Agenda, decisions and draft minutes

The Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting and noted that the Members of the Scrutiny Committee had agreed to scrutinise item 4(a) and 4(b) from the Cabinet Forward Work Programme, and Performance item 6(a).

The Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting and noted that the Members of the Scrutiny Committee had agreed to scrutinise item 4(a) and 4(b) from the Cabinet Forward Work Programme, and Performance item 6(a).

There were none.

There were none.

For the Committee to approve the accuracy of the minutes of the meeting held on 31/01/25 and the Joint Scrutiny Meeting of Education Skills and Wellbeing/Environment Regeneration and Streetscene Services Committee 12/02/25.

The minutes of the meeting held on 31/01/25 and the minutes of the Joint Scrutiny Meeting of Education Skills and Wellbeing/Environment Regeneration and Streetscene Services Committee 12/02/25 were approved as an accurate record of proceedings.

The minutes of the meeting held on 31/01/25 and the minutes of the Joint Scrutiny Meeting of Education Skills and Wellbeing/Environment Regeneration and Streetscene Services Committee 12/02/25 were approved as an accurate record of proceedings.

Members considered item 4(a) from the Cabinet Forward Work Programme.

Members considered item 4(a) from the Cabinet Forward Work Programme.

Following scrutiny, recommendation a) was supported to Cabinet

Following scrutiny, recommendation b) was supported to Cabinet

Following scrutiny, recommendation c) was supported to Cabinet

Following scrutiny, a recommendation was put forward. The recommendation as set out below was supported to Cabinet.

d) Prior to the implementation of a pilot a report including location details and cost is brought to environment regeneration and street scene services committee for scrutiny.

The chair noted that members were vocal in the previous scrutiny meeting about the reasons for not engaging in a trial and was pleased that the council now intend to participate in the trial process.

Members noted that recommendation b is to delegate authority to the Director of Environment & Regeneration to decide the location and details of any pilot. Members want more detailed scrutiny of any pilot due to potential complications and some contradictions in the EV charging paper.

Members felt the channelling option raises questions about land ownership and how to manage flats and pavements. They believe there is a lack of detail before proceeding with the pilot.

Members also felt that the template for an agreement is very vague.

Members believe residents in pilot areas would support a free trial due to the increasing availability of electric vehicles, even if they don't own one now.

Members want this to be revisited once there is a clear plan detailing the trial's content, involved areas, and associated costs.

Officers were asked if they had estimated the cost of installing channels and who would bear that expense. Members believe most of the houses involved will be terraced or flats, typically occupied by people on lower incomes. Therefore, if residents bear the cost, it will be an additional difficult expense for them.

Members believe they need to know early on, even before the pilot, where the costs will come from and how the funding will be managed.

Mike Roberts mentioned that officers are collaborating with other councils and observing trends across the UK. He emphasised that firsthand experience from the trial would help answer questions. They expect the trial to be small in scale, with costs typically covered by residents.

Officers noted that Blaenau Gwent are covering installation costs for a limited number of households in their trial, which this council could consider. The final cost depends on the solution used in the trial. For example, the Kerbo Charge solution costs around £1,000 per property.

Investing in a home charging facility has the advantage of lower unit costs. Charging at home overnight costs around 7 pence per kWh, whereas commercial charging points can cost up to 90 pence per kWh. Therefore, having a home facility offers significant savings for ongoing vehicle charging.

Members used drop Kerb schemes as a comparison saying that some people pay for the Kerb, while others find ways to bypass it. If the cost is too high, people might not participate.

Members noted that with petrol and diesel cars being phased out, every property will eventually need electric vehicle charging. It might be better to plan for every house and eventuality now. Additionally, if detachable charging becomes the future technology, many people might recharge indoors without needing cable connections, potentially making current plans obsolete.

Members felt that £1,000 per property is expensive for residents. The chair noted that it's tricky to decide how much to invest in an uncertain future.

Councillor Hurley, Cabinet Member for Climate Change and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4a

Following scrutiny, members noted the report

The Head of Engineering and Transport, informed members that the report was withdrawn from Cabinet due to financial impacts outlined in paragraph 18. Officers identified shortfalls in highways and drainage renewal and ongoing revenue pressures, including parks and neighbourhood services. Members were advised that to provide a holistic report, officers will cover additional areas.

Members were advised that a high-level costed model up to 2032 has been created, with an 8 to 10-year renewal model intended to inform the medium-term financial plan. Officers will have refined the next three years of costings to inform the forward investment necessary. and due to market volatility and new vehicles. The high-level 10-year cost will change, and officers can't fine-tune costs over the ten-year period due to market volatility for the next three years, which is why behind the rationale for withdrawing the report at this time. The report was withdrawn.

Officers are willing to discuss the report further, and the committee will see an updated report in due course.

The chair thanked officers for the introduction and the additional details, which members appreciated. The chair emphasised the importance of scrutinising the report due to the specific and detailed information about the vehicles considered in it and in understanding why certain replacements have been chosen or not chosen.

Members asked about aligning vehicle replacements with the government's timeline to stop producing diesel and petrol vehicles by 2035. They asked if the council are considering this timeline to ensure it doesn’t invest in vehicles that will soon be outdated or non-compliant?

Officers aim to align with Welsh Government targets. In England, targets have been extended to 2035 and beyond. In Wales, the transition to zero-emission vehicles is set for 2030, with a 2025 target for small and light vans, which the council is on track to meet.

Members were informed that officers face challenges with the renewals program, primarily replacing vehicles are replaced based on battery warranties, which vary from five to eight years. Over time, vehicle purchasing or leasing methods may change, including leasing and replacement of batteries.

Fleet purchases include sweepers, replaced every five years due to harsh use and reliability issues with electric models. Refuse and recycling vehicles are replaced every seven years, or eight years if electric, aligning with battery warranties. Other vehicles are replaced every nine years.

Until 2014, all vehicles were replaced every seven years. Financial pressures led to extending this to nine years, recognising increased maintenance and repairs as vehicles age.

Members were pleased to see the consideration of timelines and want to avoid purchasing or leasing vehicles that may go out of service before their expected lifespan.

Officers noted the Welsh Government's commitment to meeting targets, with a strong push towards zero-emission vehicles. They felt a key aspect is how quickly the council can adopt hydrogen fuelling infrastructure and hydrogen vehicles for larger HGVs like refuse freighters.

The chair asked if officers have noticed any knock-on benefits from transitioning to electric vehicles locally, such as saving money  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4b

There were no items from the Scrutiny forward work programme selected.

There were no items from the Scrutiny forward work programme selected.

Members considered performance monitoring item 6a.

Members considered performance monitoring item 6a.

Following scrutiny, members noted the report.

Members felt there the information in the report was sparse and highlighted that even with the published addendums there seems to be a lack of information.

Members were disappointed to see that there's no mention of the Wales Costal Path on the section relating to the public rights of way.

Ceri Morris head of Planning and Public Protection clarified that the Wales Coast Path isn't a public right of way as defined in law and is essentially a permissive path which enables people to walk and cycle along it. The report focuses in on the public rights away and the three bullet points are examples of the work that's been conducted across the public rights away network over the course of the reporting year.

Officers will consider the feedback and may refer to the Wales Coastal Path and its progress in future quarterly reports.

Members agreed that it should be included because it is a well-used path and the closure of part of it now means that it's not a very well used.

Members asked what the criteria is for bus shelter replacements in relation to the replacement programme.

Officers advised that the main factor for bus shelter replacements is their condition. Changes in road conditions and health and safety standards have also necessitated some relocations. Some alighting points are no longer adequate and need to be moved. Currently, 38 out of 40 replacements in the current program are completed, with the remaining two scheduled for this month. This initiative is part of the Clean-Up Green-Up Programme and the Additional Works Programme, agreed in December 2022. Additionally, one further bus shelter is being replaced and relocated for pedestrian safety.

Members commented that some shelters are in very poor condition in their wards and have needed replacement for over 10 years. They hope these replacements will be included in the next round if possible.

Officers advised that the corporate joint committee plans to upgrade infrastructure across the entire bus network as part of the regional transport plan. This includes a regional review linked with bus franchising to improve infrastructure and access to bus shelters, not just in Neath Port Talbot but across the region.

The plan involves adding drop kerbs along routes to ensure accessible paths to bus stops. Additionally, there is a program to implement real-time passenger information. Some quick wins have already been achieved where power supplies are available at bus shelters. The intention is to roll out the improvements as part of a regional grant-aided program, with further infrastructure upgrades expected in the coming years.

Members noted that historically, many grant schemes have focused on strategic corridors, often neglecting valley communities or secondary bus routes. They suggested reviewing the overall program to determine what grant funding and regional work will cover, and what needs to be addressed by the works program.

They felt that it was important to align efforts to avoid disparities in shelter condition. Alignment will ensure equitable improvements across the region, including real-time information systems  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6a

·       Cabinet Forward Work Programme 24/25

·       Scrutiny Committee Forward Work Programme 24/25

The Forward work programme was noted.

The Forward work programme was noted.

Any urgent items at the discretion of the Chairperson pursuant to Section 100BA(6)(b) of the Local Government Act 1972 (as amended).

There were none.

There were no urgent items, however the chair noted that David Griffiths was retiring, and this was his last scrutiny meeting. The chair thanked him for his contribution to the committee and the council and acknowledged his importance as a head of service and wished him well in his retirement.

Members commented that he was an excellent officer and head of service and found him to be courteous and informative and never shied away from answering a question.

Members thanked him for his help and noted how well the department has been run under him.

David Griffiths thanked members and the chair for their very kind words and stated that it had been a pleasure and an honour. He stated that he had thoroughly enjoyed his time over the last 35 years with the council and wished the scrutiny committee and council every success going forward.

He noted that the scrutiny process is very important and makes a real difference in enhancing and shaping Council policies to the benefit of all the communities.