Loading
The Economy & Culture Scrutiny Committee examined four Cabinet reports due on 19 March 2026: the Ely Youth Zone, the International Sports Village, the visitor levy consultation and the Business Improvement District renewal ballot. The minute records no decision on the substance of any item. The committee agreed that the Chair would write to the Cabinet Member with the committee's observations and recommendations.
Apologies were received from Cllrs Brown-Reckless and Owen Jones.
Cllrs Goodway (Cabinet Member for Investment & Development) and Humphreys (attending for item 3 as a member of the Children & Young People Scrutiny Committee) declared personal interests in the item as ward councillors for Ely.
Decision as recorded
AGREED: that the Chairperson, on behalf of the Committee, writes to the Cabinet Member conveying the observations and recommendations of the Committee when discussing the way forward.
Members were provided with background information and an overview of the structure of the report titled ‘Ely Youth Zone’, which was due to be considered by Cabinet on 19th March, to aid Members in their scrutiny. For this item, the Chair welcomed: Cllr Lee Bridgeman Cabinet Member for Housing & Communities (Community, Hubs & Regeneration) Cllr Russell Goodway Cabinet Member for Investment & Development Neil Hanratty Director of Economic Development Chris Barnett Operational Manager, Major Projects Tye Whithear Estates Management Officer, Strategic Estates Clare Kanakides OnSide Alessandra Bartlam OnSide Jo-Anne Phillips Project Manager The Chair also welcomed Cllr Irene Humphreys, who was in attendance as a member of the Children & Young People Scrutiny Committee. The Cabinet Members were invited to make opening statements, before officers gave a presentation. Cllr Goodway began by acknowledging a personal interest as a ward councillor for Ely, and described the youth zone as an important project for young people and the surrounding community, both in Ely and in the wider city. It had been a manifesto commitment and the administration was moving forward at pace to deliver a high-quality, sustainable offer for young people. He welcomed the involvement of OnSide as a significant piece of inward investment in Cardiff, and highlighted their experience in operating youth zones in areas of high deprivation. This would be OnSide’s first centre in Wales, with one to follow in Swansea as well. The proposed location was supported by all the Ely councillors as it was visible and accessible, and the key strengths of the youth zone model were in co-design and sustained engagement with young people. He felt it would improve access, health and wellbeing, and bring economic benefits. Cllr Bridgeman added that the investment by OnSide was a significant opportunity, and the council could work with them to raise aspirations for young people in the area. A utilisation plan would be agreed, with youth workers qualified to the new Welsh standard, and he looked forward to working with OnSide in the coming years. Officers gave a presentation providing further detail, explaining that the report sought approval to enter contractual arrangements and undertake a procurement process. A youth zone was a purpose-built space providing access to high quality sport, arts and leisure activities, and was available to young people aged 8 to 18, or up to 25 with additional needs. It was open every day out of school hours until late, all day and evenings at weekends, and was staffed by skilled and dedicated youth workers. There would be an affordable, nominal entrance fee to establish ownership and respect, with a new local charity established to own and operate the building. 18 OnSide projects had been delivered across the country, with four more in progress in addition to Cardiff and Swansea in the pipeline. OnSide’s preferred location for a youth zone tended to be the most deprived ward in the city, ideally at the intersection of several wards, on a main bus route and in a visible location with strong frontage. They were confident that young people would travel, and it wouldn’t just be for the young people of Ely. The proposed location was on the junction of Cowbridge Road and Mill Road, on the main bus route, and was a gateway site which intersected with Caerau, Fairwater, Llandaff and Canton. Officers showed a plan of the site and noted that the scheme could be delivered on Phase 1 land, with a potential Phase 2 then going up behind it. The capital cost of building would be around £12m, split equally between OnSide and the council. The council’s £6m was made up of grants and receipts, with expected revenue cost of £1.2m per annum. OnSide would cover the operational costs, with a contribution of £200k per year for the first seven years from the council. The Chair invited questions and comments from Members. Members queried a reference in the Welsh language assessment to the scheme having both a positive and neutral impact, and heard that this was an error which would be fixed. Officers had engaged with the Welsh language team during the process and they considered it to have a positive impact, and OnSide would make use of Welsh-speaking youth workers in delivering provision. Members explored the finances, noting that £3.3m of the £6m council contribution would come from grant and external funding opportunities, and asked whether these had been identified yet. Officers explained that the Local Growth Fund would be the main source for Phase 1, and they would also approach the Welsh government. The second phase would be outside of that £6m, with Pride In Place funding a possibility, but this required local board support so could not be used at this stage. Members asked how they would ensure revenue subsidy wasn’t needed at the end of the seven year period, and heard that the charity set up to manage the project would run a fundraising campaign alongside it. The model OnSide used was to seek patrons, usually local businesses or high net worth individuals, to make contributions of £25k a year. This model was tried and tested across their network and had been successful at leveraging investment in young people. Officers added that the charities tended to diversify their funding base as they settled in, with more grants and corporate sector income, and they were keen to not rely on a single source of funding in any case. Members asked what mitigation was in place if this investment was not forthcoming, and heard that this was the point of the diversification. Members asked whether the £200k per year contribution to running costs included contingencies for rising costs and maintenance. Officers clarified that the council’s revenue contribution was capped at £200k for seven years regardless of costs, though repairs were factored into the project’s robust asset management plan and a good facilities manager would be key. Members queried whether there were any planning concerns relating to the old buildings on the corner of Mill Road and Cowbridge Road East, and heard that the former White Lion hotel was the last remaining property there and had been converted into flats. They were in negotiations to buy that vacant area, and while it was not a listed building there was some local interest. Officers felt it was likely that they would need to provide some reference within the new building to what the old building was, or pick up façade lines. Members welcomed the expansion of youth provision and asked how young people’s views would be gathered. Officers explained that at each youth zone there was a young people’s development group, ideally made up of 20-30 young people who were as representative of the community as possible, which then became a youth voice group when the youth zone opened. They tried to reach people who wouldn’t normally get involved and ensured they had a stake in what was happening, as ambassadors for their communities. Members noted the usually low response rates for council surveys and advocated proactive engagement. Members asked how the youth zone would integrate with existing youth provision across the city, and heard that it was intended to be an addition to the existing offer rather than replacing or duplicating anything. The Cabinet Member echoed this and noted that the utilisation plan sought to ensure OnSide’s work integrated with existing services and added value, and he saw it as an opportunity rather than a competition. Youth zones were intended to become part of the fabric of the local community rather than displacing anything in place, and the good range of youth provision already in Cardiff gave them a wider range of opportunities and trusted adults to build on. Members asked about the role of third sector organisations and heard that a stakeholder group would be put together based on the needs of the local area, with third sector involvement as well as health and education. Members asked about opportunities to build in provision in other languages to improve engagement across communities, and heard that this was a key part of their efforts to ensure inclusivity and accessibility at every level. Specific provision depended on the area, with an example being Somali-speaking youth workers at their youth zone in Hammersmith, where there was a large community of Somalis. Members queried how travel difficulties were addressed and heard that public transport access was one of the core criteria for selecting the site. It was estimated that 80-85% of young people would get there on their own, and there were different options for support for young people at the end of the night: for instance youth workers waiting with them at bus stops; minibus pickups and drop-offs; walking buses back to their estates and additional bus stops. AGREED: that the Chairperson, on behalf of the Committee, writes to the Cabinet Member conveying the observations and recommendations of the Committee when discussing the way forward.
Decision as recorded
AGREED: that the Chairperson, on behalf of the Committee, writes to the Cabinet Member conveying the observations and recommendations of the Committee when discussing the way forward.
Members were provided with background information and an overview of the structure of the report titled ‘International Sports Village’, which was due to be considered by Cabinet on 19th March, to aid Members in their scrutiny. For this item, the Chair welcomed: Cllr Russell Goodway Cabinet Member for Investment & Development Neil Hanratty Director of Economic Development Chris Barnett Operational Manager, Major Projects Jo-Anne Phillips Project Manager Tye Whithear Estates Management Officer, Strategic Estates The Cabinet Member was invited to make an opening statement, in which he described the report as another important step in the development of the ISV site, which would give delivery certainty and long-term benefits. It also considered existing assets on the site, namely the swimming pool, ice rink and white water rafting arena, exploring a range of ownership models and potentially unlocking private sector investment. He emphasised that the Cardiff Devils team would be protected as the work was taken forward, and noted representations received concerning the cost of parking for regular users of the ice rink. Officers gave a presentation providing further detail, noting that Plot 1 (currently the swimming pool car park) had secured planning permission and was drawn down for development so had to close soon. The leisure attraction they had hoped to secure on the Toys R Us site was now not progressing, which opened up that site. The proposals in this report sought no council capital or revenue budget, nor any further borrowing, and they planned to recover all debt and holding costs. Officers emphasised that no funding was available to deliver the parking solution, amenity space and maintain the leisure assets. The parking solution required 900 spaces to serve the existing leisure venues, and a multi-storey car park was not a viable approach. They needed to take a surface approach with green energy infrastructure, which would itself deliver a big regeneration impact. The preferred option was to provide 900 to 1,000 spaces on the Toys R Us site, and to utilise the L-shaped outdoor amenity space next to it to shape the asset. The current pool car park would be closed imminently. They added that the council already owned the Toys R Us site, with the building to be retained to provide an additional leisure asset. This could be done at the lowest possible cost, around £4.5m to deliver a permanent fully serviced car park. They believed an energy developer can provide a range of energy opportunities in return for some of that cost, for instance EV charging and solar canopies, and any funding gap would be covered by capital receipt/capitalised income. The L-shaped amenity space would be retained but was no longer required for car parking, so the could avoid further spend by extending the current option agreement. This would allow the developer to plan the whole area and deliver a more integrated plan, in return for delivery of obligations. The final scheme would need to be approved by the council. Finally, officers noted that the leisure assets were at growing risk of requiring significant capital investment at their end of life. The white water rafting facility already presented a significant revenue risk, while the international pool would soon need significant investment. The council retained landlord responsibilities for Ice Arena, and the report sought authority to test the market to potentially dispose of the white water rafting facility or Ice Arena. An agency model would be explored for the pool, as they didn’t expect anyone to want to buy it. They also proposed to relocate the Fun HQ children’s play area to the Toys R Us site, which would make the ice rink unencumbered if it came to market. They would return to Cabinet following this soft market exercise for review. Officers also added that they were continuing discussions with the developer of the Sky View Tower, a 90m-120m city viewing platform, with the potential for a five year temporary lease at the ISV while the Atlantic Wharf development matured. The Chair invited questions and comments from Members. Members explored the potential agreement with the energy developer and heard that the developer would return the car park back to them in return for rights to the energy produced on the site, for instance from solar canopies, wind turbines and EV chargers. The council would retain the car park and its income, but if somebody plugged their electric vehicle in they would pay the energy company for that. Members asked about the revenue costs of releasing these opportunities, and heard that the report was only seeking authority to undertake procurement at this point. Through that process they would be able to determine how much an energy developer would be willing to contribute to deliver the car park, and they hoped no council contribution would be needed. If that was the case, they had identified an area of land that would deliver a capital receipt if disposed of. It was all linked to the parking strategy, and the schedule of charging would allow users of the leisure centre to get two hours free and then pay after that. This income would be ring-fenced for maintaining the asset and the nearby public realm. Members referenced previous scrutiny of proposals to use heat from the ice rink to heat the pool and queried progress on this. Officers explained that investigations had found this would require significant investment from the council, so it was not being taken forward, but a developer could consider it. Members asked whether the provision of nearly a thousand parking spaces aligned with the council’s active travel goals, and heard that it was a case of the council covering their obligations. They were committed to providing the spaces to support their leisure assets, and the swimming pool car park was closing. Officers added that they were always seeking to improve public transport access to the site, which was currently about 500 yards from a train station. Members asked why 1,000 spaces were being provided when only 330 were being lost, and heard that the obligation was for 900, but the space identified might potentially deliver a thousand including a small piece of the land at the back. Peak demand at the sports village was significantly higher than 900, particularly on event days like Cardiff Devils home games, and surrounding car parks like Morrisons and at Cogan Spur came into play. The council was also committed to delivering a park and ride solution, since the area had good access both to the bay and the town centre. Members queried the lack of viability of a multi-storey car park, and heard that this report outlined the optimum way of providing the parking needed. It was regrettable to lose some of the leisure facilities on the site, but the leisure opportunity identified for the Toys R Us site had fallen away when the interested party was taken over and could no longer work within the necessary timescales. However, they had identified a different location in the bay which could potentially accommodate them. Members discussed how repairs to the boardwalk would be paid for, and heard that these had already been undertaken by the developer, with warranties up to 25 years. The liabilities taken on by the council in this respect were for maintenance rather than the repairs themselves. Members asked how the council could ensure the leisure assets remained affordable for residents in the long term, and heard that an agency model was being considered for the swimming pool. If they fully disposed of the CIWW facility or Ice Arena then it would be a lot more difficult to control costs. Members asked how procurement costs would be met, and heard that there was a possibility that Local Growth Fund monies could be used for this, with discussions ongoing. AGREED: that the Chairperson, on behalf of the Committee, writes to the Cabinet Member conveying the observations and recommendations of the Committee when discussing the way forward.
Decision as recorded
AGREED: that the Chairperson, on behalf of the Committee, writes to the Cabinet Member conveying the observations and recommendations of the Committee when discussing the way forward.
Members were provided with background information and an overview of the structure of the report titled ‘Visitor Levy Consultation’, which was due to be considered by Cabinet on 19th March, to aid Members in their scrutiny. For this item, the Chair welcomed: Cllr Russell Goodway Cabinet Member for Investment & Development Jon Day Operational Manager, Investment & Tourism The Cabinet Member was invited to make an opening statement, in which he noted that proposals for a visitor levy in Cardiff had come to the committee before. Since then, legislation had been passed which enabled councils to introduce it from April 2027. The rate was set by the Welsh government but local authorities could choose whether to introduce it and how it was administered. The council believed it could generate around £3.5m per year to support the sector, in addition to existing investment rather than as a substitute for it. He added that the consultation had generated close to 2,000 responses, with overall support and some important conditions. The consistent message from consultees was that receipts had to be used transparently to invest in and grow the tourism sector, encouraging longer stays and more local spending, strengthening Cardiff’s ability to hold major events and manage their impact. He noted that hotels had also advised they did not want it to be an administrative burden, and revisions had been made to the proposals to address these points. All the recommendations made by the scrutiny inquiry had been accepted, with more detail about working with the Welsh Revenue Authority to ease the administrative burden on businesses and a strengthened case for additionality. The officer provided more detail on the consultation program, which had indicated two-thirds support among those consulted. People were generally quite used to paying a small levy to support the local tourism sector, and the twelve month lead-in period would enable businesses to put collection procedures in place. In terms of specific use of the levy, the officer noted emphasis from businesses on increasing midweek trade, and investment in marketing and promotion, as well as clarity in decision-making processes and the process of refunds. Residents, meanwhile, had advocated ensuring the benefits of tourism sector were used to make the city overall more welcoming, and had similarly called for transparency in how the funding was spent. The Chair invited questions and comments from Members. Members queried the precise number of responses received to the consultation, and heard that officers would make the figures clearer as some of the physical responses submitted had been re-entered as online entries by the research team. The figures also did not include information from one-to-one and drop-in sessions that targeted businesses in the city centre. Members asked for a breakdown of response types so they could see if the cost of printing and distributing hard copies was worth it. Members asked about the public drop-in sessions and heard that these had taken place in the city centre, the bay and in Canton, as these were the main visitor destinations and offered the most comprehensive picture working within their resources. It had also been promoted extensively on social media and in the press. Members asked whether the focus had been on visitors’ views or residents’ views, and heard that they had sought a balanced mix but it was naturally much easier to get responses from residents. Members asked whether officers were confident that consultation responses accurately reflected the city’s demographics, both in terms of residents and visitors. Officers agreed to seek more detail from the research team about specific demographics, but felt that the resident response had been high. Members queried whether the levy would apply to organisations who placed people in hotels because they were are fleeing from domestic violence, and whether they would be able to claim it back in those cases. Officers explained that these organisations were not liable for the levy, but weren’t sure whether this was on a refund basis or at the source. Members cautioned that for a small charity with limited funding, the additional cost of the levy when they were housing someone in a hotel for an extended period of time and the administrative burden of claiming it back could have a negative impact. Officers acknowledged this and noted that hotels had raised a similar issue around carers. They couldn’t change the legislation but could work with the WRA to ensure that claiming a refund was as easy as possible, and didn’t feel it would be in their interest to create an overly burdensome system. Members asked for greater clarity on the processes involved. Members asked whether residents would be represented on the forum, and heard that they would not. Local councillors would play a key role on the forum as elected representatives of their communities, and would be responsible for reflecting their views. Members discussed the possibility of re-consulting on the proposed changes made and heard that the council would work closely with the sector and wider stakeholders throughout the implementation process, to ensure they reflected the wishes of the consultation exercise. The memorandum of understanding with UK Hospitality was part of this, and committed them to consistent dialogue with the sector. Officers also added that the levy would automatically be reviewed after five years, and if it didn’t lead to an increase in visitor numbers then they would be able to reflect on that. AGREED: that the Chairperson, on behalf of the Committee, writes to the Cabinet Member conveying the observations and recommendations of the Committee when discussing the way forward.
Decision as recorded
AGREED: that the Chairperson, on behalf of the Committee, writes to the Cabinet Member conveying the observations and recommendations of the Committee when discussing the way forward.
Members were provided with background information and an overview of the structure of the report titled ‘Business Improvement District Renewal Ballot’, which was due to be considered by Cabinet on 19th March, to aid Members in their scrutiny. For this item, the Chair welcomed: Cllr Russell Goodway Cabinet Member for Investment & Development Jon Day Operational Manager, Investment & Tourism The Cabinet Member was invited to make an opening statement, in which he noted that Cardiff’s Business Improvement District (BID) was the largest in the UK outside of London. It provided a broad range of services, and he thanked the businesses that contributed to its management. It was a vital part of the city’s wider business infrastructure and was coming to the end of its second term, and the council’s Corporate Plan supported renewal and potential expansion. FOR Cardiff had consulted extensively with city centre businesses, as well as with businesses in the bay regarding southward expansion. While local authority approval was not in itself a formal requirement, there were important checks and balances to undertake, such as ensuring the business plan did not conflict with existing policies or services, and the report recommended that authority be delegated to officials to determine these. The officer provided further detail, noting that the BID had a fixed five year term with re-balloting to be undertaken in the summer. The renewal proposal involved revisions to both the levy structure and the boundary, the latter of which related to expansion towards Cardiff Bay. This was considered to be a coherent footprint for the visitor economy in Cardiff, and initial consultation with businesses in the bay had indicated broad support. The levy would increase from 1.06% to 1.6%, reflecting a decrease in income over the previous term, but would still remain below the UK average of 1.75%. They were also increasing the rateable value threshold from £25k to £35k, and the changes would bring in around £2.6m per year. The Chair invited questions and comments from Members. Members welcomed the potential expansion towards the bay and the general support from businesses in the bay for the proposal. They asked whether it had been possible to speculatively consult with businesses that would come to the bay in the near future, in particular the Cardiff Arena, and heard that while it had only been possible to consult with businesses already in place, the operator of the arena had a number of other venues in Cardiff so they would have engaged with the BID. Officers were confident that being part of the BID would help to attract more businesses to the bay. Members queried whether the visitor levy due to be implemented in 2027 would have any impact on the BID levy. Officers clarified that it would not, as the visitor levy was paid by customers rather than businesses. FOR Cardiff were included as part of the proposed governance arrangements for the visitor levy and would have a say in where the funds raised went. Members asked that their thanks to FOR Cardiff be noted. AGREED: that the Chairperson, on behalf of the Committee, writes to the Cabinet Member conveying the observations and recommendations of the Committee when discussing the way forward.
There were none.
21st April at 4:30pm.
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.
Russell Goodway: Personal interest on Ely Youth Zone
Personal interest as a ward councillor for Ely, in relation to the Ely Youth Zone.
Irene Humphreys: Personal interest on Ely Youth Zone
Personal interest as a ward councillor for Ely, in relation to the Ely Youth Zone. She attended for item 3 as a member of the Children & Young People Scrutiny Committee.
Lists the council's current councillors only. Co-opted members, officers and former councillors aren't shown.