Loading
The decisions as the council's minutes record them. A plain-language summary follows once it has been written.
Resolved: to exclude the public for the following item(s) pursuant to Section 100A(4) and (5) of the Local Government Act 1972 and the relevant exempt paragraphs of Part 4 of Schedule 12A to the above Act.
The Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting.
Craig Griffiths, Head of Legal and Democratic Services declared an interest as he is the monitoring officer for both Neath Port Talbot Council and the Corporate Joint Committee. Cllr Tim Bowen made a declaration as Chair of Swansea Bay City Region Joint Scrutiny Committee and the Vice Chair of the Southwest Wales Corporate Joint Committee - Overview and Scrutiny Sub-Committee.
Members considered items 4a, 4b and 4c.
Craig Griffiths briefed members on proposals to align governance for the Swansea Bay City Deal and the Southwest Wales Corporate Joint Committee (CJC). Officers have identified efficiencies by bringing decision‑making under a single CJC structure, rather than running them both parallel. To enable this, constituent councils are being asked to approve technical amendments to the 2018 City Deal Joint Committee Agreement. These changes would transfer decision‑making to the CJC over the coming months. Following scrutiny, the report will go to Cabinet next week, and because the scrutiny arrangements would also merge, a related report will be considered by Full Council. Members asked if the leader would have any additional delegated authorities. Officers confirmed that the report seeks delegated authority for the Head of Legal and Democratic Services, in consultation with the Leader, to make technical amendments to the Swansea Bay City Deal Joint Committee Agreement. This reflects standard oversight arrangements. They also explained that the Leader is already the council’s appointed voting member for both the City Deal and, by law, for the Corporate Joint Committee. The proposals do not change any powers or delegations and simply maintain the existing system. The Chair asked for clarification on the staffing implications of merging the City Deal and CJC governance arrangements. While the report provides financial information on current City Deal administration, it does not specify the number of staff involved, their roles, or the potential impact on them. The Chair noted that the CJC is expanding and queried whether staff could transition into CJC roles, or whether the efficiencies created by merging the two structures might put some staff at risk. Officers explained that the CJC does not currently employ its own staff; work is delivered through secondees from constituent councils. A new Chief Operating Officer will lead a scoping exercise from mid‑next year to assess the CJC’s future resourcing needs and how existing City Deal roles could support this growing workload. City Deal staff are employed by Carmarthenshire Council, which would manage any employment or performance matters. Officers emphasized that work is underway to minimize any potential impacts on staff as the two structures integrate, with the review expected to continue into early 2026. Members asked whether the staffing and resourcing review would be reported back to the CJC. Officers confirmed that the outcomes will likely be reported to both the City Deal Joint Committee and the CJC Committee, with opportunities for the relevant scrutiny forums to consider how the proposals address the associated work programmes. The Chair noted the significant experience, relationships and institutional knowledge built up through the City Deal programme over time. He stressed that this should not be lost during the integration process and welcomed the assurance that every effort will be made to retain and carry forward this expertise. Members asked whether the merged scrutiny committee could be increased in size, noting that some long‑standing members of the Swansea Bay City Region Joint Scrutiny Committee wished to continue overseeing ongoing projects. They queried whether existing members would need to step down to allow new appointments, or whether the committee’s size could be expanded. Officers explained that the CJC scrutiny committee currently allows three members per local authority, with appointments made by each council. While Neath Port Talbot cannot increase its allocation unilaterally, there is no overall limit on the number of seats the CJC can permit for constituent councils. Craig Griffiths confirmed that, if members wish, he can request that the CJC consider increasing the committee’s size. Any change would be a CJC decision, not one for individual councils. Members asked whether the funds currently held for the Swansea Bay City Deal would transfer to the CJC for use on its projects. Officers advised that City Deal funding for parts of the programme. ends in 2026, but the projects themselves will continue for several years beyond that. Any administrative or structural changes will not affect the delivery of existing City Deal projects, and the funding allocated to them will remain in place. No transfer of funds to unrelated CJC projects is proposed. Nicola Pearce Director of Environment and Regeneration explained that the projects that are currently funded out to City deal are standalone projects, and the funding is specifically allocated to those projects and they will continue to run, and you know, for the lifetime of those projects. The Chair emphasised the importance of strong scrutiny at the regional level, noting increasing complexity in regional work and shifting funding streams into the CJC. He highlighted that this could create confusion for members, officers and the public around lines of accountability. As a member of the CJC Scrutiny Committee, he stressed the need to maintain robust democratic oversight and adequate member capacity to support effective scrutiny. Craig Griffiths advised that any concerns or suggestions regarding the future scrutiny arrangements could be raised at the upcoming Full Council meeting this week. If members do so, he can formally note those comments and use them to support taking the matter forward to the main CJC meeting. This would ensure Full Council oversight and strengthen the case when the issue is presented at CJC level. Members noted that recent meetings of the Southwest Wales CJC Overview and Scrutiny Committee had not been quorate and asked whether substitutes would be permitted under the proposed merger. Officers confirmed that this issue has already been addressed: a report approved by the CJC in October introduced the ability for councils to appoint substitute members. Members asked about the local authority levy to the CJC, if there is any indication that the change in the arrangements would result in an additional cost to the CJC that could then lead to an additional levy on to local authorities? Officers advised that the CJC levy for local authorities will be set at the January CJC meeting, with the scrutiny committee reviewing it beforehand. They confirmed that efforts are being made to minimize any financial impact on councils by using additional Welsh Government funding linked to ongoing strategic programs. The intention is that no increase in contributions will fall to local authorities. Officers also noted that with a new Chief Operating Officer starting next year, future models of working and any new powers granted to the CJC will need to be kept under review. However, the CJC remains conscious of local authorities’ budget pressures and is committed to keeping the levy as low as possible. Following scrutiny, the recommendation was supported to Cabinet.
Officers introduced the report, explaining that the delivery plan is the outcome of 18 months of work undertaken with the Carbon Trust. The plan responds directly to Audit Wales feedback on the Council’s activity in this area. Officers stressed that the plan focuses solely on the Council’s operational activities—it does not cover residents, businesses or wider community emissions, but only those functions under the Council’s direct day‑to‑day control. Members asked whether the bidding process for the Ynni Cymru Capital Grant, referenced in the report, had been completed, as the report did not make this clear. Officers confirmed that the Council was successful in its Ynni Cymru Capital Grant bid. Since July, officers have been negotiating the grant level after Ynni Cymru reduced the expected 75% funding contribution to an initial offer of 10%, which the Council could not support due to the increased match‑funding requirement. Following discussions, Ynni Cymru increased its contribution to 20%, which has now been accepted. The Ynni Cymru funding will support the smart elements of the project, including a battery for the SRC and monitoring and management software for the full Quays campus. Because roof repairs at the Quays cannot be completed before April 2026—and the grant must be spent by March 2026 officers secured approval to replace the Quays solar PV element with the Salt Barn, which was already included in the original feasibility work. The Quays PV installation will now form part of a phase two project. To address the remaining funding gap, the Council has applied to the Salix All‑Wales Funding Programme and is awaiting formal confirmation, having passed all required stages. The revised project totals just under £400,000, covering solar PV at the SRC and Salt Barn, battery storage, and management software for the Quays campus. Members expressed disappointment that the Ynni Cymru grant had reduced from the expected 75% to 20%. They asked officers to clarify how the additional match‑funding requirement had been met, and which budget within Neath Port Talbot Council would now cover the extra cost. Officers clarified that the Council is not covering the shortfall from its own budgets. Instead, the additional funding is being met through the Salix All‑Wales Funding Programme. They explained that several funding schemes are now directing projects with a payback period of under 10 years through the Salix route, to demonstrate the value of the programme. and enable Ynni Cymru to support a greater number of projects with its own grants. Members asked whether there is a timeline for expanding EV charging provision to additional public car parks and whether wider coverage—such as sites in Pontardawe—could support greater use of the Council’s EV fleet. Officers reported that the Council currently operates 17 fast public EV chargers: seven in Neath Multi‑Story Car Park, eight in Margam Park and two in Afan Forest Park. Across the county borough there are 65 publicly available chargers, including 24 rapid chargers. For context, the authority had only five chargers in 2020, compared with 205 chargers in 2025 when including Council fleet charging infrastructure. Officers confirmed that several further projects to expand provision are underway. Officers outlined several ongoing projects to expand EV charging across the county borough: Cross‑Pavement Charging Pilot: Following significant resident interest, the Council launched a project to support safe home charging for those without driveways. Forty‑two applications were received, and 15 locations have been selected for Phase 1 installation of recessed pavement gullies that allow safe cable use without creating trip hazards. This follows a revised Cabinet decision enabling such schemes. On‑Street Charging via Lampposts: Work has begun to identify locations where EV chargers can be connected directly to suitable lampposts. Neath Port Talbot is the only authority in South West Wales with appropriate lamppost infrastructure for this approach. GIS mapping is being used to assess viable sites. EV Infrastructure Delivery Plan: A delivery plan is being developed to assess which public car parks are suitable for EV charging, recognising that usage varies significantly. Neath Multi‑Storey is currently the most used site, while some country parks see low demand. Expansion will depend on identifying external funding. Community EV Charging Hubs: Officers are exploring the creation of community‑based charging hubs to support residents without access to home charging by providing clusters of chargers in convenient locations. These projects form part of a wider program to expand EV infrastructure and support both residents and the Council’s growing EV fleet. Members asked whether community assets or community centres leased from the Council could be considered as potential locations for the planned community EV charging hubs. Simon Brennan, Head of Property and Regeneration, confirmed that officers are exploring the use of community buildings—including schools and community centres as potential sites for EV charging hubs. The main challenge is ensuring these buildings have sufficient power capacity and modern electrical systems capable of handling the additional load from EV chargers. Despite these constraints, this option is actively being considered. Members asked if EV Chargers in Gnoll Country Park work and if not, when will they go live? Officers confirmed that there will be EV charges but were not sure when they would be live but will check and will let members know. Officers advised that they have found some of EV chargers that they have installed is that the software behind them is quite temperamental and has had a number of challenges in various different places, this is something that is the case across the UK. Members suggested that the RLDP should require new housing developments to include EV charging points for each home, or a shared community charger where individual provision isn’t possible. They asked whether the Council could mandate this through planning policy. Nicola Pearce, Director of Environment and Regeneration, explained that national planning policy already requires some new developments to include electric vehicle charging infrastructure. As the transition to net zero accelerates, this is expected to become a stronger requirement within both national legislation and local policy. At present, not all developments must provide charging infrastructure, but planning policy is likely to change over time to reflect the types of vehicles driven. The Chair noted that a development in his ward allowed buyers to opt for an EV charger when specifying their new home, but it was not included as a standard feature in all properties. Members expressed concern about the EV home‑charging trial, noting significant parking issues across the county where many residents cannot park outside their homes, particularly where properties front directly onto the pavement. They questioned how the trial would work in these situations. Members asked whether residents would be guaranteed a parking space outside their home if gully charging was introduced, or whether the system would instead rely on community hubs and lamppost chargers. They also sought clarity on how lamppost charging would be billed and how payments would be collected. Officers acknowledged the difficulties with parking outside certain properties, particularly terraced homes. They explained that phase two of the project will explore an additional option: installing flush, circular charging sockets in the pavement. These were previously connected only to the public network, requiring EV owners to use a device to plug in. New versions of the sockets can now also be linked to a household’s domestic electricity supply. This would allow a street to have multiple sockets available, so residents who cannot park outside their own home could still access a nearby charging point. Users could choose to charge via the public supply at a higher tariff or, if the socket is connected to a domestic supply, pay the homeowner for the electricity used. Officers felt that these options could help address situations where residents cannot park directly outside their property, that, that thanks, Brad. Councillor Hurley, Cabinet Member for Climate Change and Economic Growth, noted that although the report focuses on council activity, the Council is also influencing a significant amount of work beyond its own services. He highlighted examples including city deal projects, the Bay Technology Centre, the Homes as Power Stations programme, and support provided to RSLs to incorporate renewables into new developments. He also referenced collaboration with local businesses on renewable innovation, including the hydrogen centre in Baglan funded through SPF, and emerging plans for a hydrogen cluster along Fabian Way, including proposals for a refuelling facility. Councillor Hurley noted the wide range of renewable projects supported through SPF, such as hydro schemes in Cilybebyll, and emphasised how these initiatives help extend the Council’s influence across the region. He also acknowledged the extensive work required to carry out carbon assessments across all council services, staff, vehicles and buildings, and thanked Brett Surdell and the wider teams for their significant efforts in helping the Council progress towards its climate targets. Members noted that while the Council has delivered several strong flagship schemes—such as buildings in the Energy Park, many other sites, including Port Talbot Civic Centre, Neath and various operational buildings, still require substantial decarbonisation work. They observed that although some developments have been built to current regulations, they are not net‑zero and could be more energy‑efficient. Members asked whether this work will now inform how future developments are designed, using Neath Leisure Centre and the new library as examples where higher standards could potentially have been achieved. The Chair also asked whether the operational Net Zero Plan aligns with the Council’s accommodation strategy, and whether that strategy is intended to support progress towards achieving net zero. Simon Brennan explained that the scale and cost of decarbonising the Council’s building stock are significant, and no one underestimates the challenge. He noted that achieving net zero by 2030 is extremely ambitious, with NRW being the only organisation in Wales likely to meet that target; all other bodies, including the Council, are progressing as best they can. He highlighted that some renewable technologies work well in certain buildings but not others, and that long‑term planning is essential. However, budget pressures mean the Council often has to keep ageing equipment running far beyond its intended lifespan, leading to like‑for‑like replacements when systems finally fail. As an example, replacing a gas boiler in a comprehensive school would cost around £60,000, whereas installing a renewable alternative would exceed £640,000, a decision that would divert funding away from other schools. Officers explained that the Council is doing what it can within very limited resources, as maintenance budgets have not kept pace with rising costs. New build projects typically include more renewable measures, and officers continue to explore opportunities for example, a potential solar canopy on Neath multi‑storey car park that could supply Neath Leisure Centre. However, financial constraints remain the main barrier to faster progress. The Chair acknowledged the challenges involved, particularly the difficulty of retrofitting older buildings. He noted that even with new developments, cost and budget pressures often require compromises, with grant‑funded projects frequently needing elements to be reduced or value‑engineered. While this is understandable, he cautioned that if higher specifications are not built in from the start, the Council may face greater problems and costs in the future when retrofitting becomes necessary. He suggested that this should be kept in mind when setting priorities for future developments, as choosing lower standards now can leave a legacy issue further down the line. Councillor Hurley noted that when full funding is available, the Council is able to deliver high‑standard, net‑zero buildings. He highlighted Rhosafan as an example, which has been recognised by Welsh Government for the quality of previous school decarbonisation work. the Council has secured 100% funding for Rhosafan, enabling it to be built to net‑zero standards with cutting‑edge technology. He added that only two schools in Wales have been awarded this level of funding. The chair noted it's an example of a great project, but shows the work left to do that there's only two in Wales. Officers noted that schemes such as the Bay Technology Centre are among the most forward‑thinking carbon‑neutral developments in Wales. Although it has experienced some early teething issues, as is common with new technology, the project has provided valuable learning. This experience is now being used by both the consultants and Morgan Sindall, meaning the approach can be refined and replicated elsewhere in Wales. Officers added that similar design principles have already been applied to other projects and could potentially be used again in future developments, such as those planned for Harbourside. They emphasised that each project helps move progress forward. The Chair agreed and noted that this learning also helps accelerate progress on retrofit schemes. He referred to the project in Velindre, where significant retrofit work will be needed to bring the former LRS headquarters up to a much higher standard. Although it will not become a net‑zero building, it will be substantially improved. The Chair felt this would be a valuable exercise for the Council, as most recent work has focused on new builds rather than large‑scale retrofits. He highlighted that projects like this provide important learning opportunities for future schemes. Officers highlighted that the Bay Technology Centre has generated international interest, with organisations from Canada and Kazakhstan engaging with the Council and viewing the building as a model that could be replicated in their own countries. Officers also stressed the importance of grant funding, noting that funding opportunities often come with very short notice. This can lead to a reactive approach where projects must be quickly aligned to meet unexpected funding calls. As an example, officers explained that over the summer they were notified of three separate Welsh Government funding calls, all with the same deadline and only three weeks to respond. The Council submitted applications to all three and was successful in two. However, they emphasised that each scheme had to be delivered by the end of March, despite Welsh Government spending several months discussing technical and administrative requirements, which significantly reduced the time available for delivery. Members were informed that the Welsh Government Energy Service released a development grant last summer to help local authorities progress projects to a “shelf‑ready” stage. Previously, officers often had only a six‑week window to prepare a REBUS Stage 3‑level proposal, which was unrealistic. The new funding allows time to fully develop project concepts so they can be submitted quickly when future calls are announced. One example is the work underway to assess the potential for solar canopies across the Council’s estate. Officers welcomed this development but stressed that reliance on grant funding remains a major challenge, as it underpins most of the projects being progressed. They meet monthly with Welsh Government representatives to understand what funding may be coming forward, and maintain a pipeline of ideas, but the ability to deliver depends heavily on the timing and availability of grants. Members welcomed the development of a clear project pipeline and noted that having the resources to support this work would be highly beneficial. Officers explained that the past decade has been challenging due to the loss of many staff and the difficulty in securing the right external consultants when specialist expertise has needed to be bought in. Simon Brennan noted that having projects prepared in advance is a positive step, even though technologies, building strategies and priorities will inevitably change over time. He added that challenges around the timing of grant funding are not limited to this area—every grant the Council works with is affected by the same pressures and the Process needs to be done so quickly that it puts an immense amount of pressure on officers. Members noted that they had not been aware of the staff travel survey and were disappointed that only 522 responses had been received, acknowledging the wider difficulty of securing high response rates. They emphasised that understanding staff travel patterns is a critical piece of work for reducing the Council’s carbon footprint and asked whether the survey would be repeated to gather more robust data. Members also queried how deeply the existing data was being analysed, particularly in relation to where staff live and where they travel to for work. They felt this information could help inform future decisions, including long‑standing concerns about subsidised staff parking compared with the lack of support for bus or rail travel. Members asked whether further work could be undertaken to strengthen the evidence base and better support efforts to reduce the carbon impact of staff travel. Officers explained that the survey was developed with the Carbon Trust and issued in August 2024, meaning school staff could not be included. It was sent to 4,144 council staff and received a 12.6% response rate, which aligns with the typical 10% return expected for such surveys. Officers confirmed that they intend to run future surveys to capture school staff. From the responses received, 95% of staff reported travelling by car, while only 3% used public transport. Of that 3%, just 2% travelled by bus—equating to around 10 respondents. Officers advised that a further, more detailed survey will be undertaken to collect better information, including modes of transport, car‑sharing, travel frequency, and whether staff travel between different council locations. Officers also noted internal discussions about complementing the existing Cycle to Work scheme with a “cycle in work” scheme. This would provide e‑bikes for staff travelling between offices for meetings, an idea raised at another committee recently. They emphasised that all possible options are being explored to help decarbonise staff commuting, as this is a core focus of the decarbonisation delivery plan. Members noted that although a 10% survey return rate is generally acceptable, this dataset is critical and requires a much higher response rate to properly understand staff travel patterns. With stronger data, the Council could identify simple interventions—such as reviewing parking permits for staff who live close to their workplace and do not require a car for their role and encourage shifts to walking, cycling or public transport. Members stressed the need to support staff who rely on public transport and cannot drive, warning that without better information the Council risks becoming dependent on a car‑owning workforce and potentially deterring applicants without access to a vehicle. They highlighted the value of understanding how representative staff travel behaviours are compared to the wider community, noting that meaningful analysis is difficult with data from only 522 respondents. Officers explained that there are significant challenges around staff using their cars for work purposes. Many staff in the Environment Directorate need to travel to sites at short notice, and others frequently move between buildings for meetings. Public transport is not always practical, particularly for staff travelling from different parts of or outside the county borough. Officers noted that when the Council previously diverted a bus route to the Quays, uptake was almost zero. Members were advised that staff parking policy is more complex due to hybrid working. Previously, staff paid for parking, but it is now difficult to charge those who are required to attend the office frequently while others can work from home most of the week. Officers also highlighted that digital tools have significantly reduced the need for travel. Many meetings that once required long journeys are now held on Teams, and tools such as Google Maps and Street View allow initial site assessments without a physical visit. Officers stressed the importance of continuing to use technology to avoid unnecessary travel, ensuring staff only undertake site visits and in‑person meetings when essential. The Chair agreed and stressed that good data is essential to avoid penalising staff who need to use a car for their job. He felt that understanding who is travelling, includes understanding departmental practices and how managers influence staff movement between offices and sites. He added that public transport is often overlooked, noting that census data shows far fewer Neath Port Talbot residents have access to a car compared with the very high proportion of staff who do. This gap highlights the need for better data and analysis to understand how representative the workforce is of the wider community. The Chair praised the work at the waste transfer station, including the solar PV installation and EV charging points for recycling vehicles, noting that the scheme is working very well. He questioned whether operational patterns are being optimised to make the best use of solar generation. As an example, he noted that activity on Saturdays is low, yet in summer this is when the site generates the most solar power, which could be used to schedule vehicle charging. He asked more generally whether operational activities are being reviewed to see if small adjustments such as changing when certain tasks are carried out could help maximise the use of solar energy or other low‑carbon electricity without changing the nature of the work itself. Members were advised that an element of the Ynni Cymru grant is around purchase of software which will deal with the management and the use of the Quays campus facility to address the matters mentioned. Officers noted that there may be opportunities to sell excess electricity back to the grid, as is already done at the Bay Technology Centre. They also suggested that some sites could potentially operate as community EV charging hubs on weekends when council vehicles are not using the facilities. Officers confirmed that a range of options will be explored, but for now the priority is completing the installation of solar and other renewable technologies before moving on to optimise their operation. The Chair asked for clarification on how the council will manage any excess electricity generation that is not exported to the grid. Officers explained that the Place Based Impact Accelerator Account, a £5 million UKRI‑funded programme administered by Swansea University, is supporting a range of industrial decarbonisation projects with the council. One current area of work involves exploring how machine learning and artificial intelligence can optimise energy use within council buildings. Using the Bay Technology Centre as a pilot, the project will look at how energy consumption can be managed more intelligently—for example, regulating heating based on room occupancy and balancing electricity use between building needs and EV charging—to ensure more efficient, data‑driven energy management. Members asked about the 2015 feasibility study on installing renewable energy on council assets, noting that it referenced the Giants Grave site, which had been discussed for many years without progressing. They observed that the study is now a decade old and queried whether officers are commissioning a new assessment or simply revisiting the 2015 findings. Members also asked what the current scope of this work looks like, given recent discussions about potential schemes on various council‑owned sites. Officers explained that two sites are currently being looked at for renewable energy potential: Giant’s Grave and Longlands Lane. For Giant’s Grave, the council is working with Challoch Energy, who have secured funding through the Southwest Wales Net Zero Launchpad — a programme that Neath Port Talbot successfully bid to host. The scheme provides 100% funding for SME‑led projects up to £100,000. Challoch Energy’s project involves assessing land across the four local authority areas to identify sites suitable for community energy generation. Giant’s Grave is one of the locations under review, alongside several others. A key requirement for any scheme is having a number of potential “off‑takers,” such as nearby homes, schools, GP surgeries or, in an industrial area, large businesses. The project concludes at the end of this month, and officers expect a report shortly confirming whether Giant’s Grave is a viable site and what type of scheme could be developed there. For that location, a solar farm is currently being considered the most likely option. Officers explained that Longlands Lane has been examined in more detail over the last six months. The initial concept included a solar farm to help electrify the crematorium, alongside an EV charging hub, given the site’s proximity to the M4 and the limited EV charging provision along that stretch. They also explored incorporating a small Neath Port Talbot visitor information point so that drivers stopping to charge could learn about local attractions. However, Welsh Government subsequently advised that they were already at an advanced stage of developing an EV charging hub only a few hundred metres away. As a result, officers have revised the Longlands Lane proposal. They recently received interest from a company that may be able to fund the solar farm and use the site as a hands‑on training facility to help address skills shortages in renewable technologies, complementing the work of the National Net Zero Skills Centre of Excellence. The site could also supply energy to nearby businesses. Both Longlands Lane and Giant’s Grave remain under active consideration. Local members to Langlands lane and Giants Grave asked for an update of this at some point as the councillors for the area, Officers agreed to that request. Following scrutiny, the report was noted.
Lisa Willis Strategic Funding Programmes Manager provided an update on the UK Government’s Pride in Place programme and the changes in the national funding landscape. Members were advised that the UK Shared Prosperity Fund, which supported activity across the borough since 2022, will end on 31 March 2026. It is being replaced by two new funding streams. The first is the Pride in Place programme, a 10‑year, £20 million mainly capital fund, with funding expected to begin in April 2027. This must be targeted at a single neighbourhood within the county borough. A separate £1.5 million two‑year Pride in Place Impact Fund will also run to March 2027, although this was not the focus of the presentation. The second stream is the Local Growth Fund—a three‑year, UK‑funded but Welsh‑Government‑managed programme worth £547 million across Wales, with allocations expected from April 2026. Consultation on this fund closes on 19 December. Officers highlighted that Neath Port Talbot has been designated as a Pride in Place area, making it eligible for the 10‑year investment. The neighbourhood selected must be contiguous, supported by clear evidence of need, and broadly fall within a population range of 5,000 to 15,000 residents, with some flexibility. Selecting a single area is challenging and potentially divisive, given that 15 lower super output areas in the county borough fall within the 10% most deprived nationally. The primary evidence base will be the Welsh Index of Multiple Deprivation. Officers must submit a pro forma to UK Government in January setting out the selected neighbourhood, supporting evidence, alignment with other funding programmes, local engagement, and endorsement from the local MP and MS. Lisa noted that the criteria and datasets have shifted during development: the Welsh Index of Multiple Deprivation (WIMD), dataset has been updated (27 November 2025), with some areas’ rankings changing—Briton Ferry, for example, was the highest‑ranked in 2019 but has shifted in 2025. She also noted that the population criteria and submission deadlines have changed since initial guidance. Officers explained that the formal guidance for selecting the Pride in Place neighbourhood was only issued on 6 November , providing important context for the current stage of work. Using the updated 2025 WIMD, officers identified the three highest‑ranked areas of deprivation in Neath Port Talbot: Cymer 2, Sandfields West 2 and Briton Ferry West 1. They noted that WIMD is made up of eight weighted domains, with income carrying the highest weighting at 22% and physical environment the lowest. Officers have reviewed all eight domains and compiled a detailed breakdown of the top ten lower super output areas, including population figures, overall rankings and domain‑specific rankings. They also examined the deprivation indicators underpinning each domain such as income, employment, health, education, access to services and the physical environment and mapped these against the types of interventions available under the Pride in Place programme. Examples were given, such as the employment domain, where rankings reflect the proportion of working‑age residents receiving employment‑related benefits, with several possible interventions identified to help reduce deprivation. Similar analyses were carried out for education (including Key Stage 4 attainment, absenteeism and adult qualification levels) and access to services (including travel times by public and private transport). This evidence‑based approach is informing the process for determining the preferred neighbourhood for Neath Port Talbot. Cymer (NPT) 2, which is the highest composite level deprivation area, so followed by Sandfields West 2 and Briton Ferry West 1, but within the population criteria. Officers explained that the individual Lower Super Output Areas (LSOAs) do not meet the population requirement on their own, as each has fewer than 2,000 residents. However, the guidance allows LSOAs to be clustered into a single area, provided they form one continuous geography. Using this approach, officers identified three potential clusters that meet the criteria: the Upper Afan Valley cluster, Sandfields and Aberavon cluster, and Briton Ferry and Neath East cluster. Officers explained that they have looked at the composite data, that's the overarching index multiple declaration. They looked at the domain data and those key considerations which lead to overarching when index multiple deprivation ranking. They looked at additional data such as crime statistics and looked at other funding programmes such as Welsh Government transforming towns, UK government trailblazer programmes. Officers have met with Stephen Kinnock MP and Carolyn Harris MP and David Rees Ms and they have also met with local economic partnership to look at that wider stakeholder engagement. Officers advised that identifying suitable neighbourhoods has been challenging. They have written to local MPs asking them to raise questions with the Wales Office about the level of flexibility available, particularly around population thresholds and the requirement for areas to be contiguous. They explained that Neath Port Talbot has three distinct pockets of deprivation — in the rural valley areas, the coastal strip, and the urban areas — each with different needs, challenges and opportunities. Officers are seeking clarity on how these differences can be reflected within the programme’s criteria. To strengthen the assessment, officers are also having their data and methodology externally verified by consultants SQW, who are supporting the regeneration and economic development plan. SQW are expected to provide their validation early next week. Officers noted that the neighbourhood selection must be submitted by the January deadline. Members were shown the Afan Valley map and talked through the deprivation data. Officers explained that Cymer 2 is the most deprived area in Neath Port Talbot and, together with Gwynfi, falls within the top 10% most deprived nationally. Cymer 3 also sits within the 10–20% most deprived band. They noted that Bryn and Cwmavon also fall within the 10–20% most deprived category, but these areas are separated by Pelenna and Bryn & Cwmavon LSOAs that sit in the 20–30% band. As a result, linking the whole valley as one cluster would not meet the requirement for a continuous geography of the most deprived areas. The proposed red‑line area for the Upper Afan Valley Pride in Place neighbourhood therefore includes Gwynfi, Cymer 2 and Cymer 3. Combined, these LSOAs have a population of 4,735, which is just below the lower threshold of the programme’s population range. Officers explained that the Briton Ferry and Neath East area contains several LSOAs with varying levels of deprivation. The proposed red‑line area covers those LSOAs falling within the 10–20% most deprived nationally, giving a combined population of just over 15,000. For Sandfields and Aberavon, officers noted that deprivation levels range widely across the area—from the most deprived 10% up to the least deprived 50%. The assessment therefore focused on identifying a single contiguous cluster of LSOAs within the 10–20% most deprived band. The resulting red‑line area has a population of 14,308. Officers confirmed that this formed the basis of their evidence and assessment. Officers explained that the three identified areas formed the long list, which has already been discussed with the Senior Leadership Team and through Cabinet Member briefings. They confirmed that these are the options currently being assessed while officers seek further clarification and external validation of the data. With the submission deadline of 9 January approaching, officers emphasised that the process is challenging and time‑pressured, but work is ongoing to ensure the strongest possible case is submitted. Simon Brennan, Head of Property and Regeneration, thanked Lisa Willis and the team, noting the significant amount of work completed under very tight deadlines. He explained that many councils in Wales were unable to meet the original 12 December submission date, which likely contributed to the deadline being extended. He added that officers had put processes in place to try to reach committee by that earlier date, the guidance and requirements have been changing almost weekly. As a result, information shared with members can shift from one week to the next not due to a lack of understanding, but because the situation itself is continually evolving. He apologised for this but stressed that it is simply the nature of the programme and the pace at which it is developing. The chair noted that can't be helped and appreciated officers coming to committee to provide a thorough update. Nicola Pearce Director of Environment and Regeneration reiterated that the guidance is changing on an almost daily basis, which makes it difficult for members to understand the direction of travel and equally challenging for officers who must identify a suitable neighbourhood within a very short timescale and ensure the decision is evidence‑based. The submission deadline is 9 January, and a Cabinet decision will be required beforehand. Officers also need to secure endorsements from local MPs and MSs, as these must accompany the submission to UK Government. The Director noted that the assessment process is complex, with different weightings applied to each WIMD criterion. External advice is being sought to help determine the most appropriate neighbourhood. Officers are working hard behind the scenes to keep members updated, though the fast‑changing situation and very difficult to pin down answers makes this difficult, especially with the submission period falling over Christmas. Following an engagement session with MPs and MSs, the Leader and Deputy Leader have written to Stephen Kinnock MP and Carolyn Harris MP, copying senior Wales Office officials, to request clarity on the level of flexibility available. Recent meetings with the Wales Office did not provide definitive answers, with officials stating that it is up to each authority to decide how much flexibility they are willing to apply a position officers find unhelpful, as they do not wish to submit a proposal that risks being rejected. The council hopes to receive clearer guidance following consideration of the letter and will keep members informed of any developments. Simon Brennan explained that officers have asked UK Government a critical question: if the council submits a proposal and it is not accepted, what happens next? Specifically, officers want to know whether a rejection would mean the funding is lost entirely, or whether the council would be given an opportunity to submit an alternative proposal that meets the criteria. He noted that this clarity is essential, particularly given the very tight deadlines and the shifting expectations with UK Government initially asking for a decision before Christmas and then moving the deadline afterwards. At present, officers still do not know how the process would operate in the event of a refusal. He concluded by expressing the hope that clear guidance will be provided. The Chair commented that he didn’t envy the task of trying to allocate the money as it is not politically a nice task as two areas are going to lose out. The chair noted that when the fund was announced he felt the same three areas that need support. Members asked to have more information on why Aberavon is now the 5th most deprived place down from the 1st most deprived as the standard of living is still not great in Aberavon. Officers advised that it is because the Welsh index of multiple deprivation data changed in the middle of the process. whilst officers had one set of data and were working on that, in the middle of the whole process, the whole data set changed. 2019 was the last set of data. Briton Ferry West 1 was ranking 25th in Wales. That was the highest followed by Cymer which is 38th and then Sandfields West 55th. In 2025 that changed. Cymer 2 became 15th overall in Wales. Top in Neath Port Talbot. deprivation. Members welcomed seeing Briton Ferry included due to the high levels of deprivation, but expressed concern that only Briton Ferry West appeared to be referenced, noting that issues along the main road in Briton Ferry East also contribute significantly to deprivation and that the whole community should benefit from any funding. Officers clarified that the proposed red‑line boundary for the Briton Ferry and Neath East option does include both Briton Ferry West and Briton Ferry East. They explained that Briton Ferry West 1 is the third most deprived LSOA in Neath Port Talbot, but with a population of only 1,601 it falls far below the minimum population threshold of 5,000. To meet the criteria, it must therefore be clustered with adjoining LSOAs. Officers confirmed that clustering Briton Ferry West 1 with Briton Ferry East 2 and Neath East creates a contiguous area with a combined population just 21 people over the 15,000 upper limit. This means the full Briton Ferry area would be captured within the potential Pride in Place neighbourhood should that option be chosen. Officers explained that once an area is selected for funding, a Neighbourhood Board will be established to oversee how that funding is used. The Board will be independently chaired and will work with the local authority to develop a ten‑year investment plan. While the council will provide support, the Neighbourhood Board will have the primary responsibility for deciding local priorities and directing where the funding is allocated within the chosen neighbourhood. Simon Brennan noted that there is no easy choice in selecting a neighbourhood, as each option involves complex decisions about what to include and exclude. Unlike the Shared Prosperity Fund, where the council had flexibility to target support where it was most needed, this programme does not allow that level of local discretion. He highlighted another difficulty: deprivation data is measured at LSOA or MSOA level, meaning that very deprived streets can sit directly beside more affluent areas. Because the wider area’s overall score may place it in a less‑deprived band, those streets would fall outside the boundary even though they clearly need support. As a result, the final red line will inevitably cut through communities in ways that appear illogical on the ground, but this is a consequence of the programme's strict criteria. Members agreed that they have seen that in their own wards and it is difficult. Cllr Scott Jones stated that, from the outset, the programme has lacked clarity, with the criteria and expectations repeatedly changing. He said he had been particularly concerned that the Afan Valley might be excluded, so he was pleased to see that it is now being considered again, although the outcome will depend on decisions taken by politicians outside the council, especially regarding population thresholds. He noted that the population requirement was introduced after the original announcement, which had focused solely on deprivation — an approach he felt was more appropriate, as many deprived communities across Wales cannot meet the population criteria. He said he would be watching closely for clarity from UK Government on how flexibility will be applied, as this will be crucial to ensuring the most deprived areas receive support. He also expressed disappointment that the presence of Pelenna prevents Cwmafan — parts of which fall within the 10–20% most deprived — from forming part of a contiguous Afan Valley cluster, despite the long‑standing council description of Upper and Lower Afan Valley, and the clear geographical links between the communities. Cllr Jones added that the current deprivation levels in some areas are not surprising given past service closures such as schools, a care home and a library, which have had long‑term impacts on local communities. Officers advised that the deprivation sectors are fixed according to the current WIMD data, and at present they are being told this must be the primary driver in determining eligible neighbourhoods. This is why officers have gone back to UK Government seeking clarity on whether there is any flexibility to target need across multiple LSOAs in different parts of the county borough, or whether authorities are strictly required to form a single contiguous area — which would make it difficult to include certain highly deprived pockets that sit next to higher‑ranking output areas. Officers confirmed they are awaiting clarification on this point. Officers acknowledged the challenge but explained that, based on the current WIMD data and mapped LSOA boundaries, the Afan Valley cannot form a fully contiguous cluster of areas within the highest deprivation bands. Bryn and Cwmavon are separated from the most deprived Afan Valley LSOAs by Bryn & Cwmavon 1 and Pelenna, which fall within the 20–30% and 30–40% most deprived categories. As these areas do not meet the requirement of being within the top 20% most deprived, they break the continuity needed to form a compliant cluster. Officers confirmed that these figures are taken directly from the deprivation maps provided by Stats Wales. Members noted that Aberavon faces similar issues to the Afan Valley, as deprivation levels can be masked when more affluent areas are included within the same LSOA. They highlighted that Baglan Moors, which is comparatively affluent, is grouped with part of Aberavon, artificially raising the overall score. This creates a clear dividing line around the hospital area and results in Aberavon appearing less deprived on paper than it is in reality. Nicola Pearce clarified that the Lower Super Output Areas (LSOAs) are not defined by Neath Port Talbot Council but are nationally determined by the Office for National Statistics. The council has no control over how these boundaries are drawn or how the data within them is grouped. Officers must work with the LSOA geography and datasets provided, as well as with the criteria set by UK Government for identifying neighbourhoods. It was acknowledged that more than one cluster in the county borough would merit support, and all three areas considered during the meeting have strong cases. However, the council is constrained by criteria it did not set. Officers have requested additional clarification from UK Government on the level of flexibility available and will ensure that the council follows a fair and transparent process. She added that officers will keep members updated on any developments, despite the very tight timescales. The Chair asked about the next steps in the process and how the council will narrow the options down to a single recommended area. Specifically, the Chair queried whether officers will be using a scoring system or another mathematical approach to assess the three areas against the criteria, given the current requirement to select only one neighbourhood. Officers explained that they are waiting for further feedback, including the response to the letter sent by the Leader and Deputy Leader to MPs seeking clarification on flexibility. Ideally, officers would prefer the option to select all three areas, as was possible under the Shared Prosperity Fund, but they must await confirmation of the criteria. Officers also expect to receive external validation of the council’s data on Monday. The final decision will then be based on several factors, including the national WIMD data and how each area aligns with the programme criteria, such as opportunities to link Pride in Place funding with other investment programmes. All of this information will be compiled into a report for Cabinet, scheduled for 7 January, where the final decision on the recommended neighbourhood will be made. Members asked whether existing sources of investment—such as wind farm community funding in parts of the Afan Valley—are taken into account when assessing which area should receive Pride in Place funding, noting that areas like Briton Ferry or Sandfields do not have access to similar funding streams. While recognising that the Afan Valley has significant deprivation, members queried whether the wider landscape of current investment is considered as part of the decision‑making process. Officers explained that they have assessed the existing and potential future funding available across the three areas. In the Afan Valley, for example, the Trailblazer programme is providing around £2 million a year to support economically inactive residents, with further funding expected next year. In Briton Ferry, the emerging place plan would enable access to Transforming Towns funding once completed. For Aberavon and Sandfields, ongoing seafront investment is already in place, and officers are also considering whether the forthcoming Local Growth Fund currently out for consultation could provide additional opportunities, though the delivery mechanisms are not yet known. Officers confirmed that this wider mapping of current and future funding streams is being used to inform the Cabinet report. They added that the potential impact of Pride in Place funding, and what it can realistically achieve in each area, is a key consideration. Ultimately there is no single “right” answer; the decision will depend on where members believe the funding can deliver the greatest benefit, where the criteria can be met, and crucially, which option can secure the required endorsement from local MPs. The Chair noted that the Committee did not express a view on scheduling the report for pre decision scrutiny ahead of Cabinet in January. Instead, he asked that officers keep the Committee informed as far as possible. While acknowledging that some matters cannot be shared before Cabinet makes its decision, the Chair requested that any developments—such as updates on the criteria discussed at the meeting—be circulated to members so the Committee remains fully updated. Following scrutiny, the verbal update was noted.
There were no Items selected from the Scrutiny Forward Work Programme.
There were no Performance monitoring Items selected.
The Celtic Leisure Agency Agreement report scheduled for 30 January has been removed from the Forward Work Programme. The Arts Strategy date remains unclear; the Chair will meet officers to decide whether scrutiny is needed, likely as a post‑decision item if taken forward. For Margam Park, project delays mean the workshop and member seminar will be moved later in the year. A site visit will still be arranged for early in the new year. The forward work Programme was noted.
There were none.
Decision as recorded
Resolved: to exclude the public for the following item(s) pursuant to Section 100A(4) and (5) of the Local Government Act 1972 and the relevant exempt paragraphs of Part 4 of Schedule 12A to the above Act.
Resolved: to exclude the public for the following item(s) pursuant to Section 100A(4) and (5) of the Local Government Act 1972 and the relevant exempt paragraphs of Part 4 of Schedule 12A to the above Act.
Members considered the private item from the Scrutiny Committee Forward Work Programme.
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.