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 no declarations of interest received.
Members considered the report as circulated within the agenda pack. The committee was informed that the Regional Transport Plan has now been formally approved by Welsh Government. This means the policy element of the work is fully in effect. It was noted that Wendy Walters had written to all Chief Executives to confirm that the plan is now live policy, and it was highlighted that the approved plan will begin to influence areas such as planning decisions and other related decision‑making processes. The committee received an update confirming that the programme budget had been fixed at £24.3 million for the first year, subject to the budget process. Members were advised that this funding level allows a range of work to progress and provides scope for further discussion on priorities. It was noted that there may be potential to secure funding for years two and three of what is intended to be a five‑year programme, enabling certain larger schemes that are nearing readiness to continue seamlessly into the next phases. This provides a degree of medium‑term certainty, subject to confirmation. The Committee was informed that the Cabinet Secretary for Transport in North Wales had written to the region seeking details of how significant additional funding for 2026–27 could be utilised. Officers indicated that such funding would be directed primarily towards regional cross‑boundary schemes, with active travel and Metro projects highlighted as examples. There was emphasis on the need to consolidate existing Metro proposals into a coherent programme that aligns rail, trunk road and wider initiatives into a single business case capable of progressing through Welsh Government’s approval process. Should additional funding be secured, it was proposed that allocations for Metro work be increased and that resources be used to accelerate delivery of schemes currently planned for years two and three to ease the anticipated pressure in the middle of the five‑year programme. It was explained that an annual review of the programme is required by Welsh Government, and bringing schemes forward would support more efficient programme management. An update was also provided on the grant funding arrangements for 2026–27. Funding for schemes will continue to be allocated to individual local authorities, which will bear the associated delivery risks, although schemes must align with the programme agreed by the CJC. In 2027–28, Welsh Government intends to amend legislation so that funding will be directed to the CJC, which will then distribute it to the four authorities. Officers highlighted that in the interim period, there will be limited flexibility to reallocate funding between authorities if schemes underspend or encounter delays, presenting a challenge for programme optimisation. The Committee was informed that progress is being made in appointing a part‑time programme manager to support coordination and engagement with Welsh Government and Transport for Wales. Officers stressed the importance of submitting the final programme after the full CJC meeting at the end of the month, with the expectation that Welsh Government approval will follow in February or March to enable arrangements for 1 April to be implemented. Members queried whether a start date had been confirmed for the Metro. Officers explained that the Metro comprises a wide and disparate set of projects, including rail, bus connectivity, active travel and wider network improvements across both rural and urban areas. It was clarified that, unlike some regions where a Metro is envisaged as a tram system, the South West Wales Metro is a multimodal transport network bringing together several strands of work. Members were advised that while some elements have already progressed, many aspects—particularly rail schemes—sit within the responsibility of Transport for Wales and Network Rail rather than the region, and these larger rail initiatives are expected to take a number of years to develop and deliver. Officers highlighted ongoing challenges with Network Rail’s pace of delivery, noting that similar issues have been experienced in other parts of Wales, including Cardiff Capital Region and North Wales. They emphasised that although a number of individual schemes have progressed, the key challenge is bringing these various components together into a single cohesive programme with clear alignment between all partners. Work in the coming year will focus on strengthening this programme and ensuring third‑party involvement is fully integrated. Officers confirmed that no definitive start date is available at present, and essential preparatory work is still required before a clear timeline can be established. Officers agreed that a jigsaw map outlining the various schemes and elements required would be a useful tool to envisage the work that has been done and the work that is required, Members sought clarification on the RTP funding position for year one, noting the reference to an approximate £25 million headline figure alongside £24.3 million of confirmed funding, and asked whether the difference represented the year-one funding gap. They did not raise any issues in relation to the schemes listed in the appendices but wished to explore the broader question of funding sources. It was highlighted that, while identifying additional funding streams is relevant for year one, it will become increasingly important as the programme develops, given the live and evolving nature of the delivery plans. Members noted references within the documentation to potential external sources such as UK Government funding and Section 106 contributions and emphasised the value of incorporating these into future delivery plans once there is greater certainty. They advised that understanding the extent to which schemes may attract external funding is essential for Members, as it directly affects deliverability and may influence prioritisation decisions. Insight was requested on how these additional funding sources would be identified and reflected in the ongoing development of the plan. Officers provided clarification on the budget position for the RTP, confirming that Welsh Government had indicated £24.3 million of grant funding for 2026/27 against a current programme total of approximately £25.5 million, leaving a notional gap of £1.2 million that would need to be addressed. It was explained that this gap could be managed through a combination of seeking external funding and undertaking value engineering across schemes, noting that costs may either increase or decrease as schemes are further developed and designed in more detail. Officers highlighted that some schemes formed additions to infrastructure that developers would already be delivering, and decisions would be required on whether to supplement those schemes or rely on the standard provision delivered by developers. The importance of effective programme management was emphasised, with the Programme Manager expected to oversee discussions, refine scope and costings, and ensure the programme remains deliverable within funding constraints. Officers reflected on lessons learned from the Swansea Bay City Deal, noting that while it had generated jobs and economic activity, it lacked sufficient transport investment. They acknowledged the need to ensure current schemes support wider economic change despite the disappointment in available budget. Officers confirmed that work was ongoing to align the transport work with the reset of the regional economic strategy and to explore opportunities within the now-devolved Regional Growth Fund. They noted that several funding sources were under consideration and that the priority was to be ready to bid as soon as suitable opportunities arose. It was commented that there were both known and unknown funding opportunities, and the challenge would be to ensure timely and proactive bidding wherever schemes aligned. Members emphasised the importance of connectivity across the region, noting that once travelling beyond Swansea there are significant limitations which restrict movement and access. It was acknowledged that improved connectivity is essential, and there was appreciation that these considerations were being integrated into current design work. A Member raised a question regarding earlier discussions about potential additional funding from government, specifically querying what priorities would be addressed should such funding become available. They highlighted that the local network, particularly in rural areas, is extensive and increasingly affected by climate change and severe weather, causing deterioration such as potholes and access issues that risk isolating communities. The Member expressed surprise that maintaining the existing road network had not been explicitly mentioned as a potential use of further funding. Officers responded that some of the funding is designated for maintenance and that certain items within the appendices relate to matters that could be discussed in a closed session due to restrictions imposed by the Welsh Government. It was explained that part of the programme includes investment in bringing structures such as weak bridges up to standard, although it was acknowledged there is a wider maintenance deficit. Officers noted that ongoing work is being undertaken to improve climate resilience and that the authority is heavily dependent on third‑party organisations such as the rail industry and the Trunk Road Agency. Disruption caused by maintenance on those networks was recognised as significant, and the authority continues to press for improvements to resilience. Further comment was provided on the challenges experienced recently, with severe wet weather followed by very cold conditions contributing to widespread pothole damage across Wales and the wider UK. While an element of the available funding relates to resilient roads—particularly addressing structural weaknesses and areas vulnerable to flooding—this sits alongside separate funding streams such as the Local Government Borrowing Initiative and general capital allocations. It was noted that there is a substantial backlog of highway maintenance nationally and that greater investment is needed, though the current funding route is not typically used for major maintenance activity. Nonetheless, no one would dispute the need for such investment, particularly at this time of year. Members acknowledged the distinction between funding streams while expressing hope that long‑term connections and improvements could still be achieved. Following scrutiny, members supported the recommendations to the South West Wales Corporate Joint Committee.
Members considered the report as circulated within the supplement pack. The reports provided an update on progress made against the functions of the Corporate Joint Committee and its alignment with the three well‑being objectives. Members were reminded that an initial draft had been presented to the committee in November, and while no significant changes had been introduced since then, there had been continued progress across the various workstreams. It was confirmed that there were no new risks beyond those previously discussed, and officers continued to ensure compliance with statutory duties. Work was ongoing in relation to the delivery agreement process, and officers were liaising with the Welsh Government to draw down the associated funding linked to the relevant functions. Members sought clarity regarding the preparation of the Strategic Development Plan (SDP), specifically highlighting the apparent contradiction between the Welsh Government’s indication that grant funding would be released upon submission of the delivery agreement, and the statement within the budget papers that the delivery agreement could not be submitted until sufficient funding had been identified to support the development of the SDP. Officers provided background information, explaining that the Cabinet Secretary had advised in March of a forthcoming funding allocation, with further notification issued by Welsh Government in June confirming additional funding. This included financial support for developing the SDP delivery agreement, with details on the process for claiming and drawing down the grant still being clarified. Officers confirmed they had been working with Welsh Government officials to obtain detailed guidance and were maintaining close alignment with other Corporate Joint Committees to ensure consistency and to incorporate lessons learned. It was noted that a total allocation of £400,000 had been identified, although the breakdown had not initially been provided. More recently, Welsh Government had confirmed that two opportunities existed to claim £100,000 each: the first upon demonstrating that a draft delivery agreement had been approved and was ready for consultation, and the second upon submission and approval of the final delivery agreement by 31 March 2026. Officers acknowledged the concerns raised by scrutiny members regarding the absence of additional resourcing within the current budget to support the planning programme. They explained that, instead of immediate allocation, the requirement would be built into the medium‑term financial plan, developed jointly with officers and members of the Corporate Joint Committee. This approach had already been adopted and endorsed in other regions progressing their SDP and had the support of Welsh Government. Officers confirmed that lobbying for further funding would continue, as previous lobbying efforts had resulted in incremental releases of grant funding. They reiterated their intention to maximise external funding to support the development of the SDP and to ensure all financial requirements were appropriately reflected in the medium‑term financial plan. Members queried how the statutory deadline could be met if the process was dependent on a medium‑term financial plan that had not yet been finalised. It was emphasised that the delivery agreement was required to demonstrate that the process was fully funded, yet officers and members were in a position where the plan was neither fully resourced nor assured. Officers acknowledged the difficulty of the situation and confirmed that their original view had been the same as that expressed by members: without confirmed funding, it was unclear how the delivery agreement could accurately demonstrate the resources, timetable and community involvement required to deliver the SDP. However, officers noted that both the Cardiff Capital Region and North Wales had submitted their delivery agreements despite similar funding uncertainties, primarily due to the statutory requirement and the risk of falling behind. It was explained that, because the two other regions had progressed more quickly, they had already accessed earlier funding released by Welsh Government, leaving no allocation available for this region at that time. Officers advised that failing to progress could again result in future releases of funding being allocated exclusively to those regions already further ahead, placing this region at continued disadvantage. Officers outlined the balance that needed to be struck between meeting statutory obligations and safeguarding the region’s ability to draw down any future funding made available. While acknowledging the risks involved, officers advised that continuing to progress the delivery agreement was considered necessary to avoid exclusion from future funding opportunities and to ensure the region was not left further behind. Members noted that this context was helpful but queried why the budget report did not reflect the position being described. Following scrutiny, the report was noted.
Members considered the report as circulated within the agenda pack. Two budget options had been considered for the forthcoming year. The first was the fully requested budget, which totalled approximately £1.7 million. This represented a substantial increase of around £900,000 compared with 2025–26 and encompassed the regional management office, the Chief Operating Officer’s salary, the capacity and capability grant, democratic and governance functions, and Section 151 and Monitoring Officer support. Workstream funding was also included, such as allocations for economic well‑being, including provision for a dedicated officer to drive forward the local energy plan and associated work detailed within the report. Consideration had also been given to the strategic development plan, with ongoing efforts led by officers to secure further Welsh Government funding for planning functions. A second option was also proposed that retained the requested budget but reduced the allocation for strategic planning to a minimal level at this stage. This approach was intended to allow continued lobbying of Welsh Government and to seek clarity on their expectations for planning responsibilities. Officers expressed concern that while Welsh Government had established the legislative requirements for the CJC, the funding for much of its delivery continued to fall to local authorities. They noted this remained a significant challenge given the increasing costs. Officers presented two budget scenarios for consideration: the restricted budget and the fully allocated budget. Members were advised that the difference between the two was significant, with the fully allocated option increasing the overall levy substantially, as set out in the report. Officers explained that the recommended approach followed the strategy previously adopted, making use of reserves to support the budget. Under this proposal, a contribution of £167,182 would be drawn from balances in the first year, followed by £197,000 over the three‑year period, resulting in a gradual reduction of reserves. This was considered prudent given that the Corporate Joint Committees were still developing, and there remained uncertainty around the full level of resources required. Retaining some flexibility within balances would also allow the committee to adapt to emerging needs during the year, in the same way that funding had enabled the appointment of the Chief Operating Officer in the previous year. Members were informed of the indicative budget allocations within each workstream, as set out in Appendix B. These included £187,000 for economic well‑being and energy, £21,000 for planning at the minimum level, £52,000 for transport, and £100,152 for governance and support functions. Some of these allocations would be offset by grant funding already secured. A contingency of £50,000 was also proposed to support planning development, reflecting the ongoing discussions with the Welsh Government regarding expectations linked to the regional planning function. Officers confirmed that the net budget requirement totalled £1.1million, reduced by £320,000 of confirmed grants, resulting in only a modest uplift to the levy for constituent authorities. The increases for each authority were outlined, with Swansea increasing from £191,000 to £232,000, Carmarthenshire from £151,000 to £176,000, Neath Port Talbot from £114,000 to £132,000, and Pembrokeshire from £99,000 to £116,000. These increases were described as manageable and sufficient to support the necessary activity, aside from challenges within the planning workstream, where extensive discussions with the Welsh Government continued. Officers explained that the alternative option, set out in Appendix A, would have resulted in significantly higher levies—approximately double the recommended amounts. It was felt that such increases would be unsustainable for constituent authorities at this time, and for that reason, the recommendation was for the restricted budget approach. Members noted that while there was an understandable reluctance to increase levies on constituent local authorities, this approach carried significant risks. It was acknowledged that grants had been received during financial years that had helped offset costs, and that this pattern had continued throughout the lifetime of the CJC. However, members emphasised that limiting the activity of the CJC had resulted in poor value for money, as substantial fixed costs continued to be incurred without the corresponding delivery of key workstreams. Particular reference was made to the Strategic Development Plan and regional transport work, where restricted progress was contributing to delays and uncertainty. Concern was expressed that the current approach risked prolonging implementation while still requiring the committee to maintain the administrative and structural framework of the CJC without achieving meaningful outcomes. Following scrutiny, the recommendation was supported to the South West Wales Corporate Joint Committee with the addition of the committee’s pre-existing concerns about the affordability of the SDP.
Members considered the report as circulated within the supplement pack. Officers provided an update following a workshop held in November to review the corporate plan objectives relating to economic development and energy, regional transport, and strategic planning and land use. During the workshop, officers confirmed that the existing objectives remained fit for purpose and did not require amendment. As a result, there was no need to undertake further consultation on the objectives themselves. Work has commenced on reviewing the actions aligned to those objectives, and this formed the basis of the report presented. Members were advised that the report sought endorsement of the updated priorities. Attention was also drawn to a correction required in Item 2 of the proposed actions, found on page 6 of the document under Strategic Development Plan Well‑being Objective 3. Within section 3.3, the phrase “regional local development plans” was identified as a typographical error and should correctly read “replacement local development plans,” referencing the RLDPs across the region. It was noted that the annual workshop undertaken in November is an important part of ensuring progress against objectives and supporting the budget‑setting process. Officers will continue reviewing the detailed actions within the corporate plan and will bring a further update, including the refined actions aligned to the ongoing objectives, to the committee in March as part of the broader vision for the corporate plan. Members commented on the actions contained within the document, noting that all actions are subject to the level of funding available. It was highlighted that, in light of earlier discussions on the budget‑setting process and the level of ambition, the action plan does not distinguish between actions by their priority to the CJC. Members suggested that future iterations of the plan could benefit from clearly identifying the priority level of each action, whether through ranking or grouping them into categories, to aid understanding. While members of the scrutiny committee may appreciate the context when considering the document alongside wider discussions, it was noted that members of the public may not fully understand the relationship between the actions, the budget, grants and other influencing factors. The suggestion was therefore offered to improve clarity and transparency in future versions of the document. Following scrutiny, the recommendation was supported to the South West Wales Corporate Joint Committee.
The Forward Work Programme was noted.
There were no urgent items.
It was noted that Appendix 1, 2 and 3, detailed within the circulated report, was exempt under Paragraph 14. There were no comments or questions received in relation to these appendices, therefore the meeting did not move into private session.
It was noted that Appendix 1, 2 and 3, detailed within the circulated report, was exempt under Paragraph 14. There were no comments or questions received in relation to these appendices, therefore the meeting did not move into private session.
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.