Loading
There is no summary of this meeting yet. Summaries are written once the council publishes the minutes, which are its official record of what a meeting decided. They usually appear a few weeks after the meeting.
The Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting. The Chair confirmed that Democratic Services have received apologies from: Cllr Reynolds Cllr Lewis Cllr Holland Cllr Cundy
There were none.
The minutes of the 07/10/2025 and 11/11/2025 were approved as accurate.
Gareth Jones from Audit Wales presented the report assessing the City Deal’s progress in responding to the 2024 Audit Wales findings. The 2024 report identified 16 areas for resolution, and Audit Wales carried out their follow‑up work in May–June 2025. Members were advised that when the audit was undertaken in June 2025, Audit Wales found that the City Deal had made measurable progress, of the 16 actions: 5 were completed 4 were embedded as business‑as‑usual 9 actions complete in total 5 were in progress 2 had not yet started Governance changes have also taken place, including merging the Economic Strategy Board with the CJC’s Private Sector Advisory Board. The report also highlighted several challenges: Progress has been slower than set out in the original action plan, some updates to the Joint Committee and Joint Scrutiny Committee have been incomplete, with reports covering only a minority of the 16 actions. Joint Scrutiny Committee meetings often occur after decisions have already been made, reducing the effectiveness of scrutiny. Impact assessment and success metrics remain underdeveloped, making it difficult to track progress objectively. The City Deal has not revised its timetables to reflect the delays identified. To address these issues, Audit Wales made one recommendation: Progress reports to both the Joint Committee and Joint Scrutiny Committee must provide a full assessment of all actions, or clear explanations where information is missing. Gareth Jones summarised that while the City Deal is making progress, transparency, timely reporting, and comprehensive updates are essential to ensure confidence and effective oversight. He confirmed that the City Deal’s Management Response Form and updated Action Plan comply with the Code of Audit Practice. The updated plan, already presented to the Joint Committee, now shows that one additional action has been completed since the audit work was carried out. All remaining actions are scheduled for completion by March 2026. He also thanked Jonathan Burns and the team and everybody who's involved in the audit for the cooperation and the timeliness of the work undertaken. Jonathan Burns provided an overview of the City Deal’s response and the updated action plan. Of the outstanding items, five actions remain in progress and two are yet to be started. He outlined these as follows: Actions in Progress AW01 – Alignment between the City Deal and the CJC: Progress has been slower than planned, but work continues. With the appointment of a CJC Chief Operating Officer, full alignment between the City Deal Office (CDO) and the CJC should move forward more rapidly. AW05 – Review of PMO capacity and funding: This forms part of the wider alignment process and remains ongoing. AW06 – Risk of losing portfolio staff: No staff had been lost since 2024, which is a positive development. AW09 – Approach to aligning the City Deal and the CJC: Similar to AW01, this relates to the broader convergence work and remains underway. AW13 – Consistency of reporting benefits: The new benefits strategy, will support progress in this area by improving consistency and clarity. Actions Not Yet Started AW10 – Line management arrangements for Programme Board Director role: This is tied to the broader alignment between the City Deal and the CJC and will be addressed as part of that process. AW11 – Effectiveness and value of regional scrutiny, and potential duplication: The action plan commits to reviewing scrutiny arrangements and adapting them as necessary. Officers confirmed that the reporting issue identified last year, where reports were truncated and did not show all 16 areas was corrected in May 2025. Committees now receive the full action plan each cycle, including progress updates for all outstanding actions. Officers noted that the City Deal is progressing its actions as planned, and members have the updated activity timeline set out in their papers. Following Scrutiny the report was noted.
Matthew Holder provided an overview of the Annual Internal Audit Terms of Reference for 2025/26. He explained that this document is produced each year and brought to the relevant committees to ensure proper oversight of the Swansea Bay City Deal. The terms have already been shared with both Jonathan Burns, the Project Director, and Chris Moore, the Section 151 Officer. The full Terms of Reference are included at Appendix A and set out in detail the areas that the audit will examine. Matthew advised that the programme is risk‑based, meaning the audit will concentrate on the key areas that could affect the City Deal’s ability to meet its objectives. As part of the work, the team will follow up last year’s recommendations to check they have been fully implemented. The audit will also consider governance arrangements, project management and monitoring processes, financial management, and risk management. He confirmed that the Internal Audit team has already begun the work and is scheduled to meet with Jonathan Burns this week. The principal auditor will be undertaking the fieldwork, which is expected to be completed before March, with officers hopeful that it may be finalised before the end of February. Once fieldwork is completed, the report will go through Internal Audit’s quality assurance process to ensure all areas have been covered appropriately and that the evidence base is robust. Following this, the report will be issued to both Jonathan Burns and Chris Moore for their consideration and for any comments on recommendations that may need to be addressed. Matthew confirmed that, once finalised, the report will be presented to the Programme Board, the Joint Committee and returned to the Joint Scrutiny Committee, ensuring full transparency and oversight across all governance forums. Following Scrutiny the report was noted.
Before the presentation began, the Chair advised that members had hoped the Chief Operating Officer could provide an update on progress with the Pentre Awel project. The Chair queried whether it would therefore be more appropriate to defer the presentation. Officers clarified that the Chief Operating Officer’s remit is operational and limited to Zone One of the projects, and it would not be appropriate for that role to present the full programme update. Alex Williams, the overall Project Director, confirmed that she would be delivering the presentation on behalf of Chris Moore, who is the Senior Responsible Officer for the project. She explained that the Chief Operating Officer only took up post on 8 December, has a relatively narrow responsibility within the wider scheme, and therefore a full project update would not need to come through that route. Alex Williams, the overall Project Director, delivered the presentation slides as per the supplement document on the agenda pack. The Chair thanked officers for the presentation and commented that the building is extremely impressive. He noted that the committee had previously attended a site visit and apologised to those members who had been unable to attend the official opening. Members agreed that the facility was striking when viewed during the earlier visit. The Chair then raised a few points of clarification. He noted that he had previously been told the swimming pool was 20 metres, but on visiting it appeared to be a 25‑metre pool, which officers confirmed was correct. Members asked what type of lease arrangements had been agreed with the university and whether this was on a long‑term basis. The Chair also sought an update on the assisted‑living units, specifically when those units would become available. Officers confirmed that the pool within the facility is a 25‑metre, eight‑lane pool, designed to accommodate a wide range of competitions. The size was deliberately chosen to maximise competitive use and meet recognised standards. Regarding the agreement with Swansea University, officers explained that there are currently seven and a half years remaining on the existing lease arrangement. On the assisted living units, officers advised that the anticipated timescale for occupation is approximately four years. This reflects the full process required, including design work, planning and construction phases, before the units can be made available for residents. Members commented that the development is an excellent facility and a highly positive outcome of the Swansea Bay City Deal investment. They noted that it provides a significant asset within a previously deprived area and welcomed the range of organisations now engaging with the site. Members congratulated the project team for delivering such an impressive scheme and expressed enthusiasm for future phases. One member added their personal enjoyment of the spin classes available on site. The Chair thanked officers for the presentation, noting that it had been very informative, and expressed best wishes for the continued development of the project. The committee noted the report for information. Following Scrutiny the report was noted.
Following Scrutiny the presentation was noted.
Debbie Smith Swansea Bay City Deal Deputy Monitoring Officer introduced the report and explained that a review had been undertaken to consider the position of the Portfolio Management Office (PMO), the future direction of the Swansea Bay City Deal, and whether changes to the current governance arrangements were required. The review examined a number of governance options, and the preferred approach—endorsed by both the UK and Welsh Governments—is for the City Deal’s functions to be merged, or effectively subsumed, within the South West Wales Corporate Joint Committee (CJC). Members were advised that in practical terms, this means the existing City Deal Joint Committee will transfer its functions to the CJC, with the PMO positioned to support the new governance structure operating under the CJC umbrella. A key implication of this change is that the current City Deal Joint Scrutiny Committee will cease, and scrutiny of the City Deal portfolio will instead be undertaken through the CJC’s Joint Scrutiny Committee. This represents a full transfer of both executive and scrutiny functions into the CJC framework. Members were reminded that they had previously received the full review and that this report served as an update on the implementation of the agreed transfer. Debbie noted that several elements had already progressed. The Senior Responsible Officer (SRO) function is currently being transferred from Wendy Walters and will in future be undertaken on a rotational basis by officers across the region. In addition, each of the four local authorities is now processing the required formal decisions: Cabinet meetings are considering the transfer of the executive (Joint Committee) functions, while Full Council meetings are considering the transfer of the scrutiny functions, as these cannot be delegated to Cabinet. Debbie confirmed that these reports have been scheduled across the authorities between December and January, and members should have seen them appear in their respective council agendas. In Swansea, the Full Council decision is scheduled for 29 January. Alongside these governance steps, practical work is also underway to assess the support arrangements the CJC will require once it absorbs the City Deal responsibilities. Debbie noted that this assessment is still ongoing, and it is not yet clear what additional staffing or resource the CJC may need to manage both City Deal and wider CJC business. She concluded by reiterating the underlying rationale for the changes: to streamline governance, remove duplication, and create a more efficient and integrated structure. The transfer process is now at the stage where Cabinets and Full Councils across the region are taking the final decisions to complete the move. Members commented that the timing of the proposed governance changes felt unusual, given that there is only one year left in the current election cycle. They felt it might have been more logical to begin the new arrangements for the CJC and the re‑aligned scrutiny structure after the next election, allowing a fresh start for the new administration. Members therefore queried why the transfer needed to take place now and asked whether there was a specific reason or requirement driving the urgency of implementing the changes at this point. Officers explained that the timing of the governance changes is driven primarily by the financial sustainability of the current arrangements. The Portfolio Management Office (PMO), which supports the City Deal portfolio and its programmes, is funded only until the end of the next financial year. As a result, a decision needed to be made either to invest further funding in the existing PMO structure or to consider alternative models that would secure long‑term sustainability. The review therefore explored different options and took into account feedback from stakeholders, who highlighted significant overlap between the work of the CJC and the City Deal. Officers noted that the City Deal is now well into its 15‑year programme, with many business cases established and several major projects—such as Pentre Awel, 71/72 and the Kingsway—having reached or nearing completion. Given this stage of maturity, the review concluded that it is an appropriate time to bring the functions together. The preferred option, endorsed by UK and Welsh Governments, is therefore to merge the City Deal functions into the CJC to streamline governance, remove duplication, and create a more financially sustainable model going forward. Members commented that the transition to merge the two bodies did not sound straightforward. Debbie Smith responded that she had not yet received detailed feedback on the practicalities, particularly in relation to scrutiny arrangements. She noted that there are currently two separate Joint Scrutiny Committees with different memberships—although some councillors sit on both—and that all four councils will need to take consistent decisions about the membership of the single, combined scrutiny committee. Debbie explained that this is not the creation of a new committee, but rather the continuation of the existing CJC Joint Scrutiny Committee, which will take on the City Deal scrutiny responsibilities. The key question for councils will be what the revised membership should look like. Early feedback suggests a strong preference for a blended membership, incorporating both existing City Deal scrutiny members and existing CJC scrutiny members. Debbie emphasised that retaining only CJC members would undermine the purpose of merging the functions, as it would fail to reflect the work and experience of the current City Deal scrutiny committee. She acknowledged that this may lead to some challenging decisions for each council when determining their nominations, and noted that it was not yet clear how straightforward this process would be across the region. Following Scrutiny the report was noted.
Jonathan Burnes provided members with an overview of the rationale behind the Benefits Management Strategy and its key content. He explained that following a portfolio gateway review undertaken in July of the previous year, one of the two recommendations received was the need to develop a comprehensive benefits management strategy and plan. This relates to how benefit profiles are defined, how much progress has been made in delivering them, and how they are tracked across the portfolio. Jonathan noted that the strategy also directly responds to Audit Wales’ area of resolution AW13, which highlighted the need for greater consistency in the reporting of benefits. He confirmed that the PMO had worked closely with key stakeholders—including all project delivery teams and government partners—to produce the strategy presented to members. Its purpose is to clearly set out how the City Deal will identify, monitor, manage and ultimately realise benefits across the nine projects and programmes in the portfolio. While the overarching portfolio benefits remain investment, jobs and economic impact, Jonathan explained that each individual business case typically contains between 20 and 27 discrete benefits. Multiply this across the portfolio, and there are in excess of 130 individual benefits being monitored and measured. Jonathan advised that, as discussed at previous meetings, work is underway to create dashboard tools to give members clearer visibility of these wider benefits. The new strategy draws together all existing tools—benefit profiles, benefit registers and benefit maps—into a single overarching framework. One helpful piece of feedback received during consultation concerned how projects should close benefits once they have been realised. The strategy now includes a formal process for closing benefits, enabling the PMO to track which benefits have been delivered and which remain outstanding. Some benefits will not be realised until the end of the portfolio in 2033, while others will be delivered much earlier; however, the dashboards will enable continuous monitoring of both realised and outstanding benefits. Jonathan highlighted the strategy’s strong link to the evaluation process. He noted that several projects, such as Yr Egin, are already undertaking economic evaluations, with results expected in the new year. Future evaluations will also cover other major projects including the arena, the Matrix, Kingsway and Pentre Awel. These evaluations will assess benefits delivered, the supporting evidence base and audit trail, and the wider economic multipliers and assumptions that have been discussed previously. The strategy therefore includes a dedicated evaluations and evidence section to ensure a consistent approach across the portfolio. Jonathan concluded by stating that the strategy provides a clear, structured framework for benefit realisation and reporting, supporting both internal management and external scrutiny. Officers advised that the overarching portfolio definitions, covering jobs, economic impact and investment, have now been fully set out and agreed regionally. Although these three areas are commonly referenced at a high level, officers have now provided detailed definitions and criteria to give clarity on exactly what is being measured. These definitions are included within the Benefits Management Strategy so that any stakeholder can easily reference the standards against which portfolio‑level benefits are assessed. Officers emphasised that the strategy is intended to be a living document. As work progresses, any suggestions for improvement, further clarity or refinement can be incorporated into future iterations to ensure the strategy remains up to date, practical and reflective of ongoing learning across the portfolio. Following Scrutiny the report was noted.
Stephen Aldred‑Jones Regional Finance Manager introduced the report and explained that it had been presented to the Joint Committee at the end of November. The report set out the provisional Quarter 2 financial monitoring position and the projected year‑end outturn for both the Joint Committee and the Portfolio Investment Fund for 2025/26. Stephen noted that the estimated expenditure for the Joint Committee and partner bodies for the year is £2.149 million, with the Portfolio Management Office (PMO) projected to spend £538,000 of this total. Of the PMO expenditure, staffing costs account for approximately £422,000. In terms of income, the City Deal is projecting £2.455 million for the year. This consists of an estimated £426,000 from the drawdown of the 1.5% top slice applied when grant payments are made, and £2.029 million in interest generated from cash balances held from the grant. Stephen confirmed that this interest income will be redistributed to partner local authorities. Turning to reserves, Stephen reminded members that at the end of 2024/25, the reserves showed a deficit of £255,000. By the end of Quarter 2, an additional deficit of £350,000 had accrued, bringing the projected year‑end deficit to £605,000. He emphasised that this is purely a timing issue, linked to the point at which top slice income is generated and received. As partners claim their grants over the coming years, the associated top slice will be drawn down and will offset the deficit. Stephen then reported on the Portfolio Investment Fund. Following high levels of variance in the published Quarter 4 report for 2024/25, Quarter 1 was used as an opportunity to reprofile the programme. Quarter 1 now forms the baseline for monitoring during the current financial year. Comparing Quarter 1 with Quarter 2, the total projected investment over the 15‑year programme for Quarter 2 is £1.389 billion, which is only £0.6 million lower than the Quarter 1 projection—a very small difference, meaning no significant variances were recorded in Quarter 2. However, the annual investment forecast has increased. Quarter 2 now projects almost £175 million of investment in‑year (including City Deal grant, public and private funding), an increase of £12.6 million on Quarter 1. This uplift is mainly due to the Homes as Power Stations (HAPS) project, which has exceeded expectations by generating an additional £16.2 million in public sector leverage, resulting from a higher‑than‑forecast uptake of renewable technologies across the region. Conversely, the Supporting Innovation and Low Carbon Growth programme is showing an in‑year underspend of £3.6 million, linked to the Tata transition funding and delays in finalising lease and funding agreements with Swansea University. Stephen noted that this underspend would be utilised in the next financial year. He updated members on the monitoring of private sector leverage, noting that as of the end of Quarter 2, £170 million of private investment had been achieved—around 24% of the total target of £719 million, and representing 29% of total portfolio spend to date. He added that most projects are expected to secure private sector contributions towards the latter stages of delivery. Forecasts show significant increases in coming years, with £180 million projected in 2026/27 alone, and a further £245 million in 2027/28. Stephen concluded that the Quarter 2 financial profile is on target, varies from Quarter 1 by less than £1 million, and reflects a positive over‑achievement in public sector leverage during the year. Members sought clarification from officers on whether the 24% of total private‑sector investment achieved to date was predominantly linked to housing. Officers explained that the private‑sector contribution is spread across the full range of City Deal projects, although a significant proportion of the overall projected private investment relates to housing. They noted that over 60% of the total forecast private‑sector funding across the whole City Deal programme is associated with housing‑related activity, particularly within the Homes as Power Stations (HAPS) project, which has a projected total private‑sector investment of £376 million by the end of the programme. However, officers clarified that the private‑sector investment achieved to date—the £170 million recorded at the end of Quarter 2—is drawn from several projects. Approximately £91.5 million of that amount relates to the Digital Infrastructure project, reflecting its strong early delivery profile. The HAPS project has contributed just over £50 million so far. The next largest contributor is Pembroke Dock Marine, which has achieved £19.5 million. The Skills and Talent programme has attracted just under £5 million, and the Supporting Innovation and Low Carbon Growth project just under £2 million, with the remaining projects contributing smaller amounts toward the overall figure. Officers emphasised that while housing represents the largest proportion of the future private‑sector investment forecast, the private investment achieved so far is more widely distributed across the portfolio, particularly driven by the Digital Infrastructure and HAPS projects. Members sought an update on progress within the Digital Infrastructure programme. Officers advised that Carmarthenshire County Council is the lead authority for this workstream. The programme comprises three separate workstreams, each of which has its own procurement process and draws on both public and private sector funding. These workstreams cover areas such as rural connectivity, connected places, and IoT/5G deployment. Officers noted that several procurements are currently underway, with one recently completed and another newly awarded. Different providers are involved across the various contracts. Members observed that the rural connectivity work is distinct from the urban work. Officers confirmed this, explaining that one element involves dark fibre deployment, with Swansea and Carmarthenshire each leading different components. One of these schemes has now been completed, while the other is still in progress, illustrating the staggered nature of delivery across the programme. Following Scrutiny the report was noted.
Jonathan Burnes Programme Board Director presented the standard programme monitoring report and provided an overview of the most recent scorecard. He highlighted several movements in RAG status since the last reporting period. The Skills and Talent programme had moved from amber to green overall, with its scope status also improving from amber to green. The Digital Infrastructure project similarly showed positive movement, with scope shifting from amber to green and finance also improving from amber to green, resulting in an overall green status. In contrast, Yr Egin Phase 2 had moved in the opposite direction. The scope status had shifted from amber to red, as the University of Wales Trinity Saint David was still seeking a viable design solution for the next phase. This resulted in the overall status turning red for the project. Jonathan also noted improvements within the National Institute for Sport and Exercise Medicine (NISEM) project (formerly “Campuses”), where delivery had moved from red to green and finance from red to amber, allowing an overall status change to green. He confirmed that works were progressing, with demolition and ground‑breaking scheduled for Singleton Phase 1. Jonathan reported that portfolio risks and issues remained unchanged, with three red risks and three red issues still identified. The red risks included rising construction costs and the risk of projects and programmes not delivering the outputs and outcomes set out in their business cases—an area being strengthened through the benefits management strategy discussed earlier. The portfolio issues included in‑year variance, which had been mitigated to some extent through the Quarter 1 re‑profiling, and longer‑term variance in delivery up to 2033, particularly the challenge of maintaining accurate financial and delivery forecasts as projects progress. Rising construction costs remained both a red risk and a red issue due to market volatility. In terms of benefits, Jonathan advised that the number of jobs created had increased from 912 to 982, largely attributed to progress within the Pentre Awel and Homes as Power Stations projects. Total portfolio investment to the end of Quarter 2 had risen to £588.51 million, with continued incremental progress expected. He reiterated that once full project evaluations begin to feed through—such as those underway for Yr Egin, the Arena, the Matrix, the Kingsway and Pentre Awel—there would likely be more substantial increases in the economic impact figures. Jonathan then provided an update on the procurement pipeline, noting a small number of schedule changes. Two projects within the Supporting Innovation and Low Carbon Growth programme, led by Neath Port Talbot Council—SWITCH and the Advanced Manufacturing Production Facility—had experienced slippage. For SWITCH, the on‑site date had moved from Quarter 3 2025 to Quarter 4 2025. For the APMF, several key dates had shifted, including design, procurement, and construction start. The latest position showed the on‑site date moving from Quarter 4 2026 to Quarter 2 2027. Jonathan confirmed that officers were working closely with the project teams to manage these changes. He also reported that the NISEM Singleton development had seen its completion date revised from Quarter 3 2026 to Quarter 4 2027. A change notification would be submitted to formally re‑baseline the construction timeframe. Jonathan concluded by assuring members that officers continue to work proactively with all project and programme leads to manage timelines, mitigate risks, and maintain progress across the portfolio. In discussing the progress of the projects and programmes, members were advised that within the Supporting Innovation and Low Carbon Growth programme there had been delays to the SWITCH project. Officers noted, however, that the Heads of Terms with Swansea University had now been agreed and signed, enabling the project to move forward, which was welcomed as positive news. Turning to the Skills and Talent programme, officers highlighted a significant update contained within the change notification included in the meeting papers. The programme sought approval to reprofile its public and private sector funding contributions. Originally, the programme anticipated securing around £16 million of public funding and £4 million of private funding. These projections have now reversed, with the updated profile proposing £4 million from the public sector and £16 million from private sector partners. Officers described this as an excellent outcome, demonstrating the strong engagement with industry and reinforcing the programme’s status as an industry‑led skills initiative. They confirmed that the overall funding level remains unchanged; only the balance between public and private contributions has shifted. Members commented that this was a remarkable achievement and a success story that deserved wider recognition. They asked who the delivery partners were for the programme. Officers explained that the Regional Learning and Skills Partnership (RLSP) is the primary vehicle for delivering the Skills and Talent programme and has a dedicated project team in place. They noted that the region’s colleges are working effectively together, with strong collaboration developing across institutions. This work also aligns closely with schools, and the universities are fully engaged in supporting the opportunities being created. Jonathan Burns welcomed the members’ comments and agreed that the success of the programme should be highlighted publicly, confirming he would pass their appreciation on to the project team. Officers explained that the shift from predominantly public to predominantly private funding within the Skills and Talent programme is significant for the long‑term sustainability of the work. As the City Deal programme will eventually come to an end, there is a need to ensure the continuation of activity beyond the funded period. Officers noted that over the next 12 to 18 months, work will be undertaken to identify how the programme can be future‑proofed, but emphasised that it is currently operating very successfully. In relation to Pentre Awel, officers advised that progress continues across the remaining three zones of the development. Work is moving forward on the hotel element and across the other two zones, and updates on these areas are expected as they move through the development pipeline. Turning to Digital Infrastructure, officers confirmed that the Full Fibre Infill Project has now been completed on time and within budget. This project has delivered full‑fibre connectivity to 69 public‑sector sites and is supporting the transformation of public‑service delivery. Officers highlighted this as another strong success story resulting from effective collaboration between governments and broadband providers. Officers also reported that a delivery team has now been established for the Better Broadband Infill Project, which has recently been procured. This project is now moving into its delivery phase and is expected to gather momentum over the next 12 months. Officers advised that within the Waterfront workstream the Innovation Matrix continues to operate at 100% occupancy, demonstrating strong demand and addressing earlier concerns from governments and stakeholders about whether new innovation spaces would attract tenants. An economic appraisal will be carried out once the building has been operating for at least 12–18 months to ensure meaningful data. Officers also noted that the Waterfront hotel remains at the Heads of Terms stage with the preferred operator. The agreement is progressing, but details cannot yet be shared publicly until the arrangements are finalised. Members asked whether the update related to the Swansea or Llanelli hotel project. Officers confirmed it referred to the Swansea Waterfront hotel by the arena. They advised that this scheme is progressing through competitive dialogue, while the Llanelli hotel is also moving forward separately. Both projects are close to agreement, but not finalised yet. Officers noted that the Swansea development has experienced several changes, but they hope to see it progressing in early 2026. Officers advised that Yr Egin Phase Two is still awaiting a delivery solution from the University of Wales Trinity Saint David, and an update will be brought forward once that work is complete. In relation to Homes as Power Stations, officers reported on the progress of the supply chain fund. A call for applications issued last year did receive responses; however, the submissions were either not of sufficient quality or did not meet the criteria. The project team has since sought guidance from the Private Sector Advisory Board and will reissue the call shortly. Officers encouraged scrutiny members to promote the opportunity within their networks to help attract strong local applications, supporting the development of regional supply chains for the HAPS programme. Officers provided an update on the National Institute for Sports and Health (formerly the Campuses project). They reported that the scheme’s scheduling and planning approval is now in place. In July, a change request was submitted to merge the Morriston Management Centre element into the Sketty Lane site, consolidating all funding into a single location rather than splitting it across two. Officers confirmed that this change request has been approved and has now completed all required due‑diligence processes. The Chair thanked all officers for their presentations and for the extensive work undertaken over the years across the City Deal projects. Members asked for an update on the progress of the Milford Haven project. Officers reported that work is progressing well and outlined the four components of the scheme. For the Pembroke Dock Infrastructure (PDI) element, all works have been completed except for Lot 3. Officers explained that decisions on Lot 3 depend on understanding industry demand for space within the transport corridor. Existing buildings and available land offer options, but the Port Authority wishes to avoid demolishing structures that businesses may need for storage or operational purposes. Jonathan Burns remains in close dialogue with the Port Authority to determine the most appropriate approach. Officers noted that Lot 3 represents only a small proportion of the overall multi‑million‑pound project. Officers also reported that the NEECE collaboration project with industry and universities continues to perform strongly, supported by ORE Catapult. The project team has requested a six‑month extension to maximise the benefits from its funding, which will now proceed through the governance process. Additionally, the META project has been completed, and officers are working through project‑closure arrangements. Most activity across the programme is either underway or concluded, and the next phase will focus on evaluations and monitoring of job creation linked to the sector’s growth in Milford Haven. Officers highlighted a further positive development: onshore wind turbine blades can now be moved in and out of the port, enabling improved access for offshore renewable activity. Members welcomed the update and commented that the Milford Haven programme is a particularly strong project due to its sustainability focus and alignment with emerging opportunities, including the region’s Freeport designation. While expressing optimism, members did note some reservations about Freeports more generally, observing that successful international Freeports such as Singapore and Rotterdam operate on a significantly larger scale and with broader powers. They hoped the local Freeports in Pembrokeshire and Port Talbot would be able to capitalise effectively on the opportunities available, rather than relying solely on tax incentives. Following Scrutiny the report was noted.
Johnathan Burnes Programme Board Director informed the committee that the work plan operates on a rolling six‑ to twelve‑month basis, and the version presented was the most recent iteration. He explained that the document captures all key actions required across the programme, including governance, communications and engagement, legal matters, and financial activity. John emphasised that he, Democratic Services, and their respective teams work closely to ensure that the scrutiny committee’s forward agenda aligns appropriately with the Joint Committee’s work programme, so that scrutiny receives reports at the right stage and can effectively oversee progress. The Democratic Services Officer advised the committee that their work programme is usually aligned with reports presented to the Joint Committee and the work undertaken by Jonathan Burns’ team. However, the ongoing changes linked to the merger of the City Deal and the CJC are creating some administrative uncertainty. Members were informed that a meeting is currently scheduled for May, but this may need to be reconsidered as it falls into the next civic cycle, and the new governance arrangements could alter the committee’s schedule. In addition, an extra meeting may be required before May to consider reports linked to the formal transfer of functions, as referenced earlier in the meeting by Debbie Smith. The Officer asked members to keep an eye on their emails for updates on potential date changes. Discussions are already taking place with Craig Griffiths, the Legal Officer, to clarify what meetings will be required and at what point. Once this is established, the Democratic Services Officer will liaise with the Chair and relevant officers regarding the reports needed and the most suitable dates. Members were encouraged to raise any requests or items they wish the committee to consider in the interim, noting that an additional meeting could be arranged if required to deal with emerging matters. This update was provided to ensure members were aware of the fluid situation and the need to remain responsive to developments in the governance transition. The Forward work programme was noted.
There was 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.