The constitution, councillors' conduct, audit, performance and complaints.
What councils do
How the council itself is run: its constitution, staff, buildings, IT, complaints, and how councillors behave.
Who decides
The full Council agrees the constitution. A standards committee deals with councillors' conduct; the Public Services Ombudsman for Wales investigates complaints.
Having a say
Complain to the council first; if you're not satisfied, you can go to the Ombudsman. Council meetings are public, and many are broadcast.
In numbers
Welsh councils plan to spend £67 per person on this in 2026-27.
It ranges from -£4 in Monmouthshire to £167 in Blaenau Gwent.
Council tax collected: 95% across Wales (2025-26).
Council tax unpaid at the end of the year: £119 million across Wales (2025-26).
Council tax still owed from earlier years: £199.3 million across Wales (2025-26).
Council tax written off: £9 million across Wales (2025-26).
RESOLVED – T H A T the revised Guide to Public Speaking at Planning
Committee, attached at Appendix A to the report to Planning Committee on
25th January, 2024 (Minute No. 731), be endorsed subject to the Planning
Public Speaking Guide being amended to read that public speaking time for
Elected Members of the Vale of Glamorgan Council not on the Planning
Committee be increased from three minutes to five minutes.
Reason for decision
Having regard to the contents of the report, discussions at the meeting and in
line with the Council’s Constitution.
RESOLVED – T H A T the revised Guide to Public Speaking at Public Rights
of Way Sub-Committee, attached at Appendix A to the report to Planning
Committee on 25th January, 2024 (Minute No. 732), be endorsed subject to
the guide being amended to read that public speaking time for Elected
Members of the Vale of Glamorgan Council not on the Public Rights of Way
Sub-Committee be increased from three minutes to five minutes.
Reason for decision
Having regard to the contents of the report, discussions at the meeting and in
line with the Council’s Constitution.
RESOLVED – T H A T paragraph 4.24.5 titled Recorded Vote of the Council’s
Constitution be replaced with the paragraph below:-
A member present at the meeting may ask for the names for and against the
motion or amendment or abstaining from voting to be taken down in writing
and entered into the minutes. A request for a recorded vote will override a
demand for a ballot.
No.
Reason for decision
Having regard to the debate and the decision at the meeting.
N.B. – It being noted that on screen the vote showed 49 electronic votes with
three Members in the Chamber raising their hands in their support of the
altered Motion.
RESOLVED –
(1) T H A T the changes to the relevant officer delegations as set out in
paragraphs 2.2 to 2.6 of the report be approved and that Section 26 of the
Constitution be amended accordingly.
(2) T H A T the change to the relevant delegation as set out in paragraph
2.7 of the report be approved, subject to the reference at item 13(b) Corporate
Fraud Enforcement Policy on the Council agenda being agreed.
Reason for decisions
(1&2) To update the Officer Delegation Scheme within the current
Constitution.
RESOLVED –
(1) T H A T the policy with regard to not granting any level of discount for
unoccupied dwellings that have remained so for 6 months agreed for 2023-24,
be agreed for 2024-25.
(2) T H A T the long term empty property premium of 100% be agreed for
the 2023-24 financial year and continue for such properties from 2024-25 that
remain so for the period up to (but not including) 24 months.
(3) T H A T from 1st April, 2024 a premium of 150% be introduced for long
term empty properties that have remained as such for a continuous period of
24 months or more.
(4) T H A T from 1st April, 2025 a premium of 200% be introduced for long
term empty properties that have remained as such for a continuous period of
36 months or more.
(5) T H A T the policy to introduce a premium of 100% on second homes
for the 2024-25 financial year be agreed and reaffirmed.
Reasons for decisions
(1) The Council was required to determine its policy on discounts in
relation to unoccupied dwellings as defined in classes A, B and C to the
Council Tax (Prescribed Class of Dwellings) (Wales) Regulations 1998 each
year.
(2&4) The Council was required to determine its policy regarding premiums in
respect of long-term empty properties as defined in Sections 12A and 12B of
the Local Government Finance Act 1992 as inserted by the Housing (Wales)
Act 2014.
No.
(3) Upon reviewing the implementation of the premium for long term empty
properties introduced from the start of 1st April 2023, it was felt that a straight
increase to the premium levels as previously proposed, may counteract the
intention of the policy, which was to bring long term empty properties back
into use, if the level of charges due hindered necessary works required to
make a dwelling habitable. As such it was felt that a stepped approach would
be more in keeping with the policy to ensure that persistent long term empty
properties were targeted.
(5) The Council was required to determine its policy regarding premiums in
respect of second homes as defined in Sections 12A and 12B of the Local
Government Finance Act1992 as inserted by the Housing (Wales) Act 2014.
CORPORATE FRAUD ENFORCEMENT POLICY (REF)
Cabinet had considered the report on 25th January, 2024 (Minute No. C220)
together with the reference from Governance and Audit Committee of
11th December, 2023 (Minute No. 636) and had referred the same to Council
for consideration and approval. Having regard to the contents of the report
and the previous discussions at the meeting earlier in the meeting in respect
of the report titled amendments to the Constitution, it was subsequently
RESOLVED – T H A T the report and the Officer Delegation Scheme and
relevant provisions within the current Constitution be updated to reflect the
changes referred to in the report and as considered earlier in the agenda
under the Amendments to the Constitution report.
Reason for decision
To update the Officer Delegation Scheme and relevant provisions within the
current Constitution to reflect the changes outlined within the report and as
considered under an earlier report in the agenda.
DRAFT VALE OF GLAMORGAN COUNCIL ANNUAL DELIVERY PLAN 2024-25 (REF)
Cabinet had considered the report on 22nd February, 2024 (Minute No. C248
refers) and had referred the same to Council for consideration and approval.
The Leader took the opportunity to remind Members that the initial draft had
been considered by Cabinet and the Scrutiny Committees with the amended
draft coming back to Cabinet and to the Corporate Performance and
Resources Scrutiny Committee. Members had stated that they had been
pleased with the way the report had been presented which demonstrated how
their feedback had been included, with Members also being able to easily see
where the changes had been made.
There being no further comments, it was
No.
RESOLVED – T H A T the draft Annual Delivery Plan 2024-25, as attached at
Appendix A to the report to Cabinet on 22nd February, 2024 (Minute No.
C248), be approved.
Reason for decision
Having regard to the contents of the report and discussions at the meeting.
DRAFT BUDGET 2024/25 AND MEDIUM TERM FINANCIAL PLAN 2024/25 TO 2028/29 (REF)
The Leader advised that the proposals had been published at the end of the
previous week, prior to the availability of Welsh Government ‘s settlement
figures. There had been no changes to the overall settlement following that
announcement but there was additional detail regarding the Standard
Spending Assessment that was subsequently detailed in the supplementary
information that had been distributed to all Members and published online
prior to the Cabinet meeting on 29th February, 2024.
The Council faced significant financial pressures in excess of £38m initially
and had undertaken significant work to mitigate those pressures. As a result,
it had not been possible to fund pay awards in full and there were limited
resources to meet the full demands of care providers to fully meet
demographic growth and the complexity of services required.
A 3.4% increase in the grant received by the Council from Welsh Government
alongside the proposed 6.7% increase in Council Tax fell short of meeting the
additional costs.
There would be a further UK budget announcement on the same day the
report would be considered by Full Council, and it remained to be seen if
there would be any further funding made available for Local Government, but
it was not expected there would be any further matters for Council to consider
on 6th March.
Consultation on how to allocate the available resources had taken place,
including a 4-week public budget consultation, consideration by the five
Council Scrutiny Committees and the ‘Life in the Vale’ survey where residents
were asked for their views on what they expected from the Council, where
residents were supportive of the ambition to target resources to social care,
affordable housing and schools and less supportive of any Council Tax
increase and increase in discretionary charges by the rate of inflation.
Council Tax levels in the Vale of Glamorgan were below the Welsh average
and below the level of expected rises for many Authorities across Wales, with
10% or more having been proposed by some.
No.
There had been in-depth discussions at Scrutiny but no alternatives put
forward prior to consideration at Full Council, where it was difficult to take
proposals on board at that point and achieve a balanced budget as was the
legal requirement for the Authority to do, but there would be a full debate at
Full Council on the day.
The proposal concerning charging for toilets at coastal areas had been
removed as Members felt that was not something they could support and the
£5k saving would be found elsewhere. The next year’s £7.7m savings
programme was mostly tactical and looked at how to provide and deliver
services more effectively, along with some transformational initiatives, as
having another multi-million pound savings programme next year would be
challenging.
The Leader further commented that the Cabinet and officers had been
working on the budget since June 2023. In July 2023 Cabinet had referred
the Financial Strategy to all Scrutiny Committees and November had brought
the refreshed Medium Term Financial Plan. Christmas had been cancelled
for a lot of the officers and a number of Cabinet Members. The things that it
had hoped to do were no longer possible until the funding gap could be
reduced to a reasonable level. In January 2024 the draft budget was
presented to all Scrutiny Committees which were attended by the Cabinet
Members who had listened to the discussions. There were some things she
said that were unpalatable, not liked and had reluctantly been accepted but
one recommendation had been made which had been accepted by Cabinet
that the proposed charges to Coastal toilets be removed.
The budget this evening, she said, proposed for a balanced budget, which
was required to be delivered by 11th March, considerations for which had
included the money that the Council would receive from Council Tax and as
the Council wanted to continue to support bus services and not make car
parking charges on streets etc., a 6.7% Council Tax was being proposed.
The budget was also she said based on supporting the Council’s most
vulnerable.
In referring to the recent Living in the Vale Survey she said the top priority for
residents had been easy accessibility to care and health care, the second
priority the ability to buy or rent a good quality home. The cost of living crisis
had also not gone away, in the feedback received 60% of respondents said
that they had chosen not to put the heating on at times, and 44% of them said
that they could not pay an unexpected bill of £850, so if their boiler went that
would be it.
There were a number of pressures for the Council, pressures in terms of
demography not just numbers of people but the complexity and scale of need,
people's lives and lived experience were hugely diverse in the Vale and as a
result the need was hugely diverse. Since the pandemic the Council was
aware that older residents had become more isolated, more frail and required
more care. Young people were struggling with anxiety and there were
behavioural issues across the Vale with the Council having to consider a
No.
range of ways to meet such needs. Service redesigns were being considered
and looking for ways to do things more effectively. Reviews of the street
cleansing service, litter etc, would be undertaken as well as transformational
change. The Leader referred to other areas of good work that had taken
place, which had included reshaping of the Library services, Big Fresh was
also delivering not only Universal Free School Meals to primary children, but
also delivering a surplus that can be reinvested into schools. Income
generation was being considered as well as generating income from fees and
charges for non-statutory services. However although the financial position
was difficult the Council, through its proposed budget, was still delivering
many services.
The Leader also referred to other aspects of Council provision such as each
week 105 recycling rounds were out in the communities with each vehicle
collecting from 550 properties a day. As a result over 850 articulated lorries
full of material that could be sold or reused with this year forecasting income
of between £1.2m and £1.4m from processing recycling at the new recycling
facility. With the support of residents the Council had managed to deliver over
a 70% recycling outcome being one of the top in Wales, one of the top in the
UK and actually one of the top in Europe.
The Council also managed 30 Feature Parks, 21 Recreation Grounds, 13
Conservation Parks, 88 Play Areas and 9 Skateboard areas and has 38
football pitches, 13 mini football pitches alongside rugby pitches, cricket, etc
which are all still supported. Over the past 3 years the Council had delivered
over 177,000 meters of active travel shared use being pedestrian and cycling
paths. The Council offered child pedestrian training, delivered cycle shelters
in schools and bought bikes for schools. 20 Car Parks were owned and
controlled by the Vale with only two of the town centre car parks with a
charge. The Leader further advised that 52,567 square meters of
carriageway resurfacing had been undertaken in the year, 3,261 square
meters of footway improvements and surface water gullies had been
cleansed. The Leader concluded by stating that she would be happy to
circulate some of the information recognising that the Council was still
providing services. With regard to queries of measuring productivity that she
had heard being said at meetings, she questioned how did you choose or
measure how productive a care worker was, how did you look at productivity
when you've had a child with severe learning needs. The Council would
measure where it was appropriate to do so and she ended by presenting the
budget to Council which was duly seconded by Councillor Brooks who
reserved her right to speak later in the debate.
Councillor Carroll commenced by saying the Labour Council was asking
residents to pay more for less. He said Labour had failed to show leadership
and manage budgets properly and was therefore imposing cuts to services
and charging for things like garden waste collections. He drew attention to
the multi-million pound bus station and enquired as to how much this Authority
spent on diversity and inclusion. At the Healthy Living and Social Care
Scrutiny Committee meeting Councillor Cave had made perfectly reasonable
comments about the funding of bus services in the rural Vale but instead of
No.
addressing Councillor Cave's concerns, the Leader ‘s comments many
residents had told him they considered to be a smear with Councillor Cave
being accused of using inflammatory language. Perhaps he said the Leader
could enlighten Council as to what aspect of Councillor Cave's remarks were
considered inflammatory. He also referred to a recent report where the
Leader had stated the 2% cut in National Insurance contributions announced
in November by the Conservative UK Government was disappointing and that
she had confirmed that this Council opposed tax cuts for millions of working
people with he said his only assumption from those comments was that the
Leader would oppose further tax cuts that had been announced that day.
The 6.7% rise proposed he said fitted with his view of the Administration’s
attitude that residents should pay more. The rise proposed significantly
exceeded inflation with CPI currently standing at 4%. He felt the rise was not
necessary as the Council had tens of millions of pounds in usable reserves
including £10,177mn sat in the bank in the Council Fund as a percentage of
the Authority's Revenue budget. If the Authority was to consider a real terms
freeze in Council Tax and increase it in line with inflation at 4% it would cost
£2,505m but given the amount held in Reserves it would be possible to go
further than that and to cut Council Tax in real terms, which is what he said
the Council should do. A 3% rise would cost £3.435m which he said would be
below the rate of inflation. This real terms cut stood in stark contrast to the
6.7% rise proposed by Labour and would ease the pressures on working
people across the Vale, so on behalf of the Conservative Group he proposed
an amendment to the revenue budget which would transfer £3.435m from the
Council's General Fund balances to support the base budget and he urged all
Members to support the amendment.
Councillor Charles, in seconding the amendment, said the additional income
required by the Council could well be taken from Reserves which the
taxpayers of the Vale of Glamorgan had already contributed to. She said she
believed this could be the fairest way of raising the revenue instead of
increasing the pressure on every household. The budget management of the
Council had, in her view, been mismanaged by Labour backed up Llantwit
Firsts and the people of the Vale of Glamorgan deserved better.
Councillor Dr. Johnson, speaking to the amendment by Councillor Carroll
whilst reserving his right to speak later on the proposed budget, asked after
listening to the Conservatives uncosted amendment taking money out of the
Reserves if £3.5m was taken out of the Reserves did the Conservative Group
have any idea how to return it as it would obviously be using the exact same
£3.5m next year and the year after and then the Council would be left with
nothing in the Reserves. This was not the way to run a Council, stating that
unfortunately the Conservatives had created the problems that were before
the Council. In 2010 Britain's debt was £1 trillion and now it's £2.7 trillion so
this was quite a shambles. What sort of ridiculous regime increased or cut
one country's budget based on the spending of a government in another
country. Taking a look at public spending in its entirety there was more spent
per head in London than anywhere else. A little bit higher than in Scotland
and Northern Ireland. The spending per head in London, Scotland and
No.
Northern Ireland was 500 times higher annually almost 4%, even if Wales only
received funding on an equal footing with these three it would be richer to the
tune of £1.5 billion and this was the type of money which could transform the
Vale’s local services and ensure that the Council did not need to increase
Council Tax as has been suggested, but the we don't and this was leading to
difficult decisions for all of us. Of course in Scotland the SNP Government
had used part of the additional funding to freeze Council Tax realising the
impact of the economic storm for families, but here with the challenging
budget across Wales the ordinary people must pay more a lot more to
maintain even basic services. Councillor Dr. Johnson ended by saying that
he did not accept the figures presented by the Conservative Group which had
not been costed in either a sensible or responsible manner which could be
sustained.
Councillor Wilson commented that he thought the amendment was pretty
interesting, in that we would be looking at a 3% Council Tax increase at least
where as in previous years the Conservatives had suggested no increase.
He said that in his view the Conservative Group did not have the right to talk
about financial mismanagement as Councillor Dr. Johnson had rightly said,
we have got huge issues with our debt at the moment. Referring to 2008
where he said Labour helped out the banks and stopped people running out
of money at cash points, which had happened in other places like Cyprus.
We do not need any lessons from the Conservatives about financial
management he said as in his view they didn’t have a clue how to manage the
budget.
Councillor Godfrey commented that if people were quoting facts then they
should be correct and encapsulate the whole picture including the impact of
the Ukraine war and BREXIT and he felt it quite wrong if people were not
doing that.
Councillor Hodges, in response to Councillor Godfrey’s comments, said yes
the Ukraine war and Covid had a dramatic effect on balances as did Brexit but
he felt that there was plenty of other mismanagement going on as well.
Councillor Goodjohn considered that the amendment didn’t appear to be a
very tactical solution to the Council’s issues and enquired of Councillor Carroll
as to exactly what mismanagement of the budget issues there were in the
Revenue proposals. He also asked the Conservative Leader to consider that
taking from Reserves would quite frankly cause cash flow issues in the
Council and what he would propose do in such situations as if there were
cash flow issues in the Council people would have delays in getting vital
services which would impact on their lives, being people's real lives here in
the real world rather than some abstract idea. He also took the opportunity to
remind Council of the current 10% inflation rate.
Councillor Hodges, in drawing attention to Social Care costs, said if they were
not funded what would happen going forward further, commenting that the
NHS was already struggling because of mismanagement from the
Conservative Government and its finances stating that he could not support
No.
the amendment as it had not been fully costed and would mean a cut in
schools provision and social care.
Councillor John said he could not believe what he was hearing from the
Conservative Group referring to the months of discussion on the budget that
had already taken place and that it was a good job the Council had reserves.
He mentioned other Councils, in particular Monmouth Council, who he said
did not have any Reserves to help them and their Council Tax had gone up to
7.5%.
Councillor Franks, listening with interest to Councillor Carroll’s and the
Conservative Members’ comments, said he felt that they were basically
saying that apart from them no one else could financially manage the Council
and referred to the catastrophic failures of Conservative Councils in England.
The Leader, in response, said that in her view the amendment was completely
preposterous in view of the financial position facing the Council and that she
would be voting against the amendment.
Councillor Perry said it was a shame that as Elected Members elected by the
communities that there was a lack of togetherness. He said he applauded
attempts to get rid of Council Tax or severely change it as, in his view, a land
value tax would be much fairer. He said he would not be supporting the
amendment because he believed that his residents would rather not spend
money on new tyres and suspensions on their vehicles that they would rather
if there were Reserves fix the roads and fix the other services and stop relying
on volunteers to run services and stop cheering the minority getting wealthier
and wealthier and have a more equitable society.
Following a vote on the amendment the amendment was lost it being noted
12 were in favour, 38 against and one abstention.
Councillor Dr. Johnson, speaking on the substantive Motion, said it had been
interesting to hear the conversations taking place and that some people might
almost be surprised to hear that he sympathised with the Leader of the
Council in respect of the challenge before her, but that was why Plaid did not
accept the propaganda about the Council being a great Council because the
average person did not feel this. We as a Council needed to provide on
demand services which were quickly rising as a result of lack of investment in
preventative services. We needed to consider the relationship between the
people that we served and the funding. Welsh Government added extra
funding at the last minute and that increased £25m between the provisional
and the final settlement £600,000 through to the Revenue Grant and around
£500,000 through the introduction of the K Grant where we're expecting a loss
and furthermore additional funding in the Housing Support Grant last week.
How much was still unclear but the Council intended to keep Council Tax at
the same level rather than considering a cut like last year when we received
last minute funding which the Council put in its Reserves. This year we
considered our energy savings to be too tight and so the money needed to go
to the coffers for that rather than reducing Council Tax. There was no
No.
scrutiny, and he had been to all of the meetings, there was no scrutiny which
would change the minds of those deciding Council Taxes and setting aside
funding elsewhere in the budget. He had mentioned in the past how the
Council looked after its bank balance before considering the public's needs
and of course this year the figures before us showed some spend of the
Reserves of £51m which was almost a half. Let's see if this was true because
the same types of figures which were provided to us in the past had been
incorrect. But he said there were challenges nonetheless. The public had
seen a huge cost of living rise over the last years from energy costs, everyday
shopping costs and housing costs, including 12.5% over the last two years for
people in our Council houses. He understood that the budget was tight but
said what was the purpose of Welsh Government providing extra funding for
Councils in the final settlement if it was only put into Reserves.
A number of things he said concerned him, he didn’t like the idea of the
administrative fee for residents in parking permanent zones. Of course he
stated the Council could provide any service if it forced people to pay for it.
There was not enough money for fundamental core services for residents
although he accepted that the situation was a difficult one, as was the case for
all Councils, and he expressed his concern that the mix of cuts for Council’s
consideration and the increase in Council Tax stating that between the both of
them this was not acceptable and that he would be voting against the Motion.
Councillor Brooks said the reality was that more and more Councils were
being pushed to the financial brink. More Councils had issued a Section 114
Notice in the previous year than in the previous 30 years combined which she
said was quite astounding. Welsh Government had quite rightly put the
protection of public services at the front and centre of their budget, however
the Council could not get away from the fact that their funding had been cut
for the last 14 years from the Westminster Government leaving them with no
alternative but to reduce their transfer funding for Local Authorities. The cost
of living crisis came out as a significant issue in the recent survey with 42% of
the population citing easily accessible care and health care closely followed
by the buying or renting of good quality homes. These were the issues that
really mattered to people and their priorities she said and she stood by the
commitment to protect services which supported the Council’s most
vulnerable residents. However, in conclusion she said difficult decisions had
to be made to deliver a balanced and fair budget and she was pleased that
the Council had been able to protect supported bus services as she felt many
residents in rural and deprived communities relied on the bus services.
Councillor Franks commented that the Council had heard about potholes
being filled, a bit of resurfacing, grass being cut, road gullies being emptied,
which was basically the standard work of all Councils. However, what did
surprise him a little bit was the quick reference to support for Education. He
was not sure if he had misheard but that's what he thought he heard, but our
support for education has led to a disastrous situation in our schools, we've
also heard a mention about people's priorities that was good to be reminded,
but he didn't think we heard mention of the consultation with the public which,
if his memory served him right, did not support the proposed level of increase.
No.
He wondered why we had that omission. Whereas other facts were
highlighted, he considered there to be an element of cherry-picking. In the
previous year’s budget debate almost a year to the day, the Cabinet proposed
a £2m plus cut in schools with Cabinet being warned at that time that this
would have had a terrible impact on school budgets. This was disregarded by
Labour Members who, in his view he said, cheerfully dismissed such
warnings. The result had been over 20 schools now facing a deficit budget, of
these 19 apparently indicated that there was no prospect of recovery within 3
years, however since then he understood that the situation had worsened,
both in terms of the numbers of schools and the size of the deficits. He
therefore asked how can we and the public have any faith in this year's
budget process now seeing that this year's allocation to schools would
basically be following last year's allocation. What was the situation going to
be in a year's time for our schools? What was going to be the size of the
deficits? How many schools were going to be facing at least 3 years in the
red and to add to their problems he understood that schools were going to be
asked to pay for school crossing patrols and for elements of grass cutting?
We really do need to know what the impact would be on schools in 2024/25.
What would be the accumulated overspend and what was the anticipated
overspend in the following year and he welcomed comments from the Cabinet
Member for Education on these points.
Councillor Birch, advising that she would be unable to answer all of the points
at the meeting that evening, said that all of the schools that had budget
deficits had been assisted by the finance teams with schools unable to
recover their deficits within 3 years being offered plans to restructure the debt
that they had so that they could eventually balance their budgets. Going
forward she could not say what the deficits would be like in three years’ time,
rather she hoped that they would be balanced. Furthermore, Councillor Birch
added that all that had been said during the debate had been about the
difficulties of various events in the last few years and the toll that that had
taken on budgets everywhere, so schools were not going to be immune from
that. It was obvious that balancing budgets was going to be more difficult for
some schools than others.
In conclusion, the Leader referred to the number of times the budget process
had been considered by Cabinet and Scrutiny however she was disappointed
with the questions at Council when a lot of the discussion could have been
held at the Scrutiny Committee meetings over the year with suggestions being
put forward for consideration. In referring to the issues of diversity and
inclusion that had been commented on during the debate, the Leader drew
attention to the budget for Corporate Resources being only 5% of the overall
total. Having regard to Reserves she said the detail was contained within the
report although they had been rationalised. In referring to the comments
relating to the 2% cut in National Insurance the Leader mentioned that if one
was of retirement age they wouldn’t receive this cut.
The Leader subsequently took the opportunity to repeat her earlier comments
that the proposed budget was a budget to protect the most vulnerable and
moved the recommendations within the report.
No.
The motion moved by the Leader and seconded by Councillor Brooks was
subsequently voted upon.
A recorded vote took place on the recommendations as contained within the
reference and the report, as follows:-
Members For Against Abstain
Anne Asbrey x
Julie Aviet x
Gareth Ball x
Rhiannon Birch x
Bronwen Brooks x
Gillian Bruce x
Ian Buckley x
Lis Burnett x
Samantha Campbell x
George Carroll x
Christine Cave x
Charles Champion x
Janice Charles x
Millie Collins x
Marianne Cowpe x
Pamela Drake x
Vincent Driscoll
Anthony Ernest x
Robert Fisher x
Christopher Franks x
No.
Wendy Gilligan x
Russell Godfrey x
Emma Goodjohn x
Ewan Goodjohn x
Stephen Haines x
Howard Hamilton x
Sally Hanks x
William Hennessy x
Nic Hodges x
Catherine Iannucci x
Gwyn John x
Dr. Ian Johnson x
Susan Lloyd-Selby x
Julie Lynch-Wilson x
Kevin Mahoney x
Naomi Marshallsea x
Michael Morgan x
Jayne Norman x
Helen Payne x
Elliot Penn x
Sandra Perkes x
Ian Perry x
Joanna Protheroe x
Ruba Sivagnanam x
Carys Stallard x
No.
Neil Thomas x
Rhys Thomas x
Steffan Wiliam x
Margaret Wilkinson x
Eddie Williams x
Mark Wilson x
Nicholas Wood x
TOTAL 30 21
The vote being carried, it was
RESOLVED –
(1) T H A T a Council Tax increase of 6.7% be approved.
(2) T H A T the Revenue budget for 2024/25 and Medium Term Financial
Plan 24/25 to 28/29 be approved.
(3) T H A T the fees and charges presented for approval in January 2024,
which stood unchanged following review by Scrutiny, be noted.
(4) T H A T the information provided in the supplemental report to Cabinet
th
on 29 February 2024 regarding updated Standard Spending Assessment
figures be endorsed.
Reasons for decisions
(1) Setting the annual rate of Council Tax was a key policy decision for
Council.
(2) Setting a balanced budget was a statutory responsibility and decision
for Full Council.
(3) To confirm fees and charges for 2024/25.
(4) Having regard to the supplemental information which provided Full
Council with the most up to date figures as part of its final budget
deliberations.
No.
CAPITAL STRATEGY 2024/25 AND FINAL CAPITAL PROGRAMME PROPOSALS 2024/25 TO 2028/29 (REF)
Cabinet had considered the report on 29th February, 2024 (Minute No. C261)
and had referred the same to Council for consideration and approval.
Appendix 1 to the report provided the Council's Capital Strategy for 2024/25.
The Capital Strategy provided a framework which outlined how capital
expenditure, capital financing and treasury management activity contributed to
the provision of corporate objectives, along with an overview of how
associated risk was managed and the implications for future financial
sustainability.
The report set out the Council’s proposed Final Capital Programme for the
period 2024/25 to 2028/29 at Appendix 2.
The Council was facing significant pressures in relation to price inflation and
the cost-of-living crisis which had seen increases in the costs of materials and
labour. This had had an impact on the current schemes within the Capital
Programme and the funding available to fund new schemes within the Capital
Programme.
The total value of capital schemes over the next five years was £387.582m
which included £25.376m for the Band B Sustainable Communities for
Learning Programme (excluding the pipeline schemes) and £205.775m for the
Housing Improvement Programme.
Since the Draft Capital Programme proposals report in January, a number of
changes had been made including the reprofile and allocation of
decarbonisation schemes, City Deal reprofile, slippage from the 2023/24
Capital Programme into the 2024/25 Capital Programme and the Llanmaes
match funding was no longer being removed from the five year proposals.
The detail of these changes was covered later in the report.
The Leader subsequently moved the recommendations in the report, which
were seconded by Councillor Brooks, and there being no dissent it was
RESOLVED –
(1) T H A T the Capital Strategy 2024/25, as set out in Appendix 1 to the
report to Cabinet on 29th February, 2024 (Minute No. C261), be approved.
(2) T H A T the final Capital Programme for the years 2024/25 to 2028/29,
as set out in Appendix 2 to the report to Cabinet on 29th February, 2024
(Minute No. C261), be approved.
(3) T H A T the Chief Executive and the Head of Finance / Section 151
Officer, in consultation with the Executive Leader and Cabinet Member for
No.
Performance and Resources, be granted delegated authority to make
additions, deletions or transfers to or from the:
i. 2024/25 to 2028/29 Housing Improvement Programme as
appropriate.
ii. 2024/25 to 2028/29 Asset Renewal budgets as appropriate.
iii. S106 funded schemes subject to Member consultation as
required under the existing process.
iv. Energy Management Schemes
v. Building Strong Communities Fund schemes.
vi. Sustainable Communities for Learning Band B programme
(Previously 21st Century Schools schemes).
vii. Discretionary Adaption Grant Schemes.
viii. Vale Regeneration Schemes.
(4) T H A T the Chief Executive, Head of Finance / Section 151 Officer,
and Director of Learning and Skills in consultation with the Executive Leader
and Cabinet Member for Performance and Resources, be granted delegated
authority to increase the Capital Programme for the long term solution in
relation to the Successful Futures Centre at Pencoedtre High School when
the feasibility studies had been concluded. It being noted that £300k had
been ringfenced within reserves to carry out the scheme when feasibility
studies had been undertaken.
Reasons for decisions
(1) To approve the Capital Strategy for 2024/25.
(2) To set and approve future Capital Programmes to 2028/29.
(3) To enable the Housing Capital budget, Asset Renewal budgets, S106
schemes, Energy Management Schemes, Building Stronger Communities
Fund, Sustainable Communities for Learning Band B programme,
Discretionary Adaption Grant Schemes, and Vale Regeneration schemes to
be managed effectively.
(4) To enable the long term solution to the Successful Futures Centre at
Pencoedtre High School to proceed when the feasibility studies had been
concluded.
TREASURY MANAGEMENT AND INVESTMENT STRATEGY 2024/25 AND UPDATE 2023/24 (REF)
Cabinet had considered the report on 29th February, 2024 (Minute No. C262)
and had referred the same to Council for consideration and approval.
The interim report outlined the proposed 2024/25 Treasury Management
Strategy detailed in Appendix 1 and provided an update on the Council’s
Treasury Management operations for the period 1st April to 31st December,
No.
2023. All activities were in accordance with the Council’s approved strategy
on Treasury Management.
Total external borrowing as of 31st December, 2023 was £145.479m at an
average rate of 4.37%. New external borrowing totalling £5.000m was
undertaken during the first 9 months of 2023/24 at a rate of 4.38% with
utilised the special project rate for Housing Revenue Account schemes.
The Council invested with the Debt Management Deposit Facility, Local
Authorities, Treasury Bills, Money Market Funds together with Lloyds Bank
Call Accounts. Total investments as of 31st December, 2023 stood at
£50.495m at an average rate of 4.53% over the nine-month period.
The Council had to ensure that the Prudential Code was complied with, which
had been developed by CIPFA as a professional code of practice, last
updated in December 2021. To demonstrate that the Council had fulfilled
these objectives, the Code set out a list of Prudential and Treasury indicators
that should be calculated together with other factors that had to be
considered. These were included in Appendix 1 to the report as part of the
Strategy.
The Council also had a legal requirement to comply with the Welsh
Government Guidance on Investments and had taken this guidance into
consideration when developing the Strategy.
New borrowing in the period to 2028/29 was expected to be £184.377m for
new Capital Expenditure and a further £14.000m of borrowing to replace
maturing loans and reflect the Council’s reducing ability to internally borrow
over the period.
Capital expenditure when financed by long term debt incurred two elements of
cost, interest and repayment of the principal sum borrowed. The resources
the Council must put aside in each year to repay the principal sum borrowed
was known as Minimum Revenue Provision (MRP) and the Council's policy
for the calculation was detailed in the report.
The Treasury Management Policy Statement for 2024/25 was attached at
Appendix 2 to the report.
The Leader, in referring to the recent training provided to all Members, and
indeed training that was provided each year, on the subject, commented that
she had found the training to be a really constructive training session which
had also been recorded for Members to view it online.
RESOLVED –
(1) T H A T the Treasury Management interim report for the period 1 st April
st
to 31 December, 2023 be approved.
No.
(2) T H A T the policy for making Minimum Revenue Provision in 2024/25
be approved.
(3) T H A T the proposed 2024/25 Treasury Management and Investment
Strategy be approved, including the following specific resolutions (as detailed
in Appendix 1 to the report to Cabinet on 29th February, 2024 [Minute No.
C262]):
• The Authorised Limit for External Debt be set at £240.969m for
2023/24, £271.200m for 2024/25, £303.939m for 2025/26 and
£336.893m for 2026/27.
• The Operational Boundary for External Debt be set at
£226.147m for 2023/24, £255.687 for 2024/25, £287.406m for
2025/26 and £320.338m for 2026/27.
• The Section 151 Officer be granted delegated authority within
the total Authorised Limit and Operational Boundary as
estimated for individual years to effect movement between the
separately agreed limits for borrowing and other long term
liabilities.
• An upper limit of £0m for 2023/24, £10m for 2024/25, £10m in
2025/26 and £10m in 2026/27 be set for total principal sums
invested for over 364 days.
• The amount of projected borrowing that was fixed rate maturing
in each period as a percentage of total projected borrowing that
was fixed rate for 2024/25 be set as:
Table 1 – Upper and lower Limits for fixed rate borrowing
Upper Lower
Limit Limit
Under 12 months 20% 0%
12 months and within 24 months 20% 0%
24 months and within 5 years 30% 0%
5 years and within 10 years 40% 0%
10 years and above 100% 0%
(4) T H A T Prudential Indicators set out in Appendix 1 to the report to
Cabinet on 29th February, 2024 (Minute No. C262) be approved.
(5) T H A T the Treasury Management Policy Statement set out in
Appendix 2 to the report to Cabinet on 29th February, 2024 (Minute No. C262)
be approved.
Reasons for decisions
(1) Having regard to the contents of the report and discussions at the
meeting.
(2) To agree the basis of the Minimum Revenue Provision calculation for
2024/25.
No.
(3-5) In order for the Treasury Management and Annual Investment Strategy
as prepared be approved as required by the Local Government Act 2003.
PAY POLICY 2024/25 (REF)
The Council had a statutory requirement under the Localism Act 2011 to
prepare a pay policy statement for the new financial year 2024/25. The
statement needed to be approved and published by 31st March, 2024. The
document provided a framework for ensuring that employees were rewarded
fairly and objectively, in accordance with the service needs of the Council and
that there was openness and transparency in relation to the process. It being
a straightforward report the Leader moved the recommendations which were
seconded by Councillor Brooks.
Prior to putting the recommendations to Full Council the Mayor asked if there
were any points of clarification required by Members from the Head of Human
Resources. There being no clarifications required and no further comments, it
was subsequently
RESOLVED – T H A T the Council’s Pay Policy as attached at Appendix A to
the report to Cabinet on 8th February, 2024 (Minute No C234) be approved.
Reason for decision
To respond to the legal requirement under the Localism Act 2011 and to
provide openness and accountability in relation to how the Council rewards its
staff.
N.B.
All Chief Officers, save for the Head of Human Resources, left the meeting
when this item was considered. The Head of Human Resources remained in
the meeting, until the matter was to be voted upon, in order to provide any
clarification required by Elected Members.
RESOLVED – That the following matters be dealt with as indicated:
(1)
Application 1
The Sub Committee were asked to consider if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Private Hire Driver’s License following a mystery shopper operation which resulted in the driver failing to use the meter and charging more than the legal fare.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver stated that he wasn’t able to recall the incident in question but was extremely sorry, and assured Members that it would never happen again.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the witness stated that he had taken part in a joint operation alongside the licensing department in his role as a special constable, operating in plain clothes alongside a police support volunteer. They had undertaken test purchases to check the compliance of private hire and hackney carriage vehicles throughout the evening. Late in the evening, they approached the cab in question as it was plying for hire on Albert Street and requested a journey to the Tramshed. The driver requested £10 up front, which they paid. The meter was not used at any point during the journey and the driver made no attempt to give them any change.
Responding to questions from the Sub Committee, the driver stated that he was not sure whether he had used the meter, but he understood that he was supposed to. It might have been broken but he didn’t remember.
Members asked how often the driver asked for a fare up front. He responded that it depended on the customer and the journey, but he would generally do it at the end.
RESOLVED – that the Private Hire driver’s licence be suspended for 7 days, and that the driver be required to undertake the relevant SQA qualification (Level 2 Certificate Introduction to the Role of the Professional Taxi and Private Hire Driver) at his own cost.
(2)
Application 2
The Sub Committee were asked to consider if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Private Hire Driver’s License following a mystery shopper operation which resulted in the driver failing to use the meter and charging more than the legal fare.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver recalled that he had asked for payment up front before taking two passengers from near the castle to an address in Cathays. He had asked for this because it was common on a Saturday evening for passengers to do a runner. He also did not have a card reader in his cab and had had problems before with people who weren’t able to pay at the end of the journey.
Responding to questions from the Sub Committee, the driver stated that the meter had been running throughout the journey, and had calculated a fare of £7.10. He had tried to give the passengers their £2.90 change at the end but they left before he was able to.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the witness stated that he had taken part in a joint operation alongside the licensing department in his role as a special constable, operating in plain clothes alongside a police support volunteer. They had undertaken test purchases to check the compliance of private hire and hackney carriage vehicles throughout the evening. This particular journey was from Castle Street to the Blackweir Tavern, and the driver asked for £10 up front which they paid.
The witness added that he had an unobstructed view of the meter throughout the journey, and while it was switched on it was not recording a fare. Responding to questions from the Sub Committee, he confirmed that the driver had not said anything about it being broken, and neither he nor the other passenger had requested that it be switched on.
Members asked the driver if he regularly charged passengers up front. The driver responded that he did on the weekend, as this was when people doing a runner was most common. Members asked whether he had told the passenger up front that he would give him change at the end, which he confirmed he did not.
Members asked the witness if he had noticed the driver trying to give him the £2.90 change. The witness responded that he had not noticed this, and added that they made sure within the test purchasing process to give the driver every opportunity to do this. It was not intended to trip drivers up, just to check compliance.
RESOLVED – that the Hackney Carriage/Private Hire driver’s licence be suspended for 14 days.
(3)
Application 3
The Sub Committee were asked to consider if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage/Private Hire Driver’s License following a complaint alleging rudeness and swearing at a passenger.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver stated that he had arrived at the main entrance of Heath Hospital to pick up a pre-booked fare. The passenger was in a wheelchair and had some difficulty getting into the car, so he helped her get in and folded up her wheelchair to put in the boot. She became stressed and shouted at him. It was a frustrating situation as cars were waiting behind them and being very impatient. The passenger said she was going to make a complaint because he had been rude to her. After paying the fare, she said that he wasn’t fit for the job and swore at him before leaving.
Responding to questions from the Sub Committee, the driver confirmed that he regularly picked up passengers from Heath Hospital, and many of them were disabled.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the witness disputed that she had sworn at the driver. She did not swear other than when she was giving her explanation of what had happened to Dragon Taxis. The driver insisted that he had not sworn at her either.
The witness added that she was very tired at the time and had needed more help than usual to get into the car. She understood that it was a stressful situation but emphasised that she did not raise her voice or shout. She got the impression that he didn’t want to help her despite taking the fare. He swore and complained constantly, so she told him he wasn’t fit to be a taxi driver. It was a horrible experience and she felt threatened as she was unable to leave the car with her wheelchair in the boot.
Responding to questions from the Sub Committee, the witness confirmed that she regularly used taxis, including Dragon ones. She normally asked for a wheelchair accessible vehicle but they were few and far between, and her chair folder, so she often used regular ones.
The driver asserted that when he first opened the door for the passenger, she shouted at him to get her chair before he had a chance to do so, and that she argued and swore throughout the journey. The witness denied that she had used bad language.
RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning.
(4)
Application 4
The Sub Committee were asked to consider if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Private Hire Driver’s License following a complaint alleging attempted overcharging.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver stated that he and other drivers regularly asked for money up front late at night at the weekend. He accepted that he had asked the passengers for money up front but stressed that he had turned the meter on and intended to give them their change at the end.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the witnesses stated that they approached the taxi on Castle Street in the early hours and asked to go to an address in Gabalfa and then on to Whitchurch. The driver asked them for £30 up front, which they felt was excessive. They asked him to put the meter on but he said it was broken.
The witnesses added that they did this journey regularly and the fare would normally be significantly less than £30, and they were aware that drivers were required to use the meter, so they challenged him on this. They did not get in the cab and instead went to the next driver, who agreed to take them on the meter straight away. Members queried how much they usually paid, which the witnesses estimated was between £12 and £14.
Responding to questions from the Sub Committee, the driver confirmed that he knew he should not be driving if his meter was broken. He added that his meter was not broken and disputed that he had told the passengers that it was. A licensing officer had checked his meter the next day and found it to be working.
Responding to questions from the Sub Committee, the driver stated that in his experience, all drivers asked for money up front after a certain time of night as this was the only way to stop passengers running off without paying. Members emphasised that his job was to take passengers with the meter on, and that the council’s regulations did not permit taxi drivers to charge up front for fares starting and ending within Cardiff.
The Licensing Officer clarified that drivers were allowed to ask for a reasonable deposit, but this should not be more than half of the total fare. The £30 allegedly requested up front in this case was far in excess of the value of the journey.
RESOLVED – that the Private Hire driver’s licence be suspended for 14 days.
(5)
Application 5
The Sub Committee were asked to consider if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Private Hire Driver’s License given that he had been convicted of 3 motoring offences amounting to 9 penalty points.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver highlighted that he had declared the 9 points at the earliest possible moment rather than waiting until the renewal date. He explained how each of the offences had occurred and stressed that he now drove much more carefully as a result.
RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning.
(6)
Application 6
The Sub Committee were asked to consider if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Private Hire Driver’s License given that he had been convicted of an offence which resulted in a prison sentence.
The driver was not in attendance. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver’s solicitor stated that he was unable to attend as he was serving a custodial sentence. He was not able to advance any further information on behalf of the driver.
RESOLVED – that the Private Hire driver’s licence be revoked.
(7)
Application 7
The Sub Committee were asked to consider a driver’s application for the grant of a Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Driver's Licence given that he had a conviction contrary to the guidance.
In the absence of the applicant, the item was deferred.
(8)
Application 8
The Sub Committee were asked to consider if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Private Hire Driver’s License given that upon renewal of his licence there was an issue with the DBS process. Following a committee hearing in January where the initial case was discussed, the driver was given a month’s suspension in order to complete the new DBS process, and was told that failure to provide the certificate would result in the case being brought back to committee. The driver also failed to return his badges during the time period required.
The driver was not in attendance. The Licensing Officer explained that the driver had asked for more time to provide the DBS, and suggested that the committee extend the suspension imposed at the January meeting until he did so.
RESOLVED – that the Hackney Carriage/Private Hire driver’s licence be suspended for one month.
RESOLVED that:
1. the draft Corporate Plan 2024-27 (Appendix A), subject to any amendments authorised under recommendation 3, be approved for consideration by Council on 7 March 2024;
2. the response to any recommendations made by any of the Scrutiny Committees (Appendix C) in relation to the draft Corporate Plan 2024-27be considered and agreed;
3. authority be delegated to the Chief Executive, in consultation with the Leader of the Council, to make any consequential amendments to the draft Corporate Plan 2024-27 required to reflect the response to Scrutiny Committee recommendations (agreed under recommendation 2), prior to consideration by Council on 7 March 2024;
4. Council be recommended to delegate authority to the Chief Executive, in consultation with the Leader of the Council, to make any minor amendments as necessary to the Corporate Plan 2024-27 following consideration by the Council on 7 March 2024 and prior to publication by 1 April 2024.
AGREED: that the Chairperson, on behalf of the Committee, writes to the Cabinet Member conveying the observations of the Committee when discussing the way forward.
RESOLVED –
(1) T H A T the Annual Report and Accounts 2022/23, as set out at Appendix A
to the report be approved, and that the Chair be authorised to sign the same on
behalf of Trustees. The accounts to be signed by Audit Wales and the approved
accounts be submitted to the Charity Commission.
(2) T H A T a Delegated Authority be made to the Welsh Church Act
Committee Chair in consultation with the Head of Finance/Section 151 Officer to
finalise any presentational issues that are determined by Audit Wales.
Reasons for decisions
(1) Having regard to the content of the report and subsequent discussion at the
meeting in accordance with the requirements of the Charities Act 2011, and the
Charities (Accounts & Reports) Regulations 2008.
(2) To finalise any outstanding presentational issues that are requested by
Audit Wales.
Minutes - AR
RESOLVED –
(1) T H A T the recruitment and selection arrangements for the position of
Director of Learning and Skills as described in the body of the report be approved.
(2) T H A T delegated authority be granted to the Chief Executive, in consultation
with the Head of Human Resources and Organisational Development and the
Leader, to progress:
a. advertising of the position;
b. progressing the necessary arrangements for long-listing and any
necessary assessment of candidates in advance of shortlisting;
c. drawing up a final short-list for interview, the interview of which to be
undertaken by a future meeting of the Committee; and
d. to agree costings and resource requirements relating to the processes
required to pursue the recruitment and selection process.
Reasons for decisions
(1) To ensure the appointment is progressed in accordance with the requirements
of the Council's Constitution.
(2) To allow matters to be progressed in advance of the final stage of recruitment.
Vale of Glamorgan, Senior Management Appointment Committee,
RESOLVED –
(1) T H A T the recruitment and selection arrangements, as described in the body
of the report, for the position of Head of Legal and Democratic Services be
approved.
(2) T H A T delegated authority be granted to the Chief Executive, in consultation
with the Director of Corporate Resources, Head of Human Resources and
Organisational Development and Leader, to progress:
a. advertising of the position,
b. progressing the necessary arrangements for long-listing and any
necessary assessment of candidates in advance of shortlisting,
c. drawing up a final short-list for interview, the interview of which will be
undertaken by a future meeting of this Committee, and
d. to agree costings and resource requirements relating to the processes
required to pursue the recruitment and selection process.
Reasons for decisions
(1) To ensure the appointment is progressed in accordance with the requirements
of the Council's Constitution.
(2) To allow matters to be progressed in advance of the final stage of recruitment.
AGREED: that the Chairperson, on behalf of the Committee, writes to the Cabinet Member conveying the observations and recommendations of the Committee when discussing the way forward.
Cardiff, Community & Adult Services Scrutiny Committee,
AGREED: that the Chairperson, on behalf of the Committee, writes to the Cabinet Members conveying the observations of the Committee when discussing the way forward.
Cardiff, Children and Young People Scrutiny Committee,
RESOLVED:
That the Chairperson writes to the Cabinet Member on behalf of the Committee expressing their comments and observations captured during the way forward.