01656 643696 Elizabeth Littlejohns
E-mail: scrutiny@bridgend.gov.uk
EL / SU: OSC.EPS.A.2 12 October 2006
To: All Members of the Environmental and Planning Services Overview & Scrutiny Committee Bridgend County Borough Council
Dear Councillor
ENVIRONMENTAL AND PLANNING SERVICES OVERVIEW & SCRUTINY COMMITTEE
A meeting of the Environmental and Planning Services Overview & Scrutiny Committee will be held on Wednesday 18 October 2006 in Committee Rooms 2/3, Civic Offices, Angel Street, Bridgend, CF31 4WB at 2:15 PM to consider the business set out in the attached agenda.
Yours sincerely
P A Jolley
Assistant Director Legal Services and Monitoring Officer
Distribution:
Councillors:
D Buttle |
C E Hughes |
C Rees |
K R T Deere |
K S Hunt |
J C Spanswick |
D T Greaves |
M Inglesant |
W H C Teesdale* |
M Gregory |
C J James |
|
J J Hipkiss |
E McIlveen |
ENVIRONMENTAL AND PLANNING SERVICES OVERVIEW & SCRUTINY COMMITTEE
DATE: Wednesday 18 October 2006, 2:15 PM
VENUE: COMMITTEE ROOMS 2/3, CIVIC OFFICES, BRIDGEND
AGENDA
Item No. |
Subject |
Page No.s |
1. |
Apologies for Absence |
- |
2. |
Declarations of Interest (Including Whipping Declarations) |
- |
3. |
Minutes of the meeting 12 September 2006 |
3-8 |
4. |
9-23 | |
5. |
Highways Maintenance Task and Finish Group Membership
|
24-25 |
6. |
26-28 | |
7. |
To consider any other item(s) of business in respect of which notice has been given in accordance with Rule 4 of the Council Procedure Rules and which the person presiding at the meeting is of the opinion should by reason of special circumstances be transacted at the meeting as a matter of urgency. |
- |
Elizabeth Littlejohns
Assistant Scrutiny Officer
12 October 2006
MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL AND PLANNING SERVICES OVERVIEW & SCRUTINY COMMITTEE
DATE: 12 September 2006
TIME: 2:15 PM
VENUE: COMMITTEE ROOM 2/3 CIVIC OFFICES, ANGEL STREET, BRIDGEND
PRESENT: Councillors: D Buttle, K R T Deere, M Gregory, J J Hipkiss, K S Hunt,
M Inglesant, C J James, E McIlveen, C Rees, J C Spanswick, W H C Teesdale.
Officers: C Bellis-Williams, Senior Lawyer
T Buckle, Head of Overview and Scrutiny
E Littlejohns, Assistant Scrutiny Officer
Invitees: Councillor Voisey, Cabinet Member for Environmental and
Planning Services
C Eades, Assistant Director – Transportation and Engineering
L Fradd, Assistant Director – Regeneration and Strategic Development
A Green, Head of Highways
H Jeffries, Team Leader – Physical Regeneration Unit
R G Jones, Executive Director – Environment
1. Apologies for Absence
Apologies were received from Councillor Greaves and Councillor Hacking
2. Declarations of Interest (Including Whipping Arrangements)
None
3. Minutes of Meetings 19 July 2006, 31 July 2006 and 7 August
The minutes were approved as a true and accurate record.
4. Quarterly Budget Monitoring
The Head of Overview and Scrutiny outlined the role of Members in this process as being to determine whether any areas require further investigation as part of the Committee’s financial performance monitoring role.
Members questioned why the required action of increasing the income from car parking had not been fulfilled. The Executive Director – Environment informed Members that Car Parking charges had been revised, and that the introduction of half-hourly charges in line with the decisions made in the previous year had impacted upon revenue. With regard to the kerb side parking charges, Members were informed that proposals were being developed and would be brought before Cabinet in due course.
Members questioned the reasons for the delay in implementation of the increase in charges. The Executive Director – Environment explained to Members that the introduction of the half-hourly charges had been introduced in January 2006 and the effect on income was currently being assessed. Members were informed that it was not anticipated that the loss of revenue as a result of free car parking at Christmas would occur this year as free parking would not be provided. Members were also informed that the Staff Car Parking at the Sunnyside Offices would be opening for public use on Saturday and Sunday at Christmas time this year.
In relation to the approved increase in the Budget for the car parking fee income, Members noted that if the Brackla Street Car Park was not handed over to Asda by March 2007 then a surplus would remain. Members questioned where this potential surplus appeared in the budget. Members were informed that the funding would not be required if Brackla Car Park was not handed over. In relation to car parking income, Members were informed that weather conditions impact upon income generation of car parks and therefore it was impossible to accurately predict and anticipate in the budget. In relation to the handing over of the Brackla Car Park, Members were informed that a definite timescale had not yet been set and therefore figures in the budget relating to this were subject to change as more information was confirmed.
Members asked for clarification of the shortfall in the Planning Services Budget. Member were informed that at the time of the budget process the Welsh Assembly had not agreed on a revised fee (and that there were anomalies in the sense that individual householders were effectively subsidising developers, Members were advised that the fee developers pay would should ideally reflect the cost to the department for processing the application but at present it did not.
Members questioned whether the footfall in the town centre has fallen with the introduction of the half-hourly car parking charges. Members were informed that the data regarding the footfall was neutral at present with no noticeable shift in footfall. Members were advised that the structure of car parking was being examined and that adjusting variables such as the balance of Long and Short stay could better utilise capacity and influence footfall.
Members enquired as to the next step in managing the deficit in the budget. Members were informed that an analysis was ongoing. Members were further advised that there were opportunities to revise the current parking charges within the context of the future developments of the Brackla Car Park although the impact on other car parks once this site was taken over could not be anticipated. The Executive Director- Environment explained to Members that these issues needed to be balanced in a way that promotes trade within Bridgend Town Centre and increases footfall.
Members commented that the income target appeared to be unrealistic and Members suggested that a more realistic and accurate target would be more appropriate. This comment was noted by the invitees.
Members asked for an update on progress with regard to Bridgend Town Centre regeneration. Member were informed that the next stage of development had been identified included the regeneration of Market Street. Members were also informed of the River Walkway scheme and the Asda development.
Members questioned the reference to swapping grants with neighbouring authorities. Members were advised that there were time limits imposed on the grants ,however sometimes Authorities who were not likely to use their grants in time to swap with neighbouring Authorities who were in a position to use the grants.
The Chair thanked the invitees for there attendance and the invitees withdrew from the meeting. Members agreed to consider the next quarterly monitoring report which would include updated figures and to discuss the developments on the issues discussed at this meeting.
5. Maesteg Regeneration: Progress Report
The Team Leader – Physical Regeneration Unit presented the key areas of the report to Members and gave Members an update of the progress of the regeneration to date including an update on the effects of the completion of the first phase.
Members questioned as to when the work on the river bed was due to commence. Members were informed that the work was due to start on the 15 October 2006 and that the design includes the introduction of stones into the river which had resulted in a contractual problem with regard to the lifting of these stones. Members were informed that this problem was being resolved and the contractors involved were aware of the importance of this deadline.
Members questioned what measures had been put in place to ensure that the work to be carried out on Commercial Street caused as little disruption and inconvenience to local trade as possible. Members were informed that a project manager had been hired in this instance for the second phase to help ensure that there was as little as possible disruption. Members were advised that Commercial Street had to be left open at all times which caused some issues with contractors which were resolved through using time effectively on site at off peak hours if necessary. Members questioned whether this would include Sunday working. The Team Leader – Physical Regeneration informed Members that Sunday working had proved difficult during the first phase as contractors could not be forced to work weekends if they were not willing. With regard to the second phase, Members were informed that some contractors had consented to weekend working and in the third phase, Members were advised that weekend working would be considered during the negotiations with contractors
It was explained that the Team Leader – Physical Regeneration was available to speak to local residents every Thursday in Maesteg, Members questioned how many people had taken the opportunity to express concerns. Members were informed that that the numbers of people were few although it was believed to be a worthwhile service to offer. Members commented that the open door policy gave residents the opportunity to clarify future developments and raise concerns, which was an important service to offer in light of the public response to parts of the first phase of the project.
Members questioned whether the gate to the riverbank would remain locked. Members were informed that this was being discussed with the RiverCare Group and local people and would be incorporated into the contracts as access to the river was clearly essential to certain groups.
Members commented that although the landscaping would clearly be of benefit to the area, Members questioned the future cost to the council of its maintenance and upkeep. The Assistant Director – Regeneration and Strategic Development informed Members that the design of the landscaping had been undertaken with the involvement of the Environmental and Planning Section and advice was taken from this section with regard to materials that would be more easily maintained. Member s were also informed that there would be budgetary implications for the future maintenance. However the Assistant Director – Regeneration and Strategic Development explained that in the future she hoped that a budget would be allocated from the Regeneration Fund for the maintenance of regenerated areas
Members commented that the bridge over the river was very steep and may not be conducive to the use of wheelchairs. Members suggested that Wheelchair users should be made aware of this in order to prevent them attempting to cross and then getting into difficulties. Members were advised that the bridge was designed to have the shallowest ramp possible within the distance and although this was fairly steep, it was within the legal limits for wheelchair access. It was acknowledged by Members that over time people would become aware of the gradient and Members suggested that a sign advising of the gradient might be appropriate in the short term.
Members commented on a letter that appeared in the Gazette regarding the parking bay and questioned whether there were any plans to provide a permanent Traffic Warden to stop the illegal use of the Loading Bays. Members were advised that this issue was being addressed and the designs of the loading bays were being considered in the next phase and comments would be noted and taken into consideration.
Members questioned if plans for a fourth phase of the development had been confirmed. Members were advised that the key priority with regard to a potential fourth phase was to identify possible future funding opportunities.
The Chair thanked the Assistant Director – Regeneration and Strategic Development and The Team Leader – Physical Regeneration Unit for the information provided.
Members discussed the issues raised and agreed that the issue with regard the gradient of the bridge needed to be addressed. Members also raised concerns over the continuity of the project in light of the forthcoming departure of the Team Leader. Members requested that the Head of Overview and Scrutiny enquire on there behalf as to whether or not the post would be filled when it became vacant.
6. Highways Maintenance
The Assistant Director – Transportation and Engineering presented the report to the committee and outlined key areas of concern to Members. Members were informed that a Highway Asset Management Plan is to be produced to a standard set by the Welsh Assembly Government to enable comparisons between Councils. Members were advised that this would highlight real shortfalls and backlogs in maintenance and the required spending to undertake remedial work. The Assistant Director – Transportation and Engineering advised Members that it was believed that the required spending would be in the region of £6 Million per annum. Members were advised of the problem relating to the roads in Bridgend County Borough. The Assistant Director- Transportation and Engineering explained to Members that Tarmac only lasts in the region of 20 years and this will evolve into a serious problem in the long term if funding is not received to rectify current maintenance backlogs and undertake the necessary works. Members were informed that Bridgend Council is presiding over the deterioration of the road network because at present the funding is being focused on the most important road networks at a detriment to residential areas. Members were advised that the problem was the volume of deterioration and the late stage at which it is repaired. Members were advised that patching the road causes long term problems and is expensive. The Assistant Director- Transportation and Engineering informed Members that the Highways Asset Management Plan will enable the Welsh Assembly Government to compare Bridgend County Borough Council with other Authorities and it is hoped that this will have a significant impact on future grants.
In relation to the Asset Management Plan, Members questioned whether the Welsh Assembly were recreating the table to include minimum requirements. Members were informed in the opinion of The Assistant Director – Transportation and Engineering that it was possible that Wales would follow England’s example and move toward a needs based approach, however this had not been confirmed.
With regard to the improvements required to improve the highways, Members questioned whether the budget could be ring fenced within 5 years to address the improvements needed. Members were informed that this would be difficult as some of the funding within the budget had specified usages.
Members questioned whether an identifiable Officer could be allocated for each ward. Members were informed that the directorate was encouraging people to contact the Customer Care line rather than an Officer directly as calls and enquiries made to the Customer Care line are recorded on a database and it was therefore easier to check at a later date if the question or complaint had been addressed.
The Chair thanked the Assistant Director- Transportation and Engineering and the Head of Highways for their time and the Committee agreed to form a Task & Finish Group to examine the issues in more detail. The Committee agreed to determine the membership of the Task and Finish Group at its next meeting.
7. Forward Work Programme Update
The Committee decided that a scoping report presenting preliminary research on Waterways would be produced for its next meeting. With regard to the meeting on the 29 November 2006, Members confirmed that the issue of Highways Maintenance would now form the basis of a Task and Finish Group investigation and so would not be on the agenda for this meeting and that Quarterly Budget monitoring will now be considered at this meeting.
8. To consider any other item (s) of business in respect of which notice has been given in accordance with Rule 4 of the Councils Procedure Rules, and which the person presiding at the meeting is of the opinion should be reason of special circumstances be transacted at the meeting as a matter of urgency.
None
The Meeting closed at 16:50 PM
- Last Updated: 17/10/2006
- Rate this page
- Back to top
