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.
Councillor Pursey declared a personal non prejudicial interest in relation to item 4a library's annual report, he is a trustee of a community library. Councillor Rice declared a personal non prejudicial interest in relation to item 4a library's annual report, he is a trustee of the Britton Ferry Resource Centre, which is the Britton Ferry Library.
The minutes of the meetings held on 31/10/2025 and 14/11/2025 were approved as an accurate record of proceedings.
Members considered items from the Cabinet Forward Work Programme.
Chris Saunders Head of Tourism, Heritage and Culture, introduced the Welsh Public Library Standards Annual Report, noting that it is a statutory, highly specific assessment that must be published each year. He emphasised that the report relates only to the Council‑run library service and does not cover community‑run libraries. He highlighted that the outcome is overwhelmingly positive and expressed pride in the team’s performance. Officers summarised key findings from the Welsh Government’s assessment, confirming that Neath Port Talbot continues to perform strongly across many areas. The library service is highly valued by users, with event attendance, training participation and informal support all well above the Welsh average. The increase in the book budget was welcomed, and the authority is ranked joint highest in Wales for the percentage of adults and under‑16s who say library use has helped them develop a new skill. Both formal and informal training attendances per capita rank in the top quartile nationally, and event attendance per capita has increased by 4% on 2023/24 and 17% on 2022/23. Officers read this year’s ‘impact statement’, outlining the experience of a resident who received digital support at Skewen Library following personal bereavement. Through tailored staff assistance, one‑to‑one sessions and digital training classes, he developed strong digital skills, became confident in using multiple devices, and now supports other learners. He also discovered a new interest in reading, expanded his use of digital library resources and became an active, engaged library user. This example was used to demonstrate the depth and social value of the library service’s work. Officers stated that while the data within the Welsh Public Library Standards report is positive, it does not always capture the full breadth and real‑life impact of the library service on local residents. This was highlighted through the example provided in the impact statement. The Chair stated that it was important to provide wider context on the library service’s impact, noting that many members see this first‑hand in their own local libraries, including in Sandfields. He acknowledged that the Welsh Public Library Standards report is a very specific Welsh Government proforma and is understood as such by members. However, he suggested that in future it would be helpful for the Standards report to be presented alongside a broader annual report from the service, giving a more rounded picture of overall library performance and activity. He felt this would provide a clearer and more complete context for scrutiny. Members referred to the section of the report covering staffing levels and training, and asked officers whether progress was being made in these areas and if staffing and training figures were improving. Officers noted that the Welsh Public Library Standards report shows that the opening‑hours‑per‑capita target has not been met since 2013. Officers explained that this is because, in 2014, nine libraries transferred to community management. As the Council has no control over the opening hours of volunteer‑run community libraries, these hours cannot be included in the statutory return, which impacts the overall figure. Members felt there should be a better way of reporting the information. Officers advised that meeting the staffing indicator within the Welsh Public Library Standards would require an additional £250,000 and noted that the indicator is based on inputs rather than outputs. They highlighted that, despite lower staffing levels, the service’s outcomes remain very strong, and no Welsh authority currently meets this staffing standard. Members commented that this issue arises every year and suggested that the Council could apply pressure on Welsh Government to review or revise the indicator, as its current wording can present an unfair picture of the authority’s performance. The Chair added that providing a wider accompanying report in future would help contextualise the Standards return. This could show how the figures would appear if community libraries were included and allow officers to provide commentary explaining that, while staffing inputs may fall short, the service continues to deliver high‑quality outcomes. Members asked how many mobile libraries the Council currently operates, which areas they cover, and on which days they visit those communities. They also queried whether members should help promote the mobile library service more actively such as through social media to increase awareness and improve borrowing levels. Officers confirmed that the Council operates one mobile library. The full timetable is available on the library website, where users can view the three‑week rota by selecting Week 1, Week 2 or Week 3 to see the days, times and locations served. Officers added that any additional promotion by members such as through social media, would be very welcome to help raise awareness of the service. Members suggested that future reports should reference the survey feedback collected from library users, as this would give the Scrutiny Committee a clearer understanding of public views and how the service responds to them. They felt this information is valuable in highlighting user experience and informing potential actions. Members also noted ongoing public comments such as the issue of libraries being cash‑only which could be reviewed as part of this wider feedback. Officers explained that the library service generates very little income, mostly printing or photocopying at around 18p per sheet. Introducing card or digital payments would require additional financial investment that the current income level cannot support. Any move away from cash‑only payments would therefore need a wider Council decision on whether the cost is justified. Officers noted that a wider discussion on the library service could be added to next year’s work programme, as the service receives limited scrutiny outside of the Welsh Public Library Standards report, and they would welcome the opportunity to explore it in more depth. The Chair agreed. Members also commented on card payments, suggesting that offering card options might increase income. One member noted that their community‑run library has successfully used card payments for some time, with low machine fees and positive uptake, and felt it was unusual that volunteer‑run libraries can offer this level of service while the Council‑run libraries cannot. Members sought clarification on Quality Indicator 16 relating to opening hours, noting the report did not fully explain why the target was not met. Officers confirmed that this is because community‑run libraries cannot be included in the Welsh Public Library Standards return, as the Council has no control over their opening hours. If those hours were included, the authority would likely meet the per‑capita opening‑hours indicator. Officers added that the Council has recently secured Welsh Government funding to pilot extended opening in Council‑managed libraries. Staff will open each library for an additional two evening hours during February and March to test public demand. Feedback from these sessions will help inform future actions and decisions on opening hours. Members thanked officers for the information on the mobile library service. One member noted they had checked the Council’s website and found the Week 1–3 schedule clear and comprehensive, and confirmed they would share the dates and times on their social media to help promote the service. Following scrutiny, the report was noted.
Members were advised that a draft version of the report had previously been presented to scrutiny, and that they have continued to engage with stakeholders throughout the process to gather comments and suggestions for inclusion in the final draft. This final version will be submitted to Cabinet on 4 February. Ross Gill (SQW Consultants) provided members with a presentation outlining the missions within the strategy and the amendments made in response to the feedback received during the consultation process. Members were informed that the draft strategy begins with an updated narrative on the spatial context of the county borough, including a refreshed assessment of the local economy and the specific opportunities within Port Talbot. Officers outlined a 10‑year vision for Neath Port Talbot to become a leading centre for low‑carbon industrial innovation, supported by a sustainable, diverse economy with fair and accessible opportunities. The broad vision is intended to accommodate a wide range of future activity. Members were advised that the strategy identifies three strategic ambitions: • Establishing Neath Port Talbot as a leading centre for low‑carbon production and innovation; • Ensuring a just transition that supports people and communities through economic change; • Developing a network of distinctive, thriving communities. These ambitions have been framed to reflect the unique opportunities and challenges within Neath Port Talbot. Members were advised that the draft strategy was first produced at the end of October and has since been shared widely for feedback, with a comments log maintained throughout. The revised draft reflects the feedback received to date. Officers explained that the main change was a rebalancing of the spatial narrative. Feedback highlighted the need for a stronger focus on the valleys and a better balance with the coastal corridor. Additional context has been added to Chapter 2, and references to key projects have been broadened across the county borough. Members were informed that comments about ensuring Port Talbot’s major opportunities are balanced with priorities for Neath, Briton Ferry and other towns have also been addressed in the revised draft. Officers explained that the introduction and spatial narrative have been updated, but feedback from Cabinet and from members suggests it still isn’t quite right. Cabinet members felt there should be clearer references to areas like Briton Ferry, Skewen and Neath in particular. This will need to be strengthened again in the next version of the strategy. Members were advised that the second main change was to make the strategy more engaging and practical for a range of audiences, including council officers, government, the private sector and local communities. Officers explained that feedback highlighted the need for clearer, real‑world examples. In response, a new business case study section has been added, using examples previously shared with the council. The strategy also now references the council’s track record of delivery and highlights key projects completed in recent years. The third area of change focused on strengthening the three strategic ambitions. The skills section has been updated, with a clearer emphasis on university progression, higher‑level skills and wider opportunities for local people. A new section has also been added on how housing supply links to workforce development, recognising that good housing options are essential for keeping and attracting skilled workers. Officers feel that the strategy places more focus on the foundational economy, and it also reinforces the need for the council to engage proactively with both UK and Welsh Government—particularly in relation to major strategic sites. This also supports the strengthened narrative about the council’s track record in delivering key projects. Members were told that the final section of the strategy focuses on how it will move into delivery. The strategy sets out long‑term ambitions and a narrative intended to remain relevant as new investments and challenges arise. Officers explained that a detailed action plan is not included, as specific projects will evolve over time and such a plan would quickly become outdated. Instead, the revised draft commits to producing a Regeneration and Economic Development Performance Plan, which will monitor progress against the strategic ambitions, set out current activity, and remain a live, updateable document. Work on this plan will take place over the coming weeks. Members were advised that their comments, along with those from Cabinet, can still be incorporated before the next version is presented to Cabinet next week. Members welcomed the tracked changes and feedback provided. They noted that scrutiny workshop held in 2024 had informed the development of the document and asked that any useful feedback from that session be acknowledged or recorded in the plan from a scrutiny perspective. Members welcomed the inclusion of feedback and the Cabinet’s intention to give more focus to Briton Ferry, noting this was not reflected in the original document. They stressed Briton Ferry’s significant industrial heritage and the long‑standing concerns from residents that the town has been neglected since local government reorganisation in 1996, with major investment directed elsewhere. They highlighted the visible decline of the area and the lack of projects or regeneration activity compared with other towns. The member noted that Briton Ferry appears only four times in the strategy, mainly in reference to deprivation and poor health outcomes, with only one brief mention of a future local place plan and no detail behind it. They felt that the rebalance referenced in the narrative was not evident, as the references added do not meaningfully address local issues or opportunities. Members asked how the ambition to support distinctive and thriving communities will be met in relation to Briton Ferry and other under‑represented areas such as Skewen, when place plans will be available, and what funding has been identified. The member emphasised the need for real investment and hoped that the final plans lead to tangible improvements for Briton Ferry. Nicola Pearce Director of Environment and Regeneration explained that the strategy aims to balance economic development between the coastal corridor and the valley communities. The document sets out this overall ambition, while the forthcoming delivery plan will identify specific projects and locations. Officers acknowledged the deprivation issues in Briton Ferry and confirmed that early partnership work has begun with organisations such as RSLs, the housing strategy team, and soon the skills and employability service, with the intention of developing a masterplan for the area. This work is at an early stage but aims to bring together regeneration ambitions across partners, drawing on learning from similar projects elsewhere in Wales. Officers also noted that Briton Ferry is already identified as a place plan area, and once the place plan is in place, it will unlock access to Transforming Towns funding and placemaking grants. Discussions with Welsh Government are ongoing regarding including Skewen as an additional place plan area. The detailed proposals members are seeking will be set out in the delivery plan once developed. Andrew Collins Regeneration & Economic development Manager explained that Neath, Port Talbot and Pontardawe are the most advanced three towns progressing place plans, The plans are evolving documents, shaped by ongoing feedback from stakeholders and officers. They were presented to the Senior Leadership Team (SLT) before Christmas, and consultants are now strengthening them with examples of previous placemaking grant projects. Officers intend to present the updated plans to members toward the end of February, with SLT scheduled to adopt them on 18 March. A briefing in early April is expected to follow, which would then enable all three settlements to access placemaking grant funding. Welsh Government has announced a further £6 million placemaking grant for Southwest Wales, available until the end of 2027, with individual projects typically up to £300,000. Larger strategic projects may still be supported where justified. For the other three towns, Glynneath, Briton Ferry and Ystalyfera officers will be holding workshops with members and stakeholders in February and March and will progress those town centres after the adoption of the Neath, Pontardawe and Port Talbot plans. Members noted that Skewen is only mentioned once in passing, despite being one of the largest settlements in Neath Port Talbot. They expressed concern that there is no place plan or stated ambition for Skewen within the strategy and asked why the area appears to have been excluded. Officers explained that the strategy is intentionally high‑level and cannot list every village, town or settlement. Its purpose is to set out the overarching strategic ambition, with the detail to follow in the delivery plan, where specific projects and investment priorities will be identified. They stressed that the number of times a place is mentioned does not reflect its importance, and members should not be concerned if certain areas appear only briefly. The ambition is to deliver economic development and regeneration across the whole county borough. Officers also noted that they avoided detailing actions for individual towns within the strategy to prevent it becoming too narrow or prescriptive. The delivery plan will provide the detailed interventions as the strategy is implemented. They hoped this reassured members. Officers explained that only six place plan areas could be identified, based on the settlement hierarchy these factors are set out in the Local Development Plan. Officers have highlighted to Welsh Government the importance of creating a seventh, place plan for Skewen so that it can access funding linked to place plans. Welsh Government has indicated in principle, that while they will not fund the preparation of a Skewen place plan, if the council funds and develops it, the area would then be eligible for Transforming Towns funding and placemaking grants. Officers are seeking written confirmation of this and confirmed that supporting Skewen in this way remains their ambition. Andrew Collins explained that officers initially proposed 12 settlements for place plans, including Skewen, Taibach and Gwaun Cae Gurwen but Welsh Government limited this to six. As a result, Neath, Port Talbot and Pontardawe were selected as the main commercial centres, with Glynneath and Ystalyfera added to ensure valley representation. He confirmed that officers have made a strong case to Welsh Government for adding Skewen as the seventh, place plan area. Welsh Government has accepted the argument in principle and is content for Skewen to be included, although they initially stated they would not fund its development. Officers are making a further request for funding as the financial year ends, in case any underspend becomes available. If not, the council may have to fund the plan itself. Officers stressed that Welsh Government has agreed in principle to recognise Skewen as eligible for future placemaking grants once the place plan is in place. Cabinet Member, Councillor Jeremy Hurley, noted that Briton Ferry does have strategic recognition through its links to the Freeport, highlighting significant early investment at Ferry Wharf, including seed capital for the Freeport and planning consent for an advanced composite manufacturing unit. He added that the strategic importance of river access at Briton Ferry and Skewen may not be fully reflected in the report and suggested considering these areas as potential secondary support locations for Freeport operations, despite current issues with channel depth. The chair confirmed this had also been discussed at pre‑briefing and welcomed the point being raised. Members acknowledged the importance of progressing major strategic projects but stressed the need not to overlook the 3,900 small businesses operating within the county borough. They noted that while areas like Briton Ferry and Port Talbot have potential for large‑scale developments, many smaller and valley communities rely heavily on small businesses for employment and economic activity. Members emphasised the importance of ensuring these smaller enterprises continue to receive support alongside the major projects, recognising that significant assistance has already been provided through the Shared Prosperity Fund. Officers agreed with the point raised and explained that they had been using SPF funding which included both revenue and capital — to support small local businesses, recognising their importance in sustaining communities and creating local employment. They highlighted several strong case studies and noted that videos showcasing successful business grant recipients have been published on the NPT website. “Booths on the Bridge” was given as an example of a particularly successful project, alongside many similar stories across the county borough. They emphasised that small businesses are just as important as larger ones. However, SPF funding is coming to an end in March, and despite lobbying both UK and Welsh Government for greater flexibility around revenue and capital, officers are not receiving the assurances they had hoped for. This may limit future support, which is disappointing given the significant positive impact the funding has delivered for businesses of all sizes. Members acknowledged the significant amount of good work taking place and wanted to place on record that, while major projects can dominate attention, the council must continue to recognise the importance of supporting small businesses. They noted that the SPF fund has already provided substantial help in this area and expressed appreciation for the positive work being delivered. Cabinet Member Cllr Jeremy Hurley noted that SPF funding has supported multiple projects in Cilybebyll and Glyncorrwg, among other areas. He emphasised that the business support provided by the council’s team across Neath Port Talbot is excellent and will continue despite the end of the SPF programme. Members asked about the implications of the strategy for major transport infrastructure, noting the frequent references to the M4 and the A465 and rail services. They queried whether organisations such as SWTRA and National Rail had been consulted on how the strategy could impact these key routes and wider transport infrastructure. Officers advised that SWTRA is responsible for managing and maintaining the trunk road network, while Welsh Government’s Transport Services lead on the policy side. As this is an economic development strategy, officers confirmed they will ensure that any actions taken align with both Welsh Government’s wider transport ambitions and the council’s own strategic objectives. Members raised a point about the core principles underpinning the development strategy, specifically around transport. They stated that currently transport doesn’t appear to be positioned as a key enabler of high-quality development, and much of the existing pattern remains heavily car dependent. There is strong evidence that well connected public transport networks boost productivity, stimulate economic growth, and enhance environmental outcomes. Members made the following observation in relation to transport issues in the document. A ‘golden thread’ seems to be missing running through successful regeneration: earlier and later bus services that support shift patterns, reliable core rail connections, and higher density development focused on transport nodes. Embedding transport as a foundational driver of development (as well as private sector development) rather than a secondary consideration. This could significantly strengthen the strategy and help unlock the full potential of the proposed regeneration. The Chair noted that while the strategy highlights Neath Port Talbot’s strong strategic connectivity through the motorway network, mainline rail links, rivers and the harbour the experience for the public is very different. He stated that although the report refers to challenging public transport in the valleys, members stressed that areas such as Sandfields also lack viable services that enable people to travel to work, meaning both communities face similar issues. The Chair felt this challenge is understated in the report. He also welcomed the inclusion of the South Wales Metro but felt the reference is too limited and does not fully describe the project or its potential benefits. Beyond improved frequency, he highlighted opportunities such as a future station at Coed Darcy and significantly better links between Neath and Swansea, which could in turn support the vitality of town centres. He suggested the Metro section should be expanded to reflect the wider economic and community benefits, including improved access to employment, training and inter‑community connectivity. Members emphasised the need to strengthen the section of the strategy relating to public transport and active travel. While Neath Port Talbot benefits from strong strategic connectivity via the motorway network, rail links, rivers and the harbour. However, they stated that although the report refers to challenging public transport in the valleys, members stressed that areas such as Sandfields also lack viable services that enable people to travel to work, meaning both communities face similar issues. The Chair felt this challenge is understated in the report. members noted that many urban communities do not have access to high‑quality public transport or fully developed active travel networks. They stressed that this creates barriers to accessing education, training and employment, and that this challenge is largely shaped by how transport funding is allocated by Welsh Government and, in turn, the UK Government. Members suggested the document should make these issues clearer and reflect the wider ambition to address them. It was proposed that the authors work with the Council’s engineering and transport service to incorporate up‑to‑date information on the Metro, the regional transport plan and the delivery plan, ensuring these are cross‑referenced within the strategy. Officers confirmed that these comments had been noted and would be captured in both the feedback log and the next version of the document going to Cabinet. Members welcomed the reference to a future performance report, noting that having a mechanism from the outset to track projects and monitor progress would be extremely valuable from a scrutiny perspective. Members also raised the issue of alignment with the Replacement Local Development Plan (RLDP). They recognised that significant work is ongoing and that several matters, such as strategic sites and the balance between housing and employment land, are still unsettled while the RLDP remains in development. Members asked how these uncertainties are being managed and to what extent the strategy can realistically align with the RLDP at this stage, beyond broad principles. Officers advised that the replacement Local Development Plan (LDP) is currently being prepared. Consultation on the preferred strategy has taken place, and a report will shortly be brought back to members outlining the consultation findings and any resulting changes. Planning officers are working with consultants to keep the emerging LDP aligned with regional work, though this is still at an early stage. They noted that the existing adopted LDP remains in force and guides current decisions. The forthcoming delivery plan linked to the economic development and regeneration strategy will set out specific projects that help deliver the strategy’s high‑level ambitions. Officers explained that both the replacement LDP and the regeneration strategy share the same overall aims: to support sustainable communities where people can live, work and spend leisure time without the need for long‑distance travel, and to strengthen the foundational economy alongside key employment sites. The difference lies in how each document can deliver these ambitions; due to the distinct legislative frameworks they operate within. Members felt somewhat reassured that there will be scope to refine and adjust the strategy as the final development plan evolves. While recognising that significant changes are unlikely at this stage, members welcomed the ability to make further tweaks if required. Following scrutiny, an amendment was put forward. The amended recommendation as set out below was supported to Cabinet: “a brief letter be prepared to accompany the Cabinet report. This letter would confirm the Committee’s support for the document in principle while also setting out the concerns and suggestions raised during scrutiny.”
The Chair reminded members that the report is post scrutiny as the decision was made in cabinet on the 7th of January. Cabinet member for Climate Change and Economic Growth Cllr Jeremy Hurley explained that the decision was difficult because there are multiple areas facing deprivation, but funding required the council to select just one. Ideally, additional resources would have allowed investment across all three areas. He emphasised that, unlike SPF funding, this allocation is dedicated to a single deprived area, which limits what can be achieved. The Chair noted that when the committee last considered this before Christmas, there was still uncertainty about how much flexibility could be applied where areas did not fully meet the criteria. At that time, Sandfields, Briton Ferry and the Afan Valley were being considered, with the Afan Valley appearing to meet the criteria less strongly than the other two areas. The Chair asked whether, between Christmas and the final decision, any further clarity or assurance had been received from the UK Government about the level of flexibility available. Cllr Jeremy Hurley explained that officers had sought clarity from UK Government on several issues, including whether the council could partner with another authority, but this was confirmed as not permitted. Officers also queried population thresholds: the selected area fell slightly below the requirement, while another area was slightly above, and both scenarios were checked for flexibility. Questions were also raised about whether wards needed to be joined together and the response confirmed that it was required. He noted that the process was challenging, as officers were receiving changing and sometimes conflicting information during meetings, which meant criteria were shifting throughout. This created some risk that any proposal might not be accepted. However, the position was strengthened by securing letters of support from both the local MP and MS, which was one of the key requirements. The Chair acknowledged the committee’s awareness of the uncertainty before Christmas, noting that communication between the council and UK Government had not provided the level of detail members would have hoped for. Members asked whether, since that earlier discussion, officers had received any further clarity on the population numbers, the criteria, or the extent of flexibility available when selecting an area. Officers advised that they asked about flexibility in population criteria because there was a range originally when the advice came out it was approximately 10,000 and then they said the range between 5000 and 15,000 residents during exceptional cases where the strong support and evidence that could be slightly larger or slightly smaller. The Government clarified that that it was up to the council to put a case forward. This was slightly below or slightly over. So that was in terms of population criteria, in terms of working outside the county borough area that was a definite no. In terms of the flexibility in terms of the contiguous nature means that adjoining wards that was part of the programme and there was no flexibility on the contiguous nature. In terms of capital revenue split, there was no that was defined programme. Population was the area where there was a degree of flexibility. But the contiguous nature and working outside the county borough, that was a definite no. The chair asked what happens if we submit a bid that wasn't accepted and what the process would be. And did the council get any clarity on that? Officers explained that, in developing the case, the council relied on deprivation indices to justify its chosen area. A pro forma was submitted to UK Government, and officers asked what would happen if the Government disagreed with the council’s selection. They were told that all submissions would be fully considered, with UK Government reviewing the data and coming back with any points requiring clarification. Officers noted that they did not receive a definitive answer on whether areas would simply “pass” or “fail.” Instead, UK Government indicated they would work with the local authority, assess the strength of the case presented, and consider whether the evidence was compelling. The council also submitted independently reviewed data as part of its submission to support the robustness of its case. Members asked what the process is now since the submission. Officers explained that the council submitted its pro forma and supporting evidence by the 9 January deadline and has received confirmation of receipt. No further update has yet been provided on the Pride in Place Programme prospectus. They outlined the next steps: UK Government will contact the council with any requests for clarification and then confirm whether they agree with the chosen area. After that, a designated UK Government official will be appointed to work with the council on establishing the neighbourhood board and appointing its chair. According to the prospectus, the indicative timeline is to appoint the chair around July, with funding expected to begin flowing from April 2027. This means the board and investment plan will need to be in place before that date. A local member for Briton Ferry expressed disappointment that the cluster was not selected, as he felt it was the most deserving option and in urgent need of significant investment. While recognising that all three shortlisted areas require support, he considered the Afan Valley to be the weakest candidate, noting that it did not fully meet the criteria. He felt this made it a risky choice that could be rejected, particularly as it serves the smallest population and may struggle to sustain projects over the full ten‑year programme. Members asked whether there is a backup plan if the Afan Valley proposal is rejected, and whether the council risks losing the funding entirely by submitting a bid that does not fully meet the criteria. Cabinet member Cllr Jeremy Hurley said he understood the disappointment felt in any area that was not selected but stressed that the council had no choice but to choose one location. Much of the decision was driven by deprivation index data. He noted that the Afan Valley has consistently appeared among the most deprived areas since 2005, and although Briton Ferry previously ranked highly, its position had improved before the most recent indices. When the updated 2025 data was released during the assessment process, the Afan Valley moved back up to 15th, reinforcing its level of need. He acknowledged that all the areas under consideration face significant deprivation and are in need of help. In terms of the next steps, he explained that if the Afan Valley proposal is not accepted, the two other shortlisted areas remain as alternatives, but this will depend on the response from UK Government. The chair commented on the ward areas considered and raised disappointment about Aberavon not being selected and his own disappointment as member for Sandfields. Deputy Leader Alun Llewelyn acknowledged the shared concerns about the limitations of the Pride in Place scheme, noting that it does not replace the level of European funding previously available and forces a competitive approach that effectively pitches one deprived community against another. He stressed that this was not a position anyone wanted to be in. He explained that the final submission to UK Government focused on the Afan Valley due to its consistently high levels of deprivation and the clear need for investment. However, he emphasised that all three shortlisted areas require significant support, as do other parts of the county borough — including the Swansea, Amman and Dulais Valleys, which also experience substantial deprivation but did not meet the criteria of this programme. Deputy Leader Alun Llewelyn highlighted concerns about the lack of flexibility in the scheme compared with the Shared Prosperity Fund, where the council was able to set priorities and tailor investment based on local knowledge. He confirmed that the Leader of the Council has written to the Secretary of State outlining these difficulties and suggested that members of the committee receive a copy of the letter. He stated that the submission for the Afan Valley has strong backing from Stephen Kinnock MP, David Rees MS and Sioned Williams MS, and that the council will work collectively to ensure the success of any investment. He emphasised the ongoing need to lobby both UK and Welsh Government for the level of funding required to properly address deprivation across Neath Port Talbot and Wales more widely. The Chair thanked the Deputy Leader and noted that although the letter had been circulated to members within the three shortlisted communities, it had not been shared with the wider scrutiny committee. They confirmed that Democratic Services would circulate it after the meeting and added that they appreciated receiving a copy. Cllr Scott Jones, Cabinet Member for Streetscene, shared his perspective, stating that he believed from the outset that more than one community should have been able to benefit from the programme. He emphasised that the strict criteria were set by UK Government, and despite extensive work by officers and political discussions within the council, the authority had no control over those requirements. He suggested that concerns about the criteria should be directed to those outside the council who set them. He then outlined the deprivation data over time, noting that in earlier indices Briton Ferry ranked lower in deprivation compared with Cymer. While Briton Ferry became the most deprived area in the 2019 assessment, the most recent figures released at the end of 2025 show Cymer ranked as the most deprived area in Neath Port Talbot once again. He acknowledged the points already made by officers and the Cabinet Member and did not add further detail. Members acknowledged that all three areas require significant investment and stressed that this is not a “race to the bottom.” However, given that Briton Ferry and the Aberavon clusters have now been clearly identified as being in urgent need, members asked what steps the council intends to take to ensure these two areas are highlighted going forward and formally recognised in future work as priority locations for investment. Cabinet Member Cllr Jeremy Hurley noted that there may be an extension to the Transforming Towns programme which, once the Briton Ferry place plan is in place, could provide funding opportunities for the area. He emphasised the need for the council to be proactive and strategic in making use of such options. Officers confirmed this, adding that Welsh Government has announced a further £6 million for placemaking grants in Southwest Wales up to the end of the 2027 financial year. Once Briton Ferry’s place plan is in place, the area will be eligible to access this funding. The Chair emphasised that it is important to acknowledge the issues raised and to consider what steps should now be taken. While placemaking grants offer one potential route for supporting areas like Briton Ferry, the Chair noted that the Pride in Place programme also contains a revenue element, which could have different types of impact within communities. This will require careful consideration by Cabinet in terms of how best to support those areas identified as being in significant need and how to make the strongest possible case for investment. The Chair added that scrutiny can return to this matter in future to monitor progress. Nicola Pearce explained that the Aberavon and Sandfields cluster already benefits from existing work, as it includes part of the Port Talbot town centre, which has an established place plan that can help support the wider area. She also highlighted the adopted Aberavon Seafront Strategy, led by Chris Saunders and colleagues in the Environment and Regeneration Directorate, which is expected to stimulate further economic activity in both Aberavon and Sandfields. Members were referred to the early master‑planning work already underway in Briton Ferry with partner organisations, which aims to generate similar benefits there. The Chair noted that there is clearly ongoing activity in those communities, though the focus on deprivation differs from the approach taken under the Pride in Place programme. He thanked everyone for their contributions and the discussion. Following scrutiny, the report was noted.
Lisa Willis Strategic Funding Programmes Manager gave an overview of the UK Government’s Pride in Place Impact Fund. Members were informed that it was launched in September 2025, the two‑year capital fund (covering 2025/26 and 2026/27) provides £1.5 million for visible improvements across all wards in Neath Port Talbot, supporting high streets, community spaces and places of local value. Funding must be committed by March 2027. The fund aims to rebuild community pride, and local authorities have flexibility in designing their delivery model. The proposed approach—due to be presented to Cabinet on 4 February—requires engagement with communities, MPs, MSs and wider stakeholders, alongside regular reporting to the UK Government on outputs and outcomes. The fund covers three main areas: • Community spaces – creating, extending or refurbishing facilities and supporting community ownership of valued assets. • Public spaces – improvements to green areas, squares, play spaces, sports and leisure areas, street furniture, public art and wayfinding. • High streets, towns and villages – revitalisation through shopfront improvements, premises enhancements, streetscape works, trails and supporting infrastructure. For Neath Port Talbot, each elected member will work with their communities to bring forward priority projects aligned with the fund criteria, with an indicative allocation of £25,000 per member. Officers are finalising guidance and application forms and will hold an all‑member seminar to support engagement. The team will monitor outputs and outcomes and ensure compliance with UK Government requirements. Members were advised that, to apply, they should first contact officers in the Project Development and Funding Unit to discuss potential projects. Officers will check whether proposals align with the fund priorities before applicants complete the final application form and guidance, which are close to being finalised. The process will be similar to the previous Members Community Fund but will be 100% capital, meaning schemes will require significant preparatory time. Officers noted they have already contacted all 60 members to gather early views on local priorities, given the tight timescales. There is already strong interest from members, and officers will shortly provide the application form along with detailed guidance based on the UK and Welsh Government prospectus. This will set out the rules around eligibility, ineligibility, and what counts as capital to avoid supporting revenue‑type projects. Officers confirmed they are available to meet individually with members, and many such discussions have already taken place. Members were advised that the guidance will emphasise that capital projects must have no ongoing revenue implications. Officers will also provide clear definitions of what qualifies as capital, along with a user guide covering issues such as planning requirements, sustainable drainage, and other consents so applicants understand what is needed from the outset. Projects maybe led by external organisations or by the council, depending on what members identify as local priorities. As with the previous Members Community Fund, some schemes may be delivered internally across different council departments. Each project will need its own cost code, whether the asset is council‑owned or owned by a community or voluntary organisation, provided the project is deliverable within the timescales. Members asked whether applications must be submitted per project or simply to access the £25,000 allocation. They also queried what happens to unspent funds at the end of the programme: if neighbouring wards have a significant underspend, can another member reallocate that money to projects in their ward, or must it be Paul Hinder Project Development and Funding Manager advised that funding will be allocated project by project, not as an automatic £25,000 payment to each member. He gave an example that a £5,000 project may be approved first, followed by further projects until the £25,000 allocation is fully used. He also noted there may be match‑funding opportunities, as seen under the previous Members Community Fund, where £640,000 of allocations grew into £1.3 million of project investment. To manage workload, a minimum grant of £5,000 will apply this would avoid an unmanageable volume of small applications; however, members may choose to combine allocations in multi‑member wards, turning £25,000 into a larger shared fund (e.g., £75,000), allowing faster delivery of bigger schemes. It was advised that if funding is not committed by 31 March 2027, it must be returned to the UK Government, which officers are keen to avoid. For this reason, members have been engaged early so that deliverable projects can be developed quickly. Officers are available to meet individually with councillors to help shape strong, fully worked‑up proposals that ensure each member’s allocation is used effectively. Members felt the Cabinet report should include a clear narrative on how any unspent Members’ Fund allocations will be managed, recognising that it is unlikely every member will spend their full allocation. They suggested outlining a fair process for reallocating any remaining money to other internal projects. Officers explained that the council must report regularly to the UK Government and submit a credible expenditure plan up to March 2027 by October 2026. At that stage, they can review what has been spent, what remains, and what is in the pipeline, and this could inform a process for inclusion in the Cabinet report if scrutiny wishes to recommend it. Officers highlighted that legitimate reasons previously prevented some spending in the Members Fund, they gave the example of delays caused by CADW and building consent requirements, such as a £10,000 Jersey Park project that could not proceed. In the last round of the Members fund only 0.9% (£5,000 of £640,000) of Tranche 1 funding was unspent, and 3.4% (£22,000) in the second tranche, again for valid reasons. Officers emphasised they would continue to chase members to ensure preferred projects are submitted. They noted that decisions on reallocating or repurposing any remaining funds will be sensitive and have not yet been detailed and will be dealt with when necessary. Members asked how funding could be allocated to pre‑existing projects. Officers explained they had already identified several priority schemes for local members, noting that investing in existing projects is often more deliverable than creating new ones due to the legislative requirements attached to new proposals. Their aim is to help members progress projects quickly so that improvements can be delivered in response to community need, with deliverability being the key consideration. Members noted that this work will need to be undertaken in conjunction with MPs and MSs, and asked how that engagement will operate, particularly given an upcoming election. Officers advised that engagement with MPs, MSs and wider stakeholders is a requirement set out in the prospectus. Following scrutiny and Cabinet, officers will write to MPs, MSs and the local economic partnership group, which includes representation from the third, private and public sectors to outline the proposed delivery model for the programme. This approach aligns with the criteria requiring work with communities, as members will play a central role in identifying local needs. Once projects are approved, officers will provide regular updates to the Senior Management Team, MPs and MSs on the progress of funded schemes. Officers confirmed that this engagement model is built into the programme and will continue in the same way following the Senedd elections. Members asked whether MPs and MSs have any veto over projects. Officers confirmed that they do not; their role is purely to be engaged and kept informed. Members then asked whether all councillors would receive the presentation slides or if this would only happen at the scheduled seminar. Officers advised that a members’ seminar is planned for 10th February, where they will go through the application form, eligible activities, and key requirements. If members cannot attend, officers will ensure the information is still shared. Councillor Simon Knoyle, Cabinet Member for Finance, Performance and Social Justice, wants all members to be fully aware of the fund, although the delivery model is still subject to Cabinet decision. When the matter comes to scrutiny, officers will ensure the committee has the opportunity to shape the delivery model. Members also asked whether other council departments such as Streetcare are supportive, particularly for projects involving street furniture, and whether all projects must involve community groups or whether a councillor-led project could be eligible. Officers confirmed that they will work closely with other departments, as they did with the previous Members’ Fund. They gave examples such as securing Traffic Regulation Orders and seeking Streetscene advice on play area equipment. Early discussions with the playground improvement programme team have already taken place to avoid creating additional revenue pressures for the Council. Officers will collaborate with relevant departments according to the nature of each project. Officers also clarified that it is not essential for a community organisation to lead a project. Each case will differ. For instance, in the Tŷbach/Margam area, Friends of Morgan Park might lead on aspirations, whereas in other cases funding may be paid directly to a third‑sector organisation to deliver the work. If the project is led by the Council, a project code can be set up, and officers will manage delivery through capital programming processes. Officers felt that the focus will be on upgrades, refurbishments, new capital assets and improvements to community spaces. Officers emphasised the importance of starting early to help members progress their projects as quickly as possible. Following scrutiny, the report was noted.
There was no scrutiny items selected.
Members considered performance monitoring item 7a.
Nicola Pearce, Director of Environment and Regeneration, introduced the report, explaining that it provides detailed updates on the delivery of performance measures within the Corporate Strategy, including the risk register, corporate priorities and KPIs. She advised that overall Council performance remains strong, but significant budget overspends continue in several service areas, Education, Leisure and Lifelong Learning, Social Services, Housing and Community Safety, and Environment and Regeneration. Members were advised that an overspend of £970,000 within the Environment and Regeneration Directorate, largely due to core budget pressures. Mitigation measures had limited effect, but additional funding has been proposed within the draft budget consultation, which, if agreed, should substantially reduce the overspend. She noted that most of these pressures fall within Visible Services and Streetscene Scrutiny Committee rather than this committee. Officers also acknowledged feedback raised at pre‑briefing about the difficulty in identifying which KPIs relate to which scrutiny committee. They confirmed that officers will work with Corporate Services to make this clearer in future reports, recognising the complexity created by the broad range of services covered by this scrutiny committee. The Chair welcomed officers’ efforts to clarify which service areas and KPIs fall under each scrutiny committee, noting that the recent changes to committee structures can still be confusing at times. Members referred to the Corporate Accommodation Strategy and noted that the report states a draft strategy has been developed. They asked for clarity on the timelines, querying whether the reference to strategies being taken to members in the autumn related to autumn 2025 or autumn 2026. Members requested a brief update on progress, noting that the strategy has been on the scrutiny forward work programme for some time and thanking officers and Cabinet for their patience. Officers apologised for the delay and explained that an updated version of the Corporate Accommodation Strategy had been prepared just before the Christmas break and shared with the Chief Executive and Nicola Pearce. Both provided significant comments, and the document has since been revised. Nicola reviewed the latest version last week and has returned further comments to the Head of Property and Regeneration, who is leading on the strategy. Officers advised that they hope to be able to finalise the updated draft of the Corporate Accommodation Strategy shortly, enabling it to progress through internal processes and Cabinet Member briefing. Officers’ intention is to bring the strategy to Scrutiny and then through the Cabinet decision process within the next couple of months. The Chair suggested having further engagement outside the meeting to plan the scrutiny timetable for the Corporate Accommodation Strategy, noting that an indicative date is not yet included in the Forward Work Programme and that the item may cross into the new civic year. He welcomed efforts to establish a clear programme and acknowledged the challenges involved in developing such a substantial strategy, expressing understanding for the delay. Members asked for an update on the RLDP, noting ongoing issues affecting its delivery. They recognised that the plan will be delivered but sought clarification on any recent developments since the last briefing. Nicola Pearce advised that before Christmas, officers were aware that some concerns have been expressed by members in relation to the preferred strategy. It was explained that the preferred strategy went out to consultation earlier last year and officers secured feedback on the preferred strategy and we took members through that. What we then did is we held individual group meetings with members so that we can give them detailed feedback in relation to the consultation responses that we had received and the issues that we have in relation to progressing with the replacement local development plan at pace. Officers explained that while a short period without a development plan is unavoidable, it carries significant risks and creates a policy void. They stressed the need to minimise the gap so the council retains a strong policy basis for making local decisions, rather than relying on Planning and Environment Decisions Wales appeal outcomes that are outside the authority’s control. Officers explained that Ceri Morris Head of Planning and Public Protection aims to take a written report through the decision‑making process in February. This will set out the consultation responses and any proposed amendments to the preferred strategy. If endorsed, this will allow work to progress to the deposit stage of the Replacement Local Development Plan, where detailed policies, settlement limits, growth areas and land allocations will be presented to members. Officers hope this will bring the project back on schedule. Ceri Morris, Head of Planning and Public Protection, explained that officers are working with Democratic Services to arrange a potential special Council meeting in February. The report to that meeting will likely have two parts: confirming any minor amendments to the Council’s approach and seeking full Council approval to progress towards the deposit plan; and updating the delivery agreement timetable to avoid any procedural issues. He noted that consultation on the deposit plan cannot proceed without updating the delivery agreement. Officers expect the February meeting to provide members with greater clarity on the next steps. The Chair welcomed the update, acknowledged the efforts of officers, and reiterated that members would provide as much support as possible to help move things forward. Members then asked for an update on key transport corridors, noting the report’s reference to the project being placed on hold by Welsh Government due to funding and hydrogen supply concerns. Officers explained that they had attended project board meetings with TfW regarding the hydrogen bus corridor. TfW. There appears to have been an underestimation of the level of investment needed to safely manage and transport hydrogen and to provide the necessary supporting infrastructure. As a result, the project has been paused while they review the financial implications and further develop the project plan. Officers offered to obtain more detailed information from the relevant leads and circulate it in writing, noting that their own involvement is only at the periphery of the project. Following scrutiny, the report was noted.
The Democratic Services Officer confirmed that a site visit to Margam Castle has been arranged for 11 March, with further details to be issued by email. They also updated members on changes to the Forward Work Programme: The Active Travel Delivery Plan and the Art Strategy have been deferred. The Active Travel report has been delayed due to workload pressures and staffing vacancies, with the Chair agreeing to reschedule it to the new civic year. The Art Strategy timeline is also being reconsidered following recent discussions with the Arts Council, and a report is now expected early in the new civic year. The Chair acknowledged the staffing challenges within the Active Travel team and supported the revised timescales. 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.