Minutes:
PRE-SCRUTINY
The Committee
scrutinised the following matters:
3. Cabinet Board Proposals
3.1 Flood Risk
Management Plan Update
The Committee received
information in relation to the Flood Risk Management Plan as contained within
the circulated report.
Members queried how
often culverts and gullies were inspected. Officers stated that the Authority
was responsible for the maintenance of around 2,000 culverts and gullies and
that it was difficult to visit them all regularly. Officers explained that the
culverts and gullies were prioritised based on level of risk. Officers reported
that gullies and culverts which were categorised as high risk were checked
frequently when bad weather was forecasted in order to prevent any issues from
occurring. Officers added that Mid and West Wales Fire
Service also checked high risk culverts and gullies.
Members questioned the
location of the flood risk area in Bryncoch South as
indicated in the report. Officers stated that there were no significant flood
risk issues in Bryncoch South, and that the mapping
of flood risk areas were carried out by Natural Resources Wales (NRW). Officers
added that NRW did not factor underground assets into their assessments, only
water flowing over ground.
Members queried whether
NRW were responsible for assessing flood risks throughout the county borough
area. Officers informed Members that a three stage process was carried out
every six years by NRW with input from the Authority to identify and review
flood risk areas. Officers added that City and County of Swansea and Neath Port
Talbot County Borough Council were required to keep additional flood risk
management plans as both areas were considered high risk.
Members questioned why
the land at Glyncorrwg had been identified as a flood
risk when historically it had not experienced any flooding, particularly as it
was situated on a hill. Officers explained that NRW had carried out the mapping
and modelling taking into account topographical, geographical, geological and other factors. Officers informed Members that
despite being situated on a hill, some settlements could still be affected by
flooding.
Following scrutiny, it
was agreed that the report be noted.
3.2 Information on Refuse and Recycling Collections
The Committee received
information in relation to the Refuse
and Recycling Collections as contained within the circulated report.
Members queried why the
cost for agency workers in the service was so high. Officers stated that it was
important to look at the cost in context, and that the cost of waste collection
and disposal equated to 50p per household per week which was 24% of the
Council’s revenue spend from Council Tax. Officers explained that the costs
were considered average compared to other local authorities. Officers informed
Members that around 100 staff were employed each day
to undertake various collections, and a back fill pool was required to cover
absences such as holidays, sickness, training and paternity leave. Officers
informed the Committee that the number of staff volunteering for overtime to
cover back logs as a result of bank holiday periods and increased demand had
reduced, and agency staff were being deployed to meet
the needs of the service. Officers commented that staff contracts may need to
be reviewed in future with the trade unions to look at placing an expectation
on permanent staff to work overtime when required in order to reduce the
reliance on agency workers. Officers reported that a review was currently
taking place to look at the size of the reserve pool of staff to decide whether
it was adequately resourced. Officers stated that increasing the reserve pool
could potentially reduce the use of agency staff.
Members commented that
agency staff cost the Authority over £800k in 2017/18, and queried whether it
was possible to reduce spending on agency staff and increase the number of
staff employed on a permanent basis instead. Officers explained that the
previous year’s costs included one off costs for the change programme, and that
the review on ensuring that there was adequate cover in the staff reserve pool
would achieve a reduction in the use of agency staff.
Members questioned
whether the Authority were looking at acquiring smaller recycling vehicles in
order to access narrow lanes, as some citizens had to place their recycling
bins and bags at the bottom of their lane. Members queried whether it was
possible to return the bins and bags to the relevant properties. Officers
informed Members that replacement vehicles and alternatives were being looked
into, but there were issues with regard to manoeuvring vehicles in a small
narrow space especially when the recycling equipment left out for collection
decreased the space further. Members commented that recycling bins and bags
placed at the bottom of lanes was an issue for many citizens as their equipment
was not always returned to the same place, and sometimes their own bins and
bags were not returned to them.
Members queried whether
there were two recycling collection rounds arranged each day, one for the
morning and one for the afternoon. Officers reported that afternoon shifts were
only arranged when there were back logs and increased demand, and these were
usually staffed by agency workers. Officers informed Members that a review was
being carried out to optimise routes in order to reduce overlaps and
duplication where possible.
Members referred to the
cost of hiring agency workers, and queried whether it was possible to employ
staff on a full time basis with a dual function to cover work in the
Neighbourhood Management team and Recycling and Trade Waste teams when
required. Officers stated that an additional budget would be required to take
on the extra number of staff, and this would exceed the cost currently spent on
agency workers. Officers stated that there was a difference in the salaries
paid and the hours worked in the teams which would create issues and discord in
the workforce.
Members questioned
whether there was a system in place to assist citizens with disabilities and
reduced mobility to recycle their waste. Officers stated that there was a
scheme in place, but citizens had to apply for the service. Officers added that
information regarding the support available would be circulated to the
Committee for information.
Members requested a
further update in 12 months to review the cost of agency workers in the service
area.
Following scrutiny, it was agreed that the report be noted.
Item 6 – Traffic Orders at
Glan Yr Afon
and St. David’s Road, Ystalyfera
The Committee received
information in relation Traffic Orders at Glan Yr Afon and St. David’s Road, Ystalyfera as contained within the circulated report.
Members queried whether
there was a risk that the objectors could come forward with documentary
evidence claiming rights to the land before the 5th June. Officers
informed Members that it was highly unlikely that the objectors had rights to
the land as the documentary evidence would have already been submitted by this
stage. Officers stated that the objectors had only been residing at the
bungalow for four years and were not eligible to claim ownership of the land.
Members queried whether
the current owners of the bungalow were able to combine their years of residency
with the previous owners, which would make them eligible to claim rights to the
land. Officers informed Members that the period of residency did not transfer
from one owner to the next that would enable a claim to ownership of the land,
they may however be able to claim or negotiate a right of access over the land.
Members questioned
whether the traffic orders would be monitored. Officers informed the Committee
that the overall project was the subject of a formal independent Road Safety
audit process. Officers explained that there were four stages involved; stages
1 & 2 had been completed as part of the Design Development and Planning
Approval stage. Officer informed Members that the traffic orders implemented
were derived from this process. Officers stated that monitoring by the
Passenger Transport, Road Safety, Highways and South Wales Police who will be
on site observing and monitoring the situation over the coming weeks. Officers
further explained that stage three of the process would entail a review of the
new arrangements over a 12 month period once the school becomes operational.
Officers added that any issues encountered during this 12 month period would
form the basis of a further final stage four audit. Officers informed Members that stage four
provided the Authority with the opportunity to rectify any issues, and a report
would automatically be brought before Scrutiny Committee and Cabinet Board if
any of the traffic orders required amendment. Officers reported that St.
David’s Road and part of Glan Yr
Afon were not designated safe routes to school.
Officers explained that the designated safe route to the school had been placed
on the school’s website. Officers added that the Road Safety section had been
working with the primary school to inform pupils and raise awareness of the new
route to school.
Following scrutiny, the
Committee were supportive of the proposal to be considered by Cabinet Board.
CHAIRPERSON