Minutes of a meeting held on 8th November, 2016.


Present:  Councillor Mrs. A. Moore (Chairman); Councillor Mrs. P. Drake (Vice-Chairman); Councillors A.G. Bennett, G.A. Cox, Mrs. M. Kelly Owen, A.P. Riley, G. Roberts, S.T. Wiliam and M.R. Wilson.


Also present:  Councillors L. Burnett N.P. Hodges, Dr. I.J. Johnson and P.G. King.





This was received from Councillor A.G. Powell.



505     MINUTES -


RECOMMENDED - T H A T the minutes of the meeting held on 11th October, 2016 be approved as a correct record.





No declarations were received.





Cabinet, at its meeting on 26th September, 2016 had referred the report to the Scrutiny Committee for consideration having resolved:


•          That the feedback report be published on the Council’s website.

•          That delegated authority be granted to the Head of Regeneration and Planning in consultation with the Leader and Cabinet Member for Regeneration and Education to continue to develop and administer the Sense of Place Project based on the solutions proposed in the feedback report, including engagement with the community where necessary.


The report was also to be forwarded to Barry Town Council for information and presented to the next meeting of the Barry Regeneration Advisory Group.


Angharad Wynne, the leading Sense of Place Advisor for Visit Wales, was present at the Scrutiny meeting and provided a presentation on the Sense of Place Project.  The Committee was informed that Sense of Place Regeneration “involves engaging with and re-inspiring community and tourism groups about their locality to harness their knowledge in order to provide improved and enriched interpretation of that place and an increased sense of pride and ownership.  The Regeneration Forum also serves to bring together people from different parts of the Barry community giving them an opportunity to interact and discuss the issues affecting the fabric of the town and surrounding area.”  As part of the Regeneration Forum, Angharad Wynne had devised and run workshops to ascertain current thoughts and attitudes towards Barry, to capture issues, highlight possibilities and to gauge the appetite for and priorities for change.  A feedback report which was prepared after the Annual Regeneration Forum in May by Angharad Wynne was attached at Appendix 1 to the report and provided an account of the work undertaken with regard to the development of Barry’s Sense of Place as a tool for the regeneration of the town.


Ms. Wynne commenced her presentation by advising that the aim of the work was: 

  • to clarify Barry’s story and its future trajectory;
  • to engage with residents and people of Barry behind the common vision for the town and to encourage them to play their part;
  • to develop a new brand proposition for Barry that communicated the places story and vision clearly and consistently in a contemporary and attractive fashion;
  • to harness all regeneration activities, town centre planning and developments within public realm towards communicating Barry’s story clearly, confidently and ingeniously;
  • to raise Barry’s sense of ambition and raise its profile as a thriving and attractive place to live, work, invest and play;
  • to make the place the hero;
  • to enhance place making skills of the teams in and around Barry. 

The key issues arising were referred to as :- 

  • Ensuring the sensory environment did not lack management and thought;
  • Ensuring Barry’s story was visible;
  • Improving gateways;
  • Improving signage;
  • Ensuring navigation around the town was made easy and obvious;
  • Visitor focused spaces had received investment and had improved;
  • Improving the town centre frontage and atmosphere;
  • Ensuring Barry was a town held together at present;
  • Engaging the community in the process;
  • Improving the cleanliness and maintenance of key areas;
  • Ensuring assets were properly presented and not overlooked.”

Ms. Wynne advised that the gateways in the area were not clear and some did not make a good impression.  It was obvious that Barry Island had undergone significant improvement and looked great but the town centre appeared to be “lagging behind”.  In referring to some of the assets that were poorly presented, Ms. Wynne referred to an example of the castle and the need to signpost such landmarks for information for visitors and residents.  The entry points to the town were marked by relatively corporate name boards saying Welcome to Barry but they could be easily missed and, in her view, communicated nothing about the personality of the area.  During the workshop participants were asked to prioritise activities to support redevelopment and the regeneration of Barry based on solutions which had successfully supported regeneration and place making in other towns and cities in the UK.  The Appendix to the report, at Chapter 5, detailed prioritising solutions and additional ideas for regeneration and improvements for Barry. The workshop participants who took part in the Regeneration Forum in May had been split into ten groups and each group had been given three questions to answer, with responses clustered under the following subject headings: Barry’s Story; Barry’s Issues, Problems, Things to Tackle; Best Things, Assets, Positives; Barry’s Physical Assets; Current Impressions, Value of Barry, Aspirations, Looking Forward; Personality and People of Barry.


In providing the presentation, Ms. Wynne also referred to a number of initiatives and activities that had been undertaken throughout Wales.  At Holyhead in North Wales they too had commissioned a Sense of Place project.  In noting that cruise ships were regularly stopping at Holyhead, they had developed a link with the cruise ships and the town by thinking in a different way in order to capture visitors into the area.  Ms. Wynne stated that it was also important that the use of visual language be considered, style of photography, billboards, signage with its own style and public realm furniture to encourage visitors and ownership within the locality.


Members of the Scrutiny Committee welcomed the report and its completeness in acknowledging the number of aspects that made up the story of Barry.  However, with regard to street naming, a Member requested that the Council should consider the local heritage and other aspects pertinent to the area to ensure that the names correlated with the full history of the area. The Member also concurred with the report that the Sense of Place needed to be linked with the different parts of the town and its heritage and in particular the need to work with local developers. In considering the report, reference was also made to some areas in Barry which were the responsibility of Network Rail and were being addressed e.g. fencing along the Causeway at Ship Hill and the railings at Dock View Road.  Ms. Wynne advised that it was paramount that working together with key stakeholders and the community took place in order that a passionate and clear vision for the future was shared by all with working as one. 


A Member suggested that if the Council was serious about developing the economy, it needed to address the issue of car parking. He further stated that with regard to the establishment of the Beach Huts, some were too small.  The Chairman, however, advised that Members had had the opportunity on a number of occasions to put forward concerns or suggestions with regard to the Beach Huts prior to their implementation.  The Chairman also pointed out for the benefit of the Committee the workshops detailed in the report had identified that the Beach Huts were seen as a good example of one of the physical assets of Barry Island. 


Communications and Public Relations  operations were also seen as key in promoting Barry, however, Ms. Wynne stated that she had no view on the Council’s current PR arrangements but stated that in her opinion, there were improvements to be made to the area before the Council invested further in PR work.


The Cabinet Member for Regeneration and Education advised that the importance of the Sense of Place report was that it was part of a process to develop a strategy for shared ownership and to bring together all key stakeholders in a common goal.  The Cabinet Member in particular referred to the development of the Vale Ambassadors initiative in order to encourage community engagement and referred to the Barry Island Historical Group, who were passionate about the area and who would be engaged in the process.


The Head of Service for Regeneration and Planning advised that some of the issues raised at the meeting were very relevant to the work that was to be addressed under the Project and requested that any individual comments on the report be forwarded to himself in order that they could be fed into the process.


The Head of Visible Services and Transport took the opportunity to inform Committee that she was currently in discussions with Network Rail concerning  the issues at Dock View Road and that the Committee was due to receive a progress report in January in relation to the Beach Huts policy. 


In referring to car parking issues, it was noted there were 193 free spaces on Barry Island with the Chairman reminding Members of the Request for Consideration of Matter process which provided the opportunity for reports on issues to be brought before the Committee for consideration.  


Councillor Dr. I.J. Johnson, not a Member of the Committee, with permission to speak, stated that when the report had been forwarded to Ward Members for consultation, the Appendix had not been attached and he requested that in future, all the relevant information be attached for their consideration.  He was pleased to note that further focus groups were being planned and in considering further opportunities suggested that monies could be realised from Section 106 funding for such projects, in particular for modern art. He asked that opposition Members be also included to sit on various regeneration bodies in order that comments can be provided at such Forums.


In response to a query from Councillor Johnson as to how she saw the Council taking forward any tangible schemes, Ms. Wynne stated that she was aware the Council was facing the same challenges regarding funding as other Councils and that the whole programme was designed to look at what funds were available and how the Council could provide such schemes in different ways.  The purpose of the project and the report was to provide Councils with the foundations and skills needed to go forward.  The Cabinet Member commented that funding was a challenge as the service was a non-statutory service and the Council needed to look at a programme of work and how it could be funded in various different ways.  It was acknowledged by the Head of Service for Regeneration and Planning that the document was a framework that would inform all the future work for regeneration.


Councillor N. Hodges, not a Member of the Committee, with permission to speak, advised Members that the forthcoming Learning and Culture Scrutiny Committee meeting on 14th November, 2016 would be considering a report on art development and suggestions for a museum heritage centre.  He also took the opportunity to state that he looked forward to further workshops being held and would be keen to take part.  He, however, queried the role of the Place Board questioning whether this would be different to the Regeneration Board and whether the Regeneration Board still existed.  He too concurred that the Council needed to extend and promote the treasures of Barry and in particular suggested that the Victorian Stench Pipes (cast-iron) be repainted in Victorian colour schemes which he considered would be another treasure and another heritage area for signposting.  He was also keen to see the Harbour area being renewed and would encourage consultation with ABP in that respect.  He concurred that signage in general had been neglected for some time and queried what specific funding would be available for tourism promotion as a result.


The Operational Manager for Regeneration referred to the fact that funding sources were always a challenge but that the Council needed to tap into existing funds, including the Rural Community Development Fund and Regional Tourism Engagement Fund which the Council had succeeded in accessing several times.


A Member of the Committee stated that Barry Island was blessed with incredible topography and the work that had been undertaken on Barry Island and the attractions to date were excellent.  Together with the other historical references throughout the town, this was an opportunity for further development.  Although he queried whether the overall strategy had been correct in the first instance in that it appeared that the Council should have been undertaking this project some four years previously.  He referred to work that had already taken place by Penarth Town Council, who had commissioned a similar strategy and that it disappointed him that the strategy before Committee was focused only on one area.


The Head of Service for Regeneration and Planning advised that the project was a significant scheme but it was a blueprint that could be tailored to be driven throughout the Vale of Glamorgan but was very much driven by Welsh Government Funding.  An overall strategy had to date not been in place as the Council had to focus on other schemes where funding allowed.  The key issue was that Barry had benefitted from funding for regeneration projects from both the Council and Welsh Government and it therefore now had a platform that could be pursued further.  For completeness, the Cabinet Member for Regeneration and Education referred to a number of schemes that had been undertaken by the Vale Council in the Penarth area, in particular the Penarth Pier and the Penarth Picnic scheme which had been a success in the current year.  The Penarth Heights Project had also delivered considerable Section 106 funding from developers.


Ms. Wynne advised that in terms of timing, there was a time when a place became ready for Sense of Place and it was her view that a lot of work had already been undertaken within Barry, which now resulted in the timing being right for this initiative.  The whole purpose of the Sense of Place agenda was about pulling together a place that was ready to be pulled together and that the personality of a place would be a driver for projects.


Having fully considered the report, it was subsequently




(1)       T H A T the comments of the Scrutiny Committee be referred to Cabinet and to the Place Board when established in order that they can consider the comments of the Scrutiny Committee when taking forward the Sense of Place project.


(2)       T H A T Ms. Wynne be thanked for her comprehensive presentation to the Scrutiny Committee which had been welcomed by all.


Reasons for recommendations


(1)       To allow for the comments of the Scrutiny Committee to be considered as appropriate.


(2)       In recognition of the work undertaken and the report presented to the Committee.





The report provided an update on progress of the Town Centre Framework and associated action plan and had been referred to the Committee by Cabinet on 31st October, 2016 for consideration.


The Town Centre Framework had been commissioned by the Council in 2012 with the work being undertaken by consultants Nathaniel Lichfield and Partners.  It contained a comprehensive Implementation Plan which had been adopted in February 2014 attached at Appendix 1 to the report, with an additional column showing progress made as of September 2016.  The report identified that considerable progress had already been made in respect of most actions, it being noted that the implementation of that actions required a corporate approach involving many areas of the Council and was often closely linked with other strategic documents such as the Unitary Development Plan and the draft Local Development Plan.


Progress in the Barry Centres was supported by the Welsh Government’s Vibrant and Viable Places grant funding programme, which was currently in its last year.  Officers are engaged with Welsh Government in respect of future funding opportunities.  The recent formation of the new Barry Town Centre Forum should Members were advised inform a better understanding of needs.  In Cowbridge and Llantwit Major implementation fell to a wide range of stakeholders including the Council’s rural regeneration partnership, Creative Rural Communities, which was an important in driving forward further new initiatives, working with the community.  Events were also key in these centres, and the Council had set aside funds to encourage new events to be established.  In Penarth, future action was likely to focus on gateway improvements and the Esplanade, after a recent focus on events with the Council’s support of the Penarth Picnic, for example.


In presenting the report, the Head of Service for Regeneration and Planning  referred specifically to the fact that vacancy rates in all town centres was now relatively low, although a Member stated that there had been a criticism in Penarth that it did not have a mix of shops and questioned what the Council could do in order to encourage different mixtures to take up occupancy.  It was noted that options to the Council were limited do as the retail industry was led by market forces and business owners’  requirements.  The key role was to make the centres attractive to investors. In considering the report, Members referred to a number of aspects including branding of towns, signage, lack of parking in some areas, with it being accepted that, for Barry, it was important to link the various shopping areas in Barry to consolidate the shopping and Sense of Place feeling for the town.  It was also noted that High Street in Barry was the fourth in Britain for having a significant number of independent traders in the vicinity.  A Penarth Member advised of their disappointment in the lack of dedicated Town Centre Manager time for Penarth.   Members also considered that it was imperative that signage for each area was reviewed and in particular the lack of signage from the motorway link road from Culverhouse Cross to various aspects throughout the Vale was seen as an issue although it was recognised that this was the responsibility of Welsh Government and not the Vale.


The Operational Manager for Regeneration advised that he was aware that there were some vacant properties in some town centres but these were relatively few compared to many town centres.  With regard to car parking, the Council was currently looking at possible solutions but this was a difficult issue as many traders did not want car parking charges.


The Cabinet Member for Regeneration and Education advised that in her view partnership was key, the Council was an enabler but looked to local traders to work in partnership to assist with boosting the economy and income within their area.  The Cabinet Member also took the opportunity to advise Members of the forthcoming ice rink attraction for Holton Road with the aim to encourage people to attend throughout the week with the hope that they would stay and visit a number of the shops in the area.  A Member however, advised that they had heard that some businesses had stated that they would not stay open late which Members considered to be a disappointment as the whole project was designed to bring visitors to the area to then hopefully frequent the shops. It was hoped that traders would have the ambition to open for visitors or, if not, whether other types of provision could be provided e.g. pop up shop type projects.  Officers stated that they would particularly work with local traders who they hoped would view the attraction as an opportunity to regenerate the area and to increase footfall for local business but that refreshments would be available at “Ice Central” in any case..


Having considered the report it was subsequently




(1)       T H A T the progress to date in respect of the Town Centre Framework Implementation Plan be noted.


(2)       T H A T further updates continue to be presented to the Scrutiny Committee in due course.


Reasons for recommendations


(1)       In acknowledging the work that was ongoing and the comments and responses made at the meeting.


(2)       In order that the Scrutiny Committee can be updated on progress.





Cabinet had referred the report to the Scrutiny Committee for its consideration it being noted that Civil Parking Enforcement had been a work programme item for the Committee in view of Members’ previous concerns.


In presenting the report the Head of Visible Services and Transport advised that paragraph 11 of the report referred to the total number of parking charge notices issued for 2013/14, 2014/15 and 2015/16 as identified below.



Total Number of Contravention Notices Issued



Successful Appeals


















Appendix A to the report also provided details of the streets where the parking notices had been enforced.  Members were informed that if they did not see streets in their areas listed in the Appendix this did not mean that the streets had not been patrolled, it was simply that the streets had been in compliance. 


A Member queried the reporting mechanism for such reports as he considered that the report should be presented on an annual basis.  The Head of Service advised that the Council was in compliance with its agreement for reporting arrangements but that the report had not specifically been reported to Cabinet, however the information could be viewed on the Council’s website.


A Member also raised concern with regard to the number of notices that had been issued as they considered that the figure was extremely low, particularly in comparison to a small Local Authority in Merthyr Tydfil where they had made a significant profit and also issued 17,000 PCN notices.  The officer advised that the service was regularly monitored and reviewed and discussions were regularly undertaken between Bridgend and the Vale with regard to the service but that the original agreement that had been made between the two Authorities and the provider was that the business case was to be self-financing and not for profit.


During consideration of the report, it was suggested that the agreement be reassessed as to its value and to consider whether an increase in enforcement officer numbers should be recommended.  It was, however, noted that there were different levels of offences and that in some Local Authorities there may be higher charges relating to specific enforcement offences.  Some Members raised concern as to perceived issues in the Penarth area where it appeared enforcement officers  were being lenient to some members of the public more than others particularly in loading bay spaces. Councillor Dr. I.J. Johnson, again with permission to speak, advised of a query raised at a meeting the previous evening with local traders in High Street Barry as to whether enforcement officers could vary their times of attendance.  The Head of Service agreed to take such comments back to the relevant Board meetings for discussion. 


The Member from Cowbridge commented that the CPEs in his area appeared to be effective and although it was noted that only one PCN had been issued Ogmore by Sea this year as opposed to 437 the previous year, this being  as a result of people being compliant.


The Cabinet Member for Building Services Highways and Transportation commented in relation to loading bays that this was a bit of a balancing act for the Council as in essence obstruction was a Police matter and it was a low priority of concern for the Police, particularly if they had to be called away on another Police matter. He reiterated the comments made by the Head of Service that the original business agreement had been established in respect of traffic management issues and had not been for profit.  Councillor Cox stated that having been a previous Cabinet Member, he could to confirm that the ethos for the collaboration with Bridgend had been about in relation to traffic management and not for profit.


During the meeting, although the consensus of opinion of Members of the Committee was that they supported collaboration, they did however, consider that a review of the current arrangements was required, particularly in relation to value for money and whether the number of enforcement officers that patrolled the Vale was adequate. The Head of Service suggested that an officer from Bridgend Council attend a future meeting of the Scrutiny Committee to speak to Committee but this suggestion was rejected at this time until further information was received.  The Head of Service also advised that a camera car was being considered with Bridgend and there would be a further report to the Committee on the matter in due course.


Having fully considered the report it was subsequently


RECOMMENDED toCabinet - T H A T a root and branch review of the current agreement with Bridgend Council be undertaken in
order to ascertain whether the Vale Council is receiving value for money to include the provision of further data on enforcement undertaken and the cost of the service.


Reason for recommendation


In view of comments made at the meeting and to ensure value for money.





The report advised of progress in relation to the Scrutiny Committee’s recommendations for the 1st Quarter April to June 2016 and the 2nd Quarter July to September 2016 which were attached at Appendices A and B to the report. Members’ views were sought on the status of the actions listed to the recommendations.


In referring to Appendix C to the report which detailed the Forward Work Programme schedule for the Committee for each month up to April 2017, the programme also included reports that had been requested by the Committee to be scheduled as and when available.  The Democratic and Scrutiny Services Officer advised that following the meeting of the Committee in October 2016, the Request for Consideration regarding Waste Collection Arrangements had been considered and Committee’s agreement to its removal from the schedule was subsequently agreed.   The Chairman also requested that the resurfacing report due to be presented to the December meeting include details of the three-year plan and queried the current status of the Merrie Harrier/Llandough Traffic Model.  The Head of Service advised the Merrie Harrier model was currently ongoing and was noted as an action to be progressed.


Having considered the report it was subsequently




(1)       T H A T  the Resurfacing Highways report listed for the December meeting include the three-year plan.


(2)       T H A T the status in respect of the following recommendations be deemed as completed:


14 June 2016

Min. No. 98 –   (Visible Services) End of Year Performance Report 2015-16 and Target Setting   for 2016-17 (DEH) –   Recommended

(3)   That the proposed targets for 2016-17   aligned to Well-being Outcome 2, 'An Environmentally Responsible and   Prosperous Vale' be endorsed and Cabinet informed accordingly.

Cabinet,   on 25th July, 2016, resolved

[1]   That service   performance results and the progress made towards achieving key outcomes as   outlined in the Corporate Plan 2013-17, the Outcome Agreement with Welsh   Government 2013-16 and the Improvement Plan Part 1 2015-16 as detailed in the   report be noted.

[2]   That the progress   made to date by services in addressing identified areas for improvement be   noted.

[3]   That the   progress being made on developing the Council's Performance Management   Framework be noted.

[4]   That the   proposed suite of performance indicators to monitor progress against the   Corporate Plan Well-being Outcomes and Corporate Health be noted. 6166

[5]   That the proposed targets for 2016-17,   aligned to the new Corporate Plan Well-being Outcomes and Corporate Health,   be noted and endorsed.

[6]   That the draft Quarterly Well-being   Outcome report template be approved as the basis for preparing performance   monitoring reports for 2016-17.

(Min.   No. C3255 refers)

Min. No. 99 –   (Development Services) End of Year Performance Report 2015/16 and Target Setting   for 2016/17 (DEH) –   Recommended

(3)   That the proposed targets for 2016-17   aligned to the Well-being Outcome, 'An Environmentally Responsible and   Prosperous Vale' be endorsed and Cabinet informed accordingly. 

[As   above]

19 July 2016

Min. No. 190 –   Closure of Accounts 2015/16 (DEH) – Recommended

(2)   That a report in respect of fees and   charges relating to filming be presented to a future meeting of the   Committee.

Added   to work programme schedule.

Min. No. 191 –   Revenue and Capital Monitoring for the Period 1st April to 31st   May 2016 (DEH) –   Recommended

(2)   That the views of the Committee be   conveyed to the Corporate Performance and Resources Scrutiny Committee in   time for when they are due to consider the Youth Employment report as referred   to above.

At  the Corporate Performance and Resources   Scrutiny Committee, on 1st September, 2016, the Chairman indicated   that he would take Agenda Items 5 (Youth Employment in the Vale of Glamorgan   Council – Reference from Cabinet) and 6 (this reference) together.  The Scrutiny Committee recommended

(1)   That the Head of Human Resources submit a   report to a future meeting in respect of the Council’s Workforce Plan   indicators / performance. 

(2)   That the Cabinet be requested to raise the   image of employment / career opportunities within the Local Government sector   with the WLGA and the Public Service Board.

(Min.   No. 283 refers)

Min. No. 192 –   Flood Alleviation Schemes (DEH) – Recommended

(2)   That a further update report on the   schemes be presented to the Committee in November 2016 and that the report   also include details of smaller flood alleviation schemes in and around the   Vale of Glamorgan.

Added   to work programme schedule.

Min. No. 193 –   Annual Report – Section 106 Legal Agreements 2015-2016 (REF) – Recommended

 (2)     That the Committee continues to receive a detailed report in relation   to Section 106 matters on an annual basis.

Added   to work programme schedule.

 (3)     That the Committee receives a report on gaps in service provision around   the Vale with regard to public transport to also include consideration of the   provision of a service to Llandough Hospital, as suggested above.

Added   to work programme schedule.

Min. No. 194 – 1st   Quarter Scrutiny Decision Tracking of Recommendations and Work Programme   Schedule 2016/17 (MD) – Recommended

(2)   That the Forward Work Programme be amended   to include reports as requested during the meeting and be approved and   uploaded to the Council’s website.

Added   to work programme schedule and schedule uploaded to the Council’s website.


(3)       T H A T the Forward Work Programme schedule at Appendix C be amended as outlined above and uploaded to the Council’s website.


Reasons for recommendations


(1)       For completeness and consideration by the Committee.


(2)       In accepting that the actions be deemed as completed.


(3)       In order that the updated Work Programme schedule be approved and uploaded to the Council’s website.