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 no declarations of interest received.
The minutes of the previous meeting held on 12th June 2026 were approved as an accurate record of proceedings.
There were no items from the Cabinet Forward Work Programme for consideration.
Members considered items from the Scrutiny committee Forward Work Programme.
Officers advised members that the bulky waste increased charges were noted as a budget pressure for 2026/27 and Cabinet had requested that additional options be considered. Officers outlined the four options in the report that were available for consideration, noting that the Committee's preferred option would be reported to Cabinet. Officers explained that the current flat rate charge had previously been introduced to address issues around item counts and had reduced complaints but advised that option two for staged charges would require additional digital and administrative processes. Members queried the rationale under option two for the £24 charge for one to three items rather than retaining the current charge and asked what was the average amount of items that were arranged for collection. Officers responded that approximately 11% of collections were for one item, around 8-9% were for two and three items, around 12% and 13% were for four and five items, and around 18% were for six and seven items. Customers were more likely to select the higher item option. A discussion was held in relation to implementation timescales, associated administrative requirements, and the challenges presented by system changes. Officers advised that implementing a staged charging structure would require complex digital system changes, particularly where customers amended bookings, and could be difficult to deliver by October due to existing Digital Services commitments. Members commented that the authority should take a more business-like approach, in relation to amended bookings. The Chair requested that further detail on the digital requirements and associated costs be circulated to Members outside of the meeting. Members questioned why option two had been included in the report if it presented so many challenges. Officers advised that option two had been included following Cabinet's request for a full options appraisal and benchmarking exercise. While some authorities operated staged charging structures, previous local experience had identified increased administration and complaints. Officers further advised that although a staged charging system could be implemented, it would require additional time and resources, and consideration would need to be given to the impact on the service budget. Members asked whether option two could realistically be implemented from October, if this option was approved by Cabinet. Officers responded that implementation by October would be challenging. A flat rate increase would be more straightforward. Further detail would be needed before confirming whether a staged structure could be delivered by that date. Several Members expressed support for option two, particularly the reduced charge for smaller collections, but some members considered the proposed £48 charge for four to seven items to be too high. An alternative suggestion was put forward for the higher charge to be reduced to £39.50. Members highlighted affordability concerns and the potential benefits for residents without access to transport. Members discussed the operation of staged charging schemes in neighbouring authorities and asked if these systems had been looked into. Officers responded that any digital system could be implemented, however consideration needed to be given to addressing the budget pressure. It was noted that the proposed increased flat rate of £39.50 for up to seven items would remain substantially cheaper than Bridgend once collections exceeded three items. Officers advised members that the previous staged charging system presented complaints from residents and confusion over what constituted an item. Officers advised that the principal challenge would arise where the number of items presented for collection differed from the number booked, potentially resulting in complaints. Members considered that these issues could be mitigated through clearer communications, including item examples and improved online booking prompts. Members commented that the charge reduction to £24 for one to three items would be welcomed by residents and may reduce the risk of unsightly waste accumulation outside properties. A Member suggested that it may be a consideration to look at decreasing the proposed increase under option one from £39.50 to £35. Members commented that any higher increase in charges could result in increased fly tipping. Members enquired whether the estimated £63k raised from option two included any additional administrative costs. Officers confirmed that the estimated budget benefit associated with option two did not include any additional implementation costs. Any such costs were expected to be minimal and absorbed internally and would therefore reduce the first-year figure only. Members identified two alternative proposals under option four: a two-tier charging structure of £24 for one to three items and £39.50 for four to seven items, or reducing the proposed flat rate increase to £35. Members also agreed that any recommendation should provide for implementation from 1 October 2026, or as soon as practicable thereafter. Following discussion, an indicative vote was held. The majority of Members supported option two, although some Members indicated a preference for reducing the higher charge from £48 to £39.50. The proposal to reduce the charge to £35 was subsequently withdrawn. Following scrutiny, the Committee held an indicative vote, option two was the preferred option of the majority of the committee. The Democratic Services Officer advised that Cabinet would be informed of both the Committee's preferred option and the alternative proposals discussed.
Officers provided a brief introduction to the report contained within the agenda pack. The specific locations proposed for on-street home charging would be shared with Members outside of the meeting. Planning consent would be required for three sites, as the proposed charger locations would be subject to planning restrictions. The remaining sites could proceed without the need for planning consent. Members enquired whether feedback on the proposal had been positive. Officers clarified that the trial had not yet been implemented and that, to date, only ten sites had been identified. The officer advised that there had been significant public interest and that the Authority had received considerable correspondence enquiring about the approach Neath Port Talbot would take. The officer added that, once the gullies had been installed, feedback from the trial could be reported back to Scrutiny should Members wish. Members requested a site visit once the installations were in place. An officer confirmed that this could be arranged and advised that they would liaise with the relevant officer regarding the necessary arrangements. Members asked how a fixed gully system would address the challenges experienced in terraced streets, where residents could not always park directly outside their homes. Officers advised that this was one of the practical difficulties and one of the key reasons for undertaking the trial. It was noted that feedback from another local authority indicated that this had not proved problematic; however, it was acknowledged that parking pressures already generated a significant number of complaints, and the trial would help determine how the system operated in practice. Members queried whether the electricity would be supplied by the Council or by the resident’s own electricity supply. The officer responded that the charging cable would connect directly to the resident’s domestic electricity supply. Members asked whether reserved parking arrangements, similar to those used for Individual Disabled Parking Places, had been considered for electric vehicle users. Officers advised that this could form part of future discussions if raised through feedback from the trial. However, it was noted that parking was already at a premium in many streets and that designating parking for an individual vehicle could lead to local concerns. It was not clear that the Authority currently had any arrangement in place that would permit designated on-street parking for individuals in this context, equivalent to the arrangements used for Individual Disabled Parking Places. Officers advised that this would need to be confirmed with the Engineering and Highways Team. Members asked whether there would be any time limit for vehicles using the charging arrangements, similar to those applied in some supermarket car parks, and how this would be monitored. Officers clarified that no parking restrictions would be attached to the trial and that there would be no guarantee that a space outside a property would be reserved for a particular resident. It was further clarified that the trial related solely to the installation of gullies within the highway to allow a charging cable to cross the pavement safely. The charging infrastructure would serve the individual property selected for the trial and would not be available for wider public use within the street. Following scrutiny, the report was noted.
There were no performance monitoring items for consideration.
The Forward Work Programme was noted.
There were no urgent items.
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.