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.
Everyone was welcomed to the meeting.
Apologies for absence were received from: • Chris Wilson (Ceredigion County Council) • Councillor Glyn Preston (Powys County Council)
There were no declarations of interest.
The minutes were accepted as a true and accurate record of the meeting. Proposed and seconded by AW and JC. There were no matters arising.
5.1 A letter was received on 30 September 2025 from Ken Skates, Cabinet Secretary for North Wales and Transport, stating that the Mid Wales Regional Transport Plan had been approved. This was welcomed by the Sub Committee, and it was noted that the policies that it contains are now live. There is now a requirement for the CJC to publish the RTP and Welsh Government wishes to coordinate any communications around its publication. The RTP was currently in translation. 5.2 A further letter had been received from the Cabinet Secretary on 17 October confirming that Welsh Government’s review of existing Local Authority transport grants has been completed and a number of existing transport grants (including Local Transport Fund, Active Travel Fund, Safe Routes in Communities and Unadopted Roads Grant) will be replaced by a single Regional Transport Fund (RTF) as of 1 April 2026. The letter also gives details of potential extra funding. 5.3 The RTF funding is predominantly capital but also has some revenue involved. WG has also issued its RTP Submission Guidance for 2026/27. That capital fund is to be distributed to the four CJCs / their constituent Local Authorities via the existing General Capital Fund (Road Maintenance) funding formula. What that means for Mid Wales is that we will be receiving £12.8m of capital funding and £172k of revenue funding for road safety and behaviour change, as well as a further £100k for management and delivery of this programme. 5.4 The £12.8m represents a very significant uplift in available funding for Mid Wales. The funding received in 2025/26 was £5.7m and has historically been at or below that level. So this uplift is very welcome across the region. 5.5 There are some key RTF Year 1 Programme submission deadlines that we need to achieve in order to draw down that funding. The first of those is on 21 November, when we must share with WG an electronic copy of the draft RTP programme. 5.6 The Draft RTP Programme was exempted from the Agenda papers by virtue of paragraph(s) 14 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972: Information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the authority holding that information). There are no details in these minutes that require further exemption. 5.7 WG are committed to providing feedback to the draft programme by 19 December, and all CJC are required to provide their final programmes to WG by 30 January. 5.8 To ensure compliance with WG’s guidance and deadlines, Local Authority officers have been working together to review the content of the existing Regional Transport Delivery Plan (RTDP) and identifying which schemes remain deliverable in Year 1 and their funding requirements. As some schemes are a continuation of schemes that are already being funded and delivered in the current financial year, some revisions have been necessary for Year 1, and several schemes brought forward to Year 1 from later years in order to ensure delivery against the funding envelope. 5.9 The distribution of available funding in support of Capital schemes is based on an agreed understanding between Local Authority officers of their respective funding requirements for Year 1, as opposed to use of any further formulae at a CJC level. This recognises that, in some years of the RTF Capital programme, one Local Authority may receive a slightly higher share of the regional funding allocation but overall the distribution of funds is equitable and sufficient to deliver local and regional priorities. 5.10 In line with guidance, officers have also identified some reserve schemes. The list of schemes in the current programme exceeds the £12.8m budget, but that will be refined as we work through the draft ahead of the final submission. 5.11 Up to 3% of the overall RTF Capital Programme has been identified for overall CJC RTF Programme Management. 5.12 Indicative funding requirements for RTF Years 2 and 3 have also been identified, to enable WG to set aside up to a maximum value of 50% of the amount available to the region in 2026/27 to fund these schemes. 5.13 As regards the additional funding referred to in Item 5.2 above, the letter from the Cabinet Secretary suggests that there may be additional funding available in the region of £3m to £6m per year in Years 1, 2 and 3 of the programme. Officers have been considering this and have a list of schemes that the money could be spent on if it was made available to the CJC. 5.14 The Chair thanked RhLl for giving the report. He welcomed the additional funding and hoped there would be additional clarity on when that might be. He opened the meeting up to questions. 5.15 There was a discussion about the wording of the Cabinet Secretary’s letter in relation to the additional funding. It was evident that it could be interpreted in two different ways, and therefore it would be proposed under Recommendations (Item 6 of these minutes) that the Chair write to the Cabinet Secretary within the next week requesting clarification. 5.16 There was a discussion on the capability to pull forward schemes if needed. The clarification on the additional funding, as noted above, is necessary as the priorities as a CJC for the additional funding might be different depending on what that figure is. There may be schemes that we are anticipating may be on the next iteration of the 5-year plan that we could perhaps bring forward. 5.17 It was noted that what has been done elsewhere in the CJC is to say these are our assumptions based on the current information that we have available to us and, based on these assumptions, these are the initial schemes that we would look at. We would also emphasise whether we are able to deliver if we were to get additional funding. 5.18 It was noted by the Officers that the additional funding is welcome but it is in the context of very poorly funded years historically, so this year is almost a transition year to get us to a stage where we have got the big list of schemes. We will spend the money this year, and the output from that will be a lot more high profile, high spend schemes. 5.19 The feedback from WG is that they think that maybe we are not quite ready on some of the schemes. Both Authorities are confident that they can deliver the schemes, and there is a good cross section of delivery works, and a combination of them that are about getting works done on the ground but also preparing those schemes for future years. WG want to see schemes that are in the RTP in the programme for 2026/27, rather than anything new at this point. 5.20 The key thing that WG is looking for is confidence from the CJC that it can deliver this level of funding. In the Sub Committee’s opinion, that level of funding is long overdue to the region. We do have to be pragmatic internally as regards our resources, and what the pinch points might be, but it is about giving WG confidence that they were right to make that decision on how they have allocated the funding, and that they can continue to have that confidence next time they need to make a similar decision.
6.1 It was confirmed that the meeting was quorate for a vote. 6.2 It was agreed that the recommendations could not be voted on as worded in the report, and therefore they needed to be rewritten. A suggested form of words was agreed and voted on. To ensure all are happy with the wording, the Members would be asked to confirm this again once the draft minutes are circulated. (Post Meeting Note – this has been confirmed). Revised Recommendation 1 · The CJC RTP Sub Committee agree that Officers of Powys and Ceredigion will utilise their resources to prepare a Regional Transport Delivery Plan that comes to £12.8m. · Vote taken. SC proposed and JC seconded. Recommendation agreed. Revised Recommendation 2 · The CJC RTP Sub Committee give delegated authority for Officers to prepare a written response for the Chair to send back to the Cabinet Secretary in response to the letter dated 17 October 2025, that asks for clarification on the points that were raised during this meeting and outlines any additionality we can add to ensure that the CJC can make the best use of any additional funding. · Vote taken. SC proposed and AW seconded. Recommendation agreed. 6.3 RhLl took an action to draft the letter and send it around for comments before being signed off by the Chair. 6.4 There was a need to ensure the Delivery Plan is refined and agreed by the deadline, and therefore consideration would be given to bringing the consultants in to do an extra piece of work to get this over the line. It was agreed this was an operational decision for the Officers to make, seeing as there is existing funding within the CJC, that has been provided by WG for such purposes, and it is within budget. As such this is covered under the wording of Recommendation 1 above. 6.5 It was agreed that the Officers would keep the Members informed of any major changes to the Delivery Plan before the draft submission deadline, but otherwise there was no need for a formal meeting until the feedback on the draft has been received from WG and the final version is produced in January for sign-off.
7.1 It was noted that the draft programme was fairly balanced between Powys and Ceredigion schemes. A question was asked during the meeting as to what process was in place to ensure this continues over the 5-year period of the RTP, including if there is an underspend. The Chair confirmed that, in addition to the Officers of both Local Authorities working closely together, the CJC Transport Subcommittee would be the appropriate forum to monitor this and discuss any issues that might arise. 7.2 Concerns were raised by both Authorities that there appeared to be an element of concern from WG and TfW that the CJC would not deliver their element of the programme, and that this was manifesting in the form of questioning the prioritisation and inclusion of certain schemes and decisions made. There was also concern that the approach by WG to the different CJCs did not appear to be uniform. The Officers did not understand this lack of faith on grant funding, as both PCC and CCC have always delivered on time and to budget over an extended period of time.
8.1 Key RTF Year 1 Programme submission deadlines are: · By 21 November, each CJC must share an electronic copy of the draft RTP programme with Welsh Government. · By 19 December, Welsh Government will provide feedback on the draft RTP programmes to the CJCs. · By 30 January, each CJC must submit an electronic copy of the final RTP programme to Welsh Government. 8.2 Therefore, it was agreed that the RTP Subcommittee would need to meet again in mid-January. Additionally, there is the requirement to report back to the main CJC Board, which is on 29 January, with papers needing to be ready by 22 January. Therefore, the meeting should be arranged to be in January but prior to that date. Action to JBA to liaise with the Members and Officers to agree a suitable date. 8.3 Date of Next Meeting (Post Meeting Note) – · Friday 16 January 2026, 14:00
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.
Dyw'r cyngor ddim wedi cofnodi presenoldeb ar gyfer y cyfarfod hwn.
Yn rhestru cynghorwyr presennol y cyngor yn unig. Nid yw aelodau cyfetholedig, swyddogion a chyn-gynghorwyr yn cael eu dangos.