Transcript

So, in the absence of the Chair, I'll read this part of the script. Welcome to this meeting of the partnership Scrutini. It's being held on Thursday 16 May. This may has been webcast with the exception of any business that the Committee resolves to exclude the press and public because of the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined by the Local Government Act 1972. This meeting is being held as a hybrid meeting with partnerships Scrutini Committee members attending in person at the Council Chamber, County Hall, Refint or Remotely via video conference. For transparency purposes, I will ask, I will say now, which members of the partnerships Scrutini Committee members are present and whether they're attending in person or remotely. Here in Refint, we have got Councillor Pauline Edwards, Councillor Bobby Fili, Councillor Robert Williams and Councillor Kelly Clueitz. Attending from home, we have Councillor Raul Roberts, Councillor Tarely Mendez, Councillor June Butterfield and Councillor Rajmetri, who are members of the Committee. Also, in attendance here in Refint, we have the Co-opted member, Neil Roberts, and also attending remotely as the Co-opted member Colleto in. Though it's attending remotely, I kindly ask to mute the microphones unless they are called upon to speak. Partnerships Scrutini Committee members are also asked to have their videos switched on throughout the meeting unless the Chair specifically requests you to turn your video off to improve the quality of the audio link when you're speaking. You will be expected to restart your video once you've finished speaking. Please also refrain from using the chat's facility as messages sent to all are visible on the webcast. Those present in the Chamber are asked to make sure that they speak directly into the microphone to improve the quality of the sound for those attending remotely. To weigh transparency, all the meetings business must be conducted through the Chair. As this is the first meeting following the Council's AGM, we have to elect a Vice Chair. But before doing so, I'll just go on off to other items first of all. First of all, we've got apologies for absence. They are from Councillors Brian Jones, Jeanette Chamberlain Jones and David Williams. They also think as a committee that we'll send our regards to David Williams, we believe that he's had an operation recently and he's still recovering from that. The next item is declarations of interest. Members will be aware of the requirement and the Council's code of conduct to declare any personal or prejudicial interest in respect of any business to be considered at today's meeting. Such interest should be declared now or as soon as the Councillor or member affected becomes aware that they have a personal or prejudicial interest in today's business. All members declaring an interest are required to state clearly what the interest is and to advise whether it is a personal interest or a personal and prejudicial interest as defined in the code of conduct. Any member declaring a prejudicial interest is required to leave the meeting from the duration of the business and can take no part in the proceedings. Members with a personal interest only may take part in the debates and any vote. If a personal or personal and prejudicial interest is declared today that has not previously been disclosed and recorded, the Councillor or member concerned will be required to complete and sign a declaration of interest form which is either available from the committee support staff in attendance here today or online. Are there any declarations of interest? Right. The next item then on the agenda is the appointment of vice chair for the 2024-25. Councillor Bobbie-Feelie. I'm just going to propose that we continue with the Councillor Pauline Edwards for the meeting soon. It has been nominated. Do we have a second? The second. Any other nominations? No. Can everybody just show their hands to say that they agree? Yes. Councillor Pauline Edwards has therefore been elected as the vice chair for the forthcoming municipal year. So do you think we're here? the next item. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. [ Pause ] Chair with me. This is my first chairing of this meeting. I'm going to urgent matters as agreed by the chair. No. I have an urgent item. Thank you. So if you move on to the minutes of the last meeting. I'll take everybody's read. Is there any go through the minutes? Has anybody got anything to say about page 9, page 10, page 11, and page 12? Can we take a vote on accuracy, please? Opposia. Kelly. Bobbie. Anybody else? Everybody happy with them? So you can prove them? Yep. Okay. Any matters arising? Excuse me, Madam Chair. Have you had a response to the letter sent which was proposed by me and seconded by Councillor Bobbie Feely? Yes, we have sent the letter out to the Prime Minister and in the update there's a copy of the letter there and a copy of the response from the Minister for Social Services that was sent out to you the other day. The business case was accepted by the BCU board in March and has subsequently been submitted to Welsh Government. So myself and colleagues from BCU will continue to update the committee on the progress of that. Thank you. That's good news. So we move on to item 6, the review of Cabinet decision relating to sustainable communities for learning rolling programme. Just before we go into that item, just remember us to be aware we have got two education co-op in members here who are members of any scrutiny committee that's discussed items relating to education. They are full voting members of the committee so for this item they have full voting rights just like any other committee members so that you're clear on that. So on behalf of the committee can I just welcome all the League member, Councillor Jill German and all officers here today for this item. I'll just outline the process for you so we're aware of what's happening here. The decision was taken by Cabinet on the 23rd of April 2024 on sustainable communities for learning rolling programme. This decision was published on the 25th of April and on the 2nd of May the decision was called in under the Council's calling procedure rules. On the grounds and stated in Appendix A which is on pages 17 and 18 of the pack you've got in front of you. Now in considering the decision called in for scrutiny, the following procedure will be followed. We've invited the League's signatory here today who is Councillor Markey and in a minute the chair will invite Councillor Markey and to introduce the calling, give a brief introduction and background to the request to call in the decision for scrutiny. After that all the other signatories will be asked to briefly outline why they agreed the calling in of the decision for scrutiny and then Councillor, the member, Councillor Jill German and officers will then be asked to answer the points raised by Councillor Young and his co-signatories. All the co-signatories have received an email stating that they are expected to attend today and give the reasoning behind the calling. Just on that point as well I know Councillor Paulinett was one of the signatories. She is now chairing this meeting but we have taken advice from the monitoring officer on that and that is perfectly okay. Committee members will then be given the opportunity to ask questions of the League member and officers before with the chair's consent any non-committee members are given an opportunity to ask questions. Once the questions have been exhausted both sides will then be given an opportunity to summarise their case. Now before the chair summarises the relevant points made, sorry the chair will then summarise the relevant points made. The committee will then be asked to determine whether there are grounds to refer the decision back to cabinet or not and it can ask cabinet to do one of three things. It can ask it to review the original decision but in doing so it needs to provide a clear rationale on why it thinks the cabinet needs to review the decision and provide clear recommendations. If that is the case that then would be referred to cabinet next Tuesday. If the committee decides that it doesn't want cabinet to actually review the decision but may want to provide comments for cabinet to consider at a later date it can also do that or if it decides that it doesn't think the decision needs to be reeled and doesn't want to provide any further comments to cabinet on it then that decision can be implemented. So that's the process that we'll follow. I know we've got Gary attending remotely so I don't know if he wants to add something there please Gary. Thank you Rian. The only thing I would add to that is that it's very important that when you're considering a calling that the committee concentrates on the decision that has been called in so the decision that's been called in is the decision that was taken by cabinet as set out in the calling. Not a decision that has yet to be made or a decision that may have been made in the past outside of the calling notice period and it's for members to consider having read the notice of calling and listen to what members have made and the responses that are received as to whether or not there are actually relevant grounds to refer the matter back to cabinet. So I just ask you to keep that in your mind whilst you're considering the matter. So number one, concentrate on the decision that's being called in and concentrate on the issues that have been set out in the notice of calling and I may need to comment on those at some later stage but I'll leave it there for now. Thank you. I'll do a brief summary as we all go to discussion and I'd like to come in at the end chair if that's okay. I'll keep it brief but this isn't about the future decision as been mentioned by a guy about the school. This is about good governance and getting decisions based on information I believe. So I believe we haven't done what we need to when we're getting rid of an open space or playing field. I know there's been legal advice saying we're not disposing because we're not selling. I've looked into that and UK government may give national guidance in 2015 saying if you dispose all change the use of the field, you should activate the consultation process. So I believe that covers this. There was a debate. So this act I refer to in the calling Dr. Dyloid will respect assembly member who is his policy brought forward. He scrutinized this and he agreed with that approach that disposal would include change of use. I'm happy for chatter that but as I say I believe good governance if you're taking the massive decision to get rid of a sports field which wealth government says I'm put on the R. The LDP says I'm important. So I just want people to make decisions based on all the relevant information. So I will just go through I have spoke to sport Wales and again they didn't want to get involved with the legality of it but Owen a director from sports Wales said his understanding is that he should have been consulted as the policy officer for sports Wales and that should always be carried out as soon as possible because with all good big decisions you need to start that consultation early on and again this process kicking in it would mean that schools within Demby would be able to voice their opinions the sports clubs anyone with an interest in that field and all that information then would be shared that's important again that information is public so we're making open transparent decisions based on facts so it's not about me challenging anyone's decision it's about me saying what about the local schools what about the local community now I don't believe that this should just go forward and we make that decision in the future the LDP is absolutely clear I'm not going to go on to the plan inside but the LDP is clear that sports fields are protected unless the surplus so again if we follow the correct process we'd have all them assessments these calculations are of how many acres of fields you need per population and it's quite substantial and again it's understanding that I'm making good decisions based on real data and taking the community with you and I don't believe that's happened and I think it should happen and I hope this this scrutiny you know I will respect whichever decision you made but I think it's really important that we do communicate with our schools fully our sports clubs are elected members it talks about that also in the LDP that any chains to open spatial playing fields should be consulted with the local members and the community and I don't believe that's happened I think I'll leave it there but if I can come in later chair and jock and vow thank you very much but this is a big decision on a one of the few athletics pitches in Denver sure and I'll leave it there Jock and vow thank you thank you I wonder if any of the other signatories want to come up and speak please. Thank you Chair moving patty and Councillor SINFIT if I'm doing my work let me back and remember at just I'm just here supporting us a signature for this calling today just because I feel that we need to review and make sure that we've got clear consultation of what is happening with the loss of this sports ground in Denver and whether the how it implies with our how it impacts our green space areas in Denver area and having the full consultation on it and reviewing it would give us a clear picture of whether the decision is right or not. Thank you very much I just like to reiterate what Councillor MARCION and Councillor MURMING parry have just said consulting is very important for any project of any size I'll give you an example of a project that I was part of in the village where I live at Clandrader it was a project to carry out work on Centre of Nogs well behind the church in Clandrader and before we started on that project before we had any funding we had substantial funding from the lottery and before we started we had to show the need we had to consult with the local school with the chapels with groups and with the local residents and I don't believe that a full consultation full open consultation has taken place in this case and that's why I'm in support of call back for this issue. Thank you, thank you I'm not sure if Councillor GOING to Williams is actually online? No, no I don't think now yes, how's drawing to Susie so if I can carry on with my own contribution really it is just to say that I support Councillor MARCION and others about just concerned about the fact that well how many assessments have have not been carried out really I suppose there was I have a slight issue about the second aspect of the calling about the risks and looking at the risks of site be being converted to a playing field about if that's delayed or if that goes over budget about the budget for the schools and then the ongoing schools afterwards but obviously at the moment I think we're concentrating on the open spaces, thank you. And I call on Lee, can Joe German please to respond, thank you. Be okay there and thank you to Partnership Scrutany for inviting us here today. I want to start really with the beginning of the process where this call has come to Partnership Scrutany, so the calling did go to Gary Williams as Monetron Officer who considered the calling and of course spoke with us as the service and myself as lead member, so I don't know, Gary of course can speak for himself but I think in summary Gary's opinion as Monetron Officer was that the issues raised today weren't directly relevant to the decision made by Cabinet, he looked at the point about the playing fields and I will ask Gary to come on in that in a moment and also the issue of affordability and the cost of putting those things in place that will be betterment or equal provision at Middle Park and both of those he considered were valid for discussion at full business case with the Capital Scrutany Committee and of course the planning but did not really have any bearing on the Cabinet decision because the Cabinet decision of course is on the strategic outline program, it's the wish list if you like, schools going forward to Welsh Government, I will expand on that in a moment but if I could just call Gary in just on the playing field aspects of the call then and the reasons why he didn't believe they were valid. Okay, so I feel good at school but neither the notice of calling nor anybody who has spoken yet is actually named which playing field and which school, I think we all know but to be fair to members of the public who might be viewing the meeting, there's nothing in the papers that indicates which school it is, so am I to assume that it's a school class from different? Yes, yes thanks. Okay, so the second point is that the notice of calling refers to legislation and statutory guidance that's applicable in Wales and if you look at the notice of calling appendix 1, the reference there is to the, I'll just get it up, sorry, so I don't give you the wrong title, the playing fields community involvement in disposal decisions Wales measure of 2010 under which regulations were made I think in 2015 and there's also reference on the second page of the notice of calling to statutory guidance issued by the Welsh Government. Just as a matter of law, I have to point out that none of those documents are relevant to this position, if the documents that are being referred to are read, you'll see that the disposal of playing fields is defined and it's defined as the grant of an estate or interest in land, in other words a sale and the statutory guidance gives various examples of where the guidance is applicable and they all refer to the sale of playing fields. So with all due respect, those documents are irrelevant in respect to this because if, as I understand the calling, it's a Scotland offering, the land that under consideration is in the ownership of the local authority and will remain in the ownership of the local authority and there's no sale, therefore those documents are irrelevant. It's up to members to consider the weight of any other arguments that are being put but I just think, you know, as a matter of law and process, I just need to point that out. Thank you. Do you want to carry on then then? Yes, Dior. So Gary obviously has a much better handle on the law aspect than me, which is why I wanted him to come in, so in discussion with the monitoring officer it was, he was dubious shall we say that it had direct to the council decision, the cabinet decision, however as a service we are more than happy to be transparent, if there are five members who deem this to need further scrutiny then of course that should happen. So we are happy to answer questions today, but I do think that it's important to scaffold the debate on the issue of the cabinet decision. So if I could just read that to scrutiny members, I'm aware as Gary has said that that summer's bit that has been said today, perhaps hasn't had the context it's needed for people who've been outside this discussion, so just to be clear on the cabinet decision, so the report that I recommended to cabinet was about Welsh government changed an approach to how it's overseas funding for school buildings, so it was previously 21st century schools, 21st century schools and the new process in a nutshell is a nine year rolling programme in three year blocks, and the strategic programme we put forward is to show the rolling programme that we are looking at and the order that schools go into. So the Bambi schools that we put forward back in whenever we are absolutely still committed to those projects, so we have recommended that they go forward in the Sustainable Communities for Learning programme and in addition we have added a scholar cast dash in Rislan as that has much funding in place already and it was really creative use by the team I think to put that in as well. So just briefly on the schools that we put forward for the strategic outline programme it's important to note that at this point this is just the names of the schools, there's no detail, there's no consideration as far as what those business cases will look like, but Welsh government did stipulate that when looking at the order of schools put forward that schools need to be at a certain point ready to proceed. So just briefly at the schools that are part of Bambi, we've got a school plus bron different, a school plus bron different is what is known as Reba stage three, which means it's a good way along, and that is essentially ready for the business case, a scholar cast dash is also at Reba stage three, so a good way along it actually already has planning permission so they are in that ready for business case section that Welsh government has asked for. And then years four to six, which is the second part of the the rolling programme Welsh government has asked schools to be put forward that are being developed and going through statutory consultation processes. So those schools from Bambi are Escal Pandra in Dambi, Escal Pandra is at Reba stage one, there's still work to be done with the consultation and with getting plans together, and I think it's important to note that that work will continue just as it has done on the run up to Escal plus bron different, so that the the preparatory work won't cease in this first three year band that will continue, which means that we hope that by the time we get to this year four we'll be ready to roll, and safe to say there is quite a lot of work still to be done, it's at stage one, we need to get it to stage three, so that period of time would allow us to do so. Dambi high school is also part of the Bambi proposal, and that is linked with the Escal plus bron different project, as we're looking to repurpose some of the buildings of Escal plus bron different to remodel Dambi high. So that is at design brief stage pending, so a little further back again, again the work will continue on getting that shovel ready for the year four, and the projections that the team had had is that that won't make a huge amount of difference to the building time, because there's still a lot of work to be done. And I've mentioned Escal Acastas as well, which is an important edition earlier on, and then finally we've got Escalbrin coslin and Escal Guernan, and it would provide an upgrade to the existing accommodation, two primary schools in Flangoslin, one is Welsh medium, one is English medium, they share a lot of facilities between them at the moment, this is a difficult school, two difficult schools to manage really, they're also at stage one, and the Strategic Outline Program says that that would be on hold pending design work, which would be resumed in 2026, so out of the schools there will be a little pause with that school. So there are the schools that went forward, that is the order that the schools went forward as part of the Strategic Outline Program, and that is all that Cabinet needed to decide on this time round, the detail of the builds and what things will look like, and going on in the wider community, that will come a little later in the strategic business case and of course in planning. As I said though, more than happy to answer questions on that, but just want to be clear about what Cabinet we're asked to decide on, wait for last, thank you. Thank you, I knew the other officers got anything to add to that please. Thank you, for this act can I just say, you know, cut path forward, I am really pleased that we are still discussing a £60 million investment in the education portfolio, and that is exceptionally as a heads of education, considering the financial position local authorities find themselves in, that's a big positive for me, because it means there will be improvements across the education portfolio. If I can, I'll respond to a few of the things that Council Young, I'm sure he expects me to respond, it's with regards to the level of consultation, you know, I will say, you know, sports whales, we have been in consultation with sports whales in the pre-planning, before the pre-planning, during the pre-planning, and we even provided them an update a few weeks ago as well. So sports whales have, you know, have been with us on the journey that we're on at the moment, as have some of the, some of the third party clubs that, you know, use the land to running club, Demby Town, Football Club, you know, we are in, in contact with them, we, we discuss them, you know, discuss the proposals with them, to make sure that they are fully briefed on board and understand what is, what is being offered or what is being suggested. I've just had a look at the communication log that we obviously keep. We have since about 2020, we have been, have taken papers and reported Demby Mag about 10, about 10 times, which when we compare it with some of our other projects, far exceeds what, what we've done in the past, you know, this isn't our first project, you know, the team are exceptionally skilled at delivering multi-million pound improvements to the education portfolio and, you know, have spoken nationally on, on, you know, the, the work that they have done through Band-A and so forth. So you know, it's not this, this isn't new ground that the team are getting to, and the team, it's the wider team, it's with planning, it's with buildings, it's with highways, safe routes, it's, it's everybody not just, this is a one council approach project, it's not education by, by itself. I'm not sure if James or any colleagues from, from planning have anything to add regarding the, the decisions around the, the loss of, of playing fields, because obviously I am not an expert in planning and I defer, and I thank the colleagues from planning that, that are on the call, that, you know, if they, if they want to add anything, I am more than happy to defer to the experts on the call on that, James, I don't know if you, yeah, so, so in terms of the, the issue around the, the loss, potential loss of land, etc, with the project, sort of set the headphones off second, the, you know, as, as, as members to be aware, we did the pre-planning consultation for the project, September, to October 2022, during that session, we had an open event at school in Demby, last upon Dufferin, and you know, some of the groups that have been mentioned, the running club in Demby, the football club, they came along to that session, particularly the football clubs and positive dialogue, and we've been able to incorporate some of the features with the project, potentially to help the football club move them forward, so for instance, you know, we're talking about the forthcoming internationals, which would be a great benefit to the town of Demby, the, the under-19 tournament that's coming up, so looking at, for instance, how we can change the designs of the car park, for instance, could be accessed by the football club for, you know, for big events to avoid some of the, the issues that they potentially may have with, you know, potential crowds, colleagues and the team have been in discussions with the running club who used the facility, both in terms of what the specification would be, if the improvements come forward in terms of what we're proposing for the middle park, but also looking at how we can house them in a temporary position, if this project was to proceed, so, you know, during the, basically from that pre-planning consultation that we had in September 2020, we've, you know, listened to the comments that have come through from the community, we've tried to actively work with the number of community groups, so that, you know, if this project does come forward, long term, there will be a betterment of facilities within the town of Demby for, for our sports clubs. Really sorry, Chair, if I can, um, following on from the, the, um, the original pre-planning consultation in 2022, having taken advice as well, um, and because of, you know, the, the time and everything, we are, we are planning a second pre-planning consultation in order to sort of communicate some of the amendments following the original, you know, you said we listened, and to provide sort of further opportunity for comments on, on the proposed scheme, should it, should it progress, and that would be for the further four weeks as a second pre-planning consultation, so, so that is scheduled as, as another opportunity to listen, um, to make, make sure that, you know, we, we are delivering, um, and doing, you know, everything that we can, to please, and support education and the community as well, thank you. Thank you, um, I can see there's some committee members' hands up, but, um, there's Gary, do you want to come back first, Gary? Apologies, Chair, I'm not used to attending Zoom meetings remotely, I couldn't find my microphone, but I do apologise. Um, no, I'm happy for members to, to, to proceed, the only comment I was going to make was that, um, when Cabinet decided in September of, uh, 2023, to approve the preferred site for a new build for us called Prasper on Duffin, it was expressed a result in there, um, that the planning application should clearly demonstrate that the loss of recreational space through development on the school playing field will be replaced by alternative outdoor provision of the equivalent or greater community benefit. And I think the officers, if you like, explain to you about the consultation that they've been doing to ensure that that's the case. Um, so that was the only point I, I was going to make in respect to that. Thank you. Um, Councillor Arwell. Would you like to? Councillor interjecting. Thank you, Madam Chair. I understand that Escalacastet has been named by Jill, and I'm very grateful for the work that the County Council is doing towards improving the situation at Escalacastet. And I'm looking forward, as well as the staff, governors, parents and children. We're looking forward to seeing the work coming to an end shortly. I should therefore declare an interest that I, as a governor of Escalacastet, and present today, I'm not sure that I should do that, but I, I'm doing so now. Listening to Gereins, Jill and James, I feel that they have consulted and that's what you were bringing before, is Councillor MARCHIEN and people such as Councillor interjecting. What I believe is that consultation has been taking place, so I can only thank Jill and her team for being so honest with us in this meeting. I've got no question, but I'd just like to declare an interest as a governor. Thank you. Excuse me, Chair. Sorry. Can I just? Yes, certainly. Sorry. I meant to raise my hand and I put a thumbs up. I do apologise. I'm not very good at this attending remotely by Zoom, am I? It was just in respect of Adeft Ganyat. Sorry, Ganyat Kunghadev, Arwal Roberts, Assembly, and I've already- The statement from Councillor Rall Roberts about being governor of Escalacastet. Could I ask, are you an LEA governor there? Yes, I'm a damage counter-council governor, yes. So that means that you are declaring a personal interest, but not a prejudicial interest because you've got an exemption because you're a county councillor governor. That's just to provide explanation. Thank you. Thank you. Councillor CEREMANDIS, you've got your hand up. Yeah, I'm just looking, you know, we've discussed about the LDP and consultation, but can I take members to the last paragraph of the calling paper, where it says risks on missing from the report? And one of that is item one, substantial costs need to be calculated. Now, if I take members to paragraph 6.2 of the report, you know, the Dembyshire County Council is chipping into over 26 million, but there's no details of costings. And, you know, it's in that same paragraph. It says an allowance optimism for bias. Oh, sorry, an allowance for optimum bias. Is that a financial term? I've never heard that. So my question is to the committee, the chair or to the council officers, is where are the detail costings in either report and should not these detailed costings be discussed at cabinet on Tuesday? Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Mendoose. Wood Garros. I'll start. Then I will obviously pass over to James on my left here for a bit more detail. The paper that went to cabinet on their rent-a-date, the 23rd of April, and the recommendation and the subsequent decision was it is a high level. And yes, there was a lack of detail because now is not the time for that detail to be in the paper. The detail for each individual project will be made available and scrutinized again in the business case process, and it will go through the democratic process there. There will be a business case for each and every individual project that will be scrutinized by capital scrutiny group and will require cabinet approval, and obviously it can be called in prior to any movement or any submissions to Welsh government. James, I don't know if there's... Yeah, so at the stage, the document which members considered a cabinet in April was the strategic outline program. So that is really what the overall vision is for investment and for education within Denvershire. Basically, it's around looking at things at strategic level. When projects move forward, as Garros alluded to, there's a business case process. So projects such as plus Branduffin, Pandra, Dembi High School, and during Cochlin, Gordon Nance, but those projects being over five million will be a three-stage process in the business case. In terms of the stages, effectively, the first stage is strategic outline case, which is really what the strategic approach is going to be. So it's looking at what the potential options are going to be. So there's a degree of detail that merges up the strategic outline case level. Just for clarity, Scott plus Branduffin, the previous administration of the council, cabinet in April 22, did approve the strategic outline case for this project, and that has also subsequently been approved by Welsh governments. So for this project, for instance, we then move on to the next stage, which is the outline business case. So effectively, at that stage, we're revisiting the options that we had in the documents, looking at overall affordability and trying to assess whether the project is deliverable. It's really at the final stage of the process, the final business cases, when the full costings merge at that stage, the information we're presenting to, Capital scrutiny group, cabinet and then to Welsh government will be actually the likely tended cost for it. So effectively, what the contract sum is going to be. Now, at every stage during the lifetime of the project, as we go through the various stages of the project, we have indicative costs. They will always change during the lifetime of a project. And for instance, when the strategic outline case was considered by cabinet in April 22, there would have been some detail provided in that in terms of what the overall costs were going to be, the affordability for membership for that project and where the funding was going to come through. So, you know, apologies if this is a long answer to it, but effectively, the level of detail in terms of the financial consequences of project, some of the details around risk that comes in the business case of individual projects. And as the projects develop, we get more kind of maturity, maturity regarding that price. So, we'll always be moving face to some of the projects, which we've delivered in Band-A, went through the same process. So, you know, for the projects, you know, some of the, some of the projects were able to be delivered within the original budget for some of the projects, such as the, the two schools in Rithen and Gloucester, for instance, as we develop the project, we needed to revisit the costs because of things which emerged and it's through that process of cabinet capital scrutiny group. And those days were a strategic investment group that we actually get to the stage of coming up with that, that level of detail, which, you know, needs to be scrutinised by members at that stage and will also be scrutinised very heavily by Welsh governments. Thank you, Terry. Councillor Terry, is that answer your question? Can I just come back to it on that? I mean, so, there was a very long answer and what you're saying is there is no detail as the costings and yet you're, as a committee here, we're expected to vote on this call-in notice without sufficient financial detail. Is that, is that what you're saying? Chair, could I just come in there, please? I don't think that's what James's saying at all. What James has said is that there's a well-worn process for projects of this type and that they go through a multiple business case stage and that the information at each stage is honed to become more and more accurate. And I think, once again, we're in danger of moving away from the decision that has actually been made by Cabinet in April. Cabinet, so number one, this committee is not being asked to vote on any financial information. This committee is being asked to consider whether or not Cabinet needs to review the decision it made in April to submit a strategic outline program to Welsh government in terms of the state of advancement of various projects within our program for sustainable communities for learning. That's basically a list of the projects that are ongoing and where they're up to. Cabinet did not approve any financial case in respect to that because it was not required to. Therefore, this committee is not reviewing the financial case for that because it's not required to. The process by which the process that Cabinet is following here is one laid down by Welsh government in terms of the way in which they are able to identify the projects across Wales, where they're up to, how much they're roughly going to cost and where they are in business case development. And as James has explained, each of those projects, much has got plus one different, each of those projects in that strategic outline program will go through the same process and they will all have risks around affordability because that's where there risks, cost of materials, design, etc. But they all get worked through in an appropriate way through the process. So I think it's just getting back to what is the committee being asked to review here? They're being asked to review the decision that was made by Cabinet in April, not a decision that has yet to be made in respect of a business case on any of the individual projects contained within that list. Sorry, Chair, I hope that helps. Yes, thank you, Gary. I hadn't noticed. Sorry, did you want to come in? Gary, I have to stick to the committee members first, so I get Councillor Bobbie Fielding. Thank you, Chair. As I understand, from what I've heard this morning, the main case seems to be based on consultation or lack of. I understand that the sustainable communities for learning has now taken the place, as it were, of 21st century schools. And I think what you and Gary have said is to put it in laymen's terms, what the Cabinet decided on was the running order of how we spend that money. And as a school plus, Bron Dufferin is further ahead in terms of planning stages and finance, in terms of what they've spent so far, there at the top of the list for those logical reasons. But go at just for a couple of clarifications. You have said, Mark, that sports whales has not been consulted. And you have said, Gary, that sports whales has been fully briefed all the way along. So I could do with a little bit of clarification on what's going on there. And also, in charge of our leisure facilities, our DLL, am I to understand they are consulted and kept on board as well. So I hope I've understood what's been said by both sides, but I'd just like a couple of clarifications. I can come in on the sports whales. We recently had correspondence from sports whales regarding the proposal. And if I read from the letter, it says, as you know, sport whales is a statutory consultation, comments, sorry, I should say that they're heading new SEM skill on land west of Australia Road. As you know, sport whales is a statutory consultation commented on the above proposal at the pre pre application and the pre application stages and expressed some concerns, which is obviously around the issue we've discussed around potential impact on green space. So, then that demonstrates that we have our dialogue with sports whales and we are continuing to have dialogue. And during the, what we've said is we'll keep them updated in terms of the progress towards, if we do redo the pre planning consultation. Thank you. Just very quick. So it's a two part question. So all these people are saying you've consulted with, that's meant to be public and shared. And the paper, what went to cabinet, they should be making foreign decisions. So there's nothing off the schools in them documents, nothing off sports whales. I don't know about that as a local member and then with your leisure and against it, that's not being shared. So it's about consulting and making it public because the guidance on consultation means that you don't only consult you share and all them documents aren't public and I'm being asked as a local member to answer your question in full, you're talking about. Can I just come back? I think what you're saying is that at this stage, that's not what cabinets are talking about. They're talking about the running order and how we go. What it is implying to me is that if this is agreed, that there may be a pretty bumpy road as the project goes forward because it sounds as if, you know, some consultations maybe haven't taken place. And I appreciate that that's not meant to be what we're talking about today. But I think are the local members, which is basically what Denby Mags is. Are they right to worry in advance, if you like, of what may come down the line in terms of opposition from local people? Just a quickie and I'll leave it. So we have to go back to the field, the sports pitch, the athletic pitch is protected in the LVP. You can only change that position if you've got surplus. That assessment of needs has not been done. That should be the starting point. What's the point of doing all this work? If we don't know, we can move forward. It's very fundamental. Thank you. Thank you. Gary, you've got your hand up again. I don't want to labor the point, but again, I would bring you back to the decision that was made by Cabinet in April and the process, as explained to you by James. And as I understand it, reflected in the decision that was made by Cabinet in September, is that land which is protected by the relevant policy in the LDP can be developed, provided you're able to show that there is an alternative provision of at least as good as or enhanced quality in respect of the open space that's provided. And that's a matter that needs to be assessed at the appropriate time. Every project on that list will have to go through the various stage processes and get the various approvals, all of which are subject to the democratic process and all of which will be subject to consultation. So I just feel the need, sorry, to keep bringing you back to the decision that was made. The decision that was made was to send a list to Welsh government which reflect the position in respect of the various projects and where they were up to. That's effectively what that list is. It did not contain any specific approval of finance. It did not contain any specific approval of any planning matter because it couldn't. That has to go through the planning process. So I just need to keep bringing people back to your reviewing the decision that was made by Cabinet in April. And I probably shouldn't say any more now. Thank you, Gary. Councillor Kelly. Thank you very much. Sorry. Sorry. I'm used to putting my hand up. I'm different to Gary. On the DLL, you know, the comment that DLL are against it. I'm not 100% DLL. I've never told me that they are against it. They have raised questions, rightly so, as part of the process, as part of the consultation, they have raised questions. But the, you know, the past of land that we are talking about, it is in education portfolio land. It is Denbyshire. And that hasn't changed since 1930. You know, that has been the case since 1930. So, you know, there's no change of ownership with a land here with DLL or education or the school or the community. There is a lease in place between Denbyshire Ltd and the local authority regarding the, you know, the legislature center, the building, the packing and the extra turf, only not the past of the land that we're talking about as I say, that is education land. And obviously, we do work. We do meet with officers from DLL to discuss this. You know, if they are neighbors, they share the sites, we are not going to disregard them. We work with them. We always have. Yes, go ahead. Can I just add to that? You know, when I opened, I said that, you know, there was a willingness to ask questions, but I must refer back to what Gary has said as far as the relevance to the cabinet decision and just ask committee members to keep what we're looking at within those parameters. Of course, we'll answer, but I'm conscious that we may be going outside of what the actual discussion is today. Again, I don't want to maybe the point, but although DLL perhaps wasn't relevant at this stage, we're happy to answer, but again, just to point out that's not part of what cabinet we're looking at. This time round, of course, they will do. This time goes on. I'm really sorry, Chair. I'm going against what my lead member has just said about sticking to the call in. However, just to assure members, the assessment of a need has been done. And, you know, a lot of the documents, the pre-planning consultation, that was all in the public domain. And obviously, when we go out again, you know, further information, it will all be included once it's done. And, you know, all the information that we have to share would form part of the pre-planning process. So, I'm sorry, I know I'm going off the call. Thank you. Councillor Kelly. Thank you very much. Thank you for everyone's comments as well. So, I wasn't out of the cabinet meeting. I'd watched it back. Then the call in today, I was obviously trying to ascertain the relevance to the question of the decision that the cabinet were asked to make on that day. So, a lot of the questions that I had had been answered by Bobbi asked a lot of questions so that I was interested to know. And it is important to keep it to that the decision that has been made because a lot of the debate that we've had, as we've all said, are things as far as I can see before planning and for future stages of this strategic decision. So, I was interested to see what, apart from that though, I was interested to see what consultation had taken place. So, obviously, James has got evidence there of consultation with sports whales who seem like a very important stakeholder in this process. So, one question I've got, which probably is going, we're saying that we're going against it now, but what other consultation with the wider community? However, again, I would like to say that is not in the parameters of this decision, but as we're talking about it and we've opened a debate about it, just very briefly to answer that. And yeah, just to clarify that the decision was to answer to what set of schools were being proposed for this first tranche, this first three years. So, just what consultation is it? And to definitely clarify that that was the decision that we that you were asked to make as cabinet? Yeah, I'll start off with a list of consultees and then James will remind me of all the ones that I have forgotten about, I'm sure. So, you know, obviously, you know, we have worked with the schools. We, obviously, with the Dembe Mag members, we have met with the users of the field, the running club, Dembe Town Football Club, you know, meetings with those. You know, there have been agreements and meetings with the P department, because obviously, as the statutory head of education, the responsibility for a broad and balanced curriculum at Dembe High sits with me and operationally, it's delivered by the school, but the legal responsibility sits with me and I can't do anything to damage that. So, obviously, we need that agreement with the schools, but also the consultation and the discussions with colleagues in planning that are on the call, highways, safe routes to schools and, you know, all the other sort of partner sports whales, you know, they're not a consultee, but obviously we discuss our proposals with Estin as the regulator because they are very interested in the provision that we offer in Dembe Asia. So, in our local authority link meetings, you know, we do provide an update to our link inspector on A, we meet, termally, we speak more often than that, but we actually meet face-to-face, termally, and is actually with us a week tomorrow, I think it's a week tomorrow, 24th, that's a fortnight, week tomorrow, possibly as it is. So, who have I missed out to James? In terms of direct public engagement, if we're just referring to a few as the example of the PASB Ronda from Project, if we go back to what Project's about, it's about providing the facility to be able to expand our provision for people's, with an ASD assessment, etc. So, because we need to expand the facility, we have to go down the school organisation route. So, effectively, again, I think it was Cabinet to the previous administration, April 22 approved the starts of that consultation process. So, what we have to do in that consultation process is lay out, in accordance with the code, what we're actually aiming to do. So, obviously, to extend the capacity of the school and that document made reference to the site of where the new school would be based. So, that was a public consultation around for six weeks. For instance, all elective members were circulated with a copy. It was kind of, obviously, publicity through the decision-making process, and there's a number of statutory consultees that are required to be part of that, and obviously, members of the public are more than welcome to contribute to that process. So, there would have been meetings, for instance, with PASB Ronda, the information would have been circulated to all demolition schools for them to respond. From the consultation process, from that six-week process, a number of responses came back and a lot of them were around the impact of the proposal on the open space area within DMV. So, obviously, within that, what we had to do then was put a consultation report together, which went back to Cabinet in the autumn before a decision was made to go forward with the statutory notice. What was acknowledged in those responses were concerns were raised, was that effectively, we would be revisiting this, we would have to demonstrate, and I think Gary made reference to the decision of Cabinet in September 23. The key issue that we've tried to emphasize at all stages that we do need to demonstrate for our colleagues in planning what the, what effectively what the betterment would be. So, they were the main comments that came back in that public consultation exercise. As mentioned, again, we had the pre-planning consultation. Obviously, the size of the project, I think it's sure enough correctly from wrong with anything, but any project were at over a thousand square metres with a building, et cetera. There's a requirement for pre-planning consultation. So, this takes place before any formal consultation. So, again, we had that pre-planning period in September, October in 2022. From memory, it was about 50-odd responses came back from the members of the public or other statutory bodies regarding that. The range of issues were raised, and again, the work that's been done on the project is to address those, as Gary and Salud, too. If we do the next pre-planning consultation stage, what we're looking to do is demonstrate that these were the issues that were raised in that pre-planning consultation. These are how we've tried to address them. So, for instance, what we're looking at in terms of investment in Middle Park, in terms of upgrading the facilities there for the public and for the school. So, we've tried to demonstrate how we've addressed those concerns that came through. Thank you. Sorry, can I just add very quickly there, just with regards to consultation and engagement. So, this item came across my desk very early in my tenure, and we're getting on for two years on now. So, just to say on my part that this project and the level of engagement have been to Dunby Mag on two or three occasions. I know we've had grain bows there as the Chief Exact. I think Gary has been to do with legal advice to the Dunby Mag meetings. And just to say, from my perspective, this hands down is the project that I've worked the most on, looked at the most carefully, tried to find a way forward that engages with people across the board, and will obviously continue to do so. But with regards to engagement, I know this inside out back to front now, it's been a really large piece of work that I've taken, honestly, a member. Thank you. I think there's... Is there Alvin Williams, did you want to speak? There are. We won't grant the last time. Thank you. I've been listening carefully to what you've all had to say and to what Gary has said. And I don't disagree that we have to consider what has been considered in cabinets. But to be honest, that's what we, as members who have requested this call back, have been considering, and that is what was discussed on cabinets. What we're concerned about is, has the consultation and risk been carried out fully, and that the cabinet are 100% sure that that has been actioned in the correct way. I know this is a wish list of what the Mission County Council wants to build, or they want to renovate schools. But what we don't want to happen is to go down the route and find that there's a challenge for one of these, and then that we have to go through different processes again. But if the cabinets are 100% sure, and that's what we're asking the cabinets, just to reconsider this and just think and be 100% sure that you're happy with the process that have happened, and that they have been achieved fully and carried out fully. I've been listening to what's been said about a consultation. I assume that there's a report on the consultation that's been formed, and that we as Councillors can have a look at that consultation, because at the moment I don't think that has been, that's not been totally open to us ordinary Councillors. I think that is one of the wishes that we as Councillors want. Thank you. If I can just say that I would agree with what you're requesting, because I don't think I've ever seen the outcome of that consultation either. Are there any more committee members that want to say anything? Sorry, yes, certainly. The AUC. It's really interesting this because although you're not new members, you are the newer members than the original group of members that were actually when we first brought forward the BUN to be proposals. So if I take you back to when the Band B schools, the wish list, as you describe it, was actually developed, was under the previous cabinet, of which Councillor Bobbie Fieldley, a member of this committee was on, and also the lead signatory. So that wish list, that group that is still within the rolling program, was developed by that administration, and at the time, that Denby Mag, those local members, were fully engaged in that as well, including a very windy wet walkabout on the field one day, which I still remember with Shuddha. Yes. It's not a wish list. The list is developed through a very robust process in terms of the state of the building, the conditions, the conditions survey, the need, the demand, lots of different elements. And all of that is what is used to form the priority lists of what was then Band B. The current cabinet has continued with that grouping. So they looked at the list, they could have revisited that and said, you know what, we want a different list of schools. They revisited the proposals, they looked at the conditions survey again, and confirmed that that was the priority grouping of schools that they wanted to bring forward. So this has been going on for a long time. Those consultation processes, they happened during the previous administration, those documents will still be available publicly, we can make those available to you now. Some of you were not councillors when those things happened, but we can make those available to you. In terms of the challenge and can we be 100% sure, actually we should never be 100% sure because we have a due process to go through. I cannot stand here today and say all of these schools will absolutely happen because there is a due process, a due process of consultation, a due process of planning. It would be incredibly arrogant and wrong for any officer or any member of this council to say these are 100% nailed because those processes are yet to happen and we cannot and should never pre-determine those democratic processes. So the process that has happened to date has been a very long process. It has evolved over time, but we remain committed to the schools that we determined were those that most in need of this investment at the time, they remain our priorities, we still want to invest 65 million within that area. That's following 92 million investment in Band-A schools. This is an ambitious council, we've delivered, we want to continue to deliver. That's all Welsh Government have asked for, is that list? That's what Cabinet took a decision on. Deal. Sorry, can I just come in and say I think it was me who used the term wish list in Alfred's defence and Nicholas is quite right, it does belittle the process that it goes through, but it was to make the point really that nothing set in stone. It's what we wish to see go ahead, but just to clarify, I know it was me who used that term first. Thank you. Council, would you... Yes, I don't disagree with what you say. I don't disagree with what you say. I agree with wish list maybe is the wrong word. The desire of this council is to take this forward and I accept the investment and consideration and I don't think anybody could disagree. We do want to see an investment in our schools. Our desire is to ensure that the right process has been followed and that's why we have called this in, just to get assurance that the correct process has been followed and that we as Councillors are all happy with that happy, not just in the Cabinet, but as ordinary Councillors to make sure that we're all happy. As you can see, some of us aren't entirely happy that the process has been followed, but that's we have asked for this discussion today to try and get clarification and a little bit more light on issues and especially on the consultation. I would like to see a copy here. You said that there is a copy available of the consultation. I would like to see a copy of that, the one that you said that was prepared by the previous Council. Thank you. Council, Councillor Canada, did you want to come back? Yeah, I just wanted to really bring it back to the original decision and that what we're discussing today isn't about what was discussed at Cabinet, it was about the decision that Cabinet had to make. So as far as I can see, that decision was, or the ask of Welsh Goodman was to say what five schools were going forward and that has been discussed and I'm sure that anyone can present a case for every school that is needed. But I'm quite confident that I've heard evidence from the people here today that why those five schools are in that first tranche. So as I said, we could argue, I could argue for, I'm a ward member for Priscite North, I could argue for, obviously it's not about Priscite and it's about Demby, but there's lots of schools that need refurbishment, rebuilding and if we're bringing it back to the actual decision that the Cabinet were asked to make on that day. As a scrutiny member, I'm quite content that that decision was the correct decision and those five schools, with them all being at Reba three, I'll confess that they're the appropriate schools to have been putting that first tranche. I just want to say that. Thank you. Councillor John Burteword, if you've got a better feel, sorry. Sorry, Chair, I pressed it by mistake. I don't want to muddy the waters at all. I don't want to contribute to the resolve at this moment. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Joe. Are there any further committee members? Committee members? No, no. John Harlan, do you want to? The orchestra. This is an iconic field in the centre of Demby and I'm very concerned about its basically removal and as a playing area for healthy activities and so on. I'm hoping this will have been taken into account by the Cabinet in making this decision to go forward with it. But I'm concerned about whether the Middle Park LVP area was designated as surplus requirements at any stage during this process because it is part of the LVP and was the assessment being done on any future need. As mentioned, colleagues from the Education team have been working with colleagues and planning to assess the impact of green spaces as part of this development. So that's the information that's been working out at the moment to understand what the impact would be. Effectively, what we're looking at with the Middle Park site would be with project proceeds for betterment and improvement of the facilities. I'm sure local members will come in better than I can in terms of the quality of the pitch at the moment in the Middle Park area. It's not suitable for use for most of the year because of drying, edge topography, etc. So what the proposal is effectively is one of the best ways of recreating those fields. So what would be provided? I think, apologies, I've got the information directly in front of me but at the moment those fields are considered as low quality fields where use is probably around kind of two hours a week at maximum. What the proposal would be would be to upgrade the quality of those fields so that it can be used for more of a period. So at the moment, there's about six fields part of the school site and also the Middle Park site. The effective period they're available for for uses around 12 hours a week. What the proposal would be would be to try to have that betterment of the facilities on Middle Park. So effectively, they'd have the capacity to be used for about five, six hours a week. So we're looking to increase the capacity of usage in the DMB area of fields. So instead of at the moment, it's probably considered 12 hours of use. We're looking at probably around 19, 20 hours of use as a consequence if this proposal goes forward. As you know, as being commented, what would we know that we need to as part of this planning process to be able to demonstrate what is being provided. So we know we have a lot to how we can lay out the athletics track. Some of these for mine's gone completely blank. Throwing events, sorry, I'm trying to think about the need of shopport, javelin, that type of thing. Sorry, mind we're completely blank then I don't know why, but you know, so that basically we know we can provide the range of sports at that Middle Park site. Yeah, John, sorry, yeah. The author, I'm sorry, I just wanted to ask another question though, you know, specific questions, sorry, in response. Has it actually been designated surplus city requirements as it's in the LDP and surely that should have been done before as this was preceded with the org. Sorry, Gary, you wanted to come back. At the risk of sounding like a broken record chair, I've just bring you back to the decision that was made by cabinet in April, but I will deal with the point that John raises. The issue was I understand it, and there are people better qualified than me in respect to this, but the issue was I understand it is that under the terms of the LDP, the relevant policy protects open space, but does envisage that it can be developed upon provided, you can demonstrate that there is, if you're like equivalent, at least equivalent, if not better, provision made. I'm being saved now, because somebody who knows what she's talking about is just put a hand up, but that's my understanding of the process. Gary, Lara, do you want to come in? Yes, if I can, thank you, Jay. Yes, it was just to confirm what Gary said, really the policy BSC 11 under the local development plan does provide that development can take place, but where it would result in the loss of public or private land with recreational and/or amenity value. It'll only be permitted where alternative outdoor provision of equivalent or greater community benefit is provided. There's no requirement that the land has to be provided surplus through the planning process anyway on that, but you know, and then just to echo what Gary said, that would be tested through the planning process. That's not part of the discussion for today, I don't think. Jay, thank you. Thanks. I think that's all the committee members. I think Mervin, Councillor Mervin, Tammy. Thank you, Jay. Just a couple of things. Can I stay from the onset there and fully supportive of the SCOP on different needs? I'm sure all of them are members who are in this add as well, so it's not about whether we want that school or not, it's about the process. I understand Nicholas's explanation. I was one of the previous Councillors, but it doesn't detract from the need for a full engage with and an open consultation pre-decision on this site. It would have enlightened all them new members to how the whole process was going on, had we have had an update on it pre-it all going through. The reason for supporting this calling today is that no consultation was made to assess the impact on losing the use of this sports field in Denby, be it a change of use or disposal as Gary stated earlier. A full legal decision could have been given and challenged, and not just an opinion that Gary has given, sorry, Gary, I'm not a thingy there, there is always an opportunity to challenge any legal statement which could have been if needed and was felt to do so. A full consultation would give everyone a clear understanding of the impact of loss of this sport field and how this would affect the green space area in Denby, given the loss of this area and how it would impact the well-being impact on Denby residents. Also, Denby is short of green space areas. This could also have been assessed to comply with our own LDP, we don't know the figures, so it would have been useful to have had it done forward. Today you mentioned that you have been in consultation with clubs impacted by the decision. Have we sighted these reports from these clubs on their thoughts and how this plan would impact them? I believe they have major concerns over the loss of this sport area, and seeing the ease of sport in the public domain would have made it all much clearer. And also have your reports of the Denby Council's thoughts and also Denby Mags members. I feel that I and other local Denby members feel there was a lack of engagement with this from the onset on the decision of choosing this field for the new, a scub, and pass one different. A full public consultation on the onset of this plan would have answered all of today's questions, including possibly the costs of bringing this field to a position that it is as good or better on the new sport field that they are proposing to put instead of it, to bring it to a position where it is good or better, what would the cost of that be? It would be an interesting one, as somebody who deals with land all the time, I know it is going to be a difficult challenge for them to do that one and make it a free draining sports field. Also the last question I have is, has any checks been made, really the covenant on the removal of this sport field, was it gifted as a sport field or was the land purchased originally in the 30s as an education area and was there any any covenants or conditions that would stop them doing what they're doing back in the 30s? And in general. Thank you. You're a response to this one. Gary, please. I'm just going to repeat myself I think. Everything that Councillor Parry said is not really relevant to the decision that's under scrutiny. In terms of legal opinion, the legal opinion that I expressed in respect of the measure and the statutory guidance at the beginning of this meeting, I don't think it needs any perfectly happy for people to take a different legal opinion to mine. I'm not the monopoly of wisdom on stuff like this, except that these regulations and this measure are very, very explicit. They specifically refer to the disposal of land and they define the disposal of land as being the grant or of an estate or interest in land. So I don't think you need a specialist opinion in respect of those particular regulations with all due respect. In terms of the broader planning issues, again, not relevant to this decision, but I would say that there has been specialist legal opinion on that that has been shared with local members and is, as I understand, it's supportive of the things that I have said today in terms of open space. Thank you, Councillor Bobbie. Well, I'd like to reiterate what Mervyn said in terms of a skull plus Brondefrin and the need for it and how we all agree that that needs to be done. But I also think we've heard enough today to know there is an element of doubt about the process that's been followed. And I do think that it wouldn't do any harm. It certainly won't hurt the project if it's relooked at in terms of how the decision was reached, in terms of our local community, the local community, particularly in Denby and how they feel about things and how it's been received. So I do advocate that it goes back to Cabinet to be relooked at on the basis of the discussion we've heard today and the fact that it certainly won't do any harm to revisit. Just say that. That will take that later because if you're making a proposal to send it back, we're not on that stage yet. Thank you. Councillor JONES, you've got your hand up. Sorry, Chair. I was just going to say exactly what Rehan's just said that we haven't actually got there and to start making a resolve at this stage isn't part of the procedure. Thank you. And I apologise that I haven't meant to make a resolve. I was just giving my opinion on what I'd heard this morning. So, apologies if I've said the wrong thing. Councillor, do you want to come back? Thanks, Paulie. I think everything that everyone is saying today is really important arguments to be made. And I may be wrong with processes, but I'm not, as Gary keeps having too eluded, we're not following the process here of this actual calling. It's obviously needs to be scrutinised more, the decision of using the playing field or whatever it may be. But should that not be a separate scrutiny debate rather than using this calling to debate the process or the planning aspects of building this new school? So, should we not just make a decision now about this calling and then table it for another scrutiny meeting? Thank you. And I can't see. Joan, you've got your hand up again. I'm sorry, Chair. I just didn't take it down from last time. Don't forgive me. Okay, thank you. So, if do you want to summarise, Mark? I think we've had enough debates. I'm not going to go around in circles, but I think the whole point of what I'm saying is when Cabinet made their decision, I think the consultation which has happened was said. So, I know there was a letter from Demishe Leisure, I know from them behind, which I didn't take part of because it was appropriate. Letters like that and their opinions should have been shared, so Cabinet making formed decisions. So, more consultation, shared in that feedback, whether it's positive or negative, should have happened. So, we have informed decisions and I do think the bit about the surplus or not is relevant because part of this proposal is that the school's ready to go and I think there's that many questions. I think if you do the consultation, I don't think some of the schools were saying are ready to go are because the proposal is to build them on very difficult locations and the question would be better answered sooner rather than later. So, I'll leave it with the committee to decide what to do, but thank you very much. It's been a good debate. We're all on the same side. It's just the ins and outs of that consultation and sharing it, I have issues with. So, we're making informed decisions and I'll leave it there. Joachim Vauchier, thank you. Thank you. Councillor Jill or Farron, do you want to summarise and come back? Nothing really to add, Chair, rather than just to repeat that what I opened with, that we're looking at the strategic programme, the content of the call-in has, we've discussed that and I think it's important to keep to that as well. It doesn't really mention in the call-in. It's about the playing field and it's about affordability and we seem to have strayed away from what the call-in says would be my first point. So, I would appreciate if scrutiny did do that. Just on engagement with Mike again, you know, I do refute that we haven't engaged, I think we've engaged extensively and albeit, again, that's not really the subject of the call-in. I do feel duty-bound to say that because there's been a huge amount of engagement and as I say, it's been my biggest item in the two years, I've been lead member. But yeah, the decision is for the order of the programme, it's important to keep in the decision made on what the call-in says, again, which I think we've drifted away from and I think I'm probably in danger of repeating myself now. So, thank you, Chair. Thank you. Do we have a proposal at all, any of it? I'll read this in English. The recommendation today is that the captain should be content that, you know, that the consultation process has followed Welsh-given guidelines on the moving, a well-used sports field out of use and also to reassess our needs and well-being assessment for the available green space, stroke open space areas in Denby to match our own expectation as stated in that own LVP. So, just on that, you're resolving to send it back to cabinet, yeah? Yeah. And can you slow down on the words you just can't come to with it? Yeah, the recommendation today is that the cabinet should be content and should request the full consultation process that follows Welsh-given guidelines on removing a well-used sports field out of use and also to reassess our needs and well-being assessments for the available green space, stroke open space areas in Denby to match our own expectation as stated in our own LDP. Okay, did everybody hear that one? Is there a seconder to that? Yep. I have my hand up chair. Are you seconding that proposal, Councillor Jones? Sorry chair. I'm not, I think we're pulling the horse before the cart here and I think that the scrutiny can be said, I have to say something, I feel that I do feel that we should thank the calling members for bringing the calling to this scrutiny and the reasons for that, I think it's always good that we question things from any authority within our council. However, if we are going to the recommendations and we are actually moving things, which I have listened very carefully to all the members of the calling, listening to all their concerns and giving it full consideration and after listening to the replies from the lead members and the leading officers responses and legal officers responses to the calling concerns, I really don't think and I don't think that we've been given no relevant grounds to refer this back to the cabinet. In fact, I would be happy to move that action chair. I'm not sure whether it's appropriate at this moment in time, but I am happy to move that because I am getting concerned that members are moving things and we have to pay attention to what has been presented here this morning and I don't think that there's been any relevant grounds to refer this back to the cabinet. Thank you, Chair. Just on that point, Chair, I'll take guidance from Gary on this, but I think we've had a proposal, which we'll need a second or four. If you, Councillor Butterfield, are proposing an amendment to that proposal, then take the vote on that. I'll let Gary come in. Yes, please, if you would, I would be obliged because I don't think that members have considered the actual calling procedure. Thank you, properly. Thank you. Is there okay if I go now, Chair? Yes, fine. Thanks, Gary. Clearly, it's a matter for members what they determined to do. I would only reiterate everything I've said this morning about the relevance or validity of the issues that are being raised in respect of the specific decision that's been called in. To my mind, the calling relates to decisions not yet made, but it's a matter for members. In terms of Councillor Butterfield's comments, it seems to me that if a proposal is made and seconded, it is possible for it to be amended, but just disagreeing with it is not an amendment. If you disagree with it, then you just vote against it. So in other words, if I say I propose that a decision is referred back to cabinet for whatever reason, then an amendment is to change the reason, et cetera. But if your view is that it shouldn't go back to cabinet, then that's just to vote against the proposal. So it's a simple forum. It's not an amendment effectively. So that's a very long-winded intervention. I do apologize. Is that clear? Thank you. Thank you, Gary. Yes, it is. So I will make an amendment and the amendment to the proposal that goes back. I'm am amending the proposal that after listening to the members concerned and the responses from the officers and council, I do think that there has to be no relevant grounds to refer this back to cabinet. Thank you. Sorry, Chair, just give my amendment. Sorry, Chair. If I just come in, I would... Sorry, Gary. Respectfully. That's not an amendment because it's effectively just the opposite of the proposal. So as I said before, if someone proposes something goes back to cabinet with the relevant reasons, et cetera, then an amendment would be, if you like, well, I disagree with the reasons or I think there should be different reasons or additional reasons or whatever, disagreeing that it goes back to cabinet is just voting against that proposal. That's not an amendment if everybody follows me. So I think if you are for it going back to cabinet, but you think that there should be different reasons, that's an amendment. But if you're against it going back to cabinet, that's just vote on the proposal that's put forward if that helps. Yeah, very. So, Councillor Alves made the proposal and we were looking... I'm quite happy to second that proposal. So then do we go to a vote? Yes. Committee members? Yes, I think the easiest way for us to do a vote on this would be if you agree with the proposal from Councillor Edward Williams who's been seconded by Councillor Pauline Edwards, if you agree with that for it to go back to cabinet on those grounds, you need to say, I agree, mccotino, or if you disagree, you say, I disagree, or quinan hertino. So that's what you need to do. And that's for committee members, including the co-opted members to vote on. So if you're happy for me to do it, I'll do a roll call now and ask you which way you want to vote. If you want to vote for it to go back to cabinet on the ground stated by Councillor Williams, can you please say, for? And if you're against it to be referred back to cabinet on those grounds, can you please say, against? So, first of all, Councillor John Butterfield? I'm against. Okay, and Councillor Pauline Edwards, who is here, Councillor Cluit? Against. Councillor Bobbie Fealy? Councillor Adabell-Ruppert? And there have been? Against. Councillor Terri Mendes? No, 4. Councillor Elvid-Rilliams? And the co-opted members, Councillor, sorry, Collette Owen? Against. And Neil Roberts, 6 against 4, 4. Yeah, so the decision of this scrutiny is to recommend is that there is not to go back to cabinet. On that basis, then cabinet can implement the decision immediately. Okay. Thanks, everybody. Excuse me, Chair, if I just give my applause, I need to leave now if that's okay. Thank you, Gary. I really did appreciate your input on the amendment. I'm largely laughing on me. I will also leave as well, Chair, because obviously, my item is now over. Thank you, Diokanwell. Thank you very much. I don't know if members want to have a break or the work program shouldn't take that long. If everybody's happy to proceed, I can get into this. Yes, please. Thank you. All my everything's what's happened. Sorry, Joan, did you say anything then? I'm sorry for the one they bear. That's what I'm asking. I think the majority, if I just for carrying on, we've only got the work program item left. It shouldn't take that long. I'll have a five-minute break, then. We'll have a five-minute break. So, next item on the agenda is the Scrutiny Work Program. This is your usually Scrutiny Work Program. The committee work program for the future is to be seen in Appendix 1 on page 57 in your pack. The next meeting is on the 4th of July, and you've got three items, quite substantial items on the agenda. That's the NWAB Program, North Wales Economic Ambitions Board, and the reps will be there to discuss it with you. Annual report on adult safeguarding in Denvershire, and also the recycling household waste. This is something that the cabinet has asked this company to look at, with the agreement with the company that provides this service. So, this is down to come to you in July. So, you've got three quite hefty items there. The chair's and vice-chair's group have met since you last met, but they are due to meet on Monday, and I think they've got eight requests there to consider. But if you've got any issue that you'd think merits Scrutiny, the application form is in Appendix 2, if you complete that and submit it to me or Karen. At any time, you don't have to wait until closer to any meeting. You can complete them at any time and submit them, we'll keep them and send them to the next meeting. And then in Appendix 3, you'll see the Cabinet Work Program, just for you to be aware of what they'll be dealing with over the next few months. Their next meeting is on the 21st of May, that's next Tuesday. And then in Appendix 4, you'll see the latest on the recommendations from your last meeting. So, I don't know if you've got any more, any questions on anything there? Councillor interjecting. Could I just suggest, could I suggest after today's meeting, we did raise a point that maybe we need to look and scrutinise further the consultation that has taken place regarding schools. And maybe we as a committee should be looking at that further, can we put that on the list? Yes, you need to fill in the form and state is exactly what you once scrutinised. I've got a copy here of the form, if you want a paper copy. And then that will go to the chairs, advice chairs group and they will then make a decision. Could you send it on email? Yes, I'll do that. Councillor interjecting. Councillor interjecting. Thank you, Chair. Looking back at what's been discussed today, is there evidence that we can see as a committee that a consultation has taken place in terms of on the paper? Fairly. To be fair, the people, is this going to be shown to us in the future? There was a consultation on the green fields area that are now going to be used to build on in the future for a new school for just Scott Prosper and the friend. Another question I have is, do these scrutiny committees get enough work these days? Because I remember when I started in 2012 on the Council, there were so many people submitting requests for scrutiny. Is this starting to become weaker? It's a question for you, Rian. In terms of your first point, is that the same issue that Telved has just raised here? He's going to fill in a form for that in terms of what was discussed this morning with the green fields and schools. Yes, to be honest, yes, Albert is correct. We haven't got evidence. We take the word of the officers. The officers are very honest people, and I've known, for years, and I've worked with James as well. But to do this completely fairly and to be fair on everybody living in Demby, we must see the evidence in future, please. Yes, if you want to speak to Albert regarding the proposal that he's going to put forward, and then maybe we could combine them. In terms of your second point about the pressure of work on committees, now they're getting enough items to be discussed. Recently, one committee has had more than enough work. The other two haven't had quite enough. Having said that, the chairs and vice chairs group next week have got eight requests to consider, and they're also going to look at, and I think all Councillors can see the reports going to the chairs and vice chairs group. There are two reports there to do with the Council's budget in the future, and the work, the scrutiny work that needs to be done on that, and also in terms of the transformation program. The Council's transformation program in the future to deal with the pressures on its budget. So, scrutiny are going to be looking at that to see what works comes out to committees from that. So, maybe things have been a little bit sparse over the past few months with for some committees, but I'm quite sure in the future that that won't be the case. It then might be a case of having to prioritise what issues you want to discuss. Yes, that's a very comprehensive answer. Thanks very much. So, is that everybody okay now with the work programs? Could I just ask a question, Chair, on the North Wales Economic Ambition Board on the annual report, which is its historic report coming to us. It's on the Fourth Court and their annual report. And could I just ask a question, is the North Wales Economic Ambition Board now going to be under the ownership, as it were, of the new CJC's, if Rhiannon might know, or Nicola, or is it still staying exactly where it sits now? I think, as I understand it, it's not yet part of the CJC. The process is ongoing. We haven't got a date of when it'll be, but again, on Tuesday, the Scrutiny Chair's or Vice-Chair's Group will be discussing proposed Scrutiny arrangements for the CJC. So, it'll all fall part of that, but for the time being, as the designated Scrutiny Committee for receiving reports from the North Wales Economic Ambition Board partnership will remain there for the foreseeable future. So, this is part of their report. Thank you. Thank you, Joan. And, Councillor Bovee. Excuse me. As Joan just mentioned, CJC's. I still think if you said to your average resident, if you mentioned CJC's to them, bearing in mind what an important part of our local government they are going to be, should we be more educated as a council as to what CJC's actually do? Should we be looking into... Could I say that, as three hands just said, I've put it onto the Forward's Work Program for the Chair's and Vice-Chair's Meeting next week. So, hopefully, it will be scheduled from there onward into the appropriate arena for discussion. Okay. All right. Thanks, Joan. The proposals at the moment are that all six authorities look at how best to scrutinise the CJC, whether to do it individually or to do it as a joint Scrutiny Committee. So, I think they're waiting for feedback from all authorities on that. I understand there's a report going to Cabinet, I think, is it, on the council, to one of them? Yeah. CJC's in the near future, but Scrutiny arrangements are currently under discussion. They're not actually, I don't think, delivering anything at the moment, they're just being established to see CJC's. So, is that anybody got anything to say about that? Forward work programs. Onto item 8 is feedback from committee representatives, if there are any. Does feedback come to the above me? I've just today had more photographs of the nearing completion, Booth in Adole, which is rolling along very nicely, which is, you know, I presume that Priyam Morrell will be coming to this Scrutiny to, it's coming near its completion now. Yeah, you've raised this before. I have asked Priyam, and she said, they're nowhere near ready yet to bring anything to Scrutiny as yet. Right. I haven't heard a formal proposal. How long does that? Meeting before last, I think. What are you wanting to scrutinize? The building's not finished yet? No. Is it the building or the delivery services in the building? Well, how long would you want us to operate in the building in order to be able to serve? Bringing people the knowledge of what we're trying to do there. The buildings are just part of it. We do brief notes on the children's assessment centre is happening in other premises. But when these premises are done, which are going to be stated, state of the art, I'll send you the email with the six photographs, and you can send them around to the committee to see how it's getting on. But I think you could only say that it's nearing completion, and it's looking very good. Yeah, because for just for Scrutiny purposes, anything that comes to Scrutiny needs a hard value to it, and needs to do something with it. Information reports we don't have on the agenda. No problem with sending anything around for members information, but unless there's something of concern to members with regards to both in at all, or whether you want to look at how it's performing in 12 months' time, after there's been open or something, that would be appropriate. But just as an information, it was just that when I had a discussion with Riam, head of children's services, a few months back, in fact it was probably last year, she said she would be bringing it to Scrutiny. No, I didn't ask why. I guess she just wanted to share what's happening there, and how it's getting on. And maybe organise a visit? Well, we'll be having an official launch, so that will be something obviously. But I think it probably wouldn't be Scrutiny unless there was a reason to scrutinise the service or something about it. But in terms of an update for members, a more generic update as to the progress of the build, and the launch dates, etc., and the start of the delivery within the build were probably due. A newsletter type information briefing for all members, as opposed to just an individual Scrutiny, of an item you would want to delve into. It is. Well, it's an example of a partnership, isn't it, between Commonwealth Council and Bette Caddola, and Denvershire Council. So it's an example of how a partnership should work to achieve something of excellence. Yes, flagship. Probably bring it here if there was concerns about the partnership's arrangement, and each partner's input or contribution to it. If it's everything's working well, I don't think you would merit the committee's time. Thank you. So there's no, that's your feedback, no other feedback. So, no, call the meeting to an end. So, going next meeting is on 4th of July. 4th of July. See you then. You