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: 1. To consider and scrutinise progress on developing town centre regeneration strategies, dealing with empty town centre properties and BID development in Rhondda Cynon Taf.
RESOLVED: 1. To scrutinise the update on highways infrastructure investment within the County Borough; and, 2. To scrutinise the expenditure required to maintain the highway infrastructure asset.
RESOLVED: 1. To scrutinise the objections received during the Public Notice period (23/01/2026 – 13/02/2026) (as set out in section 13 and appendix 3 of this report); 2. To scrutinise the officer responses to the objections received during the Public Notice period as per 2.1.1 above; 3. To scrutinise the proposed next steps in the Traffic Regulation Order process. 4. To note that Rhondda Cynon Taf County Borough Council (RCTCBC) has reviewed all comments, objections and observations received during the Public Notice exercise and officers have made recommendations to uphold or not uphold the objections received. The reasons for these recommendations are set out alongside each item raised (as set out in section 13 and appendix 3 of this report); 5. To note that any reports and decisions relating to the TRO process have been considered in accordance with the Council’s Constitution and ‘The Local Authorities' Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996’
The Chair welcomed Members and Officers to the virtual meeting of the Climate Change, Frontline Services and Prosperity Scrutiny Committee.
The Members Researcher and Scrutiny Officer referenced the research facilities that were available to Members within the Council Business Unit. Members were advised that if they have any specific queries to email them to the Council’s scrutiny team who would accommodate their requests.
In accordance with the Council’s Code of Conduct, no declaration of interests were received pertaining to the agenda.
The minutes of the virtual meeting held on the 10th December 2025 were approved as an accurate record.
Y penderfyniad fel y'i cofnodwyd
RESOLVED: 1. To consider and scrutinise progress on developing town centre regeneration strategies, dealing with empty town centre properties and BID development in Rhondda Cynon Taf.
The Head of Regeneration presented the report to Members in respect of Modernising Town Centres in RCT including Regeneration Strategies, Empty Properties, and BIDs in RCT. The Head of Regeneration advised Members that the Council has developed and is delivering tailored regeneration strategies across Porth, Mountain Ash, Pontypridd, Aberdare, and Tonypandy and these strategies reflect the distinct opportunities and challenges each town faces and are designed to foster meaningful improvements. The Officer provided Members with detail of the improvements being made in each of these town centres. In respect of BIDs. The Head of Regeneration advised Members that the Districts (BIDs) are defined areas where local businesses collectively invest through an additional levy paid on their business rates to deliver a wide range of projects and initiatives to improve their commercial and physical environment and boost economic activity. The Head of Regeneration emphasised that within Rhondda Cynon Taf, there are four BIDs, the most of any local authority in Wales: Your Pontypridd, Our Aberdare, Love Treorchy and Tonypandy BID. The BIDs in RCT have become a useful vehicle for the business community to focus on their agreed priorities and to engage with the Council and other stakeholders effectively. Having a dedicated budget has allowed them to employ staff to deliver their own activity and contribute positively to collaborative and partnership. Members were advised that in respect of Vacant and Derelict Properties, the Council is committed to a focused and sustained effort to reduce the number and impact of vacant properties across our town centres, and this is key to the delivery of our town centre strategies. Vacant properties in town centres act as a catalyst for further dereliction and decay, often standing out and attracting unwanted negative publicity which is compounded further where properties are of large scale and located in key locations. In our town centres, vacant and derelict properties are often large and prominent and include former banks, large commercial units where national chains have closed and former hotels and pubs. The town centre strategies focus on identifying target properties which can be given new life with new more appropriate uses for modern town centres and working with the private sector and RSLs can deliver change more quickly. Following the overview, Members were provided with the opportunity to ask questions. The Chair noted his praise to Officers is securing grant funding for RCT Town Centre improvements. A Member referenced the empty buildings in Aberdare Town Centre and queried what action can be taken about the buildings that have been empty long term. The Member also noted that in Aberdare, Tesco and McDonalds sit just on the edge of the outside of the town centre and queried if there were any plans to bring the town centre andTesco/McdOnalds closer together such as investing in a public footpath an safety railings to create easy access between Aberdare’s town centre and outer buildings. The Head of Regeneration advised that in terms of long term empty buildings within Aberdare, they are some of the more difficult empty properties that the team are dealing with at the moment. The Head of Regeneration noted that some properties such as Trinity Chapel have been bought by a developer who lives outside of the area and has no immediate redevelopment plans, however, it was also noted that the team have been working with another developer who wants to purchase that building and if it does change ownership then it is hoped that the Council can work positively with the new owner towards a redevelopment. The Chair queried if there was anything we could do as a Local Authority to legislate or enforce developers to act within a certain timeframe. The Head of Regeneration confirmed that talks are ongoing with Welsh Government in this area and what is not yet in force is a clause where any public funds that are offered to developers to purchase empty properties will state that if not developed within a certain timeframe then the Welsh Government would be able to get that money returned to them. In respect of the Members query on linking Tesco/McDonalds in Aberdare to the town centre, the Head of Regeneration advised that this will need to be raised with Highways colleagues for their consideration. The Service Director for Housing and Regeneration noted that in terms of empty buildings and enforcement action, the Council does have the use of Compulsory Purchase Orders (CPO), which is something that has previously been implemented in Mountain Ash to redevelop Gitto Square. The CPO means that if there are buildings or projects that the Council needs to acquire then the Council is willing to use a CPO where necessary. In terms of Registered Social Landlords (RSLs), the Service Director advised Members that where there are empty buildings, such as the Town Hall in Tonypandy, the Council will share that with the 10 RSL that work across RCT. The Service Director emphasised that in many cases they will work with the Council to redevelop those buildings, however it was noted that the Town Hall in Tonypandy is particularly challenging but that there is a potential development coming in relation to that building. Discussion ensued and another Member queried if we look at all empty buildings across RCT to ensure that they are safe and secure. The Chair advised that this will be a topic for discussion at another scrutiny committee and that this scrutiny committee is to concentrate on Town Centres only. Another Member referred to other Town Centres within RCT that are not within the report that have different challenges ahead of them such as Llantrisant where there are no empty buildings but has great potential ahead of it. The Member queried if the Council are working with the residents of Llantrisant to see what they need in terms of a place Plan. The Head of Regeneration advised that although Llantrisant doesn’t currently have a Town Centre Strategy in place, the regeneration team does actively engage with businesses in Llantrisant and offer various support packages as well as working closely with different organisations in Llantrisant to co-ordinate events. The Member was encouraged to hear this, however, emphasised that it would be useful to received information about ongoing work in other Town Centres within any future scrutiny reports. The Chair supported this and recommended that future update reports to Scrutiny include an overall Town Centre Strategy for RCT to include how the strategy is linking in with small town centres with different challenges ahead of them. The Chair also emphasised that the Strategy needs to link in with key transport links to get residents in RCT moving around different town centres within the County Borough. The Service Director for Housing and Regeneration confirmed that the regeneration team can provide an update of what work is being done in general across town centres. The Service Director advised that the challenge is that RCT has more town centres than any other Authority in Wales and that outside those town centres there are smaller town centres to link in with. The main focus of the report was the Strategies and the BIDs but that following the meeting the regeneration team can pull together a summary of what is going on across RCT. Discussions continued and the Chair queried when the public will get to see visibility of the Tonypandy Town Centre Strategy and noted his interest in seeing how the overall strategy is linking in with the wellbeing of our future generations. The Head of Regeneration noted that the Tonypandy Town Centre Strategy was a positive experience particularly in terms of the positive community engagement. It was confirmed that the challenge now is to deliver on it and to keep the community engagement going. Following discussions, Members RESOLVED: 1. To consider and scrutinise progress on developing town centre regeneration strategies, dealing with empty town centre properties and BID development in Rhondda Cynon Taf.
Y penderfyniad fel y'i cofnodwyd
RESOLVED: 1. To scrutinise the update on highways infrastructure investment within the County Borough; and, 2. To scrutinise the expenditure required to maintain the highway infrastructure asset.
The Head of Infrastructure Asset Management presented the Highways Investment Scheme report to Members together with the aid of a Power Point presentation. The Head of Infrastructure Asset Management advised Members that infrastructure is the single biggest asset that the Council owns, valued at £3.48billion. It was emphasised that the highways infrastructure consists of: · 1,305km of carriageways · 1,173km of footways · Over 1,500 highway structures including 216 road bridges · 30,098 streetlights · 134 traffic signals (signalised junction and pedestrian crossings) · Highway surface water drainage plus pumping stations, miscellaneous street furniture, signs, bollards, vehicle restraint systems, pedestrian barriers, and parapets etc. Members were advised on the current position in terms of carriageways, Footways, Retaining Walls, Road Bridges, Geotechnical Assets, the impact of Storm Dennis, Drainage Assets, Vehicle Restraint Systems, Streetlighting, Traffic Signals, Third Party Claims, Traffic Management and the Council’s current Investment Strategy. Following the presentation, the Chair thanked Officers for providing a detailed report and invited questions from Members. A Member queried if RCT has any plans going forward to help residents with Gulleys and EV vehicles. The Member also referenced Johns Lane, which is referred to in the Power Point Presentation, and noted that Councillors have been told that Johns Lane is an adopted lane and the presentation says unadopted and also queried if more drainage is to be installed in the lane. In respect of EV Gulleys, the Member was advised that there has been recent meetings to discuss this and clarified that it doesn’t come under the Highways Investment Scheme and would theregore be a separate matter to be discussed. The Service Director Highways and Engineering advised Members that the issue comes under the energy team and that in terms of Highways its something that is ‘foreign’ to the Highways Infrastructure and at this moment in time Officers are currently discussing the potential of an EV Strategy, which would feed down into the Highways Infrastructure and liabilities. Ultimately, the HighWAY Authority is responsible for anything within the Highway, therefore any private infrastructure will require licensing/insurance. Members were advised that it is something to be considered, however, for the Highway Authority there are many aspects to be considered. Another Member noted that a request has been made to the Council Business Unit for further research to be done in respect of EV Charging in terraced houses and what work is being done in Wales by other Local Authorities. The Chair noted that he would like to see this item on the Work Programme for the 2026-27 Municipal Year. In respect to Johns Lane, the Head of Infrastructure Asset Management advised Members that further research needs to be done into this query and that a response will be provided outside of the Committee. Discussions ensued and a Member queried why the Authority is not better than the Welsh average on A and B Class roads. The Member also noted that residents are complaining on a daily basis about potholes and queried how long it will be before the Authority could make a substantial difference across RCT. The Chair noted that RCT has always been the leading Authority when it comes to Highways and noted the amount of rainfall in RCT recently as well as the deep frost that hit RCT a few years ago and expressed his disappointment with recent figures and queried if we can manage to get things back on track. The Head of Infrastructure Asset Management noted that within the report it states the amount of continuous investment that is needed and that when its looked at in terms of percentages of the overall asset vale the percentage is quite low. Members were advised that the Strategy can change so that the hybrid strategy between preventative and reactive can be tweaked. However, it was emphasised the amount of investment that is needed in order to maintain the conditions. Members were also advised that the Survey might also show that the roads are in worst condition that they actually are. The Chair also queried what is Welsh Water’s responsibility and what is the responsibility of the Authority. The Head of Infrastructure Asset Management advised Members that there is a correlation between the amount of work undertaken by strategy undertakers within the carriageway and footways and that this is something the Council are keen to review and consider with respect to the streetworks inspection team who manage the access and inspect the reinstatements. Discussions continued and a Member queried that if the Counil are changing the pavements outside terraced houses, whether the Council was going back to tarmac rather than paving slabs. The Head of Infrastructure Asset Management advised Members that this could poyentially happen and that each location is taken into consideration by where it is and what it is. Another Member raised a query about the investment in the Heads of the Valley road and questioned if there would be any public transport operating along that route. Officers advised Members that the report focuses on investment in current assets and also emphasised that the Heads of the Valleys is a trunk road and operated by Welsh Government. The Member was advised that the question will be referred to the public transport team and that the question will be answered outside of this meeting. The Chair suggested that this needs to be looked at to ensure that the right infrastructure and transportation is in place. Another Member emphasised that sometimes the problems with Highways infrastructure can be down to the workmanship of the companies that the Council is using and suggested that this needs to be taken on board. In relation to this, the Chair quried what assurances are managers given to ensure that the work is done properly and correctly. The Head of Infrastructure Asset Management advised that the work that the contractors undertake for the Capital Investment Scheme that is monitored by the Inspector as it takes place and that in relation to potholes there are different repairs undertaken by a variety of different companies. Members were advised that sometimes potholes are filled with a cold material and that doesn’t last as long as the hot material used. This is depending on the defect and the time the repair is needed. Members were advised that it will be passed on to officers within the team that there is concern over workmanship and Members were assured that this will be considered. Discussions ensued and a Member questioned how much flexibility officers have in rlation to the repair of a pothole, specifically can they repair a pothole nearby even though a ticket hasn’t been issued for it but it’s in close proximity to the pothole they are currently repairing. The Member was advised that further enquiries will be made on this and the response fed back ti the Member outside of this meeting. Following discussions, Members RESOLVED: 1. To scrutinise the update on highways infrastructure investment within the County Borough; and, 2. To scrutinise the expenditure required to maintain the highway infrastructure asset.
Y penderfyniad fel y'i cofnodwyd
RESOLVED: 1. To scrutinise the objections received during the Public Notice period (23/01/2026 – 13/02/2026) (as set out in section 13 and appendix 3 of this report); 2. To scrutinise the officer responses to the objections received during the Public Notice period as per 2.1.1 above; 3. To scrutinise the proposed next steps in the Traffic Regulation Order process. 4. To note that Rhondda Cynon Taf County Borough Council (RCTCBC) has reviewed all comments, objections and observations received during the Public Notice exercise and officers have made recommendations to uphold or not uphold the objections received. The reasons for these recommendations are set out alongside each item raised (as set out in section 13 and appendix 3 of this report); 5. To note that any reports and decisions relating to the TRO process have been considered in accordance with the Council’s Constitution and ‘The Local Authorities' Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996’
The Head of Traffic and Transportation presented the report to Members with respect to the Review of the 20mph default speed limit in Rhondda Cynon Taf with the aid of a Power Point presentation. It was emphasised to Members that as part of RCTCBC’s review of the 20mph speed limit implementation, a structured programme of engagement was carried out with elected ward members across 17 wards affected by the 26 roads identified for possible reversion to 30mph. Members were also advised that following the pre-statutory consultation exercise, responses to all 26 candidate roads were summarised and discussed with elected ward members to provide feedback on the consultation responses and to discuss the proposed return to 30mph speed limit on road(s) in their ward. Some Councillors made strong representations for not increasing the speed limit from 20mph to 30mph on 4 sections of road within their respective wards in support of their local residents. Subsequently the Council undertook a legal Public Notice (statutory consultation) throughout RCTCBC for the remaining 22 sections of road, Members were told that the Public Notice was given from 23rd January to the 13th February 2026, with the Council having received 192 Representations in respect to the 22 roads. Officers met with Councillors on the 24th February 2026 to discuss the response to Public Notice and seek their representations and or recommendations. In respect to the next steps, Members were advised that the objections and representations made in respect of the 22 candidate roads published within the formal Public Notice document will be considered in accordance with the Council’s Scheme of Delegation. The Objectors will be notified in writing of the Councils subsequent decision (Subject to the approval of a separate key decision report). The Council publishes its ‘Notice of Making’ in respect of the proposed speed limit changes and subsequently makes a traffic order to come into operation as soon as practical. The physical changes wil be delivered to the extent outlined within the formal Public Notice document are implemented without delay. Following the presentation, Members had the opportunity to ask questions. A Meember queried why only 303 people responded to the consultation and questioned if any lessons can be learned for future consultations to get more people involved. The Head of Traffic and Transportation noted that people tend not to engage especially when they are in support of proposals and noted that there is a tendency to only hear from people when they object rather than support. It was emphasised that Officers engaged in Statutory consultation exercises as well as non statutory together with the online map system. Members were advised that officers have received record amount of returns. Another Member referred to the road south of Penderyn and raised concerns about how soon the 20mph starts being just outside the community centre where the meithryn is and questioned if it was possible to bring it further down a little bit. The Head of Traffic and Transportation advised that this will need to be reviewed outside of the meeting and advised that a meeting can be set up to consider this proposal. The Member also asked about Brecon road and referred to a collision that happened there yesterday with a young boy, and requested a speed monitoring device to be installed whilst emphasising that surveillance and monitoring should be more visible on roads within RCT. The Head of Traffic and Transportation advised Members that as part of this process, the Council is continuing to monitor collisions and speed limits. Another Member queried if the Council speaks to neighboring Local Authorities before deciding on what roads are 20mph or 30mph, particularly where the same road in two different County Borough’s have different signages. The Head of Traffic and Transportation confirmed that engagement did take place with neighbouring Local Authorities and engagement took place with across the Welsh Government network. Another Member referred to the old Baverstocks roundabout and queried if part of that road comes under RCT Council. The Head of Traffic and Transportation advised that its very little and advised that the road is part of the consultation being run by Merthyr Tydfil Council. The Chair referred to section 6 and noted that the number of road collisions have decreased. The Chair questioned if this is due to reducing the speed limit on roads to 20mph. The Head of Traffic and Transportation advised that there is no way to get to that analysis but noted that there is an exercise the Council will be doing in consultation with Welsh Government. The Chair queried if the funding for the changes is being covered by Welsh Government. Members were advised that the changes will be fully funded by Welsh Government and at no cost to the Authority. Following discussions, Members RESOLVED: 1. To scrutinise the objections received during the Public Notice period (23/01/2026 – 13/02/2026) (as set out in section 13 and appendix 3 of this report); 2. To scrutinise the officer responses to the objections received during the Public Notice period as per 2.1.1 above; 3. To scrutinise the proposed next steps in the Traffic Regulation Order process. 4. To note that Rhondda Cynon Taf County Borough Council (RCTCBC) has reviewed all comments, objections and observations received during the Public Notice exercise and officers have made recommendations to uphold or not uphold the objections received. The reasons for these recommendations are set out alongside each item raised (as set out in section 13 and appendix 3 of this report); 5. To note that any reports and decisions relating to the TRO process have been considered in accordance with the Council’s Constitution and ‘The Local Authorities' Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996’
There was no urgent nusiness to report.
The Chair thanked Members and Officers for attending and reminded Members that the next meeting will be held on the 25th March 2026.
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.