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.
Officers provided a summary of the report, explaining that a public engagement exercise was carried out in September by Transport for Wales and local authorities to gather feedback on the proposed base network. This feedback has informed an updated network, which officers now seek endorsement to recommend to the Southwest Wales Committee and Welsh Ministers for inclusion in the Welsh Network Plan. This plan will underpin future franchising in the region. Officers also request authority to continue working with Transport for Wales on detailed timetables and service connections, allowing minor adjustments in consultation with the Cabinet Member and affected ward members. The network is designed to be cost-neutral, based on current funding levels; any changes in funding or operating costs will directly affect service provision. Officers stated that the Council cannot be expected to cover any shortfall should costs increase. Members noted that the current assumption is that existing funding will continue to support bus services if the regional model is maintained. Members asked if there is certainty that this funding will be sustained. Officers advised that funding for local bus services has remained stable for a long time, and Transport for Wales assumes this will continue. While there have been minor changes, none have had a significant impact. This point was included because questions were raised earlier about funding, and current indications are that no major changes are expected. Officers explained that if franchising proceeds and the model shifts from net to gross contracts with operators, any increase in costs has not been clarified in terms of who will cover them. Officers stressed that, given the Council’s current budget pressures, it cannot be expected to meet any shortfall. Members asked whether the Council’s stance that it cannot absorb additional costs is formally documented or agreed, or if it is simply officers’ expectation that the Executive would not take on further financial commitments. Officers explained that the point was included in the report as a caveat. While the franchising model being developed with Transport for Wales is understood and supported, there is concern about future costs. Although the base network remains largely unchanged, with only minor improvements, tendering for new contracts often results in higher costs each year and that the Council should not be expected to financially support resulting budget pressures. Members were advised that the Council already contributes just over £300,000, and it would be difficult to subsidise any shortfall or increased operational costs. Officers stressed that responsibility for covering such costs should rest with Transport for Wales and Welsh Government, instead of local authorities. Members noted that page 14 of the report states the current funding envelope includes local authority revenue support contributions for bus services and contributions to concessionary fares. They asked whether the specific figures could be included in the report so members can clearly see the Council’s contribution and the amount allocated to concessions. Officers explained that the Council currently provides £320,000 from its unhypothecated Revenue Support Grant (RSG) to support the local bus network, with all remaining funding coming from Welsh Government. The Council receives £392,000 through the Bus Services Support Grant, although this amount varies annually. In addition, £2.7 million is provided via the Bus Network Grant. Total funding to subsidise local bus services to £3.4 million. Officers clarified that concessionary fares are not funded through a grant but are reimbursements to operators for carrying passengers free of charge, replacing the revenue they would otherwise receive. The Council contributes £718,000 towards concessionary fare reimbursements, of which £365,000 is hypothecated through the RSG, leaving an additional £353,000 funded directly by the Council. Welsh Government contributed £1.8 million last year towards concessionary fares in Neath Port Talbot, alongside the Council’s £718,000 contribution. Members noted that on the alternative options listed on page 12 of the report it says the Updated Base Network in Neath Port Talbot would still progress as planned by Transport for Wales to the South-West Wales Corporate Joint Committee, for the CJC to decide whether they will recommend the Updated Base Network to Welsh Ministers. Members questioned the purpose of scrutiny in this context. Officers explained that because Southwest Wales is the first region in Wales to move to bus franchising, the responsibility for the local bus network is transferring from local authorities to Welsh Government, with Transport for Wales (TfW) leading the process. TfW will report to the CJC, which will then make a recommendation to Welsh Ministers, who will take the final decision under the new legislation. Members were advised that reports are being presented to each council in the region at this early stage because local authorities still have significant involvement in designing the base network. This level of involvement may not be required in later regions. Officers felt this provides benefits for the Council to be able to shape the network based on public feedback. James Davies Head of Engineering and Transport praised the team’s work in ensuring residents’ views are properly reflected. He acknowledged the point raised by members: even if one or more councils declined to endorse the updated network, the CJC could still recommend it to Welsh Ministers. However, because this is part of the formal governance process, the Council must still bring the local base network through Cabinet and scrutiny at this stage. Officers explained that while the CJC will consider the wider regional base network, the Neath Port Talbot network will ultimately form part of a Welsh Government bus network that will be designed and agreed by Welsh Ministers from 2026. Currently officers can brief members on developments, but decision‑making will shift to Welsh Government once the new system is in place. Members were advised that the partnership working will continue after 2026, but the purpose of bringing the base local network to members now is to ensure it forms part of all‑Wales network plan that must be completed by 2026 for the legislation to progress. Members are therefore seeing the proposals at an early stage, supported by several workshops that have provided insight into the emerging network for Neath Port Talbot. Officers emphasised that this is one part of the wider governance process and a small component of the national network that Welsh Ministers will ultimately determine. Members felt that the process feels convoluted and challenging, particularly as Southwest Wales is the first region to move through it, meaning everyone is learning how best to proceed. They noted that the proposed network has already undergone a 12‑week public consultation and that the base network routes have now been established and published. Members asked whether these routes are fixed or whether there will be flexibility to make amendments before the system becomes operational, such as altering routes, adding or removing stops, changing service frequency or adjusting ticket prices. They also queried whether any changes would be possible after franchising is awarded, for example if early operational issues reveal that certain routes need to extend by a few extra stops. Members sought reassurance on whether such modifications could still be made later in the process or whether the published network is now final. Officers advised that a few very minor adjustments have already been made since the report was prepared. They explained that detailed elements such as morning start times, evening finish times and connection arrangements have not yet been designed; the current focus has only been on the routes themselves and the frequency of services. A significant amount of detailed work still needs to follow, and while this may lead to some changes, officers do not expect major alterations. Tweaks will continue over the next year, with the procurement process for franchising scheduled to begin in spring 2026. The franchised network is not expected to start operating until September 2027. When procurement documentation is released, operators may offer feedback, and Transport for Wales will begin engagement with operators next week and over the following two months to consider any amendments they may propose. Officers explained that, for the bus bill to progress in 2026, the only element that must be consulted on at this stage is the Base Bus Network, essentially the route map and service frequency. Operational details such as first and last trips, connections and full timetables are not part of the current consultation and will be developed in time for the procurement exercise in spring 2026. Members asked for confirmation that the franchise model will permit adjustments later to address issues that may only become apparent once services are operating. Officers explained that under the franchising model, Transport for Wales (TfW) is designing the base network and associated frequencies to match the funding currently available. Alongside this, TfW has also developed an “aspirational network” that includes potential improvements such as enhanced Sunday services. These aspirational proposals have not been discarded; they remain on hold and could be incorporated into future procurement exercises if additional funding becomes available. This would provide opportunities to enhance the network beyond the baseline provision. Officers highlighted that the council’s aspirations for the network and the proposed base network are different, and the outcome will depend on available funding. The report presents the base network as a worst‑case scenario, as future funding levels will determine service connections, frequencies, and operating hours. Further detail is not yet available. The Chair expressed concern about the uncertainty surrounding how the new arrangements will operate, noting discomfort in endorsing the proposals when many details remain unknown. He acknowledged, however, that this is a necessary technical exercise required by the legislation. From the perspective of a local member, he highlighted the difficulty in supporting the network without knowing whether it will enable residents to travel to work or access key services. Any endorsement, he felt, would need to reflect that uncertainty. While he was broadly comfortable with the proposed routes, he emphasised that the lack of detail on operating times, such as what “morning” or “evening” services mean in practice, especially on long routes, remains a challenge. The chair stressed the importance of understanding how this level of detail will be developed between now and spring 2026, noting that trade-offs will be inevitable and will require member input. He offered the committee’s contributions when those discussions take place. Members raised concerns about how the funding model will operate once the new system is implemented. They noted that, at present, Welsh Government provides funding to the council, which is then paid to operators, but this arrangement will not continue in the same way if overall funding levels remain unchanged. Members questioned whether existing grants will be passed through to the CJC, or administered directly by Welsh Government, if the CJC becomes responsible for the network. Members also queried how local authority financial contributions will be managed. They highlighted that any continued council funding would need to be formally agreed, and asked what happens if a local authority reduces its contribution for example, if Swansea were to cut funding and how this would affect a regional network where funding is pooled rather than allocated to specific services. Members asked what mechanisms would exist for the region to increase funding if they wished to do so, and what would happen if individual local authorities chose not to contribute. Members asked for clarity on whether the overall funding envelope would be set by the CJC, by the constituent councils, or by Welsh Government. Members noted that if the CJC determines the funding level, it would have the ability to decide collectively to increase investment. Members emphasised that these questions need resolving now, as the network presented represents a worst‑case scenario. As timetables and service details are considered between now and spring 2026, they may identify areas where additional funding, for example, an extra £200,000 could significantly improve outcomes. They stressed that such decisions cannot be made without understanding the financial process and the potential benefits. Members expressed concern about the current uncertainty, noting that when this issue was previously raised at the CJC, it appeared that the process had not yet been fully considered. Members requested further clarity on how funding decisions will be made. Officers advised that it would be difficult to give members clarity and that it was also difficult for officers because, like the regional transport plan they were working off the Welsh Government giving officers a set figure with the CJC that they thought they should be working towards in terms of providing the delivery plan, and that changed. Officers acknowledged members’ concerns and confirmed that they share those frustrations. Officers clarified that Transport for Wales will hold the funding already within the system. Officers have checked and confirmed that Neath Port Talbot’s contribution to local bus services is entirely within the council’s control and could be reduced or increased if members chose to do so. This is an aspect that the council could consider as the process develops. Officers explained that, under the current CJC arrangements, Transport for Wales may make the case for funding as part of regional transport allocations. While the position for 2026–27 will differ, future years are expected to see regional transport funding and grant modernisation vested in the CJC. In that scenario, the CJC would have the authority to decide whether to provide additional regional funding. Officers noted that discussions at this stage remain high‑level, and members’ concerns about the real impact on residents, such as access to work or education are valid, given that detailed information is not yet available. Officers assured members that they are working to secure the best possible outcome for the council and will continue to challenge funding mechanisms where needed. As further guidance becomes available and the financial position becomes clearer, officers offered to return to the committee with updates. The Chair acknowledged the explanation but reiterated concerns about unclear accountability within the new arrangements. He noted that the system feels muddled, making it difficult to determine whether responsibility for any issues in 2027 would rest with the council, the CJC or TfW. He highlighted that this uncertainty makes it hard to understand the council’s role and when members will be able to intervene. Officers agreed and noted that, as the first region to go through the process, all partners are learning as they proceed. Welsh Government and Transport for Wales are working in parallel with the legislation, Officers commented that, ideally, the bill would have been passed before implementation work began, but instead the process is moving ahead. Council revenue is unhypothecated, so the council is not required to continue providing this funding in future. However, officers want to work collaboratively with the CJC, TfW and Welsh Government. They noted that if the council chose to withdraw its contribution, it could be criticised if the network falls below its current standard. The Chair noted that the system feels fragile, particularly if each local authority can independently decide its level of support while a regionally planned network is in place. They felt that, over time, responsibility will likely need to sit fully with the CJC for the model to make sense. Officers agreed, explaining that the duty to secure the local bus network will ultimately lie with Welsh Ministers. Currently, that duty sits with local authorities. Therefore, even if a council withdrew financial support, the responsibility would still default to Welsh Government. Officers gave an example using concessionary fares. The council currently contributes £718,000, of which £365,000 is ring‑fenced funding for concessionary travel, with the remainder funded directly by the council. Officers noted that, as they understand it, all grants and funding will in future be routed to TfW, who will then fund the network. However, it will remain for this council to decide whether it continues contributing revenue towards concessionary fares. This is expected to be the position from 2027. Officers advised that the current model is based on the assumption that all existing funding in the system will transfer into the new arrangements, and the network is being designed on that basis. However, they stressed that this assumption offers limited certainty, as the outcome will ultimately depend on the tendering process and the returns it generates. They noted there is no clear indication yet of how successful the franchising model will be, whether it will increase bus use or potentially have the opposite effect. Under the new model, fare revenue will be retained by TfW, whereas it is currently kept by operators. Given these uncertainties, officers explained that it is difficult to provide firm clarity at this stage. They emphasised that this is an ongoing process, and assured members that officers will work as hard as possible to secure the best outcome for Neath Port Talbot. The chair appreciated the officers’ comments and wasn't expecting to get all the answers today, but these are issues he felt needed to be raised because of the level of uncertainty. The chair highlighted the recommendations on the report he asked if members were comfortable with the recommendations given the discussions. He felt he just about was and asked for members views. Members commented they were comfortable with it because of all the workshops and presentations they had previously and felt that the authority’s bedrock is that to get thThere were no Items selected from the Scrutiny Forward Work Programme.e best product and the best deal we can for. And as long as that's entrenched in there and we're all working towards that they felt comfortable with it. The chair thanked the officers for their discussion he also asked officers to keep him in the loop with the changes that might be happening going forward. Officers confirmed they would come back to him. Following scrutiny, the recommendation was supported to cabinet.Members considered item 3a.
There were no Items selected from the Scrutiny Forward Work Programme.
The Chair noted that this report was missing from the previous meeting papers and now addresses those gaps. During pre-briefing, questions were raised about which elements fall within the committee’s remit, as some engineering and transport matters sit under the Visible Services and Streetscene Scrutiny Committee; members have been advised of this by Democratic Services via email. Officers apologised for the confusion and the omission of this information in the last report and explained that this report goes to three separate scrutiny committees. The chair noted that he and Democratic services officer also missed the omission last time. Members highlighted references ET10 and ET PMO4 on active travel and asked whether a published plan exists for ward members or the public to view proposed routes, improvements, or maintenance. They also queried whether ward members are notified when works commence or end in their areas, noting instances where works were discovered unexpectedly. Members felt advance information would help respond to residents’ requests and manage expectations. They asked whether such works follow a set plan or are scheduled as funding becomes available. Officers apologised if members had not been informed about works in their wards and explained that active travel plans and maps exist, including master plans for different communities. The specific work mentioned in Regent Street, Briton Ferry, was a minor improvement funded through the Active Travel Fund. Officers confirmed that for larger-scale schemes, members are kept informed and recent discussions have taken place on this. They acknowledged the need for better communication on smaller works and committed to ensuring local members are updated on any developments, even minor items such as dropped kerbs. Officers noted that requests from members are prioritised based on factors such as deprivation, connectivity, and key destinations. They suggested the issue raised may have resulted from a lack of follow-up after initial discussions and assured members that this will be addressed so they are informed when works are scheduled or underway. Members welcomed the work completed and valued the ongoing dialogue, noting it helps them update residents when requests have been delivered and maintain clear communication. In relation to Ref. ET120 (Pool Bike Provision), members supported the idea in principle and practice, sharing experiences from the fire service where similar schemes faced challenges. They noted low utilisation, mainly by keen cyclists and in good weather, but stressed this should not detract from potential benefits. Members asked whether staff would receive training such as cycle proficiency before use, and raised concerns about the need for PPE such as helmets and high-vis gear, which adds cost. Officers were asked who had responsibility for bike maintenance, secure storage at destinations, and whether facilities such as showers and changing rooms would be provided for staff cycling between offices. Members acknowledged the concept is positive but highlighted these practical considerations based on experience. Members suggested that, based on the fire service’s experience, it may be more practical to encourage staff to use the Cycle to Work scheme and their own bikes rather than the Council providing pool bikes, which would involve additional resources and maintenance responsibilities. Members noted that cycling between locations could significantly increase travel time compared to motorised transport, potentially impacting the working day. Members highlighted the need to consider these implications and the level of trust required for staff using the scheme. Officers advised that training would be provided through the Road Safety Team, which has a dedicated cycling instructor and delivers training to national standards. PPE requirements will be confirmed with the Road Safety Manager, but officers expect staff would need to purchase personal items such as helmets, while high-vis vests could be supplied during training. Maintenance arrangements would likely be included with the bike supplier, and storage options, such as at The Quays, would be considered, along with welfare facilities. Officers noted that installing showers would involve significant cost, but this could be reviewed. They confirmed the scheme is intended for short journeys, not long-distance travel, and managers would decide what is acceptable to avoid excessive time away from duties. Officers also highlighted that promotion of the Cycle to Work scheme already takes place and will continue. The Chair acknowledged previous advice on lockers and noted that some remain at The Quays and in Port Talbot Civic Centre. While supportive of the principle, the Chair stressed the need to focus on interventions that deliver the greatest impact under the Healthy Travel Charter. He highlighted ongoing issues with cycle storage at Council buildings, citing insecure facilities at Neath Civic Centre, limited provision at Port Talbot Civic Centre, and concerns at The Quays, where signage warns of bike theft. The Chair suggested secure storage behind access-controlled doors as a practical improvement particularly for staff using high-value bikes purchased through the Cycle to Work scheme. He also emphasised the importance of identifying barriers through staff consultation, such as the availability of showers and changing facilities, noting that some have been decommissioned. The Chair stated that addressing these practical issues could significantly influence uptake of active travel initiatives. Officers acknowledged the importance of reviewing facilities to ensure the success of the initiative. They will ask the Road Safety Manager and team to work with other departments to assess current provision, including whether facilities are operational and what temporary arrangements exist where building works are ongoing. Officers agreed this should form part of staff engagement to identify any gaps or issues. The Chair asked about engagement with local bus operators and the current state of relationships, noting previous challenges around home-to-school transport and post-COVID bus network grants. He requested an update, particularly regarding smaller operators, as the Council works with several Small and Medium Enterprises (SME) providing service buses and contracts. Officers explained that a performance indicator was introduced to measure the Council’s effectiveness in managing local bus services, as most work involves grant funding and contractor engagement. They noted that a passenger satisfaction survey would reflect operator performance rather than the Council’s role, so the KPI focuses on operators’ perception of the Council’s performance. Officers acknowledged that franchising is not currently included in these surveys but suggested this could be considered in future. They emphasised the importance of maintaining strong relationships with operators, noting that while issues arose last year on education transport, progress is being made. Feedback from SMEs providing local bus and home-to-school transport has generally been positive. Officers explained that a passenger satisfaction survey would primarily reflect the performance of operators running the network rather than the Council’s role, making it difficult to use as a measure of the Council’s effectiveness. The Chair acknowledged the difficulty of measuring Council performance separately from operator performance and noted that, particularly in the current context where operators may feel uncertain or tense, this can strain relationships in other areas. James Davies Head of Engineering and Transport added that there is a wider push for councils to assess their corporate performance and understand how they measure success. He noted that before he took up his post, Brendan Griffiths Passenger Transport Manager had worked with the previous Head of Engineering and Transport to incorporate this approach into the business plan, which he felt was sensible despite being challenging within passenger transport. He thanked Brendan and the team, stating that since taking up the post, he has found the passenger transport officers excellent and that, although the role has been a significant learning curve, the team has made the process much easier. The chair commented that the committee members also share that view based on the engagement with Brendan and the team and welcomed hearing that from the Head of Service. The Chair noted that staff inspections of bridges and highway structures were progressing well and ahead of target, and he was pleased to see that coal tip inspections were also on track. However, he highlighted that reservoir inspections were behind schedule. While he was aware of the reservoir at Margam, he was not familiar with the others and requested an update. Officers explained that, in addition to statutory reservoirs, the Council has several others located within country parks such as Margam and the Gnoll. The team works closely with Chris Saunders, Head of Culture and Tourism, as the budget for these assets sits within the Country Parks service. Officers confirmed they were not concerned about the delay, noting that work is already underway and the measure can be brought back on track. While they could not confirm it was currently 100% on target, they were confident it would be before year end. Officers advised that coal tip inspections are currently on target, and Welsh Government has made new funding available specifically for tip safety. The team is developing a proposal and assembling a dedicated team using this funding stream. Officers noted that Neath Port Talbot has the highest number of coal tips in Wales, though Rhondda Cynon Taf has a greater number of high‑risk sites. Work is underway to ensure the Council can manage and maintain its coal tips as effectively as possible going forward. The committee welcomed that news. Following Scrutiny the report was noted.
The Democratic Services Officer updated the committee of changes to the Scrutiny Committee forward work programme: Members were advised that due to an anomaly with the way that performance monitoring reporting works for home school transport and the separation between the work between Education and Environment directorates it had not been reported to Education scrutiny. This has been resolved and that should be reported in future to education. He advised that If members have any questions in the meantime that they, they wish to ask then they send them to democratic Services they will be passed to officers in the interim. The chair reminded members that they can request to attend the education scrutiny committee if they want to scrutinise any items for that committee. The four winds report has been added to the 12th December meeting. 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.