Cost of Living Support Icon



Minutes of a meeting held on 9th November, 2017.


Present:  Councillor V.J. Bailey (Chairman): Councillor M. Lloyd (Vice-Chairman); Councillors Mrs. P. Drake, V.P. Driscoll, S.T. Edwards, G. John, N. Moore, A.R. Robertson, Ms. S. Sivagnanam and S.T. Wiliam.


Also present: Councillors G.A. Cox (Cabinet Member for Neighbourhood Services and Transport), J.W. Thomas (Leader of the Council) and N.C. Thomas.





The Chairman paid tribute to the late Carl Sargent AM following which the Committee stood for a minute’s silence.





The Chairman welcomed Councillor N. Moore to his first meeting of the Scrutiny Committee following the use of the Managing Director’s Emergency Powers which advised that he would be replacing Councillor Anne Moore on the Committee. 


The Chairman also took the opportunity to formally thank Councillor Mrs. A. Moore for her contribution as a Member of the Committee and previous Chairman referring to her hard work, dedication and support to the Committee, which was echoed by all present.



455     MINUTES – 


RECOMMENDED – T H A T the minutes of the meeting held on 12th October, 2017 be approved as a correct record.





No declarations were received.





The Chairman welcomed Mr. Chris Fayers, Head of Environment, Peter Bryant, Decommissioning Specialist and Radioactive Waste Advisor for EDF Energy to the meeting, advising that they would provide a presentation following the Managing Director’ report. 


The Managing Director commenced by advising that the report provided an update since the matter had been previously considered by the Cabinet on 9th October 2017 and the Environment and Regeneration Scrutiny Committee at its meeting on 12th October.  Further to the above meetings the Leader of the Council had corresponded with the Leaders of Newport, Monmouthshire and Cardiff Councils, the Chief Executive of Natural Resources Wales (NRW) and the Minister for Environment and Rural Affairs and, in addition, a meeting had been convened at the request of representatives of EDF Energy which was attended by the Leader and Managing Director.  Having written to the Minister, the initial response (attached at Appendix A to the report) set out the reasons why the Minister felt that a meeting was not appropriate.  Notwithstanding this, the Leader and the Leader of Cardiff Council had also been scheduled to meet with the Minister on 8th November.  However, since the untimely death of Carl Sargent AM, this had been put on hold. 


The response from NRW to the correspondence from the Leader was attached at Appendix B to the report. Since the meeting on 12th October where NRW had stated that they would provide the scale of sampling detail it was noted that this information had been forwarded to all Members of the Committee via e-mail on 24th October, 2017. 


Following the Managing Director’s report, the representatives from EDF Energy proceeded to provide a PowerPoint presentation to the Committee.  The presentation was entitled “Briefing on Dredging of Marine Sediment from the Seabed at Hinkley Point”.  Committee was advised that Hinkley Point C was a 3.2 GW nuclear power plant providing 7% of the UK’s electricity with enough power for around six million homes.  It currently offered around 25,000 job opportunities and 1,000 apprenticeships had taken place during its construction, with 900 full time jobs when operational.  In Hinkley Point C contracts in Wales were listed as Neath £140m, Pembroke 10,000 tonnes of seawall rock had already been delivered by ship from Pembroke for the site’s new 13.5m high sea wall, Port Talbot Steel Works £20m contract, Newport – several companies totalling £50m contract values and for Monmouth it was a £25k contract with Siltbusters for water treatment.


The key facts were outlined as follows: 

  • EDF Energy would be dredging sediment from the seabed ahead of the drilling of six vertical shafts for the Hinkley Point C cooling water system;
  • the sediment posed no risk to human health or the environment;
  • the levels of radioactivity in the sediment were so low they equated to ‘not radioactive’ under UK law;
  • of this ‘low’ amount the vast majority was from natural sources.  The remaining artificial sources were typical of sediment found in the Bristol Channel;
  • testing had been carried out to highly conservative international standards working with NRW;
  • further tests approved by NRW over summer 2017 had reconfirmed the original findings.

EDF Energy was dredging marine sediment from the seabed off Hinkley Point C site: 

  • ahead of the drilling of six vertical shafts for the cooling water systemfor the new nuclear power station;
  • the cooling water system was a significant piece of infrastructure, which involved tunnelling a distance of more than 3 km out into the Bristol Channel;
  • the maximum amount of material that would be dredged was 200,000m³.  The dredged sediment would be placed into barges and transported to the Cardiff Grounds where it would be deposited.

The timeline and consenting process was defined as below: 

  • first application made to Marine Consenting Unit in August 2012

        -     Application advertised for public consultation September 2012

        -     Response to Eluned Parrott during consultation October 2012

        -     MCU commissions CEFAS to analyse sediments March 2013

  • NRW takes responsibility for Marine Licencing April 2013
  • CEFAS reports material suitable for disposal April 2013
  • Licence issued by NRW July 2014

        -    Monitoring plan for recent samples submitted October 2016

        -    Monitoring plan approved by NRW November 2016

  • New samples acquired May 2017; analysis reported September 2017.

The sediment had been tested as follows: 

  • In 2009 CEFAS obtained sediment samples at depths up to 4.8 m to support the HPC Planning Application.  No artificial radioactivity was observed below 2m.  The analysis of the core samples did not impact the outcome of the 2013 and 2017 CEFAS reports discussed below.
  • In 2013, NRW commissioned an independent analysis by CEFAS to determine the radioactive characteristics of the sediment to assess the licence application.  EDF commissioned CEFAS to undertake a recent analysis in 2017 as required, and approved, by NRW.
  • 17 sediment samples were taken in 2013 and a further 12 were taken in May 2017.
  • Majority of the radioactivity within the samples were naturally occurring in origin (~ 80 - 85%).  The remaining artificial radioactivity was typical of muddy sediments in the Bristol Channel.
  • The levels of radioactivity in the sediment were so low they equated to ‘not radioactive’ for the purposes of environmental legislation.

In summary, EDF advised that: 

  • they would be dredging sediment from the seabed ahead of the drilling of six vertical shafts for the Hinkley Point C cooling water system;
  • the sediment posed no risk to human health or the environment;
  • the levels of radioactivity in the sediment were so low they equated to ‘not radioactive’ under UK law;
  • of this ‘low’ amount the vast majority was from natural sources.  The remaining artificial sources (industry) were typical of sediment found in the Bristol Channel;
  • testing had been carried out to highly conservative international standards working with NRW;
  • further tests approved by NRW over summer 2017 reconfirmed the original findings.

Committee was further informed that in order to assess the impact of the dredging, a highly conservative internationally recognised assessment methodology was used (IAEA).   The majority of radiological dose coming from naturally occurring radioactive material and overall, these were below the limits requiring a more detailed assessment.


In response to a query as to why the Cardiff grounds were chosen, it was stated that the lower reaches of the Severn Estuary constituted a highly protected conservation area and to preserve the local ecology, EDF were required to keep the sediment within this specialised area of conservation.  Cardiff grounds was the licensed disposal site which received between 400,000m³ and 1,500,000m³ material per year.  As a result of this and its location within the special area of conservation, it had been deemed the only practical location for depositing such material.  It was also the nearest and only site that could take the particular sediment and volume.


In 2009 a planning application had been agreed and sampling to a depth of 2.48m had been  undertaken by CEFAS.  In August 2012 the Disposal Licence was considered, (having been awarded in 2014), but during 2013 further sampling was undertaken.  Although it takes considerable time for sediment to build up on the sea bed, in 2013 an assessment had been arranged to sample the surface sediment and a repeat analysis had been undertaken in 2017 which had recorded similar results to those in 2013.  As the level of radioactivity was relatively low, the definition of such did not fall under radioactivity and for all purposes it was known as mud. The approach that was being taken to date was also internationally accepted and the representatives were keen to advise that the proposed material would pose no risk to the public.


Councillor N. Thomas, not a Member of the Committee but with permission to speak, stated that he and his constituents in the St. Augustine’s Ward in Penarth were quite worried about the nature of the radiation, advising that they had been informed that some radiation was more dangerous than others.  Councillor Thomas stated that although the EDF representatives were advising  that the mud was safe, there had been only five tests in the analysis undertaken and only  to a depth of 2m level.  He asked whether his understanding was this accurate.  In response, EDF representatives advised that the levels were so low that they did not pose a threat to human beings and stated that the affect to health had been taken into account.  A number of commissions had also looked at the studies, with it being ascertained that the mud at depth was going to remain unaffected and that this had not changed from 2009 to 2017.  The findings had also been accepted by CEFAS.  Dose coefficients had been derived at by scientific consensus and research had been undertaken as to how the matter acted in the body with over 60 years being factored in to the assessment.  In particular it looked at the size and how it entered the body.  There had also been considerable data research from incidents around the world e.g. Nagasaki, Chernobyl in relation to the effects on health.


The Chairman took the opportunity to ascertain whether having to dispose of the material within the Severn Estuary had been a legislative requirement and queried whether EDF had  taken advice on this aspect and whether Natural England had any say.  In response, Mr. Frayers advised that yes, Natural England had been consulted when applying for the licence to deposit, but he could not answer the question as to whether EDF had challenged the requirement as he had not been part of the original decision, but he could confirm that there was no reason to challenge now as the material posed “no risk”.  Although it was noted that CEFAS assessments were internationally recognised  Mr. Bryant suggested that the Committee may wish to take further advice from Natural Resources Wales, for example, although he was confident the outcome would be the same. 


Following a further query as to whether there was a difference between the sediment at the top of the seabed and what artificial radioactive material there was, Mr. Bryant advised that the surface showed 80-85% with only 20% being artificial. 


Members referred to the previous meeting where Mr. Tim Deere-Jones, an expert in the field, had provided Committee with full details on his view of the dredging process being undertaken and queried why the sediment was not being moved to deeper waters when they were assured disposal would have had a lesser impact.  Mr. Frayers stated that the movement of sediment would take place, irrespective of where it would be deposited and the nature of the dredging would be the same irrespective of where it would be deposited.  He stated that CEFAS was an internationally recognised assessor in their field.  Members however, stated that although that may be the response, it was difficult for local Members to explain to their constituents as the sediment would be moved out of Hinkley to an area where there would be greater risk of subsequent movement onto local beaches. 


The Chairman was keen to ensure that all the information available was presented to Committee as he stated it was important that the Committee made a sound judgement call in view of the public interest involved. 


Following a further question regarding dredging and deposition, a Member asked whether any tests had been carried out on the Cardiff grounds site itself in the same way as on the material offshore at Hindley Point.   The Member was advised that  other analysis undertaken on an annual basis across the Estuary and along the coastline showed broadly consistent results


In response to a query as to whether dredging would  take place at the jetty site as alluded to in the letter from NRW , the representatives advised that their understanding was that there was no requirement for dredging to be undertaken off the deck of the jetty as it was no longer required.  However, Mr. Frayers agreed to seek assurance of this and to forward a reply to the Committee when available. 


A question was asked as to how long would the disposal take from start to finish,  with the response that it would start in summer 2018 for no longer than six months, Committee was also informed that there was artificial radioactivity in the Severn Estuary, but that the levels were not highly elevated. 


Following a further question regarding testing depths, Committee was informed that this had been no more than 2m.  There had also been no application for disposal of material on land refused by Public Health England that they had been involved in because they had made no such request. 


The Managing Director confirmed that the Council was already engaged in correspondence with Welsh Government and NRW and it was suggested that the issue in relation to the legislative requirement of disposal in the Severn Estuary as opposed to in deeper waters be addressed in a letter to be sent by the Managing Director. 


The Chairman reiterated his concern that as a body, EDF had not challenged the legislative process or had explored it and asked for clarity on the question. confirmation of this.  In conclusion, the Chairman also queried whether the sediment in Cardiff grounds had been tested or whether assumptions had been made.  The response indicated that under the licence, EDF were required to undertake tests, but not on the wider Cardiff grounds, with the suggestion again being made that NRW be approached in this regard.


Having considered the report and the presentation in detail, the Committee subsequently




(1)       T H A T the contents of the report be noted.


(2)       T H A T Public Health Wales be invited to attend a future Scrutiny Committee to address the issues raised at the meeting in the public interest.


(3)       T H A T a response in respect of the possible dredging of the jetty be forwarded from EDF Energy to all Members of the Committee when it was available.


(4)       T H A T, from a public interest point of view, the Managing Director write to Natural Resources Wales, seeking clarity as to the legislative provisions in relation to the suggested requirement to dispose of the dredged material within the Severn Estuary, which in turn seems to prevent depositing of the material in deeper and off-shore waters.


(5)       T H A T Natural Resources Wales be asked whether tests had been made on the nature of the sediment situated on the Cardiff grounds and the impact of depositing material at this location.


Reasons for recommendations


(1-3)    To apprise Members.


(4&5)  To seek clarification.





The report provided the Committee with an update on Civil Parking Enforcement activities in the Vale of Glamorgan for 2016/17 and from 1st April to 24th October, 2017.


The Head of Visible Services and Transport, in presenting the report, referred to the fact that on 1st April, 2013, Bridgend County Borough Council and the Vale of Glamorgan Council were made responsible for the enforcement of the majority of on-street and off-street parking regulations under a scheme called Civil Parking Enforcement (CPE).  Civil Enforcement Officers helped to identify illegal and irresponsible parking with any illegally or irresponsibly parked vehicles being given a parking ticket known as a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN).  PCNs were only issued where vehicles were parked in contravention of the parking restrictions.  PCNs were administered by the Wales Penalty Processing Partnership (WPPP) based in North Wales.  They also processed and collected penalty charges on behalf of other Local Authorities.


If the PCN was not paid or challenged during the initial 28 day period, as specified on the front of the PCN, a Notice to Owner would be served on the registered keeper of the vehicle, requiring full payment of the penalty charge.  If payment was made within 14 days of the date of issue, then the charge was reduced by 50%.  If no payment was received within 14 days then the full amount was required.


There were no targets for the number of PCNs that a Civil Enforcement Officer must issue.  All Officers underwent comprehensive training and could only issue a PCN if they believed a contravention had occurred.


Appendix A to the report showed the data for 2016/17 and Appendix B the latest data for 2017/18 from 1st April to 24th October, 2017. 


The Civil Parking Enforcement service was arranged so as to be self-financing.  For 2016/17 the total costs and income for the service were reported as :


Vale Employee Costs




Supplies and Services


Payments to Bridgend CBC









The surplus made by the service in 2016/17 was being used to pay back the initial set up costs for CPE which totalled £281k.  Of this, £213k was funded from the Visible Services reserve.


The day to day management of CPE was undertaken by Bridgend County Borough Council.  Specific enquiries relating to the existing Traffic Regulation Orders, signs and lines within the Vale of Glamorgan were dealt with by the Council's Traffic Management team.


Following a query from a Local Member regarding how priorities were identified, they asked whether Dinas Powys could also be targeted as they stated that a number of people were starting to worry about the number of people parking on yellow lines in the area which exacerbated the problem and led to further abuse.  The Head of Service in response stated that some areas would be patrolled more closely than others, for example Barry, Penarth and Cowbridge as they had the biggest issues for the Council.  However, Members were urged if they had any issues in their areas to contact the Head of Service and she would see what could be arranged as it was a balancing act from her point of view.


Following a query regarding funding, the Head of Service advised the Council had originally put money in to launch the service but that it was established as a self-funding service.  It did however need to be reviewed and at that time all options would be considered. 


The Member from Llantwit stated that he was not happy with the number of visits in Llantwit Major, advising that they could not rely on the Police and local residents expected action.  The fact that it was the third largest town in the Vale he considered the statistics to be “pretty grim”.  He also took the opportunity to question whether all the disabled bays in the Authority had been adopted and sought the information from the officers to be forwarded via e-mail to all Members of the Committee.  Councillor Cox, the Cabinet Member with permission to speak, advised that prior to the CPE process being established, the Council had to apply to Welsh Government regarding the establishment of parking bays and at that time had undertaken an audit of all its parking bays and as such he was hopeful that all the parking bays had been approved and adopted. 


Following a further query regarding the multi-storey car park and people being booked at Wyndham Street, the Head of Service agreed to seek clarification and advise Members accordingly.


The local Member for Barry, although advising that he was more than happy with the high number of tickets being issued on Paget Road, urged the department to consider the implementation of resident parking on Barry Island.


In response to a query regarding the turnover of staff and whether the existing arrangements with Bridgend were adequate, the Head of Service reiterated that the parking strategy needed to be re-examined for Barry Island and elsewhere, there was an issue in relation to staff turnover which it was envisaged the pending car parking strategy would hopefully assist with.


A Member raised the issue of resident parking areas being left empty for most of the day in a number of areas, with the suggestion that all options be explored under the strategy to address the matter. For example the comment was made that some Councils had residents parking only after 5.00 p.m. or 6.00 p.m. when people came home from work.


The suggestion of a camera car to assist officers in their duties was seen by all Members as an excellent way forward and, although subject to available resources, Members felt that it should be considered for future use. 


Following consideration of the report, it was subsequently




(1)       T H A T the report be referred to Cabinet for consideration together with the views of the Committee.


(2)       T H A T Cabinet be requested to consider the future use of a camera car to operate around the Vale of Glamorgan.


(3)       T H A T under the Car Parking Strategy, the issue of adequate work force levels be explored.


(4)       T H A T a further Civil Parking Enforcement report be received by Committee in Summer 2018 outlining the full details of activities undertaken in 2017/18.


Reasons for recommendations


(1)       To apprise Cabinet on the current data on Civil Parking Enforcement for their consideration together with the views of the Committee.


(2)       To assist with enforcement issues.


(3)       To ensure that adequate levels are considered and addressed.


(4)       To ensure Committee continues to receive updates on Civil Parking Enforcement activities for consideration.





Committee was apprised of the performance to date of the environmental enforcement contract between the Council and 3GS (UK) Limited (3GS).  At its meeting on 25th July, 2016 Cabinet had approved the appointment of 3GS to undertake the enforcement of environmental offences to assist in improving local environment quality (LEQ). The contract with 3GS had been signed on 7th October, 2016 and was for a period of two years with an option to extend for a further year thereafter. The agreement was cost neutral as 3GS generated their own income by retaining the full value of any fixed penalty notices (FPNs) that were issued.


Other than a brief trial period a number of years previous involving a partnership with another environmental enforcement company who had since ceased trading, the Council historically had taken an educational approach to environmental offences with limited written warnings and FPNs issued.  However, the agreement with 3GS focused towards a ‘zero-tolerance’ approach, recognising the strong views of the majority of the Vale’s residents towards environmental crimes and the fact that the current costs of street cleansing was unsustainable going forward.


In addition to environmental offences, the remit with 3GS was extended at the start of November 2016 to include the enforcement of new Bye-Laws at Rhoose Point, which prohibited activities such as camping, fishing and swimming.


Since the appointment of 3GS in October 2016 there had been a number of lessons learnt.  Initially the officers assigned to the Council had a very different approach to environmental offences than perhaps the Council’s officers had anticipated and there was a lot of emphasis on smoking related offences and also a very robust approach taken to certain commercial waste offences.  There had been several meetings with 3GS’s management team in the first six months of the agreement and the Council’s Waste Management team had moved quickly to address concerns associated with the issuing of FPNs, implementing new joint procedures and protocols.


Since May 2017, and in consultation with 3GS, the Council’s own officers now assisted with determining where 3GS's resources operated and what offences their officers should concentrate on.  There remained a focus on zero tolerance but with a fairer, more common sense approach aimed at being proportionate to the level of offence.  Additionally, the Operational Manager for Waste Management and Cleansing had discretion to approach 3GS and request that a FPN be rescinded if there were doubts whether an offence had been committed and whether it was appropriately and / or ethically issued.


The Council's Waste Management Team worked through all these concerns with 3GS’s Management Team and an agreement was reached to temporarily suspend the enforcement of commercial waste related offences until the Council had time to undertake dedicated awareness campaigns.


To ensure that commercial businesses were aware of their responsibilities, the Council’s Waste Team placed half page advertisements in the local press during December 2016 and letters with advice on commercial waste legislation were distributed to all Vale commercial waste customers reminding them of their duties. The information was also given greater coverage on the Council’s website, the Chamber of Commerce was informed and social media messages were sent out through the Council’s Communications Office.


Additionally, at the start of the financial year, A5 cards were placed in Council Tax Notices for businesses, further reminding them of their responsibilities, and prior to re-launching the commercial waste enforcement service a further half page commercial waste advertisement was placed in the local press and the internet and social media campaigns were re-run.  Unfortunately, even after the awareness campaigns, businesses continued to breach their duty of care requirements and to also placed waste out for collection indiscriminately and without having due regard to its containment.  The result was unauthorised waste being left on the highway for the Council to manage, collect and clean-up which was a significant burden on diminishing resources in terms of street cleansing staff and waste collection and treatment services.


A Member further referred to the initial problems that had featured with 3GS where a number of commercial premises had been fined extortionate sums and considered that further explanation and consideration should have been given at that time.  The Head of Service advised that she did not have a relevant officer to undertake those duties and that the offences were serious because they were a criminal offence. 


Following concern by a Member at the increase in fly tipping at Pen y Turnpike Road and at lanes in Leckwith, the Head of Service requested that the details be forwarded to the department, covert operations had previously been arranged at various other sites to address such issues and it was therefore important to pass on the information in order that the department could deal with the matter.


In considering the statistical information presented and noting that 1.5 tickets per day had been issued in some areas, a Member felt that this was not an effective deterrent and suggested the Council needed to have more robust enforcement.  Reference was also made to cleanliness issues within the Vale of Glamorgan, with the suggestion that a report be presented to the Scrutiny Committee on the subject to a future meeting.


Having considered the report, it was subsequently




(1)       T H A T the report and comments made at the meeting be referred to Cabinet for its consideration.


(2)       T H A T a street cleansing report (as requested above) be presented to a future Scrutiny Committee and that the request be added to the Committee’s work programme schedule.


Reasons for recommendations


(1)       Having considered the performance to date.


(2)       For Committee’s consideration.





The Democratic and Scrutiny Services Officer apprised Members of the progress in relation to the Scrutiny Committee’s recommendations outlined at Appendix A to the report for the second quarter July to September 2017 and outlined the work programme for 2017/18 attached at Appendix B to the report.


In referring to Appendix A, Committee was informed that Minute No. 265 – Improvement Strategic Transport for Dinas Powys, the reference had been referred to Cabinet who had concurred with the recommendation of the Committee.  For Minute No. 270 – 1st Quarter Decision Tracking of Recommendations and Updated  Work Programme Schedule 2017/18 and the report on public transport, it was noted that a report had been presented to the last meeting of the Committee. 


In referring to the forward work programme schedule 2017/18, Committee was advised that for the 30th November meeting Quarter 2 performance reporting information was not available in time for the November cycle of meetings and as such all Quarter 2 performance reporting was being deferred to the January Committee meetings.  In view of the budget proposals being presented to 30th November meeting and the presentation from WeLTAG Stage 1being received The Chairman advised that the Barry Regeneration report would be deferred to the January 2018 meeting for consideration by the Committee.


Following approval from the Committee to the above, it was subsequently




(1)       T H A T the recommendations deemed as completed in Appendix A and as outlined below be accepted:


13 July 2017

Min. No. 152 – Revenue And Capital Monitoring For The Period 1st April To 31st   May 2017 (DEH) – Recommended

(1)   That a cross-party   letter be sent in the name of the Chairman to the Welsh Government Ministers   and the Welsh Local Government Association regarding the reinstatement of the   Local Government Borrowing Initiative or some other method of funding to   assist Local Authorities with the maintenance and repairs of the road network   and Cabinet be informed accordingly.

Letter sent to Ken Skates AM (Cabinet Secretary for Economy and Infrastructure) on 4th August, 2017 and acknowledgement received on 17th August, 2017, response received on 8th September, 2017 and emailed to all Members of the Committee for their information (copy attached).


Min.   No. 154 – Active Travel (DEH) – Recommended

(3)   That a further report be presented to Members in Autumn 2017 outlining the results of the consultation process and to consider the submission of the final Integrated Network Maps to Welsh Government by 3rd November, 2017.

Added to work programme schedule.


Min. No. 155  – Highway Resurfacing Three Year Plan 2017   To 2020 (DEH) – Recommended

(1)   That arrangements be made for site visits to be undertaken by the Committee, prior to the next meeting on 14th September, 2017, to a number of stretches of road in the Vale and that a presentation on resurfacing be provided to the Committee at the meeting on 14th September,   2017 to include details of the science behind the scoring system used.

(3)   That, the report detailing the highways resurfacing works planned for 2017-2020 be referred to Cabinet.

(1)   Site visit arranged for approx. 1:30 pm on 14th September, 2017.


(3)   Cabinet, on 4th September, 2017 noted the Scrutiny Committee’s comments and resolved

[2]   That the Highway Maintenance 3 year   resurfacing plan attached at Appendix A to the report of the Scrutiny Committee (Environment and Regeneration) be agreed.

[3]   That the Director of Environment and   Housing Services be authorised to amend the plan, in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Neighbourhood Services and Transport, should other highway routes deteriorate such that their priority for repair becomes greater than those currently indicated in the plan.

(Min. No. C61 refers)


14 September 2017

Min. No. 265 – Improving Strategic Transport for Dinas Powys (REF) – Recommended

(1)   That Cabinet be requested to consider the appointment of a representative by Dinas Powys   Community Council of their choosing to sit on the review group.

(2)   That Cabinet be requested to consider an   additional fourth option to the three proposed of a “by-pass and multi-modal” at Stage 2 of the process as below:

  •   Do minimum
  •   By-pass
  •   Multi-modal Option
  •   By-pass and Multi-modal.

Cabinet, on 9th October, 2017, resolved

(1)   That Dinas Powys Community Council be   requested to appoint a representative to sit on the review group.

(2)   That an additional fourth option to the three proposed of a “bypass and multi modal” at Stage 2 of the process as below be explored:

  •   Do minimum
  •   By-pass
  •   Multi-modal option.
  •   By-pass and Multi-modal

(Min. No. C85 refers)


Min. No. 268 – Vale of Glamorgan Agricultural Show 2017 – Business Breakfast: Feedback Report (MD) –


(3)   That the recommendations of the Committee   be referred to Cabinet for consideration.

[(1)     That the success of the Council’s Business Breakfast be noted.

(2)   That delegate feedback report on the   Business Breakfast held on 9th August attached at Appendix A to the report be endorsed and issued to all delegates.]

Cabinet, on 9th October, 2017, resolved

(1)   That the success of the Business Breakfast event be noted.

(2)   That the delegate feedback report on the   Business Breakfast held on 9th August attached at Appendix A to the report be endorsed and issued to all delegates who attended.

(Min. No. C86 refers)


Min. No. 270 – 1st Quarter Scrutiny Decision Tracking of Recommendations and Updated Work Programme Schedule 2017/18 (MD) – Recommended

(2)   That the Work Programme Schedule be   amended as outlined above to include further reports requested and that the amended Work Programme Schedule be approved and uploaded to the Council’s website. 

[Report on public transport to include the issue of the T9 and whether it was cost efficient]

Work programme schedule updated and uploaded to the Council’s website.



(2)       T H A T the work programme schedule attached at Appendix B to the report be approved and uploaded to the Council’s website, taking into account the amendments as outlined above.


Reasons for recommendations


(1)       To maintain effective tracking of the Committee’s recommendations and following updates at the meeting.


(2)       In order that the work programme can be approved and uploaded to the Council’s website with the amendments agreed at the meeting.