Loading
The decisions as the council's minutes record them. A plain-language summary follows once it has been written.
RESOLVED: Following detailed consideration and discussions with Officers and Cabinet Members, the Committee made the following Recommendations: 1. That the Committee accept the offer from the Corporate Director - Communities to attend a site visit/walk around the Porthcawl Regeneration area. 2. That when seeking to dispose of sites, that the authority utilise the same procurement exercise which was used in the disposal of the Salt Lake site which was described to the Committee as a two-stage approach: 1) Design; and 2) Best consideration. 3. Given the anticipated increased tourism to Porthcawl due to the regeneration and that there were only plans to replace existing car parking spaces not to make additional car parking spaces available, that consideration be given to the prospect of a rise in coach day trips to Porthcawl and to the possible need for the addition of coach parking spaces in the town or surrounding areas and that this be built into the strategy. 4. Concerns were expressed regarding the very limited and infrequent train services at Pyle train station and the Committee highlighted that Bridgend train station not only had more frequent services but was also the changing point for many valley line services. The Committee also noted that the proposed park and ride facility at Pyle train station was no longer proceeding and that an upgrade of the station would not take place in the foreseeable future and, therefore, recommended that it would be more beneficial for the Metrolink to link to Bridgend train station rather than Pyle, until Pyle Station is upgraded. And the Committee requested: 5. The PowerPoint presentation slides presented at the meeting. 6. That the owners of Coney Beach fairground be asked whether they would provide figures of consumer spend, the number of visitors and the average seasonal footfall to the fair. 7. How much revenue was spent in the town as a result of the fair and how much would be lost, and the economic impact the loss of the fair will have on the town. 8. Due to concerns regarding the lack of sea defences in Newton, a written response in relation to the Shoreline Management Plan for Newton to include detail of whether Officers were searching for grant funding and what is the forward plan. 9. A written response on what schemes originally formed part of the Porthcawl Regeneration Investment Focus, what is their current status and, if there are elements that have not yet been constructed, what the plans are for these. 10. A written response to summarise the source of each of the individual funding streams that fund the various aspects of the Porthcawl Regeneration to include details of what funding comes from the private sector and what funding comes from elsewhere (including any grants). A confidential briefing to better understand the history of Cosy Corner and why Officers were precluded from responding to some questions in the meeting.
RESOLVED: That the Committee approved the FWP in Appendix A, subject to the incorporation of the above requests, noted the Recommendations Monitoring Action Sheet in Appendix B and noted that the FWP, Recommendations Monitoring Action Sheet and any updates from the Committee would be reported to the next meeting of COSC.
Councillors Jonathan Pratt and Neelo Farr declared personal interests as elected members of Porthcawl Town Council.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED: Following detailed consideration and discussions with Officers and Cabinet Members, the Committee made the following Recommendations: 1. That the Committee accept the offer from the Corporate Director - Communities to attend a site visit/walk around the Porthcawl Regeneration area. 2. That when seeking to dispose of sites, that the authority utilise the same procurement exercise which was used in the disposal of the Salt Lake site which was described to the Committee as a two-stage approach: 1) Design; and 2) Best consideration. 3. Given the anticipated increased tourism to Porthcawl due to the regeneration and that there were only plans to replace existing car parking spaces not to make additional car parking spaces available, that consideration be given to the prospect of a rise in coach day trips to Porthcawl and to the possible need for the addition of coach parking spaces in the town or surrounding areas and that this be built into the strategy. 4. Concerns were expressed regarding the very limited and infrequent train services at Pyle train station and the Committee highlighted that Bridgend train station not only had more frequent services but was also the changing point for many valley line services. The Committee also noted that the proposed park and ride facility at Pyle train station was no longer proceeding and that an upgrade of the station would not take place in the foreseeable future and, therefore, recommended that it would be more beneficial for the Metrolink to link to Bridgend train station rather than Pyle, until Pyle Station is upgraded. And the Committee requested: 5. The PowerPoint presentation slides presented at the meeting. 6. That the owners of Coney Beach fairground be asked whether they would provide figures of consumer spend, the number of visitors and the average seasonal footfall to the fair. 7. How much revenue was spent in the town as a result of the fair and how much would be lost, and the economic impact the loss of the fair will have on the town. 8. Due to concerns regarding the lack of sea defences in Newton, a written response in relation to the Shoreline Management Plan for Newton to include detail of whether Officers were searching for grant funding and what is the forward plan. 9. A written response on what schemes originally formed part of the Porthcawl Regeneration Investment Focus, what is their current status and, if there are elements that have not yet been constructed, what the plans are for these. 10. A written response to summarise the source of each of the individual funding streams that fund the various aspects of the Porthcawl Regeneration to include details of what funding comes from the private sector and what funding comes from elsewhere (including any grants). A confidential briefing to better understand the history of Cosy Corner and why Officers were precluded from responding to some questions in the meeting.
The Corporate Director for Communities introduced the report, the purpose of which was to provide an overview of the Porthcawl Regeneration Programme. The Chairperson thanked the Corporate Director for Communities and Members discussed the following: · Confirmation was given by local Porthcawl Members that they had been regularly informed and that they were aware of each stage of the development of Porthcawl regeneration. · Details and the location of the Sandy Bay area for educational use were identified on plan, whether this be for a new school or an extension of the existing. · Compulsory purchase orders (CPO) were only issued in extreme instances when an owner of the land cannot be found or where there is a discrepancy. The owners of the Monster Park had requested it went to a CPO and an independent valuation of the land. The value of that land would be paid to those owners and was built into the regeneration programme budget. · The vision for Porthcawl both as a resort and coastal town; with opportunity for employment and affordable housing. · The concept built into the strategic sites and in the replacement Local Development Plan (LDP) regarding access to essentials within a 20-minute brisk walk or bike ride from home to be taken into account and incorporated in developments. · What form of leisure facility would be put in place options being considered including possibly a seasonal summer fair and winter wonderland and within the landowner agreement Sandy Bay and Coney Beach were to be for mixed-use development. Local Housing need in Porthcawl, the comprehensive housing strategy prepared as a result of the LDP, the identified need for 1100 new homes within Porthcawl within the next 15 years to accommodate growth in the area, including a mixture of homes: rental, affordable homes, social housing and extra care. · Parking Surveys to determine the parking need in Porthcawl and the feasibility study being undertaken to replace the parking as a result of the Salt Lake Development and the car parking options. · Porthcawl Resort Investment Focus and Cosy Corner being the last scheme to be funded by Welsh Government and the Visit Wales monies. · The process and qualifying criteria for the successful application of the food retail store, with a detailed development plan being compiled and agreed by the Development Control Committee for the disposal of the site. Potential retailers were offered the opportunity to meet with Planning Officers and discuss their ideas for the site design before the site tender commenced. Of five tenders received, three did not match the design brief and were discounted, one of which was the highest bidder. The second round was best consideration, and the bid was accepted from Aldi because it passed the design bar and best consideration. · How the Metrolink Terminus would run effectively and how it would be maintained, bus operating times, the revenue cost of running the facility, whether any revenue income could be produced, as well as incoming revenue from the Cosy Corner retail units. · The proposal to provide a direct link between Pyle Station and Porthcawl as the nearest station and the proposal to relocate Pyle station would provide additional park and ride facilities. · Whether there were further aspirations for the Metrolink Bus Terminus and that the authority would contribute where possible to studies by the National Organisation Transport for Wales regarding: Light rail; Potential proposals to move the railway station in Pyle to its previous location, and; subject to relocation of Pyle Station, the potential for putting a link in from that site directly to Porthcawl with a rail tram option. · Bus Operators services and routes and discussions with the Authority. · Although there had been fewer buses/coaches travelling into Porthcawl for day trips and, whether potential future need for coach parking could be explored. · Whether lessons could be learnt from the redevelopment of Maesteg Town Hall for the Porthcawl Pavilion project given some similarities and their listed building status. The Pavilion’s place in the town as a venue for: conferencing, shows, and entertainment, and aspirations for a new library. · Corporate Procurement rules for the tendering process, work tendered off frameworks with agreed rates administered for the region via Cardiff City Council, and financial due diligence, previous experience and information from the contractors examined to ensure they had liquidity. · Clarification that that the monies generated from the disposal of land would be put into the capital programme to be used for the Porthcawl Regeneration Programme, and as a multimillion pound regeneration it would take 5 -8 years to achieve, so the amount in the Capital Programme would fluctuate. The Chairperson advised that there were no further questions for the invitees, thanked invitees for their attendance and advised they may leave the meeting. RESOLVED: Following detailed consideration and discussions with Officers and Cabinet Members, the Committee made the following Recommendations: 1. That the Committee accept the offer from the Corporate Director - Communities to attend a site visit/walk around the Porthcawl Regeneration area. 2. That when seeking to dispose of sites, that the authority utilise the same procurement exercise which was used in the disposal of the Salt Lake site which was described to the Committee as a two-stage approach: 1) Design; and 2) Best consideration. 3. Given the anticipated increased tourism to Porthcawl due to the regeneration and that there were only plans to replace existing car parking spaces not to make additional car parking spaces available, that consideration be given to the prospect of a rise in coach day trips to Porthcawl and to the possible need for the addition of coach parking spaces in the town or surrounding areas and that this be built into the strategy. 4. Concerns were expressed regarding the very limited and infrequent train services at Pyle train station and the Committee highlighted that Bridgend train station not only had more frequent services but was also the changing point for many valley line services. The Committee also noted that the proposed park and ride facility at Pyle train station was no longer proceeding and that an upgrade of the station would not take place in the foreseeable future and, therefore, recommended that it would be more beneficial for the Metrolink to link to Bridgend train station rather than Pyle, until Pyle Station is upgraded. And the Committee requested: 5. The PowerPoint presentation slides presented at the meeting. 6. That the owners of Coney Beach fairground be asked whether they would provide figures of consumer spend, the number of visitors and the average seasonal footfall to the fair. 7. How much revenue was spent in the town as a result of the fair and how much would be lost, and the economic impact the loss of the fair will have on the town. 8. Due to concerns regarding the lack of sea defences in Newton, a written response in relation to the Shoreline Management Plan for Newton to include detail of whether Officers were searching for grant funding and what is the forward plan. 9. A written response on what schemes originally formed part of the Porthcawl Regeneration Investment Focus, what is their current status and, if there are elements that have not yet been constructed, what the plans are for these. 10. A written response to summarise the source of each of the individual funding streams that fund the various aspects of the Porthcawl Regeneration to include details of what funding comes from the private sector and what funding comes from elsewhere (including any grants). A confidential briefing to better understand the history of Cosy Corner and why Officers were precluded from responding to some questions in the meeting.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED: That the Committee approved the FWP in Appendix A, subject to the incorporation of the above requests, noted the Recommendations Monitoring Action Sheet in Appendix B and noted that the FWP, Recommendations Monitoring Action Sheet and any updates from the Committee would be reported to the next meeting of COSC.
The Scrutiny Officer presented the Committee with the Forward Work Programme (FWP) in Appendix A for discussion and consideration, requested any specific information the Committee identified to be included in the items for the next two meetings, including invitees they wished to attend, requested the Committee to identify any further items for consideration on the FWP having regard to the selection criteria in paragraph 4.3, asked the Committee to note the Recommendations Monitoring Action Sheet to track responses to the Committee’s recommendations made at previous meeting in Appendix B and asked the Committee to note that the FWP and Recommendations Monitoring Action Sheet for the Committee would be reported to the next meeting of Corporate Overview and Scrutiny Committee. The Committee requested that the following items be considered for addition to the Annual Forward Programme at the next Scrutiny Planning Meeting for SOSC 3: 1. Pedestrian safety in historical villages – active travel and safe routes. 2. Looking at the next phase of the Levelling Up fund and putting bids forward. 3. Information and update on where the Directorate was with Asset and Community Asset Transfer. 4. Electric charging points, where this is currently within the three phases and what happens after phase three is completed. Possible information report that could come under the Net Zero Strategy. 5. Being Six months away from the introduction of the 20 mile an hour speed zones, the Committee would appreciate a general update on progress, which roads had been identified and time scales for signage. 6. The County Strategy / Policy for mobile campervans, caravans and sites to encourage the tourism scene further and build on revenue. The Committee requested members briefings for SOSC 3 on: 1. Infrastructure Delivery; 2. Waste Provision. There were no further items identified for consideration on the FWP having regard to the selection criteria in paragraph 4.3, and this could be revisited at the next meeting. There were no requests to include specific information in the item for the next meeting. RESOLVED: That the Committee approved the FWP in Appendix A, subject to the incorporation of the above requests, noted the Recommendations Monitoring Action Sheet in Appendix B and noted that the FWP, Recommendations Monitoring Action Sheet and any updates from the Committee would be reported to the next meeting of COSC.
None.
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.
Declarations are read from the minutes once they are published.
Lists the council's current councillors only. Co-opted members, officers and former councillors aren't shown.