Agenda item

Follow-up discussion following scrutiny at the 22 February 2024 meeting.

Resolved:

1.     To accept the report, noting the observations made during the discussion.

2.     That the Committee supports the Highways, Engineering and YGC Department's intention to extend the grass cutting and collection trial to the Arfon area.

The report was presented by the Cabinet Member for Highways, Engineering and YGC, the Head of Highways, Engineering and YGC Department and the Assistant Head of Department.

It was explained that there was a statutory duty on local authorities to maintain and improve biodiversity, but there was also a moral duty on the Council to implement positively. It was noted that the Council had a responsibility as significant landowners to set an example and strengthen the resilience of ecosystems in the area. It was expressed that the work done here was a positive first step and a step on the road towards achieving these ambitions.

It was confirmed that the current figures in the report showed how the service has adapted the grass cutting arrangements, creating more surface for wildflowers to grow and encourage pollinators. It was explained that the hope, after completing the trials, was that significant areas of verges can be excluded from the current contract and included in a new arrangement of grass cutting and collecting.

However, it was noted that there would be a need to consider several factors before implementing this, including financial viability, as the Council was under significant financial pressure and was unable to afford increasing costs when implementing new arrangements. It was noted that there was a need to decide who will be delivering the work, whether the Council's internal workforce with the necessary expertise, or external contractors.

Attention was drawn to the public's response to the new arrangements, referring to the 'Nature is not neat' campaign and the fact that individuals had different views about tidiness.  The need to ensure that the changes did not lead to complaints from the public was noted.

It was explained that cutting urban verges was also part of the work, not only for safety reasons but also to improve the image of communities. In these places, grass is cut between three and five times a year, and that this was done lower to the ground. It was noted that community and town councils must pay the Council to cut grass more often, but others are eager to earmark land for wildflowers, working with the Council or asking them to do the work on their behalf.

Reference was made to the trial in Dwyfor and the work in Meirionnydd, where a report was received by a local ecologist before commencing the work with the team acting in accordance with the report. It was explained that the experience was generally positive, but problems had arisen, such as when a contractor mistakenly cut a site, leaving grass on the surface of the land, or when Welsh Water excavated over work which had previously been completed before signs could be installed. It was noted that steps had been taken to rectify the situation and lessons were being learnt.

They looked forward to the next steps of the plan, including investigations to sites in Arfon and expanding on the trials the next year, if funding was available. It was noted that collaboration took place between the Environment Department and the Biodiversity Team, in the hope that they would receive funding to add more sites.

It was explained that the Land Maintenance Service had started to conduct cutting and collecting trials themselves on some of the land that they are responsible for maintaining, such as Cerrig yr Orsedd in Caernarfon. ⁠It was noted that a grant from the Gwynedd Nature Partnership had allowed the Council to purchase specialist equipment, such as a tractor, a collection machine and a baler so the Land Maintenance Service could complete this type of work itself in the future and gain expertise in the field.

During the discussion, the following observations were made: 

Gratitude was expressed for the report and for the work being done by the service and its workers.

Concern was expressed regarding the lack of information in the report relating to how the success of the trials were measured and their impact on biodiversity. It was noted that the methodology was being outlined, e.g. purchasing equipment, preparing the soil and sowing seeds, but the methods of measuring the results of these steps had not been included in the report. It was emphasised that it was insufficient to act without being able to prove the results. It was asked for assurance that detailed information about measuring success will be included in reports in the future.

In response, it was noted that sites were being assessed by an ecologist before any trials commenced, including an assessment of the current species, the number of species and standard of the soil. It was noted that this information formed a baseline to be used as a basis to compare at the end of the period, and if there was no change in the data, that a conclusion could be drawn that the trial had been unsuccessful. It was reiterated that meant that the question as to whether it was worth continuing in the area could be answered, and if the answer was positive, that it provided stronger justification to expand on the plan and support requests for additional funding.

Concern was expressed about the safety of unclassified roads, as they were not cut regularly. It was elaborated that this could be a safety risk due to the risk to visibility caused by trees and overgrowth on these roads, which are often narrow and winding. Concern was expressed, should there be an accident, that the Council could face a claim due to lack of maintenance.

In response, it was confirmed that safety review arrangements existed for every road, and that the findings of the investigations were being recorded. It was explained that if a situation was considered dangerous, the work was included in the programme immediately or for treatment based on priority. It was confirmed that complaints received direct attention during the growth period, and that area engineers kept a list of those locations which received a high number of complaints. It was expected that those would be included in the cutting service carried out once in the spring. Members were reminded that all these roads were being cut in the autumn.

Concern was expressed about people parking on grass verges, causing damage to the soil and the grass, and preventing the contractors’ work. It was asked whether the Council could collaborate internally to address this. In response, it was confirmed that this was a growing problem, especially in rural areas that were popular amongst visitors. It was noted that the damage caused maintenance problems, safety risks and hindered the public use of verges as paths where there were no pavements.

The possibility of installing barriers or parking restrictions was discussed, but doubts were expressed about their effectiveness. It was explained that no parking enforcement had been established for these sites, and that some people argued that they were eligible to park there. It was advised that this could be discussed with the police if it was considered to be an obstruction to other users.

A positive example was given of installing bollards in Talysarn, near the playground, ensuring children's safety, and appreciation was expressed about the Council's intervention in this case.

RESOLVED

1.       To accept the report, noting the observations made during the discussion.  

2.       That the Committee supports the Highways, Engineering and YGC Department's intention to extend the grass cutting and collection trial to the Arfon area.