Loading
There is no summary of this meeting yet. Summaries are written once the council publishes the minutes, which are its official record of what a meeting decided. They usually appear a few weeks after the meeting.
The Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting.
Councillor Rahaman indicated he had a personal interest for Item 3a as he works for his family’s hospitality business, and the report refers to food hygiene.
Members considered item 3a from the Cabinet Forward Work Programme.
Officers explained that in September 2023, the Welsh Government introduced a default 20 mph speed limit across Wales, affecting 92% of Neath Port Talbot roads, with 36 exceptions identified. A listening programme followed in April 2024, and new guidance was published later that year. Officers sought permission to assess locations flagged by members and the public. Based on current guidance, no roads can revert to 30 mph at this time. However, new guidance aimed at giving local authorities greater autonomy is expected in the new year. Once issued, officers will review roads again under the updated criteria. Members asked whether the Council collects local data on the impact of reducing speed limits from 30 mph to 20 mph, or if Welsh Government will provide such data soon. Officers reported that data from January to December 2024 shows a 25% reduction in collisions across the borough. While they cannot confirm this is solely due to the 20-mph limit, the decrease is significantly higher than previous reductions of 5–6%. Welsh Government attributes the change to the new speed limit. The data (Stats19) comes from police records, which can be up to a year old due to processing times. Officers also collect local speed and collision data in specific areas when requested. Members noted that Aberdulais ward has numerous speed bumps and 20 mph roads. They acknowledged that altering the speed bumps would require extensive and costly work across the ward. Members asked if Welsh Government fund removal of the speed bumps if it's necessary in areas. Officers advised there is no funding available. Aberdulais ward nearly became a pilot and nearly had more speed humps installed, and officers will review existing measures and local data. They were unaware of specific issues in the ward but agreed to investigate. Members welcomed this, noting it would help explain to the public why reverting to 30 mph is not feasible and provide clarity on the reasons. Members welcomed stats on the reduction in collisions since the 20 miles an hour changes and that the police were catching people speeding. Members noted that other councils in Wales announce which roads will revert to 30 mph, but Neath Port Talbot does not. They asked if there was a reason for this. Officers explained there are no announcements because none are required. NPT was one of only three authorities in Wales fully compliant on day one, reflecting the council’s thorough preparation. Members were reminded that officers met individually with councillors to review 30 mph roads in their wards. Officers noted the work was completed quickly, enabling compliance by September. Any errors identified were corrected promptly without waiting for new guidance. Officers noted members concerns along Avon Valley Road but explained that current guidance is prescriptive, limiting changes. They are awaiting new local speed limit guidance due in the new year to improve route fluidity. Officers also confirmed a press statement will be issued following this report. Members asked whether officers would review the new criteria before confirming which roads may revert to 30 mph in their wards. Officers advised that once the list is returned, it must be adopted by the authority. They will then liaise with all members regarding the roads identified. Officers confirmed they already have a list, including roads where no changes were possible, and will also review other areas across the borough. Members will be contacted directly before any public announcements or reports, ensuring close collaboration. Members asked if roads not previously listed could be added during future meetings. Officers confirmed this is possible. Members expressed concern that speed vans appear to target certain roads as a ‘cash cow’. They noted discussions with officers about relocating vans within wards, as average speed cameras show significant breaches of the 20-mph limit. Members acknowledged vans can only be placed in legally permitted areas and felt many councillors and the public are unaware of this issue. Officers confirmed the issue is recognised by the Council and GoSafe Wales, which works with the Crime Commissioner and local authorities across the UK. While funding challenges exist, the aim is to reduce reliance on mobile vans and move towards other technologies such as static and average speed cameras, similar to previous systems. Officers described this as a step change that will help where sites cannot accommodate camera vans. Following Scrutiny the report was noted.
Members considered item 4a from the Scrutiny Forward Work Programme.
James M Davies, Interim Head of Engineering and Transport, provided the background to the Grit Bins Policy Review. The policy was introduced in 2012 and reviewed every three years. A cap remained in place until 2021, when a task and finish group considered unmet needs. At that time, 110 requests were submitted, 74 approved, resulting in £33,000 capital expenditure and £24,000 annual revenue pressure. The cap was increased from 511 to 586. For the current review, officers repeated the consultation process, receiving 49 new requests, but only four were deemed feasible all linked to new housing estates and already covered by existing policy. Officers recommend retaining the cap and removing the need for cyclical reviews, citing limited resources and saturation of provision. The policy will be amended to allow reviews in response to new developments or significant changes. Members asked if officers are asking members to remove the cap or is it something officers are thinking of doing. Officers advised that the cap should remain in place. It was originally introduced in 2012 to prevent ongoing requests for additional grit bins. Members were advised that the rationale still applies: the Neighbourhood Services team, which maintains and services the bins, has limited resources and multi-skilled staff covering various functions. Adding more bins would create revenue pressures and divert staff from other essential duties due to increased maintenance demands. Members asked the chair, if the committee is going to decide on that today? The Chair confirmed that the recommendation will be voted on and then cabinet will make the decision. Members asked if smaller grit boxes could be placed in lanes or cul-de-sacs. Officers explained that bins come in different sizes and can be provided to schools on request. Location decisions consider feasibility and member requests, but servicing and maintenance remain resource intensive. During prolonged icy conditions, neighbourhood teams prioritise secondary hand-gritting alongside precautionary salting, and requests for small areas can be accommodated then. Members suggested smaller containers at ward level to allow residents to spread salt themselves, reducing manual gritting. Officers agreed that needs vary by community. Areas with steep hills and higher altitudes experience more freezing and snow, so these locations have significantly more grit bins than others. Officers advised that two grit bin sizes are used: 1-ton and ½-ton. Introducing smaller bins for narrow footpaths would significantly increase the total number, impacting resources for other neighbourhood functions. Officers were also asked about liability if someone falls in an ungritted area and seeks compensation. Officers advised that the council’s Winter Service Operational Plan outlines actions for icy and hazardous conditions, including precautionary salting of four main routes and measures during prolonged severe weather. If the plan is followed, the authority is protected from liability. The approach is risk-based and aligned with best practice and guidance. Members noted that tree growth and shading can create frost-prone areas that were previously unaffected. They felt the policy works well if supervisors retain discretion. Members questioned whether the tree policy should allow more cutting back in shaded areas to prevent frost-related issues. Officers explained that the tree policy does not permit removal or cutting back solely due to shading. While they acknowledged the winter impact, they advised raising concerns with the local area supervisor. Known frost-prone spots can then be targeted for hand-gritting during prolonged icy conditions Members asked if the current total of 586 grid bin is a sufficient for the borough. Officers advised that grit bin numbers have increased from 511 (2012–2021) by 75 following a review in 2021/22 to address unmet need. Numbers will continue to rise as new housing developments meet policy criteria. The cap introduced in 2012 remains necessary due to resource demands—bins often require refilling 6–8 times per winter, diverting teams from other tasks. Criteria for placement include proximity to steep hills, schools, and key facilities. Officers noted that accommodating smaller bins across the network would be ideal but would further strain resources. Officers explained that cold spots are identified by factors such as heavy tree cover and shaded areas that receive little sunlight, making frost more persistent. Supervisors monitor these locations, and members can report additional areas. Road surface type also affects how quickly temperatures drop or rise. Precautionary salting covers main routes, with secondary gritting and grit bin placement addressing localized issues. Members noted that some areas have clusters of grit bins while others have none and asked if there is a rationale behind this. They also queried the process for installing grit bins on adopted roads. Officers informed members that it is probably because of previous requests and those requests meeting the criteria, the set up within the policy in terms of where they're located at present. The policy also allows for local members to make a request to remove a grit bin from one area and move it to another area if they feel there's more of a demand and a requirement, this was brought in in in 2012 to accommodate any changes that need to be made and is something that can certainly happen. In relation to unadopted roads, the grit bins supplied by the council and the budget covers us covers officers to deal with adopted highways so the locations that grit bins are put on should be on the adopted network. Members asked if the three-year review is scrapped that any requests for grit bins would be dealt with by request from the member. Officers clarified that the recent review informed this report and sought members’ input on any further unmet need. Following the 2024/25 exercise, 49 requests were received; and officers were able to accommodate only 2 or 3 of those, in 2021/22, 110 requests were made with 74 being accommodated,. Officers advised that three years on, only a small percentage of new requests can be met due to constraints such as footpath width (for DDA compliance and accessibility). The report previously was reviewed every three years under the 2012 cap agreement, this report proposes removing this requirement. Recent assessments show adding more bins is increasingly difficult as most feasible locations already have bins. Officers proposed amending the policy, so reviews occur only when circumstances change, such as significant events or a surge in requests, rather than every three years. Members can still request grit bins through officers, but previously there was no provision for this due to the fixed cap review cycle. Officers suggested that, rather than repeating the same review every three years, the policy should shift to reviews only when there is a significant change in circumstances. The recent consultation shows most feasible locations already have bins, and adding more is impractical due to size constraints (½-ton and 1-ton bins). Future reviews would occur only if warranted, with any changes brought back through the governance framework. Following scrutiny, the recommendation was supported to Cabinet
Following Scrutiny the report was noted.
Members considered item 5a Performance Monitoring item.
Members raised concerns about drop curbs across the borough, noting issues for people using scooters and strollers for independence, as older curbs are unsuitable and becoming damaged. They highlighted missing drop curbs or installations limited to main areas such as schools and shops. Members asked whether the council could approach Welsh Government for funding or explore options to review drop curb provision borough wide. Officers confirmed a borough-wide review of drop curb provision is underway. Learner Travel Officers are assessing routes to schools where needs are identified. A small funding pot exists for installations, but resources are limited. Officers acknowledged increased use of mobility scooters and urged members to report affected areas. A programme is being developed, with plans to seek additional funding. Members asked whether missed recycling or refuse collections reported by councillors are included in the figures shown in reports. They noted that many residents with repeated missed collections contact councillors, who then report these issues to officers, and queried if these are logged. Officers confirmed that any missed collections for waste get logged whether it's councillors or the public. Members referred to enforcement figures on page 54, noting mixed performance. They highlighted concerns over zero prosecutions or fines for dogs on Aberavon Beach during restricted periods, despite the bylaw and frequent breaches. Members questioned why only one successful dog fouling prosecution was recorded and asked where enforcement officers are deployed if only one offender was caught across Neath Port Talbot. Members noted that only five fixed penalty notices for littering were issued in Quarter 1 and asked where enforcement officers are deployed. Officers advised the enforcement team consists of a manager and five officers covering the whole county borough. Their duties include fly-tipping, littering, and dog fouling enforcement. Dog fouling is particularly difficult to police as officers must witness the act, and most incidents occur when no one is present. This explains the consistently low numbers of fixed penalty notices for dog fouling, which is a common challenge across all areas. Officers advised that a new poster campaign has been launched to encourage dog owners to clean up after their pets. Members were asked to help distribute posters in their communities. Take-up was mixed, with some members agreeing and others noting fewer issues in their wards, highlighting the challenges faced by the enforcement team. Officers explained that the enforcement team also carries out targeted exercises, often at members’ request, in problem areas such as the beachfront. These operations are scheduled at times when issues are most likely to occur (early mornings or evenings) and run for a day or two. The aim is to raise awareness, though issuing fixed penalty notices during these exercises also if those aren’t paid the person is prosecuted. This publicises and reinforces the message. Officers noted that fly-tipping cases take up significant time and remain a major focus. Dog fouling enforcement is more challenging due to the public interest test; even when officers witness an incident, owners often claim ignorance and pick up waste when confronted, making prosecution difficult. Officers stressed they pursue cases as far as possible, with many fixed penalty notices successfully paid and some cases taken to prosecution, though dog fouling is less straightforward than fly-tipping due to evidential requirements. Members asked if the public have video footage, can the council prosecute people on that video footage? Officers couldn’t see a reason why not but would check with the officer in charge of enforcement. The Chair praised the fly-tipping team’s work and noted the strong visual deterrent effect. He suggested dog fouling should be treated separately from fly-tipping, as it is a major issue for councillors receiving complaints. While acknowledging prosecution challenges, he proposed considering a dedicated dog warden to patrol beaches and problem areas, as visible enforcement acts as a deterrent and reassures responsible dog owners. The Chair also noted that enforcement responsibilities are mixed and felt fly-tipping may have drawn focus away from dog fouling, urging more targeted action. Members praised the work of the fly tipping teams but noted that the problem members have is that when officers put cameras up, there is signage with the camera which just moves the fly tippers onto a different location than the road. Officers advised that it depend on the location and the surroundings and there is a process that they have to go through. Officers do both Covert and overt surveillance and that will depend on the location. Members felt dog fouling posters were good but suggested using more hard-hitting designs showing real impacts, such as a child blinded by infection, as these are more relatable and effective. Officers advised the new signs already follow this approach, replacing older diagrammatic versions, and are based on national designs that have shown positive results in other authorities. Members congratulated Ceri Morris and the planning team for the performance by surpassing the targets of 95% for full applications checked within 15 working days and for their planning applications approved first time they achieved the maximum performance of 100%. Members noted that dog fouling often occurs when owners are distracted on their phones, rather than intentionally. They also highlighted issues with owners who have mobility problems and cannot bend to clean up after their dogs. One example was shared where a councillor assists a resident by collecting fouling during walks, illustrating the challenges faced by some dog owners. Members asked how high-risk food businesses are defined. Officers explained that all food premises are risk-rated under the Food Standards Agency framework. High-risk businesses, typically takeaways, must be inspected every six months, while low-risk premises, such as vending machines, are inspected less frequently. Staff capacity is prioritised to meet these targets. Members noted that the council missed the target but are within 5% and asked what the target is. Officers reported that the council is slightly below its quarterly target for food hygiene inspections (25%) but expects to meet the annual target of 75%. The inspection programme is designed to prioritise resources if targets fall behind, ensuring compliance by year-end. Following Scrutiny the report was noted.
The Democratic Services Officer updated members on the Forward Work Programme. Members’ requests for additional information in upcoming reports will be passed to officers. Concerns raised on drop curbs were noted. Officers highlighted that members suggested including figures on known Japanese knotweed locations for 2024/25. Members were advised that the Electric Vehicle On-Street Charging report will return to the committee, with discussions ongoing about timing. The Forward Work Programme was noted.
There were none.
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.