Wrthi'n llwytho
Y penderfyniadau fel y mae cofnodion y cyngor yn eu cofnodi. Bydd crynodeb mewn iaith glir yn dilyn pan fydd wedi'i ysgrifennu.
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 Cllrs Carr, Waldron and De’Ath (Cabinet Member for Climate Change, Strategic Planning & Transport).
There were none.
The minutes of the meeting held on 25th February were approved by the Committee and signed by the Chair.
Y penderfyniad fel y'i cofnodwyd
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 an update on the Active Travel Programme. For this item, the Chair welcomed Andrew Gregory (Director of Planning, Transport & Environment), Claire Moggridge (Head of Transport) and Matt Price (Team Leader, Transport Vision Policy & Strategy). Officers gave an opening statement and presentation, explaining that the aspirations of the ten-year Transport Plan were central to the council’s approach to active travel. They sought to establish a network of viable cycle routes across the city, and to encourage people to shift from cars to safe, convenient active travel. Streets across the city had been transformed, with some schemes winning awards, but there was lots still to be done, and a need to manage expectations. To date there had been extensive funding support from Welsh government, but there had been limitations on that funding too. In the presentation, officers outlined the progress of the cycleways across Cardiff, the Active Travel Schools programme, and overall investment and output since 2017. They displayed a map of the six main cycleway corridors, highlighting which parts of each were planned, programmed, under development and completed. Further detail was provided on three major upcoming schemes. Cycleway 4.2, from Cardiff Met to Llandaff, would soon be in a position to seek planning permission, with environmental and land ownership considerations being assessed. Funding was in place to take this forward during 2025/26 through the Active Travel Fund. Cycleway 2, which would provide a segregated cycleway all the way along Newport Road to the city boundary, was funded this year as part of the eastern bus corridor. Officers emphasised that they were not developing cycle routes in isolation, but rather seeking to integrate them within the existing transport network. Cycleway 3 sought to extend to the east and the south of the city centre, going from the Tyndall Street/East Tyndall Street corridor towards Splott and linking into the new Willows High School. This would also enable connections down to the Bay from the city centre, and integrate with new provision from the Crossrail project. Officers also noted that the temporary scheme from Castle Street along Boulevard de Nantes to West Grove would be made permanent, with funding to be obtained from the Welsh government through the Clean Air Fund, and with works expected to commence on site in early 2026. Phases 1 and 2 of Cycleway 1 were complete, with Phase 3 seeking to develop a future link to the Roath Park Cycleway via Heath to Lake Road North. There were also planned routes extending out of the city centre, from West Gate, David Street, Mary Ann Street, Bute Terrace and Bute Street, as well as integration with the Crossrail project, while the Central Quay Active Travel Bridge was at the planning permission stage, funded by the S106 pot from the redevelopment behind the station. Cycleway 2 had various phases under development, including the sections from Boulevard de Nantes to Southern Way, and the Rumney River bridge on to the county boundary. On Cycleway 3, engagement was being prepared on the Herbert Street to Tyndall Street scheme, while plans for the Splott Park route would be finalised following tree surveys. Further sections, from the Taffs Mead Embankment on towards Ocean Way, were planned but not yet programmed. Phase 1 of Cycleway 4.2 was complete, with phase 2 (from the horse riding school to Llandaff Rowing Club) under development, requiring extensive work with stakeholders due to the challenging location. Phase 3 to Llantrisant Road was planned but not yet programmed, and would seek to take into account the ongoing development site and the needs of Cardiff Met. Work on Cycleway 5 to the west of the city centre was closely linked to the western bus corridor, with the focus on Cowbridge Road East to Wellington Street, in parallel with the delivery of Leckwith Road to Lawrenny Avenue, and from there to Cowbridge Road West. Cycleway 6 had recently seen the completion of Phase 1 in Roath Rec, while further phases were at the concept design and review stage but lacked grant funding at present. Officers summarised that a lot of development work and modelling was ongoing, in particular exploring different alignments and integrating routes with buses and the wider network. They were reviewing network impacts during construction and opportunities to minimise this, and it was a collaborative process with other departments. They sought an ambitious but realistic delivery programme, and emphasised the importance of continuous improvement when it came to engagement with stakeholders. They highlighted key successes, including Wales’ first bicycle street from Sophia Gardens through to Senghenydd Road, and the Active Travel Schools Programme, which worked with every school in Cardiff to develop an active travel culture. They provided direct support to schools to encourage behaviour change and training activities, with both on- and off-site infrastructure, independent travel training and national standard cycle training. The WoW tracker was used to monitor school journeys, and there were initiatives like the Re-Cycle project for those on low incomes. Overall, officers noted that 11km of cycleways had been completed since 2017/18, with around £42m spent on cycling schemes and £27m on walking schemes as of January 2025: a combination of council capital, Welsh government grants and S106 funds. Finally, they noted that from 2026/27, bids would be made collaboratively with other local authorities through their Corporate Joint Committees from 2026/27. The Chair invited Members of the Committee to comment, seek clarification or raise questions on the information provided. Those discussions are summarised as follows: Members welcomed the progress of the programme and asked how much work remained and the expected timescales. Officers were unable to provide a specific total figure due to the uncertainty over funding year-to-year, but highlighted the number of schemes in development. Projects were planned in detail but costs could change over time, and while they had a broadly clear idea of what it would cost over the next two to three years, it was harder to tell after that. The Committee agreed to request a more specific programme outline following the meeting, with figures covering the full extent of what was planned. Members queried the impact of the new funding arrangements and heard that funding had been confirmed for a number of schemes, including those on Castle Street and phases of Cycleways 2, 3 and 4.2. Funding was allocated on an annual basis, so they had to continually bid for more and consider how it could connect to the next year’s plans. Officers acknowledged that it was a frustrating process, and suggested that they would rather be able to plan more clearly for the next three to five years. Members explored the Welsh government’s move from active to inclusive travel, and the possibility of reduced funding for active travel schemes in the future, querying what the impact would be with the Cardiff Capital Region Corporate Joint Committee taking on responsibility for regional transport including active travel schemes. Officers emphasised that this made it all the more important to lobby the Welsh government and be active in the region, in order to show them the positive impact of what was happening. Active travel projects in Cardiff often had significant implications for the wider region. The Committee discussed the Audit Wales report into active travel: in particular its assessment that the 2013 Act had so far failed to achieve a step change in travel habits, and figures that showed a decrease in the proportion of work journeys undertaken via active travel. Officers acknowledged the challenging context and suggested that hybrid working had contributed to the latter issue. They emphasised that changing behaviour was a long-term process, with targets based on the ten-year transport strategy, and success could not be fully judged until there was a comprehensive, safe and convenient network across the city. This was fundamentally reliant on regional support and the Welsh government. It was also noted that while cycling uptake had dropped off in recent years, this was still a significant increase compared to 10-15 years ago. Members asked how data on travel habits was collected, particularly qualitative data, and heard that the Walking and Cycling Index was a three-yearly health check which modelled trips and gathered views to pick out key trends. Officers recognised that more could be done to gather qualitative data. Members discussed potential conflicts between cycleways and other modes of transport, and heard that this was usually due to existing road infrastructure predating active travel guidance and often being relatively narrow. All forms of transport had to be taken into account when designing new routes – for example, the importance of Newport Road as a key bus corridor. Officers emphasised the importance of mitigating the impact of schemes and maximising their compatibility with existing networks, allowing the city centre to stay open to visitors and businesses. Members advocated close links to education and heard that all schools in Cardiff were offered cycling proficiency tests on a first-come-first-served basis. This training was undertaken in around 70 schools per year and relied on funding from the Road Safety Revenue Grant. It was a relatively small team which lacked the capacity to reach every school each year, but schools that missed out had priority when it came to the next year’s calendar. Courses were also offered during the holidays in Maindy. Members asked how individuals were encouraged to walk, and heard that a similarly extensive network had been developed for pedestrians. The core active travel allocated budget for walking schemes was more than expected this year, totalling £1.5m. A large number of zebra crossings and other pedestrian improvements had been put in place, mostly around schools but benefitting all users in practice. They also match-funded a number of Highways projects, in particular footpaths and extensions to footways and crossings. Officers recognised that there could be more publicity to promote these improvements. Members queried the phased approach to cycling provision and heard that this was primarily a consequence of the funding situation. The programme sought to generally radiate outwards from the city centre piece by piece (for example from Senghenydd Road to Cathays Terrace, and then on to the hospital), working on multiple fronts at the same time and integrating facilities with the wider network. It was a challenging undertaking in a city that had grown around other ways to travel, and it was not possible to jump to the finish line, but officers assured the Committee that they were following a logical and programmed sequence. It was ultimately a work in progress, the full value of which would be seen once it was completed. RESOLVED: That the Chairperson writes to the Cabinet Member on behalf of the Committee expressing their comments and observations captured during the way forward.
Y penderfyniad fel y'i cofnodwyd
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 an overview of the Planning, Transport & Environment ‘steps’ and performance indicators in the Corporate and Directorate Delivery Plans. The Chair welcomed Cllr Norma Mackie (Cabinet Member for Waste, Street Scene & Environmental Services), Andrew Gregory (Director of Planning, Transport & Environment), Claire Moggridge (Head of Transport), Matt Price (Team Leader, Transport Vision Policy & Strategy), Simon Gilbert (Head of Planning) and Gary Brown (Head of Highways Infrastructure and Operations). The Chair invited Members of the Committee to comment, seek clarification or raise questions on the information provided. Those discussions are summarised as follows: Members queried the number of red or overdue KPIs and heard that some areas only reported on an annual basis, which could lead to the appearance of gaps or slow progress. Members asked how these areas were monitored throughout the year, and heard that the Highways KPI, for example, was based on an annual technical survey undertaken by a specialist at a certain time each year assessing strategic networks and the overall condition of the roads, closely linked to the gritting regime and general network management. This was required for all local authorities, giving continuity and clear benchmarking as well as showing the service what to target. Undertaking reviews like this more than annually would not provide any sort of benefit. Members asked how a programme of work would be managed throughout the year, and how officers would know to intervene if work was going off track. Officers reassured the Committee that consistent monitoring took place throughout the year in addition to the annual survey, for example constant inspections of every part of the highway by experienced staff, and major routes more frequently. Members queried the red-rated KPI relating to the project assessing the feasibility of a road user charging levy, and heard that this was because the Welsh government’s funding for this year had been withdrawn. The project had not been dropped entirely, but would be reviewed due to the funding issue, and officers were looking at alternative opportunities for funding it and doing the appropriate business cases. Members suggested that this might be a suitable topic for future scrutiny. Members discussed Cardiff Dogs Home and heard that progress was good in terms of the percentage of animals rehomed, despite there being something of a transitional period taking place as the site was refurbished. Officers were pleased with the quality of the service offered considering the changes it was undergoing. Alternative sites and business models had been considered in recent years but the refurbished premises was the right site, and making it a fully commercialised business would not have met people’s needs. Members explored the possibility of receiving performance reports from the directorate throughout the year and asked whether officers were happy with the existing targeting framework. Officers noted that while all projects were programmed, they were not necessarily aligned to a direct target through the annual reporting process, and the red-amber-green (RAG) rating could change in practice very quickly. Every scheme had its own unique factors, and the ratings were an approximation of that level of difficulty, and it could be tricky to capture a dynamic situation in a snapshot performance review. In particular they cited the coastal defence scheme, which was progressing well but had to be listed as red until it was fully in place due to the nature of flood risk management, and Castle Street, which moved from red to green as funding was awarded. All projects had their own programme, monitored throughout the year and accountable to the Cabinet Member, senior officers, management groups and more. Officers offered to share more information with Members, and the Cabinet Member added that she wondered whether Members also meant that the current KPIs did not cover the whole scope of Planning, Transport and Environment, as well as not providing information on core aspects such as sickness absence. She commented that she was happy to work with the Committee to look at KPIs that would be useful to it. Members asked about benchmarking networks and heard that this was particularly important for planning. The planning system was being reviewed nationally, and all Welsh local authorities were working together through the Planning Officers Society of Wales (POSW) forum, the Welsh Local Government Association (WLGA) and the Royal Town Planning Institute (RTPI) to ensure close benchmarking of staffing, pay, resources and performance against indicators. Annual performance reports for local planning authorities were also being reintroduced, having been stopped during Covid, which officers welcomed as they enabled more thorough and diligent scrutiny. Members discussed planning enforcement and asked whether there was scope for a KPI related to the speed of enforcement, for example when planning conditions were breached. Officers explained that planning enforcement worked in a methodical, hierarchical way, and lacked a defined period for its conclusion like an application did. The enforcement team constantly had to consider the expediency of taking action, as investigations took time and could involve litigation, but they replied to correspondence quickly giving indications of timescales. The planning service was currently being audited by Audit Wales, and officers anticipated that suggested improvements might include training for Members to help with the process, more regular updates to the Planning Committee and greater digitalisation of the planning system to keep people more informed. 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 updating Members on the development of the Scrutiny Annual Report for 2024/25, and asking them to note the draft Environmental Scrutiny Committee pages at Appendix A. The Scrutiny Officer explained that the draft report sought to set out the background, purpose and achievements of each Committee throughout the year, as well as future priority topics for next year, and asked Members for their comments. Members advocated adding more specific details to the Committee’s achievements, and suggested that they could take a closer look at the issue of water quality in Cardiff Bay in the future. With those amendments in mind, the Committee agreed to note the proposed pages for the Scrutiny Annual Report 2024/25.
There were none.
Members were advised that the next Environmental Scrutiny Committee was scheduled for Thursday 8th May at 4:30pm.
Rhaid i gynghorwyr ddweud pan fydd ganddyn nhw gysylltiad personol â rhywbeth sy'n cael ei drafod, fel swydd, eiddo neu aelod o'r teulu. Mae buddiant sy'n rhagfarnu yn ddigon cryf i'r cynghorydd adael yr ystafell fel arfer a pheidio â chymryd rhan.
Caiff datganiadau eu darllen o'r cofnodion unwaith y byddan nhw wedi'u cyhoeddi.
Yn rhestru cynghorwyr presennol y cyngor yn unig. Nid yw aelodau cyfetholedig, swyddogion a chyn-gynghorwyr yn cael eu dangos.