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.
AGREED: that the Chairperson, on behalf of the Committee, writes to the Cabinet Member conveying the observations of the Committee when discussing the way forward.
Cllr Bethan Proctor, Chair of the Environmental Scrutiny Committee, was elected Chair of the joint meeting.
Apologies were received from Cllrs Carr, Gibson, Lloyd Jones, Parry and Robinson, as well as from the Youth Council representatives on the Environmental Scrutiny Committee.
Steve Cunnah noted that he was a county councillor for the Canton ward, but clarified that he was in attendance on behalf of Sustrans. Cllr Berman declared a personal interest as a governor of Marlborough Primary School. Cllr Wong declared a personal interest as a governor of Roath Park Primary School.
Y penderfyniad fel y'i cofnodwyd
AGREED: that the Chairperson, on behalf of the Committee, writes to the Cabinet Member conveying the observations of the Committee when discussing the way forward.
The Chair advised Members that this item sought to give background information to aid their policy review scrutiny of the Roath Recreation Ground Active Travel Scheme. The joint committee would be able to reflect on what had worked well and possible improvements, so they could identify how the council could best approach future active travel schemes in parks. In particular, Members had the opportunity to explore the communication, consultation, design, and implementation stages of the scheme. Members were reminded to, where possible, ask questions and make comments and observations in line with the terms of reference of their respective committee. Members considered a motion proposed by Cllr Berman and seconded by Cllr Lancaster to defer this matter to a later meeting in the absence of the relevant Cabinet Members. This motion was voted on by Members and was not carried. Officer representations For this section, the Chair welcomed: Andrew Gregory Director of Planning, Transport & Environment Claire Moggridge Head of Transport Matt Price Team Leader, Transport Vision, Policy & Strategy Steve Morris Operational Manager, Sport and Design Claire Owens Principal Research & Consultation Officer The Committee heard a statement received from Cllr Burke (Cabinet Member for Culture, Sport & Parks) before the Chair invited questions, comments, and observations from Members. In her statement, the Cabinet Member emphasised the value of green space and physical activity, focused on an active travel strategy aligned with Welsh Government policy that increased walking and cycling, bringing health and wellbeing benefits as well as reducing emissions. The council had worked with transport colleagues to improve the path network and deal with issues of potholes and erosion around the park, and were in regular contact with the local football and rugby leagues to inform them of potential disruptions. Officers described the scheme as an important opportunity and welcomed the scrutiny from the joint committee. They stressed that the administration’s ten year transport strategy was crucial to their plans for a safe, accessible Cardiff, and this included a comprehensive network of segregated cycleways. The need for a route along this corridor was not in question, and the current footpaths in Roath Rec were too narrow and frequently flooded in wet weather. They emphasised the complexity of the site due to the trees, the existing routes and the compromises required between different groups using the path. The active travel strategy required a 3 meter wide path and a segregated cycle route, and this scheme was supported by technical advice and best practice to meet all the design criteria. Extensive engagement had taken place with ward councillors, interested groups and local residents. The Chair invited questions and comments from Members, a summary of which is provided: Members noted the change in positioning of the cycle path compared to the illustrations provided, which intruded further into the park than initially suggested. Officers explained that the plan was initially to just widen the existing path, but during the consultation process the need to move further into the park arose due to concerns regarding the impact on sensitive copper beech tree roots and drainage requirements. Officers were satisfied with the validity of the initial consultation, and noted that modifications had been made following it, including where advice had been received from internal departments of the council. Members advocated more detailed pre-consultation work with internal departments of the council to ensure the provision of more accurate information to the public during consultation. Regarding the changes to the sports pitches, the Committee heard that the priority was Saracens RFC as they had bookings in place and clear pitch size requirements, whereas the football on the Rec was predominantly mini and junior leagues, whose pitches could be more easily reconfigured. Officers explained that it could go back to four pitches after the project was complete, with the caveat that the number of pitches across the city was under review as part of the council’s Playing Pitch Strategic Framework. At present, Roath Rec could only sustain one game of senior football at a time as the community centre was only big enough for two teams to get changed at once. Significant investment would be needed in order to enlarge the changing rooms, so instead officers were engaging with the league and Football Association of Wales about alternative kick-off times to maximise utility. The Committee explored the initial plan to move in the path on the Ty Draw Road side, which had been shelved due to Natural Resources Wales’ withdrawal of funding. Officers acknowledged that the existing path on that side was not sufficient, but as with on the Ninian Road side it was a complex process to design weatherproof pedestrian and cycle routes while also protecting the trees, whose roots were an issue. They would assess the best approach for the future, building on lessons learned from the Ninian Road side. Members raised the possibility of installing rills to improve drainage along the footpath parallel to Ty Draw Road. Members queried the lack of a child-friendly impact assessment, given the popularity of the park with children and young people as a play area and a route to school. It was also highlighted that no specific consultation on the scheme had been undertaken with the local primary schools. Officers explained that the contractors had done some work with schools as part of their community dividend, while the council engaged extensively with schools across Cardiff regarding active travel, and the improvements to Roath Rec and the Wellfield Road junction would make it easier for young people to get to school. Members asked whether an equality impact assessment had been done and heard that it had, as was required by law, but it had not been included in the committee papers on this occasion. Members noted that Council had agreed a motion last year that EIAs should always be included in their committee papers, and requested that the relevant EIAs and Access Forum liaison comments be shared with them. The Committee discussed the consultation response rates and heard that approximately 30% of the residents contacted had given feedback. Officers calculated that the total of 257 responses out of 900 was just shy of the standard mark for a statistically significant result, but was a reasonably good response rate for a council consultation. Members advocated providing greater context for future schemes, for example showing how this cycle path fitted into the broader network. Members explored the possible impact of traffic displacement on the surrounding streets as a result of the reconfigured junction. Officers outlined the detailed surveys they had undertaken to assess this, acknowledging that delays of any kind led to traffic displacement. They compared traffic flows over time and found that around 30 vehicles per hour used the Marlborough Road right turn, in contrast to more than 600 vehicles per hour that used Ty Draw Road or Ninian Road. In their view, the displacement towards Blenheim Road would be minimal, while the improvement to both the junction’s reserve capacity and bus journey times would decrease the rat run. External witness representations The Chair moved onto statements from external witnesses, welcoming: Chris Roberts Cardiff Cycle City Tamsin Fudge Fields In Trust Steve Cunnah Sustrans The Committee also heard statements from Cadw, Professor Mark Barry, Margaret Richards (Friends of Roath Park) and Cardiff Saracens RFC, before the Chair invited questions, comments, and observations from Members. Chris Roberts of Cardiff Cycle City emphasised that he strongly supported a cycleway linking Roath to the city centre, and noted that this would form an important part of the route serving the new housing developments in the northeast of the city. The biggest problem was cars, and the council’s parking strategy was welcome on this point. The main deterrent to people shifting to cycling was fear of conflict with traffic, and the new junction would be much safer. At present, turning right onto Wellfield Road on the way into the city centre was a leap of faith going diagonally against traffic, but the new layout provided a total red stop for all cars. Steve Cunnah of Sustrans welcomed the development of a segregated Cardiff-wide active travel network, in particular the extension of the Wellfield Road cycle track into Roath and towards Cyncoed and Cardiff High. There were still gaps which he hoped to see filled in the future, but he was satisfied that the council had addressed its statutory duties including ecological considerations. Tamsin Fudge of Fields In Trust commended the council’s protection of the site to date and noted that the changes were in line with her organisation’s expectations for recreational use due to the focus on improved pathways, active travel and accessibility. Professor Mark Barry’s representation noted that the fragmentation of information was a barrier to public accessibility, and advocated having one clear place where project and consultation information was maintained for all schemes. Overall, he felt that the cycling scheme was good but needed a larger network for maximum utility, and the council’s communications had failed to convince people it was more than a cycle scheme. He suggested that the scheme would have a positive impact on businesses on Wellfield Road, noting that local businesses tended to overestimate the number of people arriving by car and underestimate those using public transport or active travel. In her representation, Margaret Richards of Friends of Roath Park indicated that she would wait until the scheme was fully implemented to assess how its outcomes compared to the cost and disruption. She suggested that the impact on crossings could have been more carefully thought out and that signage could have been more clear. Cardiff Saracens RFC’s representation acknowledged the need to reduce carbon footprints, but had an issue with the reduction in pitches and the lack of information around this. The club had found itself scrambling to keep its home and rearranging matches to be played away. These issues had been resolved once clear communication channels were established with the parks department. The Chair invited questions and comments from Members, a summary of which is provided: Members explored Cadw’s submission, which underscored the importance of carrying out a Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) prior to the consultation. Officers clarified that while Cadw had only requested this later in the process, they had engaged with them throughout and undertaken a heritage and landscape appraisal. Members advocated getting stakeholders involved at the earliest possible stage, noting that planning applications were required to address a long list of statutory consultees. The Committee were in agreement that similar schemes in the future should carry out a Heritage Impact Assessment prior to consultation. The Committee discussed how to encourage younger people to cycle, noting the importance of safety and training at primary schools. Road Safety Wales offered courses but these were not mandatory, so follow-up work with schools after the cycleway was in place would be key. Cardiff Cycle City welcomed this and noted that they had worked with schools in the north of the city following similar schemes. Local resident representations The Chair moved onto statements from local residents, welcoming: Jeremy Sparkes Penylan Traffic Group Lucy Griffiths Save Roath Rec Peter Banks The Committee also heard a statement from Mr Geraint Huw Denison-Kurg, before the Chair invited questions, comments, and observations from Members. Jeremy Sparkes explained that the community was deeply concerned about the impact of the junction changes, which they felt would lead to more traffic going past the principal pupil entrance of Marlborough Road Primary School. There were more than 500,000 vehicle movements per year on this road despite the calming measures, and in his experience a large proportion of these exceeded the speed limit. He suggested that the council could defer the right turn bans or review whether they were necessary after a set period of time. Lucy Griffiths added that while she supported active travel, she was concerned about the way this project had been undertaken in a Grade 1 listed park. She felt that moving the path in without consultation should not have been allowed without a planning application, while the closure of Alder Road had been insufficiently advertised. Save Roath Rec were specifically trying to protect the history and heritage of the site and the integrity of the green space. In addition to rugby and football, it was the home of Welsh baseball, and the council had not spoken to the right people before going ahead. Peter Banks emphasised that the consultation process needed to be dramatically improved in order to gain proper resident engagement. He criticised the 28% response rate and suggested that rather than demonstrating apathy within the community about the changes planned, what it showed was that local residents were unaware of their extent. He suggested that the closure of Alder Road should have been front and centre in the public documents, and that the relevant councillors did not respond to attempts at engagement. Mr Denison-Kurg’s statement suggested that the process was not democratically accountable and that the consultation did not allow enough public scrutiny. He advocated more proactive publicising of schemes using local media channels, social media and public notices, with clear visuals of what was being proposed along with public meetings with all stakeholders and interested parties. Consultation needed to be open to both modifications and the possibility of the scheme being inappropriate altogether. The council could not approach the trade-off between active travel and the loss of heritage listed green space with a preconception in favour of the demands of the former, especially in areas where green space was limited, and the loss of playing fields was unacceptable. He felt that the park’s Grade 1 status and placement in a conservation area had been insufficiently considered, as had the loss of biodiversity and wildlife due to the creation of hard landscaping features. The Chair invited questions and comments from Members, a summary of which is provided: The Committee discussed the Alder Road closure and noted that the report provided at Appendix G made at least four references to this, including on several annotated maps. Residents maintained that this was not sufficient for a change of this significance on Alder Road, noting that there was no annotation regarding the closure on the main overview plan, the area was inadequately lit and there had been a number of attacks on women over the years, so public surveillance was crucial. Members requested that officers explore the provision of adequate lighting along Alder Road. Members queried the situation with baseball in the park and heard that the club had relocated this season as they felt this was easier. Members requested clarification of whether the baseball pitches would be reprovisioned once the Active Travel Scheme was completed. The Committee explored the council’s engagement with residents’ groups and heard that the Leader of the Council had facilitated a meeting between the Penylan Traffic Group and traffic officers to explain their rationale. Residents’ groups had also submitted petitions but had found that a large number of signatures were not counted due to the requirements of the council’s petition scheme. Members noted that this was a recurring issue with petitions compiled using Change.Org, as the council required a full address and for the issue to be reasonably considered to affect the signatory, and suggested that these requirements could be made clearer. Members asked how residents had felt about the initial scheme and heard that they had no objections to an environmentally blended cycle route that solved the existing issues with the path. In their view, the changes had devastated the design of the scheme and added numerous different impacts with insufficient consultation. Officer responses and general discussion Officers welcomed the scrutiny and noted the comments from residents and stakeholders and explained that every scheme was a process developed over months of engagement and conversation. They emphasised that this route was not a road: it was a 5 metre wide path following legal guidelines that footways needed to be 2 metres wide and cycleways 3 to 4 metres wide. It needed to be that size or it could not be segregated, and it was placed as close to the trees as possible. They were committed to quality in place-making and the public realm and were guided by the best advice provided by transport. On the Alder Road closure, officers highlighted the value of uniting the park, and generally felt this was the best solution for the long-term benefit of Cardiff, but acknowledged the right to disagree. They acknowledged that there was room for improvement regarding engagement with residents, and looked forward to hearing the Committee’s proposals on this. Regarding the suggestion that a planning application should have been required in order to move the path, officers clarified that they were advised they didn’t need one. The Committee explored the council’s transport scheme consultation process and heard that it generally worked in three stages: engaging with local members, engaging with local residents, and then summarising feedback which was provided to local members. In this case they had gone back again, which was not normal, and extended it by a further week because it took place over Christmas. All statutory processes regarding the Traffic Regulation Order had been followed, with notices displayed at the location and in the newspaper. In many respects officers had gone over and above the norm for consultation. They consulted with everyone, not just local residents, and these views often conflicted. Regarding the traffic modelling, Members noted that the data gathered by the council and by residents differed in a number of key respects. Officers explained that residents had used a citizen-led online project called Telraam to gather their data, which was useful for tracking trends but had a lot of variance. The data gathered by the council was manually validated and dip tested, and showed that traffic flows had not returned to where they were pre-pandemic, nor was there evidence of persistent excessive speeds on Blenheim Road. Officers added that the figure cited of 500,000 vehicles per year equated to around 1,300 per day, which was relatively low. Members noted that key stakeholders such as Marlborough Road school seemed to have been consulted relatively late in the process, and suggested using a stakeholder matrix to capture who to engage with and when and where they were engaged. This could also highlight the need to complete relevant assessments such as equality, child’s rights and heritage impact. The Committee noted the suggestion that the scope of consultation be broadened to those who would suffer a consequential effect, and felt this was reasonable. It was suggested that schemes of this complexity, which might affect a much wider area than the route itself due to the potential of traffic displacement, could be consulted on more widely as a matter of course. Members agreed that this should be explored. The Committee discussed the possibility suggested by a local resident that the right turn bans could be deferred until the scheme had been in operation for some time, or the possibility of implementing this aspect for a trial period first. Members noted that the junction had been designed around the right turn bans, and requested that the deferment of the ban on right-hand turns be explored, including the potential ramifications. Members also recommended that a review of traffic flow be undertaken after 12 months of completion of the scheme to ensure the changed junction operated as intended. Members welcomed the officers’ acknowledgement of errors and ways to improve future processes. Early communication was key in order to build trust, and messaging needed to show residents that it was more than just a cycle scheme. Members were also in agreement that the fractured nature of information had made it harder for residents to follow the process, and that the lack of pre-consultation with arborists had led to issues down the line. Members felt that there needed to be a wider conversation in the council regarding better ways to engage with and consult citizens, and that relevant officers and Members should meet to work this out. AGREED: that the Chairperson, on behalf of the Committee, writes to the Cabinet Member conveying the observations of the Committee when discussing the way forward.
The next meeting of the Economy & Culture Scrutiny Committee was scheduled for 4:30pm on Tuesday 19th November 2024. The Chair noted that the November meeting of the Environmental Scrutiny Committee had been cancelled and would be replaced by an informal briefing session.
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.