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.
There were none.
The minutes were approved as accurate with a small spelling amendment to Cllr Philips Name, it should say Cen not Ken.
Members considered item 4a.
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.
Members considered item 5a
The Chair raised concerns about rubbish on green spaces, particularly near schools, which is often shredded by grass-cutting machines, causing environmental harm. Officers confirmed rubbish should be cleared before cutting but noted challenges in meadow areas under the Bee Friendly scheme, where long grass hides litter. Officers committed to reminding teams to cleanse after cutting and asked members to report problem areas to supervisors. Fast roads and school verges are prioritised, but member feedback is essential for addressing issues promptly. Members thanked the street team particularly those operating in Pelena and Cimla. Members raised questions about Keep Wales Tidy and volunteer litter picking. They noted that Neighbourhood Services supports volunteer groups and previously provided orange bags for litter collection. Members highlighted that some residents prefer to pick litter individually during walks rather than forming groups and questioned why the council removed the option for individuals to request bags without going through Keep Wales Tidy. Officers explained that orange bags were introduced during COVID as a temporary measure when Keep Wales Tidy hubs were inaccessible, supporting community well-being and litter picking. However, the scheme did not collect data, which is essential for Keep Wales Tidy to secure funding. Without this data, funding would be at risk, and the council would need to cover costs. Officers stressed the importance of balancing community involvement with the need for data reporting to sustain the programme. Officers explained that Keep Wales Tidy provides insurance for litter-picking activities, whether through hubs or individuals, which the council does not currently offer. They acknowledged residents’ preference for using orange bags without reporting data but stressed that data collection is vital for Keep Wales Tidy to secure funding and continue services. Officers emphasised the rationale: insurance coverage and sustaining funding. They thanked volunteers for their efforts and encouraged members to support the process despite pushback. Members asked if individuals could set up a hub and distribute bags to residents. Officers confirmed this is possible, anyone can register as a hub or community champion. However, they would then be responsible for recording and reporting data on collections and areas covered, as this information is critical for Keep Wales Tidy to maintain funding for hubs. Members stressed the importance of retaining individual litter pickers who collect rubbish during walks, as losing them would increase costs for the council, requiring road closures and more officer-led litter picking. Officers advised that reporting litter-picking data is not onerous it simply records what has been achieved. While they understand volunteers feel they are already contributing positively, data is crucial for securing future funding and supporting Keep Wales Tidy. Officers noted that the scheme is cost-free to the council apart from collecting picked litter; otherwise, the council would need to provide kits, insurance, and manage its own system. Keep Wales Tidy currently covers these responsibilities. The Chair shared his experience operating a Keep Wales Tidy hub, noting initial interest from corporate groups for one-off events and increased volunteer activity during COVID, which saved significant council resources. He suggested the council consider providing orange bags via councillors to support individual litter pickers, arguing this could deliver greater benefits than relying solely on Keep Wales Tidy. The Chair highlighted that similar schemes, like distributing dog waste bags, do not involve insurance liability and felt a flexible approach could encourage more community participation. Members stated that the council is not responsible for securing third-party funding and stressed the importance of communities taking initiative. They felt some council policies have reduced community involvement, not only in litter picking but other local activities. Members highlighted that during COVID and times of staff shortages, community volunteers played a key role in keeping areas clean. Members asked about enforcement against retail premises that repeatedly litter, citing a business backing onto Aberavon Road that leaves cardboard and paper unsecured in cages, causing debris to blow across Baglan Moors. Volunteers who clean the area daily are frustrated and warned they may stop if action is not taken. Members requested feedback on enforcement measures, noting previous warnings to the company have not resolved the issue. Officers will address the issue offline, arrange for the waste enforcement team to contact the business, and keep the member informed. They may also meet with the litter-picking group to maintain good relations and support their valuable work. Members queried whether officers have a price list for grass cutting line marking, verge drainage, and herbicide treatments. They noted that many local sports grounds now undertake their own maintenance due to reduced funding and fewer sponsors. Members asked if the council’s rates are competitive and whether this could generate income if priced lower than competitors. Officers confirmed that pricing is available for field cutting, vert draining, initial pitch marking, and over-marking (around a quarter of the full marking cost). They believe rates are competitive and cover many fields, but resources are limited and core business priorities must also be considered. Members noted that Keep Wales Tidy provides one litter-pick hub per ward but requested an additional hub as their area covers two villages. They encouraged councillors to promote Keep Wales Tidy hubs, highlighting benefits such as risk assessments, stronger bags, data collection, and ongoing IT improvements. Members felt the scheme could save the council money, though some adjustments may be needed. Members reported issues with logging hubs and noted Keep Wales Tidy had considered removing them from the community because councillors must record collections after each pick. Requests have been made to include the second area. For residents who struggle to log activity, a member has created a step-by-step pictorial guide to simplify the process. Members stressed the importance of promoting the scheme, which is already used in local schools. They noted that, unlike NPT, the council does not have an alternative litter-pick programme, so KWT should be supported. Residents can collect equipment (vests, pickers, bags) from hubs and keep them for regular use, reducing costs to the council. Officers acknowledged strong community interest in litter picking but noted some barriers. An officer in Neighbourhood Services, who works closely with Keep Wales Tidy, will review the requirements for setting up a hub, gather necessary information, and liaise with KWT. Findings will be reported back, and if the process proves difficult or discourages participation, officers will consider alternative options and may bring a future report to committee. Members praised litter pickers as “unsung heroes” and asked if the council could formally recognise their contribution. The Chair suggested exploring schemes such as Tai Tarian’s Tempo Credits, which reward volunteering, and asked if the council could consider a similar approach. Officers agreed and stressed the importance of logging activity, as it enables the council to recognise volunteers as currently simply distributing bags informally doesn’t log who is doing the picking. This will form part of the mini-review. The Chair also noted that the Mayor issues community service awards and suggested members could nominate individuals for recognition. Members praised the work of My Green Valley volunteers. Officers advised that the Neighbourhood team works closely with such organisations, helping to establish new groups and offering support where possible. Significant work has been undertaken over the past 12 months to update the list of community organisations, and an officer is engaging with these groups to identify support needs. While resources are limited, advice and assistance can be provided based on experience. Members were asked to raise any concerns or recognition requests, which will form part of the mini-review. Members highlighted that the council collects rubbish bags from Keep Wales Tidy litter picks and asked if logging could be integrated into the My NPT app. They also requested that verge cutting be extended to 2–3 metres in areas with brambles, rather than the standard 1 metre, to prevent regrowth and reduce repeat visits. Members suggested supervisors be given discretion to cut back further where cost-effective. Officers explained that verge cutting limits (1m or 2m) are linked to the council’s Bee Friendly campaign and biodiversity management. Monthly meetings are held with Neighbourhood supervisors, the project team, and Countryside officers to review sites and report biodiversity data. Any changes, such as increasing cuts to 2m, must be agreed with local members and logged for reporting. Members were advised to raise specific requests with supervisors, who will feed them into the monthly meeting for consideration and amendment where appropriate. Members clarified that the areas in question are not Bee Friendly sites but paths or cycle tracks where brambles and overgrowth quickly obstruct paths, requiring repeated trimming. Officers advised members to report specific issues to their local supervisor, who can assess and arrange appropriate action. The chair agreed with the points made and felt that if the team is out cutting the verges they might as well look at extending the meter edge of the cut because it saves then in the longer term. He felt that is why it was important this information report came to the scrutiny committee so that officers can receive relevant feedback. In relation to Keep Wales tidy members asked if they supply the council with information of what's been picked up in the areas? Officers confirmed that officers receive an annual report back and that and that information is fed back, officers feel they need to undertake a small review and bring that back in a year to date. In relation to meadow cuts, members were concerned that there are piles of grass left which are unsightly and they asked officers if there is a way officers can leave these to the side instead of leaving them in the middle? Officers advised that the piles of grass shouldn't necessarily be left in the middle unless this has been requested and should be on the periphery. Officers suggested that if there are any specific concerns, members should get in touch with the local supervisor, and they will then deal with it as an operational issue. Following scrutiny, the report was noted.
There were no performance monitoring items selected.
Members requested a small review of litter picking including Keep Wales Tidy to be conducted by officers with an information report to come back to the committee. The Forward Work Programme was noted.
There were none.
The committee had no questions relating to the private appendix.
The committee had no questions relating to the private appendix.
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.