Agenda and minutes

You are welcome to use Welsh at the meeting, a minimum notice period of 3 working days is required should you wish to do so.  A simultaneous translation will be provided if requested.

It was noted that no requests had been received for the simultaneous translation service.

To receive.

Apologies for absence were received for Councillor T. Sharrem.

To receive.

No declarations of interest or dispensations were reported.

To consider.

It was AGREED that meetings of the Community Services Scrutiny Committee continue to be held at 10.00 a.m.

To receive the minutes of the Community Services Scrutiny Committee held on 12^th April, 2021.

(Please note the minutes are submitted for accuracy points only).

The minutes of the Community Services Scrutiny Committee held on 12^th April, 2021 were submitted.

The Committee AGREED that the minutes be accepted as a true record of proceedings.

There were no actions arising from the meeting of the Community Services Scrutiny Committee held on 12^th April, 2021.

There were no actions arising from the Community Services Scrutiny Committee held on the 12^th April, 2021.

Consideration was given to the proposed Scrutiny Committee Forward Work Programme for 2021-22.

A Member referred to the increased recycling targets, and expressed concern regarding the impact on capacity within the service.  He suggested that a review be undertaken of the contingency plans in certain areas of the system, and also a review of the maintenance of potholes in the Borough’s highways be undertaken.

Another Member requested an update on fly grazing, and that the update on Civil Parking Enforcement be brought forward from November.

In response the Corporate Director Regeneration & Community Services confirmed that an update on the Council’s recycling strategy would be reported to Scrutiny in due course, and this could potentially include contingency plans for the service.

The Team Leader Neighbourhood Services also reported that a piece of work was being undertaken with WRAP and the WLGA looking at progress of the Strategy and whether any adjustments were needed.  In terms of capacity within the service, he said there had been a significant increase in the collection of green waste due to the recent good weather, and confirmed that additional crews had been deployed to meet that demand.

A Member requested an update on flood management risk in light of the flooding experienced at Llanhilleth earlier in the year.

In response to a question raised by another Member regarding the Central Depot new build, the Team Leader Street Scene confirmed that a full report on the outline business case would be submitted to Scrutiny on the 19^th July, 2021. 

Another Member said he was disappointed with the FWP.  He referred to a Member’s request for an update on flood management risk, and said a more detailed report on the condition of culverts and drains in the Borough was needed.  He also referred to the closure of the Civic Centre and felt that the Scrutiny Committee should consider the relocation of the Technical Services Department and associated plans and records.  He also agreed that a report on the maintenance of potholes was needed, and also a report on fly tipping. 

He concluded that a review of the Council’s policy in relation to HMO’s was urgently needed.

In response a Member confirmed that discussions were ongoing with the Service Manager Development & Estates regarding guidance for considering planning applications for HMO’s.

Another Member sought clarification on the Council’s pest control contract, and the Team Leader Environmental Protection confirmed that the current contract would run until the end of March 2022.

The Chair confirmed that the all the issues raised by Members would be discussed with Officers.

The Committee AGREED, subject to the foregoing, that the Forward Work Programme 2021/22 be agreed.

Consideration was given to report of the Head of Community Services.

The Senior Engineer Highways presented the report which provided an update on progress of the current Highway Capital Works programme 2017/2021 and presented options around a future 2021/22 works programme.

The Officer went through the report and highlighted the key points contained therein.

A Member sought clarification on the figure of £405k for Bus Infrastructure highlighted in section 2.12 of the report.

The Engineering Manager explained that approximately £250k of the money would be used in response to WG’s IRT (Integrated Responsive Transport) programme, and approximately £150k would be used for upgrading the existing bus stop infrastructure, which was a continuation of last year’s programme.  He urged Members to contact Officers with any issues in relation to bus stops within their wards.

In response to a further question raised by a Member regarding the Local Transport Fund, the Officer stated that the grants listed in section 2.12 of the report were WG grants with specific funding criteria.  He explained that the Active Travel Grant was a different funding initiative to encourage people to walk/cycle to school or work etc.

A Member asked whether there were any monies due from the Education Department as a result of the highway works undertaken as part of the development of the new school at Six Bells.

The Head of Technical Services confirmed that the monies had been fully reimbursed and put into the capital contingency budget.  He also confirmed that Council had been fully reimbursed for the works associated with the storm damage.

A Member referred to the list of priority residential roads at section 3.1 (option 1) and said in his opinion there were roads within his ward in a worse state of repair.

The Head of Technical Services said the matrix allowed an independent and objective review of roads using evidence and data, rather than personal judgement.  However, he would be happy to have further discussions with Members if they felt there were roads that warranted further consideration, as long as those roads were of similar value and consistent with the ethos of the matrix scoring.

Another Member questioned the classification of some roads, and said whilst he accepted the matrix, he felt it was slightly flawed and should be reviewed moving forward in terms of the delegation of points on various roads within the Borough.

A Member concurred with the Member’s comments regarding the classification of roads and said an explanation of the method would be beneficial.  He also stated that a number of roads within the Borough had been resurfaced numerous times over the years and expressed concern regarding ‘build-up’.  The Member then referred to highway safety and suggested that potential funding from Safe Routes to School be explored, and that this be included in the FWP.  However, the Member felt that the proposed works outlined in the report provided value for money.

Another Member asked whether it would be more cost effective to undertake surface overlay  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.