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.
RESOLVED: That the Chairperson writes to the Cabinet Member on behalf of the Committee expressing their comments and observations captured during the way forward.
RESOLVED: That the Chairperson writes to the Cabinet Member on behalf of the Committee expressing their comments and observations captured during the way forward.
RESOLVED – That the Work Programme 2025/26 be approved.
Apologies were received from Councillor Derbyshire.
No declarations of interest.
The minutes of the meeting held on 3 July 2024 were approved by the Committee and 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 background information in relation to the Cardiff Bay area and the monitoring processes that are undertaken to protect the environment. Members had previously agreed to explore the monitoring processes and procedures in place in Cardiff Bay and satisfy themselves that appropriate measures and mitigation controls in place in respect of water quality. Members were advised that the construction of the Cardiff Bay Barrage created a freshwater lake of approximately 200-hectares by impounding the waters from the rivers Ely and Taff and establishing a permanently high water level. The Harbour Authority fulfils environmental duties under the Cardiff Bay Barrage Act and other legislation including monitoring and maintaining water quality; protecting and enhancing both the natural and built environment and managing all environmental issues in the Bay through a dedicated team. Chemical water quality monitoring includes continuous monitoring of dissolved oxygen, salinity, temperature, and pH from nine locations across the Bay. Readings are taken every 15 minutes and are available via the Hydrosphere website. The legal standard for dissolved oxygen must remain above 5 mg/L to protect migratory fish, including salmon and sea trout. Salinity control ensures the Bay remains a freshwater environment. Both the rivers Ely and Taff receive sewage discharges. Therefore, to limit the risk of illness associated with water immersion activities, Cardiff Harbour Authority (CHA) conduct regular monitoring of the bacterial quality of the Bay. This monitoring has been conducted since the Bay was first impounded in 2000. Additionally, Biological water quality monitoring processes have been developed in collaboration with Shared Regulatory Services and Public Health Wales. Members were asked to note that the overall quality of the water in the Bay cannot be guaranteed as it is impacted by the water that flows downstream from the rivers Ely and Taff, and this in turn is affected by the weather and the uses of the land near riverbanks, many of which are outside the control of the Council. Treatment options for poor water quality are limited as they may impact the quality of the water in adverse ways or effect the local environment. The Chairperson welcomed Councillor Burke, Cabinet Member for Culture, Sport & Parks, Jon Maidment, Operational Manager ,Parks Sport & Harbour Authority and David Hall - Environment Officer, Cardiff Harbour Authority to the meeting. Following a statement from the Cabinet Member the Chairperson opened the debate on this item. Those discussions are summarised as follows: · A Member stated that he had an opportunity to meet with representatives of Natural Resources Wales (NRW) and D?r Cymru/Welsh Water at an event held at Llanishen Reservoir and discussed water quality and sewage discharges with them. The Member was advised that the Rivers Ely and Taff were subject to sewage overflow discharges and that a series of measures would be forthcoming to mitigate against sewage overflow discharges. · Officers were asked to comment on their understanding of the overflow problem on the Rivers Ely and Taff and the long-term plans to mitigate against them. Members were confirmed that there are sewage discharges into the both rivers, as there were to virtually every urban water course in the UK. Specifically, sewage discharges in the immediate vicinity of Cardiff Bay are sent to the Cog Moors and Cardiff East Sewage Treatment works. However, the Rivers Taff and Ely have large catchments and there are sewages outflows further upstream. Water in the bay is intensely monitored for both bacteriological and virus contamination which allows for a predictive model to inform decisions around activities in the bay. In terms of mitigation, water companies have asset management plans which can be influenced through NRW. · A Member considered that the authority has a responsibility to the residents living around the bay and the business located there. The Member noted that 4 of the 6 water quality monitoring stations were currently failing and asked whether pressure can be applied to work with NRW and D?r Cymru/Welsh Water. The Member also asked whether a new potential business in Cardiff Bay was delaying investment due to concerns about water quality. The Cabinet Member stated that the new business venture alluded to was delayed due to the rising costs of the project. The authority would continue to monitor water quality. D?r Cymru/Welsh Water has announced a £6 billion investment in water treatment infrastructure across Wales and the Council would continue to work in partnership with NRW, D?r Cymru/Welsh Water and others to influence water quality management. · Responding to a question from the Committee officers stated they were unaware of any bacteriological monitoring on rivers undertaken by any other local authoritiy in Wales, although Blue Flag beaches are monitored 12 times per year. · Members asked whether officers were reassured of the level of seriousness the Council gives to ensure high water quality in Cardiff Bay and that all is being done to press NRW and D?r Cymru/Welsh Water. Officers stated that the authority works closely with Public Health Wales and NRW who are the main drivers for the D?r Cymru/Welsh Water investment programme. Regular meetings also take place with Welsh Government who are aware of the research work being undertaken and the ends for which water quality improvement is needed in the bay. Officers considered that all the bodies which are able to influence decisions are aware of the need for environmental improvements. Furthermore, it was anticipated that the outcomes of the research work being undertaken will form the blueprint for future monitoring. · Members were advised that the negotiations around water quality improvement with D?r Cymru/Welsh Water are ongoing. Data from the research projects is being provided to NRW to inform those discussions. · A Member asked which body was responsible for enforcement in the events of a water quality breach. Officers stated that the only statutory water quality standards applied to the bay are contained within the Cardiff Bay Barrage Act. These are chemical standards relating to dissolved oxygen and salinity ingress from the estuary. NRW are the regulatory authority responsible for that. For biological monitoring there are no recognised standards although there are standards for sewage discharges. However, when that water reaches the bay there is no requirement to monitor but the Harbour Authority does monitor biological water quality levels. · A Member noted that recent outbreaks of water borne diseases in mid-Wales and North Wales, particularly cryptosporidium. The Member asked whether this was one of the organisms that the biological monitoring looks for. Officers stated that cryptosporidium was one of the organisms that was originally monitored. In 20 years no cryptosporidium was ever found so that monitoring ceased. However, the recent introduction of virus monitoring as part of the research project being undertaken does look for cryptosporidium. The samples are sent to Bangor University and if it was present then it would be found. Primarily, the faecal indicator organisms are looked for contained in bathing water quality regulations and which determine ‘Blue Flag Status’ such as e-coli. · A Member requested further details of what affect wastewater discharges were having on algal blooms around the city and how that affects the macro-balance. Members were advised that blue-green algal levels are monitored and algal blooms are not present at elevated levels in Cardiff Bay. It was considered that the aeration system may disrupt the ability of blooms to form. · A Member asked whether any key species indicator monitoring was undertaken, such as salmon and trout, which may provide an indication of a healthy ecosystem. Members were advised migratory fish monitoring is undertaken by NRW. A light box contained within the fish pass which can identify salmon and trout as they pass through. Numbers of fish in the fish pass have dropped off considerably since construction, as they have across Europe. RESOLVED: That the Chairperson writes to the Cabinet Member on behalf of the Committee expressing their comments and observations captured during the way forward.
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.
Members were provided with an opportunity to consider a report to Cabinet titled ‘Advertising and Sponsorship Policy,’ prior to it being considered by Cabinet. Members were advised that the proposed Advertising and Sponsorship Policy 2024 replaced an outdated framework with a more ethical, consistent, and robust approach to how Cardiff Council engages in advertising and sponsorship. The revised framework aligns with the Council’s corporate values and addresses public health and reputational concerns. It also ensures compliance with legislation and industry standards, and in some areas, exceeds national requirements by introducing stricter controls on advertising content. The policy clearly defines advertising and sponsorship, outlines acceptable practices, and sets out a decision-making and accountability framework. The Chairperson welcomed Cllr Dan De’Ath, Cabinet Member for Climate Change, Strategic Planning and Transport, Andrew Gregory, Director of Planning, Transport and Environment and Kathryn Palmer, Team Leader, Business Development and Projects. The Cabinet Member was invited to make a statement. Following a presentation the Chairperson opened the debate on this item. Those discussions are summarised as follows: · A Member asked how the food sustainability motion that was agreed by Council in July 2024 has helped to develop the Advertising and Sponsorship Policy across Council departments. Members were advised that advertising standards have picked up the wider policy agenda in terms of advertising high salt and high fat foods. The Cabinet Member stated that the ultra-processed food issue was integrated, and though it was recognised that some foods are low-fat but still ultra-processed, these did not feature in the policy specifically as it was considered that the policy needed to be workable. However, the policy would be regularly revised and reviewed. Officers stated that consultation was undertaken with Cardiff and Vale University Health Board (CAVUHB), Economic Development and the Energy and Sustainability Team which helped to shape elements of the policy. · A Member noted that ultra-processed foods and HFSS (high fat sugar and salt) foods can cause obesity and obesity was a bigger contributor to deaths in England and Wales than smoking, which is currently banned under the policy. The Member asked what rationale was applied to banning smoking adverts and not banning HFSS adverts. Officers advised that smoking advertising is banned nationally by the Advertising StandardsAgency. HFSS is not currently banned but the Cardiff Council policy seeks to introduce restrictions on advertising HFSS products and, as such, advertising of burgers, fries or fizzy drinks will not be permitted. Brand advertising will be permitted. · Responding to points made, a Member commented that it would have been useful for the Committee to have received information regarding the potential commercial benefit for particular aspects of advertising. The Director stated that a cost benefit analysis had not been undertaken as commercial benefit for the Council was not primary objective. The Policy seeks to strike the right balance between good practice and commercial benefit. The Cabinet Member considered that the question was not what was advertised by how it is advertised and how it is targeted at. For example, an advert using the brand name of a popular brand only was not the same as an advert advertising ‘alcopops’ aimed at young people. Officers asked Members to note that many major sporting events and teams are sponsored by alcohol brands and the authority would seek to continue to welcome them into the city. · Members sought clarification on the procedure for final approval of advertising. The Director stated that guidance will be provided to advertising agencies but there are some areas, such as religious advertising, would be referred back to officers of the Council. Where there are issues of particular sensitivity consultation will be undertaken with the Cabinet Member and, in some circumstances, local members. Any advertising that was not compliant from the outset would not be referred to officers. Elected Members will have ultimate oversite. · A Member asked whether there were any restrictions in terms of the size of advertising, particularly banners. Members were advised that banners need to be seen by as many people as possible and will be to the largest size permitted under planning consent. · A Member challenged comments made previously regarding there being no scientific consensus around the harm caused by ultra- processed foods. The Member considered that not only was there scientific consensus, but the issue would be the next major public health issue. However, whilst scientific consensus exists, there has been no primary legislation to address the issue. The Member welcomed that the policy will be reviewed periodically and accepted that a pragmatic approach was being adopted in terms of balancing enforcement with income for the Council. · Responding to a question from the Committee, officers confirmed that adopted public highway was a Council asset and would be covered by the policy. · Referring to religious sensitivities, a Member noted that the Policy includes reference to ‘greater sensitivity around non-Christian faiths due to greater risk of offence’. The Member questioned why one religion should be offered more protection than others and why isn’t a standard being applied equally to all religions. The Cabinet Member stated that the authority is not hostile to religious advertising. However, advertising by religious groups can take many forms and the policy seeks to acknowledge that in the current political discourse some advertising could be considered to be offensive. · A Member asked whether the policy included restrictions to commercial medications. Officers confirmed that commercial medications such as weight loss medications are included within the prohibited list in the Policy. · Members indicated that the Committee would welcome an opportunity to participate in any future reviews of the policy. RESOLVED: That the Chairperson writes to the Cabinet Member on behalf of the Committee expressing their comments and observations captured during the way forward.
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 an update briefing on the public consultation exercise undertaken between 16 October 2024 and 2 November 2024 and outlining the proposed changes to the City Parking Plan. The Chairperson welcomed Cllr Dan De’Ath, Cabinet Member for Climate Change, Strategic Planning and Transport, Andrew Gregory, Director of Planning, Transport and Environment, Claire Moggridge, Head of Transport, Chris Hanson, Principal Engineer, Transport Vision, Policy and Strategy and Jason Dixon, Operational Manager, Strategic Transport Development Following a statement from the Cabinet Member officers delivered a presentation. The Chairperson then opened the debate. Comments are summarised as follows: · A Member asked what parking provision would be made for commuters who work in the night-time economy in the City Centre who would often need to travel to and from work when there were limited public transport alternative options available. Officers stated that there was no particular provision specifically for commuters working in the night-time economy, but most parking controls would cease in the evening and workers would be allowed to park in those spaces without restriction. The Cabinet Member noted that people who working in the city centre were not currently able to park in the centre as space is limited. Parking zones are currently in place in the areas around the city centre also. · Referring to the consultation responses, a Member noted that a small majority of people were supportive of the parking plan proposals. Officers were asked to define how the benefits of the parking plan would be communicated so that more people would be supportive. Officers stated that feedback and comments received during the consultation phase have been taken onboard, particularly in terms of essential worker permits and zone boundaries. It was anticipated that the parking plan would improve the overall position for residents and essential workers. The Head of Transport stated that every zone will have its own challenges and specific requirements. Each zone will be shaped to take into account local considerations. Those zones that have already been introduced in the city have received positive feedback from residents. A Member considered that it was very important to communicate to the public that the Council has listened to consultation feedback and changes were made to the plans as a result. · A Member asked whether the 10-years period for implementing the plan could be compressed. Officers stated that each zone will take at least 2 years to implement. Zones will be introduced gradually across the city. There are also funding issues that need to be taken into consideration which constrain the speed of the introduction of parking zones. · A Member sought further details around how communications with residents and commuters will be managed. Officers stated that all residents and all businesses located within an area will receive a letter explaining the proposals and signposting sources of information where they can find out more. A consultation process is undertaken in order to understand local demands. Proposals are then reassessed before another formal consultation process is undertaken. The Head of Transport also advised that officers will invest time working with elected members so that they are well informed. · A Member asked whether the parking plan proposal would form the basis of a Cardiff congestion charging scheme moving forward. The Cabinet Member stated that it was not. The plan aims to address parking management in the city, as other plans do in large cities across the country. · Officers were asked to clarify the number of responses received from blue badge holders. Officers indicated that 6% of the total number of people who responded were blue badge holders. This represented a good response rate. RESOLVED: That the Chairperson writes to the Cabinet Member on behalf of the Committee expressing their comments and observations captured during the way forward.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED – That the Work Programme 2025/26 be approved.
The Committee received a report for Members on the Committee’s Work Programme. Members were asked to consider approving the Work Programme for 2025/26. A Member requested that a review of the recycling strategy, and particularly whether the roll out of separation receptacles was linked to an increase in litter, be considered. The Member also noted that the Council’s carbon reduction results had been considered in a report taken to the Policy Review and Performance Scrutiny Committee. The Member asked whether could be considered at a future meeting. The Committee was advised that the results had been considered by Policy Review and Performance Scrutiny Committee as part of the Annual Wellbeing report and that the Committee considers the One Planet Cardiff Strategy on an annual basis. RESOLVED – That the Work Programme 2025/26 be approved.
No urgent items.
Members were advised that the next Environment Scrutiny Committee is scheduled for 13 November 2025.
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.