Wrthi'n llwytho
Does dim crynodeb o'r cyfarfod hwn eto. Caiff crynodebau eu hysgrifennu pan fydd y cyngor yn cyhoeddi'r cofnodion, sef ei gofnod swyddogol o'r hyn a benderfynodd cyfarfod. Maen nhw fel arfer yn ymddangos ychydig wythnosau ar ôl y cyfarfod.
The Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting. Members formally welcomed the newly appointed Chief Operating Officer, Chris Owen, to the meeting.
There were no declarations of interest.
The minutes of the meetings held on 13 January 2026 and 19 January 2026 were approved as true and accurate records.
Members considered the report as circulated within the agenda pack. Officers provided an update on the financial position as outlined in Appendix A of the report. Members were informed that the year‑end position showed an underspend of £315,400, which would be transferred to the CJC reserve at the end of the financial year. This position was broadly consistent with projections reported at quarters one and two, with the underlying reasons remaining unchanged. It was noted that the Senior Accountant post within Support Services continued to be vacant, generating an annual saving of £49,000, and that this post was not currently required given the early stage of the CJC’s development. Within the subcommittee budgets, an overspend of £121,000 was reported, attributed in part to £200,000 of Welsh Government grant expenditure relating to the Regional Transport Plan. This pressure was offset by underspends of approximately £70,000 within the Planning and Programme Management category and a further £10,000 underspend within the Energy Subcommittee. The Planning and Strategic Planning Subcommittee had appointed a Senior Planning Officer to support development of the Strategic Development Plan, funded through the relevant programme management budget at a cost of approximately £40,000 for the year. Members were also advised that work on the Regional Investment Strategy was being procured at a cost of £75,000, with £40,000 of this met from the Economic Development Subcommittee budget and the remaining £35,000 from the Consultancy and Specialist Advisor budget within the Regional Management Office. The Regional Management Office reported an overspend of approximately £63,000, due in part to the recent appointment of the Chief Operating Officer and additional expenditure relating to attendance at the UKREiiF and Green Economy events. It was confirmed that £35,000 from the Consultancy and Specialist Advisor budget would be reallocated to support the Regional Investment Strategy, leaving an underspend of approximately £19,000 within that budget line, alongside minor underspends in translation and printing. In terms of funding contributions, two Welsh Government grants of £200,000 each had been received, one to support the CJC’s capacity and capability, and the other linked to the Regional Transport Plan. These grants had not been known at the time the budgets were set in January of the previous year. Taking into account the previous year’s brought‑forward balance, anticipated interest, and the current underspend, the forecast reserve balance at year end was reported as £1.38 million. A member raised concerns regarding the perception of the committee’s financial position. It was noted that whilst much of the reserves were ear marked, members of the public might perceive the accumulation of such reserves as funding committees that spend considerable time discussing matters without demonstratable progress. The comments were noted and the Chair acknowledged the previous correspondence of the Overview & Scrutiny Committee had highlighted concerns regarding the financial position of the Corporate Joint Committee. Following scrutiny, the report was noted.
Members considered the report as circulated within the agenda pack. Officers confirmed that Ambien Consulting had been commissioned in October to produce an evidence-based draft investment prospectus and to begin preparation of an investment strategy. The consultant completed the initial prospectus within a short timeframe to align with the Investment Summit held in Newport on 1 December. The investment strategy has been developed to provide the region with a clear, credible and investor‑ready framework aimed at attracting and securing long‑term investment. It presents a unified regional proposition supported by a live pipeline of investable opportunities and incorporates a prioritisation framework, robust governance arrangements through the Corporate Joint Committee and a practical process for progressing projects within the investment pipeline. The focus is on projects that are investable, deliverable and capable of securing both private and public sector capital. It was noted that, subject to approval by the CJC at its meeting on 24 March, the strategy and prospectus are intended to be formally launched at the UK REiiF event in Leeds on 18 May, which is expected to attract over 1,000 participants including key investors, making it an appropriate platform for the launch. The Committee received an update on the four key deliverables for the investment work. Members were informed that the investment strategy sets out the region’s objectives, target sectors, constraints, and the proposed approach to delivering the investment vision. A prospectus has been prepared as an outward‑facing marketing document summarising the strategy and presenting the South West Wales offer to potential investors. An evidence base has been produced to support both documents, containing detailed information on the regional business environment, labour market and wider investment landscape, and it will also inform future strategic work and funding bids. Members were provided with details relating to the comprehensive engagement process that supported the development of the work. The emerging vision sets out the region’s growth ambitions and establishes an investor‑facing framework aligned with the Regional Economic Delivery Plan. The call for projects generated over 45 submissions representing more than £6 billion in potential investment, including capital schemes such as FLOW projects, CO₂ capture, rail innovation hubs, marine energy testing, EV charging infrastructure and rail improvements, as well as revenue‑based activity in sectors such as hospitality, construction and renewable energy. Given the breadth of proposals, a structured investment framework has been created to assess whether projects are investment‑ready, require further development or are better suited to other programmes such as economic development routes or the Regional Employment and Skills Partnership. Officers highlighted that there is flexibility built into the approach around investments. Members welcomed the work that has been done in relation to this item and hope that further development of this item would continue to be positive. Members sought an indication of how the division between public and private sector relates to the projected £1.5billion expected. Officers confirmed that they are flexible with regards to this. The CJC wishes to lobby both UK and Welsh Government in order to create the funding pot, and to look at any investment coming from the private sector. The sources of funding will change all the time, so it is expected that within the next five years, public and private funding will hopefully come in on a more equal basis. A member commented on the earlier discussion regarding funding and expressed a preference for the region to agree its priorities before seeking financial support, rather than receiving funding through a top‑down approach and later attempting to align projects with predetermined criteria. They felt the proposed method would better ensure that investment meets the region’s needs. The member sought clarification on the project pipeline referenced in the report, noting that only a summary had been provided and that a full list of the approximately 45 projects had not been shared. They asked whether the complete pipeline had been published and, if not, when members would be able to see it in order to gain a clearer understanding of the full scope of activity. Officers confirmed that the underlying spreadsheet supported the work and categorised projects by area and theme. This could be circulated with the committee. Members queried whether the identified drive for energy security and low-carbon transition duplicates any of the work of the Freeport. Further, attention was drawn to the statements within the summary regarding strong road and rail connections to major UK cities. Members stressed that investment in strategic transport links was essential to support the wider aims of the strategy. Officers acknowledged the importance of improving road and rail connections and noted that, when viewed in a UK‑wide context, South West Wales compares favourably to some other regions. It was confirmed that investment in strategic infrastructure is essential to support growth and that the proposed funding is intended to address this need. In relation to the Freeport, officers reported that close and positive discussions were taking place to ensure the strategy complements the Freeport’s opportunities, with no duplication of work. Following scrutiny, the recommendation was supported to South West Wales Corporate Joint Committee.
Members considered the report as circulated within the agenda pack. Officers provided an update on the transition from the Shared Prosperity Fund to the new Local Growth Fund. Members were advised that the new programme represents a different UK Government approach and will now be channelled through Welsh Government rather than directly to local authorities. For the first year, Welsh Government intends to retain the existing SPF delivery model, which in the region has been based on regional anchor projects supported by local allocations. The region plans to continue this model, with some refinements, within the funding available. It was noted that in years two and three the CJC is expected to assume a greater governance role, building on existing collaborative arrangements. The region has already completed the required long‑term economic delivery plan, meaning the proposed £200,000 allocation for this work can instead support programme management across the four authorities, given the tight revenue position. The refreshed economic delivery plan and accompanying pipeline will continue to guide activity, with the anchor project themes of business support, local economic infrastructure and skills feeding into local teams. Unlike SPF, the Local Growth Fund will not provide formal local authority allocations; instead, a single regional allocation will be distributed. A significant shift to 70 per cent capital and 30 per cent revenue is expected to constrain revenue capacity. Members were informed that a substantial pipeline of activity has already been identified and that delivery will continue to rely on local capacity developed through the SPF. The new structure is anticipated to improve integration with Welsh Government departments. Indicative financial profiles have been provided, and greater regional delivery is likely in later years. A six‑month review will take place once the programme is operational, and the region will continue to make the case for a three‑year delivery period to reflect the time needed to deliver capital projects. A member sought assurance that the regional investment strategy met Welsh Government’s requirements for the Local Growth Fund. Officers confirmed that feedback to date had been positive and that the draft document contained no issues that would prevent approval. Welsh Government were content with the approach taken and recognised the region’s existing three‑year vision and wider long‑term ambition. Officers stated that the region was well prepared, supported by the existing economic delivery plan, which ensured strong alignment with national expectations. It was noted, however, that revenue funding remained a pressure point and could affect the types of projects that could be delivered. It was noted that the pragmatic approach being taken by the Welsh Government was welcome but highlighted concerns regarding the shift from revenue to capital funding within the SPF programme. It was observed that this change carried implications for programme work that individual authorities would need to manage locally. Members questioned whether these implications were being considered on a regional basis, particularly in relation to staff whose funding was ending and whether opportunities existed to transition them into alternative roles to enable the continuation of valuable work. It was further noted that most of these discussions were currently taking place separately within individual local authorities, and members queried whether there should be a coordinated regional conversation to support a smoother transition of work and retain expertise across the region. Officers acknowledged that further work remained to be undertaken, explaining that the financial figures proposed were based on retaining existing capacity and expertise within the region. It was noted that some elements of the programme exceeded the funding currently available, though other potential funding opportunities were being explored. Reference was made to ongoing work through the Regional Learning and Skills Partnership to consider the implications for skills and for partners in further education. Officers emphasised that while the situation was challenging, efforts were being made to retain as much capacity as possible and direct it towards the new programme, with progress generally moving in a positive direction. It was further highlighted that there was likely to be an increasing expectation for more regional strands of work during the programme. Concerns were raised regarding the financial profile set out in Table 3, noting the scale of the multi‑million‑pound items and specifically querying the projected 4% management fee, which equated to approximately £1.6 million per year. Members asked for clearer costing at this early stage and sought assurance on whether a 4% management fee was comparable to similar programmes. Officers confirmed that previous programmes had typically allocated between 10% and 25% for management, meaning that 4% represented a significantly reduced level of provision. It was explained that the proposed figure reflected the need to maintain existing regional capacity and deliver the programme through a collaborative model involving all four local authorities, with delegated teams ensuring strong local engagement. Officers emphasised the importance of retaining both central and dispersed management structures, which had proven effective under SPF, and highlighted the essential role of local intelligence in programme delivery. It was noted that while the figure might be refined as work progressed, some staff could transition into anchor project delivery over time due to a likely reduction in the overall number of projects but an increase in levels of investment within each anchor project. Officers reiterated that sustained local engagement would remain critical to successful programme management. Members referred to the level of funding set out in Table 2, noting frustrations when compared with previous EU structural funds and earlier SPF allocations. It was queried whether there was any flexibility in the prescribed capital‑to‑revenue split or whether it was entirely fixed. It was further highlighted that the former SPF model had supported both businesses and third sector organisations through revenue funding and asked whether the impact of reductions had been quantified through assessments. Clarification was sought on whether a figure could be provided to demonstrate the extent to which organisations, including those in the third sector, would be adversely affected, noting that the region included a mix of local authority‑linked staff, businesses and community partners. Officers confirmed that the capital‑to‑revenue split was fixed and could not be amended, noting that Welsh Government had lobbied extensively for greater flexibility but had been unable to secure any change to the current 70/30 allocation. Further representations continued to be made, but the position remained unchanged. In relation to the impact on the third sector and community organisations, officers explained that while the consequences had not yet been fully quantified, the necessary data was available based on communities‑focused anchor projects and previous revenue‑dependent open‑call projects across the region. Officers acknowledged that the financial impact was substantial. It was noted that the “Pride in Place” neighbourhood programme was assumed to absorb some of this work; however, as the programme was highly targeted at specific small areas, it could not replace the broader community support functions previously delivered under SPF, resulting in a significant reduction in support. Members asked whether the plans had sufficient flexibility to respond to potential changes in Welsh Government funding priorities. Officers confirmed that the system of delegations agreed with local cabinets had been designed for this purpose and that any adjustments could be endorsed at CJC level. They noted that the approach aligned with the region’s ten‑year economic strategy and was based on a long‑standing governance framework, which was considered adaptable to future changes. Following scrutiny, the recommendation was supported to the South West Wales Corporate Joint Committee.
Members considered the report as circulated within the agenda pack. The Officer outlined the purpose of the report. It was confirmed that the consultation generated a limited number of responses. Members were advised that the feedback did not require significant changes to the document, with respondents generally supporting both the Community Involvement Scheme and the proposed SDP timetable, though several points of clarification had been sought. Officers highlighted that the most significant issue raised related to financial resources. The committee was reminded that the CJC had already set its 2026/27 budget, allocating circa £22k to the SDP workstream. Discussions with Welsh Government had made clear that this level of funding did not provide sufficient assurance that statutory responsibilities could be met, a position confirmed in their consultation response. As a result, the CJC would need to commit additional funding for 2026/27 and plan for further resourcing through the medium‑term financial strategy. The report outlined two funding options. Members were reminded that the incentivisation grant was a one‑off award, meaning the ongoing expenditure in both options presented would contribute to future levy requirements for constituent authorities. The Officer confirmed that both options demonstrated long‑term commitment to progressing the SDP and would allow Welsh Government to approve the Delivery Agreement, but Option 1 was recommended as it offered greater flexibility for future years. It was outlined that the Delivery Agreement set out the structure for the core team required to deliver the Strategic Development Plan work programme. Members were advised that, subject to approval by the full CJC on 24 March and subsequent Welsh Government sign‑off, the formal delivery period would commence immediately. A key early priority would be securing staff with the necessary experience to drive the programme forward. It was noted that experienced planning officers were a finite resource, and recruitment was likely to draw staff from existing local authority planning teams, creating capacity pressures for individual authorities whose Local Development Plan work would continue alongside the regional programme. The Officer acknowledged the challenge and confirmed that there was no simple solution, but the issue remained a significant and ongoing concern. Councillors raised several concerns regarding the overall cost and financial implications of the Strategic Development Plan (SDP), noting that earlier estimates indicated a total cost in the region of £4.5 million and highlighting the pressure this places on local authorities already funding emerging LDP work. Members questioned the realism of expecting councils to raise levies to support Welsh Government policy while managing these existing burdens. Members also queried the consultation process, pointing out that while Swansea Bay University Health Board was referenced in the consultation responses, it was unclear whether Hywel Dda University Health Board had also been consulted despite covering two counties within the CJC area. He emphasised that consultation responses appeared to represent a wide but uneven range of groups, citing examples from his own ward where only one gardening group was listed despite several existing community groups, and sought clarification on how consultees were selected and whether the lists reflected those who responded or those intentionally approached. Members were advised that the initial estimated cost of the Strategic Development Plan work programme is between £3.5 million and £4.5 million, reflecting an undertaking comparable in scale to the replacement of local development plans. It was emphasised that the programme involves several key stages, including the development of a comprehensive evidence base to support emerging policies and proposals, and that this represents a significant financial commitment for the region. Members were informed that, irrespective of the Committee’s decision on the options presented, there would be an ongoing need for both officers and members to continue lobbying Welsh Government regarding the future development and funding of this substantial programme. It was also noted that potential changes arising from upcoming Senedd elections could influence the wider context in the coming weeks. Officers advised that with regards to consultees, Welsh Government define who is required to be consulted within the SDP regulations. Further, local authorities and national parks have a role to play in shaping the consultee lists. As part of this consultation, officers have liaised with the leads of the local planning authorities and national parks to help shape the consultee lists. It was also noted that members of the public can request to be added to or taken off the consultation database at any time. Following scrutiny, the recommendation was supported to South West Wales Corporate Joint Committee.
There were no urgent items.
Rhaid i gynghorwyr ddweud pan fydd ganddyn nhw gysylltiad personol â rhywbeth sy'n cael ei drafod, fel swydd, eiddo neu aelod o'r teulu. Mae buddiant sy'n rhagfarnu yn ddigon cryf i'r cynghorydd adael yr ystafell fel arfer a pheidio â chymryd rhan.
Caiff datganiadau eu darllen o'r cofnodion unwaith y byddan nhw wedi'u cyhoeddi.
Yn rhestru cynghorwyr presennol y cyngor yn unig. Nid yw aelodau cyfetholedig, swyddogion a chyn-gynghorwyr yn cael eu dangos.