Wrthi'n llwytho
Does dim crynodeb o'r cyfarfod hwn eto. Caiff un ei ysgrifennu pan fydd y cyngor yn cyhoeddi'r cofnodion. Mae'r agenda a'r papurau isod.
None.
The minutes of the previous meeting held on the 13th March 2025 were agreed as a true and accurate record. A Community Councillor reported that following the meeting they had also accepted a motion to ban the release Helium Balloons on their land and queried whether there was any Newport City Council (NCC) literature on the ban that could be shared for promotional purposes. The Democratic and Electoral Services Manager (DESM) noted that the Community Councillor’s query would be taken to the relevant department and reported back on.
The Waste Enforcement Manager (WEM) and Waste and Cleansing Projects Officer (WCPO) provided a presentation on fly-tipping to the Community Councils. The WEM and WCPO provided an overview of the below topics related to Fly tipping: · Their team and the responsibilities of the local authority (ie who was responsible for different aspects of waste investigation, collection and enforcement). · The variations of fly-tipping and their impacts. · Statistics from the previous two years and the prosecutions that arose. · Their plans for the future. The following questions were asked: • A Community Councillor wished to thank the officers for the work that had been carried out in their ward and queried whether there had been any work on fly-tipping prevention. The WEM explained that although there was work taking place on prevention, each fly-tipping event was assessed on its own merit. The WCPO added that two new roles had been created within the team with the purpose of officers being on the ground working with communities which included prevention by education. • A Community Councillor queried the use of the money raised by fines in fly-tipping. The WEM noted that their budget had recently been separated from the wider cleansing department which meant that they had more control to utilise money raised by fines to put back into preventative initiatives and projects. • A Community Councillor queried how the fly-tipping figures from 2024-2025 compared to the figures from other years. The WEM stated that there had been around 200 less investigations from the previous year and added that the aim was for the figure to continue to lower. • A Community Councillor noted their opinion that the increase in fly-tipping was linked to the unique booking system for the council tip and queried whether this would be removed. The WEM explained that a tip booking system was utilised by other local authorities and added that a written update from the Refuse Manager could be provided to the Community Councils. • A Community Councillor raised the issue of incorrect waste management at an Airbnb and added that they felt as though the fault lay with the landlord. The WCPO noted that the landlord would be responsible and could be held accountable. The WCPO added that although they are a business Airbnb’s do not require a business waste removal and so sit within a ‘loophole’. The officers wished to impress the importance of reporting and noted that all reports would be investigated. • A Community Councillor queried whether the presentation slides could be shared with the attendees. The Officers confirmed that they would be happy to share the slides. • A Community Councillor noted that there was partnership working with National Resources Wales (NRW) and stated that they felt that NRW grant waste licences too easily. The Community Councillor queried whether there were any statistics on how many individuals caught fly tipping had a NRW licence compared to others. The WEM stated that the majority of caught offenders were detected using vehicle footage and added that those individuals often did not have any form of licence. The WEM added that the issue of NRW licences and how easy they are to obtain had been raised with the relevant Strategic Director. The WEM noted that the bottom tier licence was the easiest to obtain and has been utilised by rogue traders to convince victims that they are fully licenced. • A Community Councillor applauded the teams zero tolerance approach but queried whether a fine of £300-£400 would be off putting enough for firms and businesses and whether there had been any consideration of raising the limit. The WEM noted that the Fixed Penalty Notice (FPN) were set at that cost but that where there was larger scale offending, they would look to get a prosecution rather than an FPN. The Head of Law and Standards (HoLS) reiterated that FPNs were only utilised in lower-level offending and that in more severe cases the courts had the power to impose an unlimited fine or a prison sentence. • The WEM stated that the Senedd had requested Local Authorities to submit their concerns on waste management to provide insight into how to improve support. The WEM stated that the team had raised concerns around both the NRW waste carrier licences and the possibility of raising the fines. A Community Councillor queried whether the team had written to Westminster with their concerns. The WEM stated that they had not as their submission had been at the request of the Senedd. • The WCPO informed the Community Councillors that they had previously applied for vehicle seizure when prosecuting offenders but noted that this was often a long process. The WCPO stated that the solicitors had made the move to request for the vehicle to be destroyed which was requested at the prosecution stage and added that they were working together to utilise all legalities at their disposal. Items to follow up: · Request an update on arrangements for accessing the Household Waste and Recycling Centre. · Share slides with attendees.
The DESM provided a presentation on the upcoming Community Boundary and Electoral Arrangements Review to the Community Councils. The DESM provided an overview on the Community Boundary Reviews and made the following points: · Introduced the Community Boundary Reviews and explained why they are of required. · Provided an overview of the process such as the considerations taken into account as part of the review. · Provided an overview of the key stages as well as the timeline for the public consultation and feedback. · Explained the status of Community Councils as statutory consultees to be invited to comment at each stage of the consultation. The following questions were asked: • A Community Councillor queried whether the aim of the review was to reduce Community Councils as there would not be a financial benefit to the principal council in doing so. The DESM explained that there were no aims or expectations for the review and that the work was done to ensure that communities were being fairly represented. The HoLS informed the Community Councillors that the review was a legislative requirement and not an NCC initiative. • A Community Councillor noted that different Community Councils have different day to day roles and that the different functions and responsibilities of Community Councils should also be considered. The HoLS noted that the review was primarily to look at boundaries, but any secondary considerations would include these factors. • A Community Councillor queried whether there was a template used for the Boundary Review. The DESM confirmed that there was a standard process and noted that an initial report would be taken to full council in September 2025 where all current boundaries would be published. The DESM continued that the Community Councils would then be consulted for evidence-based feedback as one of the statutory consultees. • A Community Council Clerk suggested that information on the duties of each Community Council should be included when going to the public for feedback. The DESM noted the suggestion. • A Community Councillor queried whether an Electoral Arrangements Review for a Community Council could take place if there were no boundaries altered and noted that there were constant vacancies in their Community Council due to a population decrease in the community. The DESM confirmed that no Electoral Arrangements Review would take place if the boundary had not been altered but added that if the boundary was changed and electoral arrangements were being considered, then vacancies, co-options and Community Council elections would be a factor for consideration. • A Community Councillor noted that as the review was done every 10 years whether planning proposals would be taken into consideration. The DESM stated that any proposals that were in the Local Development Plan (LDP) and were in the pipeline for the next 10 years would be considered but added that the guidance is to not look further than those 10 years. • A Community Councillor queried how far back the current boundaries were from. The DESM responded that they would have been last considered during the most recent Boundary Review. • A Community Councillor queried whether the review would improve current anomalies where some communities are recognised as villages and others not as well as inconsistencies with urban areas in rural villages. The DESM noted that it will be of importance to clarify the terms of reference to ensure that the correct information is being assessed and that the review would not stray into planning matters as these are out of scope. • A Community Councillor noted that village boundaries would be included in the LDP. The DESM noted that it was important to stick to the aim of the review which was is to assess the democratic position and whether the individuals in an area are being fairly represented. The HoLS explained that the Boundary Review and the LDP were separate concerns and added that although the LDP may consider boundaries the two should not be conflated. • A Community Councillor noted that some areas had never been defined and stated that there should be a focus on commonality. The DESM stated that if there was a strong case that a Community Council could put forward then this should be included within their feedback. The DESM added that during feedback periods there would be maps on the current boundaries available to review online as well as in person in the Civic Centre. • A Community Councillor requested further information on how to view the boundaries online. The DESM provided an overview of how to use the online function from the NCC website. A Community Councillor noted that some lines appeared to be out of date. A Community Councillor noted that there were often irregularities with who receives planning notices and queried whether it was linked. The DESM confirmed that the boundaries and irregularities would be checked with the community team as well as the planning team. • A Community Councillor queried whether the council would prefer feedback from Community Councils to come as one coordinated response or from individuals. The DESM noted that coordinated Community Council responses would be appreciated but added that this would not mean that Community Councillors could not also provide their own feedback on an individual basis as part of the public consultation if they wished. Items to follow up: • Check community boundaries currently displayed on the Council website are up to date.
The DESM provided a brief outline of the items that were currently on the agenda for the next three upcoming meetings. The DESM noted that the topics raised for consideration by the Community Councils in 2022 had come to an end and that any further suggestions for agenda items going forward would be welcomed. The Community Councillors queried whether they could liaise with their Councils and report back with ideas. The DESM confirmed but added that it would be of use for them to provide their feedback prior to the next scheduled meeting to ensure that suggestions could be considered and any required information be retrieved. The Following suggestions for future agenda items were discussed: • A Community Councillor queried whether grass cutting could be considered due to inconsistent quality and unmown areas which could pose as risks to safety. The DESM requested that the Community Council provide some examples for consideration. • A Community Councillor queried whether there could be a conversation or information sharing between the Council as well as other Community Councils on Community Council input, policy development and best practice on road safety. The HoLS requested the Community councils provide exact requirements as different areas of highways and safety are under the remit of different authorities. The DESM noted that information could be brought back on specific examples if provided. A Community Councillor noted that they had been in conversation with NCC regarding a strategy and added that this could be shared with the other Community Councils. • The HoLS stated that the Liaison meeting could be utilised as a forum for information sharing between Community Councils if desired. The Community Councillors expressed interest in sharing examples of successes and non-successes. • The Community Councillors noted that it would be of use to have a space to discuss the statutory policies required of their Community Councils. The Community Councillors noted that although it would be useful to see best practice examples of policies it was important to note that there was not a one size fits all. The DESM stated that the information previously provided on annual report presentations could be reshared and added that further questions were also welcome. • The Community Councillors noted some reviews around speeding such as speed limits in rural areas as well as implementing speed monitoring. The HoLS noted that there was a potential for a presentation on speed limits and how they are set. Items to follow up: Community Councillors to share more details on the specific topics they want to discuss at future meetings.
2nd October 2025, 6pm. Meeting concluded at 19:49
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.
Dyw'r cyngor ddim wedi cofnodi presenoldeb ar gyfer y cyfarfod hwn.
Yn rhestru cynghorwyr presennol y cyngor yn unig. Nid yw aelodau cyfetholedig, swyddogion a chyn-gynghorwyr yn cael eu dangos.