Minutes of a meeting held on 15th January, 2013.


Present:  Councillor R.L. Traherne (Chairman); Councillor Mrs. A.J. Moore (Vice-Chairman); Councillors G.A. Cox, Ms. C. Curtis, Mrs. P. Drake, E. Hacker, P. King, A.G. Powell and C.J. Williams.


Also present:  Councillor N. Moore.



728     MINUTES -




(1)       T H A T the minutes of the meeting held on 4th December, 2012 be approved as a correct record, subject to it being noted that the Candidate Site detailed under declarations of interest was the Evan Jenkins Candidate Site.


(2)       T H A T the minutes of the meeting held on 19th December, 2012 be approved as a correct record.





No declarations were received.





Prior to consideration of the report the Chairman reminded Committee of the recent e-mail that had been forwarded by the Director of Development Services to Members of the Committee in relation to the Leisure Services budget.


The Head of Accountancy and Resource Management in presenting the report advised that the revenue budget and projected outturn for 2012/13 was detailed at Appendix 1 to the report and referred to the following Service section budgets : 


Highways Maintenance and Engineering Design & Procurement - There was currently a £40k adverse variance to the revised profiled budget. This was reported as mainly due to a slight overspend on agency costs.


Waste Management - There was currently a £48k favourable variance to the revised profiled budget. The current underspend was mainly due to a continuing decrease in the level of waste taken to landfill, which resulted in  savings on costly disposal. The budget was currently expected to outturn on target


Grounds Maintenance - There was currently a £33k adverse variance to the revised profiled budget which was mainly due to an overspend on new machinery as new legislation had come into force for Hand Arm Vibration. The budget would be monitored closely to ensure these savings were met.


Support – The current favourable variance of £114k to the revised profiled budget would be held for any cost pressures within Visible Services that may arise throughout the financial year.


With regard to the Building Services budget it was reported that this area would breakeven at year end.


Economic Development - There was currently a £21k adverse variance to the revised profiled budget.  This variance was primarily attributable to the Employment and Training Services, as a result of the Government Work Programme receipts having not reached the profiled income targets to date.   This service was currently under review to enable a return to within budget in 2013/14.  It was anticipated that the outturn at year end would be an adverse variance of £36k.


Leisure - There was currently a £160k adverse variance to the revised profiled budget, of which £122k related to overspending within the leisure centres as previously reported. 


Planning and Transportation - There was currently a £186k favourable variance to the revised profiled budget which was predominately due to income from planning fees for major schemes now being in advance of the profiled estimate.  Recent progress in seeking to adopt highways at Rhoose Point had resulted in the receipt of fees which would otherwise not have been received.  It was anticipated that the year end outturn would be a favourable variance of £59k, which would be used to fund overspend elsewhere in the division.


Moving onto the Capital expenditure, financial progress was detailed at Appendix 2 to the report .  It was evident that the full year's budget would not be spent during the year and the relevant officers had been required to provide an explanation for the shortfall .The report detailed the delay that had been made in relation to the Alexandra Gardens Community Centre re-build.  There had been problems with the initial design which had meant that a second tendering exercise had to be carried out.  It was noted that the process had now been completed and a preferred contractor had been appointed.  The cost was projected to be well within the existing budget, although the procurement delay had pushed the planned construction period back several months.  Welsh Government had been informed of the situation and were considering assenting to splitting their initial grant offer over two financial years to match the profiled spend.  As a result Council would be requested to approve slippage of £227,000 into the 2013/14 budget. 


The Committee was also advised that Cabinet had previously agreed that further information would be provided and detailed in monitoring reports where schemes of a value of over £500,000 and showed a variance of 20% or more between the actual spend and the profile.  In view of this the following schemes had met this criteria:


Coldbrook Flooding - Due to issues with the tender process on this contract, it had been agreed that a re-tender exercise would be carried out. This would however, delay the progress of the scheme and WG have been approached to consent to a re-profile of the grant offer in order to allow the scheme to continue into 2013/14. Members would be advised of the outcome of these discussions.


Five Mile Lane Safety Improvements - Expenditure on the scheme was slightly behind profile. This reflected the fact that the scheme to improve safety conditions at Sycamore Cross had been amended from a roundabout solution to a traffic signalling arrangement, thereby reducing costs. As a result of this there would be an under spend on the budget which was to be quantified at the end of January. Welsh Government would be informed of the outturn at that point. 


Highway Resurfacing - Local Government Borrowing Initiative - The budget, to improve the condition of the Vale's highway network, was running ahead of the original planned profile as the contractor, Tarmac, was completing works faster than anticipated, with the good winter weather conditions to the end of November.  A full spend was expected by the end of January 2013.


Vehicle Replacement Programme - As had previously been reported, the delivery of vehicles on order were far later than anticipated. The majority of vehicles however were still anticipated by year-end.


Leisure Centre Refurbishment - The Council had approved a budget of £3.143m as a payment to Parkwood Leisure to manage various refurbishment works at the Vale's leisure centres as part of the new Leisure Management Partnership arrangement. The spend had fallen behind the profile and as such a new profile had been requested from Parkwood and Members would be advised should this require monies being slipped into 2013/14.


It was noted that Appendix 3 to the report provided for non-financial information on capital construction schemes with a budget of over £100,000.


In considering the report the Chairman queried whether the Leisure Section's adverse variance would be addressed via the Corporate Centre.  The Head of Service was however hopeful that the budget would be brought in line within the Directorate by the year end. 


In response to a query from a Member as regards to the re-tendering exercise for Coldbrook flooding the Director advised that there had been issues with the Environment Agency with regard to watercourses.  The Environment Agency had changed their standards and had only recently received confirmation from Welsh Government.  Due to the timescales involved it was considered to be in the Council’s best financial interest to retender.  Members were also advised that with regard to the Alexandra Gardens Scheme, following the re-tendering exercise, it had come in under budget.


Having fully considered the report it was




(1)       T H A T the position with regard to the 2012/13 Revenue and Capital Monitoring be noted.


(2)       T H A T the Scrutiny Committee recommends to Cabinet and Council to reduce the Alexandra Gardens Community Centre re-build capital scheme to £200,000 and carry forward £227,000 to 2013/14.


Reasons for recommendations


(1)       To ensure that Scrutiny Members are aware of the position with regard to the 2012/13 Revenue and Capital Monitoring expenditure.


(2)       That the proposed amendment be referred to Cabinet and Council for approval with the consent of the Scrutiny Committee.





The Scrutiny Committee had previously raised concerns with Cabinet in relation to the lack of spend in respect of 106 Legal Agreements. At a meeting of Cabinet on 1st October, 2012, Cabinet had resolved that a further report be presented at a future Cabinet Meeting outlining the protocol and how the Council could release Section 106 monies in order that schemes that had been approved could be established from the monies received under the Section 106 Agreements.


The protocol attached as an appendix to the report set out when financial obligations were received, the relevant service area would be notified with options for spend being considered and proposed in consultation with Ward and Cabinet Members and a scheme for implementation then agreed.  The Principal Planner for Development Control responsible for Section 106 Agreements stated that there were a number of issues that frustrated the successful and speedy implementation of Section 106 financial receipts.  This made it difficult to plan ahead without potentially wasting staff resources.  Other issues that prevented service areas progressing schemes toward implementation were a lack of on the shelf schemes ready to implement, the small sums of money sometimes involved made it difficult to implement a meaningful scheme without pooling resources, resources to undertake the projects themselves above and beyond the normal work programme and the prioritisation of other workloads that were time constrained or more urgent.  In addition there had been delays in the past following Member consultation and disagreements on how contributions should be spent in particular areas.  It was therefore the intention to utilise the Council's Project Management Unit to drive forward implementation of Section 106 receipts especially for major development sites such as Penarth Heights and Barry Waterfront where the number and value of the contributions had been significant. 


The Director of Development Services would therefore be considering options to allow the effective monitoring of Section 106 implementation as the role had typically been undertaken by the Principal Planning Obligations Officer but who out of necessity was now devoting her time to the introduction of a Community Infrastructure Levy for the Vale of Glamorgan.  It was envisaged that to utilise some of the smaller sums of money the Council would continue to seek to match-fund Section 106 monies with other grants such as Creative Rural Communities and Barry Regeneration Area funding.  It was therefore proposed to amend the protocol to notify the relevant Ward and Cabinet Members in order to try to avoid delays arising from separate stages of consultation.  They would be informed when Section 106 monies were received so they could forward suggestions for schemes for implementation at the same time that service areas were considering options for spend.  The protocol as an Appendix to the report reflected the change.  It had also been suggested that the Capital Schemes funded by Section 106 Obligations would be included in the Council's Capital Monitoring data so that spends would be tracked and that Section 106 implementation would be subject to regular updates to the Council's Corporate Management Team. 


Finally, where appropriate, officers would seek onsite provision of facilities as part of developments to remove the administrative burden from the Council and leave the responsibility of implementation with the developer.  This would be particularly relevant to matters such as public art and public open space; facilities which could more practically be provided on site. 


The Committee welcomed the report and the Ward Member consultation envisaged which was detailed within the protocol.  Members were also reminded of the fact that all local Ward Members were consulted on planning applications and should always make any representations at that stage as well.  With regard to the monitoring element the Principal Planner advised that the Planning Enforcement Section would be responsible for the monitoring of any works and that the annual Section 106 monitoring report would continue to be presented to the Scrutiny Committee and Cabinet. 


Having fully considered the reference and the attached report the Scrutiny Committee subsequently,


RECOMMENDED - T H A T the resolutions of Cabinet be noted.


Reason for recommendation


In view of the mechanisms to be put in place.





Cabinet had been informed on19th November 2012 of the ongoing preparation of a Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) for the Vale of Glamorgan and advised on the establishment of working procedures across the Council's relevant service areas to facilitate the progressing of the preparation of the CIL.  The work was being undertaken in tandem with the preparation of the local LDP and it was envisaged that the LDP and the CIL enquiries would run concurrently.  One of the first tasks would be to identify what infrastructure the Council would like to use the CIL to fund.  The CIL Regulations defined infrastructure for the purpose of CIL as including

  • roads and other transport facilities
  • flood defences
  • schools and other education facilities
  • medical facilities
  • sporting and recreational facilities
  • open spaces.

It was noted that the CIL would differ from Section 106 funding since it could be pooled to deliver an infrastructure project that did not necessarily directly relate to the development from which it was sourced.  The Chairman noted that the work being undertaken was at an early stage and that there were a number of issues to be addressed. It would also be important to monitor the work which the officer advised would be the role of the planning enforcement section and that the Localism Act referred to the need to ensure “a meaningful proportion” of the money received through CIL was spent locally.  The protocol for Member Consultation was also yet to be produced.  Following the discussion it was subsequently


RECOMMENDED - T H A T the resolutions of Cabinet be noted.


Reason for recommendation


In view of the contents of the report.





Cabinet had received a Detailed Assessment Updating and Screening Assessment Report (USA) of air quality in the Vale of Glamorgan 2011 and had referred the report to the Scrutiny Committee as part of a consultation exercise.  Approval had been sought from Cabinet to consult with residents, the public, stakeholders and statutory consultees on the declaration of an Air Quality Management Area for a designated area of Windsor Road, Penarth. 


The Head of Service advised that air pollution remained a serious public health issue and its contribution to ill health and mortality was significant across the UK.  The Council had a statutory obligation under the Environment Act 1995 to review and assess air quality within its area against objectives for a number of key pollutants within the Air Quality Standards Wales Regulations 2010.  The Council had to also consider air quality within its boundary and publish its findings annually.


At locations where air quality failed or was unlikely to meet the prescribed objectives the Council had to declare an Air Quality Management Area.  It would then also need to develop and implement an Action Plan to address the situation within 12 months.  When considering the declaration of an AQMA the Council was required to undertake consultation with the public, statutory consultees and stakeholders.  An Executive Summary of the Updating and Screening Assessment (USA) report was attached at Appendix 1 to the report.  It concluded that the majority of the Vale's air quality was compliant with the objectives but recommended that there be continued monitoring to assess the impact of ongoing development traffic flows and new sources of pollution.  The USA report had also identified and recommended further actions to monitor or address air quality which included

  • A recommendation to declare an Air Quality Management Area (AQMA) for a section of Windsor Road, Penarth.
  • Further monitoring for Particulate Matter (PM10) at Windsor Rd, Penarth using more sophisticated equipment as potential exceedence of the relevant objective was identified.
  • Further monitoring and assessment of air quality in Holton Road, Barry, where the public may be exposed to traffic pollution for more than one hour due to e.g. out door dining.
  • Further monitoring and assessment of air quality in Cogan within 12 months of the declaration of an AQMA along Windsor Road Penarth.

It was noted that steps had already been taken to address recommendations 2 - 4 above including increased monitoring of air quality at Holton Road, Barry, Cogan and Windsor Road, Penarth.  The Pollution Control Team Leader present at the meeting advised that a full presentation on the subject would be presented to Members which would include detailed information and opportunities to ask questions on the subject with this being scheduled to be arranged in February 2013.  The Cabinet had therefore been requested to approve the consultation process for Windsor Road over a ten week period commencing from 2nd January, 2013.  During this period residents living in and surrounding the proposed area would be contacted and provided with information on the nature of an Air Quality Management Area and why it was being considered.  To assist in disseminating the information a drop-in session would also be arranged in the local area to enable residents to speak directly to Council officers about the proposal.  In addition lone stakeholders and interested parties would be contacted and invited to comment.  Officers would also promote the consultation through the Council's website, social media and local press inviting comments on the proposal.  Comments received would be collated and considered before a recommendation on the way forward being made to Cabinet in the Spring of 2013.  The Pollution Control Team had an existing budget to complete the programme of air quality monitoring across the Vale but an additional NO2 diffusion tube and particulate monitoring would be required with the cost again being met from existing budgets.  The consultation would also be met from existing budgets. 


In considering the report a Member referred to the Merrie Harrier junction and the results of that assessment.  The Team Leader advised that the results could be provided but for the purpose of the meeting he could confirm they were not as high as Windsor Road.  The Department was monitoring regularly with Windsor Road being noted as of particular need.  There were a number of  pollution stations that existed around the Vale and many new devices that were available were small and could easily be attached to lampposts or down pipes.  Members queried whether the Council was doing anything to improve air quality, it being noted that road traffic flows and developments affected air quality.  The Team Leader stated that there were no magic answers although changes in traffic flow etc would always need to be considered.  For any new housing developments air quality assessments would be required to be completed and it would be essential that Council officers advised any applicants of the issues.  It was noted that a change in weather patterns could also affect the results recorded year on year. 


Members queried whether the current equipment being used was appropriate, the officer confirmed that in undertaking most results the equipment was appropriate however, a new Nitrogen Dioxide devise would be required to be purchased.  The current equipment considered particle results at PM10 whereas the new equipment would measure to 2.5. 


Following discussion on the report and it being noted that a further presentation was to be made to Members in the next few weeks which would offer another opportunity for a further detailed question and answer session, the Scrutiny Committee


RECOMMENDED - T H A T the resolutions of Cabinet be endorsed.


Reason for recommendation


To ensure consultation on the proposed declaration of an Air Quality Management Area for a designated area of Windsor Road, Penarth was undertaken and being aware that a further report was to be presented on the outcome of the consultation in Spring 2013.





Cabinet had, on 3rd December, 2012, been provided with an update on the current position with the Barry Cluster Communities First bid with Members being advised that the next stage for the progression of the bid and requesting authority to accept the grant.  In referring to the report it was noted that the Communities First Programme had been set by the Welsh Government and had been in existence since 2002.  With regard to the future of the Communities First Programme, the Welsh Government had requested that a new Cluster Programme be implemented based on the most deprived 20% of Lower Super Output Areas in Wales. 


The proposed cluster areas in Barry were Castleland, Cadoc, Court, Gibbonsdown and Buttrills.  These were illustrated in Appendix A to the report and Appendix 2 highlighted the detail of the LOSAs.  It was noted that the population of the proposed clusters stood at approximately 15,800.  However, a local Ward Member referred to the fact that it appeared the Buttrills estate had not been included.  The Operational Manager advised that he would look into the matter and report back to the Member.  The Operational Manager further stated that a formal funding offer letter had recently been received and that the Department was now at the stage of recruiting staff for the team with the intention that staff would be in place fairly soon.  Premises had been identified and the existing team were currently moving in.  


It was subsequently




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


(2)       T H A T a further progress report be presented to the Scrutiny Committee and that Members representing Communities First Areas be updated on a regular basis as to ongoing progress.


Reason for recommendations


(1&2)  To apprise Members.





The Vale of Glamorgan had been part of the consultation process for Cardiff Council's Local Development Plan Preferred Strategy Document and Initial Sustainability Appraisal Report which had been approved for public consultation by Cardiff in October 2012.  Various background documents including the Habitats Regulations Assessment Scoping Report had also been published for information purposes.  The Preferred Strategy Document set out a strategy for future development of Cardiff and reflected its role as the capital city of Wales and economic driver of the wider city regions 2026.  The document included the following elements

  • new homes - to provide a range of choice and new housing opportunities,
  • employment - to provide a range and choice of new job opportunities and protect existing employment sites,
  • sustainable transport solutions - aimed to maximise the use of sustainable transport and improve connectivity between Cardiff and the wider region,
  • Sustainable Neighbourhoods - to ensure that new homes and jobs form part of well planned communities which have the appropriate range of facilities,
  • Protecting Cardiff's Environment - to minimise its impact on Cardiff's existing built and natural environment.

Attached at Appendix A to the report was the Council's formal response to the public consultation on Cardiff Council's LDP Preferred Strategy and at its  Meeting on 3rd December the Cabinet Members had highlighted that the suggested response to not agree with the development of land north of Junction 33 had been due to the fact that the development of the site had the potential to cause increased traffic congestion particularly within the rural Wards of the Vale.


Having considered the reference and the report the Scrutiny Committee


RECOMMENDED - T H A T the contents of the report be noted.


Reason for recommendation


Having regard to the formal response on Cardiff Council's LDP Preferred Strategy.





The Operational Manager advised of the duties placed on local authorities by Welsh Government in relation to play and the requirement for the Vale of Glamorgan Council to carry out a Play Sufficiency Audit in 2012/13 in accordance with the Children and Families Wales Measure 2010.  To assist the local authority in assessing play needs the Welsh Government would provide the Vale of Glamorgan with £21,622 to undertake a Play Sufficiency Audit and draw up a Play Action Plan based on the gaps and needs within the Play Sufficiency Audit.  The local authority must have completed the assessment of play opportunities by 1st March, 2013.


One of the Scrutiny Members raised the query of whether the report would also highlight the working arrangements of other bodies and the opportunity to obtain grant funding via Third Sector involvement.  The Operational Manager advised that to a degree this already existed but that there would be further opportunities for the local authority to apply for grants and work with the Third Sector.


Members’ main concerns were in relation to whether the money offered to the Council could be used in the time required with the Operational Manager again advising that the work would be undertaken in house within the required timescale.


The Scrutiny Committee therefore




(1)       T H A T the resolutions of Cabinet be endorsed and the report noted.


(2)       T H A T a further report be brought back to the Scrutiny Committee in due course.


Reasons for recommendations


(1)       In view of the Council’s duties in relation to play. 


(2)       To apprise Members.





The report had been referred to the Scrutiny Committee by Cabinet on 17th December for information.  The report detailed information on the Commons Select Committee's reasons for public consultation on the potential for a privately financed Severn Barrage.  The reason for the proposal had been that in 2009 Cabinet had been advised of Stage 1 consultation into the feasibility of tidal power within the Severn Estuary undertaken by the Department of Energy and Climate Change in partnership with the Welsh Government and the South West Regional Development Agency.  At that time reports suggested that private financing for a Severn Barrage may be available and in response to the privately financed proposals the UK Government had established a Commons Select Committee to investigate the proposed Cardiff to Weston Barrage.  Further consultation had been undertaken with a response being forwarded to the Commons Select Committee by Cabinet on 30th November, 2012 with an additional statement that any further comments that Cabinet may wish to make would be forwarded separately after the closing date.  The specific areas of concern were detailed as below:

  • “Should the Barrage ultimately prove to be the preferred tidal power option, there would be considerable impact upon land at Lavernock Point both during construction and following completion.  The construction phase itself lasting up to seven years and involving thousands of workers.  Additional concerns are expressed over the need to transport and accommodate materials and the impact upon the local highway network is of concern.  The Council would wish to work closely with DECC and the WG to ensure that environmental impact in this area is minimised.
  • The economic benefits of the scheme should not be understated given the employment benefits both during construction and beyond during operation.  The scheme also has the potential to generate a significant level of tourism and educational interest.   All these issues also have the potential to impact significantly on the local highway network.
  • While the generation of renewable power by a tidal barrage is commendable and would be generally welcomed, linking such as facility with the National Grid and the transmission of this power could have significant impacts upon the landscape of the Vale of Glamorgan. The Council welcomes the intention to investigate the potential impact of a tidal power scheme on the energy market, electricity network/grid and in particular the local environment. In this regard, consideration should also be given to whether there is potential to include other options as part of the Barrage scheme. By way of example, the potential for lagoons, reefs and even off-shore wind generation as part of the scheme should be considered.
  • The development of the Barrage could have significant implications for the port of Barry.  In this regard the port of Barry would be the closest port on the seaward side of the Barrage and there needs to be a careful assessment of the implications for the port not only during the construction phases of any barrage, but also longer term.  In terms of wider impacts, especially with regard to ports upstream from the barrage, the issue of displacement of shipping traffic would require detailed consideration as would the need for the provision of infrastructure to facilitate access to ports such as Cardiff and Bristol. Such infrastructure to include locks and harbouring facilities.  The potential impact on employment within existing ports also requires detailed consideration as would the potential benefits to ports such as Barry on the seaward side of the Barrage.  One potential benefit would be the possibility of a Marina for Barry.
  • The Vale of Glamorgan currently accrues significant tourism benefits from its attractive and extensive coastline.  In the event that the Cardiff (Lavernock/Penarth) to Weston barrage is the favoured tidal power option, while accepting that this scheme could have tourism benefits in its own right, concerns are expressed as to the impact that such a scheme would have on the wider tourism resource within the Vale of Glamorgan.
  • The site of the larger barrage proposal is currently indicated to make landfall on the Welsh side at Lavernock Point in the Vale of Glamorgan and should be referred to in the future as either the Lavernock to Weston barrage or by reference to the closest major town, the Penarth or Barry to Weston barrage not Cardiff as is currently the case.  Such terminology is misleading and the project should be renamed and referred to as the Lavernock Point to Weston Barrage in all official correspondence.
  • The ecological impacts of the larger Cardiff (Lavernock/Penarth) to Weston barrage are noted in the reports that have been circulated and it is acknowledged that considerable work will be required on the impacts on habitats, ecology and biodiversity.
  • In the same way, the barrage will be a major piece of infrastructure and the visual impact of a project of this scale will be significant and extend over a wide area.  Issues of detailed design will therefore be critical given the potential impact on this part of the rural Vale of Glamorgan and indeed the wider region.
  • With increasing sea levels increasing forecast, the role of a barrage in contributing to flood prevention requires detailed assessment.
  • A key issue relates to the question of access to the site, not solely during construction but also for servicing, operations and dealing with visitors.  In this regard there is a clear need to improve access arrangements to the site not only in the immediate locality but also from the M4 motorway and other parts of the strategic highway network. Such impacts must be delivered as an integral part of such a scheme.
  • In progressing the second phase of the Severn Tidal Power feasibility study this Council considers it essential that full and detailed contact is maintained with those local authorities that might be affected by the development of a Severn Tidal power scheme such as the Cardiff (Lavernock/Penarth) to Weston barrage.”

Members queried whether it would be possible to block the proposal with the response being that it was a UK Government decision.  Members’ concerns related to the fact that the documentation referred to Cardiff to Weston and that it seemed apparent the authors did not have any idea where Lavernock was.  Also it appeared they had little idea of the area itself and as to whether it was a logistically sound proposal was also in question.  It was noted that on a number of occasions previous and current Cabinet Members had raised the matter with the relevant Department but the terminology Cardiff to Weston still remained.  Members were concerned that little notice seemed to be taken of the Vale of Glamorgan's concerns in this regard. It was subsequently


RECOMMENDED - T H A T the resolutions of Cabinet be endorsed.


Reason for recommendation


In recognition of the response made by Cabinet.





The report outlined the working arrangements and performance to date of the Environmental Enforcement Services trial utilising XFOR (Local Authority Support Ltd).  Cabinet had, on 14th March, 2012 resolved to deploy XFOR for a 12 month trial period which included a six month review.  The Director of Visible Services and Housing advised that XFOR had initially commenced the service with a total of 4 Enforcement Officers plus 1 Administrative Officer but during the trial had experienced some staff turnover issues and at times had operated with only 2 Enforcement Officers plus an Administrative Officer which had resulted in a reduced number of FPNs being issued. 


Being a commercial undertaking XFOR needed to achieve a minimum number of FPNs per week (i.e. 50 FPNs) in order to support their operational costs.  This resulted in their initial priority being targeted towards the most prevalent types of litter offences in order for them to guarantee their circa 50 FPNs per week.  Whilst assurances had been given by XFOR's senior management that once their officers had reached the minimum number they were then available to carry out any patrols as directed by the Council. The Director advised that it would be true to say that the need to obtain a minimum quota of FPNs had resulted in a disproportionate focus on high footfall areas such as Town Centres and shopping areas targeting littering, and more specifically, smoking related litter.  Although he could advise that XFOR had also been supportive of patrolling areas such as playing fields when requested to do so by Council Officers.


Committee was informed that the most significant litter problems within the Vale of Glamorgan were that of smokers discarding their cigarette based material on our streets.  Whilst this may not be the most important or most offensive form of littering in the eyes of the public, this was a fact supported by a recent independent report by 'Keep Wales Tidy' undertaken in September 2012, which identified this form of litter as being the most prevalent of all forms found on our streets.  With 84% of the streets surveyed featuring some form of smoking related material, compared with dog fouling which was found to be present on just over 11% of the streets surveyed. Tackling this form of litter, whilst not perhaps seen by the public as being the main priority, should the Director advised ensure that the most frequent offenders are suitably punished.


It was noted that overall, the reaction of the vast majority of residents and the press to the trial had been very positive.  Apart from a number of people actually issued with a FPN no formal complaints had been received by the Council, and only one resident had sought a meeting with officers to discuss concerns.  Whilst there had been some allegations of inappropriate or aggressive behaviour by XFOR officers, video footage taken on their personal CCTV body cameras had shown this to be unfounded in most cases.  With regard to the issuing of FPNs to those witnessed dropping litter, the Council had received a total of 35 written complaints that FPNs were inappropriately issued though only a small number of the complaints had resulted in the FPN being rescinded. It had been necessary to waive possible court action on medical / health grounds, technical / administrative issues or unacceptable behaviour on the part of XFOR officers on 22 occasions in total (up to the end of month 5).


To be fully cost effective over the 12 month trial XFOR would need to issue approximately 3,000 FPNs.  Having issued approximately 1,000 in the first 4 months they would appear to be on target to achieve this.  Whilst XFOR may be on target to recover their operating costs, the payment rate for those issued with an FPN currently stood at 59%.  Whilst XFOR may recover their costs, it was likely that the Council would make a small financial loss. The full extent of this position would however, not be known until the legitimately issued FPNs (those that had not been paid), were progressed through the Courts.  The first of the prosecution files had been sent to the Council's Legal Department (70 cases) and the first court hearing had taken place on 6th December 2012. The offender had been found guilty in their absence and fined £237.40. 


The overall performance of XFOR since they started work with the Council had been mostly as expected though it was hoped that a larger proportion of FPNs would be issued for dog fouling and/or general litter offences.  However, it was clear that the most common offences witnessed so far were those which involved smoking related litter.  Despite this imbalance between these offences and other forms of littering the terms of XFOR's engagement were to issue FPNs for all littering offences witnessed.  There was therefore no reason why XFOR should not be permitted to complete their trial term, although officers would need to work more closely with them to ensure that any areas of concern that may be raised by residents, including the lack of dog fouling enforcement, were given greater priority.


The Director further advised that a similar pattern of offences was apparent in Blaenau Gwent, where XFOR had also operated a similar trial. This had resulted in the Council entering into a separate agreement for XFOR to provide an additional 2 No. dedicated Dog Control Enforcement Officers, paid at £20 per hour (£320 per day in total) to tackle dog related issues including dog fouling.  However, even with this dedicated resource XFOR advised that 'Dog fouling FPNs' had only totalled 3 during the 10 months that this additional service had been in operation.  It was noted that dog fouling offences were notoriously difficult to enforce due to a number of reasons. One of these being the problem of linking the location of the offence to the dog responsible and its owner. Also experience had shown that the majority of irresponsible dog owners immediately changed their behaviour when they note the uniform presence of XFOR staff.

  • The report also highlighted the details of offences undertaken to date with the Director further advising that with regard to week commencing 7th January, 2013 he could confirm that the number of Fixed Penalty Notices issued totalled 1,207. 

During consideration of the report the following issues were discussed.




Members queried whether local Members could report issues direct.

Yes.  Any Member should report   untoward incidents directly to the Director of Visible Services and Housing or to his Department.

A local Member for Llantwit Major advised that one of the issues in their area was in relation to chewing gum.

The problem for XFOR was in actually catching the culprit throwing the chewing gum.  It would therefore be essential to raise public awareness by establishing a campaign with local shops, schools etc. to advise the public of the implications.

Would it be possible to receive information as to the number of Fixed Penalty Notices for litter thrown from vehicles?

The Director would make further investigations and respond to Members accordingly. 

Could the XFOR team be requested to put more resources into the dog fouling issue?

This had been taken up with the Managing Director as outlined below, the results of which would be able to be referred to Members in due course.

Would it be possible for Members to know which areas the XFOR officers would be visiting and if possible to receive information on a Ward by Ward basis?

Yes this could be made available to Members on a regular basis.

Further publicity needed to be undertaken and consideration be given as to how information could be published. Suggestions made were scattergram maps and the placing of information as to how many FPN notices had been issued on lampposts etc similar to the signs that were placed on the Five Mile Lane advising of accidents that had taken place. 

Publicity would be undertaken and the Director would look into the options suggested.


In response to a query of whether agreed routes should be publicised the majority of Members considered that it was probably in the best interests of the Council not to identify the routes but to ensure that the XFOR team were advised of Members’ concerns and of where further targeting should be made. 


With permission to speak granted, the Leader of the Council advised that having spoken to the local Chief Superintendent he had been advised that the presence of XFOR was working as a deterrent with particular regard to the  fact that the officers carried small cameras and that people were aware they may be caught on CCTV.  The Director advised that this was a time for learning and that further information could be provided to Members on the number of notices etc. that had been made, plus XFOR had been requested to undertake further work.  He had also met with the Managing Director of the company on 19th December and had followed this up with a letter detailing areas for further improvement.  These included

  • increased dog fouling patrols as some of these patrols were undertaken by staff in plain clothes
  • patrols were undertaken during the evening aimed at general littering offences at fast food outlets and public houses
  • patrols on roads to schools with children being approached and warned if littering, although this should only take place with agreement by the Council and the Headteacher of the school concerned and should be accompanied by an educational awareness raising programme
  • all patrols to be mobile – there should be no accusations of stalking or covert operations for littering offences and increased working with the local Police to support night time operations
  • to not concentrate enforcement activity to a great extent in Barry and Penarth and to undertake enforcement activities throughout the Vale.

Having considered the report in detail it was subsequently




(1)       T H A T the Committee supported the continuation of the trial for the full 12 month period as specified in the report.


(2)       T H A T a further detailed report on the outcome of the trial, before its completion, be reported to the Scrutiny Committee.


(3)       T H A T arrangements be made for all Members of the Council to receive monthly reports on the Fixed Penalty Notices issued per week and the patrolling routes taken by XFOR officers.


(4)       T H A T the above recommendations be referred to Cabinet for consideration.


Reasons for recommendations


(1)       The Committee supported the continuation of a trial for the full 12 month period for this method of enforcement.


(2)       To apprise Members.


(3)       For Members’ information.


(4)       To seek Cabinet approval.





The Director advised of the progress being made in procuring future residual waste treatment within the Prosiect Gwyrdd Partnership. 

Prosiect Gwyrdd was a Partnership of five Councils within South Wales involving ourselves, Cardiff, Caerphilly, Newport and Monmouthshire Councils.  The Project had completed the 'Detailed Solutions' stage of the procurement process and the evaluation of the bids had confirmed that there were two strong detailed bids.  The bidders, Veolia and Viridor, had been invited through to the 'Final Tender' stage with substantial negotiation still to take place on technical, legal, commercial and financial issues.  Following closure of the dialogue and final assessment, a Preferred Bidder would be recommended to the constituent Authorities early in 2013.


The Director advised that as part of the procurement process the Council had initially provided waste profile information to the Prosiect Gwyrdd team (in 2009) to be included within the outline business case.  This had been reported to Cabinet on 3rd June 2009 and Council on 30th June 2009 (Minute no. C463 refers) and Cabinet had subsequently at that time resolved :

  • T H A T the data and assumptions provided for the Council’s waste tonnage profile as detailed in Annex 1 to the report be approved.
  • T H A T, in respect of Prosiect Gwyrdd, the Vale of Glamorgan’s Waste Flow Model (Table 2 and Figure 2, Appendix B of Annex 1 to the report) and the resultant Vale of Glamorgan Contract Waste Profile and associated waste tonnage required for the calculation of the guaranteed minimum payment referred to in Section 5 of Annex 1 and which information would be issued to the final two bidders be approved.
  • T H A T the Prosiect Gwyrdd Background Note attached as Annex 1 to the report be noted together with the indicative overall Prosiect Gwyrdd contract waste profile and associated waste tonnages to be used to calculate the guaranteed minimum payment which overall profile / tonnage are subject to each other partnering Council approving their respective waste profile and tonnages.
  • T H A T authority be delegated to the Director of Environmental and Economic Regeneration, as the Council’s Business Advisor for Prosiect Gwyrdd, in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Visible and Building Services to make minor amendments to the Vale of Glamorgan’s contract waste profiles and associated waste tonnages where such amendments are not substantive.

The report before the Scrutiny Committee highlighted that the procurement decisions, whilst overseen by the Joint Committee, were being taken forward by an officer Project Board with the support of a fully resourced Project Team and Project Director to deliver the complex procurement stages, within the Lead Authority governance model. 


The indicative decision timescale for the acceptance of the 'preferred bidder' was detailed as follows:

  • Project Board 30th January 2013;
  • Public Announcement of the 'preferred bidder' and site location 1st February 2013;
  • Joint Committee 7th February 2013;
  • Joint Scrutiny Panel 13th February 2013;
  • Partnership's Full Councils 26th February to 6th March 2013.

It was noted that a further report would be presented to the Scrutiny Committee following the announcement of the preferred bidder prior to the decision being made at the Vale of Glamorgan Full Council meeting on 6th March as to whether to agree to the contract.


The report also highlighted that since the project’s inception all partnering Councils had contributed equally to the costs of project revenue expenditure after applying the approved level of grant funding.  


During discussion a member who had been the previous Chairman of the Joint Scrutiny Panel for Prosiect Gwyrdd prior to the Local Government elections in 2012 advised that, following a two day Call for Evidence on the matter, he had come to the conclusion that he was against the use of incinerator technology and would vote against such technology involved.  The Vice-Chairman of the Scrutiny Committee, who was a current Member of the said Scrutiny Panel advised that, although she had been unable to attend the site visits that had been arranged to various technologies, she was aware that Councillors from other Authorities, on the Panel, who she understood had previously had certain reservations, had attended the visits and had been impressed by the technology to be used.  Following further consideration of the report Members requested that should the contract be awarded, they be afforded the opportunity to view the agreed technology firsthand.


In noting the financial commitment of the Authority and the contents of the report, it was subsequently




(1)       T H A T the procurement process to date be noted.


(2)       T H A T a further report be presented to the Scrutiny Committee in February 2013 detailing the identity of the preferred bidder and the proposed inter-Authority agreement between all partners for the contract term.


(3)       T H A T the report be referred to Cabinet for consideration.


Reasons for recommendations


(1)       To update Committee on the project as it progresses to the final stages of procurement.


(2)       To allow this Committee to consider matters further prior to a report on the project being presented to the meeting of Council in March 2013.


(3)       To update Cabinet and to advise of any comments made by this Committee on this progress report.





The Democratic and Scrutiny Services Officer apprised Members of progress in relation to the recommendations made by the Scrutiny Committee for the 1st Quarter April to June 2012 which was attached at Appendix A, the 2nd Quarter July to September 2012 attached at Appendix B and the 3rd Quarter October to December 2012 at Appendix C.


In considering the report it was noted that under Minute No. 156 the Tour of the Leisure Centres would take place on 22nd February 2013;  and under Minute No. 506 the Extraordinary Scrutiny Committee had been arranged for 9th April 2013 at 6.00 p.m.  With regard to the reference in relation to Barry Vibrant and Viable Places, the Cabinet had recently agreed to the recommendation of the Scrutiny Committee to amend the response to Welsh Government in view of the Committee’s comments. 


Following consideration of the report it was subsequently


RECOMMENDED – T H A T the following scrutiny decisions be deemed as completed:


17 April 2012

Min. No. 1105 - Barry Town Centre - Framework for Future Public Realm Improvements and Request for Consideration of Matter (Councillor N.P. Hodges) (REF) – Recommended

(1)   That Cabinet be informed of the concerns of the Scrutiny Committee that it took two years for a report of this magnitude and importance to the future of Barry to come to the knowledge of the majority of Councillors of the Vale of Glamorgan Council.

Recommendation referred to Cabinet on 30th May 2012.  Cabinet resolved that a further report be presented updating on progress on the issues identified within the report (Min. No. C1722 refers).

The Committee considered a further report at its meeting on 19th December 2013. Officers

continue to investigate potential sources of capital investment to fund further feasibility work and implementation of the two remaining phases of the programme at Holton Road (central) and Gladstone Road. This work is aligned with the ongoing Welsh Government policy review of approaches to regeneration instigated by the Minister for Housing, Regeneration and Heritage.


17 July 2012

Min. No. 156 - Revenue and Capital Monitoring for the Period 1st April, 2012 to 31st May, 2012 (DDS and DVSH) – Recommended

(2)   That a tour of the Leisure Centres including the Colcot Centre be arranged and that a further update report be presented to the Scrutiny Committee following the transfer agreement with Parkwood.





(2)   Tour of the Leisure Centres to take place on 22nd February 2013.


09 October 2012

Min. No. 406 - Gypsy and Traveller Site Provision in the Vale of Glamorgan (DDS) – Recommended that the report be referred to the Cabinet for consideration with the request that Cabinet establish a permanent travellers site for the Vale of Glamorgan as soon as possible.

Cabinet, on 5th November 2012, noted the content of the report and agreed that this matter would be best dealt with under the LDP process which was currently under review (Min. No. C1877 refers).


Min. No. 407 - Olympic and Paralympic Legacy in the Vale of Glamorgan (DDS) – Recommended

(1)   That the significant amount of work already being carried out in the Vale of Glamorgan to increase physical activity participation be referred to Cabinet and circulated as widely as possible for public information.

(2)   That the Committee receives a sports development project report on an annual basis detailing physical activity statistics in the Vale of Glamorgan.



(3)   That Cabinet be requested to carry out an audit of the use of school facilities for the general public, to also include details of whether the school was appropriate to be used for outside activities. 




(1)   Cabinet, on 5th November 2012, noted the significant amount of work being carried out (Min. No. C1878 refers).




(2)   Cabinet, on 5th November 2012, resolved that all Members of the Council receive this report and that the report be published on the Council’s website (Min. No. C1878 refers).


(3)   Cabinet, on 5th November 2012, resolved that the Operational Manager for Leisure Services, in consultation with the Chief Learning and Skills Officer, carry out the audit including the appropriate details (Min. No. C1878 refers).


Min. No. 408 - Revenue and Capital Monitoring for the Period 1st April 2012 to 31st August 2012 (DDS and DVSH) – Recommended

(2)   That Cabinet be requested to consider approving a virement from the Policy Budget to Economic Development and Leisure of £333,000.

(3)   That Cabinet be requested to approve the proposed amendment to transfer £17,000 from NCN88 to the Pont y Werin capital scheme and to also increase the Pont y Werin scheme by a further £6,000 funded from SEWTA grant.





(2&3)   Cabinet at its meeting on 5th November 2012 noted the Committee’s request (Min. No. C1879 refers).


Min. No. 409 - LDP Study and Nell’s Point, Barry Island (DDS) – Recommended

(2)   That the report be endorsed and referred together with the recommendations below for consideration by Cabinet.


(7)   That officers complete the draft Barry Island Master Plan and report firstly to Scrutiny Committee and then to Cabinet, prior to a formal consultation exercise being undertaken.

(8)   That officers report the outcome of the Stage 3 report when available.


(9)   That an update report on progress be presented to the Scrutiny Committee in six months.




(2)   Cabinet, on 17th October 2012, approved the Committee’s recommendations (Min. No. 1866 refers)


(7)   Added to work programme schedule.





(8)   Added to work programme schedule.


(9)   Added to work programme schedule.


Min. No. 410 - Proposals to Aid the Regeneration of Barry Island (DDS) – Recommended

(1)   That the report be endorsed and the same referred to Cabinet for consideration.

(2)   That Cabinet be requested to consider approving the regeneration options at Barry Island as outlined within the report.

(6)   That a further report on the progress of the proposals to aid the regeneration of Barry Island be presented to the Scrutiny Committee in six months.




(1&2)   Cabinet, on 17th October 2012, endorsed the report and approved the Committee’s recommendations (Min. No. C1867 refers).



(6)   Added to work programme schedule.



Min. No. 411 - To Review the Cost of Annual Passes for Dedicated Mainstream School Transport (DDS) – Recommended

(2)   That the proposed increase, at (1) above be endorsed and referred to  Cabinet for consideration, it being noted that an increase would be applicable to all purchased transactions received after the proposal was approved.





(2)   Cabinet, on 5th November 2012, resolved that the proposed increase in the cost of passes sold for use on dedicated school transport services from £180 to £225 per academic year per pupil be approved and be applicable to all future purchased transactions (Min. No. C1880 refers)


Min. No. 412 - Individual Disabled Parking Bays – Update (DVSH) – Recommended

(1)   That the proposal to address the backlog of approved requests for Individual Disabled Parking Bays, as detailed within the report, be approved and referred to Cabinet for consideration.

(2)   That Cabinet be requested to review the costs involved in making all Traffic Regulation Orders, in order to investigate whether they could be carried out more efficiently online and by letter.

Cabinet, on 5th November 2012, resolved

(1)   That the backlog of approved requests be approved and be funded by savings made from not filling all the Cabinet positions and the savings made by cutting the special responsibility allowances.

(2)   That the cost of the work be met by a virement of £18,000 from the policy budget to the visible services budget.

(3)   That the Director of Visible Services and Housing be requested to review the costs involved in making all Traffic Regulation Orders, in order to investigate whether they could be carried out more efficiently and that a further report be presented to a future date, updating any changes necessary to the policy.  [To be added to work programme schedule.]

 (Min. No. C1881 refers).


Min. No. 413 - Vale of Glamorgan Visible Services Plan 2012/13 (DVHS) – Recommended that the Visible Services Service Plan for 2012/13 be noted and the reports as indicated above be referred to the Scrutiny Committee when available.

[recycling performance for each ward

possibility of off-street car parking charges; improvements at Sycamore Cross for a new redesigned junction]



Added to work programme schedule.


06 November 2012

Min. No. 503 - Presentation - Gateway Wales -  Recommended

(1)   That the Chairman in consultation with the Vice-Chairman prepare a letter, to be forwarded to the Business Minister following e-mail consultation with Members of the Committee indicating the Committee’s support for the project and its concern at the lack of an overall Master Plan.






(2)   That a further progress report be presented to the Scrutiny Committee in six months.



(1)   At its meeting on 4 December, Committee noted that the recommendation in relation to Gateway Wales would be referred to Cabinet as the Chairman had been made aware that N. Baker (Gateway Wales) wished to meet with Councillor N. Moore and the Minister for Business, Enterprise, Technology and Science.  (Min. No. 599 refers).  Referred to Cabinet meeting of 14 January 2013. 


(2)   Added to work programme schedule.


Min. No. 507 - Lavernock Point to St. Ann's Head - Shoreline Management Plan SM2 (DVSH) – Recommended that the proposal to adopt the draft SMP2 document be endorsed following its approval by the Welsh Government Minister for the Environment, Sustainability and Housing and that the report also be referred to Cabinet for consideration and/or approval.




Report referred to Cabinet on 3rd December 2012 who approved the SMP2 draft document (Min. No. C1923 refers).


Min. No. 509 - Scrutiny Committee Work Programme (DR) – Recommended

(1)   That an update report in relation to supported local bus services be presented to the Committee in four months.

(2)   That the work programme schedule be published as above, as detailed at Appendix 1 to the report and as agreed under the previous agenda item.




(1)   Added to work programme schedule for March 2013 meeting.



(2)   Work programme schedule published on the Council’s website.


04 December 2012

Min. No. 602 - Initial Revenue Budget Proposals 2013/14 (DDS and DVSH) – Recommended

(2)   That a further report be submitted to the Scrutiny Committee at its meeting on 12th February 2013 to include details of the Directors’ savings proposals.




Added to work programme schedule.


Min. No. 603 - Initial Capital Programme Proposals 2013/14 (DDS and DVSH) – Recommended

(2)   That the information requested as above be forwarded to Members in due course.

[St. Paul’s Church, Penarth; cost of Toucan crossing]



E-mailed to Members on 18th December 2012.


Min. No. 604 - Corporate Plan: Consultation Draft (REF) – Recommended that the following recommendations be forwarded to Cabinet for consideration:

(1)   That the reference to the Rural Development Plan be amended to read “to complete the existing Rural Development Plan and promote a new Rural Development Plan”.

(2)   That under the Environment, reference be made to “including monitoring for tree diseases”.






(1&2)   To be referred to Cabinet meeting of 25 February 2013.


19 December 2012

Min. No. 661 - Welsh Government Consultation Document: Vibrant and Viable Places – A New Regeneration Framework – Recommended that Cabinet be requested to amend the Council's response to Question 5 by altering the final two bullet points as, whilst the points made were accurate, the impression presented is of a town that is doing so well that it may not need any more assistance in terms of regeneration funding. 





Referred to Cabinet meeting of 14 January 2013.



(2)       T H A T Minute No. 506 Vale of Glamorgan Agricultural Show – Vale of Glamorgan Council Business Breakfast, Feedback Report and Business Liaison Activities recommendation (2) be deemed ongoing as the extraordinary meeting was scheduled to take place on 9th April 2013. 


Reason for recommendations


(1&2)  Having regard to the Committee’s monitoring of its recommendations.