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 Apologies had been received by Councillors Karl Gauden, David Williams & Nathan Yeowell
2.1 There were no declarations made.
3.1 The minutes of the previous meeting held on 2 October 2025 were confirmed as an accurate record.
4.1 The action sheet was noted.
5.1 The SO presented the report and appendices and highlighted that it was not an opportunity to scrutinise the individual items within the appendices but was instead an opportunity to pose questions to the officers present or reprioritise items for the rest of the cycle. In response to Members’ questions the officers provided the following answers: • The IHoE&P stated that a draft Blueprint for Growth report and document were due to be brought to Scrutiny on 12 March, allowing Members to review work completed since the previous session and provide further input ahead of a final report being taken to Cabinet and Council in early summer. He also added that work on the visitor economy was underway to develop a new plan and action plan; he said the initial strategy work would conclude in March and that the April meeting to scrutinise Destination Torfaen would act as a transition point between the strategy and the action plan. • The IHoE&P confirmed that timing was critical for both items and that officers wanted them to proceed on the planned dates; he stated that, from a service perspective, there were no reasons for them not to go ahead. 5.2 The committee agreed to retain their existing basket of items for the rest of the cycle. The Chair thanked the IHoE&P for attending and invited him to leave the meeting. The IHoE&P then left the meeting.
6.1 The Chair introduced the item and Members went straight into questioning. 6.2 In response to Members’ questions the EM and officers provided the following answers: • The HoPP&E explained that the Council had reviewed the sports facilities and community halls policies to ensure corporate priorities ran through them and objectives were met. He added that directorates worked closely together, with regular discussions through leadership meetings and other forums, to align policies and avoid inconsistency or unintended consequences. The HoP also added that the corporate landlord model and community asset transfer (CAT) process operated across services; she explained that expressions of interest incorporated relevant service input and that Property already had cross‑departmental oversight through its involvement with both sports and community halls leases. • The HoPP&E commented that officers had aimed to work with partners and stakeholders to maximise impact. He stated that the Council had embarked on a partnership agreement with Bron Afon for green‑space maintenance to achieve economies of scale and consistent standards, and that officers had explored incorporating playground inspections and maintenance into that approach. He added that, through an informal arrangement, the Council already undertook inspections of one community‑council‑owned park and had consulted widely with interested parties when planning park improvements. The GLE added that collaborative working was an underlying principle across the service and said it was embedded in day‑to‑day work. • The HoPP&E responded that, for the existing informal arrangements, the Council charged for the inspection service and had built it into its work programme that sites were inspected to the same standard and safety concerns were managed. He stated that substantial repair works remained the owner’s responsibility, while the Council could undertake minor repairs such as replacing fittings and bolts. He then added that the level of formality needed depended on the specific organisation, service and risks involved, and that liability ultimately remained with the owner, although service quality issues could be raised with the Council. • The EOM reiterated that the inspection app operated in line with ROSPA inspection standards, supported structured risk‑based inspections and provided a robust audit trail. She stated that the system retained historical inspection records and supported operational safety management and compliance. The HoPP&E added that officers used a tablet with a pre‑populated form to ensure a consistent approach that enabled issues to be captured and analysed so parks that were subject to repeated problems (such as vandalism) were identified. • The HoPP&E stated that officers coordinating investment had undertaken extensive local engagement with schools, community organisations and residents, and that feedback had influenced design changes to meet local need. The PSM added that Torfaen Opportunity Group and other partners had been involved to help ensure play areas were inclusive, including for sensory needs and non‑verbal children. The EM also added that officers held drop‑in sessions and worked with local children and schools when planning upgrades and aimed to cater for a range of needs and incorporate inclusive equipment where possible. • The PSM explained that the Play Sufficiency Action Group had consulted widely with over 1,500 children consulted and that available Welsh Government funding had been directed in line with the Action Plan. He explained that funding had been used to enhance existing provision and support third‑sector sites and outdoor spaces, and that a mobile approach had been considered to reach areas where fixed provision could not be funded. The HoPP&E added that potential barriers included space constraints and existing layouts, vandalism risk and the cost of replacing equipment. He stated that officers had maximised grant funding by combining it with Section 106 and Members’ Policy Choice funding to improve both equipment and surfacing and confirmed that safety was paramount and would not be compromised. • The PSM confirmed that an audit had been completed as part of the Action Plan to capture what provision existed, identify gaps and guide enhancement. He stated the audit information could be shared and added that developing the work further was possible, subject to capacity. • The HoPP&E explained that due to there not being Bron Afon officers present, he was not in a position to comment on Bron Afon’s specific programmes because inspection and upgrade arrangements currently operated separately, but he stated that greater collaborative working was welcomed. • The PSM stated that the Action Plan was reviewed through quarterly cross‑department meetings and was shaped by consultation with children, young people and communities alongside available budgets. He stated that the Welsh Government funding had been for wider outdoor play opportunities, not solely fixed equipment. He added that agencies involved included Parks and Planning, Youth Services, community‑council representatives and third‑sector organisations. • The HoPP&E commented that Section 106 agreements varied by development and were not always commuted sums for 20 years’ maintenance. He explained that officers typically sought specific upgrades near the development to comply with planning rules, then combined funding sources to deliver a more holistic improvement on a site. He added that contributions were constrained by supplementary planning guidance and affordability assessments. • The HoPP&E explained that the age of play equipment alone would not justify an upgrade and that decisions had been based on play value and wider provision. He added that older equipment remained safe and valuable because components such as seats, chains or bolts were replaced over time through maintenance. The PSM highlighted that play value was the key consideration after safety, noting that consultation had to be interpreted carefully and that children needed opportunities for managed risk‑taking as part of development. The EOM confirmed that play inspectors undertook regular inspections of priority parks; she stated unsafe equipment would be cordoned off or removed and defects repaired where possible. Following the end of questioning on the Play Service, the PSM left the meeting. • The EOM reiterated that officers liaised closely with the Communications Team and issued communications regarding play parks as far in advance as possible to inform Members and the public. • The GLE explained that the Council was a member of the Association for Public Service Excellence (APSE) and used networking groups to exchange information and benchmarking across the UK. He added that officers also participated in Green Space Wales meetings, where green‑space management (including parks) was discussed, and offered to investigate specific comparisons if requested. • The HoP commented that covenants registered against legal title were enforceable by the party that placed them and that the Council was registering its land to gather and manage relevant information. She added that enforceability depended on the specific covenant and legal advice. • The HoPP&E confirmed that the current sports facilities leasing policy did not exclude any organisation, including schools, and that any expression of interest would be added to the waiting list. He noted that schools also made facilities available to communities in many cases. He added that updating the policy was intended to introduce clearer criteria to support equitable allocation decisions, including considerations around schools and private businesses. • The HoPP&E highlighted that more collaborative use of assets was part of the direction of travel in the asset management strategy. He noted that 3G pitch funding had supported wider community use in some schools, while other pitches were more protected due to concerns about wear and tear, and he stated the issue could be explored further. • The HoPP&E stated that pay‑and‑play supported greater equity of access by enabling more clubs to use facilities, rather than exclusive use by a single club. He added that sharing would need to be managed through agreements between the club holding the lease/licence and any other user, with controlled access rather than open access, to protect pitch standards and manage risks. • The HoPP&E explained that Section 106 funding windows had provided opportunities to plan projects and assemble funding packages with other sources. He stated that recent investment had combined Council capital, Members’ Policy Choice funding, Play Sufficiency grant funding and Shared Prosperity funding, and that future opportunities included the Local Growth Fund, though eligibility details had yet to fully emerge. • The HoPP&E confirmed that vandalism hotspots had been identified through inspections and reports and shared with Community Safety and police colleagues to inform patrols. He stated vandalism created financial strain and that officers would need to consider legal requirements also. The EOM added that officers had not locked parks and stated concerns were raised with Community Safety first, and that locking parks would create resource issues given the number of parks managed across the borough. • The HoPP&E explained that officers relied on inspections as well as complaints to identify issues. He stated that closer categorisation could support hotspot analysis and could be explored further. He added that liaison with Gwent Police was typically channelled through Community Safety teams, and the EOM confirmed liaison worked both ways, with Community Safety contacting the service about hotspots and advice. • The HoP confirmed that CAT covered licences, leases or in exceptional cases, freehold. She added that the process would include review periods to identify issues early and support organisations to prevent failure, with mitigation options considered if an arrangement appeared to be failing. • The HoP stated that condition surveys would form part of applications and that the Council had agreed a rolling programme of condition surveys. She stated it was the tenant’s responsibility to manage repairs. She added that longer leases had often supported access to capital grant funding and that established clubs might require surrender and regrant to secure sufficient term length for investment planning. • The HoP stated that shorter leases could be appropriate for new organisations to allow them to bed in, while longer leases were important for long‑term investment and external funding. • The HoP confirmed that the improved landlord consent process included a single point of contact and had been made less onerous than the previous approach. She also confirmed that existing occupiers were offered first refusal through the renewal process. • The HoP highlighted that the draft CAT policy focused on properly constituted community organisations and that officers had explored how to advertise opportunities and provide support. The HoPP&E added that clearer criteria and improved processes helped support equity, alongside identifying support mechanisms for less‑resourced groups. • The HoP explained that the draft policy did not include a right of appeal, but she stated she was happy take the issue away for further consideration, should Members wish. 6.3 Officers and the EM left the meeting and members and the SO and TD&MSO remained. 6.4 Recommendations Upon completion of their scrutiny activity, the Committee offered the following recommendations:- Recommendation 1:- In relation to opportunities for improving play parks, members recommended that officers explore the options available for further collaborative working and funding. Members suggested working with such partners as Bron Afon Community Housing, community councils, local “friends of” groups and rotary clubs to identify joint initiatives and potential sources of investment. Recommendation 2:- In response to vandalism and anti-social behaviour at play parks, members recommended: • A focus on education for children and parents around the impact of vandalism and anti-social behaviour in play parks, as suggested by officers; • That officers explore the potential use of CCTV in hotspot areas in particular (could include temporary or roaming cameras); and • Working with local “friends of” groups in order to grow a sense of ownership of play parks within communities. Recommendation 3:- Members recommended that, in future reporting, the number of enquiries and complaints relating specifically to parks and play areas (currently combined within paragraph 4.4.2 of the report) be reported separately. This would enable officers to more easily identify any emerging hotspots and take appropriate action. Recommendation 4:- Members were pleased to hear of some examples where schools and clubs were sharing sports pitches with local teams, which was helping to alleviate some of the demand for pitches. Members recommended that officers explore this further with Education colleagues and current lease holders and also look for examples of best practice in this area, from other local authorities. Recommendation 5:- Members recommended that officers liaise with Torfaen Voluntary Alliance (TVA) to ascertain their capacity to offer advice and support around sports facilities leasing under the Community Asset Transfer (CAT) model, prior to signposting organisations to them. Members also suggested that the Council’s community capacity builders could have a role to play in this area. In addition to the above, members highlighted the differing levels of expertise across sports clubs and therefore recommended that officers explore how greater equity could be achieved, particularly in relation to the advertising of available sports facilities and the support provided to organisations when applying to lease. Recommendation 6:- Members were concerned to hear that the draft policy for CATs did not include the right to appeal for organisations. Members strongly recommended that officers consider its inclusion within the new policy. Additional Comments & Observations from the Committee: Members praised officers and the Executive Member for the report and thanked them for the way in which they answered the committee’s questions during the meeting. In addition to the above, members offered the following comments: • They agreed that the existing Policy on the Leasing & Licencing of Community Halls & Sports Facilities needed to be separated, in light of the fact that the Communities Directorate had assumed responsibility for oversight of community halls, whereas sports facilities had remained with the Neighbourhoods and Environment Directorate. • In addition to the above, members agreed that the proposed Expression of Interest (EOI) process was preferable to the current waiting list process for sports facilities leasing. • In relation to ‘The Ruffetts’, members acknowledged that discussions with Pontypool Park Estates and the local club were at an early stage and were pleased to hear that officers would be exploring the leasing and licensing options available, going forward. • Considering the importance and impact of play parks to all members of the Council, members suggested that it would be of benefit to hold a Members Seminar to provide an update to all members around the recent improvements and investments within Torfaen.
7.1 The date of the next meeting was scheduled for 12 March 2026. 7.2 The meeting ended at 11.52am
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.