony Wilcox [10] There were no votes against or abstentions. RESOLVED That the decision of Cabinet, in regard to the Procurement of Passenger Carrying Vehicles – Vehicle replacement programme (three-year programme)from the 6 July 2026 meeting, be upheld, in the following terms: (a) That procurement of up to £2.4m of passenger carrying vehicles over a three-year period be approved. (b) That authorisation be granted for officers to undertake the procurement process for the supply of passenger carrying vehicles. (c) That authority be delegated to the Assistant Chief Executive and Director of Place to award contracts following completion of the procurement exercises. (d) That the procurement forms part of the approved Vehicle Replacement Programme and that the required capital funding has already been agreed within the Council’s Capital Programme, be noted.
[During consideration of this item Councillor Shon Rees declared a personal interest by virtue of being a Director for Midway Coaches, which supplies transport to the Authority.] The Committee considered a report by the Head of Transport and Operations relating to the call-in of a Cabinet decision regarding the Procurement of Passenger Carrying Vehicles - Vehicle Replacement Programme (Three-Year Programme) made on 6 July 2026. The decision was called in on 9 July 2026 by Councillor Huw Murphy with the support of Councillors Michael John, Anji Tinley, John Cole, Alan Dennison, Jamie Adams, Shon Rees, Iwan Ward, Phil Kidney, Nick Neumann and Scott Thorley on the grounds that: (i) Further scrutiny was required regarding the impact of the £2.4m investment on the Council's Capital Programme; (ii) Additional assurance was required that the procurement represented value for money and followed appropriate processes; (iii) Greater scrutiny was considered necessary given the scale of the expenditure and the exclusion of the public from part of the Cabinet meeting; and (iv) Further examination was required regarding the robustness of the decision in light of previous vehicle procurement matters. The Chair invited Councillor Huw Murphy as the call-in submitter to present the reasons for calling in the decision. In addressing the Committee, Councillor Murphy stated that the call-in had been requested to enable further scrutiny of the proposed £2.4 million investment. He sought further information relating to vehicle utilisation, mileage, fleet size, replacement criteria, procurement options, the potential use of electric vehicles, associated costs, infrastructure requirements and value for money considerations. Councillor Huw Murphy also referred to previous vehicle procurement decisions and suggested that the matter could be referred to Full Council. In response, the Cabinet Member for Planning and Transport, Councillor Jacob Williams, advised that the approved funding already formed part of the Council's Capital Programme. He stated that the grounds for the call-in were unclear and confirmed that no debate on the Cabinet item had taken place in private session, with confidentiality relating only to an exempt appendix. Councillor Williams also expressed concern that some statements included within the call-in notice were inaccurate. Councillor Anji Tinley stated that further clarification was required regarding the proposed vehicles, including vehicle types, mileage and usage information, servicing and charging arrangements, procurement processes and delegated authority arrangements. The Chair noted that several additional questions had been raised which had not formed part of the original call-in submission and sought to ensure that Members and Officers received a copy of the questions, suggesting an adjournment may be needed in order for the questions to be reviewed. Councillor Murphy confirmed that the additional questions had not previously been circulated and agreed for them to be shared with Members and Officers. The Cabinet Member reiterated that many of the additional questions had not been included within the original call-in submission and would have been more appropriately raised in advance of the meeting. Councillor Rhys Jordan stated that, in his view, sufficient information was already available to allow consideration of the call-in and questioned the need for an adjournment. Following the discussion, the Chair determined that Members and Officers should be given an opportunity to consider the additional questions and adjourned the meeting until 15:30. [The meeting was paused for a short recess at 15:22 and then resumed at 15:30.] Following the adjournment, the Assistant Chief Executive and Director of Place advised that Officers had reviewed the additional questions submitted and would provide further information where available. He advised that vehicle replacement proposals were subject to value for money assessments and business case appraisals. He also explained that services were required to demonstrate an ongoing need for vehicles and that options including alternative service delivery methods, leasing arrangements and outright purchase were considered as part of the decision-making process. The Integrated Transport Unit (ITU) Operational Manager advised that vehicle replacement decisions were based on an industry-standard approach which assessed cumulative maintenance costs over the vehicle's lifespan. It was reported that vehicle replacement programmes were no longer based solely on vehicle age and that some vehicles remained in service beyond seven years where this represented value for money. The ITU Operational Manager further advised that information relating to average vehicle mileage was not immediately available but could be provided following the meeting. The Cabinet Member requested further information regarding the potential availability of Transport for Wales funding and the Authority's approach to replacing vehicles under 3.5 tonnes. In response, the ITU Manager advised that there was potential for Transport for Wales funding to support the replacement of certain vehicles. It was further reported that vehicles under 3.5 tonnes would generally be replaced with electric vehicles unless a business case demonstrated that an alternative solution was more appropriate. The Committee debated the contents of the report and information provided and the key points were highlighted as follows: · Councillor Mark Carter raised concerns regarding the Authority's experience of electric vehicles, the suitability of electric vehicles for operational requirements and the availability of charging infrastructure. In response, the ITU Manager advised that demonstration vehicles had been trialled by services, suitability assessments had been undertaken and charging infrastructure was available for vehicles currently anticipated to require replacement at Tiers Cross Depot. · Councillor Shon Rees commented on vehicle procurement options, including leasing arrangements, electric vehicle technology and residual values, and requested information regarding the number of vehicles above and below 3.5 tonnes included within the replacement programme. In response, the ITU Operational Manager advised that two of the 29 vehicles fell below the 3.5 tonne threshold, with the remainder exceeding that weight. · Councillor Rhys Jordan enquired whether external transport operators could deliver some routes in place of Council-operated services. In response, the Assistant Chief Executive and Director of Place and the Head of Transport and Operations advised that transport contracts were regularly tendered and that market testing was undertaken to ensure value for money. It was further reported that the Authority had recently tendered 75 school transport contracts and continued to review delivery arrangements. · Councillor Mark Carter questioned the vehicle replacement threshold based on maintenance costs. In response, the ITU Operational Manager advised that vehicles were assessed individually and that some vehicles were retained as spare fleet vehicles where appropriate. · Councillor John Cole requested further information on the use of spare vehicles and whether vehicle parts could be utilised to support other fleet vehicles. The ITU Operational Manager advised that reserve vehicles were used to maintain service continuity and, where appropriate, parts could be utilised from vehicles awaiting disposal. · Councillor Cole asked about the Authority's preparedness for future vehicle requirements. In response, the Assistant Chief Executive and Director of Place advised that wider fleet strategy matters could be considered separately through future Member briefings. · Councillor Tinley raised questions regarding hydrogen, hybrid and electric vehicle options. In response, the Assistant Chief Executive and Director of Place and the ITU Operational Manager advised that alternative technologies had been considered, although electric vehicles were currently considered the most viable option in relevant circumstances. · Councillor Rhys Jordan requested advice on the options available to the Committee in relation to the call-in. In response, the Principal Solicitor and Deputy Monitoring Officer advised that the Committee could uphold the Cabinet decision, refer the matter back to Cabinet or refer the matter to Full Council. Councillor Anji Tinley Moved that the matter be referred back to Cabinet on the basis that questions relating to mileage, lease versus purchase arrangements, charging infrastructure and tendering alternatives required further consideration before the £2.4 million commitment proceeded; Seconded by Councillor John Cole. Following advice from the Principal Solicitor and Deputy Monitoring Officer, it was confirmed that the Committee could not defer consideration of the matter. Councillor Anji Tinley subsequently amended her proposal to refer the decision back to Cabinet on the basis that questions relating to mileage, lease versus purchase arrangements, charging infrastructure and tendering alternatives had not been answered in sufficient detail and required further consideration before the £2.4 million commitment proceeded. Councillor John Cole declined to second the amended proposal on the basis that he believed the questions had been answered during the meeting’s debate, and as a consequence the proposal fell. Councillor Rhys Jordan stated that the debate had provided additional information and answered a number of outstanding questions. He expressed the view that referring the matter back to Cabinet was unlikely to provide further information. Councillor Jordan then Moved that the Decision made by Cabinet, in regard to the Procurement of Passenger Carrying Vehicles – Vehicle replacement programme (three-year programme)from the 6 July 2026 meeting, be upheld; Seconded by Councillor Steve Alderman. The Principal Solicitor and Deputy Monitoring Officer advised that, as the Cabinet report had included an exempt appendix, the Committee would be required to consider the matter in private session in order to preserve confidentiality. Moved by Councillor Mark Carter; Seconded by Councillor Steve Alderman. The vote was taken by way of a show of hands and carried. RESOLVED That the public be excluded from the meeting in accordance with Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 as Appendix C 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 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, the Committee considered the exempt Appendix. The webcast was then resumed at this juncture. The Chair then invited Councillor Huw Murphy, as the call-in submitter, to make any summing up remarks. In summing up, Councillor Murphy stated that the value of the call-in should be judged on the quality of the debate it had generated. He considered that the discussion had been constructive, had enabled information to be explored in greater detail and had provided Members with additional reassurances regarding the proposal. Councillor Murphy further commented that there appeared to be broad agreement amongst Members, Officers and the Cabinet Member that the Authority should proceed cautiously in relation to electric vehicle technologies. He thanked Members and Officers for their contributions to the debate. The Chair commented that the debate had provided useful discussion and reassurance on a number of matters raised through the call-in process. He suggested that Members may benefit from additional information on vehicle procurement, replacement programmes and emerging vehicle technologies. In response, the Assistant Chief Executive and Director of Place advised that Officers would arrange a seminar for Members. It was explained that the seminar could include information from the Welsh Government Energy Service regarding the assessment and evaluation of vehicle technologies together with additional information on fleet replacement programmes, vehicle utilisation and issues raised during the debate. The Cabinet Member suggested that any future seminar should include detailed information regarding electric vehicles, together with the background and origins of the Authority's policy relating to vehicles under 3.5 tonnes. The vote, undertaken by way of a roll call, was carried. The votes were recorded as follows: For the Motion: Councillors Steve Alderman, Mark Carter, John Cole, Rhys Jordan, Elwyn Morse, Nick Neumann, Shon Rees, Anji Tinley, Thomas Tudor and Tony Wilcox [10] There were no votes against or abstentions. RESOLVED That the decision of Cabinet, in regard to the Procurement of Passenger Carrying Vehicles – Vehicle replacement programme (three-year programme)from the 6 July 2026 meeting, be upheld, in the following terms: (a) That procurement of up to £2.4m of passenger carrying vehicles over a three-year period be approved. (b) That authorisation be granted for officers to undertake the procurement process for the supply of passenger carrying vehicles. (c) That authority be delegated to the Assistant Chief Executive and Director of Place to award contracts following completion of the procurement exercises. (d) That the procurement forms part of the approved Vehicle Replacement Programme and that the required capital funding has already been agreed within the Council’s Capital Programme, 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.