Loading
The decisions as the council's minutes record them. A plain-language summary follows once it has been written.
Resolved: to exclude the public for the following item(s) pursuant to Section 100A (4) and (5) of the Local Government Act 1972 and the relevant exempt paragraphs of Part 4 of Schedule 12A to the above Act.
The Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting.
Cllr. T Bowen (Item 9A) – Personal, A family member works for the department referenced in the report.
The minutes of the meeting held on 9th January 2026 were approved as an accurate record of proceedings.
Members considered items from the Cabinet Forward Work Programme.
The Head of Engineering and Transport introduced the proposed Highway and Engineering Capital Works Programme for the upcoming financial year. Two key changes were highlighted: 1. The integration of a previously separate report on Traffic Regulation Orders (TROs) into the main programme report to streamline processes. 2. A revised structure for the works programme in the appendices, moving from a ward-based alphabetical format to a category-based format. This change aimed to better reflect the risk-based approach used to prioritise projects and provide a clearer understanding of the types of work being undertaken. Members thanked officers for the report and for their work. Members referred to works in the Capital Work Programme that had failed to be completed in previous years and asked what assurances could be given that the work will be completed? The Head of Engineering and Transport explained that delays could arise from various factors, including feasibility issues, cost overruns, or unforeseen engineering challenges. Members were assured that such delays are communicated to ward members and specific cases can be reviewed where communication may have been insufficient. The Scrutiny Chair queried whether projects that remain uncompleted would be replaced within the programme and whether Councillors would be notified if any scheme is removed from the works programme. Officers advised that each scheme is unique and that programmes are adjusted where necessary. While schemes do not drop off the programme, delays can occur due to resource constraints, the volume of work within a financial year, engineering challenges, or the outcome of statutory consultations that may generate objections leading to a decision not to proceed. Officers confirmed that ward members should always be informed when schemes are changed or removed and apologised for occasions where this may not have happened. Members queried whether projects could be reprioritised if road conditions worsened due to weather or other factors. Officers confirmed that while the programme is based on a risk assessment, it remains fluid to accommodate changing conditions. The importance of asset management principles was emphasised, which balance addressing the worst roads with preventative measures to extend the life of the network. Where a road deteriorates unexpectedly, this is escalated to senior leadership and may be considered for addition to the capital programme. Members asked for further information on resident communications in relation to planned works. It was noted that although a letter drop may have been conducted, the absence of signage can delay works taking place if there are access issues. Officers confirmed that if access to a highway is required, letter drops are often conducted as a courtesy but there is no legal responsibility to do this. Where this has not been the case the site will be reviewed to establish any further actions. Advanced warning signs are not used for day-to-day works as this is not always feasible or necessary and has cost implications. Issues have only occurred in isolated areas. The Head of Engineering and Transport advised members that they could assist in the process, where possible, by sharing details of planned works through social media channels. Members enquired whether there was a list of priority streets to aid resident understanding and reduce the burden on councillors to identify priority roads. Members also commented on the difficulties experienced by some residents who did not qualify for disabled parking bays and asked for this to be added to the Forward Work Programme. The Head of Engineering and Transport agreed that a list of priority areas was key for officers in determining how the limited funds are spent to manage assets and reduce risks, as much as possible. Members surgeries are viewed as a tool to supplement the data held by officers, due to members close links with their communities. Officers can benefit from the feedback obtained in member surgeries. And whilst issues may not take immediate priority, the feedback is helpful as priorities can change. In relation to disabled parking bays, there is limited funding available, the budget in the Capital Works Programme is £30k for individual disabled parking bays. The schemes require consideration to ensure the bay complies with regulations. There is a waiting list for disabled parking spaces, but officers are only able to deliver around four per year. If other opportunities for funding are available such as the Pride in Place Impact Funding, members could consider using that funding to deliver some schemes. The Cabinet Member for Streetscene agreed with previous comments made, that communication to members is critical. The Cabinet Member advised that a member’s seminar was planned in relation to Network Management and Highways to provide a better understanding of how priorities come forward and are dealt with, with the limited budgets available. Members understood the budget restraints but reiterated their concern regarding residents requiring disabled parking bays on waiting lists. Members queried similar signs in neighbouring wards with differences in costs. Officers responded that each scheme is individual and costs are only indicative. Final scheme costs are unknown as the final cost can be influenced by many factors such as structural issues. Schemes are fluid to take into account necessary changes. Members queried how up to date the information was in relation to works currently in progress. An example was provided of the A474 in Cwmgorse, which although previously in good condition has recently deteriorated. Officers confirmed that the information was accurate at the time the draft work programme was prepared. It was clarified that the programme remained fluid to allow issues to be incorporated as they became apparent. Members were advised that the works programme did not address all risks on the network and that risks were managed through network inspection regimes. Condition surveys assisted in determining which schemes progressed, alongside consideration of the number of potholes and local concerns raised. It was noted that many roads were a pressure for zone supervisors and were included in the capital programme. Officers highlighted that some roads requested by the public for resurfacing were already programmed, demonstrating that both asset management priorities and matters of public concern were being addressed. A Member questioned whether the current Highway Surgery mechanism was the most appropriate process, given the important reliance on the expertise of Council officers. The member felt it could be more transparent to acknowledge the limits on capacity and funding, and to clarify that while concerns can be heard, professional judgement will set priorities. The Head of Engineering and Transport reiterated that it is important that the programme is based on risk but there is limited budget available to address issues. There is value in the member surgeries and officers find the process useful. The Director of Environment and Regeneration stated that the surgeries provide an opportunity to gather intelligence from the community via Councillors. The process for developing the Works Programme is complex and local intelligence may feed into the list of projects or risks that need to be monitored going forward and may feature on a future works programme. The surgeries also allow for feedback to be provided to members which can be passed onto constituents. Following scrutiny, the recommendation in the draft Cabinet report was supported to Cabinet.
The Strategic Director of Environment and Regeneration provided an overview of the report contained in the agenda pack. The report stated that the money available for further allocation would be distributed across four areas: 1. Plant and Equipment: To support environmental works. 2. Street Furniture and Bus Shelters: To replace or repair high-risk or structurally compromised assets. 3. Highway Repairs and Traffic Schemes: To address risks and improve local infrastructure. The NIP would supplement stagnant Welsh Government funding and help mitigate associated service risks. 4. Community Investment Fund: Members were informed that, following further consideration, an addendum report would be presented to Cabinet on 18 March to confirm that the Community Investment Fund would operate solely as supplementary funding to Pride in Place Impact Fund (PiPIF) applications. The fund would be administered through the existing project development and funding processes within the Education, Leisure and Lifelong Learning Directorate, with additional support provided where a PiPIF project exceeded the £25k allocation. The addendum would also set an end‑of‑August deadline for applications. After the deadline, an assessment would be undertaken to determine the total level of top‑up funding required, with a further report to be brought to Cabinet on the proposed use of any remaining funds. A seminar will be held in April to provide members with further information on how the funding arrangement will operate. Members raised the following points: • Concerns were held about ensuring new bus shelters meet Transport for Wales’s (TfW) forthcoming standards. • Members welcomed the £3m allocation for roads but sought clarification on the methodology for its use, including whether it would address existing backlogs, focus on high‑impact but lower‑risk areas, or prioritise main thoroughfares. • Members noted that the funding permitted only one scheme per ward member and highlighted that some wards did not qualify for any additional funding. It was suggested that members with eligible schemes should be able to submit more than one bid. The Head of Engineering and Transport explained that the authority had already undertaken a significant programme on existing bus shelter infrastructure through the previous Clean Up, Green Up capital funding. This included structural surveys identifying shelters requiring replacement. The forthcoming TfW standards relate not only to shelter design but also to their placement, and some existing locations would not be permissible under current regulations. The Council will work closely with TfW to align with new standards where possible, while also addressing immediate risks within the current infrastructure. It was noted that no additional funding is available to authorities, and substantial capital investment would be required to fully modernise the bus shelter network to meet TfW standards. The report seeks delegated authority for the Director, in consultation with the Cabinet Member, to finalise the list of schemes and the NIP. This will be based on risk, and further work will be undertaken in the coming weeks to determine funding allocation should the report be approved. The Director Members’ earlier comments regarding the uneven number of potential schemes identified across wards. It was confirmed that only one scheme per ward is eligible for top‑up funding. Where a ward proposes a single scheme exceeding its £25k Pride in Place Impact Fund allocation, a top‑up request to the Neighbourhood Improvement Programme would be appropriate. However, due to limited resources, Members cannot submit multiple schemes each exceeding £25k. In relation to place plans, the Director advised that Welsh Government guidance allows for a maximum of six plans. Three plans; Neath, Port Talbot and Pontardawe are currently the most advanced following engagement with councillors, stakeholders and the business community, with further engagement planned. Engagement on the remaining three plans; Ystalyfera, Glynneath and Briton Ferry is scheduled for April. The Director further reported that, although Welsh Government will not fund a seventh place plan, the Council may produce one where internal funding is identified. Funding has now been secured for a seventh plan for Skewen, enabling access to Transforming Towns and placemaking grants. As clarification from Welsh Government was received only recently, preparatory work on this additional plan is at an earlier stage than the others. The local Ward member welcomed the information. Following scrutiny, the recommendation in the draft Cabinet report was supported to Cabinet.
There were no items from the Scrutiny Committee Forward Work Programme for Consideration.
There were no performance monitoring items for consideration.
There were no urgent items.
Decision as recorded
Resolved: to exclude the public for the following item(s) pursuant to Section 100A (4) and (5) of the Local Government Act 1972 and the relevant exempt paragraphs of Part 4 of Schedule 12A to the above Act.
Resolved: to exclude the public for the following item(s) pursuant to Section 100A (4) and (5) of the Local Government Act 1972 and the relevant exempt paragraphs of Part 4 of Schedule 12A to the above Act.
Members considered the private item from the Scrutiny Committee Forward Work Programme.
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.