Loading
There is no summary of this meeting yet. Summaries are written once the council publishes the minutes, which are its official record of what a meeting decided. They usually appear a few weeks after the meeting.
The Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting.
Councillor N. Goldup-John indicated he had a personal interest for Item 3a as he works for Transport for Wales. He has dispensation to speak. Cllr C. Jordan declared a Personal interest for item 3a. as his daughter works for Great Western Railway, he has dispensation to speak and vote.
Members considered item 3a.
The chair gave a brief introduction to explain that the background to the scheme and its relationship with scrutiny. He explained that this is not the first scrutiny session on this scheme, over the last three years there had been significant member involvement looking at the scheme. It first gained attention in 2022 after a period of behind-the-scenes development. Concerns raised outside scrutiny led to it being called to scrutiny in 2023, which lasted over two hours and highlighted issues with the scheme’s details and governance, including the lack of Cabinet reports and scrutiny of the scheme at that that time. The chair noted frustration that many of the concerns raised in scrutiny in 2023 resurfaced during the 2025 public consultation, with little evidence of changes to the plan since 2023. The chair highlighted to the committee that James Davies, interim Head of Engineering and Transport, only took over the project this year. Highlighting that while he may not be able to speak to its full history, the chair stated his confidence in the report James had prepared and appreciates his engagement with scrutiny and himself as Chair. James Davies introduced the report, noting that the scheme has undergone public consultation, with significant feedback—much of it opposing the current format. Many concerns raised were not transport-related but focused on town centre regeneration, business impacts, and the location of the bus station. Officers wish to address a number of concerns that the public and businesses have raised has recommend pausing the transport element of the scheme to address these wider issues within the context of a broader Neath town centre regeneration masterplan. Work on this will begin shortly. Officers also highlighted changes in regional transport funding and governance, including the Transport Grants Modernisation and bus franchising set to impact Southwest Wales from 2027. Officers are working closely with the CJC, Swansea, Pembrokeshire and Carmarthenshire to bring together a regional transport development plan and officers will work closely with TfW, Network Rail, and Welsh Government to align the scheme with these developments. Members were advised that, the recommendation is to pause, review the original case for change, and reassess the scheme with consultancy support. If endorsed by committee and Cabinet on 29 November, this will guide the next steps. Nicola Pearce, Director of Environment and Regeneration, noted recent changes in staffing, funding structures, and transport delivery via Transport for Wales. She confirmed that feedback from the consultation and engagement events has been taken on board by officers and that is why officers are recommending a pause to reassess the scheme. They feel that it is not just as a transport project, but part of a more ambitious plan to regenerate Neath town centre. The aim is to attract more visitors, support local businesses, and create a more vibrant town centre environment. Members expressed support for sustainable, integrated transport but felt the current plan lacks ambition and long-term vision. They were disappointed that despite extensive scrutiny over two years and a public consultation, no changes were made to the proposal. Members noted that there was bad feeling around the term “Integrated Transport Hub”. Members felt the consultation reinforced existing doubts and that the process has been slow and unresponsive. One member highlighted the disheartening experience of spending over two hours scrutinising the plan in 2023, only to see no amendments made before it went to public consultation. Members want a more ambitious approach that genuinely reflects integrated transport principles. Members asked why the discussions that scrutiny raised weren't taken account of despite clear indications in the meeting and a sharing many of the views that came out in the consultation. Members felt that wasn’t a failure of scrutiny but an ignoring of scrutiny. Members asked why that was done or what, the issue was. Cllr Jeremy Hurley Cabinet Member for Climate Change and Economic Growth explained that the scheme originated in 2015 under the previous administration and was developed over six years before coming to scrutiny in 2023 which was a year into the current administration. He acknowledged the significant investment and effort involved but noted that an assessment is needed and the public consultation has been reacted on straight away. He described this as a learning curve, recognising that even well-developed projects may need major decisions about moving forward. There was some discussion about what stage the scheme was at under the previous administration and some members commented that there was no clear plan only proposal by officers previously. Cllr Wyndham Griffiths Cabinet Member for Strategic Planning, Transport and Connectivity explained that the plan was developed by officers and brought to Cabinet with their advice. Following the 2023 scrutiny meeting, it proceeded to public consultation. The current report reflects the outcome of that process and has been returned to members for further consideration. Nicola Pearce described the project as long and complex, involving multiple stakeholders explaining that it was originally conceived as a standalone transport scheme aimed at integrating bus and rail networks to encourage public transport use over private cars. While this goal aligns with wider national objectives, she acknowledged the challenges posed by limited public transport frequency and availability in the area. Members were advised that while there was a desire for a more ambitious plan during the original scrutiny meeting, officers were limited by the availability of transport-specific funding. The scheme was developed within those constraints, which shaped its scope and delivery. Officers are proposing to pause the current scheme to develop a wider Neath town centre masterplan. Future projects emerging from this plan will be submitted for funding from UK Government, Welsh Government, or other sources. Members were advised that while transport may still feature in the masterplan, officers are interested in improving the area around the train station, which includes several listed buildings currently obscured by less attractive structures. They aim to enhance the space for visitors, encourage business investment, and create a more vibrant, welcoming town centre. Officers confirmed that any future transport project will form part of a wider Neath town centre masterplan. Both Cabinet and members want a more ambitious approach, but funding availability remains a key constraint. The masterplan will include a phased action plan. The chair noted that in the 2023 meeting, ambition was a concern of members at the time and that there were concerns around the feasibility, deliverability, risks, cost and scope of the scheme from a transport point of view. The chair also noted that despite concerns raised during the original scrutiny session, further development work continued on the scheme over the following two years, with additional money spent—including areas members had highlighted as having problems. Members stated that not having the first public consultation until this year was a problem. They noted challenges with CPOs, land issues, and stakeholder involvement in delaying it, Members felt that no consultation being carried out with bus users, and no data on public feedback about existing transport facilities or needed improvements was a fundamental flaw. They felt that as a transport scheme, it should respond to real user issues. Members stressed that future engagement must start with understanding public needs and involve both organisational stakeholders and transport users to ensure the scheme is fit for purpose. Cllr Jeremy Hurley asked officers whether there is pressure on the council to include a transport scheme as part of the regional plan, even if it is not fully suitable. Officers clarified that the scheme was developed as a transport project following the WELTAG processes, which remain sound. However, most negative feedback was not about transport design but about non-transport issues, such as its location, impact on businesses, and changes to Victoria Gardens. Questions were also raised in the feedback about the necessity of the scheme given the proximity of the existing bus station and the limited improvement it would deliver. Officers acknowledged pressure to deliver schemes with regional impact and confirmed due diligence was done on the transport element. They noted significant changes in transport policy and funding, making the poor consultation outcome a timely opportunity to rethink the approach. Welsh Government is now urging councils to be ambitious and have “shovel-ready” projects to secure funding, recent allocations to other regions were based on readiness and ambition. The pause will allow officers to look at ambitions and align the scheme with a wider town centre masterplan and the Regional Transport Plan, ensuring future proposals meet these expectations. Members noted that while most consultation feedback was not transport-related, some highlighted practical issues such as buses not running early enough (e.g., 6 a.m.) or late enough (past 11 p.m.) to meet work and travel needs. Members welcomed Welsh Government’s bus franchising plans but expressed concern that the proposed scheme reduces bus bays. Although operators say they can manage with fewer bays, members questioned whether this shows ambition and whether the interchange could accommodate future service increases, which they see as essential. Officers confirmed ongoing discussions with bus operators during scheme development and bus franchising and also noted that consultation feedback indicated the proposed capacity was sufficient at the time. However, with funding and policy changes, future requirements may differ. Pausing the scheme allows time to align with bus franchising plans over the next 18–24 months in partnership with TfW, ensuring any new transport project meets future needs. Officers also highlighted that the council already subsidises some key bus routes and prioritises public transport. They hope franchising will improve service frequency and coverage, addressing current gaps. Officers noted that most people will not give up their cars unless there is a reliable, frequent public transport service. Demonstrating this reliability is key to changing travel behaviour but achieving it will be a long-term process dependent on funding, which ultimately determines deliverability. Officers noted that many council schemes are designed for high deliverability and low risk, which often makes them long-term projects. Supporting public transport and revitalising town centres remain key priorities, and officers are working behind the scenes to ensure these goals are achieved. Officers reiterated that the original case for change focused on encouraging modal shift from private cars to public transport, reducing car dependency. While progress is limited until the town centre masterplan is complete, the case for change remains valid. Officers suggested working with scrutiny in the future to review whether these needs updating. The Chair welcomed future scrutiny involvement and stressed the need to reflect on the council’s support for public transport as franchising and funding options develop. He noted that investment levels vary across councils and that funding decisions are ultimately political choices. The Chair suggested the cabinet member explore options with TfW and officers to understand what level of service could be achieved at different funding levels (e.g., £50,000, £200,000, £400,000 annually) so members can make informed decisions about ambition and support for the public transport network. Members highlighted that one-third of people in Wales do not have access to a car, making reliable public transport essential for them. They stressed that the issue is not only about encouraging modal shift but also about supporting those who already depend on public transport. Members expressed surprise at how far back the project dates, noting a lack of early consultation with businesses and the public. They felt the current plan is fundamentally flawed, costly, and offers little improvement to the current setup. Concerns included: Moving the bus station to Milland Road was seen as undesirable compared to Victoria Gardens, which is central, attractive, and supports town centre footfall. Potential Compulsory Purchase Orders, disruption to businesses. Design Issues, relating to questions about cycle track connectivity and the necessity of co-locating with the train station just to call it a “hub.” Members also stressed accountability for public money and suggested upgrading Victoria Gardens and improving the train station area instead of pursuing a joint location. Members highlighted the overwhelming negative consultation responses and felt that should prompt a full rethink, even if it means returning grant funding and delaying the project to get it right. Officers clarified that the proposal currently out for consultation is located at the train station forecourt, not Miland Road. Miland Road was considered during the WelTAG process but deemed unviable at Stage 2, though this may be revisited. Windsor Road was included in consultation questions for feedback only; it was never part of the scheme or required for viability. Officers acknowledged concerns about local businesses and noted the current scheme would impact most of them if implemented. Regarding alternative use of funding, Victoria Gardens provides a sense of arrival for bus users. The scheme aligns with the Welsh Transport Strategy, which promotes modal shift and integration between transport modes, this is the basis for its development. Officers advised that whether the council must return grant funding depends on how long it takes to complete the master plan and revisit the WelTAG stages. The extent of this review will determine the timeline. If the recommendation proceeds, officers do not expect delivery within five years. Members asked the Cllr Wyndham Griffiths, Cabinet Member for Strategic Planning, Transport and Connectivity for his views. The Cabinet member explained that he feels the scheme has flaws dating back to its inception and is not fit for purpose today, given changes such as bus franchising under TfW. While the project is flawed, he believes it can be rectified going forward. Members asked the Cabinet Member for his views on the principle of transport interchanges and hubs. The Cabinet Member stated that modern transport planning requires electronic connectivity and integration with Network Rail. He believes the hub should be located at the rail station and linked to wider plans for Neath town centre, incorporating Victoria Gardens and active travel routes. He estimated the project could take 10–15 years to deliver and stressed the need for clearer planning to achieve a fully integrated transport hub. Members were glad that the cabinet member shared their views that the plan is flawed should be more ambitious. Members questioned the cost outlined in the report, noting the estimate of £750,000 for tree removal equating to roughly £75,000 per tree, and expressed concern about whether this represents value for money for the proposed intervention at the train station. Members noted that a visitor at a regional meeting described Neath train station as unpleasant and in need of improvement. While agreeing retail units could be upgraded, Members felt the existing trees create an attractive setting and provide a sense of enclosure when entering Neath. Officers explained that the £750,000 figure relates to biodiversity mitigation and enhancement requirements under Planning Policy Wales based off the back of conversations with the biodiversity and country wildlife team, it is not the physical removal of trees. It covers measures needed to offset impacts and deliver biodiversity improvements as part of the scheme. The Cabinet Member for Climate Change and Economic Growth stated that the process was flawed, as it began in 2015 but only came before members in 2023. He noted the need for earlier engagement, involving all members and the public, rather than limiting input to the previous Cabinet. He described this as a learning curve and stressed the importance of wider integration of views in future planning. A Member stressed the importance of public engagement, they felt the proposal appeared as already decided, which had contributed to public outcry. The Member highlighted that detailed plans were presented without incorporating members’ or public feedback and called for meaningful consultation and integration of views in future proposals. Members suggested that future projects should use staged consultations to ensure the public feels involved throughout. They emphasised the need to share a clear vision while inviting people to help shape integrated transport plans. Members acknowledged lessons learned from the past decade and stressed that both the public and members must be engaged from the outset. The Chair reflected that when concerns were raised two years ago, the view was that the project was too far along to stop. However, the current report suggests it may now be halted. He noted this requires courage from Cabinet to pause a project and acknowledged that, in hindsight, such a pause should have occurred earlier, likely following scrutiny. The Cabinet Member for Strategic Planning, Transport and Connectivity explained that the scheme originated around 10 years ago and was inherited by the current Cabinet. He noted that while the process has taken years overall, the current Cabinet acted within three years to bring the matter forward and reach a conclusion. The Chair reflected that the best opportunity to review the scheme was in 2023 and stressed the need to acknowledge this. He noted that the issues being discussed now are the same as those raised two years ago, despite changes in funding. He felt scrutiny had done its part, but the project was not revisited at the time and suggested this is an important point for reflection. The Cabinet member for Climate Change and Economic Growth noted that members must put faith in the experienced and qualified officers for advice on engineering and transport and advised that it is a big step to make the decision. Members noted that part of the learning curve is balancing professional judgments and officers’ technical advice with the bigger picture, community impact, and process. They stressed this is a key responsibility for elected members, as overlooking these aspects can lead to mistakes. Members requested for a timeline and evidence of decisions, noting that plans reflect the context of their time policy frameworks, priorities, and available knowledge. They observed that the environment has changed significantly over the past three years. Members noted that earlier plans included placemaking considerations and anticipated changes such as bus franchising. They felt this highlighted the need to move beyond a purely transport-focused scheme and consider where people live and work. Members observed that three years is a short time for significant change and stressed the need for agility in decision-making. They suggested leadership, not just officer input, is key. Members then asked the Cabinet Member, Cllr Griffiths for his views. He explained that Cabinet followed officers’ recommendations and operated under the previous Cabinet Board system. He noted the process involved bringing reports forward and that, while the scheme began a decade ago, the current Cabinet acted within three years. He advised that three years is a short time for Cabinet to move from receiving the report to reaching a conclusion. He also noted that the current Cabinet had no prior indication of the scheme, which had only been known to the previous Cabinet. Briefings began after it was presented. There was a discussion to clarify that it was two years from scrutiny and 3 years from the administration coming in and being aware and responsible for the scheme. Nicola Pearce advised that the original case for change remains relevant. It focused on encouraging behaviour change, improving integration between transport modes, promoting modal shift, and reducing journey times for public transport users to attract more people to use it. Officers noted that consultation feedback highlighted concerns about knock-on impacts if the project proceeds, such as the potential closure of the existing bus station. Officers also noted questions about what would happen to the area of land near Victoria Gardens and how impacts on nearby businesses reliant on bus-user footfall would be mitigated. They also noted the questions relating to maintaining town centre footfall and connectivity if bus and rail services are integrated in one location. Officers acknowledged these concerns but stated there are currently no clear answers. Officers advised that while there are many ideas for delivering the project, these have not been articulated in a master plan. They recommended pausing to develop a broader approach that invests in public transport and enhances the town centre to create a stronger sense of place. The transport scheme may still progress but could look different and be more ambitious, aligning with wider regeneration plans. Officers emphasised that the original case for change remains valid, but future investment must go beyond transport alone. The Chair noted that Neath’s bus and train stations are already close together, so integration is not a major barrier. Any intervention would therefore have a limited impact compared to other areas, making value for money harder to justify. He stressed that future schemes must consider proportionality, as spending tens of millions for marginal benefits is not viable. If relocating the bus station is proposed, justification should focus on improving facilities for bus users, such as toilets and enclosed waiting areas—features missing from the current scheme. He concluded that while the case for change is valid, the scope for improvement and benefit is limited, so costs must reflect this. A local Member stated they did not support the scheme and doubted its viability. They noted the irony of using funding for a project that would mainly revamp the train station, though they agreed the station needs improvement and the bus station requires cleaning. They highlighted the short distance between Neath’s bus and train stations compared to Swansea and argued the focus should be on improving Neath as a whole. The Member pointed out the town has lost major outlets and is shifting toward independent businesses, which the council should support. They added that hybrid working, and the relocation of the Civic Centre have reduced footfall, impacting local income. Improving the town experience and supporting local shops should be priorities, alongside any transport hub plans, to boost footfall and economic activity. The local Member suggested installing rising bollards for event security, noting this would be more cost-effective than concrete blocks under new requirements like Martin’s Law. They agreed with officers that the whole town needs to be considered, not just transport. While they felt the station’s aesthetics need improvement, they opposed using transport funding to justify unrelated works, such as routing buses along Windsor Road, which they believe would harm residents. The Member reiterated their long-standing view that the scheme is not viable and urged officers to listen to elected members, who represent constituents’ concerns. They stressed that decisions should reflect public feedback and local priorities. Simon Brennan, Head of Property and Regeneration, highlighted that land acquisition effects delivery. The scheme would require purchasing the Post Office site and potentially other businesses, which has been a longstanding challenge. He noted there are two options for addressing this. One option is a negotiated sale with a willing seller; the other is a compulsory purchase (CPO). Officers knew not all landowners were open to negotiation. For example, discussions with Royal Mail about acquiring their site have been ongoing for over seven years. Progress has been slow, as they have delayed on certain issues. Members were advised that a CPO requires a scheme, planning, and funding, elements that are difficult to align. To develop a scheme, WelTAG approval is needed, but WelTAG also requires land control. This creates a ‘chicken-and-egg’ situation: the council cannot secure funding without a scheme and cannot progress a scheme without control of the land. Officers explained that the council has been in a difficult position, which has caused delays. Public discussion was avoided to prevent unnecessary concern for local businesses, as securing larger parcels of land is essential before progressing with smaller ones. Timing has been a key issue, and one of the major challenges over the past six or seven years. This was highlighted in discussions with the former Head of Engineering and Transport about how to gain full land control to deliver the scheme if approved The chair felt this highlights that it is a very complex scheme and how it is difficult to deliver in its current form. The Leader stated that there had been strong leadership shown and expressed respect for both current and former officers who worked on the scheme. He noted that Cabinet and members rely on officers’ advice and take it seriously. He acknowledged the complexity of the situation and highlighted that more investment has gone into the town centre under the current administration than before. He acknowledged that it is a Cabinet decision and stressed that the transport hub is vital for Neath town centre and must be delivered correctly, in partnership with businesses and the community, to ensure it is fit for purpose and supports economic growth. The Leader noted his involvement in Transport for Wales discussions with Corporate Joint Committees, aimed at increasing footfall and train services through Neath station. He recalled past concerns about Neath potentially being removed from the main line and stressed the need for investment across all towns in the borough, not just Neath. He expressed support for the transport scheme, emphasising that its future design must meet the needs highlighted during the meeting. He underlined the importance of getting it right, considering scrutiny committee views, and acknowledged the Cabinet’s close work with officers to address challenges over recent years. He concluded that the goal is a decision that all members can support. Members sought clarification on the Leader’s position. He confirmed support for a transport scheme, with a preference for Option 3, starting from scratch to design a fit-for-purpose scheme involving all stakeholders, including senior officers, scrutiny members, councillors, the public, and businesses. The Leader confirmed his support for a transport hub in Neath, with the final design to be determined through high-level scrutiny. He felt the original scheme did not properly address the bus station at Victoria Gardens and believes a new scheme should be developed from scratch to meet identified needs and can be delivered. Members welcomed the idea of pausing the scheme to make changes that reflect public opinion and previous scrutiny observations. They felt this could help avoid the level of criticism faced by the Port Talbot transport hub, which has often been criticised for its design and appearance. Members asked if there will be any loss of funding by pausing the scheme? Officers advised that transport funding mechanisms are changing. From 2026/27, there will be a transition year, and future funding and bidding processes will move from Welsh Government to the Corporate Joint Committee (CJC). A five-year regional transport plan is in place, which will incorporate public feedback from the consultation. Members were advised that, following public consultation officers have allowed funding to be allocated within the CJC’s five-year plan to further develop the scheme, but not for its delivery. Delivery funding was never included due to the timing of the regional transport plan. Some funds may need to be returned this financial year, depending largely on whether land acquisition is required. Members commented that Neath needs investment, whether at Victoria Gardens or the railway station. They noted that visitors arriving by car, train, or bus are met with poor surroundings and stressed the importance of improving these areas. Members commented that if Milland Road is chosen, it should be made more accessible and comfortable, with good connections from the M4 and A465 and facilities that provide a positive experience for passengers. They highlighted the short walk to Neath via the Dark Arch tunnel and Milland Road bridge and stated that whichever option is selected must go back to consultation to ensure the best outcome for the town. Members noted the report mentions new project team members and asked who they are, and which departments will contribute to a new scheme. James Davies explained that he drafted the report and has been in post since May. He stated the scheme will go to public consultation and that he has reviewed feedback, held discussions with members, and gathered insights to ensure the development reflects public and stakeholder input. Members asked if officers would seek input from other teams, such as the town centre team. James Davies confirmed that he and the Head of Property and Regeneration are working closely with the Director. He explained that the approach is based on a town centre master plan, which will guide the transport scheme as part of a wider plan addressing more than just transport needs. Members asked whether a new scheme would address accessibility issues such as toilets, secure bike storage, and remote spaces. Officers explained that there is currently no new scheme, as the development process is ongoing. These issues, along with consultation feedback, will be considered as part of the scheme’s design before a decision is made. Members stressed the importance of supporting independent businesses, which are integral to Neath’s identity. If relocation is required, they should receive maximum assistance at minimal cost. Members noted that starting a small business is challenging, and any intervention should ensure businesses are heard and incorporated into future plans. Members highlighted the area’s unique setting and strong footfall, stressing that businesses cannot simply be relocated to areas with lower footfall. They called for a proper working plan and welcomed continued development of the Neath Town Centre Master Plan. The Chair commented that value for money must be considered, including the impact of construction and whether the benefits justify the disruption. This applies both to businesses that may need relocation and those that could face temporary disruption during the process. The chair noted that officers have had some engagement with some of the local businesses directly as has he as chair. James Davies confirmed he has been in contact with some businesses over recent weeks and months, and once a decision is made, officers will reach out to inform them of the plan. Nicola Pearce added that the previous Head of Engineering and Transport also had a lot of engagement with affected businesses. The Chair noted the importance of minimizing disruption if relocation is required. He acknowledged that procurement rules and risk-averse approaches can lead the council to choose the least risky option but stressed that businesses are vital and every effort should be made to reduce disruption if a future scheme affects them. The Chair summarised the discussion and the future direction of the transport scheme and related governance considerations. He noted that the purpose of the proposed transport scheme has largely been addressed during the meeting. He felt that early engagement with bus users is essential. He also suggested that feedback should be sought on current facilities, identifying what works well and what does not currently. He noted that existing facilities, such as Victoria Gardens bus station, require improvement, and lessons should be learned from their strengths and weaknesses. The chair noted that governance and scrutiny were highlighted as fundamental concerns by members, but he felt he had received reassurance regarding the approach to member engagement from officers and particularly if Option 3 is adopted. He stated that under Recommendation 3, officers will explore alternative development options and involve members at key stages of scheme development. He felt that the recommendation ensures that scrutiny chairs can hold cabinet members and officers accountable over the long term. He also advised that he is assured that if Option 3 is selected by the committee that there is engagement with the public and businesses at key opportunities throughout the development process will be picked up. The Cabinet Member for Strategic Planning, Transport and Connectivity thanked the committee, stating that action should have been taken sooner and will now be taken. He expressed full support for the Interim Head of Engineering and Transport and the Chair of Scrutiny and committed to working together to achieve the best outcome for Neath. The Chair thanked him for his comments and expressed appreciation to the Cabinet Member for Climate Change and Economic Growth for attending, noting the matter spans both transport and regeneration. Members asked officers, what would the time scale be and what would the process look like if the committee do go with option 3 and if that was supported at cabinet. Nicola Pearce explained that no timescale can be given yet, as a proper master plan requires engagement with a wide range of stakeholders. This includes internal teams such as Housing Strategy, Community Safety, Regeneration, and Transport, as well as external stakeholders like public transport providers, users, and businesses. She suggested roundtable discussions and workshops may be needed and stressed that taking time to do this properly is essential to achieve the right outcome. The Chair emphasised the need to establish a common view on the transport element of the scheme, focusing on what works in Neath, what needs improvement, and what is required from a transport perspective to get it right. While wider regeneration will involve multiple partners, he suggested starting engagement on transport issues to agree on key principles. He noted varying views in the room and proposed workshops or scrutiny sessions to explore these further, offering to facilitate discussions with officers and cabinet members outside the meeting He added that it would be useful to explore transport aspects in more detail and work towards a common view, which would be valuable in the long term. Nicola Pearce suggested reversing the approach, explaining that the transport project should be an outcome of the wider master plan rather than its primary driver. The master plan may identify several major projects to make Neath town centre more attractive for visitors and businesses, with the transport scheme emerging as one of those projects rather than being the focus. The Chair agreed, adding that from a transport user perspective, it would be helpful to define key requirements early such as toilets, warm waiting areas, and whether an enclosed bus station is essential. These fundamentals could serve as ‘red lines’ and provide a strong starting point for feeding into the wider regeneration discussion. He suggested pulling this together as part of future engagement. Following scrutiny, the recommendation was supported to Cabinet Board with the additional recommendation below: Reassess the scope and design of the scheme with the primary aim of addressing the concerns and issues raised during the consultation, further exploring the opportunities for collaboration with key partners and re-developing the scheme in the context of a wider Neath town centre masterplan. Officers will explore a range of alternative development options, which can be brought back to Members for consideration and involvement at key and appropriate stages during the scheme development process. This process will include: • Considering alterations to the scope and design of the scheme based on consultation feedback and concerns raised by the general public. • Reviewing and addressing items identified by newly appointed members of the project team. • Considering the wider regeneration and placemaking objectives for the town centre, and how new transport infrastructure can support these ambitions, ensuring that a new scheme aligns with a wider masterplan and town centre regeneration programme. • Collaborating closely with key partners (Network Rail, Welsh Government, and Transport for Wales) to explore the potential for expanding the scheme to include the railway station, with a view to delivering a fully integrated transport hub following the recent transport policy and finding changes and the message form Welsh Government to be ambitious in transport scheme development to ensure that we have investible schemes linked to economic growth and decarbonisation. Further consideration will also need to be given to other modes of transport, such as Active Travel, and how they link in with any new proposals.
There were no Scrutiny Forward Work Programme items selected.
There were no Performance Monitoring items selected for scrutiny.
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.