• Home Page >
• Our Council >
• Council >
• Minutes, Agendas & Reports

 

SCRUTINY COMMITTEE (ECONOMY AND ENVIRONMENT)

 

 

MINUTES of a meeting held on 8^th April, 2008.

 

Present: Councillor N.P. Hodges (Chairman); Councillor S.T. Wiliam (Vice-Chairman); Councillor Ms. L. Burnett, J. Clifford, Miss J. Cole, G.A. Cox, A.D. Dobbinson, Mrs. M. Kelly Owen, Mrs. A.J. Preston and Mrs. S.I. Sharpe.

 

Also present: Councillor H.J.W. James, N. Moore, B.I. Shaw and F T Johnson.

 

 

961     APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE -

 

These were received from Councillors R.J. Bertin, E. Hacker, Mrs. A.J. Moore and W.C. Vaughan.

 

 

962     MINUTES -

 

RECOMMENDED - T H A T the minutes of the meeting held on 11^th March, 2008 be approved as a correct record.

 

 

963     DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST -

 

No declarations were received.

 

 

964     REVENUE AND CAPITAL MONITORING FOR THE PERIOD 1^ST APRIL 2007 TO 29^TH FEBRUARY 2008 (DEER) -

 

The projected outturn for the 2007/08 Revenue budget was shown in comparison with the Annual budget in Appendix 1 to the report, the current forecast being for a balanced budget.  Details of the current variances in various services were contained within the report.  Attention was drawn to the fact that the achievement of a balanced budget was to be commended given the efficiency targets required to be found in this financial year.  There were slight adjustments in the Capital Programme in respect of:

 

• Land drainage pre-feasibility (this could be slipped into the new financial year as approval had now been received from WAG);
• Transport Grant;
• General Asset Renewal 2007/08 - scheme for the construction of a gulley recycling facility at Pant Y Lladron.

 

The reasons for non-completion of local schemes were detailed in the report and it was noted that, subject to Council approval, those listed below would be slipped into the next financial year:

·        Barry Regeneration Partnership;

·        Cogan Hall Farm;

·        Relocation of road to Dunraven Beach;

·        Penarth Marina Escarpment;

·        Marcross Cesspits;

·        Knap Development;

·        Multi Use Games Area, Cadoxton;

·        Dyffryn House external restoration;

·        Penarth Pier Decking.

 

The Council’s support for the Pont y Werin bridge scheme in the sum of £200,000 had not been reflected in the minutes and this sum would be available in the forthcoming financial year towards the project.

 

RECOMMENDED - T H A T the position with regard to the 2007/08 Revenue and Capital Monitoring be noted.

 

Reason for recommendation

 

To be aware of the position with regard to the 2007/08 Revenue and Capital Monitoring relevant to this Committee.

 

 

965     REQUEST FOR CALL-IN FROM COUNCILLORS H.J.W. JAMES AND B.I. SHAW (QUARELLA STREET MULTI USE GAMES AREA, BARRY) (C3429) -

 

The Council had installed, in conjunction with the Cadoxton Millennium Playground Association (“the Association”), an enclosed illuminated MUGA on its land to the rear of Quarella Street, Barry.  The facility was currently locked and had never been opened to the public.  Cabinet had considered this matter on 5^th March 2008 and recommended removal of the MUGA.

 

Councillor James had listed the following reasons for his request:

 

1.      The decision seemed to ignore the wishes of the residents group (Cadoxton Millennium Playground Association) that (a) raised the money (b) donated it to the Council and (c) sought planning approval.

 

2.      The possibility of legal action had been dismissed but this seemed to be a view based on the opinion of two main contributors.  However, the money was raised by the CMPA and included money from individual donations and collections as well as large sums from Dow and Cabot.  As CMPA granted the total fund for the purpose of building the MUGA at Quarella Street, with this Council’s agreement, it was CMPA who needed to be consulted on whether they would be prepared to support the removal of equipment and they clearly objected.

 

3.      The need to explore how the Council encouraged a residents group to go to all this hard work and dedication to obtain a much needed facility only to be thwarted by the Cabinet.

 

4.      Why a “public meeting” was held with only those residents who were immediate neighbours and why the views of the CPMA were not sought for balance and why the previously acknowledged needs of the young people were dismissed.

 

5.      Why was the Chief Executive’s Department involved with a survey on such a matter when the views of the neighbouring residents had been sought during the original planning application?

 

6.      What part had Councillor Neil Moore played in the matter as Deputy Leader, as Cabinet Member for Finance, ICT and Property and as an involved local Member?

 

Councillor Shaw wanted to give the Committee an opportunity to debate this item and hopefully, at the least, allow a trial period for the MUGA to be used for the children of neighbouring streets before a firm decision was made by the Council.

 

The Chairman referred to the site visits made earlier in the day to Quarella Street, Dobbins Road and Victoria Park he had attended with Councillors Ms. L. Burnett, J. Clifford, G. Cox, A.D. Dobbinson, H.J.W. James, F.T. Johnson, A.G. Powell and B.I. Shaw.  Members were able to view the MUGA in its current location and its proximity to neighbouring properties. Other matters noted during the visit to Quarella Street, was the noise that the ball made on the current fencing, the height of the fence and the Alley Gates fitted at each end of the lane providing access to the MUGA.

 

The Chairman outlined the procedure to be followed for consideration of the item and papers to be considered which included further information supplied by local residents and a response by officers to Councillors James and Shaw and these were tabled at the meeting.

 

Councillor Shaw had received representations from local residents that a facility put in place at great expense had never been opened or used and it seemed sensible to have a trial period before a final decision was taken to remove the MUGA.  Councillor Jeffrey James had appreciated the opportunity to visit the site earlier in the day and the possible alternative site if the MUGA was moved.  Councillor James referred to the points on his Request for Call-In and now understood that a further survey had been requested and he no longer required an answer to point 5 of his Call-In Request.

 

Prior to consideration of the matter by Members of the Committee, the views of interested parties were sought and representations made by Mr. Viney (Cadoxton Millennium Playground Association); Mr. R. Thompson (local residents); Mr. Simon Martin (local resident); a former resident and officers.

 

Mr. Miles Punter, Head of Visible Services, indicated that the Quarella Street project had been conceived in 1998 and he had not been involved in the project until 2002.  Mr. Punter indicated that this was a very complex issue and despite the best endeavours of the Association, the MUGA was too close to houses and could attract anti-social behaviour.  At the time the MUGA was proposed, there were no other nearby facilities.  However, there was now a MUGA situated in Victoria Park which was fairly close to this location.  Guidance from Sport England suggested that a multi use games area should be sited at least 12 metres from adjacent properties and this would be increased to 30 metres if it was a floodlit facility.  Mr. Punter did agree that the fence had been provided higher than originally intended but if this was lowered then local residents could have problems with balls entering their gardens.  There was now the opportunity to move the MUGA to what appeared to be a more suitable location in Dobbins Road for a sum of £13,000 which would be within the original capital estimate.  Mr. Punter advised that they had tried to come up with a consensus of how the facility should operate with the residents regarding hours of use and supervision.  Officers did not like to recommend removal but it was felt that the MUGA would never operate properly in Quarella Street.

 

Mr. Simon Martin, resident of Moxford Street, Barry, initially had thought the MUGA was a bad idea.  His opinion had now changed as he wanted to see a children’s playground, with swings and slides preferably with a lower fence as this was a flat community area which could be used for car boot sales and other community activities.  Mr. Martin asked that if this was not an option then perhaps the MUGA could have a six months trial period and if anti-social behaviour occurred, it could be closed and moved to another location.  Mr. Martin understood that there were many opposing views but he did feel that the area needed somewhere safe for younger children to play.

 

Mr. Viney for the Cadoxton Millennium Playground Association, indicated that he had started with the project approximately ten years before.  At this time, there was not enough money for a facility to be provided and public meetings had been arranged to publicise a proposal for this facility.  Mr. Viney confirmed that the Association would never support anti-social behaviour but did not think this should be addressed by taking down needed facilities.  The Association was not in opposition to the Council so there was no legal challenge to the removal of the MUGA.  For a number of years the project had progressed without any opposition, it was only when the MUGA was erected and attracted bad behaviour that some residents became involved and wanted it removed.  Mr. Viney thought that it was worth a trial of six months for the MUGA to be operational to establish whether this could be a worthwhile community facility.  Mr. Viney felt that as trustees, the Association had a responsibility to the public.  They had asked the community to give money for the project and £60,000 had been given to the Council for this facility and it had never been opened.  The Association would look at the possibility of lowering the fence and putting in playground equipment and all they wanted was a six months trial period of opening.  If there were any problems of anti-social behaviour, then the Association would support the facility being removed.

 

Mr. Robert Thomas representing the residents, indicated that initially they had thought the facility a wonderful idea but did not realise how it would turn out.  Originally they had thought it would be a play area but this seemed to have been changed to a fenced-in tarmac area.  The residents understood that the fence would be of a non-climbable material with sound retention properties.  This had not happened as it was quite an open fence, which was quite rigid.  The facility was almost completely used by teenagers during a seven week period prior to it being opened formally.  Residents had youths climbing over walls, urinating in their gardens and generally using the area for drinking and other anti-social activities.  The residents felt that if the facility was open for a trial period who could prevent it from becoming an area for anti-social behaviour again.  There was also a problem with the Alley Gates being fitted as with the original project these had not been an option.  The gates had been fitted for security reasons but would now have to be left open for access to a public open space.  Residents thought it was a good idea to have a play area for children and this would have been supported but as this had not been provided, they did not want a facility that was only suitable for use by children above puberty age.  Residents were afraid to approach groups of youths especially if they had been drinking and were very unhappy about the MUGA being sited so close to their properties.  The residents wished the MUGA to be re-sited as they felt it had been put in totally the wrong place.

 

A former resident who had lived in Cadoxton for twenty three years, had made a donation to the scheme and wanted to speak as he had a child aged 11 years and another of 18 years of age.  The older son had been 12 when the scheme had first been discussed and he had thought it a good idea to prevent older children from playing ball games in the road.  This resident thought that the current MUGA could be used for ages 7 to 13 as an area for ball games.  It was thought a shame that this facility should not be opened just because of bad behaviour of a few young people.  Although it was appreciated that there was a similar facility in Victoria Park, often parents did not want their children moving away from the nearby area.

 

It was confirmed that there had been some discussions about a children’s playground being provided in the location of the MUGA but by the time the application was presented to the Planning Committee this had been changed to the multi use games area.  Mr. Punter confirmed that anti-social behaviour had occurred before the construction of the MUGA was complete and before the Alley Gates were fitted.  However, after the gates had been fitted, there were still problems so changes were made to address the access issues.  The youth of the area, when consulted, wanted an area to kick balls around and for this reason, it was decided that a MUGA would be the most appropriate facility for the area.  At public meeting held to discuss the matter, no objections were received then, or at a subsequent planning application stage.

 

Councillor Neil Moore, in response to the question from Councillor James, mentioned that the scheme had been put in place many years before but Councillor Johnson had taken the lead.  It was initially thought that a play area / kick area for a younger age group would be appropriate, rather than the MUGA that has been built instead.  Many calls had been received from residents during construction of the facility as it was being used by young people despite it not being finished or opened.  As the site was not locked, the Police became involved on several occasions, but have subsequently not responded as they did initially.  Before the handover of the facility, the lights were turned on and this also created problems for residents in nearby properties.  A meeting was held with representatives of the Police and officers of the Council and eventually the lights were turned off but this did not address all of the problems being experienced at this facility and there were ongoing anti-social activities.  Councillor Moore felt that he was acting on behalf of local representatives and thought that the siting of the MUGA should be fully considered again.  Councillor Moore chaired the first meeting with all parties and then the project was handed over to Miles Punter.  At this stage of the project, Councillor Moore indicated that he was not a Cabinet Member and, since that time, he had not expressed an opinion.  The report to Cabinet had been compiled by Miles Punter without any input from himself.  When the report on the MUGA went through Cabinet, Councillor Moore had not been present.  Councillor Moore had only brought people together to discuss the matter but it had been left to officers and Cabinet colleagues to make any decision.  As there was no current planning consent for the MUGA, there was a need to find out how this had happened and to learn from the process.  Councillor Moore felt that the children’s area was a good idea, as mentioned by Mr. Martin, but thought that the quality of the facility in Quarella Street was not as good as the one in Pencoedtre Park or Victoria Park where damping systems reduced the noise of balls hitting the fence.

 

After extensive further input from all interested parties, Members deliberated on the matter and it was

 

RECOMMENDED - T H A T the Scrutiny Committee (Economy and Environment) recommend to Cabinet that they seek Regulation 3 Planning Application Temporary Consent for a Multi Use Games Area on the site at Quarella Street and any conditions to the consent be left for the Planning Committee to decide.

 

Reason for recommendation

 

To address the concerns of all parties on the siting of the MUGA and ensure that the facility has appropriate planning consent and adequate management arrangements for the facility.

 

N.B. Councillors H.J.W. James, F.T. Johnson, N. Moore and B.I. Shaw were given permission to speak during this item but took no part in the voting thereon.

 

966     CHARGING FOR CAFÉ AND RELATED LICENCES ON THE HIGHWAY (DEER) -

 

The Committee had considered the charges for services for various activities and licences and Cabinet on 14^th March 2007, approved the issues as follows, minute C2940 refers:

 

“That the charging and fee proposals for Visible Services as appended to the report be endorsed, subject to the charges relating to Café Style Licences in that whilst the licence fee should be proposed, namely £350 over three years, an additional charge be levied based on the square metreage of the area used for the purposes.  A single fee of £350 over three years had been charged for 2007/08, this would now rise to £360 for 2008/09.  However, there was concern that this would not be fair for either very small licensed areas or very large.  It was therefore proposed that a fee of £360 for three years be charged based on 20 square metres.  Smaller or larger areas would be charged pro-rata with a minimum fee of £260 for three years.”

 

RECOMMENDED -

 

(1)       T H A T the Cabinet be requested to approve the fee for licences for café and related licences on the highway be £360 per three year based on twenty square metres, pro-rate £360 for other areas with a minimum fee of £260 per three years.

 

(2)       T H A T delegated powers be granted to the Director of Environmental and Economic Regeneration in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Visible Services to vary the fee in special circumstances.

 

Reasons for recommendations

 

(1)       In order to establish a fair economic fee.

 

(2)       To allow a measure of flexibility in dealing with special circumstances.

 

 

967     SCRUTINY COMMITTEE - TRACKING OF RECOMMENDATIONS (DLPPHS) -

 

Members were informed of progress in relation to recommendations made by the Scrutiny Committee during the period January to March 2008 and their views requested in relation to progress against each recommendation and whether further action might be required to ensure the required action was undertaken and to confirm those actions which were completed.

 

As part of the recent Scrutiny Review, it had been clear that the scrutiny process needed to be more transparent, accountable and readily understood.  An integral part of effective scrutiny was a mechanism for Scrutiny Committees to monitor their recommendations to ensure that desired actions were carried out and where necessary progress was reported back.  This process also acknowledged recommendations contained in the WAO Democratic Renewal report and would also improve monitoring of Scrutiny Performance Indicators.  Tracking reports had been submitted to Scrutiny Committees on a quarterly basis.

 

An up to date schedule of recommendations on the status of recommendations were presented to Members and they were requested to review the progress made against each recommendation and having considered the report, it was

 

RECOMMENDED -

 

(1)       T H A T the actions detailed as completed below be agreed:

 

 

Reason for recommendation

 

To maintain effective tracking of the Committee’s recommendations.

 

 

968     SCRUTINY COMMITTEE - DRAFT ANNUAL REPORT MAY 2007 - APRIL 2008 (DLPPHS) -

 

The draft Annual Report had been produced in accordance with Section 6.03(d) of Article 6 of the Vale of Glamorgan Council’s Constitution which stated that “Scrutiny Committees must report annual to Full Council on their workings and make recommendations for future work programmes and amended working methods if appropriate”.  The Constitution of the Council provided that Scrutiny Committees also determine a work programme for the municipal year.

 

The Forward Work Programme for each Scrutiny Committee would include

 

·        Performance monitoring

·        Revenue and Capital expenditure monitoring

·        Annual Budget process

·        Service Planning

·        Emerging strategies from the Corporate Plan and Community Strategy and any other Task and Finish projects where identified

·        The Cabinet Forward Work Programme.

 

As previously reported to all the Scrutiny Committees, IDT Officers were available to become involved in one Review per Committee with the exception of Community Wellbeing and Safety having regard to the Social Services Change Plan which was seen as the main priority for the Council given the significant overspend in social care services.  The Scrutiny Chairmen / Vice-Chairmen Group continue to provide a forum to share good practice and lessons learnt and to co-ordinate work programmes.  The Scrutiny Chairmen / Vice-Chairmen Group and Scrutiny Committee were consulted on the Work Programme for 2008/09 at their meetings held on 30^th January and 11^th March 2008 respectively.

 

RECOMMENDED - T H A T the contents of the draft Annual Report for the period May 2007 - April 2008, subject to any further minor amendments being agreed in consultation with the Chairman, be approved and it be presented to Full Council.

 

Reason for recommendation

 

To approve the draft Scrutiny Committee Annual Report to allow it to be submitted to Full Council on 23^rd April 2008.