Care for older and disabled people, children's services and safeguarding.
What councils do
Councils arrange care and support for older people, disabled adults and carers, protect children and adults at risk, and look after children in care. Much care is provided by private and charity providers the council pays.
Who decides
The Cabinet member for social services leads, and each council has a statutory Director of Social Services. Scrutiny committees examine how services are doing.
Having a say
Anyone can ask the council for an assessment of their care needs, or of their needs as a carer. If you're worried about someone's safety, contact the council's safeguarding team.
In numbers
Welsh councils plan to spend £1,045 per person on this in 2026-27.
It ranges from £918 in Monmouthshire to £1,337 in Ceredigion.
Children in care: 114 across Wales (2024-25).
Children in care who moved home three or more times: 8% across Wales (2024-25).
Children's assessments done on time: 85% across Wales (2024-25).
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.
AGREED –
(1) T H A T a copy of the presentation be forwarded to all Members of the Council
for their information and consideration.
(2) T H A T a further presentation or report having regard to the Social Care
Review (when available) and an update in respect of the CAMHS Service be
provided to a future meeting of the Committee.
Reason for decisions
(1&2) Having regard to the contents of the presentation and discussions at the
meeting.
RESOLVED – T H A T the Housing Revenue Account Business Plan 2023/53
attached to the report to Cabinet on 2nd February, 2023 (Min. No. C215) be
approved and submitted to Welsh Government.
Reason for decision
To enable the submission of the above Plan to Welsh Government by the
required deadline of 31st March, 2023.
COUNCIL TAX UNOCCUPIED DWELLINGS: 2023/24 (REF)
The Leader presented the reference, the purpose of which was to reaffirm the
previous decision not to grant any discount in Council Tax for empty properties
and furnished second homes for the 2023/24 financial year.
The report proposed that the Council consulted on the levying of a Council Tax
premium in 2023/24 in respect of long-term empty properties and in 2024/25 in
respect of second homes. This was in line with the Council’s objective to
increase the supply of housing in the Vale of Glamorgan. The headline annual
need for affordable housing in the Vale of Glamorgan from 2021 to 2026 was
1,205 dwellings.
The Leader outlined both proposals, the first being the charging of premiums on
long term empty properties (over 12 months) from 2023/24 financial year and
second homes from 2024/25 financial year. She also reminded Members that
the Council had published its Empty Homes Strategy in March 2020 the findings
indicating that quality rented homes were becoming increasingly difficult to find
coupled with increasing prices incentivising landlords to sell and the ever
widening gap between local housing allowance rents and market rents. This
created a shortage of housing and in terms of underlying need and there was an
obvious financial benefit to the Council in introducing premiums which in part
could contribute to greater engagement and enforcement work. She also
alluded to the 528 long term empty properties and 402 second homes in the
county. She considered that empty homes were a drain on the Council’s overall
resources and the exemptions meant that the properties affected will be lower
than 930 in total. She reminded Members that the Council had consulted on the
proposals and 385 responses had been received of around 56% were against
the proposals however, just over 40% were in favour of charging a premium at
some level.
Councillor Dr. Johnson referred to his comments made at previous Council
meetings in regard to the slowness of the Council to charge the premium and
was pleased to see it now being put forward. He considered there were obvious
benefits which would encourage bringing empty homes into useful use.
Referring to the proposals of Cabinet in terms of its recommendations,
Councillor Dr. Johnson sought clarification from the Leader as to how the
premiums would be agreed beyond the current fixed stepped increase beyond
the period set out in the report as he understood it from the legislation, this
would require an annual consultation on either or both of the premiums in future
years ahead. He also sought clarification as to whether the Chief Executive and
the Leader would be reviewing the premiums and setting these under the
delegated authority if granted.
Councillor Mahoney referring to the proposals shared concerns regarding empty
homes which he felt blighted communities. However, he considered the
proposals to be an infringement on civil rights and was of a concern to him as he
did not see it was the Council’s responsibility to dictate to individuals regarding
the use of their property. He was also concerned that the Council was again
ignoring the response of the public consultation exercise not for the first time
and he had significant reservations regarding this matter.
The Leader, referring to the comments made by Councillor Dr. Johnson,
indicated that the recommendations before Council were to provide a
reassurance to Members that any review of charges or to change premiums
would be brought back to Cabinet and Council for decision and this would also
allow the Council to be able to benchmark against other Councils to see how
well the initiative worked.
In terms of the comments made by Councillor Mahoney, the Leader indicated
that she had no problem with people owning two homes or more. However,
they had to be in productive use and if they were not they should be prepared to
pay an additional contribution and that was the purpose of establishing the
policy.
RESOLVED –
(1) T H A T the following Council Tax premiums be approved:
• A 100% Council Tax premium be levied in 2023/24 in respect of long-
term empty properties, a 150% premium in 2024/25 and a 200%
premium in 2025/26.
• A 100% Council Tax premium be levied in 2024/25 in respect of
second homes.
(2) T H A T delegated authority be granted to the Head of Finance to
implement the changes and to notify the owners of all affected properties.
(3) T H A T delegated authority be granted to the Head of Finance to
determine applications for an exception under the regulations as set out in
paragraph 5.5 of the report (see Cabinet report 16th February, 2023.)
(4) T H A T the Chief Executive and Leader review those premiums in future
years and bring changes to Cabinet and Council for approval as appropriate.
Reasons for decisions
(1) The Council was required to determine its policy on the introduction of
premiums in respect of second homes and 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.
(2) To ensure that all customers impacted by the introduction of premiums
were aware of the changes.
(3) To ensure arrangements were put in place to consider exceptions.
(4) To ensure premiums levied were kept under review as appropriate.
(N.B. Councillors Buckley, Campbell, Charles, Driscoll and Haines
withdrew from the meeting during consideration of this item.)
DRAFT VALE OF GLAMORGAN COUNCIL ANNUAL DELIVERY PLAN 2023-24 (REF)
Cabinet had considered the report on 16th February, 2023 (Minute No. C226
refers) together with the reference from Corporate Performance and Resources
Scrutiny Committee, and had referred the same to Council for consideration and
approval.
The report set out how the draft Annual Delivery Plan (the Plan) 2023-24
(Appendix A to the report) had been developed, the outcome of the consultation
and the subsequent changes to the Plan, which detailed the activities that would
be undertaken in 2023-24 to deliver those objectives. The Plan also detailed
three critical challenges which would be a key focus for the organisation in
2023-24, these being cost of living, Project Zero and organisational resilience.
The Council’s four Well-being Objectives provided the framework for the Annual
Delivery Plan 2023-24.
The commitments within the Annual Delivery Plan would be reflected in Annual
Service Plans together with a suite of performance measures which would detail
how different Council services would contribute to the delivery of the Council’s
four Well-being Objectives.
Publishing the Council’s Well-being Objectives at the start of the financial year
would enable it to meet its statutory obligations under the performance duties of
the Local Government and Election (Wales) Act 2021 and the Well-being of
Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015, both of which placed specific duties on
the Council in relation to objective setting and reporting. Under the Well-being
of Future Generations (Wales) Act, the Council was required to publish its Well-
being Objectives by 31st March each year and to keep these under review.
RESOLVED – T H A T the Draft Vale of Glamorgan Council Annual Delivery
Plan 2023-24, as attached at Appendix A to the report to Cabinet on 16th
February, 2023 (Minute No. C226) be approved.
Reason for decision
Having regard to the contents of the report and discussions at the meeting.
CAPITAL STRATEGY 2023/24 AND FINAL CAPITAL PROGRAMME PROPOSALS 2023/24 TO 2027/28 (REF)
The Leader, in presenting the report advised that the report had been
considered by Cabinet at its meeting on 27th February, 2023 (Minute No. C236
refers) and provided the Council's Capital Strategy for 2023/24 at Appendix 1.
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 2023/24 to 2027/28 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
£345m. This included £41m for the Band B Sustainable Communities for
Learning Programme (excluding the pipeline schemes) and £167m for the
Housing Improvement Programme.
Since the Draft Capital Programme proposals reported in January, a number of
changes had been made including the re-profile of the Sustainable Learning
Communities schemes, inclusion of the School Maintenance Grant, the inclusion
of two pipeline schemes, (as referred to at Appendix 2 to this report, in relation
to St. Richard Gwyn Redevelopment and Cowbridge Primary Phase 2 and
worked on two Leisure Centre boilers at Llantwit Major and Cowbridge.
Councillor Franks indicated to Members that it was worth considering in the
financial year 2021/2022 there had been slippage in the amount of £11.5m and
in the current financial year there was a minimum of £8m and therefore he felt
that the Administration’s track record on fulfilling the Council’s Capital Budget
had not been good. He highlighted that of the £88.2m which was in the budget
for the current year only £42.7m would be spent by the end of January with the
£8m of slippage likely to grow further. He felt that these figures highlighted that
residents in the Vale of Glamorgan had been badly let down by the
Administration and was only one area where there had been a failure to invest
funding in social housing. He also referred to the fact that he had challenged a
statement that work had been continuing at the Hayes Road site and despite
promises that the matter would be investigated he had not received any further
information on progress of the site to date. He also touched on other schemes
which had underspent or either had slipped. He also felt that schools had been
badly let down as maintenance had not been carried out and he also highlighted
the condition of roads and pavements and queried why the Council had not
allocated additional funding to improve matters. In concluding, he felt that the
proposed budget was not credible and that the Administration was failing its
communities.
There being no further comments it was subsequently,
RESOLVED –
(1) T H A T the Capital Strategy 2023/24 as set out in Appendix 1 to the
report to Cabinet on 27th February, 2023, be approved.
(2) T H A T the final Capital Programme for the years 2023/24 to 2027/28 as
set out in Appendix 2 to the report to Cabinet on 27th February, 2023, be
approved.
(3) T H A T the Chief Executive and the Head of Finance, in consultation with
the Cabinet Member for Performance and Resources, be granted delegated
authority to make additions, deletions or transfers to or from the 2023/24 to
2027/28 Housing Improvement Programme as appropriate.
(4) T H A T the Chief Executive and the Head of Finance, in consultation with
the Cabinet Member for Performance and Resources, be granted delegated
authority to make additions, deletions or transfers to or from the 2023/24 to
2027/28 Asset Renewal budgets as appropriate.
(5) T H A T the Chief Executive and the Head of Finance, in consultation with
the Cabinet Member for Performance and Resources, be granted delegated
authority to make additions, deletions or transfers to S106 funded schemes
subject to Member consultation as required under the existing process.
(6) T H A T the Chief Executive and the Head of Finance, in consultation with
the Cabinet Member for Performance and Resources, be granted delegated
authority to make additions, deletions or transfers to or from Energy
Management Schemes.
(7) T H A T the Chief Executive and the Head of Finance, in consultation with
the Cabinet Member for Performance and Resources, be granted delegated
authority to make additions, deletions or transfers to or from the Building Strong
Communities Fund schemes.
(8) T H A T the Chief Executive and the Head of Finance, in consultation with
the Cabinet Member for Performance and Resources, be granted delegated
authority to make additions, deletions or transfers to or from the Sustainable
Communities for Learning Band B programme (Previously 21st Century Schools
schemes).
Reasons for decisions
(1) To approve the Capital Strategy for 2023/24.
(2) To set and approve future Capital Programmes to 2027/28.
(3) To enable the Housing Capital budget to be managed effectively.
(4) To enable the Asset Renewal budgets to be managed effectively.
(5) To enable S106 schemes to be managed effectively.
(6) To enable the Energy Management Schemes to be managed effectively.
(7) To enable the Building Stronger Communities Fund to be managed
effectively.
(8) To enable the Sustainable Communities for Learning Band B programme
to be managed effectively.
TREASURY MANAGEMENT AND INVESTMENT STRATEGY 2023/24 AND UPDATE 202223 (REF)
The report, which had been considered by Cabinet on 27th February, 2023
(Minute No. C237 refers) provided an update on the Council’s Treasury
Management operations for the period 1st April to 31st December, 2022. All
activities were in accordance with the Council’s approved strategy on Treasury
Management. Details of monies borrowed and repaid and those invested were
outlined in the report.
The report presented the proposed 2023/24 Treasury Management and
Investment Strategy at Appendix 1.
The Council needed to ensure that the Prudential Code was complied with,
which had been developed by CIPFA as a professional code of practice and
recently revised in December 2021. To demonstrate the Council had fulfilled
these objectives, the Code set out prudential indicators that should be used and
the factors that had to be considered. These were shown in Appendix 1 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 into consideration when
developing the Strategy.
New Borrowing in the period was expected to be £127m for new Capital
Expenditure and a further £24m of borrowing to replace maturing loans and
reflected 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 2023/24 was attached at
Appendix 2 to the report.
The Council was required to keep its Treasury Management Practices (attached
at Appendix 3 to the report) up to date and these procedures for management of
Treasury Management processes were kept under regular review by the team.
The Leader confirmed that there were 12 management practices that the
Council was required to address and these were set out in the Appendix. The
Council’s Treasury Management Practices had been compiled in line with the
Treasury Management in the Public Services: Code of Practice and Cross-
Sectional Guidance Notes (2021 edition). These had been written in
conjunction with the Council’s Treasury Management Policy Statement (TMPS)
and Investment Strategy for 2023/24. The TMPS set out the way the Council
would seek to achieve its Treasury Management Policies and objectives and
how it would manage and control those activities. She reminded all Members
that the Financial Management Code was the collective responsibility of all
Elected Members.
Councillor Champion referred to a recent report that had been submitted to the
Welsh Church Act Estate Committee which had led to a request to officers to
investigate investing in green funds and to move away from fossil fuel
companies. He acknowledged that it may not get the best return by investing in
these companies, but the Council needed to demonstrate that it was moving
towards this.
Councillor Dr. Johnson referred to the recent and important training provided on
Treasury Management and acknowledged that the subject matter was not easy
to understand. He was pleased to see, for the first time since he had been a
Member of the Council, investment income being received as previously this
had been limited. Referring to Councillor Champion’s comments, it was his
understanding from the training that much of the Council’s income and
investments was linked to the Council’s risk appetite and therefore investments
were generally made to organisations that had high credit rating given that the
funds invested were tax payers’ money. He alluded to recent revenue forecast
reported where income was likely to be £75k in the next financial year, but the
most fundamental part of the Council’s Treasury Management Strategy was to
hold tax payers’ money safely and that it could be used when the Council
required it.
The Leader, in response, indicated that it was a matter of balancing the need to
get a return on investments against the likely risk to that investment. She was
glad to see that the Council was getting a return on its investments, but
acknowledged that she would like to see the Strategy be as ethical as possible.
She hoped that Members would become more engaged in how the Council
developed its Strategy on its investments, what the Council was doing with
those investments and how it would benefit local residents.
RESOLVED –
(1) T H A T the policy for making Minimum Revenue Provision in 2023/24 be
approved.
(2) T H A T the proposed 2023/24 Treasury Management and Investment
Strategy, including the following specific resolution (detailed in Appendix 1 to the
report), be approved:
• The Authorised Limit for External Debt be set at £225.439m for
2022/23, £247.141m for 2023/24, £276.773m for 2024/25 and
£305.927m for 2025/26
• The Operational Boundary for External Debt be set at £212.292m for
2022/23, £234.021m for 2023/24, £263.349m for 2024/25 and
£292.295m for 2025/26.
• The Section 151 Officer be given 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 £10m for 2022/23, £10m for 2023/24, £10m in
2024/25 and £10m in 2025/26 is set for total principal sums invested
for over 364 days.
• The amount of projected borrowing that is fixed rate maturing in each
period as a percentage of total projected borrowing that is fixed rate
for 2023/24 be set as:
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%
• T H A T the Prudential Indicators set out in Appendix 1 to the report
to Cabinet on 27th February, 2023, be approved.
• T H A T the Treasury Management Policy Statement set out in
Appendix 2 to the report to Cabinet on 27th February, 2023, be
approved.
Reasons for decisions
(1) To agree the basis of the Minimum Revenue Provision calculation for
2023/24.
(2) The Treasury Management and Annual Investment Strategy is prepared
as required by the Local Government Act 2003.
FINAL BUDGET 2023/24 AND MEDIUM TERM FINANCIAL PLAN (MTFP) 2023/24 TO 2028/29 (REF)
The Council was facing significant demographic and inflationary pressures in
2023/24 and into the medium term. Cabinet had approved the Financial
Strategy and update of the Medium Term Financial Plan in October, at which
time there was a funding gap of £28m in 2023/24 and £50m across the Medium
Term.
Officers reviewed those pressures and funding assumptions in light of the
Chancellor’s Budget in November and the Welsh Government Settlement
announcement on Tuesday, 13th December, 2022. Pressures had been
managed downwards with few of the investment proposals from October 2022
taken forwards which then stood at £1.010m, but managing the inflationary
pressures down was more challenging and it was determined appropriate to
support the utility based pressures through the temporary use of reserves in the
expectation that prices did reduce over the longer term.
There was better than expected news in the Settlement. £227m was made
available across Wales over and above the 3.5% commitment in last year’s
settlement.
Consequently, the Council faced a reduced funding gap of £9.255m and
following the approval of Cabinet on 19th January, 2023 consulted on a savings
package of £6.055m after the one off use of reserves of £3.2m.
Pressures and funding had continued to be reviewed alongside comments from
the Scrutiny Committees and public and wider consultation. There had been
further grants received to support Homelessness alongside a recognition of the
need to make greater provision for pay awards.
There was a proposed increase in Council Tax of 4.9%. For a Band D property
this was the equivalent of £1.32 per week and maintained Council Tax at the
mean of Welsh Authorities.
There was a £7.378m savings and efficiencies programme for which Equality
Impact Assessments had been undertaken, tracking and management
arrangements had already been put in place to ensure delivery.
As part of the budget deliberations there had been a fundamental review of the
Council’s reserves. The reserves had been realigned with the Council’s overall
objectives and risks and had been streamlined to provide greater transparency
and ease of management.
The comments from the public consultation and scrutiny review of the January
Budget for consultation had been considered in formulating the final proposals.
The Section 151 Officer had assessed the robustness of estimates and
adequacy of reserves and was satisfied with both.
A supplementary report was presented to Council following the receipt of the
Final Settlement from Welsh Government published on 28th February, 2023.
The Vale of Glamorgan’s Final Settlement was £202.797, this was an increase
of £16.782m in the Aggregate External Finance (AEF), providing an additional
£0.178m compared to the Provisional Settlement announced on 14th December,
2022.
The overall impact was on the funding side of the budget only with a £0.178m
increase in the AEF and a £0.178m reduction in Council Tax through a revision
downwards of the income assumed from the premiums on Council Tax for long
term empty properties.
The Leader reminded Members that the Council was legally required to agree a
balanced budget and how that was achieved depended upon the outcome of the
debate on the budget. She reminded Members of the challenges detailed in the
report previously considered by the Cabinet and Scrutiny Committees and
reiterated that it had been a particularly difficult budget round, there had been a
huge amount of uncertainty given the challenging economic climate and it made
it difficult to financially plan especially, when taking into consideration the last
Autumn and setting a financial strategy during the chaos caused by the mini
fiscal event by the U.K. government. In all the Council was facing a £28m
funding gap. The Leader also reminded Members, that as reported in January,
the provisional settlement in December 2022 was much better than expected,
but there still remained a sizeable gap. It had been necessary to manage a
number of priorities to bring forward a balanced budget. This included notional
funding for social care and schools which were uplifted by 5.1% and 7.0%
respectively by Welsh Government. The Council was being totally transparent
with the level of pressures faced in these services and referred to, for example,
in relation to social care there was an additional £8m within the budget,
significantly over the Government uplift to ensure that the Council could
commission to necessary domiciliary care with the needs of the residential care
sector that was experiencing similar inflationary pressures to the Council. In
regard to schools an extra £10.4m, a rise of in excess of 9% had been included
in the budget recognising all of the inflationary costs being faced, but accepted
that there would still need to be some efficiencies. She also felt that it was also
important to have regard to the fact that the Council’s Council Tax level was
below the average for Wales and the 4.9% proposed increase would see that
position maintained, particularly given that some Welsh authorities were setting
increases of 2 or 3 points higher. There had also been a difficult choice to be
made in identifying a savings package of £4.6m, but the Council was taking the
right action. Fees and charges had to go up in line with rising costs and it was
therefore essential that the Council covered its own costs.
The Leader’s attention then turned to the question of the use of Council
reserves and highlighted that there had been a fundamental review of the
Council’s reserves. She felt it was important to note that these had been
reduced as a result of inflation impacting on the Council’s investments.
Pressures remained and therefore it was likely that reserves may have to be
used over the next financial year.
In concluding, she referred to the various appendices attached to the report,
Appendix D related to reserves, Appendix E included an appraisal of the Section
151 Officer of estimates and reserves, Appendix F referred to the budget
consultation outcome and Appendix G related to the Equality Impact
Assessment. She thanked all those Members who had contributed to the
budget consultation exercise and in particular thanked the Council’s finance
officers for preparing the reports.
The Leader moved the following Motion:
(1) That the Final Budget be updated in recognition that the Final Aggregate
External Finance figure had increased to £202.797m which was an increase of
£16.782m and an improvement on the £6.604m Provisional Settlement figure
contained in the report published on 28th February, 2023 as set out in the
Supplementary Report circulated prior to the meeting.
(2) That a Council Tax increase of 4.9% be approved.
(3) That the Budget for 2023/24 be approved.
This was duly seconded by the Deputy Leader.
Councillor Carroll indicated that the setting of the budget was the single most
important decision that the Authority would take in each year. Therefore, he
considered it outrageous that the meeting was being held remotely when the
meeting should be held in person discussing the matter in the Council Chamber.
He considered it a failure of leadership on the part of the Administration that he
was unable to do so. He did not consider the failure in leadership to be
contained to this matter. When looking at the budget there were a number of
other examples. He found it unacceptable that the Administration was
proposing an increase in Council Tax by 4.9%, but at the same time cutting
services. He cited examples such as black bag collections moving to a three
weekly cycle, fees to be introduced for garden waste collection service and
other examples of fees and charges increasing. He was particularly concerned
regarding the levels of reserves that the Council held referring to the Council’s
General Reserve being at £11m. Acknowledging that the Council required
reserves he was disputing the level of those reserves held when taking account
of levels of reserves held by neighbouring Authorities.
In the context of reserves held by the Council he considered that the proposed
Council Tax rise was not necessary and the Council could freeze Council Tax
for the forthcoming financial year with the cost being borne by the Council from
its General Reserves.
Councillor Carroll moved the following amendment:
That £4.239m be taken out of the Council’s General Reserve to freeze Council
Tax for 2023/24.
This was duly seconded by Councillor Charles.
Councillor Dr. Johnson responding to the amendment felt that it was fair that
nobody would take the Conservatives seriously on financial matters they put
forward. He was concerned that the proposed amendment had been costed
only in the sense that there was some money available, but did not inform
Members what would happen in the future and consequently not a particularly
sensible way of discussing the matter. He considered the amendment nothing
more than grandstanding. It was his view that the Conservatives were
particularly problematic given the fiscal event which crashed the economy in the
Autumn 2022 and beyond that the slow strangulation of public services which
had taken place over the last decade. Having been a Councillor elected to the
Council for 11 years he had seen in that time the hollowing out of public services
through underfunding as part of austerity, the uncertainty brought about by the
economic disaster or Brexit, all of which had fed into the current cost of living
crisis. Whilst the Conservative Party had been in power at Westminster, the
Labour Party had also been responsible, in his opinion, having spent two thirds
of his life with a Tory Government that Wales did not elect and a Labour Party
that propped up the Conservative Government by wedding themselves to the
constitutional system of unionism, this meant that the Conservative Party were
in charge more often than not. This had led to budgets being decreased and
underfunding leading to substandard services for ordinary people in Wales at
the same time the cost of local services had been transferred from central
Government to tax payers and this had resulted in above inflation Council Tax
increase over the past decade and were paying more for fewer services. The
proposed Council Tax rise was low within the context of inflation and in the
middle across Wales, but it was clear that most households would get less
services than in previous years. He was also concerned about proposals to
introduce charges for garden waste, Council house rents that had risen on
average by £300 and the intention to move to a three week black bag collection
service. He signalled that he could not support the amendment proposed by the
Conservatives as it was unfunded and unexplained.
Councillor John considered that the Conservative Group had been asleep since
last Autumn Budget which had left the U.K. in a mess. He thanked the Chief
Executive and officers for their efforts to reduce the likely impact of the
economic challenges faced by the Council as without their intervention the
Council could have been facing an increase similar to that of Conwy of 9.9%.
He also reminded Members that the Council was currently 15th out of 22
Authorities that would be setting its Council Tax at 4.9% and considered the
amendment to be disrespectful to the Council’s Management Team who had
brought the budget together with the Members on the Cabinet during a very
worrying time. He accepted that nobody liked to pay Council Tax, but it was the
only solution to allow the Council to set a balanced budget and he indicated that
he would not be supporting the amendment.
Councillor Haines referring to the previous comments felt that some Members
had not noticed how the Vale of Glamorgan had deteriorated in previous years
and felt that the Labour Administration had hit residents doubly by increasing
Council Tax but at the same time cutting services. He did not see any reason
why the Council held excessive reserves to a greater extent than similar
Authorities in Wales. The Council could reduce its reserves and protect the
residents particularly those worst off and this should be something the Council’s
Administration and its officers should consider. He was particularly concerned
with the proposals to extend black bag waste collections and the impact this
would have on residents with clinical health issues as they would have to store
waste products longer. He indicated that he would be supporting the
amendment.
Councillor Wilson expressed concern in regard to the proposed amendment
taking account of the challenges faced by the Council with it just emerging from
the Covid pandemic and now dealing with the implications of the Ukrainian war
and the ongoing implications of Brexit. He considered the Council’s approach to
reserves held as prudent and did not consider these to be huge amounts held in
its General Reserve given the challenges faced by the Council in its recent past
and present. He reminded all Members that reserves could only be spent once.
Councillor R. Thomas viewed the proposals as giving residents of the Vale a
double whammy in that Council Tax would be hiked and services cut. He
echoed the comments of his Group Leader in regard to proposed fees to be
introduced for garden waste collections and other fee increases, this at the
same time that the Council held £11m in its General Reserves which was not an
insignificant amount of money proportionately when compared to other
Authorities like Cardiff. He felt that reserves should be used to much better use
by bolstering services and keeping other charges as low as possible.
Councillor Ewan Goodjohn referred to the previous comments made by
Councillor Dr. Johnson in regard to the Conservatives being taken seriously on
matters such as finances and he considered that to be true. He considered that
the amendment put forward by the Leader of the Conservative Group as
remarkable. By their own figures put forward, the Council would have utilised its
reserves to fund similar cost pressures in three years. He could only conclude
that the Conservatives would either be proposing an alternative for the next year
which they had not yet set out or that they were proposing on top of the Council
Tax increase that would be needed next year whatever that may be, an extra
4.9% on that year which would mean that residents would face even higher
Council Tax bills over coming years. He considered the amendment to be
extremely irresponsible.
Councillor Brooks considered that the comments made by the Conservative
Members as reckless given the situation that the Council was facing. Alluding to
12 years of cuts from a Conservative U.K. Government which to a certain extent
in Wales, Councils had been protected by the Welsh Government, but when
looking over the border at the budgets set in England it was notable that some
Councils were facing bankruptcy. The Conservative Group demonstrated a lack
of understanding regarding the Council’s reserves and their use. A significant
amount of work had gone into planning to obtain a balanced budget and to
protect the most vulnerable residents within the Vale of Glamorgan. Statutory
services had to be at the forefront and she indicated that she would not be
supporting the amendment.
Councillor Charles considered that the proposed increase in Council Tax would
hit the most vulnerable residents. At the same time they were also facing other
financial challenges and she felt that during these difficult times the objective
was to save money on the unnecessary and referred to the appointment of
additional Directors to the Council. She was also concerned about the
proposals to introduce charges for garden waste collections and this would have
the biggest impact on people on low income and the most vulnerable and the
elderly who did not have vehicles to take their recycling to waste centres. She
was concerned that would see an increase in fly tipping. She also indicated that
she did not support the proposed increase of 67% in allotment rentals. She
indicated that she would be supporting the amendment.
Councillor Perry described the Council Tax as not being particularly fair and
acknowledged that the Council was in a difficult position, pointing out that
Councils in England were facing potential bankruptcy or financial difficulties,
some more challenging than the Council’s. He felt that the policies of the U.K.
Government over the last 13 years had contributed to the situation that the
Council was facing. If the Council did not increase Council Tax it was likely that
it would have implications elsewhere for example, the loss of jobs and
acknowledged that reserves could only be spent once. He had no doubt if the
Council agreed to freeze the Council Tax for the next financial year it was
almost certain that it would have to increase it by a larger amount in the
subsequent financial year. He considered that the proposed amendment was
short sighted and that the political groups should stop playing politics and
collaborate more for the benefit of the Vale’s communities.
Councillor Hennessy echoed the previous comments of Councillors Carroll and
Charles in regard to the appointment of additional Directors and the proposed
increase of 4.9% when the most vulnerable would find it difficult to find the funds
to pay for green waste collections. He indicated that he would be supporting the
amendment.
Councillor Fisher referred to the comments made by Councillor Dr. Johnson in
regard to the state of the economy at the current time and the impact upon
residents which he agreed with, but felt this was the reason why Members
needed to consider approving the amendment as it would help residents of the
Vale and he indicated that he would be supporting the amendment.
Councillor Perkes echoed the comments of Councillor Brooks in regard to the
implications of using further reserves and to the impact the previous 12 years of
austerity had on local authorities in Wales. She felt that the Conservative U.K.
Government had mismanaged the U.K. budget and economy and felt that the
Conservative Group were in no position to criticise the proposals and indicated
that she would not be supporting the amendment.
Councillor Penn considered that if the Conservatives were in charge they would
play fast and loose with the Council finances and he was pleased that they were
not. Referring to the proposed amendment he enquired as to how this would be
funded, which services would be cut and how Council Tax would increase in
future years to come. He considered the amendment short sighted with no view
to the future, a headline today and financially irresponsible. He indicated that he
would not be supporting the amendment.
Councillor Driscoll felt that it had been easy to criticise the Conservative Party
over the previous 12 years and acknowledged that they had not done
themselves any favours. However, he felt that those criticising the
Conservatives should look more closer at some of the mistakes that had been
made by the Welsh Government and referred to the £155m wasted on the M4
Relief Road. In real terms he considered that residents of the Vale of
Glamorgan were paying the third highest Council Tax in Wales. He indicated
that he would be supporting the amendment.
The Leader in summing up, referred to the amendment which had clearly not
been based upon any financial projections or any of the financial information
contained in the reports discussed over the previous six months. She drew
Members’ attention to Appendix E of the report and the Head of Finance/Section
151 Officer’s report on the robustness of estimates and the sufficiency of the
Council’s reserves. She also reminded Members that the Council’s policy on
General Reserves was to hold a minimum prudent level which was currently set
at £10m, the projected level of General Fund balance would be 3.91% of net
revenue budget at the beginning of 2023/24 dropping to 3.74% and it was
considered that this remained an appropriate level. She reminded the
Conservative Group that it was not a game and alluded to the fact that the
Group had imploded in 2019 due to the types of suggestions that the
amendment was proposing now. She also highlighted that the budget had gone
through Scrutiny Committees and not a single suggestion on the budget had
come forward that could be looked at. She signalled that she would be voting
against the amendment.
A Vote took place on Councillor Carroll’s amendment (as seconded by Councillor
Charles) to freeze Council Tax for 2023/24 and to take a further £4.239m out of
general reserves to support the budget.
The Amendment was not carried.
Councillor Dr. Johnson alluding to the earlier debate in relation to the
Conservative Group’s proposed amendment and their comments regarding the
impact of an increase in Council Tax and considered the comments made by
both the Conservative Group and Labour Group had not recognised the impact
the increase in Council house rents of roughly £300 would have on Council
tenants. The proposals to increase Council Tax was actually less than the
impact of rent rises on Council tenants. He indicated unlike the Conservative
Group he would set out how an increase of around 2% in Council Tax could be
achieved through the use of a smoothing motion of around £2m. He explained
that this was clearly affordable as the Council consistently over collected the
anticipated amount of Council Tax by circa £1.5m to £2m each year. Alluding to
a recent Revenue Monitoring report in relation to the current financial year this
reported that it was anticipated to over collect Council Tax by an amount
approximately £1.5m. In the previous financial year the Council had over
collected Council Tax by £2m. Whilst he could see the benefit for the Council of
having extra money he did not believe that it was right that the Council
deliberately each year over collected. He considered it unfair to take this bonus,
but then not include it in the Council’s normal financial systems. He also
touched upon the introduction of the Garden Waste collection service and the
intention for it to be a fee paying subscription. He did not necessarily support
the proposal as a service change. He had been concerned that there had been
no discussion in relation to biodiversity in the context of the Council’s Nature
Emergency Declaration and that a charge for the service could lead to large
amounts of uncollected garden waste. He also thought that the proposal, in his
view, also underestimated the amounts that would be collected from the service
and thought the uptake of the subscription service would be higher than the
estimated 20% as reported. If it was the case, that subscriptions would be
higher and the Council would benefit from increased income.
In concluding, he drew attention to the amount of investment income that the
Council was likely to receive alluding to some £150k of investment income in the
most recent forecast for the next financial year. Referring to the supplementary
report circulated to Members he made reference to the additional funding in the
amount of £178k received from the Welsh Government as part of the Council’s
final budget settlement. He had no doubt that this additional funding could also
be used to lower the proposed Council Tax increase.
Councillor Dr. Johnson moved the following Amendment:
That the Council Tax increase for 2023/24 be set at 2%. The amendment was
duly seconded by Councillor Hooper.
Councillor Dr. Johnson also requested that a Recorded Vote on the matter and
the requisite number of Members signalled their support for it.
Councillor Franks referring to the technical report put forward by officers in
consultation with the Cabinet considered the proposals being deliberated
ignored reality and alluded to his earlier comments made in reference to the
failures of the Cabinet and previous Administrations. He referred to the
proposed cuts to the education service of £2m and considered the Leader’s
earlier response to his question in terms of the implications of cuts to schools as
nebulous. The comments of the Leader were also at odds with other statements
made that they wished to protect statutory services. He considered that the
Vale of Glamorgan was in decline and that the Cabinet was failing to respond to
poor standards and whilst he agreed with the Leader’s comments that all
Members had a responsibility for finance he did not need to be lectured on it and
he had no faith in the proposed budget.
Councillor Ewan Goodjohn acknowledged that the proposed amendment was an
attempt to find the middle ground between the Cabinet’s proposed budget and
the Conservative’s failed amendment. Referring to Councillor Dr. Johnson’s
explanation in support of his amendment and in particular to the proposed
charge for garden waste collection, there was no guarantee that the uptake in
subscriptions would be greater than that reported to the Scrutiny Committee and
reminded Members that the Council required to be prudent and that there was
no guarantee that the Council would collect a greater amount of Council Tax in
future years. He further reminded Members that the proposals were already
using a smoothing mechanism by the use of reserves of approximately £4.5m,
any further use of reserves would be irresponsible and only a temporary solution
with it likely that Council Tax levels would need to be increased further in
subsequent years and he indicated that he would not be supporting the
amendment.
Both Councillors Carroll and Haines signalled that they would be supporting the
amendment as they would sooner see a rise of 2% rather than the proposed
increase of 4.9%.
Councillor Wilson referred to the budget process and the preparation of the
same which had been undertaken over a period of months and difficult decisions
had to be made particularly in regard to introducing charges for providing
Council services. In all reality, Members and the Council as a whole were facing
a £9m budget deficit. He considered this in part due to the fact that the
Westminster Government had reduced the Welsh Government’s budget which
had then impacted on local authorities in Wales and therefore the Council had
no luxury as it had to balance its budget. Failure to do so could lead to the
Council being surcharged and the U.K. Government Autumn Budget had not
helped. He also flagged the Section 151 Officer’s comments in regard to the
sustainability of Council reserves and also echoed the previous comments of
Councillor Ewan Goodjohn in regard to collecting Council Tax to the levels the
Council had previously done and an uptake in the garden waste subscription.
He considered that the proposed amendment relied on optimism, therefore, he
indicated that he would not be supporting the amendment.
Councillor Perry referring to the level of reserves that the Council had built up
over time. It appeared to him that the problem was that the Council sometimes
did not spend funding on delivering things that residents would like to see and
referred to the condition of road surfaces throughout the county which required
repair.
Councillor Hodges alluding to the fact that the budget reporting process had
been to various Committees it was clear to him that inflation had had a
significant impact on the Council and whilst the Council had reserves the value
of that was slowly decreasing. Whilst he acknowledged that these would only
spend it once, he felt that it was better to spend some of it. He considered that
the proposed amendment was prudent and suggested that it was time the
Council radically looked at how it operated services rather than adjusting the
budget every year. He felt that it was time that the Council decided how it
wanted to operate its services not only the services that were provided but how
these were paid for. He indicated that he would be supporting the amendment.
The Leader, in summing up referred to the comments regarding the use of
reserves as a smoothing mechanism and reminded Members that the proposed
budget was in fact using reserves to reduce the Council Tax increase by utilising
£2.8m of the General Reserve and also reminded Members that Council funding
had already been used to off-set existing budget pressures referring to
homelessness issues and energy price increases and therefore it was clear that
the Council was already taking action to assist and protect its services. She
acknowledged that there were earmarked reserves however, these would be
reduced in coming years as projects were delivered. She also reminded
Members that when Cabinet was undertaking the budget process it did look at
the possibility of using additional reserves as they were mindful of the pressures
residents within the Vale of Glamorgan were facing. However, those same
pressures were also impacting on the Council and the proposals put forward by
the Cabinet would see an increase in Council Tax less than half the rate of
inflation. She signalled that she would not be supporting the amendment.
A Recorded Vote took place on Councillor Dr. Johnson’s amendment Motion (as
seconded by Councillor Hooper) to increase Council Tax by 2% for 2023/24.
Members For Against Abstain
Anne Asbrey √
Julie Aviet √
Gareth Ball √
Rhiannon Birch √
Bronwen Brooks √
Gillian Bruce √
Ian Buckley √
Lis Burnett √
Samantha Campbell √
George Carroll √
Christine Cave √
Charles Champion √
Janice Charles √
Millie Collins √
Marianne Cowpe √
Pamela Drake √
Vincent Driscoll √
Anthony Ernest √
Robert Fisher √
Christopher Franks √
Wendy Gilligan √
Emma Goodjohn √
Ewan Goodjohn √
Stephen Haines √
Howard Hamilton √
Sally Hanks √
William Hennessy √
Nic Hodges √
Mark Hooper √
Catherine Iannucci √
Gwyn John √
Dr. Ian Johnson √
Susan Lloyd-Selby √
Belinda Loveluck-Edwards √
Julie Lynch-Wilson √
Kevin Mahoney √
Naomi Marshallsea √
Michael Morgan √
Jayne Norman √
Helen Payne √
Elliot Penn √
Sandra Perkes √
Ian Perry √
Joanna Protheroe √
Ruba Sivagnanam √
Carys Stallard √
Neil Thomas √
Rhys Thomas √
Steffan Wiliam √
Eddie Williams √
Mark Wilson √
Nicholas Wood √
TOTAL 22 30
The Amendment was not carried.
Councillor Hooper was disappointed that the amendment had not been
supported. He hoped that the wider budget process could be improved next
year as he believed that the process contained flaws when taking account of the
Council’s Corporate Plan and its associated priorities. It was his view that the
full cost recovery of Council services should be dealt with under the Corporate
Plan mechanism and the proposed increases contained in the proposed budget
should have been done over a longer period of time. The budget for next year
from his perspective would be largely set as a cost plus basis on the year’s
expected outturn and he considered this to be inefficient, maintained bottlenecks
and discouraged departmental innovation. He was also pleased to hear that
some moves had been made to budget from a zero base according to needs
and plans, but there was still insufficient resources available to undertake a full
zero based budget exercise across the Council which had been a point he had
made previously at Scrutiny Committees and at the Governance and Audit
Committees, but acknowledged that the Leader had responded to him on the
matter previously.
Councillor Ewan Goodjohn quoted inflation increases since 1997 based on
statistics in Wales and from the Office of National Statistics. Whilst he
acknowledged that certain Members wished to see the increase in Council Tax
to be lower, the fact of the matter was that Council Tax was an unfair tax as it
did not distinguish between those who rented a home or those who owned or
had a mortgage. The Council was in a difficult position as the Council Tax could
not be decreased if Welsh Government did not receive adequate funding from
the U.K. Government that did not reflect the increase in the Council’s costs. It
was his view that the proposed increase was one of the lowest in the Council’s
history, but to go lower would be irresponsible unless it could be properly
funded. The Council had to retain a realistic level of reserves to address future
challenges.
Councillor Cowpe was concerned that the Council was not listening to the
responses to the budget consultation nor to the responses of the Scrutiny
Committees and therefore nothing had changed with the budget remaining as
proposed. She asked that in future online consultations should provide for an
option for a response to be provided via email. She was also disappointed that
the Council had decided to go ahead and increase the cost of black storage
caddies which were used largely for nappies, hygiene waste. She was
concerned that there would be a reluctance to buy the hygiene caddies which
would lead to these type of waste products being disposed of in black bags and
this should be seen as unacceptable in a modern day Wales and likely to have
the biggest impact on vulnerable families and particularly single parent families
who were headed by a female. The proposals to charge would also
disproportionately impact on females as they were likely to be the main users
due to various health and wellbeing issues. She felt the proposed charge was
totally unacceptable and a tax on women and she sought clarification on what
equality impact assessment had been undertaken on the matter. She was also
concerned regarding the communication by the Council regarding the use of
purple bags and this needed to be addressed. She had been made aware that
residents were being discouraged to apply for additional purple bags which
meant that they were less inclined to recycle. She hoped that the Council would
address this by encouraging residents to register and apply for a purple bag so
that each household could be properly assessed based on their needs. She
was aware that officers did visit and advise households and she expressed her
thanks for this being done. However, she would like to see visits extended to
include existing households who were potentially abusing the system by placing
multiple purple bags out for kerbside collection.
Councillor Wilson in response to Councillor Cowpe' comments indicated that it
was the intention to encourage residents to recycle more and this was part of
the Council’s Strategy and not simply about raising funds, but more about
saving money by increasing participation and recycling rates. He acknowledged
that there were larger family units that required additional assistance who found
it difficult to recycle their waste. In terms of the Council’s purple bag service, a
balance had to be achieved in terms of encouraging residents to access the
service, but also not wishing it to be abused.
Councillor Dr. Johnson suggested that his amendment had not been taken on
board as Members had misinterpreted his rationale for a 2% increase as he had
provided an explanation how the Council could fund a 2% increase in Council
Tax. He reminded Members that the settlement received from Welsh
Government had seen an increase of approximately 9% which was the third
highest in Wales and approximately £10m more than anticipated. However, the
discussions in regard to the budget had not moved on from when it was
originally thought the Council was facing dire consequences and potential
massive cuts in services. The fact was the Council was not in great financial
difficulties and at the end of last financial year it held £128m in usable reserves.
He was also disappointed with the consultation on the budget and felt that
Councillors and the Scrutiny process had been disrespected. Some 773
responses by residents to the consultation in his view had been dismissed in
minutes when the Cabinet considered the final budget at its meeting in February
which he had attended.
Referring to changes in fees and charges, with the Council keen on full cost
recovery, it was important that the public needed to see that the Council was
using the additional income wisely. He was also concerned there had been a
lost opportunity to revisit many of the proposed small cuts to services given the
additional funding received in the final settlement and referred to the Warm
Space Libraries and cuts to provision of sand bags for residents who were
threatened by flooding. Instead, the decision had been made to bank the
money rather than use it for the benefit of residents or reduce the proposed
Council Tax rise. It was notable that 33 Equality Impact Assessments were still
awaited on proposed charges and increased charges for Council services,
reiterating the concern expressed by Councillor Cowpe in relation to the hygiene
caddies and the particular impact that increase would have on women and those
on low incomes. He hoped that the Cabinet and officers would revisit these
issues taking account of the Equality Impact Assessments once available and
reconsider proposed charges. He signalled that he would be voting against the
proposed budget.
Councillor Mahoney referred to the continual blame culture between the U.K.
Government and the Welsh Government in relation to provision of funding to
local government in Wales. As far as he was concerned both were as equally to
blame for the financial circumstances affecting the Council. He considered that
both the U.K. Conservative Government and Labour Welsh Government were
equally culpable of wasting public money when at the same time the residents
were unable to heat their own homes adequately. He also expressed concern
regarding the Council’s recycling targets. As he understood it, if the agreed
tonnage target in relation to black bag waste was not met the Council would be
penalised financially. He also did not believe in the creation of the new
Directors roles when at the same time the Council was making the case that it
had insufficient funding. He indicated that he would not be supporting the
budget.
Councillor Sivagnanam indicated that it was a simple choice for the Council in
that its budget intended to protect the most vulnerable residents and at the
same time to maintain statutory services. She acknowledged that the budget
was about a political choice and it was a choice that the Cabinet and the
Administration were prepared to make. She accepted the points made by
Councillor Cowpe in regard to the hygiene caddies and the purple bag waste
service. She gave Councillor Cowpe an assurance that this was something that
the Cabinet would be monitoring and hoped that would signal the Cabinet was
responsive particularly when it came to equality issues.
In summing up, Leader acknowledged that up to a point the Council could do
more, but she believed the next step moving forward would be to see greater
constructive discussion when the budget was being discussed at the Council’s
Scrutiny Committees in the future. There was very little at present. In regard to
Councillor Cowpe’s comment in relation to charging for hygiene caddies she
indicated that the Cabinet did look at the issue in some depth, but it was a
reasonable stance taken by the Council in an effort to cover its costs. She was
also mindful that households with lower incomes could potentially pay more and
she was open to a discussion about how residents could be supported further.
She acknowledged that it may be something that needed looking at in the future.
In terms of departmental innovation raised by Councillor Hooper, it was clear
that the Council was addressing this issue and referred to the Big Fresh
Catering Company. She hoped to see similar initiatives particularly under the
guise of the Reshaping Services agenda. She reiterated her previous points
relating to Council reserves.
Turning to Councillor Mahoney’s comment regarding Welsh Government
funding, there was evidence that local government in England was not being
afforded the same level of protection that was being provided in Wales to
Councils by the Welsh Government. She would not want to be in their position
and was very happy to be in Wales.
A Recorded Vote took place on the recommendations as contained within the
report and supplementary report, having been moved by the Leader and
seconded by Councillor Brooks.
Members For Against Abstain
Anne Asbrey √
Julie Aviet √
Gareth Ball √
Rhiannon Birch √
Bronwen Brooks √
Gillian Bruce √
Ian Buckley √
Lis Burnett √
Samantha Campbell √
George Carroll √
Christine Cave √
Charles Champion √
Janice Charles √
Millie Collins √
Marianne Cowpe √
Pamela Drake √
Vincent Driscoll √
Anthony Ernest √
Robert Fisher √
Christopher Franks √
Wendy Gilligan √
Emma Goodjohn √
Ewan Goodjohn √
Stephen Haines √
Howard Hamilton √
Sally Hanks √
William Hennessy √
Nic Hodges √
Mark Hooper √
Catherine Iannucci √
Gwyn John √
Dr. Ian Johnson √
Susan Lloyd-Selby √
Belinda Loveluck-Edwards √
Julie Lynch-Wilson √
Kevin Mahoney √
Naomi Marshallsea √
Michael Morgan √
Jayne Norman √
Helen Payne √
Elliot Penn √
Sandra Perkes √
Ian Perry √
Joanna Protheroe √
Ruba Sivagnanam √
Carys Stallard √
Neil Thomas √
Rhys Thomas √
Steffan Wiliam √
Eddie Williams √
Mark Wilson √
Nicholas Wood √
TOTAL 30 22
The Motion was carried with it subsequently being
RESOLVED –
(1) T H A T approval be given to update the Final Budget in recognition that
the final Aggregate External Finance figure had increased to £202.797m which
was an increase of £16.782m, and an improvement on the £16.604m
Provisional Settlement figure contained in the report published on 28th February,
2023 as detailed in the Supplementary Report circulated prior to the meeting.
(2) T H A T a Council Tax increase of 4.9% be approved.
(3) T H A T the Budget for 2023/24 be approved.
Reasons for decisions
(1) To update the Budget following the receipt of the Final Settlement from
Welsh Government published on 28th February, 2023.
(2) Setting the annual rate of Council Tax was a key policy decision for
Council.
(3) Setting a balanced budget was a statutory responsibility and decision for
Council.
PAY POLICY 2023/2024 (REF)
The Council had a statutory requirement under the Localism Act 2011 to
prepare a pay policy statement for the new financial year 2023/24. The
statement needed to be approved and published by 31st March, 2023. 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.
The Pay Policy had been incrementally developed since 2012 to incorporate the
following:
• Guidance from Welsh Government as contained in the document “Pay
Accountabilities in Local Government in Wales” as updated November
2021;
• Changes as prescribed by the Local Authorities Standing Orders (Wales)
(Amendment) Regulations 2014 which took effect from 1st July, 2014;
• Changes as prescribed by the Local Government (Wales) Act 2015 to
ensure that any proposed changes to the salary of Chief Officers (as
defined in the Localism Act 2011) were made following consultation with
the Independent Remuneration Panel for Wales;
• Local Government and Elections (Wales) Act 2021 had been taken into
account as part of the annual Pay Policy Statement;
• Necessary refinements as a result of changes to the Council’s senior
management structure over recent years;
• The effects of national and locally negotiated pay and associated benefit
awards along with the provisions of the National Living Wage.
The Leader referred to Section 12 of Appendix A which was attached to the
original report to Cabinet and drew Members’ attention to the differentials in pay
between the top and bottom grades of the organisation which was quite flat and
should be seen as a positive. She also drew Members’ attention to the progress
made in regard to the gender pay gap.
RESOLVED – T H A T the Council’s Pay Policy as attached at Appendix A to
the report to Cabinet on 2nd February, 2023 (Minute No C213) 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. Councillors Aviet, Bruce, Champion and Ernest declared an interest
in the above matter and withdrew from the meeting during consideration
of the item.)
CHIEF OFFICER APPRAISAL SCHEME – PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS (REF)
The Corporate Performance and Resources Scrutiny Committee had considered
the report at its meeting on 15th February, 2023 where there had been a detailed
discussion of the matter where some had supported more regular appraisals
and there had been discussion concerning peer reviews.
Cabinet at its meeting on 16th February, 2023 had endorsed the report and
referred it to Council for approval in order to introduce the new scheme from 1st
April, 2023.
The Leader reminded Members that the matter before Council had been initially
referred from the Corporate Performance and Resources Scrutiny Committee to
the Cabinet and was now being reported to Council for approval. Referring to
the proposed modifications she indicated that these were minor adjustments
and had been initially considered by the Council’s Strategic Leadership Team,
the relevant recognised Trade Unions and diversity networks who were briefed
in November 2022 in addition to Chief Officer Heads of Service who were
briefed on the proposed changed in January 2023. She indicated that the
modified scheme contained SMART objectives and targets reflected a
competency profile which included coaching discussions linked to strength
based improvements encompassing a rounded view of performance through
peer reviews and 360 degree feedback which she considered was a much more
constructive way of undertaking appraisals. She hoped that the proposed
modifications would be seen in a positive and constructive way. The objective
was to introduce the revised scheme by 1st April, 2023.
Councillor Haines supported the principles behind the modifications but
suggested the Council needed to have a clearer understanding of the definition
of productivity and the appropriate techniques to increase the same within the
work place. At present, as he understood it, productivity of an individual was
only measured on an annual review. However, the issue of productivity was an
ongoing matter and was the easiest way to save money and increase the
performance of officers and suggested that this should have been included as
part of the modifications to the existing scheme.
RESOLVED – T H A T the proposed modifications for Chief Officer Appraisals
as reported to Cabinet on 16th February, 2023 (Minute No C223) be approved in
order to introduce the new scheme from 1st April, 2023.
Reason for decision
Having regard to the contents of the report and discussions at the meeting.
(N.B. All Chief Officers withdrew from the meeting during consideration of
the Pay Policy 2023/2024 and Chief Officer Appraisal Scheme – Proposed
Modifications items with the exception of the Head of Human Resources
and Organisational Development who remained to provide advice and then
withdrew from the meeting prior to a final decision being made on these
items.)
RESOLVED: that the Community & Adult Services Scrutiny Committee report entitled Cost-of-Living be received and responded to within the usual timescales
RESOLVED:
That the Chairperson writes to the Cabinet Member on behalf of the Committee expressing their comments and observations captured during the way forward.
RESOLVED –
(1) T H A T the report be noted and the final interviews be undertaken under
Part II of the agenda.
(2) T H A T following the interviews residual appointment details, as
appropriate, be delegated to the Director of Social Services, in consultation with
the Chief Executive and Leader, should a suitable applicant be confirmed by
Members.
Reasons for decisions
(1) To ensure an appointment to the post is conducted in accordance with the
Council’s Constitution.
(2) To ensure that all Council functions are met within this area.
Minutes - KB
No.
Vale of Glamorgan, Senior Management Appointment Committee,
RESOLVED –
(1) T H A T the report be noted and the final interview be undertaken under
Part II of the agenda.
(2) T H A T following the interview residual appointment details, as appropriate,
be delegated to the Director of Social Services, in consultation with the Chief
Executive and Leader, should the applicant be considered suitable applicant by
Members.
Reasons for decisions
(1) To ensure an appointment to the post is conducted in accordance with the
Council’s Constitution.
(2) To ensure that all Council functions are met within this area.
Vale of Glamorgan, Senior Management Appointment Committee,
RESOLVED –
(1) T H A T I.M. be appointed to the post of Head of Resource Management
and Safeguarding.
(2) T H A T residual appointment details, as appropriate, be delegated to the
Director of Social Services, in consultation with the Chief Executive and Leader of
the Council.
Reasons for decisions
(1) Following the interview of the candidate.
(2) To ensure that all Council functions are met within this area.
Minutes - KB
Vale of Glamorgan, Senior Management Appointment Committee,
RESOLVED –
(1) T H A T J.B. be appointed to the post of Head of Adult Services and Vale
Alliance.
(2) T H A T residual appointment details, as appropriate, be delegated to the
Director of Social Services, in consultation with the Chief Executive and Leader of
the Council.
Reasons for decisions
(1) Following the interviews of the two candidates.
(2) To ensure that all Council functions are met within this area.
RESOLVED – T H A T the use of the Urgent Decision Procedure (Cabinet Minute
No. C63, 8th September, 2022 (as set out in Section 15.14.2(ii) of the Council’s
Constitution) be noted.
Reason for decision
The reporting of the use of the Urgent Decision Procedure is a requirement of the
Council’s Constitution.
AMENDED SCHOOL AND COLLEGE TRANSPORT POLICY (REF)
RESOLVED – T H A T the use of the Urgent Decision Procedure (Cabinet Minute
No. C76, 29th September, 2022 (as set out in Section 15.14.2(ii) of the Council’s
Constitution) be noted.
Reason for decision
The reporting of the use of the Urgent Decision Procedure is a requirement of the
Council’s Constitution.
PROPOSAL TO ADD ST RICHARD GWYN TO THE CAPITAL PROGRAMME (REF)
RESOLVED – T H A T the use of the Urgent Decision Procedure (Cabinet Minute
No. C77, 29th September, 2022 (as set out in Section 15.14.2(ii) of the Council’s
Constitution) be noted.
No.
Reason for decision
The reporting of the use of the Urgent Decision Procedure is a requirement of the
Council’s Constitution.
CAPITAL MONITORING FOR THE PERIOD 1ST APRIL TO 31ST AUGUST 2022 (REF)
RESOLVED – T H A T the use of the Urgent Decision Procedure (Cabinet Minute
No. C90, 6th October, 2022 (as set out in Section 15.14.2(ii) of the Council’s
Constitution) be noted.
Reason for decision
The reporting of the use of the Urgent Decision Procedure is a requirement of the
Council’s Constitution.
DWR CYMRU WELSH WATER CONSULTATION ON THE DRAINAGE AND WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN (DWMP) (REF)
RESOLVED – T H A T the use of the Urgent Decision Procedure (Cabinet Minute
No. C95, 6th October, 2022 (as set out in Section 15.14.2(ii) of the Council’s
Constitution) be noted.
Reason for decision
The reporting of the use of the Urgent Decision Procedure is a requirement of the
Council’s Constitution.
FINAL DRAFT VALE OF GLAMORGAN COUNCIL ANNUAL SELF
ASSESSMENT REPORT 2021/22 (REF) –
RESOLVED – T H A T the use of the Urgent Decision Procedure (Cabinet Minute
No. C104, 20th October, 2022 (as set out in Section 15.14.2(ii) of the Council’s
Constitution) be noted.
Reason for decision
The reporting of the use of the Urgent Decision Procedure is a requirement of the
Council’s Constitution.
No.
CAPITAL MONITORING FOR THE PERIOD 1ST APRIL TO 30TH SEPTEMBER, 2022 (REF)
RESOLVED – T H A T the use of the Urgent Decision Procedure (Cabinet Minute
No. C119, 3rd November, 2022 (as set out in Section 15.14.2(ii) of the Council’s
Constitution) be noted.
Reason for decision
The reporting of the use of the Urgent Decision Procedure is a requirement of the
Council’s Constitution.
CONSULTATION OF PROPOSALS FOR PRIMARY LEGISLATION IN RELATION TO CHILDREN’S SOCIAL CARE, CONTINUING HEALTH CARE, MANDATORY REPORTING AND REGULATION AND INSPECTION (REF)
RESOLVED – T H A T the use of the Urgent Decision Procedure (Cabinet Minute
No. C123, 3rd November, 2022 (as set out in Section 15.14.2(ii) of the Council’s
Constitution) be noted.
Reason for decision
The reporting of the use of the Urgent Decision Procedure is a requirement of the
Council’s Constitution.
COUNCIL TAX REDUCTION SCHEME (REF)
RESOLVED – T H A T the use of the Urgent Decision Procedure (Cabinet Minute
No. C159, 1st December, 2022 (as set out in Section 15.14.2(ii) of the Council’s
Constitution) be noted.
Reason for decision
The reporting of the use of the Urgent Decision Procedure is a requirement of the
Council’s Constitution.
Swansea, Scrutiny Performance Panel – Child & Family Services,
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.