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.
Cllr S. Pursey indicated he had a personal interest for Item 6a as he is a trustee of a community library. Cllr G. Rice indicated he had a personal interest for Item 6a as he is a trustee of Britton Ferry library, he also is a trustee of friends of Jersey Park. So now take us 2 minutes of the previous meeting.
The minutes of the 11th of July and the 19th of September were approved as an accurate record.
Chris Saunders Head of Leisure gave members a brief presentation. He explained that Pontardawe Swimming Pool was an older facility that had deteriorated significantly and had structural issues and degradation led to closure on health and safety grounds and was demolished due to being a serious hazard. Officers did an Initial demand analysis conducted prior to the feasibility study. Members saw a map showing a 20-minute drive-time radius around Pontardawe Swimming Pool along with blue dots indicating other leisure facilities in the area. Members were also shown a map displaying where pool users travelled from with a concentration of users in Pontardawe and surrounding valleys. Significant number of users travelled from further afield, bypassing other facilities to use Pontardawe pool. Officers think the reason maybe because it was a warm pool. A slide illustrated the impact of Pontardawe pool’s closure, showing that large areas now rely on Neath for swimming facilities. The map excluded council facilities outside Neath Port Talbot. Officers explained the purpose of this work was to assess actual need and demand beyond public opinion. Findings confirmed a need under Sport Wales criteria. Following this, officers progressed to a feasibility study, committed to when the pool closure decision was made. The study included site analysis, facility mix, layout, massing, and cost estimates to RIBA Stage 1. Austin Smith Lord led the work, supported by Gleeds for cost consultancy and The Sports Consultancy for specialist input. Officers praised their professionalism and quality of work. From the feasibility report, officers reviewed 22 sites from the local plan register to identify alternatives. After discussions with the town council, four potential options were shortlisted: • Pontardawe Leisure Centre • Former Pontardawe swimming pool site • Vacant site at Old Foundry Road • Glanrhyd Industrial Estate Pontardawe Leisure Centre emerged as the preferred option, although officers noted that it was not perfect, but most viable for future delivery. Officers also considered the desired facility mix. Officers advised that choosing the leisure centre site narrows the range of facilities slightly. The preferred option is a 6-lane, 25-metre pool with a teaching pool, replicating the previous Pontardawe setup. After confirming this, layouts for the leisure centre were reviewed, with diagrams showing different pool positions. The selected layout was not chosen for cost though it was the cheapest but because it offered the best overall solution. Members were advised that no decision has been made regarding the old tennis courts or the small play area. Officers explored two construction options: a traditional build and a dome structure promoted by Swim England. While the dome was slightly cheaper, it posed significant risks, limited contractor experience, future replacement costs, and challenges in securing funding. As a result, officers confirmed the traditional build as the preferred approach. Members reviewed a funding and affordability pack outlining project costs and risks. Contingency is built into the design and construction but delays in securing funding could increase costs. The total project cost is just under £15 million, with an annual saving through efficiencies and increased income. Equating to £279,000 which is therefore available for borrowing, enabling around £4million in potential finance. This leaves an approximate £11 million funding gap. Members were advised that an additional £750,000 in revenue per annum would be needed to fund the outstanding borrowing. is. Officers noted that Prudential Borrowing rates have changed slightly since the figures were prepared, but not significantly. The current position is that a feasibility study is in place so the council is further advanced should capital funding become available. Officers are clear that £11 million is required and are actively seeking funds, though opportunities are limited and will likely depend on a large government funding pot. Members expressed several concerns: They felt the proposed scheme lacks ambition and does not support effective placemaking. It feels rooted in outdated planning that fails to create a welcoming sense of space. Members agreed there is a clear need for the development and understood the logic of combining the swimming pool with the leisure centre but questioned why the approach differs from Neath Leisure Centre. They questioned that if a new pool is being built, should it not form part of a full leisure complex, given that Pontardawe’ s existing facilities are dated? Members also raised concerns about the chosen location for the preferred site, particularly in relation to placemaking. Concerns about the scoring matrix in the report particularly in relation to land status. While land status was accepted, members questioned other criteria. Of the four options, some felt the Boundary Road site offers the greatest placemaking potential, creating a strong sense of identity for Pontardawe alongside the arts centre and library, and promoting the town as a leisure destination. They also believed the site allows for future expansion, unlike the existing leisure centre site. Members requested more detail on how sites were scored, especially those not taken forward. Questions were raised about projected footfall. Members noted that Neath Leisure Centre’s relocation to the town centre increased both town footfall and leisure membership. They asked if similar data exists for Pontardawe. Members also asked whether officers had feedback from local businesses on the economic impact of Neath’s leisure centre move. Officers confirmed there is no additional information with the scoring matrix. They acknowledged the site isn’t ideal and a town centre location would have been preferable to attract town centre related funding, but no suitable site was identified that could function as effectively as the leisure centre site. A standalone site would also cost more to operate. Officers explained that combining the pool with the leisure centre offers operational efficiencies. Moving the entire leisure centre to the town centre would require a much larger site and significantly higher costs, which is unfeasible given current funding challenges. Adding a leisure centre could increase costs by around £10 million, making the project unrealistic. The Council does not purchase data to assess town centre spend. However, when Neath Leisure Centre expanded, memberships increased significantly compared to the old Dyfed Road site, though they have since stabilised, they are at a higher level than before. Library usage also rose notably. While officers have no exact figures, this illustrates the potential for increased footfall if located in the town centre. Simon Brennan (Head of Property and Regeneration) explained that the original concept for the town centre leisure development included an anchor retail store, but rapid changes in the retail market made that unviable. The leisure centre was chosen instead due to its strong footfall potential. Officers reiterated they do not purchase Google spend data due to cost, but feedback from businesses indicated the town centre improved overall. While businesses often report cautiously, the outcome was positive. Five of the six adjoining units have been let, with advanced negotiations for the final unit. All tenants are quality businesses attracted by the leisure centre’s central location. Officers noted that the Foundry Road site is slightly outside the town centre and not in the retail area. While it could have a positive impact, this must be weighed against an additional £4 million in construction costs and a more challenging ongoing revenue position. Ultimately, it’s about balancing these factors. Some members agreed that the Foundry Road site could act as an anchor for Pontardawe by promoting health, wellbeing, and fitness, making it an anchor destination in its own right. Members asked whether there will be consultation on the report or if the council has already confirmed the pool’s location. They also queried why a larger swimming pool was not considered, noting that while operational costs would be higher, it could attract swim galas and visitors from further afield, potentially making Pontardawe a swimming centre of excellence. Officers noted that demand for swimming galas is already met by the National Pool in Swansea and other well-developed facilities in the area. Officers advised that swimming galas and similar events do not generate income; pools are typically loss leaders. The aim is to provide sufficient water space to meet demand without excessive features like diving boards, eight lanes, or 50-metre pools, which would significantly increase both capital and operating costs. Unlike studio spaces, these additions do not improve efficiency or reduce long-term running costs. Officers advised that there has not been wide consultation yet, only discussions with the town council. Formal consultation would occur during later stages, such as planning, if funding is secured. Consulting now would raise public expectations without certainty of delivery. Members cautioned against presenting the public with a fully developed proposal, as this could feel imposed rather than collaborative. While raising expectations is a concern, clear communication about current challenges and funding constraints could help manage perceptions. By explaining what has been inherited and what the council aims to achieve, members felt the public could be brought along the journey and involved in shaping the leisure centre. Members asked about the data centre South Devon swimming pool which is combined to reduce the operational costs and asked if officers had considered doing something similar. Officers explained that while there is a Passivhaus pool in Exeter, its construction costs were significantly high. Officers advised that the new pool will be significantly more sustainable than the existing one, delivering utility efficiencies. However, they have not pursued extreme measures, as consultants confirmed such options would be outside scope and unsustainable. The Chair asked about governance and site selection, noting that the feasibility study was only noted by Cabinet and no decision has been made. He sought clarification on the next steps, including whether the council has officially chosen the site or endorsed the consultants’ report. He also requested clarity on the next governance stage for the committee, acknowledging that this is subject to funding uncertainties. Cllr Cen Phillips, Cabinet Member for Nature, Tourism, and Well-being, explained that the process so far has been commissioning the feasibility study to provide evidence and identify a potential project for when funding becomes available. Cabinet has been clear from the outset that no funding stream is currently in place. He noted that the capital funding landscape is fluid, with changes to Levelling Up and Shared Prosperity Funds, so the next stage will involve monitoring funding opportunities. Decisions will only be made when a viable funding stream is identified. Cabinet noted the report rather than making a decision, as the site identified is a provisional preferred option, not a confirmed location. Further stages, including design work and ground investigations, would follow before any firm decision. When funding is secured, decisions will be taken through the usual council processes. The Chair noted that the committee will maintain a watching brief due to public interest. He highlighted that if there is a long gap before the scheme progresses, other sites or funding opportunities may emerge and should be considered. He also suggested viewing the project from a regeneration perspective, not solely as a pool development. Simon Brennan explained that officers have explored regeneration funding options, but opportunities are limited. There is currently no successor to the Levelling Up Fund, and Welsh Government is unlikely to fund this type of project. However, they have not ruled it out, so officers will continue to pursue potential funding streams. Cllr Cen Phillips advised that Cabinet asked officers to review the entire Foundry Road site and consider other potential town centre locations. He noted that the key difference between Pontardawe and Neath is the size of the town centre—Pontardawe has very limited space compared to Neath for such developments. Members welcomed progress in completing the feasibility study and stressed its importance. Some members felt the proposed site is ideal and presents an opportunity to create not just a swimming pool but a comprehensive sports hub, given its existing play areas, three football pitches, two rugby pitches, a 4G pitch, and the leisure centre. Members noted the strong link to Cwmtawe Community School, which is easily accessible across the car park. They felt the school would drive significant footfall, as pupils would use the facility both during and outside school hours. Members noted that the site had previously been identified for a swimming pool and questioned why another feasibility study was necessary when earlier planning options had already considered it. Chris Saunders explained that when Pontardawe pool closed, members requested a feasibility study to identify potential locations. The previous proposal was part of a much larger scheme involving a new school, so the council wanted to review other options and consider what the facility might look like. Officers also wanted to ensure they had a robust study to support future funding bids, as the earlier scheme was not developed enough for detailed applications. This feasibility work provides an “off-the-shelf” option should funding opportunities arise. Members stressed the need for a clear explanation on why a new feasibility study was commissioned, as residents frequently ask why this is necessary when a location had already been identified previously. A member asked whether previous ground investigation data for the site can be reused, noting that extensive surveys were carried out during earlier proposals. They queried if this information is still available to avoid repeating work and incurring additional costs. Officers believe so but couldn't say that with absolutely certainty. Officers explained that previous site investigation (SI) data may be reusable, particularly geotechnical information, which rarely changes. However, other assessments—such as flood mapping, traffic, or biodiversity—are more time-sensitive and may need updating, as data can change annually. While reusing existing data could save time and cost, its applicability will depend on how much time passes before development begins. Members stated that the existing changing rooms on site should be condemned but noted they are still shown on the plan. They asked whether there are plans to incorporate new changing rooms for other sports as part of the development. Officers explained that It's out of the scope of this and not something they have actively looked at although they are aware they are not in the best condition. Members asked if it will be looked at or not? Officers felt that it will be in due course but it's there are no plans to do that at this moment. Members felt that adequate car parking is essential, as people currently use sports fields for parking. They suggested incorporating parking within the pool development to free up space in front of the 4G pitch, making the site more functional. Officers advised that one of the iterations and layouts of the sites meant that they would have to demolish the changing rooms and re-provide in an different way. Members expressed concern over a perceived lack of ambition for Pontardawe. With a feasibility study underway and additional funding allocated, they considered it an opportunity to broaden the scope and adopt a more ambitious approach. As a separate funding bid would be required regardless, Members felt it logical to look wider. Members noted repeated requests from the Education and Wellbeing Scrutiny Committee to view the feasibility study specification. Members noted that the new model of scrutiny was intended to have a wider role in policy development. They felt that earlier involvement could have brought local knowledge and expertise, such as why people use the pool, the condition of the grounds and changing rooms, into consideration. This might have allowed a broader development approach to be factored in and informed the feasibility study specification. Members suggested that future processes should consider how scrutiny can contribute at an earlier stage. Officers explained that the work was tendered at a cost of approximately £30,000, which they considered excellent value. They suggested that whether scrutiny should be more involved in shaping such projects is a matter for Members to debate. In terms of feasibility officers think they had a conversation with the town council but were unsure whether the final feasibility specification was given to them. The Cabinet Member noted that scrutiny had previously discussed this approval issue and received information on the feasibility study. There was no intention to prevent scrutiny from considering any aspect, and the idea was for the study to be brought to scrutiny as soon as possible to discuss wider ambitions. The current focus is on the swimming pool as the immediate issue, though other regeneration projects for Pontardawe and surrounding towns are ongoing. The Council had explored potential links with the former Foundry Road site, but the feasibility study concluded that the preferred option is to combine the swimming pool with the leisure centre on this site. The cabinet member noted that Funding timelines remain uncertain, but the Council will keep an open mind on any further evidence or considerations arising from this and other processes. The Chair noted that changes to committee remits had moved this matter from Education Scrutiny to the current Committee and confirmed he had been kept informed due to prior interest. He reassured Members that this is an early stage, with a preferred site not yet formally endorsed by Council and plans only at RIBA Stage 1, an embryonic level. When funding becomes available, there will be an opportunity to revisit the proposals in light of circumstances and resources at that time. The Chair also highlighted future opportunities for scrutiny to contribute meaningfully to the process. Members expressed concern that scrutiny was not involved at an early stage, despite being told this would be possible and having repeatedly requested sight of the specification. They stressed that decisions should not be a knee-jerk reaction to the immediate issue and could have considered a wider approach. Members asked the Cabinet Member to ensure that, in future, if a specification is being developed, scrutiny is engaged earlier—even if this requires a private session to protect tendering confidentiality. The Cabinet Member reassured members that there was no intention to exclude scrutiny and expressed a commitment to involving scrutiny at the earliest possible stage. He acknowledged the project is still at an early stage and noted that, while integrating this with wider town centre projects was considered, waiting to align everything could risk delaying progress entirely. The swimming pool was prioritised as an immediate issue, but the Cabinet Member confirmed that comments would be taken on board and reiterated the intention to engage scrutiny earlier in future processes. Members noted that many people travel past closer facilities to Neath because pool opening times elsewhere are often restricted due to school and club use, particularly given the lack of a pool in Pontardawe. They also highlighted that Afan Lido missed the opportunity to include a health suite, whereas adding one to Neath attracted users from both Port Talbot and Pontardawe. Members suggested that including a health suite would attract more users and increase footfall. They asked whether this has been considered and if there are plans to incorporate it in the future. Officers advised that the current facility mix specification includes a steam room and sauna. These features will be reviewed further as the design progresses, with demand assessed before final decisions are made. At this stage, they remain part of the plan. Following Scrutiny the report was noted.
There were no Items selected from the Scrutiny Forward Work Programme.
Members considered Performance monitoring item 6a.
Officers apologised for the omission of engineering and transport actions and measures from the report, explaining it was an administrative error. They confirmed that all actions and measures relating to engineering and transport will be brought back to the Committee on 14 November. Members reported that many business holders were unhappy with current Council lease terms, feeling they restrict growth and improvement. Members asked whether the authority intends to review these leases to make them more business-friendly and encourage greater uptake. Members clarified that business concerns relate to maintenance responsibilities and restrictions on what tenants can do within properties, as well as uncertainty over which obligations fall to them versus the landlord. Officers explained that the Council uses standard industry leases, adapted for individual properties as needed. They noted two key aspects: the structure of the lease and its enforcement. Officers emphasised that the Council has always sought to be considerate towards businesses. Officers reflected that, unlike private landlords, the Council prioritises the wellbeing of town centres and has been flexible in supporting tenants through difficult periods, including adjusting rental positions to help businesses continue. While some tenants have closed, many have flourished. Officers acknowledged that tenants will naturally seek more favourable terms but believe the Council’s leases are generally fair and its approach to tenant relations is flexible. Members gave an example of a tenant seeking an electrical certificate for a unit where existing equipment did not meet the required standard. The Council advised that it was the tenant’s responsibility to ensure compliance, even though the equipment was present when the lease was taken over. Members asked how the Council handles such situations. Officers explained that lease agreements clearly set out tenant and landlord responsibilities, and tenants are advised to seek legal advice before signing. They noted that Council maintenance budgets are limited, making it challenging to assume additional responsibilities. Officers added that rental levels reflect these arrangements, if the Council were to take on all internal maintenance, rents would need to increase significantly. Cllr Hurley, Cabinet Member for Climate Change and Economic Growth, noted that while not an expert, he has experience with Council leases and confirmed they are standard industry forms adapted for each unit. He stressed the importance of tenants fully reading and understanding lease conditions before signing, as issues often arise when this is overlooked. He added that Council rents and lease terms are generally fair, and tenants should exercise due diligence before entering agreements, as changes after signing can be difficult. The Chair noted that, from his experience, the Council has a strong reputation for supporting businesses and that the Estates team is approachable and willing to discuss restrictions or conditions to enable the right activities. He emphasised that while standard lease conditions may not suit every business, tenants can engage with the team to resolve issues. The Chair also observed that the condition of Council-owned rental and industrial units varies, with older units presenting more challenges—such as obtaining electrical certificates and addressing maintenance—than newer ones. He acknowledged that the Council is aware of these issues and the difficulties in securing funding to address them. Officers explained that electrical setups vary significantly between units, as businesses often require different specifications—such as single-phase or three-phase power—based on their operations. For this reason, new units are typically developed as shells, since lighting, socket placement, and power requirements differ for each tenant. Some tenants can work with existing setups, while others need to completely reconfigure the electrical system to meet their needs. Members were advised that Council occupancy levels are almost full across all industrial estates, and officers are close to letting the last retail unit in Neath town centre. This indicates that businesses are generally comfortable with the units provided. Officers acknowledged that tenants naturally seek more favourable terms, noting that they would likely do the same in that position. However, officers explained this is standard practice within the property industry. Members observed that many performance indicators are marked green, suggesting strong progress, but questioned the accuracy of this assessment. They noted that some narrative detail indicates areas still needing improvement. Members highlighted the broad interpretation of “on track,” which can range from being fully achieved to simply progressing toward the goal, and stressed the importance of clarity in reporting. In relation to Gwyn Hall, members felt that it is a superb facility and cinema. Members asked how much influence the council has with Celtic leisure who runs it to be able to suggest improvements as there are things that can be done in the cafeteria to enhance it further like having more than one coffee machine. Chris Saunders advised that he meets with the new CEO regularly and can feedback the members feedback but that's what it would be as the council haven't got this influence to go in and demand. Members were complimentary of the space but felt that when you go to an event and experience a 35-minute queue just to get some refreshment, then that takes the edge of it. Members noted that during a consultation session on the Princess Royal Theatre rebranding, it was widely agreed by attendees that the Council should set aside time for local organisations—such as amateur dramatics groups, choirs, bands, and dance clubs—to use the venue at a peppercorn price. Members asked whether this has been incorporated into future planning for the theatre. They felt this approach would generate strong community buy-in, as more residents could afford to attend local performances compared to high-profile acts. Officers agreed on the importance of securing strong community buy-in for the new facility, while noting the need to balance this against the operating budget. They highlighted the success at Pontardawe Arts Centre in obtaining an Arts Council grant, which enabled further subsidisation of local shows and activities—allowing free or discounted usage and hire of facilities. Officers want to replicate this approach when the new theatre opens. Members welcomed this as they felt that choirs who would like to use the theatre have been costed out over the last few years. The chair was glad that grants are available to support aspirational work alongside budget performance measures which is reassuring to members. The chair noted that the culture strategy actions and the performance measure for it is currently showing as off track and asked how officers feel they are at in terms of work needing to be done. Chris Saunders reiterated that this report reflects Quarter 1 monitoring, covering data from a few months ago. He clarified that the cultural strategy is designed as a strategy for the place, not solely for the Council to deliver. While the Council will drive the process, delivery relies on wider community involvement. To support this, a cultural compact or partnership approach has been explored, with a meeting earlier in the year involving partners such as housing associations, Sport Wales, Heritage Lottery, and others, chaired by Karen Jones. The key outcome was the recognition that a dedicated resource is essential to make this happen—similar to the Public Services Board model—otherwise progress will be limited. Officers advised that a bid has been submitted to the UK Government under its cultural priorities to secure funding for a dedicated resource to lead the cultural partnership work. The bid was intentionally higher than the expected allocation to avoid underselling the proposal. If successful, this funding would enable someone to coordinate partners and hold them accountable for delivery. Chris Saunders highlighted that much of the cultural strategy’s success in recent years has been supported by the SPF Tourism Events Fund, which will end in April, making things harder. Officers confirmed that funding has recently been secured for an Arts Development Officer from the Arts Council, who will take up post shortly, marking some progress—but overall, delivery depends on resources. The Chair noted that this is partly an internal resource issue, and successful bids would help. Many local groups have used this funding for excellent work, so losing SPF is concerning—not just culturally but more broadly. It will have a significant impact, so budget priorities should be reviewed to see if some support can continue, even on a smaller scale, for the work the council value most. Cllr Cen Philips, Cabinet Member, highlighted the major challenge posed by the end of SPF. If not replaced, it will affect not only culture and tourism but council-wide resourcing and staffing. He noted that budget pressures—particularly in adult social services and education—make this even harder. He stressed that additional funding from UK and Welsh governments would significantly help the council deliver more. Cllr Jeremy Hurly, Cabinet Member, stated that the culture and heritage strategy has empowered communities. He gave an example from his village where a group accessed SPF, HLT, and Pen Y Cymoedd funding to deliver significant local projects. He also highlighted the growth of the Arts Festival, noting that the strategy has raised awareness and empowered people, which is very positive. The Chair asked about progress on the new Port Talbot library and monitoring of premises. Simon Brennan noted that the library is currently located in the shopping centre, but as with all council assets, its location and alternative options are under review. Officers are considering the positive impact of Neath’s new library and exploring possibilities such as incorporating the library into the Port Talbot Civic Centre as part of the forthcoming accommodation strategy. This is at an early stage and will require resources and funding to develop fully, but it remains a key option under consideration. The Chair noted that proposals to relocate the library have long been part of the library strategy. He suggested that recent theatre improvements present an opportunity to integrate culture, heritage, and library services within the Civic Centre. He asked officers about the current scope and offered the committee’s support to shape plans early. The Chair noted that co-locating services would mean more than just simply moving the library and would need to consider shared meeting facilities and events. Chris Saunders noted the Civic Centre offers an opportunity for a cultural hub, combining the theatre, library, and potentially other facilities such as workspaces. However, progress depends on the accommodation strategy and confirming available space. He welcomed the Chair’s offer of committee support. Simon Brennan added that any proposal must be fundable, and discussions with Welsh Government are ongoing. He highlighted the £15m theatre investment and the need to refurbish the rest of the building, which hasn’t been updated since 1987. He noted that full consideration the building is important as if you moved the library in and then later decided to refurbish parts of the building it would be difficult as services are integrated. Officers aim to develop a community hub model, as standalone library funding is unlikely. The Chair felt that it further emphasised the need to define the council’s ambition. If plans go beyond simply relocating the library, a wider scheme could help resolve uncertainties about the building’s future. He noted that everyone seems aligned in principle but not yet coordinated and reiterated the offer of scrutiny support to consider the whole vision. Members had questions about Aberavon sea front, in relation to the management at the sea front and the ongoing review, a question in relation to the prioritisation of projects on the master plan and a question on the communications forum. Chris Saunders reported that SPF-funded feasibility studies for the seafront strategy have begun, focusing on the Tir Morfa and Naval Club sites, though progress updates are pending. He noted these studies are time-limited. On communication and operational matters, mapping work is complete, and active discussions are underway on next steps. The Chair asked when members might see the budget request through the medium-term financial process. Chris Saunders advised that officers are currently reviewing efficiencies and discussing options, it will come to members but the matter has not yet reached Cabinet stages yet in governance. In relation to the master plan prioritisation, the chair noted the report comments that that its scheduled for mid-September and while he appreciates the council has put bids for feasibility studies on two of the schemes, that members haven't yet seen is the priority list. The Chair observed that some schemes appear to have been developed using available funding, which is welcome, but without a clear prioritisation of the full list of interventions, it is difficult to see how the master plan will progress. He noted that while feasibility studies are useful, the council needs clarity on how these will translate into deliverable projects. Chris Saunders advised that he doesn’t think Officers have necessarily gone back and prioritised, and would have to check how they got to those two sites. Another team is leading that piece of work and would essentially be driven through funding opportunities. The Chair expressed concern that previous seafront development occurred without a clear strategy, leading to uncoordinated activity despite positive outcomes. He stressed that the master plan and prioritisation process should identify the most important interventions for the next 2, 5, and 10 years—distinguishing urgent needs from ‘nice-to-have’ projects. Until this work is done, the council risks repeating past mistakes by pursuing ad-hoc opportunities. Members asked for an update on the LDP after noting the report flagged deliverability challenges. Ceri Morris, Head of Planning, explained that while the measure could appear on track, the council is close to slipping behind the delivery agreement timetable, with further delays likely. The main issue is identifying enough deliverable sites to meet housing needs—over 4,000 homes. A public consultation on the preferred strategy earlier this year generated significant feedback, which officers are reviewing. Coed Darcy remains under consideration, though further due diligence is required, and no single site will resolve all challenges. Officers are continuing to work with the site owners of Coed Darcy with the view to including the site within the plan as it can be part of the solution going forward but ongoing complexities and challenges need to be acknowledged. Officers hope to bring forward the consultation draft for the Cabinet and Council consideration in the autumn of 2026 but the wider RLDP timetable, and the added challenges of both the Senedd and the local government elections adds complexity to the timetable going forward. Officers are currently focused on finalising the housing trajectory, which sets out when sites will come forward during the plan period. This work is not yet complete and is critical, as the trajectory underpins key evidence-based studies that support the RLDP. Members were reminded of the many constraints affecting council sites, including ecological issues, contaminated land, and highway capacity issues. Officers must balance these factors to produce a plan that is ultimately sound, which remains the key challenge. The Chair informed members that he and the Scrutiny Officer hope to work with officers to identify how the committee can add value to the RLDP process without creating extra burden, noting its importance for every ward. He highlighted the national push for housing delivery and the challenges of allocating land and making development happen. Members asked about the maintenance of the rights of way network and the challenges around the limited budget for it. Ceri Morris advised that the position has not worsened since the matter was last scrutinised, largely because the countryside access team has adopted new approaches to budget savings. With 500 miles of rights of way and limited resources, difficult prioritisation decisions are unavoidable. The team actively pursues grant funding and has a strong track record, though securing grants is challenging. Despite these efforts, resource constraints will always be there. Officers stated that this measure is unlikely ever to be fully ‘green’. The chair acknowledged that point and felt that it was important to understand the situation and how it’s being managed. Members asked if the Active Travel initiative could assist with rights of way. Officers explained that, while there may be occasional overlap, Active Travel and rights of way are separate networks. Active Travel funding is ring-fenced for its specific purpose, though dialogue continues to identify opportunities. Members noted work to include some bridleways in Active Travel plans, which could potentially shift them into a different network and attract funding. Officers noted that a key challenge with Active Travel funding is that it cannot currently be used for ongoing maintenance, despite councils lobbying on this issue for years. Welsh Government appears to be starting to address this, with indications that future funding may include maintenance elements, which would help prevent worsening existing problems. Members suggested that many rights of way have historically served as active travel routes and could potentially be incorporated into Active Travel plans to access additional funding, helping improve standards and support the council’s maintenance programme. The Chair noted that rural areas, which have more rights of way, face the greatest difficulty in securing Active Travel funding due to population-based criteria, meaning most funding goes to urban areas. However, there is some crossover, and other authorities have successfully used Active Travel funding for rights of way improvements. Officers agreed to discuss with Active Travel colleagues how best to maximise these opportunities. Members asked for an update on the disposals and acquisitions strategy, noting the draft has been discussed internally. They highlighted that while the committee receives reports on individual property transactions, there is limited visibility of the wider strategic picture—such as whether buildings elsewhere in the county are considered strategically important. Members requested clarity on when the strategy will be brought forward and whether it could be considered by scrutiny. Simon Brennan advised that the disposals and acquisitions strategy is a process document that will form part of a suite of documents alongside the Corporate Asset Management Plan, setting out how the council manages property acquisitions and disposals effectively. Officers explained that property acquisitions are often made with a long-term view. Examples include the Plaza and Harbour Court in Port Talbot, which were held for many years before successful outcomes. Members were advised that having control of buildings is critical to secure funding and deliver projects, even if development may not occur for 2–10 years. This approach ensures flexibility and strategic outcomes for the locality. The Chair acknowledged the strategy is not about acquisitions but noted the committee’s interest in this area. He cited Bethany Chapel in Port Talbot—a prominent Grade II listed building that has struggled in private ownership and was largely destroyed by fire—as an example of a site that could have been a strategic acquisition, similar to the Plaza. He stressed the need for a coordinated and fair approach to acquisitions, as the council cannot buy everything. Members and the public need assurance that acquisitions are made for the right reasons, rather than on a piecemeal basis. Simon Brennan explained that officers are mindful of avoiding liabilities and always consider how a property fits into future plans before acquisition. For example, a building in Neath was assessed for its potential role alongside transport hub development and links to the railway station. He noted that some buildings can be salvaged, while others, like Bethany Chapel, were always challenging. Officers explored Bethany for years, but owners were unwilling to sell. Since the fire the owners are keen to sell it but the site is now difficult to develop and hard to find a use for. The Chair noted that many of the buildings discussed are liabilities, and the council needs to clearly define what it is willing to take on. He highlighted that Bethany Chapel came up for sale several times over a long period, but the council was not positioned to act. He suggested there should be a discussion on how decisions to intervene are made. Cllr Hurley, Cabinet Member for Climate Change and Economic Growth, noted that some acquisitions have been reactive, such as Soars Chapel and Moose Hall, where owners approached the council and Welsh Government funded 90% of costs. He described these as “no-brainers.” Soars chapel is in good condition and still used by a religious group until repurposed, while Moose Hall is a critical historic site near Neath Castle, making council ownership essential for regeneration. He acknowledged the reactive approach but praised officers for seizing opportunities and thanked them for their work. Following Scrutiny members noted the report.
The Democratic services officer updated members on the forward work Programme. He confirmed the following changes: The amendments to Swansea Bay City deal Joint Scrutiny Committee and delegation of functions to the Southwest Wales Corporate Joint Committee. Added to 12th December meeting. The Decarbonisation strategy has been moved to the 12th of December meeting. The Bus Franchise Update and Bus Network has been moved to the 14th of November meeting. The Chair is working on a letter to pass on to Simon Brennan to highlight some of the issues and points raised when we discussed the Southwest Wales Regional Economic Delivery Plan. Regeneration Economic Development Strategy will be added to the Forward work Programme when it is added to the cabinet FWP. Officers will arrange a site visit to Margam park. Performance monitoring for Engineering and Transport will be added to the 14th of November meeting.
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.