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.
1.1 The Chair welcomed Members and Officers to the meeting. 1.2 There were apologies from Councillors Karl Gauden & Norma Parrish.
2.1 There were no interests declared during this item, however during the questions Councillor David Williams declared an interest as he attended meetings of the Blaenau Gwent & Torfaen Local Nature Partnership, which was mentioned during the meeting.
3.1 The minutes of the previous meeting held on 5 September 2024 were confirmed as an accurate record.
4.1 There were no outstanding actions, the committee noted the action sheet.
5.1 The Chair introduced the item and following the EM-E briefly introduced the report. 5.2 In response to Members’ questions the officers and the EM-E provided the following answers: • GLE – As we had always done, the services had worked alongside volunteers managing our greenspaces and provided them with training as well. We had recently put a new focus on working with Friends Groups, but it was felt there was still more that could be done with this. We had also partnered with Community Councils which had been identified as an area that could also be developed. • TLE – To improve the public’s perception of greenspace management it was important that we ensured we had as much communication as possible on this, such as signage or information on the website. HoPP&ES – Social media had been found to be useful in communicating changes to a wide audience, but it was important to make use of traditional media as well to reach as many groups as possible. Communicating why we had made certain decisions, such as changes to cut and collect, had been vital to gain support for these changes. • TLE – The Local Places for Nature Programme had been a 2 year programme and was due to end in March 2025. It was uncertain if funding would be committed past this point but indications from WG around this had been positive. • TLE – It had been difficult to balance biodiversity and public perception when considering the best time to cut and collect. Due to climate change the season for wildflower growth had been extended and we were still experimenting with the best time to cut. GLE – The ideal time found to cut in terms of practicalities of collecting the material and public perception around long grass, had been found to be between August and September. • TLE – Proposals around increased scrutiny of public bodies were tied into the ‘net zero by 2030’ targets. These had not been confirmed as they were still in the consultation phase. • GLE – We had not considered the seasonal differences between the north and south of the borough when arranging our grass cutting schedule, although this was not ruled out as an option in the future. • TLE – The peak bird breeding season was between March and July although with climate change this had meant some species could breed all year round. It was important that should we need to cut hedgerows back, we checked beforehand for nesting birds to ensure we complied with legislation. It was explained that August time was considered low-risk to undertake hedgerow trimming and grass cutting. • GLE – There was confidence that the tree team had enough capacity in the team, although it was hoped that by investing in new technology and continually monitoring the trees that efficiency could be increased. It was also stated that the strategy in place for trees was a 10-year strategy and this was still up to date. HoPP&ES – The approach taken by the tree team was risk-based, but it was reiterated that any issues reported that would affect public safety would be prioritised. • GLE – The new “Alloy” software we had installed had been working well at recording our tree stock, it had allowed us to record canopy coverage and we were able to keep all tree information up to date. • GLE – We had received a large number of enquiries around trees that had not been deemed necessary, such as requests around fallen leaves, lighting or shading issues. Due to this the MCS system would be restricted to limit the enquiries that could be made and instead the information on what to do in these types of situations could be posted on the website. HoPP&ES – The intention behind restricting the system was not to prevent any enquiries but to instead reduce the number of irrelevant enquiries. However it was reiterated that there had always been a way to raise issues with the Council. • GLE – We had made use of partnerships with neighbouring authorities when we had staffing issues, often sharing officers. An example was given where the Tree Officer had been off due to sickness, so the Blaenau Gwent Tree Officer had covered that for us. • HoPP&ES – We had not engaged with secondary schools to educate them on allotments, however it was said that this could be looked into. • GLE – The responsibility for maintaining and monitoring cycleways depended on the area. The GLE stated that he would need to look at all the assets and gain clarity on who was responsible. • GLE – There had been an improvement in the number of complaints relating to grass cutting at cemeteries over the last 12 months, with numbers having reduced. • GLE – The contract we had with an external consultancy firm for Japanese Knotweed would be completed at the end of November 2024, following this the data would be used to map out where needed to be monitored and this would inform where we sprayed. • GLE – Acts of vandalism were not budgeted for, so it had been difficult to find the resources to fix issues. HoPP&ES – We had always explored every opportunity for maintenance through funding streams. We hadn’t always been able to instantly repair park equipment that had been damaged or vandalised, but the priority had always been to identify the cause of this before looking into repairs. • GLE – Illegal off-roading was still a priority, although it was said that it was difficult to maintain a consistent approach, due to changes in the police officer responsible for this area. Despite this the GLE did comment it was his belief that the work that had been done to combat this had been successful, whilst acknowledging that more could be done. There was a long history of engaging with farmers and commoners to do all we could to solve the issue. HoPP&ES – We had taken a collaborative approach to the issue, not only working with the police but neighbouring authorities to stop cross-border incidents. Use of technology, such as drones, had also been a success in managing the problem. • HoPP&ES – The Interim Strategic Director for Economy & Environment had reintroduced area-based member engagement group meetings which had not been held since 2022. • GLE – We had strived to deliver on all of our targets and those which were of greatest danger to the public were continually reviewed. HoPP&ES – Acknowledged that some response times could be improved , but the issues we had encountered were due to staff shortages within the team, there had been a lot of vacancies in this area but the HoPP&ES was confident that once these vacancies were filled this would lead to improvements. • HoPP&ES – Regarding street cleanliness we have reinstated our inspections and these recommenced in September 2024. Training had been provided to our Chargehands to be able to assess cleanliness better and ensure the approach taken was consistent. Surveys were also being used that helped us to target the areas most in need of improvement. We have been in discussions with volunteer groups to also aid us in inspections and improvements. • GLE – It was said that the reason for an increase in complaints may be due to seasonal issues, such as hedge growth. He stated that when the data had been compared between quarters then this had created a clearer picture. • GLE – Disposal of dead animals had been a common request for Operatives and it was said that larger animals, such as cats, dogs or foxes etc. were considered as urgent and were dealt with accordingly. However the GLE stated that it was his belief that removal of smaller animals or birds were not a good use of resources and could either be disposed of by residents or left to become part of the food-chain. It was agreed that advice on this could be put on the TCBC website. HoPP&ES – In response to a question around roaming livestock, it was said that should a member of the public or Councillor encounter this issue then the Council held a database of local farmers that could help contact the owners of the livestock. In cases where the livestock had entered private land and then died, it was difficult to gain access to remove the animal. 5.3 Officers and the EMs left the meeting and members and the SO, TLD&MS and TD&MSO remained. 5.4 Recommendations Upon completion of their scrutiny activity, the Committee offered the following recommendations:- Recommendation 1:- Members fully supported the desire to increase the number of volunteers and Friends Groups in order to assist with the range of activities within Greenspace Management. With this in mind, Members recommended that officers: • Explore the potential for further collaborative opportunities with other organisations and partners; and • Increase the promotion of the incentives (e.g. variety of training, time credits and recognition) on offer, attached to volunteering with TCBC. Members hoped that the above would result in a broader mix of volunteers, specifically in terms of age, in order to ensure future sustainability amongst volunteers. Recommendation 2:- Members complimented the information and signage currently in place at some sites, in order to improve public perception around greenspace management; however, they commented that it was not consistent throughout Torfaen. Members therefore recommended that a more consistent approach to signage across Torfaen sites be incorporated, as well as improved communications, where appropriate. Members also recommended the increased use of community meetings, where and when there are proposed changes around greenspace management, in order to gather support and alleviate concerns within the community prior to actions being taken. Recommendation 3:- Members stressed the important role of allotments in terms of food sustainability and as a result provided the following recommendations in this area: • Although some schools and community groups already engaged with each other in terms of allotments, Members believed there was scope to increase the level of engagement. This greater connectivity should also link into the Food Sustainability Strategy and relevant officers. • Data should be collected regarding the demographics of allotment holders and those on waiting lists, and work should be undertaken in order to explore the potential use of different allotment models in order to attract younger people (e.g. community / family friendly sites). • Allotment associations should be encouraged to collaborate with the Food Resilience Team in order to spread positive messages and information around the benefits of allotments. Recommendation 4:- With regards to the disposal of dead animals, Members stressed the importance of clear expectations and signposting / education for the public, in order to manage expectations and prevent risks to health. As per the proposal from officers, Members recommended that suggested wording for the website and MCS system around the above expectations be sent to the Committee in order for them to offer their views, prior to any changes being implemented. Members also recommended that an improved directory with key contacts be made available to Members in terms of the support on offer regarding the disposal of dead animals, particularly larger animals, in order to assist with future ward issues. Recommendation 5:- Prior to any changes being made around cut and collect and grass cutting schedules, Members recommended that more evidence be gathered, via further monitoring, in order to ascertain whether it is required (as well as frequency and timing). Should changes be deemed essential, Members recommended that officers explore the potential for more flexibility in terms of the use of resources, in light of the differing needs between sites, particularly in terms of the climate in the North compared to the South. Members added that should changes be made to the above schedules, communities need to be informed and engaged with regarding the reasons why. Recommendation 6:- Members commented that wider education for the public around the management of trees was required. Members recommended that signposting to useful information and advice (including relevant agencies) be increased, although they appreciated that the Council was unable to recommend specific contractors as part of its communications. Recommendation 7:- Members supported the re-establishment of the area-based member engagement groups to discuss concerns around environment, waste, highways and civil enforcement services. Members recommended that these meetings be re-established as soon as possible and also suggested that Bron Afon be invited, as appropriate, in order to explore collaboration opportunities and sharing of best practice. Recommendation 8:- Members appreciated the resource challenges associated with monitoring street cleanliness and commented that volunteer groups (such as litter-picking groups) could potentially provide support and objective assessments. Members therefore recommended that officers explore the potential use of volunteer groups to assist with monitoring street cleanliness. Recommendation 9:- Members acknowledged that on occasion, scrub and hedges would need to be cut during bird breeding season, for health and safety reasons. Members stressed the importance of crews knowing how to carry out the required checks and therefore recommended that the appropriate training and education be made available to the relevant crews, particularly in terms of the legislation around protecting wildlife. Additional Comments & Observations from the Committee: Members acknowledged that the representative from Bron Afon Community Housing had unfortunately offered their apologies for the meeting; however they requested that their four questions regarding Bron Afon be forwarded to officers at Bron Afon, and their responses be shared with members of the Committee in due course.
6.1 The SO presented the report and invited members to review the information contained in the appendices to the report and agree an item for scrutiny at the next meeting. 6.2 The committee agreed to scrutinise the Asset Management Strategy.
7.1 The next meeting would be 23 January 2025 7.2 The meeting ended at 6.25pm
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.