Loading
The decisions as the council's minutes record them. A plain-language summary follows once it has been written.
RESOLVED: • To scrutinise the Cabinet Member for Development and Prosperity in respect of matters considered and agreed by Cabinet, and any key decisions taken, during the period 11th May 2023 – 4th March 2024; and, • To identify any areas arising from those matters determined within this period which Committee wish to further scrutinise, as part of revisions to the committees published work programme, in relation to Development & Prosperity.
RESOLVED: • To note the content of the report: • To consider whether they wish to scrutinise, in greater depth, any further matters.
RESOLVED: • To scrutinise the progress made in safeguarding, preserving and making accessible heritage attractions, collections, artefacts, War Memorials and monuments as a direct result of the investment programme throughout the County Borough as noted in this discussion paper.
RESOLVED: • To scrutinise the information contained in the report; and, • To consider whether they wish to scrutinise specific areas of Public Rights of Way work.
In accordance with the code of conduct, there were no declarations of interest pertaining to the agenda.
The Members’ Researcher and Scrutiny Officer referenced the research facilities that were available to Members within the Council Business Unit. Members were advised that if they have any specific queries to email them to Scrutiny@rctcbc.gov.uk.
The minutes of the 18th January and 1st February 2024 were APPROVED as an accurate record.
The Members’ Researcher & Scrutiny Officer referenced the consultation links, which were available through the ‘RCT Scrutiny’ website. Members were reminded that information is provided in respect of relevant consultations for consideration by the Committee, which are circulated on a monthly basis and updated on a fortnightly basis.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED: • To scrutinise the Cabinet Member for Development and Prosperity in respect of matters considered and agreed by Cabinet, and any key decisions taken, during the period 11th May 2023 – 4th March 2024; and, • To identify any areas arising from those matters determined within this period which Committee wish to further scrutinise, as part of revisions to the committees published work programme, in relation to Development & Prosperity.
The Service Director, Democratic Services and Communications presented the report, and advised that Members would be familiar with the recently introduced arrangement which provided the opportunity to be able to scrutinise and challenge the appropriate Cabinet member. He continued that the process, included specific areas and decisions that the Cabinet member had taken over a six-month period for Members to focus their questions around. The Cabinet Member for Development and Prosperity began by advising Members that of the list on the report of the decisions that were taken, quite a few of them did not come under his current portfolio, but the previous portfolio of corporate estates. He advised that he may not know the up-to-date position if Members asked questions on those, but he would try to help with any information. In relation to the Aberdare Town Centre Strategy, a Member suggested that the area of Robertstown retail park, which included a McDonald’s, Tesco’s, and a new Craft Brewery, should have an improved public footpath, and safe crossing into the town which would bring footfall to the town. The Cabinet Member for Development and Prosperity felt this was a great idea. He continued that a key aspect of the strategy was to explore a range of partnerships, both public and private, within the area, and there was a strong relationship already with the bid and, hopefully this was an idea that could be put forward either directly, or through himself as the Cabinet Member. A Member, referring to the Cardiff Capital Region (CCR) Housing Viability Fund asked for clarification with regard to the Cwm Coking Works, and a recent report which highlighted areas in RCT that were targeted for new housing, but noticed that the Cwm area, wasn’t in that. The Cabinet Member for Development and Prosperity noted that they were working to draw down grant monies that had been put forward to make unviable areas, viable for housing in the future. An £8m grant, had been agreed with CCR, for a developer to build 600 properties. Biodiversity was being looked at, within that site, and retaining green areas, within the housing as well, which would benefit local people, from that site as well. The Cabinet Member for Development and Prosperity advised that it was not a done deal yet, but they were in consultation at the moment, to progress it. A Member asked if the Cabinet Member for Development and Prosperity could explain how the Council was working with external organisations, agencies, partnerships and volunteer groups to ensure success of the Aberdare Town Centre Strategy. The Member also asked, with regard to Event Tourism being a major attraction in the top of the Valley’s, how the Council could ensure that there was sufficient accommodation to offer visitors to the area. The Cabinet Member for Development and Prosperity acknowledged that a key aspect of the strategy, was working with other partners, and there was always scope to work with others to promote the town’s offer, including events ongoing in the area, whilst looking at improving links with local attractions such as Zip World, Bike Park Wales, etc. There were new developments in the Afon and Merthyr Valley’s, so it was about linking in with those for both employment for people in the area, and footfall between sites, so linking up the tops of the Valley’s, so that there was a bigger offering of tourism and a wider variety. The Council were also looking at viable buildings, which could serve as tourism offerings. The Cabinet Member for Development and Prosperity continued that Rock Grounds building would become a luxury hotel provision with health spa. So, although there was a lack of accommodation to offer visitors to the area, it was something the Council were currently working on with the private sector, and hopefully coming forward in the next year or so, we should improve the situation quite dramatically. A Member asked, with regards to the renovation and redevelopment of the Rock Ground buildings in Aberdare, how this aligned with the Well-being of Future Generations Act and the Council’s Corporate plan. The Member also asked, with regards to the Cardiff Capital Region (CCR) Housing Viability Fund, how this impacted on the health and wellbeing of children, residents, older people and service users and how it contributed to wellbeing goals in the Wellbeing of Future Generations Act. The Cabinet Member for Development and Prosperity explained, with regards to the Rock Grounds, that this fully aligned to both the local and national objectives, and when designing the most recent corporate plan, it was decided that all the priorities would be aligned with the Well-being of Future Generations act. Supporting investment in Town Centres made a meaningful difference to the buildings in the area, with new businesses and growth, and helped to expand on current traders’ businesses by complimenting them. It also tackles rundown buildings in the area, because of the tourism offer being improved. The Cabinet Member for Development and Prosperity explained that the draft strategy had been evaluated against the 7 wellbeing goals. Vitally the Council had sought to engage the younger generation especially, in developing the main strategy for Aberdare, and it had also put the health and the town centre at the heart of all decisions taken, by the public sector, by businesses, and by communities, in collaboration with the Council. So initially, he felt they were aligned both locally and nationally with the Wellbeing Goals. A Member asked, with regard to the Aberdare Town Centre Strategy, what differences does the Council hope to make by these proposals, and who will benefit from them. The Cabinet Member for Development and Prosperity acknowledged that like all Town Centre’s, Aberdare faced unpresented challenges through the pandemic, and the current cost of living crisis. The Council had invested heavily across leisure, education, industrial units, development of several prominent town centre buildings, and the Country Park. The Corporate plan committed to investing in Town Centres across RCT. Similar strategies and plans had been developed for Mountain Ash, Porth, Tonypandy and Pontypridd, with a wayfinding project produced for Pontypridd which could be to rolled-out in the future, and which would add to what was happening at the moment in Aberdare, e.g., improved signage, improving access, digital maps to tourists, etc. The Cabinet Member for Development and Prosperity noted the importance of the pre-consultation, to gain local people’s input, which was used within the strategy. A Member noted that whilst the Aberdare Town Centre strategy, was trying to create further footfall, there were barriers, in terms of organising events, and provided Members with an example. The Cabinet Member for Development and Prosperity advised that groups could contact the Events Team, who would organise the link with highways, for example, and if this had not happened, he would look into this with the Events Team. A Member asked if there was still Business and Economy Officers, working in town centres, and wider industry. The Cabinet Member for Development and Prosperity confirmed they did, and they were regularly in Town Centres, talking to businesses, about what grants were on offer, to help them to improve their properties. The Member also asked if, due to current budget cuts and austerity measures, any of the current or short-term future schemes, were at risk. The Cabinet Member for Development and Prosperity noted that there was actually more money in the regeneration area at the moment, so it was not an area that had really been affected. The Chair thanked the Cabinet Member for Development Prosperity for his time and input and noted a future item for consideration by the Committee in relation to how the Events Team supports the Town Centre Economy and wider place, within the council. Following discussion, it was RESOLVED: • To scrutinise the Cabinet Member for Development and Prosperity in respect of matters considered and agreed by Cabinet, and any key decisions taken, during the period 11th May 2023 – 4th March 2024; and, • To identify any areas arising from those matters determined within this period which Committee wish to further scrutinise, as part of revisions to the committees published work programme, in relation to Development & Prosperity.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED: • To note the content of the report: • To consider whether they wish to scrutinise, in greater depth, any further matters.
The Temporary Head of Streetcare Services advised that the purpose of the report was to update Members on the recycling performance for the last year, to date. In addition, he would briefly touch upon the implementation of the 3 weekly refuse collections, from July 2023, plus an outline of future potential waste changes. The Temporary Head of Streetcare Services then took Members through the report, providing background context at Section 4, an update on the current position at Section 5, the revised Waste Management Strategy – 3 Weekly Refuse Collections, at Section 6, future Waste Transformation Projects and Initiatives, at Section 7, before providing Members with some headline figures. A Member asked the Temporary Head of Streetcare Services how he saw Members role in assisting to build up the tonnage. The Temporary Head of Streetcare Services explained that the biggest way to help was to raise the importance of food recycling in particular, and other forms of recycling as well. The most obvious way of doing that was by Members recycling well themselves, so that when residents asked a question about how it can be improved, they could highlight the importance of it. The Temporary Head of Streetcare Services also advised that it was not always helpful to view recycling performance solely through the prism of WG recycling targets, noting that RCT collected more dry mixed recycling than any other Authority in Wales, yet is not shown as the top statistical performer due to how the recycling percentages were calculated, (which tend to benefit those largely rural areas of Wales, as opposed to more urban areas). So, the message to Members was anything they could do to raise the importance of awareness of recycling, would be recommended. A Member asked how the Council compared efficiently in the sense of how it collected waste, compared to on the kerbside recycling and sorting. The Temporary Head of Streetcare Services explained it was difficult to compare, because looking at the top performers in Wales, there was a mixture of some doing the kerbside sorts, and some doing, what RCT did. The Temporary Head of Streetcare Services continued that going down the kerbside approach, would potentially cause issues with cluttering, in terms of the individual recycling bags, and would make collections slower, so wouldn’t be a model that would suit RCT. In terms of specific targets, RCT had quite an efficient operation, which was getting more efficient, and which he hoped would hit the Welsh Government (WG) 70% target by the end of the year. A Member asked if the Council had seen an increase or decrease in fly-tipping incidents since the start of the 3 weekly collections. The Member also asked how increasing the bulky waste collection charge would affect residents. The Temporary Head of Streetcare Services acknowledged that in terms of the in fly-tipping incidents, they had noticed no discernible increase or decrease in fly-tipping since the start of 3 weekly collections, although he noted that they were incredibly proactive with fly-tipping enforcement, with more successful prosecutions than any other Council in Wales. In terms of the bulky waste collection, the Temporary Head of Streetcare Services explained that by putting up the collection charge, the Council was still one of the lowest in Wales, and hoped people would appreciate that the Council was only increasing the cost, in line with the genuine cost of the service. A Member explained that when talking to residents, often they were unaware certain things could be recycled e.g., soft plastics, electricals, etc., and asked if more could be done to educate residents, working in conjunction with shops and businesses. The Temporary Head of Streetcare Services agreed with the Member and felt that representatives from shops and businesses should visit the Education Centre at Bryn Pica to further their understanding of recycling matters. In terms of plastics films, there were plans, before Covid to look at trying to recycle them, which was picking up again now. If it proved possible to recycle things like that, that would be an absolute game changer. On the wider point of raising awareness, the Temporary Head of Streetcare Services highlighted reference in his report to the dedicated team of Waste Awareness Officers, who were currently focussing on the food waste issue, but agreed that there was more they could do to get out and promote the message. A Member, referring to commercial waste, asked why schools had to separate their waste. The Member also asked for clarification around a local community group, who ran events, and how they would dispose of their waste. The Temporary Head of Streetcare Services explained in relation to the Members first question, that it was WG policy, which argued that by separating out collections, it makes it easier and makes recycling more efficient. The Temporary Head of Streetcare Services acknowledged that not only schools, but workplaces and businesses, were going to find it a challenge to struggle with separating everything out. In terms of the local community group, if they were an RCT customer, all they had to do was separate them going forward into a red bag and blue bag, which would identify which bag the waste would go in. A Member recalled that when they visited the plant, there was an issue with glass bottles damaging equipment, and asked if there was any thoughts about separating the glass side of things, from recycling. The Temporary Head of Streetcare Services explained that this was one of the future initiatives to be looked at, with Council quite keen to have a separate glass collection, for that very reason, due to the issue of the small glass fines, which could damage the belt, etc. A Member asked if there were anymore plans to expand what residents could recycle locally, rather than travelling to the Community Recycling Centres. The Temporary Head of Streetcare Services, acknowledging the new recycling receptacles for small waste electronic and electrical equipment at leisure centres, also explained about the re-use and repair facilities, with 3 in the County Borough at the moment, with plans for more, particularly in the Town Centres, which would give residents another avenue to try. In terms of the basic offer, this was very comprehensive. A Member sought clarification around what happened to broken bins e.g., recycled or general waste. The Temporary Head of Streetcare Services confirmed that they would be hard plastics, but also noted that if a bin was broken during a collection, a calling card should be put through a resident’s door, to advise that the Council was aware of that, and would issue the resident with a new bin. A Member, explaining about another area where residents were encouraged to take garden waste to the recycling centre, where it was made into compost and in return, residents could take that free of charge, and asked if this was financially viable in RCT. The Temporary Head of Streetcare Services explained that this sounded positive although was not aware of that at the moment, but via the Council’s contractor, something that could be looked at, and said he would take that away and investigate. The Chair thanked the Temporary Head of Streetcare Services for his time and input and noted future items for consideration by the Committee in relation to light plastics, glass recycling and composting. Following discussion, it was RESOLVED: • To note the content of the report: • To consider whether they wish to scrutinise, in greater depth, any further matters.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED: • To scrutinise the progress made in safeguarding, preserving and making accessible heritage attractions, collections, artefacts, War Memorials and monuments as a direct result of the investment programme throughout the County Borough as noted in this discussion paper.
The Heritage Operations Manager advised that the purpose of the report was an opportunity for Members to scrutinise the Heritage Services in RCT including, an overview of the progress on the War Memorials project, Blue Plaques, digitisation at The Rhondda Heritage Park Museum, current community regeneration projects and the creation of a new heritage strategy. The Heritage Operations Manager then took Members through the report, highlighting a number of key points at Section 3. The Chair thanked the Heritage Operations Manager for his presentation and asked what the size of his Team was in RCT. The Heritage Operations Manager provided a list of staff members and their hours, and acknowledged it was a small team, but staff members worked very hard. A Member sought clarification around a map of all the blue plaques in RCT. The Member acknowledged that the Heritage and Outreach Services supported groups with funding bids, and asked what funding streams or grants were available to communities, if they had a project they wanted to be involved with. The Heritage Operations Manager explained that there was no dedicated Heritage Website, so no access to a map with Blue Plaques currently, but there would be, and would tie-in with the Altered Images website, which would go live in January 2025, although he noted there was a website for Rhondda Heritage Park, but this was primarily, an attractions-based website, that was more income generation, than interest. In terms of the funding streams and grants available to communities, the Heritage Operations Manager explained it was best to speak to the Heritage and Outreach Services team themselves. A Member, who walked regularly through Trealaw Cemetery, asked if more information could be provided in relation to the war graves, as he felt it would be interesting for people, and for those graves to get the recognition they deserved. The Heritage Operations Manager advised that this was something that came under the Heritage Memorials & Historic Monuments Officer’s project, with Memorialization, and should be possible to put that information on that website. He agreed that it wasn’t just a numbers and names game, but it was about the story of that person, which was much more interesting. A Member asked whether the Council was governed with Heritage Services and what was trying to be done, by the wider Welsh Government and UK Government agendas, in terms of grants made available to the Council, to have to bid, and deliver on. The Heritage Operations Manager stated, yes, and no. The lottery was the main one, which didn’t adhere to that, and the Council had a very good relationship with the lottery. The Heritage Operations Manager continued that he had presented a paper to the European Route of Industrial Heritage (ERIH), about 5 or 6 weeks ago, and they were really embracing what the Council are doing, so there was no agenda as such. The Heritage Operations Manager explained the biggest problem was capacity within his team. The only constraint was what local organisations wanted, as the team could only work with people that wanted to get involved and come forward and create the projects. A Member asked for guidance on how to start a project, with the Heritage Operations Manager confirming that the Member should contact the Heritage and Outreach Services team. The Chair thanked the Heritage Operations Manager for his presentation and acknowledged the great work going on within the team. It was agreed, following discussion, that it would be worth having a deeper dive on the overall strategy for RCT. Following discussion, it was RESOLVED: • To scrutinise the progress made in safeguarding, preserving and making accessible heritage attractions, collections, artefacts, War Memorials and monuments as a direct result of the investment programme throughout the County Borough as noted in this discussion paper.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED: • To scrutinise the information contained in the report; and, • To consider whether they wish to scrutinise specific areas of Public Rights of Way work.
The Head of Planning providing a brief introduction to the report, before handing over to the Countryside & Rights Of Way Officer, who would run through the report in more detail. The Head of Planning noted that this was an annual report, before Members which set out all the work the Countryside & Rights Of Way Officer and the Countryside Team had done, in terms of Rights of Way over the last year. The Countryside & Rights Of Way Officer then took Members through the report, highlighting a number of key points at Sections 3, 4 and 5. A Member asked, with regard to closures associated with Infrastructure schemes, if those paths needed to be reinstated, or an alternative path created, within a particular period of time. The Member also asked, with regard to the footpath pictured within the report, how soon after the completion of the A465 works, would the Council take responsibility for the alternative routes, that have been, constructed by Future Valleys. The Countryside & Rights Of Way Officer advised that in terms of the footpaths affected by the Side Road Order, made by Welsh Government (WG), the alternative routes will be available for use by the public once they are fully constructed and completed and taken over by the Council once certified. There were some connections within the Rights of Way network which would be permanently severed by the Side Road Order. The Countryside & Rights of Way Officer understood that these paths will be stopped up once the new road is constructed. The Countryside & Rights Of Way Officer continued, that in respect of the Cynon Trail Bridge, he had asked Future Valleys Construction for a complete up-to-date construction programme, to be able to understand the timescales involved although he had not received that information to date but would advise Members when he did. A Member asked, in relation to the funding, if there was a risk to long-term funding, with any cutbacks from Welsh or UK Governments and, were there any long-term plans, in terms of the strategy, building for that. The Countryside & Rights Of Way Officer acknowledged that without WG funding, it created a big gap in the ability to make the public Rights of Way network more accessible. Whilst WG funding was great and was a lifeline it couldn’t be spent on maintenance, so it was about ensuring that the money was being spent on improvements, not on maintenance. The Countryside & Rights Of Way Officer felt there was a risk, if the revenue budget was reduced, making it more difficult to maintain the network. Additionally, any loss of external funding, would make the Council more vulnerable to not meeting the objectives of the Council’s Rights of Way Improvement Plan, as well as the future needs of the public. The Member noted that this meant there was a need to have a strong connection with Community Councils and other Groups, for support within the Community and, asked if this was in place. The Countryside & Rights Of Way Officer advised that there were strong links with Community Councils and that the Council operates footpath maintenance agreements with some of them. Although Community Councils were equally struggling to find sources of funding, the Council rely on them to keep an eye on the network in their areas and to report issues. Community Councils are also utilising their own budgets to support their footpath maintenance activities. Other groups included the British Horse Society, who had a small pot of money where they could apply to make access improvements on bridleways. The Ramblers had a Path Wellbeing Project, also funded by WG, which came to an end last year, but they continued to lobby, campaign and try to get political support for more funding to deliver improvements in local communities, so there were small projects going on, with potential sources of funding, but there was not one big source of funding which could fill the gap. The Head of Planning added, that additionally, with a network, the extent of 750km, they could never maintain to the level they would like to, so it was about prioritising over the year where the public Rights of Way, were most used, where people were going to benefit most from those works. So, it was about trying to prioritise where that money was best spent, as clearly, they would like to be able to do the whole network, but that was just not feasible, in terms of manpower and funding, so it was a role of prioritising. A Member asked, that if funding were available, would the introduction of drones to fly over areas, for checking on, as opposed to physically having to walk them, was something that could be considered, particularly in relation to private land where landowners may have blocked access. The Countryside & Rights Of Way Officer acknowledged the potential, but explained the difficulty was being able to assess the ground conditions and access furniture sufficiently, although it could potentially give an idea if there was obstructions along a route. Consideration would also need to be given to legal/privacy issues with flying a drone over private land. The Countryside & Rights Of Way Officer advised that they had obtained some rough quotes for looking at drone footage, but it was quite expensive to do, so there were benefits, but it had its limitations. The Chair felt this could be looked into further, in terms of efficiencies and how this could be mapped and tracked properly with cross referencing with ordnance survey maps, etc. The Chair felt further consideration should be given to further scrutiny of the Rights of Way funding and the strategic plan, in case funds were reduced, but acknowledged, that in terms of community councils or community groups, that connection was already there. Following discussion, it was RESOLVED: • To scrutinise the information contained in the report; and, • To consider whether they wish to scrutinise specific areas of Public Rights of Way work.
None.
The Chair acknowledged that there had been some good conversations this evening and Members had picked up some excellent points, so thanked Members for their input. In addition, the Chair thanked Officers for attending and for their reports.
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.