SCRUTINY COMMITTEE (ECONOMY AND
ENVIRONMENT)
MINUTES of a meeting held on 17th
July, 2007 in the Cory Education Centre, Dyffryn.
Present: Councillor N.P. Hodges
(Chairman); Councillors Ms. L. Burnett,
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, A.J. Williams and M.R. Wilson.
Also present: Councillor R.F.
Curtis.
214 APOLOGIES FOR
ABSENCE -
These were received from Councillors R.J.
Bertin, Mrs. S.I. Sharpe and
W.C. Vaughan.
215 MINUTES -
RECOMMENDED - T H A T the minutes of the
meetings held on 20th June and 3rd July, 2007
be approved as a correct record.
216 DECLARATIONS OF
INTEREST -
No declarations were received.
217 DRAFT IMPROVEMENT
PLAN 2007/08 (CX) -
The draft Improvement Plan 2007/08 had been
circulated under separate cover. It was noted that WAG
guidance now required the publication of the Plan no later than
31st October, 2007; the change in date (from end
of June to 31st October) had been made to allow actual,
audited data (provided by the Local Government Data Unit) to be
included in the Plan and for consultation to have been undertaken
prior to its publication. It was further noted the Plan
contained all available performance information required by WAG
together with several local indicators which measured corporate
priorities. That performance information would be used by the
Wales Audit Office to assess the Council’s ability to improve and
was therefore of critical importance for the reputation of the
Council. Information to be contained within the completed
Plan was still being provided by managers.
RECOMMENDED - T H A T the Improvement Plan for
2007/08 as currently drafted be endorsed.
Reason for recommendation
To ensure that actions are taken to improve
services and to agree the Plan within required timescales.
218 REVIEW OF THE
COUNCIL’S PEST CONTROL SERVICE (REF. - MINUTE NO. 156) -
The Scrutiny Committee (Corporate Resources)
had, on 26th June, 2007 considered the above and
referred the same to Cabinet for consideration subject to the views
of this and the Scrutiny Committee (Community Wellbeing and Safety)
being obtained on the matter. By way of background, it was
explained that the Council had specific statutory responsibilities
in respect of controlling pests. Under the Prevention of
Damage by Pests Act 1949, local authorities had a duty to take such
steps as might be necessary to secure so far as was practicable
that districts were kept free from rats and mice. That Act
had conferred powers on local authorities to require action by
owners and occupiers by serving legal notices. When there was
default on such a notice, local authorities themselves could take
action and recover reasonably incurred expenses.
The provision of pest control treatments
without the prior service of a notice was a discretionary service
provided by the Council and, in respect of pests of public health
significance, namely rats, mice, bed bugs and cockroaches,
treatments were provided and entirely subsidised by the
Council. It was noted that the private sector charged a fee
for similar services ranging from £25 to £45 per visit.
Given that all Directorates had been examining
ways of making efficiency savings due to budget pressures and the
need to make efficiency savings under the “Making the Connections”
agenda, it had become necessary to consider either limiting
resources for non-statutory services or increasing income in order
to maintain current service levels. The Local Government Act
2003 included a general power for local authorities to charge for
discretionary services and provided an opportunity for increasing
Regulatory Services charges to offset the budgetary pressures
facing the Council although charges made under the Act were limited
to the cost of recovery. It was reported that, with
increasing pressures on local authority budgets, an increasing
number of local authorities were beginning to charge for those
services. It was also noted that the demand for the Council’s
Pest Control Service currently exceeded the capacity of the service
to provide it in a timely manner with customers regularly waiting
in excess of three weeks for their first treatment. Appended
to the report considered by the Scrutiny Committee (Corporate
Resources) was a proposed scale of charges for Pest Control
Services for 2007/08. That Committee had also considered
three options, supporting the principle of charging for Pest
Control Services as set out in Option B subject to the views of
other Scrutiny Committees being obtained.
Option B provided for the Council to continue
to provide a Pest Control Treatment Service either in-house or by
contracting the service to the private sector but making a charge
for all or some pests of public health significance as well as
other pests. A variation on that option and favoured option
was to treat pests of public health significance inside domestic
properties free of charge but make a charge where they were
outside.
As stated within the report, the proposed
charges related to pests of public health significance and debate
ensued on the merits (or otherwise) of charging for such pests
outside of domestic properties. It was anticipated that there
would be a fall off in demand for the service where charges were
levied, a likelihood of an increase in do-it-yourself methods being
utilised which might not be as effective as the professional
treatments, and a loss of professional advice to address further
infestations. Public perception also needed to be taken into
account given the current national publicity relating to
fortnightly refuse collections (although there were no such plans
for the Vale) and the documented increase in the incidence of
rats. It was recognised that the reasons giving rise to the
increase in rats should be addressed and that a publicity campaign
on how better to protect the environment to mitigate against such
problems could be beneficial. Attention was drawn at the same
time, however, to the requirement of Cabinet that all Departments
make appropriate efficiency savings. The view was taken that,
given the potential public health implications of introducing
charges for the control of the above pests, Cabinet should be urged
to recognise that this was a service which should be protected from
having to make such savings.
RECOMMENDED -
(1) T H A T
Option C be supported and that the Council continue to provide free
Pest Control Treatment for pests of public health significance and
charge for other pests in line with current practices.
(2) T H A T
Cabinet be requested to ensure that an adequate allocation to
provide the service required was contained in future budgets in the
interests of public health and to avoid possible additional costs
in the future which could fall on the Council as a consequence of
increased infestations.
Reasons for recommendations
(1&2) To safeguard the interests of
the public and the Council.
219 REVENUE AND
CAPITAL MONITORING: 1ST APRIL, 2007 TO
30TH JUNE, 2007 (DEER) -
The projected outturn for the 2007/08 Revenue
Budget was for a balanced budget although it was noted, as at the
previous meeting, that it was extremely early in the financial
year. Details pertaining to the Capital Programme were
appended to the report. Budgets brought forward from 2006/07
into 2007/08 had been reported to Cabinet and Council in June, 2007
and were now included within those details. It was also noted
that, as approved by Cabinet on 20th June, 2007, all
further work on the Penarth Headland Link Scheme had ceased.
It had to be noted, however, before the WAG funding had been
suspended, it had been agreed that expenditure paid in April 2007
on work up until the end of March 2007 could still be
claimed. As such, the Council’s costs in the current
financial year had been funded from WAG and no further claims could
be made. Cabinet had agreed that the Capital Programme
2007/08 be increased by the amount of £192k. which had been funded
by WAG grant. In response to questions, further information
was given at the meeting in relation to progress in relation to the
Merrie Harrier Gyratory project and further details would be
forwarded to Members in respect of the refurbishment of bridges and
Network Rail highway bridge strengthening.
RECOMMENDED - T H A T the position with regard
to the 2007/08 revenue and capital monitoring be noted.
Reason for recommendation
That members are aware of the position with
regard to the 2007/08 revenue and capital monitoring relevant to
this Committee.
220 HIGHWAY SAFETY
CONCERNS, FFORDD Y MILENIWM, BARRY WATERFRONT (DEER) -
The report was withdrawn in order to allow
Cabinet to consider the position further.
RECOMMENDED - T H A T it be noted that a
further report would be submitted to this Committee in due
course.
Reason for recommendation
To consider the position further in light of
Cabinet’s future comments.
221 BUS SHELTERS
(DEER) -
This Committee had, on 24th
October, 2006 requested that measures be immediately put in place
to collect statistics in respect of incidents of vandalism
(identifying bus shelters specifically) and associated costs and a
report made on the same to this Committee in six months.
Details and costs of remedial action in
respect of nineteen incidents of vandalism throughout the Vale
between November 2006 and May 2007 were contained within the
report. Total costs had amounted to £8,120. As regards
graffiti, attention was drawn to the fact that incidents of
graffiti removal were not addressed for individual bus shelters
unless a single shelter was excessively subject to significant
graffiti or the nature of the graffiti required immediately
removal. It was reported that under normal circumstances
cleansing operations were carried out to remove graffiti on a
time-based area schedule which would include the cleansing of
multiple bus shelters on any given occasion as part of the
Council’s normal Streetcare activities. During 2006/07, the
following costs were due to cleansing works specifically for the
removal of graffiti on Council bus shelters:
· within the Penarth area, 14
hours spent removing graffiti from bus shelters in Elfed Avenue and
Lavernock Road on multiple occasions at a cost of £644;
· within the Barry area, 10
hours spent removing graffiti from bus shelters in Gibbonsdown,
Cadoxton, Treharne and Barry Island on multiple occasions at a cost
of £460;
· within the Vale area, 8
hours spent removing graffiti mainly from bus shelters in Rhoose
and Llantwit Major bus station on multiple occasions at a cost of
£368.
The total cost of the removal of graffiti from
bus shelters as indicated above had amounted to £1,472.
Further details relating to bus shelter
maintenance (including those shelters damaged by vehicles) and the
removal of graffiti were reported verbally. Where possible
efforts were made to recover costs in the case of vehicular
accidents - although this had proved notoriously difficult to
collect. Discussion ensued on the feasibility of promoting
community involvement in the upkeep of shelters through an ‘adopt a
shelter’ approach although it was recognised that a better way
forward was educating the public that well maintained shelters
engendered wellbeing. Given the Council’s limited budget for
that service, efforts were ongoing to have shelters adopted by
Adshel. In response to the suggestion relating to solar
powered shelters, it was explained that this was currently not an
economic option.
RECOMMENDED - T H A T the position be noted
and a monitoring report submitted at the end of the financial
year.
Reason for recommendation
For information.
222 VALE OF GLAMORGAN
LOCAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN (LDP): REVISION OF APPROVED DELIVERY
AGREEMENT (DA) (DEER) -
Details were presented of the significant
progress made to date on the LDP. The programme established
for the LDP preparation had been adhered to up to February 2007
but, notwithstanding the considerable progress outlined in the
report, it was accepted that the original timetable detailed in the
approved DA underestimated the degree of work required and was over
ambitious given the staff resources available and the amount,
complexity and duration of the consultation periods required at the
various stages of the LDP process. A revised work programme
up to and including reporting to Cabinet on the consultation
exercise in respect of the Preferred Strategy was appended to the
report. It was now anticipated that the Preferred Strategy
would be reported to Cabinet in December 2007, the six weeks
consultation period thereafter taking place during February and
March 2008 with the result of the consultation being reported to
Cabinet in May 2008. The revised timetable overlaid on the
approved DA timetable was also appended to the report. WAG
had indicated that the slippage as described above would be
acceptable in principle and that the approved DA should be amended
accordingly to reflect the eight month slippage. The view was
taken, however, that although slippage as described above was
considered unavoidable at the current stage of the LDP process,
this could be recovered during the later stages of the process and
the LDP deposit date still met.
Both Cabinet and the Planning Committee were
to consider the report on 18th and 19th July,
2007 respectively.
RECOMMENDED - T H A T Cabinet be informed of
this Committee’s view that:
· the revision of the
Council’s DA as proposed in the report be approved;
· the revision to the
Council’s DA be forwarded to the WAG for approval;
· following formal WAG
approval, those stakeholders and organisations previously consulted
on the drafting of the DA be advised of the revisions detailed in
the report.
Reason for recommendation
To allow sufficient time for preparation and
consultation; to accord with LDP Regulation 9; and to advise
stakeholders and organisations previously consulted of the current
position.
223 VALE OF GLAMORGAN
LOCAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN (LDP): STRATEGY OPTIONS STAKEHOLDER WORKSHOP
FINDINGS (DEER) -
In accordance with the approved Delivery
Agreement (DA), specific bodies and relevant general stakeholders
had been invited to attend a Workshop on 24th May,
2007 to discuss the various strategic options for the LDP. A
total of 52 stakeholders had attended and the findings would be
used as a foundation for the Council’s LDP preferred
strategy. Those attending were brought up to date on LDP
progress and the role of Sustainability Appraisal in determining
the preferred strategy for the LDP. Stakeholders were also
asked to consider the merits of each of the following strategy
options:
· Option 1 - maximising the
potential of and concentrating growth in Barry, Penarth, Dinas
Powys, Sully and Rhoose (current UDP strategy)
· Option 2a - dispersal of
housing and employment opportunities based on the current
population of each settlement (without a sustainability test)
· Option 2b - dispersal of
housing and employment opportunities based on the current
population of each settlement (with a sustainability test)
· Option 3 - higher growth in
the larger villages in rural areas
· Option 4 - a rural new
settlement able to promote sustainable self-containment
· Option 5 - concentrate
development opportunities in Barry, Penarth / Llandough, Dinas
Powys and Sully. Llantwit Major and St Athan to be a key
development opportunity. Smaller sustainable settlements to
accommodate further housing and associated development.
Detailed explanations of all the options
together with their advantages and disadvantages were appended to
the report. Option 5 was considered to be the most favourable
is it supported the regeneration of brownfield sites such as Barry
Waterfront and made efficient use of existing infrastructure and
transport facilities. In addition, it recognised the
potential development opportunities arising from the proposed
Defence Training Academy at St Athan. Stakeholders also
proposed additional strategy options including various combinations
of the above options, tying in proposed development in the Vale of
Glamorgan with those in neighbouring authorities, focusing
development opportunities around Cardiff International Airport, and
concentrating the majority of developments in and adjoining
existing major settlements but providing area specific allocations
within the surrounding areas. Attention was also drawn in the
report to the fact that it would not be possible to adhere to the
dates originally set out in the approved DA timetable.
Given the myriad changes in planning
legislation and subsequent guidance, the suggestion made that
Members be afforded training was widely accepted. The offer,
too, that the recently appointed Section 106 Officer be invited to
update the Committee on her achievements and aspirations was also
accepted.
RECOMMENDED -
(1) T H A T
Cabinet be notified that the following recommendation be
endorsed:
· the
findings from the strategy options stakeholder workshop be
noted;
· the revised timescale for the preparation and
consultation of the LDP preferred strategy be noted;
· a further report be presented to Cabinet later
in the year on the draft LDP preferred strategy.
(2) T H A T
all Members of the Council be offered training on new planning
legislation and subsequent guidance.
(3) T H A T
the above training either include a contribution from the Section
106 Officer or that she attend a future meeting of this
Committee.
Reasons for recommendations
(1)
To inform Cabinet.
(2)&(3) To inform Members.
224 WAVERLEY AND BALMORAL - DOCKING
CHARGES, PENARTH PIER 2007/08 (DEER) -
Cabinet had deferred consideration of the
request to levy a new charge for docking the Balmoral and Waverley
at Penarth Pier during evenings and night-time sailings for a
further report providing the rationale for the request (Minute No.
C2940). By way of background, it was explained that
irrespective of the time, day or night, dockings during 2006 had
been charged at £12.83, increased annually by inflation. It
was further explained that whilst the majority of dockings took
place during the normal workings hours of staff on the Pier (8.30am
- 5.00pm), there were a number which did not and the cost of
providing staff “out of hours” was calculated to be £62.82.
Whilst the operators of the Balmoral and Waverley had been
approached to accept the revised charges for evening / night-time
dockings, no response had been received.
Given that the current charges for “out of
hours” docking resulted in a loss to the Council of approximately
£50 per docking, it was
RECOMMENDED - T H A T Cabinet be requested to
agree a new charge of £62.82 for all “out of normal hours” docking
in 2007/08 and future years, and that the charge be implemented
immediately on cessation of the call-in process.
Reason for recommendation
So that the Council can recover the actual
minimum costs of providing “out of hours” service to the Balmoral /
Waverley when docking at Penarth Pier.
225 THE POUND -
LLANBLETHIAN (DEER) -
Views were sought on the proposal to declare
land at The Pound, Llanblethian surplus and to identify the reasons
for disposal.
RECOMMENDED - T H A T consideration of the
report be deferred for local Ward Member consultation to be carried
out.
Reason for recommendation
For consultation.
226 PROSIECT GWYRDD -
A REGIONAL PARTNERSHIP FOR THE PROCUREMENT OF A RESIDUAL WASTE
TREATMENT SOLUTION (DEER) -
Details were presented of the work being
carried out to procure a residual waste treatment solution for this
Council and its partnering local authorities within a collaborative
partnership. By way of background, it was reported that, in
January 2006, Cabinet had authorised the Director of
Environmental and Economic Regeneration to enter into formal
discussions with potential local authority and private sector
partners in respect of the future waste procurement options (Minute
No. C2261). Since that time, officers from the partnering
authorities of Cardiff, Newport and Monmouthshire had jointly been
exploring pre-procurement works, namely project scope, procurement
partnering structure, market appetite, key assumptions, initial
high level affordability modelling, site availability and project
timescale. A joint report of the Partnership Technical
Officers on proposals for the procurement of a sustainable residual
waste treatment solution was appended to the report.
It had become clear that there was a keen
market appetite from the waste industry to enter into a procurement
process with the Partnership and a range of technical solutions had
been identified. It was noted that the procurement of
residual treatment would only be for household and commercial waste
that could not be recycled and / or composted, and it was clear
that all authorities in the Partnership were committed to
maximising the amount of waste to be recycled and composted within
their areas. It was noted that the procurement of joint
treatment when fully developed would contribute to all authorities
meeting their Landfill Diversion targets but, more importantly,
without such treatment the authorities would risk significant fines
for failing their targets. The joint report as referred to
above contained five recommendations, certain of which would need
to be tailored to reflect the needs of this Council.
Details were also contained in the report of
the potential resource implications. At present these were
high level indications based upon the results of a preliminary
affordability modelling exercise and would need to be developed
further as part of the Outline Business Case. Discussion
ensued on the projected figures and Members were updated on recent
news that WAG would provide £400k. to be spent on
procurement. Attention was also drawn to the fact that whilst
no additional resources were presently available within the base
budget for Visible Services, subject to agreement, the Visible
Services reserve could provide the source of funding to meet the
Council’s share of any one-off costs associated with procurement
and development of the Outline Business Case. It was
recognised too that the timetable for implementation was extremely
tight and although 2013 remained the deadline at the current
moment. Discussion also briefly ensued on the need to
investigate the technological options available and it was noted
that, should Cabinet agree to a fifth Authority joining the
Partnership, a report incorporating the ideas and experience of
that Authority would be presented to a subsequent meeting.
Overall, it was noted that the level of co-operation within the
Partnership to date had been very impressive and
positive.
RECOMMENDED -
(1) T H A
T, consistent with the principles of its adopted Municipal Waste
Strategy, the Council should:
(i) formally
join Prosiect Gwyrdd;
(ii) authorise
officers to work collaboratively with officers from the other
Authorities forming Prosiect Gwyrdd to carry out the
pre-procurement work details (preparation of Outline Business case,
project scope and governance model);
(iii) endorse
the structure of Prosiect Gwyrdd, including the setting up of a non
decision making Steering Group to oversee the pre-procurement
work;
(iv) agree
that a further report be submitted to Cabinet on the outcome of the
pre-procurement work and seeking a decision as to the commencement
of the procurement process; and
(v) agree
to Caerphilly County Borough Council joining Prosiect Gwyrdd.
(2) T H A T
the Cabinet Members for Visible Services and for Finance, ICT and
Property be nominated as members of the non decision making
Steering Group for Prosiect Gwyrdd for the purpose of overseeing
the pre-procurement preparatory work.
(3) T H A T
Newport County Borough Council act as lead authority to make any
funding applications and that Cardiff Council be authorised to
enter into contracts for the appointment of external consultants to
advise on Prosiect Gwyrdd (within approved funding levels and
subject to agreeing the apportionment of costs between the
authorities).
(4) T H A T
the Director of Environmental and Economic Regeneration be
authorised to conclude the Memorandum of Understanding on behalf of
the Authority, addressing the matters referred to in the body of
Appendix 1 to the report.
(5) T H A T
the 2007/08 indicative procurement costs as detailed in Table 3.0
of the aforementioned Appendix 1 be noted and that Cardiff Council,
subject to funding being available, look to appoint advisors from
their financial frameworks to assist in the production of the
Outline Business Case, the indicative procurement costs being
funded equally by the Authorities net of any funding received from
the Welsh Assembly Government.
(6) T H A T
the above recommendations be referred to Cabinet for Executive
decision.
Reasons for recommendations
(1) To
ensure Prosiect Gwyrdd is taken forward to deliver a regional waste
treatment solution within the proposed procurement timescales and
the necessary economies of scale to deliver value for money.
(2) To have
effective and comparable representation on the Project Steering
Group.
(3) To
ensure that there is continuity of funding applications and that
appropriate external expertise / advice is available to the
Partnership.
(4) To
formalise the present agreement between the partnering
Authorities.
(5) To
ensure that Members are aware of the funding issue through the
production of an Outline Business Case.
(6) To
obtain Executive decision.
(Note: Councillor R.F. Curtis spoke on the
above matter with the consent of the Committee.)