SCRUTINY
COMMITTEE (ECONOMY AND ENVIRONMENT)
MINUTES of a meeting held on 13th
February, 2007.
Present: Councillor N.P. Hodges (Chairman);
Councillors R.J. Bertin, J. Clifford, Miss. J. Cole, G.A. Cox, A.D.
Dobbinson, E. Hacker, Mrs. M. Kelly Owen, Mrs. A.J. Moore, Mrs.
A.J. Preston, Mrs. S.I. Sharpe, W.C. Vaughan, A.J. Williams and
M.R. Wilson.
Also present: Councillors Ms. M.E. Alexander,
R.F. Curtis, G. John and N. Moore.
802 APOLOGIES FOR
ABSENCE -
These were received from Councillors Ms. L.
Burnett and Mrs. V.M. Hartrey.
803 MINUTES -
RECOMMENDED - T H A T the minutes of the
meeting held on 16th January, 2007 be approved as a
correct record.
804 DECLARATIONS
OF INTEREST -
No declarations were received.
805 BARRY
WATERFRONT DEVELOPMENT -
In attendance for this item:
Mr. E. Bampton, WAG (DEIN)
Mr. R. Shaddick, WAG ((DEIN)
Mr. S. Pritchard, ABP
Mr. B. Lewis, ABP.
Councillor Mrs. A.J. Moore had requested
consideration of this item so that Councillors could receive
up-to-date information on the development, with particular
reference to any leisure development on the site, (i.e. café bars,
restaurants, ice-cream parlours, pubs, sports facilities etc.).
Councillor Mrs. Moore had also requested that
a representative from the Department of Enterprise, Innovation and
Networks (former WDA) be requested to attend along with a
representative from ABP and the appropriate Council officers to
make this a meaningful presentation / discussion.
Councillor Mrs. Moore stated that whilst she
was fully in favour of this development, she was concerned that
Members were told at the last Scrutiny Committee (Economy and
Environment) that ABP were considering selling off the rest of the
site to developers. Councillor Mrs. Moore believed that this
Council had a duty to the residents of Barry and the Waterfront to
fight for leisure facilities and not just let the Waterfront become
a huge housing estate.
Council officers regularly met with
representatives of the Welsh Assembly, Department of Enterprise,
Innovation and Networks and ABP to discuss the development of the
Waterfront. It was generally recognised by all concerned that
a new planning application would be required in order to consider
the development of the West Pond area (within the existing consent)
and the extension of the scheme on the South Quay. Possible
development scenarios in those areas had been carefully assessed in
collaboration with ABP’s transportation consultants using the
Council’s traffic simulation model.
At meetings within ABP and WAG (DEIN), the
Council’s representatives had stressed the need for the Waterfront
to be a mixed development. This was recognised by the
landowners but the situation remained that apart from retail
development, there had been very little private sector interest as
yet in bringing “leisure” type uses including bars and restaurants
to the area. One planning application had been considered in
recent years for a public house and that had been refused on design
grounds. A scheme including a medical centre was currently
under construction and nearby there was a proposal by the Methodist
Church for a building which could be used as a church and community
centre. As the development was progressing, it was inevitable
that more interest would be shown in the Waterfront by private
sector developers who wished to bring other uses to the area.
WAG (DEIN) and the Council also had a role to
play in the Waterfront as landowners and developers and were
actively encouraging mixed use development projects. The
joint venture between the two Authorities, commissioned a Master
Plan for the development of the Innovation Quarter, some 19 acres
of land including the Hood Road Goods Shed, BSC and Skill Centre
sites. The Master Plan for the Quarter proposed a vibrant
mixed-use scheme of educational, tourist, business, medical and
possibly some residential. WAG (DEIN) had also been
instrumental in bringing the Heritage Steam Railway into the
Waterfront with two halts within the Quarter.
Progress was also being made in respect of
developing a Barry “Central Station” at the existing Barry Docks
Station together with the design of a new pedestrian link into the
Waterfront from the junction of Thompson Street and Dock View
Road.
In relation to Public Art, the Joint
Initiative had invested considerably in areas of landscaping and
public open space, highlighting strong features such as the dock
wall and using dressed stone from former structures as features in
the landscape. The statue of David Davies had also been
renovated and replaced outside the Dock Office. The Council’s
Public Art Strategy sought a new emphasis for public art in the
Waterfront, and elsewhere in Barry, including opportunities for
works a key gateways.
The Barry Joint Initiative had commenced a
marketing campaign to bring the residential development plots
within the Waterfront Regeneration area, together with the South
Quay to the market. The sites involved comprise of a total of
around 40 hectares (100 acres). The opportunity had been
offered on the basis of a three stage process:
Stage
1 Expressions
of Interest (quality and track record)
Stage
2 Short List
(specific land use and financial bids)
Stage
3 Preferred
Developer (confirmation of satisfaction of design, layout and
financial bid).
It was understood that in order to secure
adherence to design principles and to ensure a degree of control
over the development, the sale would be by way of the grant of an
initial 250 year leasehold converted to a freehold once design and
land use proposals had been satisfied (subject to detailed planning
/ reserved matters approval) and the development had commenced.
ABP and WAG (DEIN) had indicated that there
was an excellent response to Stage 1 and that following an
appraisal process, some five developers had been invited to proceed
to the next stage to prepare a more detailed submission. The
timetable for Stage 2 was for the submissions to be delivered by
16th March, 2007. Interviews would take place at
the end of March and the Barry Joint Initiative would make a
decision on the preferred developer by 13th April,
2007.
The following question and answer session then
ensued:
|
Question
|
Answer
|
|
This could be the “jewel in the crown” of the
Waterfront development. Barry is a large town and this would
show people that there was something to come to Barry for.
Would the representatives of WAG (DEIN) and ABP please come back
and report to the Committee after 13th April.
|
We have set out to create a good scheme.
We have marketed the site on leisure use, but we have been told we
need more houses. We now feel that there will be sufficient
houses to attract leisure facilities etc.
|
|
What is the meaning of “pie-crust lease” as
contained in the promotional brochure distributed at the
meeting?
|
This is a lease whereby the developer does not
accept liability for what is contained under the ground.
|
|
The promotional brochure should refer to
“sustainability”.
|
Sustainability is high on our priorities.
|
|
Barry has developed enormously in the past 10
years but desperately needs cafes / bars. If this development
were to happen, it would be the “icing on the cake”.
|
This is the reason why the land is being
marketed as a whole in that this would attract a major player.
|
|
Is there anything the Council can do to
achieve the “critical mass” required to attract these
facilities?
|
It would be a condition of planning permission
which will be the subject of discussions with the Planning and
Transportation Division. It should also be remembered that
WAG (DEIN) was trying to develop Barry Town Centre and it was not
felt to be desirable to push all developments to the
Waterfront.
|
|
The possibility of a marina had been
mentioned. Did this mean the area around the mole?
|
This has not been determined yet.
|
|
The work of David Davies in the development of
Barry should be celebrated within the areas to be redeveloped, and
“Barry” could be promoted also. There should be more
“activity” within the area.
|
Cabinet had agreed the development of the
Hydraulic Pumping Station within the Innovation Quarter, in
partnership with Chapter. Unfortunately, the bid for Physical
Regeneration Funding (PRF) was unsuccessful.
|
|
The Sea Cadets of HMS Cambria use No. 1 Dock
and were concerned that this may not be available to them in
future.
|
The interest of the Sea Cadets of HMS Cambria
was acknowledged.
|
|
How would the developments fit in with the
Barry Island link road?
|
This would be a programming issue for the
successful party / ies.
|
|
Who will submit the planning application for
the new development?
|
The planning application will be submitted in
the developer’s name.
|
Councillors Ms. M.E. Alexander, R.F. Curtis
and N. Moore spoke on the above with the consent of the
Committee.
Following the conclusion of the question and
answer session, the Chairman thanked all attendees for their
informative presentation.
RECOMMENDED -
(1) T H A T
the presentation be noted.
(2) T H A T
the representatives of Associated British Ports and WAG (DEIN) be
invited to address the Committee following the making of a decision
on the preferred developer, scheduled to take place by
13th April, 2007.
806 LEISURE
CHARGES 2007/2008 AND LEISURE MEMBERSHIP SCHEME (DEER) -
Committee received a report which sought
agreement to leisure charges for 2007/2008 and which provided an
update of the Leisure Membership Scheme.
The proposed charges for 2007/2008 were
attached at Appendix A to the report. A full price schedule
was shown for Barry Leisure Centre and only unique prices for other
sites were subsequently listed. As in previous years, all
suggested prices were the maximum cost with officers having the
ability to reduce prices if appropriate for promotions etc.
Some price issues also arose throughout the
year, particularly in relation to sports, arts and play development
sessions, food and beverage charges, saleables and additional
leisure charges within Leisure Centres. These other charges
were more difficult to set on an annual basis as facility cost,
level of grant subsidy, material costs or special requests etc.,
could not be foreseen in all circumstances. Therefore,
officer delegation in consultation with the Cabinet Member for
Tourism and Leisure was requested to set relevant charges for these
services or to increase charges during the course of the year if
circumstances dictated.
The Leisure Membership Scheme had continued to
attract a significant number of members during 2006/07. The
scheme had been identified on the Council’s Welsh Assembly
Government Efficiencies Return 2005/06 as an area where
efficiencies would be generated. This return was due to be
examined by the Wales Audit Office, but work undertaken by the
Council’s Efficiencies Team had determined the additional income
(efficiencies) that had been generated as a result of the
scheme.
Significant changes were now proposed to the
Membership Scheme and the following price increases were now
proposed for the Freestyle Leisure Membership Scheme:
|
|
2005/06/07
£
|
2007/08
|
|
Family
|
26.00
|
31.20
|
|
Adult
|
10.00
|
12.00
|
|
Junior
|
6.00
|
7.20
|
|
Senior Citizens
|
6.00
|
7.20
|
|
Concessionary
|
6.00
(Adult)
4.00
(Junior)
|
7.20
4.80
|
In addition, it was proposed that the
non-member entry fees increase as follows:
|
|
2005/06/07
|
2007/08
|
|
Adult
|
0.50p
|
0.80p
|
|
Junior
|
0.30p
|
0.50p
|
The increases shown above had been
incorporated into the prices shown at Appendix A to the
report. Whilst this would increase the cost for the
occasional user to the Council facility, it was expected that the
membership levels would rise as customers appreciated that the
Membership Scheme did offer even better value for money, which in
turn would also encourage more frequent use of facilities.
It was also proposed to introduce a £15.00
administration fee when a new member joined Lifestyle. This
would have added value, as it would entitle the member to three
exercise programmes in the first year of their membership, which
should assist in retention rates. It should also assist in
the problem of customers cancelling for a month, only to then
rejoin.
The only major issue to have arisen with the
Membership Scheme over the past 12 months had been the issue of the
Incapacity Allowance not qualifying individuals for the
Concessionary Membership, as it was not means tested. It was
not proposed to change this for 2007/08.
For 2007/08 it was also recommended that
charges be applied to the Surf Lifesaving Clubs who had enjoyed
free use of the facilities since 1996 due to financial
pressures. These Clubs would be encouraged to apply for
grants to cover these costs and assistance would be offered to
complete grant applications.
The suggestion was made that it may be
beneficial to offer customers of the Membership Scheme an option to
pay their subscriptions by means of Direct Debit and that
incentives be offered to attract take-up of this payment
method.
RECOMMENDED - T H A T the following be
recommended to Cabinet:
(1) T H A T
the leisure charges proposed for 2007/08 as detailed at Appendix A
to the report be approved for implementation in April 2007.
(2) T H A T
the prices for Freestyle Leisure Membership, as detailed in the
report, be approved.
(3) T H A T
further reports on the Leisure Membership Scheme (Freestyle) be
included within future fees and charges reports.
(4) T H A T
the Director of Environmental and Economic Regeneration in
consultation with the Cabinet Member for Tourism and Leisure, be
authorised to set charges or increase prices for sports, arts and
development courses, saleables, some additional Leisure Centre
activities and food and beverage charges as appropriate, during the
course of the financial year.
(5) T H A T
the £15 administration charge be introduced for new Lifestyle
members.
(6) T H A T
relevant fees be applied to Surf Lifesaving Clubs.
(7) T H A T
consideration be given to customers of the Membership Scheme being
offered an option to pay their subscriptions by Direct Debit and
that incentives be considered to attract take-up of this payment
method.
Reasons for recommendations
(1) To set
suitable charges for the Leisure Service 2007/08.
(2) To
encourage greater use of the council’s leisure facilities.
(3) To keep
Members informed of the progress of the Freestyle Leisure
Membership Scheme.
(4) To
enable changes for these services to reflect particular market
conditions.
(5) To add
value to the Lifestyle membership.
(6) Due to
the current financial conditions.
(7) To
attract greater take-up of the Freestyle Leisure Membership
Scheme.
807 VALE OF GLAMORGAN
LOCAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN (LDP) - PROPOSED VISION (DEER) -
Members’ approval was sought for the adoption
of the Vale of Glamorgan Community Strategy Vision as the guiding
Vision for the Vale of Glamorgan Local Development Plan (LDP)
2011-2026. The Vale of Glamorgan LDP Vision (2011-2026)
therefore was proposed as follows:
“The Vale is a place that is safe, clean and
attractive, where individuals and communities have opportunities to
improve their health, prosperity and wellbeing, and where there is
a strong sense of community in which local groups and individuals
have the capacity and incentive to make an effective contribution
to the future of the area.”
The report provided background information on
the requirements contained within national planning policy guidance
on the preparation of LDPs as it related to developing a strategic
vision and provided a brief overview of how the Community Strategy
Vision satisfied those requirements. A more detailed account
was attached at Appendix A to the report. In addition, the
report appraised Members of the next stage of the LDP process and
described the role that the Vision would play in developing the
LDPs overarching strategy.
Under the Council Constitution, certain
planning related issues could only be decided by Cabinet, and where
relevant, Council. However, in reaching its position, Cabinet
could consult Planning Committee and the relevant Scrutiny
Committee. The Committee received a report which had been
considered by Cabinet on 31st January, 2007 at which the
following had been resolved:
“(1) T H A T the
Vision contained within the Vale of Glamorgan Community Strategy
(2003-13) be adopted as a Vision for the Vale of Glamorgan LDP
92011-2026).
(2) T H A T
the Vision be used to inform the development of the LDP
Strategy.”
Scrutiny Committee, having considered the
report and decision of Cabinet,
RECOMMENDED - T H A T the decision of Cabinet
of 31st January, 2007 be supported.
808 VISIBLE
SERVICES - RECYCLING CENTRE, DOMESTIC PERMITS (DEER) -
Committee considered the current arrangements
used to control the use of vans and trailers at the Council’s
recycling centres. The Council had a statutory duty to
arrange for places (Recycling Centre) where residents may deposit
their household waste for recycling and / or disposal, free of
charge. The conditions of the Waste Management Licence for
the sites do not allow trade/ commercial waste to be deposited at
these sites.
The current waste permit system was introduced
in April 2003 as a measure to stop commercial customers using the
recycling centres to deposit waste without charge. A ban on
cars had been in place since April 1999 but a ban on trailers
entering the sites without permit was also introduced in April
2003.
This permit system was reviewed by Cabinet on
15th September, 2004 after its first year of operation
to allow for the issue of 6 and 12 month permits for domestic
customers.
Currently domestic customers who required
permits, applied to the Waste Management and Cleansing
Section. Permits were issued with each applicant being
visited by a Council officer. This was time consuming for
Council staff and could be inconvenient for customers.
There were currently no weight restrictions on
the permits for domestic vehicles and customers were able to
deposit large volumes of DIY type waste (for example rubble).
This caused capacity problems on the sites and inconvenience for
other site users.
With the introduction of the OneVale Call
Centre, it was proposed that the issue of permits could be dealt
with by OneVale.
Customers would contact the OneVale Call
Centre who would first determine that they were a domestic
customer. The Call Centre, then having taken all of the
appropriate details, would print out the permit and send it
directly to the customer. This would eliminate any need for
the customer to be passed to the Waste Management “back office”
staff at the point of service request. This would also allow
residents to make on-line applications.
Following issue, all necessary details of the
permit would be forwarded to the Waste Management staff and EWC
including a unique Oracle reference number. This would allow
Waste Management and Cleansing staff to record permits and carry
out compliance checks to ensure the permit system was not
abused.
Further compliance checks would be carried out
by the Council’s contractor, EWC. They would confirm the
details of each permit and the point of entry at the site.
EWC would perform vehicle registration number, waste description,
signature and permit reference number checks and only if satisfied,
sign off the permit themselves and allow the waste entry to the
site.
EWC had confirmed that they would implement
the revised permit system and confirmed that this was similar to
other procedures they operate with other local authorities such as
Blackburn Council.
A draft of the details that would be entered
on the permits issued by the OneVale office were shown on Appendix
A to the report. It was proposed that the permit would also
contain weight limits for residents’ vehicles and the maximum
quantity of DIY waste they could take to the sites.
Furthermore, in an initial effort to improve control of the
household waste delivered to sites, it was also proposed that the
use of a “one permit on deposit” be trailed to replace the existing
6 month multiple deposit permit.
RECOMMENDED -
(1) T H A T
the alterations proposed to the current permit system for domestic
customers with vans or trailers to deposit waste at the recycling
centres (Sully and Llandow) as of 1st April, 2007 be
supported.
(2) T H A T
the introduction of measures to restrict the weight of domestic
vehicles entering the recycling centres and the quantity of DIY
waste that could be deposited at the site be supported.
(3) T H A T
the report and the views of Committee be forwarded to Cabinet for
decision.
Reasons for recommendations
(1) To
provide an improved service for domestic customers with vans or
trailers to deposit waste at the recycling centres (Sully and
Llandow).
(2) To
reduce unauthorised use of the sites by commercial customers.
(3) To gain
an Executive decision by Cabinet that required to implement changes
to Council procedures.
809 REVENUE AND
CAPITAL MONITORING FOR THE PERIOD 1ST APRIL, 2006 TO
31ST DECEMBER, 2006 (DEER) -
The projected outturn for 2006/07 Revenue
Budget was shown in comparison with the amended Annual
Budget. The current forecast for the Directorate was for a
balanced budget. Further details were contained within the
report as to the reasons for the variances within certain profiled
budgets and the steps being taken to address those variances where
appropriate.
As regards the Capital Programme, Cabinet was
to be requested to approve amendments to the Capital Programme in
respect of the following schemes:
Cowbridge By-Pass, rain activated sign -
Delays in signing the contract had meant that the budget would not
be required this year and as such would be unspent. It had
been requested that this budget of £26,000 be transferred into the
Visible Services Asset Renewal Fund to finance the Pant Y Lladron
gulley waste disposal reed bed system which had been earmarked from
the 2007/08 Visible Services Asset Renewal Fund. Due to
seasonal pressures, the work on planting reeds at Pant Y Lladron
must be undertaken in March 2007 so unless funding for this part of
the scheme was made available during this financial year, further
work scheduled for 2007/08 could not go ahead. It was
proposed that the remainder of the scheme be funded from the Asset
Renewal Budget 2007/08. It was also proposed that the rain
activated sign be completed next year, funded from the Visible
Services Asset Renewal monies.
RECOMMENDED - T H A T the position with regard
to the 2006/07 revenue and capital monitoring be noted.
810 QUARTERLY
PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT MONITORING - THIRD QUARTER (DEER) -
Each Head of Service presented the Third
Quarter (April - December 2006) statistics relating to his
respective service area. The report contained details of PI
performance and, where performance had not reached target, the
corrective action required to meet that target was accepted in each
instance. Each Head of Service outlined matters of particular
interest, during the course of which further information / reports
/ presentations were requested on various matters including the
following:
Economic Development and Leisure
· Presentation
on the Arts Function.
Following consideration of the above and
related matters, it was
RECOMMENDED - T H A T the position in respect
of the Third Quarter Monitoring for the Directorate of
Environmental and Economic Regeneration be noted.