Loading
The decisions as the council's minutes record them. A plain-language summary follows once it has been written.
RESOLVED: i. To undertake pre-scrutiny on the Council’s Community Infrastructure Levy Annual Monitoring Report attached at Appendix 1 to this report, thus providing Scrutiny with an opportunity to contribute to this matter; and ii. To provide comment on the report which will form part of the reported feedback to Cabinet, at its meeting to be held on the 24th November 2025.
RESOLVED: i. To acknowledge and scrutinise the contents of this report; and, ii. To consider the findings as set out in Appendix 1.
The Chair welcomed Members and Officers to the meeting.
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 the Council’s scrutiny team who would accommodate their requests.
In accordance with the Council’s Code of Conduct, the following personal Declarations of Interest were received in respect of Items 4 and 5 on the agenda: Item 4 · Cllr W Lewis Personal Interests “I am currently working on the Llanilid Site which is mentioned in the report and its not prejudicial as I have no input into the CIL contribution”. · Cllr M Powell “I sit on Pontypridd Town and Community Council” · Cllr P Binning “I sit on Pontyclun Town and Community Council and my ward is in the middle of a big CIL development and in receipt of CIL at the moment” · Cllr J Barton “Item 4 I sit on Llantrisant Town and Community Council” Item 5 · Cllr P Binning “I sit on Pontyclun Town and Community Council” · Cllr J Barton “I am Chair of the Litter Free Beddau and Tenant” · Cllr Gareth Jones “I may want to discuss issues where town centre roads are closed of and I’m a Member of a choir where we potentially may apply for road closures I thought it best to declare that interest” · Cllr M Powell “I sit on Pontypridd Town and Community Council”
The minutes of the virtual meeting held on the 7th October 2025 were approved as an accurate record
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED: i. To undertake pre-scrutiny on the Council’s Community Infrastructure Levy Annual Monitoring Report attached at Appendix 1 to this report, thus providing Scrutiny with an opportunity to contribute to this matter; and ii. To provide comment on the report which will form part of the reported feedback to Cabinet, at its meeting to be held on the 24th November 2025.
The Members Researcher and Scrutiny Officer introduced the report to Members and emphasised that this item is being brought before the Committee as part of this Council’s ongoing commitment to improve the function of Scrutiny as a critical friend. The purpose of this report is to provide Members of this Committee with the opportunity to pre scrutinise the Council’s Community Infrastructure Levy Annual Monitoring Report. Members were reminded that the purpose of pre-scrutiny activity is to influence the decisions before they are made. It was emphasised that Members comments on tonight’s report will form a part of the reported feedback to Cabinet, at its meeting to be held on the 24th November 2025. The Head of Planning explained that the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 (as amended) require the Council to produce an annual report detailing CIL income and expenditure. The Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 (as amended) also require the Council to publish an Infrastructure List (known as the Regulation 123 List). The List should set out the infrastructure, which the Council considers it is likely to apply CIL revenue to. Following the overview, the Chair thanked Officers for the report and raised a query in respect of the money going to Town and Community Councils. The Chair questioned if the CIL money is there to offset the money coming from a central pot and not relevant to the money going towards a Town and Community Council. The Head of Planning advised Members that 80%of the monies that comes in for a development come in to RCT and the Council then gives the 15% CIL on to the relevant Town and Community Council. The Officer advised that within the Northern part of the strategy area there is a £0 CIL applied and therefore CIL received is used to support infrastructure within the Northern part of the County Borough as well. The only way areas in the North would be a CIL development is on the back of a retail development but the vast majority of monies that come in are on the back of a residential development and the residential development charge is a £0 Northern Strategy charging area. A Member referred to Appendix A and Appendix B and queried how often the Regulation 123 List is updated and pointed to old information on the List that has been on there a while. The Member also questioned how items can be added to the list and highlighted access to passenger rail services in areas of high-density residential growth has been raised for some time but has been omitted from the list while other items have been included. The Head of Planning explained that the contents of the Regulation 123 List have been subject to a significant degree of consultation and items on the list are meant to be the high priority areas to mitigate the impact of developments taking place across the County Borough. These are the ones flagged up by Highways and Education Services. There is no limitation on the number of schemes you should or shouldn’t have on the list but it was emphasised that there has to be a degree of priority. The Member questioned how passenger rail services in a high density population area could not be a priority for the Council. The Director of Regeneration and Housing clarified the purposes of the Regulation 123 List and explained that its not the Council’s Highways Investment Plan and that it is Highway Services telling the Head of Planning what they will consider using CIL towards over the next year. The Director emphasised that whether passenger rail services should be in the South of the County Borough is not a matter for the Regulation 123 List and that this is a consideration for the Director of Highways, Cabinet, the Cabinet portfolio holder and the Council’s Highways Priorities which also needs to fit in with the Regional Transport Plan. It was emphasised that we need to separate what is a priority for a relative immediate spend through the CIL to the transport priorities in terms of investment for the Council. Discussions ensued and a Member noted the amount of CIL funds that have gone to some Town and Community Councils in the County Borough and sought information on the amount of funding they have received over the last five years. The Member pointed to areas in the County Borough that do not or will not ever have large development projects undertaken in them. Members therefore questioned the equity and balance of the system being used when there are areas in the County Borough that will never benefit from CIL expenditure. Members raised concerns regarding where CIL is charged compared to where it is spent and recommended that this is reviewed as part of the new LDP. The Head of Planning advised Members that CIL can be a difficult balance and explained to Members that if a CIL charge were to be applied in the Northern Strategy area it could potentially stop the developer carrying forward the development in the first place. The Head of Planning explained that it was for this reason that when the CIL Regime was adopted in 2014 there was a distinction between the North and the South of the County Borough and therefore this led to three different charging Zones. The Head of Planning explained that the further South you go the more profitable it is to build and therefore if a charge were to be applied in the North it would reduce the viability of any development in the Northern areas. The Service Director, Legal Services Corporate, Planning and Frontline and Business Support advised Members that the 15% that goes to Town and Community Councils is not discretionary and is set out in the legislation. The Chair sought reassurance that the Town and Community Councils are using the CIL monies in a proper manner. Members were encouraged to hear that a close working relationship exists between the Community & Town Councils and the Local Authority in terms of potential projects to benefit from CIL expenditure at a local level, Discussions ensued and a Member recommended that a geographical map should be made more easily accessible to the public to show where in the County Borough the CIL is spent and the locations of the CIL zones, helping to ensure transparency. Members recommended that following the 2027 Local elections, an overview presentation should also be given to newly elected Members outlining the locations and how much CIL funding has been allocated to each project in the RCT area. Members were encouraged to hear that there is a Map on the RCT Planning Website which sets out each ward in the County Borough and which CIL Zone it sits in. The Head of Planning advised that following the meeting today a link to the Map on the Planning Website would be circulated to Committee Members. Another Member queried how the Council communicates which projects are funded by CIL to ensure transparency to residents. The Head of Planning advised that the Planning Website sets out the Council’s CIL charging strategy and reassured Members that there is a lot of Scrutiny and Regulation around the CIL monies that the Council receives. A number of Members agreed that there is still an imbalance in how the CIL expenditure is allocated between the north and south areas of the County Borough and recommended that the imbalance in the system should be addressed as part of the new LDP. Members sought clarification on whether the communities of RCT could benefit from CIL expenditure as a result of larger developments in neighbouring Local Authorities, such as Cardiff West. Members cited developments in Cardiff West as potentially having an effect on RCT given the scale of the developments and the associated impacts on local traffic and parking within the RCT area. Members felt that the Council should communicate closely with neighbouring authorities to explore the cross-border impacts of development projects and that the Council should make representation to neighbouring Local Authorities. A Member also emphasised an earlier query and sought clarification as to why items are still on the Regulation 123 List that have been completed such as Castell Mynydd. The Head of Planning explained that the draft List was circulated to colleagues in Highways and Highways have not indicated that any items on the list should be removed. In terms of the Cefn yr Hendy being top of the list The Head of Planning explained that this came from colleagues in Education and that when the scheme came in originally for Cefnm Yr Hendy it was going to include a school and that subsequently didn’t materialise but its on the List as its picking up the catchment of the children that was meant for the School Site. In respect of Groes-faen the Member also emphasised that residents can feel cut off from RCT as they are on the edge of Cardiff and raised concerns about the footpath and transport in terms of getting anywhere within RCT and queried how residents could get a walking route / cycling path into Talbot Green. The Head of Planning advised that this would sit with Highways to see where this sits in their assessment of priorities across the County Borough. Discussions ensued and a Member wished to correct on the List that it is the Hirwaun and Penderyn Town and Community Council and emphasised that as part of the LDP the future of the village will change and expressed his hope that the rail extension up to Hirwaun and Rhigos will not be taken off the List. A number of Members agreed with points raised earlier that there is an imbalance in the CIL system and that some wards in the County Borough will never benefit from CIL expenditure. A Member queried if CIL Zones in the Southern part of the County Borough are providing funds for areas in the County Borough where there is no CIL expenditure. The Director of Regeneration and Housing explained that in terms of fairness CIL can be spent anywhere in RCT and emphasised that it is a strategic pot to deal with strategic infrastructure issues. The Director advised that prior to 2014 the only thing the Authority could get from a developer was for them to mitigate the impact on the local Highway Network. All new developments cause pressure on infrastructure throughout RCT. The idea of the CIL is that it allows the Authority to collect money from all eligible developments and then spend it against strategic infrastructure projects that help alleviate and mitigate against the pressures caused by growth in the LDP. The Director emphasised that the Regulation 123 List shows projects in there both in the North and South of the County Borough. The Director gave the example of projects in the North that may include shallow mines and emphasised that these can be a significant cost to the developer that may not be encountered by a development in the South of the County Borough and that house prices in the North are not as strong as they are in the South of the County Borough which results in a viability issue for developers. However, the Director acknowledged that house prices have gone up since CIL was brought in and that this will be reviewed as part of the new LDP to make sure that the Authority is still charging appropriate amounts right across RCT. In terms of public awareness and transparency as to how the Authority spends CIL, the Director advised ,Members that where CIL is spent has to be approved by Cabinet, which is done in a public arena and also advised that all CIL spent in a financial year will then get reported through Scrutiny and Cabinet as part of the Annual Monitoring Report. In respect of the growth in North West Cardiff, the Director advised Members that the impacts of that should be mitigated in terms of the impact on RCT and emphasised that at the time significant representations were made to Cardiff Council and Welsh Government that there should be a section 106 contributions into Cardiff for Highway improvements in RCT, however, these representations were denied. Discussions continued and a Member requested to see a list of where CIL is being spent so that Members in wards where CIL expenditure will never be charged can see that they are still benefitting from CIL monies. The Director of Regeneration and Housing explained that the list is in this year’s Annual Monitoring Report and pointed out that in this year’s report the amount of CIL the Authority spent in this financial year was £0 so that its not contributed to a project this year. It was emphasised that previous reports will show where CIL has been spent. The Member questioned if the Authority spends any CIL money in Zone 1 which doesn’t charge CIL and if so how would residents know that they are benefitting from CIL expenditure. The Director explained that the CIL Annual Monitoring Reports over the last ten years will show where CIL is being spent. Discussions ensued and a Member queried that if the Regulation 123 List isn’t anticipatory of the LDP eventually being put into practice, how can we get the Regulation 123 List to be a priority for CIL money across the whole of the County Borough. The Director of Regeneration and Housing advised that the current Regulation 123 List deals with growth associated with the current LDP and the whole CIL regime will be reviewed with the new LDP and that if there are sites in there or infrastructure issues that are flagged as part of the new LDP that the Council deems they need CIL money to support the delivery of that infrastructure then they can be added to the Regulation 123 List. Another Member questioned that if the House Builder fulfils the Council’s affordable housing policy in the LDP at 20% that the builder could apply for mitigation to reduce the amount of CIL they pay. The Head of Planning explained that the requirements in the LDP very clearly set out the requirements in terms of affordable housing and that if schemes come forward that didn’t deliver that affordable housing as part of their proposals then they would need to demonstrate why that isn’t the case. However the developer can apply for CIL relief on the element of the development which is social housing. The Head of Planning reassured Members that the Authority does not seek to engineer or lesser the degree of affordable housing to provide more CIL. Another Member questioned if the 15% to Town and Community Councils was negotiable and if this could be reviewed as part of the new LDP. The Head of Planning advised that the 15% is non negotiable as its outside the control of RCT and is set out in legislation. Following discussion, Members RESOLVED: i. To undertake pre-scrutiny on the Council’s Community Infrastructure Levy Annual Monitoring Report attached at Appendix 1 to this report, thus providing Scrutiny with an opportunity to contribute to this matter; and ii. To provide comment on the report which will form part of the reported feedback to Cabinet, at its meeting to be held on the 24th November 2025.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED: i. To acknowledge and scrutinise the contents of this report; and, ii. To consider the findings as set out in Appendix 1.
The Project Team Leader introduced the report to Members outlining that the purpose of the report is to provide Members with an overview of the events delivered across RCT Town Centres over the past year and to evaluate their benefits to Town Centres in RCT. Following the overview, the Chair thanked the Officer for the comprehensive report and praised the work of the Council in organising VJ day events this year in Tonypandy Town Centre and emphasised his thanks to the Royal British Legion for working in partnership with the Council and delivering such a successful event. The Chair emphasised that we do have to support initiatives being run by local charity organisations. Another Member agreed with this and emphasised that when groups such as the Male Voice Choir want to carry out events in celebration of the Caradog Festival that the Council encourages such events and doesn’t hinder them. The Member referenced the charges by the Council given for road closures, which is well beyond the abilities of what a local choir can provide. The Member suggested that this could be supported by the Council if they were to provide a one point of contact within the Council where Members and residents can contact someone to make enquiries about hosting a Town Centre Event. In respect of road closures, the Project Team Leader explained that there is a set charge for road closures, however, it was explained that there are two different types of road closures so the team often engages in conversations where perhaps a full road closure is not required and a partial road closure would reduce the cost for event organisers. The Project Team Leader emphasised that the Town Centre Events Team is always open to have a discussion with an event organiser and explore alternative avenues with them. The Chair emphasised that there needs to be more of a formal agreement in place and that if the organiser can demonstrate a benefits for the community then that should be measured against any costs being charged. A number of Members agreed that if the event organiser can demonstrate that the event would increase footfall by over 50% then the charge for a road closure should be waivered. The Director of Regeneration and Housing agreed with Members and emphasised that the Authority needs to consider the benefits and negatives of charging for road closures when a Town Centre Event is being proposed. The Director emphasised that the team will consider the full implications of this policy decision going forward. The Chair wished to place on record his thanks to Councillor M Webber, the Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Council Business, for her help and support with organising Remembrance Day events across RCT. A number of Members voiced their concerns regarding the charges made by the Council for Town Centre road closure when a local organiser wishes to host a Town Centre Event. A Member queried if there was an Officer within the Town Centre Team who could assist local organisers run events that are outside of the Town Centre. The Director of Regeneration and Housing explained that there is resource across the Council that is available to give advice to community groups that sit outside Town Centres and that if there is a particular issue that a Member wants advice on to send this request directly to him and he could action this accordingly. A Member emphasised that this does show that a local community group, who doesn’t have a Councillor involved, would have great difficulty in getting any kind of support. The Chair emphasised that in respect of road closures an event must be justifiable and must be cost neutral and recommended that guidance is given to organisations and proper benchmarking of what cost can be abated is provided to community groups. Discussions ensued and a Member praised the work of the Town Centre team and queried if the Council works with the Local Independent Traders in anticipation for a Town Centre Event being held. The Project Team Leader confirmed that this is a big part of the Town Centre team role to engage with Town Centre business communities and to help them to develop to become more proactive and more resilient. Members were advised that the approach depends on what facilities and business structures exist within the Town Centre and that the aim is to assist them to maximise economic opportunities from a town centre event. Discussions continued and a Member praised the footfall figures provided in Appendix 1 of the report and recommended further engagement with Town and Community Councils to maximise opportunities at these events. A number of Members agreed that what is required is a single point of contact within the Council so that if a member of the public wants to stage an event within RCT then that person can advise the public whether a road closure is required and can advise whether there is potential to waiver the costs. Members also agreed that Appendix 1 should reflect outside influences on the success of an event such as a note saying ‘incremental weather effected the event footfall’ so that an event is judged on its merit and not only the footfall figures. Members also felt that these changes should be actioned prior to the next Local Elections taking place in 2027. Following discussion, Members RESOLVED: i. To acknowledge and scrutinise the contents of this report; and, ii. To consider the findings as set out in Appendix 1.
There was no urgent business to report.
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.