Loading
There is no summary of this meeting yet. Summaries are written once the council publishes the minutes, which are its official record of what a meeting decided. They usually appear a few weeks after the meeting.
The Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting.
There were none.
The minutes of the meetings held on 23/01/2026 and 12/12/2025 were approved as an accurate record of proceedings.
Members considered items from the Cabinet Forward Work Programme.
James Davies, Head of Engineering and Transport, introduced the report, explaining that following extensive engagement, approval is sought to publish the updated Active Travel Network Map for a 12‑week public consultation this summer. Final amendments will be made afterwards, with submission to Welsh Ministers by December 2026. Members asked if the council has linked the active travel plan to the RLDP as both are 15-year plans and new developments will affect it. Officers confirmed it has been aligned with the RLDP, noting that candidate sites were reviewed in both the 2021 mapping exercise and the current update to ensure future routes connect appropriately. Members suggested this linkage should be stated clearly in the report; officers agreed. The Chair highlighted the value of the informal consultation, which generated significant feedback and has proven effective in previous mapping exercises. He encouraged Members to circulate the consultation within their communities over the summer. He emphasised that the Active Travel Network Map is essential for securing Welsh Government grant funding and reminded Members to check that local aspirations for walking, cycling, wheeling and accessibility improvements are reflected on the maps. Following scrutiny, the recommendation was supported to Cabinet.
Lisa Willis, Strategic Funding Programmes Manager, delivered a presentation on the report. She advised that the report will be considered by Cabinet on 18 March, seeking approval of the high‑level delivery plan for Southwest Wales along with several delegated‑authority recommendations. Officers explained that the presentation was provided because the Local Growth Fund is evolving rapidly, with information changing on a daily basis. The purpose was to give Scrutiny an up‑to‑date overview of current developments and the position as understood at this stage. Members were advised that the UK Shared Prosperity Fund (SPF) will end on 31 March 2026. Although UK Government guidance issued late last year indicated the possibility of a no‑cost extension to September 2026, Neath Port Talbot projects were profiled to conclude by 31 March 2026, and no extensions will be applied—consistent with the position across the wider region. Officers explained that SPF, which was predominantly revenue‑based with around 30% capital, will be replaced by two UK Government funding programmes: Pride in Place Programme • Scrutiny previously considered the neighbourhood selection process. • The Upper Afan Valley has been selected as Neath Port Talbot’s Pride in Place neighbourhood for the £20m programme. • The Pride in Place Impact Fund (£1.5m) is also in delivery, with Members allocating funding to priority community projects. Local Growth Fund A new, capital‑focused fund aimed at economic growth, with more targeted eligibility than SPF. The UK Government’s consultation (closing December) has produced three emerging priority themes: • Supporting business • Skills and employment for growth • Local economic infrastructure The fund is approximately 70% capital and 30% revenue. Unlike SPF, there is no community‑focused element; community activity sits solely within Pride in Place. Officers highlighted that the Local Growth Fund continues to evolve, with regional allocations only indicative at this stage. Final confirmation is expected between mid‑March and the end of March. Officers informed Members that the UK Government is funding the UK Local Growth Fund, with £547 million allocated to Welsh Government for delivery across Wales. The programme will run from 1 April 2026 to March 2029. Welsh Government will work with partners to design and deliver a National Investment Plan, alongside both local authority and regional investment plans. In Year 1, delivery will take place through the four Welsh regional leads. From Years 2–3, the intention is for delivery to transition to Corporate Joint Committees (CJCs), though discussions are ongoing. Welsh Government has stressed that the Local Growth Fund is not a continuation of SPF (not SPF Mark 2). Southwest Wales proposed delivery model Under the SPF, the Council took a strategic, anchor‑project approach supported by several third‑party grant schemes. Officers propose to adopt a similar model for the Local Growth Fund, focused on three anchor projects: • Supporting Business - this element will be regionally planned but locally delivered. The four South West Wales local authorities have worked together through their economic development teams to assess both regional and local needs, identify what Welsh Government already provides—such as Business Wales—and consider how the Local Growth Fund can add value. • Skills and Employability - Officers explained that the skills and employability strand focuses on regional skills needs and targeted gap‑filling, ensuring the programme does not duplicate activity already delivered by UK or Welsh Government. • Local Economic Infrastructure. – Including place plans, heritage, culture and tourism and rural economic regeneration. Supporting Business Officers confirmed that the Supporting Business anchor will be regionally planned but locally delivered. It will include a Business Development Fund for small start‑ups and a Business Growth Fund for expanding businesses. Existing UKSPF business‑support programmes will inform this work. The Council’s Economic Development Team will continue supporting SMEs to position themselves for Freeport and supply‑chain opportunities, ensuring the activity complements—and adds value to—Business Wales provision. Skills and employability • SWW Regional skills programme., including basic skills apprenticeships and employer led skills. • the skills element will focus on employer‑led skills development, drawing on the work of the Regional Learning and Skills Partnership and its demand‑led labour‑market mapping to ensure alignment with regional economic needs. • looking at basic skills, looking at apprenticeships and looking at the employer LED skills to make sure that the skills people acquire are aligned to parents and future. Neath Port Talbot employability programme • looking at supporting young people into education, employment and training. • looking at supporting people, widening young people into employment, including paid work opportunities and looking at that gap filling. we're currently doing a regional mapping to ensure we don't duplicate what's going on with Welsh Government and UK Government. Local economic infrastructure anchor Officers outlined the Local Economic Infrastructure anchor, which comprises several strands of activity. Work will focus on developing sites and premises across the county borough, not only within town centres. Unlike Welsh Government’s regeneration programmes, which are town‑centre led, the Local Growth Fund enables targeted investment in valleys, villages and rural areas, building on approaches used under the Shared Prosperity Fund. Activities may include feasibility studies, acquisitions, demolition and redevelopment, all aligned with the Council’s Corporate Plan and the recently adopted Regeneration and Economic Development Strategy. Officers are also proposing a third‑party regeneration grant scheme, covering initiatives such as shop‑front improvements and public‑realm enhancements. Additional priorities include supporting town centres, rural economic regeneration, and delivering projects linked to the Council’s heritage, culture and tourism strategies. The programme will also support place‑based initiatives aimed at strengthening Port Talbot as a visitor destination, helping to drive wider economic growth. Officers outlined the next steps for the programme. UK Government and Welsh Government are currently working to agree a National Investment Plan, while Welsh Government will also agree both local authority and regional investment plans, which will set out the anchor‑project approach for delivery. At a regional level, planning will continue, with local delivery taking place within that framework. Officers are now developing the Council’s project activities further. Although only indicative regional allocations have been received so far, confirmation is expected between mid‑March and the end of March. The aim is for the programme to begin as soon as possible from 1 April 2026. The chair thanked officers for the thorough presentation. Nicola Pearce, Director of Environment and Regeneration, advised that it has been challenging for officers to provide definitive updates due to information from the UK and Welsh Governments being released gradually, like the Pride in Place programme. Guidance provided to officers often changes within days, making consistent communication difficult. Officers noted that the regional allocation has still not been confirmed. Officers are also managing the transition from the SPF, which was predominantly revenue‑based, to the Local Growth Fund, which is capital‑focused. As highlighted earlier, this is a fundamentally different programme and not a continuation of SPF. Officers are working behind the scenes to address these implications while continuing to deliver what they can under the new programme, despite the difficulties. The Chair observed that uncertainty is common with new grant schemes, noting that delays often stem from UK Government decisions filtering through Welsh Government to local authorities. He welcomed that progress now appears close. He also referenced previous budget scrutiny discussions on the risks to posts funded through the SPF. While the new programme may help address some of these gaps, decisions will ultimately rest with the Cabinet. The Chair noted that the Leader was present and he would consider which projects can or cannot be supported going forward. He added that Members are likely to follow this closely in the early part of the financial year, as it remains a concern for many. Members asked whether the funding begins on 1 April this year and if it can be used alongside the Tata Transitional Fund. Officers confirmed that the Local Growth Fund will commence on 1 April. They explained that the Tata Transitional Fund is a more narrowly focused scheme, whereas the Local Growth Fund is broader. A mapping exercise is being undertaken to avoid duplication, and internal mechanisms are in place to ensure organisations cannot double‑fund the same project through both schemes. Councillor Jeremy Hurley, Cabinet Member for Climate Change and Economic Growth, thanked the team and Lisa for their work, noting the complexity created by continually shifting requirements. He reflected that under the previous SPF programme the Council had greater flexibility in distributing funds, whereas the new scheme will likely have fewer local restrictions and be more directly controlled by Welsh and UK Governments. He hoped the application process would be straightforward and that lessons from the improved SPF process could be carried forward as good practice. Officers explained that the UK Government will approve the Welsh Government delivery plan, after which Welsh Government will approve the regional delivery plans. The programme will be regionally planned but locally delivered. They confirmed that the Council will ensure funding remains aligned to local needs, which will be reflected within the delivery plans. Officers are contributing to regional anchor projects through the regional working group: the Economic Development and Business Support group, with Rhiannon Crowhurst representing the authority on Skills and Employability. Regarding the application process, officers outlined proposals for a third‑party fund for businesses and another for regeneration‑type projects. There will be no third‑party community fund within this programme, as community funding has been moved to the Pride in Place scheme. Officers agreed that the application process must be as simple and user‑friendly as possible. Members asked how engagement with organisations and businesses will be carried out, how this differs from the SPF process, and how officers will reach those who have not previously applied for funding. Officers explained that the Economic Development Team maintains a database of businesses they regularly work with and will run targeted campaigns, like those used under the SPF, to reach this network. Information will also be promoted through the Council’s website, wider communication channels, and updates to Elected Members so they can share details within their communities. Officers confirmed that support will be available for applicants. The Business Team will assist organisations with the application process for the business fund. Nicola Pearce clarified that engagement with businesses has not yet begun, as officers must wait until the Regional Investment Plan is formally approved. Engaging prematurely could lead to promoting projects that may later be deemed non‑compliant if Welsh Government requires changes to the plan. Once approval is received, full engagement activity can commence. The Chair noted that, from a regeneration perspective, the Council has long delivered shop‑front improvement grants through various funding streams. He suggested that, considering the emerging Heritage Strategy and the Buildings of Local Importance register, it may be worth considering whether the fund could support the regeneration of these locally designated assets. He observed that such buildings do not have the protections afforded to listed buildings and are not covered by Article 4 directions, meaning owners can sometimes undertake unsympathetic works. Offering grant support could help encourage better design choices. He felt this could complement existing priorities without significantly altering the overall focus of the fund and wished to raise it for consideration. Officers agreed that the Chair’s points were valid. They noted that existing funding streams, such as Transforming Towns and placemaking grants can support commercial property improvements within town centres and areas covered by place plans. While these funds do not apply universally, they do provide opportunities for targeted regeneration, and officers will take this into account. The Chair raised concerns about the delegated authority given to officers and Cabinet Members to approve projects under the fund. He emphasised the importance of ensuring that Members and Scrutiny are kept informed about which projects are being progressed, noting that the current project list is only indicative and may change. He stressed that Members need visibility of these decisions and the opportunity for Scrutiny to review matters where appropriate. The Chair invited suggestions on how this could be achieved, as he felt the current arrangements did not yet provide sufficient assurance. Officers advised that this would not be an issue. They currently provide regular SPF updates to Members through all‑Member seminars, outlining progress, pipeline projects and those already in delivery. Officers confirmed they could adopt the same approach for the Local Growth Fund. They also noted that Scrutiny can request additional updates at any time if further transparency is required. The Chair agreed that all‑Member seminars would continue to be helpful and asked officers to commit to keeping him personally briefed on a regular basis. He suggested establishing structured engagement between the Chair and the Director of Environment and Regeneration to ensure ongoing oversight. The Chair noted that receiving timely updates would allow him, as Scrutiny Chair, to identify any areas that may require scrutiny or reporting, rather than doing so unnecessarily. He confirmed that such an arrangement would provide assurance in relation to the recommendation as currently framed. Cllr Steve Hunt the leader of the council advised that it's been very difficult due to information from the UK and Welsh Governments being released gradually and agreed with the Chair on the need for a clear process to keep Members informed. The leader confirmed that his main concern was for jobs and advised that the council will be looking at that. He stressed that the Council would need to examine this closely and seek to mitigate the impact wherever possible. The Leader expressed concern regarding pressures on the Tata Transition Fund, noting that demand had already exceeded the available allocation, requiring an additional £22 million to be secured from the UK Government. He highlighted this as an example of the wider challenge facing the region, as all four local authorities within the CJC will be seeking similar support for their projects under the new programme. He stressed the complexity of managing the fund, particularly given that the overall allocation is lower than the SPF and may be subject to further reductions, including potential top‑slicing by Welsh Government and possible deductions by the CJC to support regional administration. This creates uncertainty around the final funding pot and how it will ultimately be distributed. As Leader, he emphasised his commitment to securing the best possible outcome for Neath Port Talbot. The Leader reiterated the need for openness and transparency, so Members clearly understand the emerging financial position. He confirmed that Nicola, Lisa and the wider team would continue to provide updates as information becomes available. As Vice‑Chair of the CJC, he undertook to keep all Members fully informed on developments and expressed full confidence in the officers to manage the process effectively. The Chair thanked the Leader and noted the importance of sharing these concerns with Scrutiny. He recognised the Leader’s role within the CJC and the value of raising Neath Port Talbot’s position in that forum. He highlighted that regional working brings opportunities for collaboration, but also competition, as four ambitious local authorities will be seeking funding from the same pot. The Chair emphasised the need for the Council to advocate strongly for its projects and ensure they remain robust and competitive. Nicola Pearce explained that the councils in the region have worked closely together for many years, with strong collaboration between teams to ensure delivery is fair, proportionate and aligned across the region. For Year 1 of the Local Growth Fund, the existing management structure used for the SPF programme will continue to be used. She noted that although the fund could transfer into the CJC from Year 2 onwards, the CJC has only two staff members, so delivery has always relied on officers within each local authority. If the Year 1 model functions effectively and meets Welsh Government’s expectations, it may be possible to continue managing the fund in this collaborative way. Nicola Pearce emphasised that officers across the region, including Lisa’s counterparts, heads of service and directors, work collectively to agree regional priorities and ensure delivery is fair and proportionate to local needs. She stressed that it is for the authorities to make the model work, deliver the required outcomes and avoid additional restrictions being imposed. She reassured Members that this collaborative approach has been effective for several years and will continue to be applied to maintain fairness and consistency across the region. The Chair noted that some uncertainty remains around how the regional allocation will be divided between local authorities and individual projects. He commented that it would be helpful for this information to be shared with Members once available, so they have a clear understanding of the implications. He added that he was reassured by the strong working relationships with neighbouring authorities and confident that officers are representing Neath Port Talbot’s interests effectively. Following scrutiny, the recommendation was supported to Cabinet.
Craig Griffiths, Head of Legal and Democratic Services, introduced the update report on the Celtic Freeport programme. He explained that the programme has progressed to the next stage, requiring the Council to enter a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with the UK Government, Welsh Government, the Celtic Freeport Company and Pembrokeshire County Council. Members were advised that the MoU will set out the responsibilities of each party, including NPT’s role as the accountable body for public funding. The report also outlines the obligations arising from the MoU and associated guidance, and how all partners will work together to meet the requirements of the Freeport Board. It was highlighted that the report includes the grant conditions for the seed capital funding, which the Council must enter into with Welsh Government. He noted that these are standard Welsh Government terms and were included for Members’ oversight. Any organisations receiving this funding from the Council will also be required to enter into grant agreements with NPT to protect the authority against any potential breaches. He confirmed that the report will be presented to Cabinet next week for final approval and invited questions or observations from Scrutiny. He added that updates on the Celtic Freeport could be brought to future Scrutiny meetings, should Members wish to include this on their Forward Work Programme. He also noted that some Members appointed to the Public Funds Committee will see the seed‑capital project evaluations, ensuring alignment with Council reporting. The Chair noted that the Celtic Freeport item will likely feature on the Forward Work Programme next year. Referring to page 134, Members highlighted the statement that the Council will “wherever possible” use local businesses and services when procuring for the project. Members asked who determines whether it is “possible” in each case. Officers explained that the decision on whether local businesses can be used is influenced by two factors. Where Neath Port Talbot Council is directly commissioning work, procurement must follow the Council’s own procurement policies, which promote “Think NPT First” and encourage the use of local suppliers. However, legal requirements under national procurement legislation mean that in some circumstances the Council must undertake open, competitive procurement at a national level. In these cases, contracts cannot be restricted to local suppliers. The “where possible” element therefore depends largely on the value of the contract, as higher‑value procurements trigger national advertising and compliance with the UK Procurement Act. Officers added that, where funding is passed on to third‑party recipients, local‑supplier expectations are built into the grant conditions to encourage local benefit wherever permissible within the legal framework. A Member noted that they expected the explanation given but emphasised that one of the region’s key aims is to sustain and support local businesses. Having reviewed the report as a visiting Member, they felt the wording around “wherever possible” stood out and wished to highlight its importance in ensuring local businesses benefit from the programme. Members asked how the Council will ensure that officers have sufficient capacity to manage both the complex legal and administrative demands of the Celtic Freeport programme alongside their day‑to‑day responsibilities. They expressed concern that officers could become overwhelmed and asked for reassurance. Officers acknowledged Members’ concerns, confirming that the workload is significant and involves new areas of complexity, including commercial structures and company law that the Council has not previously dealt with. They advised that external expertise from the UK Government’s Freeport programme has already been used to support officers. Now that the MoU and accompanying guidance have clarified the accountable body’s responsibilities, officers are assessing the level of resource required to meet these obligations. Proposals will be developed and brought to the Public Funds Committee, including potential use of top‑sliced elements from non‑retained rates to support the necessary work. Officers stressed that this will be a key area of focus over the coming weeks and months to ensure the Council is properly resourced while recognising existing pressures on staff. They also highlighted the importance of working jointly with colleagues in Pembrokeshire and within the Celtic Freeport Company to share capacity and manage the workload on a regional basis. Referring to page 133, the Chair highlighted the reference to funded projects and the upcoming review of the approved project list, including the re‑profiling of schemes and the announcement of separate funding for the Harbourside remediation and site‑accelerated grants. He asked for clarification on the scope of this review and how Members will be informed of which projects remain in the programme and which may be removed, noting that Scrutiny previously undertook detailed consideration of the project list. Officers explained that additional site accelerator funding recently became available, and the Council has been actively pursuing all possible external funding sources. As an example, they noted that a remediation project in the Harbourside area was originally proposed as a seed‑capital bid to the Freeport. However, the Council later secured direct UK Government funding for this work, announced in last year’s Spending Review. As a result, the Freeport submission will now focus on seeking additional funding to deliver new units once remediation is complete. Officers highlighted this as an illustration of how circumstances can change, with alternative funding becoming available and altering what is sought from the Freeport programme. They noted that two tax sites have already been designated—Port Talbot and Milford Haven—while the location of a third is currently under consideration. Once confirmed, landowners or operators at that site may also submit bids for Freeport funding. As the economic context and funding landscape evolve, officers emphasised that the project list and associated bids will inevitably change over time to reflect new opportunities and priorities. The Chair welcomed the positive news of securing additional external funding, noting that it may allow certain elements of the project to progress more quickly. He requested that, at a future meeting, Members receive a brief note outlining which projects have been added or removed from the programme and the outcomes of the review. He felt this would assist Members in understanding and digesting the changes. In relation to page 835, (income being retained from the business rates) The chair asked if this meant that they will be paid to the council as part of the revenue support grant allocation. The Chair also asked about the mechanisms used and how that interacts with the local authority funding formula. Craig Griffiths, relayed information from the Section 151 Officer, explained how the business rates mechanism for the Freeport will operate. He advised that the changed business rates will be separately identified within the Revenue Support Grant settlement tables. This approach provides transparency and ensures that the retained Non‑Domestic Rates (NDR) can be ring‑fenced for Freeport purposes, subject to approval by the Freeport Public Funds Committee. The Public Funds Committee will develop an investment strategy, and any application to use retained NDR will need to comply with this strategy. Funding availability will therefore be clear, and the Committee will need to confirm that all criteria and business case requirements are met before releasing funds. Applications will also be considered by the Scrutiny Committee prior to final approval. Officers confirmed that the retained rates will be separately earmarked as part of the Revenue Support Grant. The chair asked if there won't be a detriment to local authority funding because of that. Officers advised that no, it's an additional sum. Members referred to page 136 and noted that the Council will be responsible for administering the new rate‑relief scheme, under which eligible businesses within the Freeport may receive 100% rate relief for up to five years. They asked whether the Council is currently equipped, in terms of systems, processes and staffing, to administer this new scheme, or whether additional measures will need to be put in place. Officers confirmed that the Council is already well‑equipped to administer the new rate‑relief scheme. They explained that several discretionary business rate‑relief schemes are already in operation, so administering the Freeport relief will be a continuation of existing processes. Only a system update will be required, and all necessary arrangements are already in place. Members sought clarification on the reference in the Memorandum of Understanding to the Council’s commitment not to have a gap in its Local Development Plan (LDP). They noted that, although the MoU is not legally binding, it still represents a formal commitment. Members expressed concern because the Council is currently anticipating a gap between the expiry of the existing LDP and the adoption of the Replacement LDP. They asked how the implications of this had been considered, whether partners—such as the UK and Welsh Governments, the Celtic Freeport Company and Pembrokeshire Council—were aware of the situation, and how any resulting consequences for planning applications or economic development would be managed. Officers confirmed that Welsh Government has been fully updated on the Council’s LDP position throughout discussions. They explained that the relevant wording in the MoU focuses on decision‑making remaining within the legislative framework and in accordance with the development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. It also commits planning authorities to maintaining adopted development plan coverage by undertaking LDP reviews when required and delivering them in line with agreed arrangements. Officers clarified that the Council is complying with these requirements. While there will be a period without an adopted LDP once the current plan expires, the commitment in the MoU is to maintaining development plan coverage generally, not guaranteeing a seamless transition without any gap. This position has been flagged with partners, and all parties are aware of and comfortable with the wording included in the document. The chair appreciated Officers legal reading of the text. Officers reiterated that the councils will “commit to maintaining” and are going through the process ultimately with the RLDP. Nicola Pearce added that the Council had demonstrated its commitment to progressing the RLDP by taking the report to Full Council the previous week, where Members unanimously supported moving to the Deposit stage. She noted this as a clear indication of the Council’s intent to maintain development plan coverage. The Chair accepted this assurance, noting that his concern was simply to ensure there were no specific implications arising directly from the MoU. He acknowledged that wider implications associated with an LDP gap are already known and will need to be managed collectively. Following scrutiny, the recommendation was supported to Cabinet.
There were no items selected.
There were no Performance monitoring items selected.
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.