Loading
The committee supported the annual report's recommendation going to Cabinet and noted the Quarter 1 reports.
The Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting.
There were no declarations of interest received.
The minutes of the meeting held on 31st July 2026 were approved as an accurate record of proceedings.
There were no items from the Cabinet Forward Work Programme for consideration.
There were no items from the Scrutiny Committee Forward Work Programme for consideration.
Members considered the performance monitoring items.
The Strategic Director for Environment and Regeneration introduced the report as contained within the agenda pack. It was noted that Waste disposal, fleet and building maintenance costs continued to place pressure on budgets. Major infrastructure, climate change and decarbonisation remained significant strategic risks. Environmental, countryside and asset related services continued to face resource and funding constraints. Members were advised that continued scrutiny would be needed in relation to infrastructure investment, flood resilience, waste transformation, fleet renewal, biodiversity delivery, and management of property and physical assets. Members praised the percentage figure in the report for pothole repairs but enquired how this figure could be improved further, given the visibility of potholes and the risk posed to cyclists. The Strategic Director advised members that the current level of performance was exceptional. Additional funding had been made available through the Neighbourhood Improvement Programme fund. A £5 million spend had been established, with £500,000 allocated to playground improvements and the remainder distributed across four categories of spend, one of which was pothole repairs. Highway teams were actively delivering that programme of work to address potholes reported by the public, by Members and through site inspections. Officers advised that it would be very difficult, if not impossible, to achieve 100% of reported incidents because staffing capacity did not allow that level of service. Members raised concerns regarding contractors from other agencies carrying out substandard work on roads in the borough. Members praised council staff for their prompt response in rectifying substandard work when it was reported by members. The Chair stated that this issue may be an item for the Forward Work Programme. The Head of Engineering and Transport advised that street works inspectors within the service dealt with utility companies working on the highway and checked that works met the required standard. Reinstatement work was also checked to ensure the correct depth of material was put back into the highway. It was confirmed that there was a process in place to monitor quality and an offer was made to look further at any specific issues raised by members. Members queried the performance of the new recycling vehicles, including whether vehicles were returning more frequently before routes were completed, leaving material uncollected, and whether this reflected a wider trend. Clarification was also sought regarding the operation of the cardboard crushing equipment. It was noted that routes had previously been completed in a single run. Officers advised that the service had seen an increase in waste on the new vehicles. Six vehicles had been operating for approximately six weeks and the carrying capacity of these vehicles was greater than those they have replaced. Weights measured at the weighbridge showed the loads were considerably higher than before and the service was not seeing additional trips from an operational perspective. The Head of Engineering and Transport confirmed that no issues had been identified from the operational management team. The six vehicles currently in service were still in the early stage of introduction, with more vehicles due over the next few months. The position would be kept under close review. Members were invited to raise any specific ward issues directly with officers outside of the meeting. Members enquired whether there had been any complaints relating to the new larger recycling bags. Complaints had been received in the wards that bags had been left at the kerbside because they were too heavy to empty. Officers were not aware of any complaints of this nature and asked that the matter be discussed outside of the meeting. The Cabinet Member for Climate Change and Economic Growth provided an example of a delayed recycling collection, explaining that limited vehicle charge following a vehicle inspection had required the crew to return for charging before completing the round. The Cabinet Member also sought clarification on whether residents could request either large or small recycling bags. Officers advised that the large bags had been part of an earlier pilot scheme which had shown cardboard bags could become considerably heavier if fully loaded. Residents now received the standard size when ordering replacement sacks, and large bags could not be requested. The Strategic Director added that if a charging issue had arisen because of a safety check, officers would need to check where the vehicle had been inspected and ensure future inspections took place at a facility with charging capability, as the situation was unacceptable. Following scrutiny, the recommendation was supported to Cabinet.
The Strategic Director of Environment and Regeneration provided an overview of the report as contained within the agenda pack. It was noted that around 71% of strategic aims were currently assessed as on track. Positive developments included biodiversity and nature recovery projects and ongoing investment in infrastructure and services. Slower progress in some areas reflected capacity pressures, funding challenges, procurement processes and dependencies on external partners. Some service improvement projects within highways, waste and transport were being monitored closely. Members were also advised that the performance position needed to be considered alongside wider financial challenges, with a forecast overspend being reported across the authority. Members referred to page 143 and the item on continuing to improve walking and cycling routes, which was shown as off track and asked what was the likelihood of securing funding for new routes, and how existing routes were affected. Officers advised that this item fell under the remit of the Culture, Heritage and Place Scrutiny Committee. The issue arose from overlap between strategic aims and how the corporate strategy linked business plan actions. Officers would discuss this further with Heads of Service to ensure that the action sat under the correct strategic aim for future reporting. The Head of Engineering and Transport confirmed that the action in the report did not necessarily relate directly to delivery of walking and cycling schemes and was more closely linked to the Highways Asset Management Plan. It was stated that delivery of walking and cycling routes was on track, and that there was funding in the current year; progress was being made through the ongoing active travel work. Members referred to page 151 and the action to deliver the highways and engineering works programme. More detail was requested on the unavoidable challenges that would affect delivery of certain schemes in 2026/27. The Head of Engineering and Transport advised members that the programme was generally on track and there was nothing unexpected in the current year, although changes were common within a large highways engineering works programme. Officers advised that the statement primarily related to two areas of work. The A474 Gelligron scheme had been delayed due to planned utility works, with resurfacing to be undertaken once those works were completed. It was noted that such delays were not unusual as utility works were not always known when programmes were initially prepared. The second area related to preventative micro-surface treatment. A small package of works had been planned; however, the scale was not considered cost-effective for contractors. Officers were therefore exploring a larger programme for the following year, aligned with neighbouring authorities to enable delivery across multiple councils. Members referred to page 152 of the report and the action to improve the management of bus shelters, benches, parks, fences and playgrounds. While welcoming progress on the playground improvement programme, Members sought an update on the replacement of benches and bus shelters funded through the Neighbourhood Improvement Programme. Officers confirmed that £200k had been secured through the Neighbourhood Improvement Programme for bus shelter replacements. A review undertaken by Transport for Wales was being used to prioritise the highest risk shelters. A grant received at the end of the previous financial year had funded the replacement of 10 remaining brown shelters, leaving 27 still to be addressed through the current allocation, alongside other priority locations identified by the review. In respect of benches and street furniture, £100k had been allocated through the programme. Members had been invited to identify damaged or poor-condition assets within their wards, and those submissions would now be used to obtain quotations and progress the scheme. The Chair referred to page 140 and the complaints data, noting that the 32 stage one complaints represented a very small proportion of the service's overall activity, and thanked staff for their performance. Following scrutiny, the report was noted.
Members considered the Forward Work Programme. Officers advised members that the most up to date Cabinet and Scrutiny Forward Work Programmes were included within the agenda pack. With the agreement of the Chair the Memorialisation Policy Report, had been removed and would be reprogrammed for both Cabinet and Scrutiny at a later date. Members were advised that the Bulky Waste Collections Report which would reflect the views previously given by scrutiny would be considered by Cabinet on 21/10/2026. The Aberafan Dog PSPO report would now be considered for pre-decision scrutiny on 13/11/2026. In relation to the earlier discussion regarding the work of subcontractors, discussions would be held with officers to consider how this request could be taken forward. The Forward Work Programme was noted.
There were no urgent items.
Councillors must say when they have a personal link to something being discussed, such as a job, a property or a family member. A prejudicial interest is one strong enough that the councillor usually leaves the room and takes no part.
The minutes record no declarations of interest.
Lists the council's current councillors only. Co-opted members, officers and former councillors aren't shown.