Loading
The decisions as the council's minutes record them. A plain-language summary follows once it has been written.
RESOLVED: That the Chairperson writes to the Cabinet Member on behalf of the Committee expressing their comments and observations captured during the way forward.
None received.
None.
The minutes of the meeting held on 12th June, 2025 were approved by the Committee as a correct record and were signed by the Chairperson.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED: That the Chairperson writes to the Cabinet Member on behalf of the Committee expressing their comments and observations captured during the way forward.
The Committee received a report providing Members with the opportunity to consider the proposed Cycle Hire Scheme before it is considered by Cabinet on 10th July. The report set out the feedback from recent market engagement, identified the main factors shaping the scheme, set out various modal mix options, and recommendations to delegate all procurement processes, including evaluation criteria. The Chairperson welcomed: · Cllr De’Ath - Cabinet Member, Climate Change, Strategic Planning & Transport · Andrew Gregory – Director of Planning, Transport and Environment · Claire Moggridge – Head of Transport · Jon Mattingley – Interim Operational Manager – Major Projects Infrastructure. · . The Cabinet Member was invited to make an opening statement, during which he raised that he would like this committee to undertake a deep dive into the merits and demerits of e-scooters, including hearing from a range of stakeholders such as the Police, Health, RNIB and others, and that Cabinet could then use the findings of this to inform their decision-making. Officers were invited to deliver the presentation. Members were invited to ask questions and make comments; the discussion is summarised below: Members commented on how interesting the presentation was and asked for more information on the geo fencing system. Officer explained that the technology works in a way that finds the defined area, and the start and finish point for using the bike. In this way, it can track the location of the bike and how far it is permitted to travel. The technology can also be used to identify areas of inactivity (where the bike will not work) such as bus lanes, so bikes cannot operate in specific areas. Damaged bikes and bikes with safety issues can also be locked remotely, and officers explained this technology is commonly used in this way. They explained that chaotic behaviour and nuisance parking with these bikes can also be controlled using the system, as speed and location can be managed. This would relate to E Bikes and not E scooters, which are currently not licenced for use in Wales, but officers plan to review this to consider for the future. Members asked for more details on how the scheme would be monitored and how charges for use of E bikes had been arrived at, and officers explained that this system would be managed through an app that individuals would have to register on, and there would be no docking stations as with the Next Bike system, and the issues that arose with vandalism would therefore be reduced. The app will require details of a provisional driving licence to be uploaded (so from age 16 years), and a photo of the bike needs to be uploaded at the correct end location at the end of the ride to calculate the cost of the ride. Abuse of the system will be monitored, and the bike will not be released to users with a history of misuse. Officers explained that this system has led to less vandalism and damaged bikes elsewhere and these bikes are much bigger and heavier. The Operator has invested in these measures, as it is now in their interest as they are responsible for the cost of maintaining them. Members asked if there is a way this system can be used by tourists and visitors and people who have no access to a smart phone, and how it can be ensured that helmets are worn. Officers explained it would be difficult to control helmet use, but there is a Health & Safety reminder on the app, but it is down to individual responsibility. Officers explained that the other option, other than using the app, is to book use of the E Bike in advance online and agree the locations. This then provides a key code to unlock the bike for use. Officers appreciated members raising this and will discuss this further with the operator. Costs will also be further discussed with the operator, but they are considering a charge of £1 to unlock and then a specific amount either per kilometre or per minute. Members asked for details of the financial loss incurred through vandalism of the Next Bikes, and officers explained that no specific information was available, but it was high, and the reason they are looking at alternatives. Members also asked whether the costs to create parking bays for E Bikes and maintenance of these had been budgeted for and officers explained that there would be some kerb side works needed to develop locations, but this would be minimal to the Council. If E Cargo bikes were part of this, there would be higher costs, but no specifics were available. The E Cargo bikes are not part of this proposal, but may come later. Members then asked what had been learned from the experience with the Next bike scheme, and officers explained that the structure of that contract was not beneficial as it did not include repairs after a certain point, so the Council was responsible for these, which led to less bikes being available for use. They also explained that the technology had moved on, and the plan was for the new contract to include clauses regarding the number of bikes available at any given time and responsibility for repairs and maintenance. Officers explained that Cardiff was not unique in its experience with the Next Bike Scheme, and other cities across the UK had also experienced these issues. They also pointed out that the Next Bike system had led to bikes being left in various pars of the city, whereas this system, with geofencing technology, would prevent that from happening. Members asked why the contract appeared to more operator led and queried why the report to Cabinet did not include details on the criteria, aims and/ or targets for a cycle hire scheme in Cardiff. Officers explained they plan to work closely with the operator on pricing, locations and geofencing and that the Council will have an overview and strategic control, especially on expected standards and quality. They are still working with the operator to align their interests with those of the Council, and to develop this mode of sustainable travel. When developing locations, a process for analysis of this would need to be developed and include formal health and safety and risk assessments, and Ward members will be consulted as part of this process. Members asked whether the only ambition for this scheme was to increase the availability of sustainable travel, or if there are other elements such as putting bikes in locations for citizens who might be disadvantaged, or areas where there is less public transport available. Officers explained that equity was an important element of the scheme, and they are working on the specifics, so this feedback is helpful. They pointed out that having E Bikes available does increase the ability for older people, people with disabilities and many other situations to access bikes and use them for transport. Members asked whether the plan was for a further report to come back to Cabinet, as there were still elements to be addressed and worked out, and were advised by Officers that the plan was to proceed to the procurement stage, if agreed by Cabinet at its July meeting, with negotiations leading to a final scheme, which would hopefully be incrementally rolled out in early Spring. Members again said how pleased they were to see a cycle hire scheme is being looked at again and that they were pleased with the plans around the geo fencing and other mitigating factors. Members asked about monitoring use of E bikes on pavements and the ability to identify any individuals responsible for misuse. Officers explained that the operators are looking at ways to ensure bikes remain on allocated tracks and this is part of the discussions, although users can be identified though the driving licence information uploaded before use. This can be used to monitor use of bike, as well as speed and location. These bikes are very different from the illegal E Bikes, for example they have built-in speed limits Members asked about what risks to the Council had been identified and what plans there were to mitigate these with a potential contract. Officers advised that the organisations being considered are large companies with a lot of experience, so they feel the risks had been considered. A Data Protection Impact Assessment has not yet been completed to ensure the software is suitable, but officers will be discussing this with the operator. Similar schemes are already operating in other large cities successfully. Members asked about the term of the contract and what clauses were in place should the operator not fulfil the requirements. Officers explained that the service specification is yet to be finalised but will include many of these aspects, as well as looking at a 3years +1+1 arrangement. Officers also mentioned they were considering looking at appointing 2 contractors to encourage competition and drive-up standards, but this had not been confirmed. Officers explained that the roll out would be incremental. RESOLVED: That the Chairperson writes to the Cabinet Member on behalf of the Committee expressing their comments and observations captured during the way forward.
This item provided Members with a copy of our combined Scrutiny Annual Report 2024-25. The Scrutiny Officer explained that the annual report is reviewed before going to Cabinet, and is seeking approval for the report, pending any amendments. Members were invited to ask questions and make comments; the discussion is summarised below: Members asked about the number of publicly submitted requests and written submissions received this year and how this could be promoted. The Scrutiny Officer explained that lots of emails are received but are not necessarily related to the scrutiny committee’s work, as it is a generic email address. Work is being done with IT to create a specific form for submission. There have been some received relating to Roath Wreck and St David’s Hall. The Chair explained that a meeting has been requested with Chairs of other committees and Comms to look at public engagement and the best approach to take. The draft Scrutiny Annual Report for 2024/25 was APPROVED.
To review the evidence and information gathered during the meeting, agree Members comments, observations and concerns to be passed on to the relevant Cabinet Member by the Chair.
Members were advised that the next Environment Scrutiny Committee is scheduled for 11th September at 4.30pm.
There were no urgent items.
Councillors must say when they have a personal link to something being discussed, such as a job, a property or a family member. A prejudicial interest is one strong enough that the councillor usually leaves the room and takes no part.
Declarations are read from the minutes once they are published.
Lists the council's current councillors only. Co-opted members, officers and former councillors aren't shown.