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.
Apologies were received from Councillor Carr.
The following declarations of interest were received in accordance with the Members Code of Conduct: Councillor Ash-Edwards Item 5 Personal Director of Cardiff Bus Councillor Proctor Item 5 Personal Works for membership body for housing associations
The minutes of the meeting held on 11 September 2025 were approved 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 an opportunity to deliberate the City Parking Plan before it is considered by Cabinet on 16 October 2025. Members were advised that the Parking Policy 2016 was in need of review following the publication of the Council’s Transport White Paper, and new national strategies, in order to align with the needs of a growing city. The new City Parking Plan would aim to: · support the Transport White Paper’s objectives · simplify and standardise parking rules · reorganise kerbside parking into defined Parking Management Areas (PMAs) · phase in parking zones to address unmanaged parking · prioritise blue badge holders and residents, reduce commuter parking, and encourage sustainable travel · encourage motorists to use cleaner vehicles or shift to active and sustainable travel modes to address climate change and improve air quality A public consultation exercise ran from 16 October to 2 December 2024. A total of 6,381 responses were received (88% residents, 92% vehicle owners, 38% currently hold parking permits; 6% are Blue Badge holders). The key findings of the consultation exercise were set out in the report. A number of changes to the proposals were made in response to feedback received during the consultation exercise. A summary of those changes was also provided in the report. The Chairperson welcomed Councillor Dan De’Ath, Cabinet Member for Climate Change, Strategic Planning & Transport and Chris Hanson, Principal Officer, Transport Planning Policy & Strategy to the meeting. The Cabinet Member was invited to make a statement following which officers delivered a presentation. The Chairperson invited Members to comment, raise questions or seek clarification on the information received. Those discussions are summarised as follows: · A Member raised concerns regarding the 10-year implementation timeframe for the City Parking Plan although it was accepted that this point had been adequately addressed by officers at an earlier meeting. · A Member requested further details regarding the proposal to levy additional charges on larger and high polluting vehicles. The Member noted that a majority of those who responded to the consultation were in favour of this proposal and considered that communication with the public regarding this issue was essential. The Cabinet Member stated that the levy would be based on weight and not the size of the vehicle and there was a wealth of evidence around the harm some vehicles do to people, the environment and to the roads. The precise level of the charge has not been agreed upon. The Cabinet Member agreed that it was essential to explain to people the reasons why the Council is introducing the additional charge. · A Member noted that heavier vehicles have a higher ‘NCAP’ rating and are safer for the occupants in crashes. It was considered that people who choose to own these vehicles are justified in doing so because they are better protected. There was also a risk that the uptake of electric vehicles could be hindered as electric vehicles are generally heavier. The Cabinet Member accepted that evidence suggests that passengers in SUVs are safer in the event of an accident. However, SUVs are far deadlier to pedestrians. · A Member stated that students living in the city may need to use a vehicle for reasons related to their courses, such as getting to placements and/or starting shifts at times when there are no public transport alternatives available. The Member considered that it would be simple to introduce a modification to the student parking restrictions to allow students of courses where vehicles are required to apply for a permit. The Cabinet Member was asked whether consideration would be given to modifying the proposals therefore. The Cabinet Member stated that the proposals for the central area will not apply across the whole city. Therefore there are plenty of places in the city where students who need to use a vehicles for their courses can reside. However, the policy can be reviewed should certain sections of the student population be adversely effected. · A Member asked whether consideration could be given to focusing the parking restrictions on commuting hours and reducing the 24-hour nature of the proposals. · Comments were requested on the cost of implementing the proposals across the city and whether the scheme would be cost-neutral or whether income would be generated. The Director stated that each zone would cost several thousand pounds to implement. However, the aim was not to generate income but to get the transport network working more efficiently. Any additional income would be ringfenced and used for transport projects. · A Member asked whether a business permit would include the vehicle of an owner of a business who uses it to get to and from their business. Officers advised that the business permit is purely for operational vehicles and a business owner would not be able to use a business permit to park the vehicle they use to commute using a business permit. The Cabinet Member reminded Members that the proposals for the central zone would not be applied in all areas of the city and there would be a net benefit for motorists. · A Member noted that the school permit would not be valid during August. The Member asked whether an exemption could be made for GCSE and A-Level results days in August. Members were advised that exemptions can be made for special events during August. · A Member asked how heavier vehicles and those which cause higher levels of pollution would be identified under the parking plan. Members were advised that when permits are applied for the VRD database will identify the vehicle and determine whether the surcharge should be applied. A Member asked, in terms of levels of pollution, what consideration has been given as to which sorts of vehicles the surcharge would be applied. The Cabinet Member recognised there was an ethical dilemma as the administration was seeking to discourage the use of higher polluting vehicles but it does not want to penalise people on low incomes who have no choice but to drive an older vehicle. A lot of consideration is being given to how to apply this fairly. · A Member questioned the supporting transport infrastructure that was required to run alongside the parking restrictions and raised concerns that the implementation of parking restrictions was out-stripping the public transport improvements required to run alongside them, effectively marooning commuters. The Cabinet Member and officers were asked to comment on how the public transport improvement would align with the progression of the parking plan. The Cabinet Member stated that the parking plan was going to be implemented over a 10-year period and during the time many public transport improvements would be introduced including some major new infrastructure. It was noted that there also are alternatives to parking in residential areas, such as using car parks. However, these require a payment to be made. The parking plan proposals aims to manage a scarce resource and such schemes are commonplace in large cities across the UK. However, local communities will be consulted upon and if they do not want parking schemes in their area then they will not be forced upon them. The Director also considered that good public transport alternatives are already in place. · A Member stated that fundamentally there was a need to ‘balance the ledger’ and that parking plan proposals should be explicitly aligned with additional functionality in the transport infrastructure network. · A Member asked for clarification of how parking displacement would be managed in parking zones, particularly during large events in the city where high numbers of visitors were expected in the city. Officers stated that the zonal nature of the zones would help residents park in nearby streets. The penalties for visitors parking in residential areas are set by Welsh Government and National Government and the authority has no control over the level of those penalties. · A Member asked how the success of the parking zones would be evaluated. Officers stated that comments and feedback would be reviewed. Parking and compliance surveys will also be undertaken. After a short period minor local changes then can be implemented. Any survey undertaken will take account of local special groups who have essential permits or other permits to make sure that zones are working for the needs of those groups, primarily residents. · A Member asked how spontaneous visits from family members to a resident in a parking zone are managed and if a retrospective permit can be applied for in those circumstances. Officers stated that the visitor has until midnight that day to apply for a retrospective permit. Members were asked to note that there is a separate Enforcement Policy, and it is recommended that transport and enforcement colleagues work together to ensure consistent application of the enforcement policy alongside the introduction of any parking zones.. · The Chairperson asked a question received from the Cardiff and Vale Residents Association, as follows: “Will the zones be connected to the Smart Cities initiative utilising controlled movement through cameras?” The Cabinet Member provided assurance that there will be no monitoring of people’s movement, no use of cameras and no restrictions on entering other zones. The report and supporting information have been made available on the Council’s website and if residents do not support parking zones in their area then they do not have to have them. 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.
Councillors Ash-Edwards and Proctor declared personal interests in the following item in accordance with the Members Code of Conduct. The Committee received a report providing an opportunity to review the Local Development Plan Annual Monitoring Report (AMR) before approval by Cabinet on 16 October that will be submitted to Welsh Government by 31 October. Members were advised that the overall conclusion of the AMR is that good progress is generally being made, with 77 indicators being rated as ‘Continue monitoring’ (Green) and a further 25 rated as ‘Further research’ (Yellow) where indicators suggest policies could be more effective, therefore additional investigation is needed. The Chairperson welcomed Councillor Dan De’Ath, Cabinet Member –Climate Change, Strategic Planning & Transport, Andrew Gregory, Director of Planning, Transport and Environment, Simon Gilbert, Head of Planning and Stuart Williams, Group Leader (Policy) to the meeting. After a statement from the Cabinet Member officers were invited to deliver a presentation. The Chairperson then opened the debate on this item. Those discussions are summarised as follows: · A Member asked whether the designated temporary facility for the travelling community in Pengam Green was likely to become a permanent site in the future. The Director stated that the plan was to develop a temporary facility. The site was complex in planning terms and there were a range of issues that would need to be considered before any site in the area can be made permanent. Members were advised that as part of the planning application process for the temporary site a greater understanding would be gained around the longer-term implications for the site. There were also potential opportunities for other land uses in the area which would also be subject to complex technical assessments. · A Member asked why housing developments on green fields were not progressing at the same rate as housing developments on brown field sites. The Director stated that the level of growth required to deliver new communities are complex projects which have been subject to changes in legislation and planning policy development. Developments across the UK have also been tempered by falling demand. It was anticipated delivery would increase in future years. · Officers were asked to comment on the timescale for the masterplan on the Pengam Green site and to what extend to masterplan would meet the needs of the travelling community in the city. The Director stated that the proposals are moving forward in line with the planning application for the temporary facility. The masterplan for the wider area will follow on from that planning application. Officers stated that the long-term need for the travelling community has been assessed as 117 pitches and of those 73 are short-term need. The site at Pengam Green will deliver 80 pitches. · A Member noted that 2500 houses were currently under construction and are likely to be finished by the time the new LDP is implemented. The Member asked whether those figures would be taken into account in the new LDP. Officers advised that those figures would roll forward into the new LDP as many of the sites have planning permission. The population household projections have recommended a medium level of growth of just under 27,000 homes and those sites will help meet that need. · A Member asked whether the target for the delivery of affordable housing of 23% has been achieved and whether the delivery of more affordable housing development was underway. Officers stated that the current LDP target was for 6,646 affordable homes between 2016 and 2026. To date 2,800 have been delivered with 12 months to go. Around 5,000 affordable homes are deliverable within developments that already have planning permission which will rolled forward to the new LDP. Members were asked to note that not all affordable housing was new build private developments and the Council is delivering affordable housing through acquisitions and by delivering its own housing developments also. · A Member noted that the LDP has achieved its target in terms of the delivery of jobs in the city but has not achieved its target in terms of the delivery of new housing. The Members asked whether using housing development as a driver of economic growth was overstated. The Director stated that the LDP supports growth by providing a framework for stability and providing a long-term view for the city. Many jobs arise from housing delivery but the LDP also identifies areas for employment, transport and encourages growth in locations in the city. Housing and employment will overlap therefore. · A Member asked why the rate of completion for social housing lags behind the rate of completion for private housing. The Member noted the slowdown in the housing market and asked whether there was a risk to using the delivery of new housing to deliver social housing and other infrastructure. The Director accepted that there was a risk but the authority does not have the funding to put the infrastructure. · A Member asked whether developers can withhold funding for infrastructure projects if they fall short of the trigger points agreed for the delivery of housing units. The Director stated that trigger points are carefully calibrated with regular triggers throughout the process. · A Member welcomed the 13% increase in rail patronage referred to in the AMR and the increase in passenger satisfaction in respect of bus services. The Member sought assurances that this was the start of a significant improvement in public transport in the city. The Director stated that with Transport for Wales, Welsh Government and Cardiff Council working in partnership there has been over £1 billion investment made in the metro system with more services, new training and upgrades to train stations. A new tram system will also be incrementally rolled out. That investment has introduced positive benefits but the process of upward improvement is continuing. · A Member considered that district and local centres were vital to communities. However, the number of A1 units is decreasing and those centres are under considerable pressure due to economic circumstances. Officers were asked to comment on their prospects in the short-term. The Director stated that the City Centre has faired comparatively well compared to other cities. A Regeneration Strategy is being developed alongside colleagues in the Housing Directorate which will prioritise support for local centres. A report to Cabinet is expected in the near future, though this would come under the Economic and Culture Scrutiny portfolio. RESOLVED: That the Chairperson writes to the Cabinet Member on behalf of the Committee expressing their comments and observations captured during the way forward.
No urgent items.
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 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.