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.
There were no items selected from the Cabinet Forward Work Programme.
Members considered item 4a from the Scrutiny Forward Work Programme.
James M Davies, Interim Head of Engineering and Transport, introduced the report, outlining its background and timeline from 2009 to 2023. He explained that a task and finish group was set up by the Environment, Regeneration and Streetscene Services Scrutiny Committee to review parking across the borough and detailed how the report progressed through scrutiny and Cabinet Board processes in 2023. Officers advised that they had planned to present a report to the scrutiny committee before the public meeting at Aberavon Seafront Social and Labour Club. This was to address two issues with the car parking charges in the laybys: (1) inadequate signage, particularly regarding the MiPermit app, which was temporarily resolved with non-permanent signs; and (2) the lack of cash payment options, as the machines couldn’t accept £1 or £2 coins due to VAT issues, and pay-and-display machines were deemed too costly to install. Members were informed that the report follows the public meeting, where additional issues were raised. Officers, in agreement with the Chair, deferred the original report to allow time to consider public feedback and return with a more comprehensive report outlining the council’s options moving forward. Officers noted significant budget pressures linked to car parking, which led to the creation of the task and finish group. Its purpose is to ensure the parking service remains financially sustainable and capable of maintaining car parks. Officers aim to ensure car parks support access to retail and community areas. Members were asked to consider the financial aspects to ensure the long-term sustainability and accessibility of car parks. They also highlighted the importance of supporting modal shift, encouraging a move away from private vehicle use towards public transport and active travel, in line with evolving transport strategy. Officers acknowledged that further work is needed, particularly in collaboration with the regional transport plan and the Sandfields Active Travel Master Plan. These efforts support the broader benefits of introducing car parking charges, despite concerns raised during the public meeting. Cllr Wyndham Griffiths the Cabinet member for Strategic Planning, Transport and Connectivity noted that the parking program was put in place to alleviate the problem in the budget as there is pressure in the car parks and that's why it is important. Members noted that the Cabinet report has been pulled from the cabinet papers scheduled for Monday and asked when it will be dealt with by cabinet. Cllr Griffiths Cabinet Member confirmed the item will be looked at by cabinet on the 3rd of September. Members highlighted that in the Environment Regeneration and Streetscene Services Scrutiny committee on the July 28th 2023 it was recommended to cabinet that the proposed recommendation be approved along with several suggestions from the scrutiny committee. However, during the second presentation to the scrutiny committee on September the 14th 2023, members expressed a lack of support for these recommendations. Members felt that errors were made in implementing these changes as not enough consideration was given to how people would pay and felt that Technology and apps are not acceptable to everyone and many face challenges using phones for payments. Members also felt that the signage was inadequate and caused huge confusion. Members noted that shortly after the layby scheme was introduced, the Council Leader called for a review of parking at Aberavon and the laybys. Members had requested this review be brought back to scrutiny and were pleased to see it presented today. Members highlighted at the public meeting on June 20 and during the committee pre-briefing on June 25 that residents and members questioned why parking charges weren’t increased in main car parks instead. Members suggested targeting visitors rather than residents with these charges. Members stressed the importance of acknowledging implementation errors, noting that doing so demonstrates responsiveness to public feedback. They urged Cabinet to consider the concerns raised and take swift action. The vice chair stated his intention that if item 4a is proposed and the cabinet agree to it that he would like to recommend an amendment for item 4 a to suspend enforcement in parking restrictions during this transition. Members also asked If option 4a is accepted by the cabinet what would the transition time for new signs and a machine. Officers advised that progressing changes requires Cabinet agreement. If Cabinet decides to suspend enforcement, this could be actioned immediately. However, to formally revoke tariffs, the full Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) process must be followed, including legal steps and updated signage. Officers indicated that if action begins immediately, the full process, including civil works and consultation would take approximately two and a half months. This would likely extend into late summer. While enforcement could be suspended quickly if Cabinet agrees, formally revoking tariffs requires completing the full Traffic Regulation Order process to ensure everything is done correctly. Cabinet member Councillor Scott Jones noted a previous point regarding the Cabinet meeting in September. He stated that depending on the committee’s position following the meeting, he believes Cabinet would not object to an emergency meeting if requested by scrutiny. He also said that if the committee wishes to terminate enforcement, he felt that Cabinet would be willing to consider that. Members asked why the issue isn’t being looked at on Monday by cabinet given there’s a special Cabinet Members meeting and the scrutiny meeting is already underway. Members highlighted the high public use of the beach area especially people who visit the beach daily, including those who are lonely, isolated, or not yet engaged with social services. They also highlighted that staff and carers also use the area to support individuals and will incur parking costs. Members highlighted the value of beach access in reducing demand on council services. They gave the example of a group like “Miles Marauders,” with 25 individuals accessing social services three times a week at £125 per person, would cost the authority approximately £487,500 annually. They felt that encouraging outdoor activity can therefore have significant financial and wellbeing benefits. Members suggested that if that was scaled up to 100 people, it would cost £1.9 million per year. Members compared this to the £50,000–£80,000 income from beach parking, feeling that the beach access is saving money by helping prevent people from needing costly services. Members highlighted the Local Area Coordinators’ Role and explained that £760,000 is spent on coordinators to prevent people entering formal services, they felt that the beach and open spaces contribute to this preventative approach. Members also highlighted mental health and well-being, explaining that mental health service demand has increased by 108% since 2019 and that green spaces like the beach and Vivian Park are vital for public well-being, especially in densely populated areas. Members raised concerns the severe impact on businesses citing the example of an ice cream van operator affected by new parking charges. Members stated that the council was aware of both the tender and the upcoming parking charges, but the vendor had no choice in accepting the terms, which later negatively affected his business. They felt that the situation is seen as indicative of wider business impacts across the beachfront area. Members noted that no public consultation was held regarding the implementation of parking charges on the beachfront and were critical that the public meeting had to be arranged by an Assembly Member which suggests community concern and a lack of prior engagement. Members felt that a proper consultation could have prevented the upset and financial consequences. Members questioned why the cabinet members approved the decision, given strong opposition from scrutiny committee members. Members felt that Scrutiny is a protective mechanism for the council, to ensure decisions are well-considered and supported and they felt that feedback from ward members and residents who use the beach was not adequately considered. A request was made by members for a breakdown of income generated from Parking machines and fines issued so that they can understand the financial justification behind the decision. Officers explained that the report was not submitted to Monday’s Cabinet meeting to allow proper consideration of today’s scrutiny discussions. As the meeting is held on a Friday, there wouldn’t have been sufficient time to prepare an updated report in time. Cabinet also wanted time to fully reflect on the outcomes of today’s meeting. In relation to cost-directed working and social service impacts, officers acknowledged members’ concerns, noting these were also raised during the public meeting. Officers felt that this work was not done in isolation but agreed that more collaborative work is always possible. Officers emphasised efforts over recent years to address budget pressures linked to car parking, while aligning with Welsh Government’s transport strategy to reduce single vehicle use. They also recognised the need to understand wider council impacts. Members were advised that current parking data suggests beach attendance has increased this summer, despite the introduction of charges which highlighted the relevance of Sandfields’ only green space. Officers confirmed that parking charges in Aberavon car parks remain at £4. Between April 1 and June 30, 2024/25, parking income totalled £36,534 this is excluding fines. For the same period this year, income rose to £74,694. Officers noted the concerns raised at the public meeting about business impact but advised that they are not supported by the data, which suggests the beach is significantly busier based on car park usage. In response to concerns about the lack of formal public consultation, officers explained that consultation is legally required when advertising a Traffic Regulation Order (TRO). This process was discussed at a previous scrutiny meeting, and if the TRO receives significant or contentious feedback, it would be brought back through the governance process. Officers provided a breakdown of income from machines and fines they explained that the income related to people paying to park in the laybys and enforcement income associated with people not paying to park or over overstaying their stay. Income from Parking Payments (Laybys) April–June: £24,583.60 1–18 July: £6,103.00 Total: £30,686.60 Income from Enforcement (Fines) April–June: £7,704.00 1–18 July: £840.00 Total: £8,544.00 The enforcement income, for April 2025 there were 183 enforcement items for non-payment within the laybys, nothing for expiry of time and two for parking disabled space without a badge. May 183 reduced to 89 June reduced to 36 July reduced 37. Cabinet Member Wyndham Griffiths commented the report brought before the cabinet board meeting in 2023, he advised that it outlined the budget pressure that services faced and the implementation of charging on the street laybys may help alleviate the pressure. After considering the feedback from the scrutiny committee and the cabinet board meeting in 2023, he noted that there were no options or alternatives presented at that time between the budget questions from the committee members that cabinet could consider with the budget situation. He felt it was also important to note that the car parking budget not only has a significant revenue pressure that the team also must manage the access that is responsible for the car parks to ensure that all those car parks are able to be maintained for future use. He advised that the budget position needs to improve otherwise the council could easily be facing the situation where car parks fall into a state of disrepair and therefore measures such as closing these car parks would need to be considered. The cabinet member advised that the closure of car parks would create significant issues such as laws associated with access to community services, retail etc. He explained that as there were little other options for cabinet to consider, there seemed very little option other than to implement the charges. The cabinet member highlighted that at the time it was a cabinet board decision not a full cabinet decision. The cabinet member felt that Monday's cabinet meeting has been put back to avoid a hurried decision. The cabinet member felt that if it was a mistake, it was done in haste, and they don’t want to do it again and that is why the cabinet wouldn't be meeting until September the 3rd to allow full consideration by cabinet. Cabinet member Councillor Scott Jones acknowledged the lessons learned and that not everything was as it should have been. He reiterated his view that depending on the conclusion of the scrutiny meeting there's nothing stopping cabinet members requesting through the leadership and deputy leadership a special cabinet meeting as soon as possible. In relation to the potential cost of social care he agreed that it is about not just looking at one service area or directorate and instead about looking at the bigger picture as well. He noted the views that the free parking bays can can promote the health and well-being, fitness and the mental health and suggested that option 4 A will be more aligned in terms of that. In relation to the assembly member calling the public meeting he noted that public meetings are important for democracy and that voices are heard and that it was down to representatives to bring that back to the table, which is what he felt was being done in scrutiny and previously. He stated that prior to any public meeting the leader on the representation that he'd received to date had already requested for a review to come back to the cabinet and made a commitment with the previous chair of the scrutiny committee that it could be reviewed in six months. He also stated that the previous scrutiny committee or the members on the current scrutiny committee have always had the opportunity to call it in and ask for a review on it. Members noted the distinction between statutory consultation required by law during the Traffic Regulation Order process and general public consultation, which is more discretionary and broader in scope. Members expressed concern that the £200,000 income target was included in the budget before any public proposals were shared, meaning the public couldn’t provide feedback during the budget consultation. They felt the proposals were made to fit a pre-set budget, which limited meaningful engagement. The consultation that did take place occurred a year after the decision, by which time the budget had already been set and the decision made, leaving little room to reconsider. Members felt this was a key lesson to reflect on. Members noted that while main car parks saw higher overall footfall, the primary issue lies with the laybys. The short, informal visits—such as popping in for a coffee or spending an hour or two at the beach—have declined since charges were introduced. These visits are difficult to quantify, but businesses have felt the impact, especially during quieter periods. Members noted the carpark data but felt that they can't take that data to mean the whole picture. Members gave an example from the scrutiny process where the committee suggested extending the beach season from May to April to help ease budget pressures. This change was adopted and resulted in doubling income from the main car parks for that additional month. It was seen as a reasonable adjustment with minimal impact, aligning with practices elsewhere. Members raised concerns about the motivation behind the parking charge decision, specifically regarding active travel. While they acknowledged active travel sustainability as a valid reason, they did not believe it was the original driver. They had previously suggested using parking charges to encourage walking and cycling, but stressed that this requires adequate public transport, cycle routes, and walking infrastructure—which the master plan aims to address. Members noted that during the public meeting, there was a suggestion for further engagement with seafront businesses to assess the impact of parking charges. They asked whether any follow-up discussions or correspondence had taken place since that meeting to better understand business concerns. Officers clarified that the budget set aside for income generation from layby parking was £32,000—not £200,000. The higher figure may have been misunderstood. They acknowledged the year-long delay in implementation due to the TRO process, but confirmed the original budget was specifically linked to expected income from beachfront layby charges. Officers confirmed that no direct engagement with seafront businesses has taken place since the public meeting. This was intentional, as they felt it was important to first clarify the direction of proposals through today’s scrutiny discussion. Once a clear steer is established, officers plan to engage with businesses to gather input. This also explains why the Cabinet meeting scheduled for Monday was cancelled to allow time for proper consideration. Members expressed disappointment with the signage and urged greater mindfulness of costs and officer time. They stated the need for decisions to align with the council’s inclusive values. Officers explained that prior to the public meeting a report was being prepared to address issues around cash payment inequality and signage. They intended to seek Cabinet approval to engage with Welsh Government for permission to deviate from standard signage regulations similar to an approach used in Cardiff to allow clearer promotion of the parking app. Officers acknowledged this shouldn't be done without formal approval, which is why the request was to be brought to scrutiny and Cabinet. If the decision is to revoke the order, there will be associated costs for removing current signage and reinstating previous signs that outlined stay limits. Members questioned the link between laybys and main car parks, suggesting they should be considered separately. They also asked whether the financial figures referenced were solely from laybys or included car parks. Members raised concerns about the fairness of implementing charges only in a popular area used for wellbeing while other laybys across the borough remain free. Members expressed concern that the changes have significantly impacted residents and businesses, with parking charges also being introduced by Celtic Leisure and a hotel. They felt that this, alongside reduced footfall creates effectively a double hit. Officers clarified the layby figures and the car park figures. 1st April the 30th of June 2024 the four off-street car parks on the seafront made £36,534. This year for the same period it is £74,694. For the period from 1st of July to the 18th of July last year they made £16,922 and this year for the same period is £29,118. The layby parking which is separate made from the 1st of April to the 30th of June £24,583 and from July the 1st until the 18th of this month is £6,103. Officers were unaware about the parking charges businesses, and the hotel had introduced. Members felt that the public consultation would have avoided this situation, and could they learn from that going forward? Members also felt that many residents may not have seen the standard traffic order notice in the newspaper. Members felt that the impact assessment needs to be done in more detail in future. Members suggested that changing beach attractions and the weather make parking fee data unreliable, as these are not consistent variables. They suggested future impact assessments should account for such factors to ensure more accurate evaluations. Members reiterated that their main concern from the public meeting was the laybys. Many residents use them multiple times a day, regardless of weather. Anecdotally members said that laybys are often empty or have only one or two cars. Members stressed that older users, who may struggle with new parking technology, are being disproportionately affected. They urged that future impact assessments consider accessibility and equality across all age groups. Members disagreed with the impact assessment’s conclusion that age is not a factor, noting that many retirees visit the area frequently and support local businesses. They felt the assessment overlooked the regular, varied use of laybys by older residents. Members also highlighted that car parks are mainly used by visitors staying longer, especially with new attractions drawing people from further afield. They felt that laybys are essential for residents and businesses, particularly out of season. Members stressed the importance of ensuring equality across all age groups in future assessments. Members highlighted that rising parking charges from Celtic Leisure and nearby hotels could have longer-term effects on social services, particularly for groups who rely on beach access for wellbeing. They felt the Integrated Impact Assessment (IIA) needs to consider a broader range of social and economic factors than it currently does. Officers acknowledged members' concerns about regular beachfront visits and the impact on older people. James Davies clarified that the previous IIA differs significantly from the current one, which he prepared with legal colleagues. He explained that the IIA is not stating that there is no impact on older people, but rather that any potential impact is likely negligible due to associated characteristics. Officers explained that the rationale was based on the range of available options, including reversing the decision to implement charging. They emphasised that whichever option is chosen, further consideration will be required, both from officers and through an intermediary impact assessment. Members felt that Cabinet was already aware of the key issues raised at the public meeting, as these had been discussed at the 2023 scrutiny committee. They highlighted concerns around mental health, safety, and the beach’s role in supporting residents’ wellbeing through non-financial activities. Members also suggested that increased car park use may be linked to the campaign discouraging layby parking, with the public opting to park on alternative roads and car parks to avoid bay charges. Councillor Ken Phillips acknowledged concerns about digital exclusion, noting that the issue was raised during the original Cabinet decision. He advised that officers had assured that steps would be taken to prevent exclusion, but this work was not successfully carried out. As a result, the parking scheme was not implemented as originally intended. He emphasised that this oversight highlights the need to review the decision, acknowledging that hindsight shows the implementation could and should have been better. Members empathised with the budget decisions that need to be made but felt that the decision had made a huge impact. They commented that people from their late teens to their 80s have stopped going to the beach altogether. Members raised the example of the ice cream vendor applying for a tender but hadn’t been told about the parking changes. Cllr Hurley, Cabinet Member, advised that the tender was decided in mid-April. While car parking charges were likely in the public domain at that time, he was unsure whether this information was included in the tender documents for bidders to consider. Members felt the report should acknowledge that all wards are affected as people across the borough use the beach. Members expressed frustration at the delay in addressing the issue at cabinet, questioning why it couldn’t be resolved on Monday or why it had been postponed by a month. They felt the strength of public and committee feeling was already clear and didn’t require further reflection. One member noted that an emergency Cabinet meeting could be arranged as early as Monday 4th August, and urged the Leader and Cabinet to consider either proceeding with the Vice Chair’s proposal or convening an emergency meeting to resolve the matter promptly. The legal officer advised that Cabinet do have a power to consider a matter as urgent at the discretion of the chair, not the chair of scrutiny. He explained that if members were mined to make a recommendation that the matter is considered as a matter of urgency they can, but the decision would lie with cabinet as to whether they considered it to be an urgent item. The leader advised that he and the Cabinet members present in the meeting would be happy for the recommendation to include the matter be treated with urgency. He noted potential complications, particularly around suspending enforcement and communicating changes to the public, especially layby users, who may continue paying if not properly informed. He highlighted that changes to car park charges, such as adopting Option 4A (£1/hour, £2 for 2 hours, £4 all day), would require updates to payment machines. In the interim, existing rates may need to remain. The Leader assured members that he and his Cabinet colleagues would support holding an emergency meeting to consider the outcomes of the committee’s proposals. Option 4a was commended to Cabinet as the preferred option of the committee. Following scrutiny, a recommendation was put forward. The recommendation as set out below was supported to Cabinet. If item 4a is accepted by cabinet that the council suspends enforcement of parking restrictions during the transition and that we recommend that cabinet have an emergency meeting to make this decision as soon as possible.
There were no performance monitoring items selected for scrutiny.
The Democratic Services Officer confirmed that members requested a report on grit bins be added to the Forward Work Programme. Members also asked for discussions with officers regarding: • The condition of drop kerbs and concerns related to IDPs, with a view to a future report. • Communication around emergency works. • Contractor training, particularly ensuring proper understanding of tasks and awareness of nesting birds. • Issues with signage, including placement and removal of outdated signs. The Forward work programme was noted.
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.