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.
Andrew Collins introduced the report as per the agenda pack. Members noted that the regional approach to innovation support outlined in the REDP has been challenging to implement. They asked officers to explain why and clarify which aspects have been particularly difficult to progress. Officers acknowledged that while an ambitious, coordinated regional approach to innovation support was originally envisaged, progress has been limited. They felt that the report reflects this honestly. Officers explained that a centralised model requires significant resources and funding, which have not been available. Previously, European funding might have supported efforts, but that is no longer an option. Despite these challenges, delivering integrated and coordinated support remains a regional ambition moving forward. Members noted that officers are exploring new strands to advance regional innovation and asked whether any upcoming opportunities or developments might support that. Officers advised that next years Shared Prosperity Funding will be looked at and the region will potentially allocate some of that funding to deliver centralised inward investment support. Officers noted that the evolving role of Corporate Joint Committees may influence future progress, though how long for and what impact they will have remains uncertain. Officers highlighted the ongoing balance between local and regional ambitions, noting their primary responsibility to local members while also maintaining strong collaborative relationships with regional partners, including Swansea, Pembrokeshire and Carmarthenshire. Officers noted that regional plans like this one demonstrate the strength of working together but acknowledged the need to address localised issues. They explained that inward investment opportunities now come through various channels, including Welsh Government leads, the Freeport, and other emerging avenues. It remains their role to secure and deliver these opportunities effectively at the local level. Officers noted that while they try push for investment in Neath Port Talbot when local capacity is limited such as not having sufficient land for certain opportunities then those opportunities may be redirected to neighbouring areas like Swansea. Officers emphasised that many residents commute across the region, so strengthening the wider locality benefits everyone. Officers acknowledged the tension between local and regional priorities, noting that while regional teams are in place, there is a natural desire to secure investment for Neath Port Talbot. Officers emphasised the shared commitment among regional colleagues to strengthening the region, while recognising the need to balance regional collaboration with local ambitions. Members acknowledged that both officers and elected members are committed to regional collaboration but also recognised the political reality that there is a natural desire to secure benefits for their own areas and constituents. Members asked about funding and resources for a joined-up regional approach, noting that the Corporate Joint Committee (CJC) has operated with minimal budgets and limited activity. The Chair confirmed that he sits on the CJC Scrutiny Committee and questioned whether the lack of progress on regional innovation support might be linked to the CJC’s skeletal staffing and resourcing from constituent authorities. The chair asked if significant external funding may be needed to fully realise regional ambitions. Officers advised that the role and future of Corporate Joint Committees (CJCs) is not just regional but national in scope. They noted uncertainty around the CJC’s future structure, particularly after next Senedd elections, and acknowledged the challenge of developing regional models without clarity on long-term direction. Officers highlighted the balance between regional ambitions and Local authority priorities which can complicate coordination, especially in areas like economic development and planning. Members noted a recent announcement about American government investment in the UK and asked if the council will be trying to tap into that. Members noted that the region is striving ahead with innovation with offshore wind and advanced manufacturing. Officers highlighted the presence of facilities like the Innovation Centre and Baglan Technology Centre, along with successful university spin-out industries. Officers noted that while spinning out a company is important, it is essential to first establish the fundamental skills, local employment opportunities, and access to suitable sites and premises. Members were advised that for over a decade, Wales and particularly Neath Port Talbot, has lacked sufficient quality sites and premises due to a funding gap. This is down to construction costs generally exceeding the market value of facilities once they are built. Officers explained that public investment is essential to bridge the gap between development costs and market value, and they have been working hard to address this. Members were advised that while there has been some progress, Wales, particularly Neath Port Talbot, still lacks quality sites and premises. Much of the infrastructure still relies on units built by the Welsh Development Agency 30–40 years ago, many of which now require upgrading. Officers noted that while some units such as those at Milland Road remain beneficial their age means they require significant investment. Large-scale funding is needed to modernise sites and premises so that when companies are spun out, they have somewhere to grow. Officers highlighted concerns about whether promised funding will materialise locally, as announcements often fail to translate into practical support due to restrictive criteria or limited reach. Officers emphasised the importance of getting the fundamentals right namely skills and premises before pursuing wider opportunities. While it will be interesting to see how things develop, they cautioned that without the right infrastructure, spinning out companies may not lead to sustainable growth. Members were informed that when companies expand and require larger, high-quality manufacturing space such as 30,000 square feet as an example they often find that it is unavailable locally. As a result, they relocate to areas with higher land values and better infrastructure, leading to missed opportunities for local economic growth. Members noted that the report says that there was a case made for UK Government to use funding to co-invest in the private sector as a regional investment fund. Members asked how that was going to address the viability issues and whether that was on a small scale or a big scale. Members noted that there are issues even with developing simple sites and acknowledged that large sites can be more complex. This can hold back large-scale developments due to land contamination, flooding and access issues. Both types of sites require different scales of investment. Members asked what the intention is in the report around the investment fund and is it to address all of that or is it on a smaller scale? Officers advised that under the previous UK administration, funding such as the Shared Prosperity Fund and Levelling Up Fund was channelled directly to local government instead of via Welsh Government. Officers noted they are awaiting clarity on the next stage of funding, with ongoing discussions around what will replace the Shared Prosperity Fund and Levelling Up Fund. A key concern is whether future funding will be channelled through Welsh Government and, if so, whether it will reflect Welsh Government priorities or those of local government. Officers explained that regional investment fund is an ambition, current funding is allocated locally to best meet community needs. If future allocations were managed through a CJC or similar structure, councils would possibly bid into that pot rather than the current allocation system. Officers were interested in how future funding arrangements will work, noting that the council currently bids directly to Welsh Government and has successfully received regional funding as well. Officers noted that regional funding can vary year to year and some years the council benefits significantly, while in others, delivery capacity may be limited due to existing commitments. Officers emphasised that over a longer period, such as five years, the funding tends to even out across the region. Councils have worked collaboratively, adjusting timelines based on capacity, with some deferring schemes to future years. It was acknowledged that development projects take time to progress, and with small teams, managing delivery remains a challenge. Officers gave a brief update on progress on major sites such as Harbourside and Baglan Energy Park. Harbourside has undergone remediation, and additional land has been acquired, with further contamination investigations starting in the coming weeks. Officers are working closely with Welsh Government on the Baglan Energy Park site. The site was left undeveloped for around 20 years. Site investigations and testing are underway, with results expected in Q1 2026. These will inform a remediation strategy and funding plan. The remediation is a significant undertaking being jointly addressed with Welsh Government. Members asked how the report is being used to shape the RLDP and how do the two documents support each other? Officers have raised this with colleagues in the planning department, and they categorically assure members that the two documents are dovetailed together with the same consultant working on this document and on the economic case for the delivery of the RLDP. Members noted that the report refers to progress in developing employment and residential opportunities on major brownfield sites such as Coed Darcy. However, they questioned the accuracy of this statement, pointing out that no significant activity has taken place at Coed Darcy for approximately 10 years. Members also queried why the report links Coed Darcy to the RLDP, as they are aware that the site is not included in the current RLDP. Officers acknowledged the ongoing challenges with Coed Darcy, noting that despite numerous meetings and attempts to progress development including several iterations of the Section 106 agreement they have tried to get in place, momentum has repeatedly stalled, and plans have changed over time. Officers said that there is potential for progress at Coed Darcy, with some background developments that could ease challenges going forward. However, they cautioned that these are still at an early stage. Officers feel that it is going to be a challenge bringing Coed Darcy forward because the developers say Section 106 element makes it unviable. Members were advised that it is highly complex, and the council has some external advice in relation to contamination and other issues. Officers advised that the position of the planners is that they need to see clear deliverability during the RLDP period. Past attempts at agreement have failed, so if a proposal isn’t deliverable, it won’t be included in the RLDP. Members were also informed that Coed Darcy is a key housing site the council is keen to see delivered. The chair confirmed that the committee will keep a close eye on that item and in relation to the planning aspect the chair is trying to work out the logistics of how the committee can be involved in the development the RLDP. Members felt it was reassuring to see the Southwest Wales Metro included in the report and the level of prominence it had in the report because it has varying levels of enthusiasm and publicity over the years and members feel that it is a big opportunity for the region in terms of having better transport links between some communities. Members felt that if the metro was delivered in full, there'd be a station in LLandarcy, which would have sustainable links to Coed Darcy which could unlock lot of investment there as well. Members felt that the report underplays the impact the Metro could have on the region not just on sites but from an employment point of view. Members noted that they have in past scrutiny had discussions with officers about access to employment and transport being one of the biggest barriers. This also is the same issue for access to training, and the level of ambition people have. Members noted the document highlights high levels of economic activity, alongside challenges around skills and transport. The Chair felt this feedback should also be echoed at the CJC. There was a call to recognise the full potential impact of investment and not just in improving access to employment, but also in addressing economic inactivity and training needs. The chair emphasised that the council should actively support and promote the scheme, despite it requiring substantial external funding. The chair urged strong advocacy to maximise political momentum and secure support for the area. Officers acknowledged the issue had been discussed previously and noted that transport remains one of the biggest barriers to employment. They work with colleagues in schemes like Workways to help people access jobs and training, with the key challenge being how to get individuals to and from work and training. Members were advised that it is one of the most important ambitions to regionally bring forward significant economic regeneration. Officers noted that the public transport system has retracted over the years, and the challenge is that if employers want staff there at a specific time, then it can be difficult due to public transport timetables. Officers highlighted that the council has more flexible working hours that allows people to use public transport. Members were advised that employers also need to try and work with what's out there rather than being more dictatorial about when people must start and finish but also acknowledged that certain industries have less flexibility due to the nature of their work. Members were advised that officers have explored alternative employment opportunities, citing the Wildfox development in the Avon Valley as one that could help address transport challenges in the area. They added that if a system could support movement to and from the valley from the coastal communities then the viability of the development would improve. Officers advised that Welsh Government through Transport for Wales have got more involved recently including bus franchising although it may not solve everything. Members felt that the challenge is that only 10 years ago buses from Cwmavon were every 20 minutes, buses from Sandfields were every 20 minutes and the bus to Neath was every 15 minutes. Members are not expecting that day one in 2027 that things will be the same level as 2010, but it will be better than the current situation with franchising. The Chair felt this was a message for Welsh Government and regional partners, highlighting the potential of contributing additional funding to the franchising pot. It was noted that even small investments particularly in early and late services can have a significant impact, as they often don’t require new vehicles or drivers. The Chair felt this issue needs further consideration, particularly once Welsh Government’s contribution to the franchising pot is known. Understanding that will help determine the region’s level of ambition for the public transport system and identify where investment can deliver the greatest benefit. This could include things like putting a bus on at 6am in the morning from Cwmavon to help staff get to the Amazon warehouse or get to Swansea City centre, that could unlock employment opportunities for people. Members felt that looking at a micro level is important as the council now has a role in planning the public transport system and there is a need to be joined up between economic development and transport to make sure it works. Members felt that active travel needs to be looked at in relation to public transport as well as they feel that it is not joined up at the present time. The Chair advised that he has spoken to James M Davies, Interim Head of Engineering and Transport, who is reviewing the structure of his service area. He also highlighted active travel works in his ward that, while beneficial, won’t improve bus stop accessibility. For example, some stops lack raised curbs for boarding, despite having drop curbs for wheelchair access meaning passengers still can’t board buses. The Chair noted that the issue stemmed from a lack of passenger transport input into the active travel planning, but it has now been flagged internally, and progress is expected. Members suggested that they would be happy to pay a small annual fee to maintain a bus service instead of having a free bus pass for over 60s as there is no point in having a bus pass if there are no buses to use. Following Scrutiny members endorsed the report. Following scrutiny, a recommendation was put forward. The recommendation as set out below was supported. Send a letter from the scrutiny committee to the Regional Leads of the Southwest Wales Regional Development Group summarising the discussion points.
There were no Performance Monitoring Items selected.
Following Scrutiny the Forward Work Programme 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.