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.
There were none.
There were no Items selected from the Cabinet Forward Work Programme.
Members considered item 4a from the Scrutiny Forward Work Programme.
Simon Brennan Head of Property and Regeneration presented an update on the Levelling up fund projects with the assistance of Chris Saunders Head of Leisure Tourism History and Culture. Members were advised that there are three Levelling Up Fund (LUF) Projects. 1 The Vale of Neath Heritage Corridor Visitor Attractor which is a package bid in the Vale of Neath, which will deliver two transformational projects: · The Gnoll Estate Country Park Heritage and Visitor Infrastructure will invest in the historic estate; visitor offer and establish visitor accommodation in the park. · The Waterfall Country Pontneddfechan visitor infrastructure scheme will deliver strategic visitor infrastructure including family friendly accommodation and improved parking. 2 Port Talbot Town Centre Regeneration project will support the regeneration and economic recovery of Port Talbot Town Centre. 3 Newbridge Road Bridge – reopening of Newbridge Bridge, along with improvements to adjoining linkages on Newbridge Road (west) and Riverside Road (east) in the form of a shared pedestrian and cycle track alongside the carriageway. Members were advised that the Newbridge Road Bridge project is only at the design stage and as a result the council has only been given a limited amount of funding for it but is being progressed by officers. In relation to the Gnoll scheme, members were advised that it is progressing well. Officers noted public questions about progressing the new visitor centre, with some feeling the old one was sufficient. However, officers believe the new centre offers a significantly improved, more engaging, and sustainable experience for visitors. Members were advised that most parks and facilities require a small subsidy, partly due to limited secondary spend as many facilities are outdated or don't meet current needs. Officers believe the new offer could improve sustainability going forward. Officers explained that the project is split into several sections, improving the visitor offer and consolidating the key heritage features. Officers advised there had been extensive discussions around potential features. Members were informed that elements not included in the current phase may be considered in future phases, as supporting infrastructure would make them more viable later. Officers are looking at developing the children’s play offer as a key part of getting people into the park. Members were advised that the council needs to improve interpretation within the park to help visitors understand its history, purpose, and available facilities. Officers highlighted the refurbishment of Pond Cottage to create the five-star self-catering holiday cottage and hoped that it will be popular going forward. Officers advised that the new adventure park and additional facilities for older children are funded through the Levelling Up Fund. The smaller park near the visitor centre will remain unchanged for now, but there are plans to redevelop it in the future. This will depend on the availability of Section 106 funding and the commencement of certain schemes, although a ready-to-go plan is already in place. Officers felt that the Gnoll is making good progress, and they hope to be complete by September 2025. They also confirmed that the visitor centre is already watertight and windtight, and the Cascades are complete and running. Pond Cottage has most of the work complete and should be done by the end of this month. The Adventure Playground planning was briefly delayed but is now resolved and will be completed by the end of the programme. The project remains within budget, with a total cost of just over £12 million, funded by a £10.8 million grant, £1.2 million in match funding, and SPF contributions. Cabinet Member Jeremy Hurley highlighted that the council’s media activity has raised the profile of the park. He felt this would lead to increased engagement with local schools, as the expanded trail network offers a more attractive and educational experience, drawing more visitors in. Members asked how the cottage would be advertised and how would people be able to book it? Members also asked if the money generated from the cottage, goes back into the park or to the wider council. Members also asked what sustainable measures have been built into the visitor centre building. Officers explained that the Gnoll currently overspends its budget regularly. However, they are confident that with the changes being made, the park will be able to operate within budget. As the business grows, officers expect to reduce the subsidy over the next year or two. Officers noted that while they didn’t have full details to hand, they would provide members with information on the building’s sustainable features. In terms of operations, officers explained that the original plan involved multiple units run in-house by the council. However, with the revised approach focusing on a single unit - Pond Cottage and the associated costs, officers decided to follow the model used for Ivy Cottage in Margam Park. They will work with a specialist letting company, holidaycottages.co.uk, to lease Pond Cottage. The company also cross sell with everything in the county borough meaning if there is no availability anywhere locally, they automatically try and put work to the council. Regarding the budget, officers clarified that all income and expenditure are accounted against the total park costs and gave the example that any profit generated from Margam’s operations is offset against its overall subsidy, and the same principle will apply to the Gnoll. Officers are aiming to complete building work on the cottage by the end of the month. Once handed over, the property will be fitted out and submitted for star rating through Visit Wales and holidaycottages.co.uk, with a target of achieving five stars. A couple of test events are planned, and the goal is to have it ready for the first customers by the August bank holiday weekend. Members felt there would be comments from residents who can't afford to rent a 5-star cottage. Cllr Jeremy Hurley Cabinet Member advised that in relation to the sustainability, there are solar panels on the roof and the main structure panels have come from a local company called So Modular, the whole building is a green segment which will make it airtight and as efficient as possible. Members also were advised that the new centre has now got full connection to the mains sewerage so it should be more efficient. The power supply into the new visitor centre has also been increased. Members praised the work they saw in the park recently. Members who had visited the Cascades noted that there are interesting touches added to draw people to the park, especially those who haven't visited in a long time. Members felt that the ‘Gnollywood sign’ is fun and has had really good social media engagement. Members felt that it broadens the appeal of the park. Members welcomed the new bridge link into Brynau Woods, which opens up a large area of the park. They felt the council should promote the walking opportunities and landscape now accessible. Members also noted that the original project scope was broader but had to be scaled back for budget reasons and asked how thoroughly the council had explored the initial ideas. Members inquired about the council's progress on feasibility studies, future funding, and the development of the different elements. They also asked how prepared the council is for the next phase. Officers explained that all LUF projects have undergone adjustments. Initially submitted at speed, many faced cost pressures due to construction inflation and limited upfront analysis. As a result, projects had to be scaled back to remain within budget. Members were reminded that the initial plan was to refurbish the original visitor centre. However, once costs were assessed, officers realised that building a new facility would offer greater community benefits and sustainability for the park. The project scope was adjusted midway. The original plan for visitor accommodation included pods and a café facility around Pond Cottage, but adjustments were made to stay within budget. Officers have explored some of the other ideas and could progress them if funding becomes available. Members were informed that UK Government officials visited the site, were impressed by the project, and expressed interest in a ministerial visit. They asked which proposals had been removed, the UK Government officers felt it was unfortunate the pods had been dropped and worth funding in future. Officers also noted that other ready-to-go projects are lined up, offering various potential developments. Members were advised that when the original project was being developed—prior to the final bid there were ideas for phased work over the next 10 to 20 years. These included suggestions for improvements across the park, some of which could be addressed through ongoing maintenance. Officers advised that they have well-developed future project ideas that have been scoped out to a basic level. If further investment becomes available, these ideas could be prioritised and progressed. Officers explained that the original plan was part of a much larger masterplan for the entire heritage corridor up the valley, with more proposals than those included in the final bid. In relation to the concerns of local people not able to rent Pond Cottage, Officers explained that while they are looking to build a new audience and people to experience and improve some of those services, officers are aware of the community pride and local regular audience that uses the park. Officers don't want to be pricing local users out or be pushed out. Members were also advised that the site manager is doing a piece of work around pricing at specific times of the day that might attract and might benefit residents. There isn’t a solution yet, but they are aware of it but are committed to getting it right. Members asked if putting solar panels in the car park had been considered. Officers advised that a feasibility study was previously carried out on installing solar canopies in the car park to power vehicles. At the time, it wasn’t financially viable based on the business case. Officers do have business cases for various energy projects throughout the county borough that they keep revisiting depending on the electricity prices. Officers advised that the council is actively keeping green space at the Gnoll because they did a sample first event of a food festival last week and they were running out of car parking space. Officers are trying to balance out the opportunities to attract visitors as well as the green space. Cllr Jeremy Hurley Cabinet Member noted that there are solar panels on the roof on the on the business centre and a new connection just to power the car recharging. In terms of use of solar elsewhere in the authority, he highlighted that the Council was highlighted by Welsh Governments for best practise for its use in the Quays of canopies fitted with solar panels to charge vehicles. Th cabinet member also praised staff and thanked them for the additional work in the Gnoll. He also praised the food festival and the installation of the tree of Many Faces, which turned a bad news story of the tree being cut down into a good news story of carving the stump and making it a new attraction. Cllr Hurley also praised the school visits, doing storytelling around the tree, which he said was fantastic. In relation to Waterfall Country – Pontneddfechan, officers faced challenges due to a reluctant landowner, leading to lengthy negotiations. The issue was severe enough that the scheme risked being dropped, but UK Government allowed officers to revisit the matter, avoiding the need for a Compulsory Purchase Order. Members were advised that there is an enhanced visitor gateway project with facilities within it. Officers explained that parking has been a persistent issue at the site for nearly 10 years, including vehicles blocking driveways and roads, which has impacted access for emergency services. Officers advised that they put in a layby approximately 5/6 years ago, that dealt with part of the problem, and they have done a long piece of work in conjunction with the Brecon Beacons National Park around different opportunities, but this one site in Pontneddfechan was the only one close enough to function as a car park. To meet UK Government funding requirements, officers had to include surrounding features to support the site, as a car park alone wouldn’t satisfy the business case. They added accommodation, a shop, and new toilet facilities. Although the existing toilets had been refurbished several years ago in line with the Disability Discrimination Act, the overall provision was still insufficient for visitors. Officers had consultation sessions with locals and play facilities were requested. That has been included within the design and is a key feature both for visitors coming to the park, but also for locals who want to use the facility. Staff have been on site since the end of June, carrying out initial works including fencing and enabling landowner access to nearby land. A slight delay occurred due to swallows nesting in a barn, which cannot be taken down while they are present. However, officers are working around this and do not expect it to impact the overall project timeline. To ensure the project is viable, officers have allocated additional SPF funding. Welsh Water also requested extra work on a pipe, which the council will carry out. Officers noted that delivering LUF projects is challenging due to tight UK Government timelines. This has made Pontneddfechan particularly difficult, and it nearly had to be removed from the programme. Members asked whether there had been consultation with local pubs and facilities in Pontneddfechan and how they responded to the development. They also raised concerns about declining swallow populations and asked what measures were being taken to protect nesting sites. Additionally, members noted that the path can be challenging during busy periods and asked if any improvements were planned. In relation to the consultation, officers explained they are in regular contact with the Sgwd Gladys, the project manager is in regular contact with the Angel pub and officers held a consultation event there and the White Horse were invited to that consultation. The pubs and locals had the opportunity to consult both online and face to face through three consultation events which are held in the community. In relation to the pathway, officers have worked previously with Brecon Beacons National Park on it. An all audit has been done of the trails across Waterfall country and officers are working on a project with Brecon Beacons who applied for the shared prosperity fund last year to do pathway improvements along the stretch of path from the Angel Inn up to the bridge. The Council had to take over the project due to capacity issues, which became more complex after discovering erosion along the pathway. The council then agreed to back up the SPF funding so that if the council lost the SPF funding by the end of the programme, the council would still have funds to carry forward the design work. That did happen, Officers had a design in place to address an area of erosion on that pathway. Officers advised that NRW did not accept the proposed design solution, and discussions are ongoing. In the meantime, an application was submitted to Visit Wales’s Brilliant Basics Scheme for funding to improve the pathway, including the erosion area. Although the bid was unsuccessful, it was a highly competitive process. Officers did have another successful, application for the Margam Park and Entrance Way so Officers will keep chipping away at that with Brecon Beacons who had a successful application to do the upper sections of that pathway, but not the lower sections. Officers felt it would have been premature to proceed anyway before securing NRW approval for the erosion-related design work. Officers confirmed that improving the pathway is a priority, with designs and scope ready to support future funding bids. The community identified it as a key need, though the terrain poses challenges—waterfall valleys are naturally carved and unstable at the edges. Officers confirmed that, as with all projects, they work closely with the ecology team to ensure environmental considerations are properly addressed. Specialists will monitor the site, and any recommendations will be implemented as part of the project. Cllr Jeremy Hurly confirmed he was contacted about the work that was going on that was not done properly, which involved the police for disturbing nesting birds, the council is doing it properly. Officers then spoke about the Port Talbot project, which includes three key elements. · Refurbishment of the Princess Royal Theatre, diversifying its current offer. · Redevelopment of Port Talbot Civic Square into a multi-use community space and introducing green infrastructure · Public realm enhancements at Riverside, with potential to develop further with future funding for a second phase Members were advised that the theatre has remained largely unchanged since its construction in 1987, with the original design causing operational issues. The refurbishment will address technical problems, including backstage access via a rear extension, and add new toilets and disabled access to upper floors. The aim is to make the space more viable and sustainable, with potential to enter the conference market supported by new facilities. The civic functions on the theatre side of the building will be refreshed within the project and made more usable. The Civic Centre square is also planned for redevelopment into a multi-use community space with added green infrastructure. The third element of the project is the Riverside which has been taken out of the project for two reasons. 1 Cost. The council would have had to put an extra two and a half million pounds into the project, and that wasn't feasible at this stage. 2 The college had discussed relocating into the town centre but decided not to and instead want to move to the harbour side area. Officers felt it would have been a stronger offer to embed the college within the town centre, helping to rejuvenate the area through increased footfall of approximately 1,000 students, 180 staff, and regular visitors. Officers noted that they are still reviewing the town centre block where the post office is located, as the post office’s planned departure will make the site more difficult to re-let. Officers noted concerns about a burnt-out pub in the area, emphasising that the council does not want the town centre to be reflected by that. In relation to the theatre, builders are currently on site and have stripped it out. It is a complex project because it is in the town centre and has 7 different phases while keeping access to the building open. The left-hand (civic) side of the building is not included in the current project and will need to be addressed separately after the theatre works. Officers are working on this and will report back to members in due course. Members were advised that the project costs are upwards of £18,254,686 of which the council put in just over £3,148,400. The council managed to get additional funding from Welsh Government of £270,686. Officers advised that the Newbridge Road Project is a key initiative, especially for local members, and forms part of the safe and active travel routes aimed at improving connectivity. James M. Davies Head of Engineering and Transport updated members on the status of the project. Members were advised that the council has had the funding from the UK Government of £800,000 for design development which has been undertaken this year. The consultants are undertaking ecological surveys and are doing the design development package, aiming to finish around February or March 2026. Officers have been seeking updates from the Department for Transport on future funding for the scheme but were informed that no further details are currently available. However, more information on LUF is expected soon, and officers are hopeful for confirmation in the coming weeks. Officers noted that the scheme is included in the regional transport delivery plan so if the council doesn’t get any future funding for construction, this design possibly wouldn't go to waste as it is one of the schemes in the regional transport delivery plan. Officers noted that there is a range of questions around grant modernisation and transport funding and what that is going to look like. That will the potentially be delivered regionally going forward. In relation to New Bridge Rd. Members asked when the work was likely to start and will the procurement of local engineering firms going to be used because the lack of work now due to the steelworks heavy end being closed. Members asked if the council would try to employ the local firms. Officers advised that it’s difficult to confirm time scales at this stage, as they are awaiting feedback from the DfT regarding future funding to move the project to construction. If funding isn’t secured, the project will be incorporated into the regional Transport Plan. Officers are currently working through a prioritisation process with the region, making it challenging to provide firm timelines, especially if the funding bid is unsuccessful. In relation to the procurement of contractors, there is the usual framework for firms to go through, but confirmed that there are local contractors involved. The chair noted that the DFT has sent several emails for more than a year pushing back when an update would be coming and he feels that some clarity on what's happening as it is welcome. The chair asked about priority works, he noted that there is land acquisition to do and that can be quite a difficult element of these projects. He asked if the council is any further along with the land acquisition on this project, because he doesn’t want it to fall on that element, given that the delay in getting the construction funding may help best to complete the, some of the land negotiations. The Chair acknowledged that the project is complicated due to the bridge being Grade II listed, requiring specialist contractors with heritage design accreditations. This limits who can undertake the work and affects capacity. Nicola Pearce explained that the council’s original bid for Round 2 of the Levelling Up Fund was unsuccessful. Officers were later informed they had been successful in Round 3 which nobody knew existed, for funding towards the New Bridge Road Bridge and the Theatre. Officers faced challenges due to differences in how bids were managed: most Levelling Up Fund projects were overseen by the Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government, which was flexible and allowed early engagement. However, transport bids were managed by the Department for Transport and UK Government, which required formal approval before any work could begin. Officers had to chase updates on the memorandum of understanding, which is essential to start the project. Initially told they would receive funding for both detailed design and land acquisition, officers were later informed they would only receive funding for the design stage, with land acquisition funding pending further announcements following the spending review. Officers have discussed with the Welsh Local Government Association regarding the future of the Levelling Up Fund (LUF) and its successor, the Shared Prosperity Fund (SPF). The emerging plans are not as expected, and details remain limited. There may be a new LUF opportunity, but officers are unclear on the timing, structure, or funding amount. They believe the process is slightly delayed due to the devolved nature of some funding programmes, with UK Government officials working alongside Welsh Government officials. Members noted that the council has not yet received funding for land acquisition and asked whether negotiations with landowners had begun. Officers confirmed that some discussions have taken place, but progress depends on securing funding, as any arrangements made now could change within a year. Members were also advised that significant work is planned around the docks area, with Associated British Ports keen to engage. However, without funding in place, officers are limited in how far they can take this forward. Members asked about the future of funding and whether it would come via Welsh Government or directly to local authorities. Officers explained that they don’t know yet, including whether it will be a three-year programme. Officers are lobbying the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) to direct funding straight to regions via Corporate Joint Committees, as regional investment plans used to deliver the SPF programme have been effective. Officers highlighted the positive outcomes achieved, especially in communities previously excluded due to strict funding criteria, and stressed the importance of maintaining the current approach. They confirmed that any updates will be shared with members as soon as they receive clarity. Following Scrutiny the update was noted.
Members felt that aligning business plans with the overall strategy improves clarity. However, they were concerned that dividing responsibilities may hinder cross-departmental collaboration. They recalled previous commitments to improve this and asked how it's being implemented, noting that one business plan referenced the issue. Members noted inconsistencies between Leisure & Culture’s business plans (within the Education directorate) and those of Environmental Services. They highlighted that the former lacks cross-cutting goals and shared objectives, making comparison and monitoring difficult. Members asked whether this is still an ongoing process and emphasised that business plans are a valuable tool for committee oversight and future monitoring. Members noted that under the “What didn’t work well” section of the plans, it would be helpful to include a narrative explaining what happened, what didn’t work, and the overall impact going forward. They felt this would provide clearer context and support better understanding and monitoring. Nicola Pearce, Director for Environment and Regeneration advised that Environment services followed a corporate business plan template, which was flexible for services to adapt if needed. Some sections, such as budget targets and savings, were pre-populated by colleagues in Finance and Corporate Services. Louise McAndrew was specifically noted for her helpful contributions, demonstrating an example of effective cross-departmental collaboration. Officers explained that they followed that template to ensure that had a consistent approach within the directorate. Members were informed that each business plan includes a section on the sustainable development principle, with columns addressing the five ways of working. Officers explained their position on each and provided examples, noting these are illustrative rather than exhaustive examples of collaboration. Examples of collaboration included: Property and Regeneration: Worked on the Tata Steel transition with third sector organisations, UK and Welsh Governments, businesses, and the private sector. Engineering and Transport: Referenced coal tip safety work in partnership with the Mine Remediation Authority. NPT was a pilot authority, helping develop the inspection system that led to £180 million in funding for Wales, this funding supports monitoring and response to coal tip issues in the local area. Officers acknowledged they can't deliver everything alone and regularly collaborate with the private sector, government departments, academia, and the third sector. They cited recruitment challenges in Building Control as an area that hasn’t worked well. Succession plans are in place across the directorate, and officers are working with the Future of Work team in People and Organisational Services to improve recruitment. While there have been successes, significant challenges remain in filling roles such as surveyors, architects, project managers, and engineers. Members were informed that a surveyor post had been advertised three times with no applications. Building Control is now restructuring and exploring alternative approaches. Apprentices are in place, with the aim of developing in-house talent. While this won’t solve immediate recruitment issues, it’s a long-term strategy to address future needs. Members asked whether staffing issues in Building Control were causing delays. Officers confirmed the service is behind due to recruitment challenges. While members praised collaboration with external partners, they also asked about internal working. Officers highlighted strong cross-departmental cooperation, citing: LUF projects and Tata transition work, involving coordination with employability colleagues. Officers highlighted that decarbonisation and the net zero agenda are often seen as the Environment Directorate’s responsibility, but in reality, they require a whole-council approach. To support this, an Engagement Officer (based in Corporate Services) was appointed to avoid reinforcing the environmental link and to promote cross-directorate involvement. This role focuses on engaging both external partners and internal directorates, ensuring that all areas of the council contribute to delivering net zero, rather than relying solely on environment colleagues. There is increasing engagement from other directorates, and the approach is collaborative, with all teams working together as one to achieve the shared goal. Chris Saunders explained that this is the first year the directorates had been asked to use a corporately supplied business plan template, which will likely be refined over time. He acknowledged that the submission to the committee was late from his area. The Education Directorate chose not to use the new template this year due to the timing of the Estyn inspection, which overlapped the end of the financial year. Instead, they updated existing documents to maintain consistency with the inspection process. The intention is to adopt the corporate format in future years. The Chair raised concerns about a lack of cross-directorate support for decarbonisation and asked whether there is a mechanism or forum for identifying and resolving such issues. He noted that members are often concerned about departments working in silos and asked if the Corporate Team is where these issues are addressed? Officers explained there isn’t a single mechanism for resolving cross-directorate issues, as each situation is handled differently. If engagement from a particular service is lacking, officers first try to resolve it directly. If unsuccessful, the matter is escalated to the Senior Leadership Team for resolution. Additionally, self-assessment work has been carried out as part of the plan’s delivery. This includes feedback from officers across the council, which helps identify strengths and areas for improvement in cross-service collaboration. Officers acknowledged that concerns around inconsistent support across services, such as Digital Services have been raised. They noted that incorrectly the responses can vary depending on the staff member’s role or level. To address this issue officers have gathered feedback through the self-assessment process, ensuring all staff perspectives are considered. This helps identify whether cross-directorate working is effective and whether back-office services are providing consistent support across the organisation. Officers noted they regularly challenge other parts of the council to ensure services meet their needs. However, they are mindful of financial pressures across all directorates, and difficult budget cuts that impact service delivery. Managing expectations is sometimes necessary. The chair noted that the council has the best intentions and felt that maybe something structurally can be done to formalise when something should be escalated and when something shouldn't be escalated. Members acknowledged the importance of the LDP over the coming years. They noted a contradiction in the consultation section, which reported poor performance despite high response volumes—likely due to members actively promoting it locally. Concerns were raised about the effectiveness of drop-in sessions and communication methods, particularly the council’s reliance on digital channels, which may exclude those who don’t engage online. Members stated that it would be helpful in the future that any consultation should involve the local members to get a feel of where drop in should be done and the timings. Members felt the consultation process gave the impression that the authority wasn’t seeking meaningful feedback. They cited a resident who regularly uses buses but was unaware of the transport hub consultation until it had ended. Members questioned whether it had been advertised on buses, suggesting this would have been a more effective way to reach users. Members felt that a working group could help work out better ways of doing consultations across directorates. Nicola Pearce confirmed that for the RLDP process there is a community involvement strategy which is published, on the council’s website. Members were also advised that they can be sent the link that identifies what consultations and in what form they will be undertaken at each stage of the of the preparation and adoption process if required. Officers advised that as part of that process, there are social media campaigns and leaflet drops to every property in the county borough. There are also notices put up outside all the candidate sites that have been put forward for consideration. Leaflets are put in GP surgeries and in local libraries. Officers explained thar there was a list of all the actions taken in the community involvement strategy. Officers appreciated that it didn't work as well as hoped. Officers explained that while leaflets are sent to every property to reach those not on social media, delivery by external companies means they’re often bundled with other materials and may be discarded. As a result, officers are exploring alternative advertising methods alongside targeted social media campaigns. Officers noted that posters and leaflets are displayed in public areas including GP surgeries, hospitals, council offices, leisure centres, bus stops, transport hubs, and community notice boards. Materials are also shown on LCD screens and will be made available for local elected members to distribute. Officers are working with the local area coordinators that work in social services who have links to local groups to help deliver the message. Officers hope that the planning committee working group (also part of the RLDP working group) will provide feedback that may improve the system. Officers confirmed that All member seminars at key stages of the RLDP will happen and officers want to engage with member feedback from those. Members were advised to that sometimes the council is restricted because of the statutory process that Welsh Government have in place to follow. Officers acknowledged the challenge of avoiding predetermination of members and want to ensure they are not inhibited from contributing to the LDP. The chair reiterated that members must be neutral and not predetermined but can help with setting up the consultation processes to make sure they work better. Officers advised that they had a public meeting for each of the 8 spatial areas, in one meeting, no one turned up and, in another meeting, there was a handful of people. Members acknowledged that holding the meeting in Pontardawe, despite relating to the Ros ward, limited attendance, particularly for working residents and the elderly. They also raised concerns about the bus franchising consultation event being held in Pontardawe, noting that residents in other wards, especially those with limited access to cars, may struggle to attend and contribute. Members were grateful there is a bus route proposed for that area but highlighted that the community can’t get involved with the consultation events if they are held in Pontardawe and felt that parking around the library can be a problem. Members asked if the negative feedback on consultations included suggestions of how it could have been done better. Officers confirmed that they just received criticism. Officers explained that they tried to have a meeting in each of the spatial areas which is why Pontardawe was chosen as it was central to that spatial area. Members praised officers for their help when they held a public meeting, including support in finding information and forms which pushed the consultation forward. But they felt the consultation process lets the council down. Members acknowledged that planning issues can be complex and difficult for the public to understand, especially when communicating technical documents and their community impact. Officers noted that site notices caused confusion, as they were placed on all candidate sites, leading the public to mistakenly believe they were planning applications and resulting in unnecessary calls to the planning department. Officers advised they would not be doing that again and will find a different way of getting the information out. The chair advised that there are discussions ongoing with officers to work out where scrutiny can fit into the process so that it does not duplicate the planning working group. He felt that the seminars are working well but the committee wants to contribute to that process. The chair raised a concern about Succession Planning and asked for clarity on where things currently stand with that in the passenger transport team. He noted that there is a need to understand what skills will be required in the team over the next few years, given the expanding role of the council in bus service involvement. The chair also noted that since the pandemic, the council’s role in bus services has increased considerably, with specific staff having taken on a substantial workload during this period. Officers advised that in terms of the bus franchising seminar they will catch up on how it’s gone and the feedback on the consultation event location issues. In relation to the business plan, there is a new structure, the restructuring exercise was done this year and that was required due to the increasing work concerning local bus network changes and the move from a commercially viable network to a supporting network and the changes also increased the number of local bus contracts with 30 to 42. That was a requirement to increase council resources. Additionally, the bus bill and bus reform in Wales will amend the transport element and this creates an opportunity for the passenger transport team to ensure the local needs are met and that there is improvement and continuation of services by bus franchising. Officers noted that the team needs to have the expertise and structure in place to ensure appropriate support and representation on the review programme. The home to school travel service is a good example going forward of collaboration across different service areas, the team has increased in the sizes with two additional posts. There are also ways for people to move through the team in terms of succession planning and improving their careers. Officers will continue to review it as and when the additional work comes their way. Officers feel that they are in a far better place than previously. Members felt that was very reassuring as there is still a lot of uncertainty around the level of involvement that the council will have with some of the bus network work going forward. Members were aware that Welsh Government and TFW have changed their minds on what they are doing and have been reassured that officers have got an eye on that. Members queried the Culture, Leisure and Tourism business plan, specifically the Culture Strategy, which notes that no staff are currently assigned to it. Although the plan advised that the aim is to have staff in place by the end of the financial year, working alongside the Cultural Compact Steering Group. Members were confused as the following page states that there is no specific budget allocation to support the work stream within the team. Chris Saunders acknowledged the challenging budget and expressed appreciation for the resources available, praising officers for their progress. He stressed the need for meaningful placemaking and ensuring the cultural partnership and Cultural Compact Steering Group deliver a place-wide impact. He confirmed that there has been the first meeting of the cultural compact steering group with strong partner engagement and enthusiasm to develop something unique in Wales. He felt that it needs dedicated management—someone to develop, coordinate, and act as secretary to drive it forward. While there is currently no council funding, match funding may be possible if grants are secured. Chris Saunders praised officers’ ability to secure grants and advised that they are in extended discussion with Arts Council regarding a grant for a post. They will comment further when they get that confirmed. Officers have also had discussions with the Welsh government this week around how NPT aspirations meet WG cultural priorities that they have just announced and whether there's any money available. Members were advised that it is usually capital funding and not revenue that the council needs. Officers will continue to look for grant funding and there will be a bit of match funding coming from the council to help them to deliver that. Members asked about the heritage strategy, which was looked at being adopted the same time as the cultural strategy but has not been mentioned as being pushed forward in the business plan. Members asked where this sits in terms of the strategy? Chris Saunders acknowledged members’ concerns and agreed that the Culture Strategy may not have been sufficiently reflected in the Service Plan. He explained that staffing resource for physical heritage falls under Simon Brennan’s remit and that the strategy is referenced in the regional plan, though better alignment is needed. He committed to reviewing this further. Members advised that they found it difficult to work out where heritage sits in relation to the blue plaque report because it crosses over different directorates. Officers felt that there may be a bit of work to do on that. Chris Saunders advised that the Business plans are set up as service plans, and officers need to be mindful of not putting something in the plan that's delivered by a different team. Members felt that it is important not to end up with gaps as it is a lovely plan with good ambitions, but it isn't being picked up because of slightly unclear level of responsibility. Chris Saunders advised that there is a heritage strategy group that sits on a regular basis, it also has Simon Brennan and Cabinet Member Councillor Phillips as well as other officers attending it, officers are coordinating but agreed that it is not as clear on the papers how they might deliver it. Simon Brennan explained that the Cultural Compact Steering Group is a product of collaboration, reflecting the broad scope of council services. He noted that projects often require input from multiple directorates, with technical staff frequently supporting various services across the authority. Members were advised that it is hard to articulate all the collaboration happening in business plans, this is why officers provide a few examples. Members spoke about Aberavon Sea front, they were positive about the actions in the business plan relating to the operating pattern for the sea front in terms of picking up issues around maximising revenue, improving how it runs and reducing anti-social behaviour. Members were also glad that communication, forums, coordination and prioritisation were included. Members asked where things were at in terms of picking out prioritisation of the projects in the Aberavon sea-front masterplan Members noted that it was originally scoped to the consultants and then switched to work the officers to do, but it just says ongoing in the report. Officers noted they haven’t reviewed it in detail yet but plan to. They believe it’s listed as ongoing so they can prioritise key elements and revisit others later. It’s not seen as a one-off task, but something they’ll continue as funding becomes available and new opportunities arise. Members asked what is happening with the Naval Club? Officers advised that feasibility funding from the Shared Prosperity Fund is now available for the team or site, and they will compile a list of what’s accessible. Members felt that officers need to do the initial work and for the public and members to understand, what are the councils initial 5 priorities. They asked what projects are officers going to put forward for funding opportunities? Members felt they needed to understand what the order of priorities are. Officers explained that it often is quite hard to prioritise what to do first, because the funding streams often dictate what can be done first. Members felt that the tourism funds like ‘brilliant basics’, can be put towards a lot of projects. Officers noted that a priority for members was the Ty Morfa site and where that is going and was identified by the regeneration team a priority for SPF. Officers reiterated the difficulties of prioritisation as funding dictates what can be done. This often is a criticism that members of the public raise as to why a certain project is taken forward and others aren’t. This is down to the availability of funding for specific projects. Officers feel that an explanation of how funding works should be online to help explain why projects are done in the order they are despite other projects looking more urgent. Officers felt this issue would also be inevitable on the sea front where people will question why things have been done before something else. Members felt that the plan has provided a long list of things that can be done at the seafront and there are lots of opportunities and things that need fixing and accepted the challenges of funding and the criticisms from the public on order of projects is inevitable. Members felt however that even within those funding opportunities, there's going to be 5 or 6 schemes that can be picked on the sea front for some of those projects and there Members felt that local discussions are needed to review the plan in detail. They noted that some schemes are short-term and low-cost (e.g., £50–60,000) and could be delivered quickly. Others, like the £10 million scheme, are long-term projects. Officers agreed that the key missing element is the cost breakdown of each scheme. Officers have a proposed delivery structure, including operational groups, and once they meet, they can prioritise which projects to develop to full specification. However, the Council will need to secure funding to bring those projects to a deliverable stage. Members asked if anything similar exists now to the 2019 Valleys Plan. They felt it would be helpful to have a current list of quick-win, high-impact schemes to support funding bids. Members stated that much of the progress in the Valleys has come from their own advocacy, and a refreshed plan could help guide future investment. Nicola Pearce advised that officers are developing an Economic Development and Regeneration Strategy covering the entire county borough, without distinguishing between the coastal corridor and the valleys as both are equally important. Members were advised that a consultant support has been provided, and the strategy is expected to go through the Cabinet process within the next month or two. A project pipeline will be included to identify opportunities and ensure a borough-wide response to local needs, with the strategy coming before members in the near future. Officers noted the commitment that the Cabinet wanted to deliver during the term was to ensure that the council is focusing on the valleys as much as focusing on the on the coastal corridor. Members asked if there had been any discussion with members in terms of the Economic Development and Regeneration Strategy? Officers confirmed that there have been consultation events for place plans. Members were advised that it will be a more holistic document than previously and explained that before there were economic development plans and regeneration plans, but they are inextricably linked and need to be delivered together. A lot of what has happened was along the coastal corridor because that is where Welsh Government funding was directed and was also a town centre first policy. Officers advised that under SPF the council has been able to work in the valleys and have already built units in Nant y Cavern. This type of funding has not been available to the council for a long time. Officers felt that if that continues, they can start to continue to deliver more in the valley areas. Members were advised that there is quite a reasonable potential that Welsh Government end up with the funding again and that could mean that it goes back into the previous policies which would stop the council doing these projects. Officers re-iterated that they don't differentiate between valleys and the coastal belt and it is just funding that dictates things. Members felt that it would be good to see proposals being developed to an advanced stage in case funding comes available. Officers confirmed that the economic development regeneration strategy is coming before scrutiny members for comments soon. Nicola Pearce explained that there was some confusion about what a place plan is, which officers raised with Welsh Government during its development. Members were informed that place plans sit at the bottom of the planning hierarchy below the national plan ("Future Wales"), strategic development plans, and replacement local development plans. Members were also advised that Welsh Government has introduced place plans as a way for Councils to apply for grants of up to £300,000 for local projects aligned with each area's vision. Members were informed that this has caused a lot of confusion and that to access the funding, place plans must be in place. As more plans are rolled out, they will open further opportunities for investment in those areas. Following Scrutiny the report was noted. Following Scrutiny the report was noted.
Following Scrutiny the report was noted.
Following Scrutiny the report was noted.
There were 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.