Loading
The decisions as the council's minutes record them. A plain-language summary follows once it has been written.
Resolved: to exclude the public for the following items pursuant to Section 100A (4) and (5) of the Local Government Act 1972 and the relevant exempt paragraphs of Part 4 of Schedule 12A to the above Act.
The Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting.
There were no declarations of interest received.
The minutes of the meeting held on 10 March 2026 were approved as a true and accurate record.
Members were given a presentation and provided with a verbal overview of the South West Wales Corporate Joint Committee and Swansea Bay City Deal. Officers gave a refresh of the Corporate Joint Committee structure and the place of overview and scrutiny within the governance framework. The South West Wales Corporate Joint Committee was formed in 2021 under the Local Government and Elections Wales Act 2021. Its purpose is to provide a consistent mechanism for regional collaboration between local government authorities and to address challenges and opportunities that do not stop at council boundaries. South West Wales was presented as a region with significant scale, strategic assets, business base, population and connectivity through ports, rail and road, together with anchor projects such as the Swansea Bay City Deal. The Corporate Joint Committee exercises key functions in strategic development planning, regional transport and economic well-being across the region. It is a separate corporate body that can employ staff, hold assets and budgets, and discharge functions in a similar way to local authorities. The Joint Committee Corporate Plan has three well-being objectives covering regional economic delivery, regional energy, regional transport and strategic planning, with the intention of bringing these together to maximise impact across the region. Members were provided with an outline of the structure of the Joint Committee and the six sub-committees. The overview and scrutiny committee provides democratic accountability, reviews and scrutinises decisions and may take related action in connection with Corporate Joint Committee functions. They may make reports or recommendations back to the Corporate Joint Committee. The Governance and Audit committee reviews and scrutinises financial affairs, risk management, internal control and corporate governance arrangements. Members were also provided with an overview of the sub-committees. The Economic, Well-being and Energy sub-committee supports the regional economic delivery plan and regional energy strategy, with a mission to improve the decarbonised economic well-being of South West Wales. The Regional Transport sub-committee oversees the regional transport plan to improve connectivity, support decarbonisation and drive economic growth. The Strategic Development Planning sub-committee oversees preparation and delivery of the Strategic Development Plan for South West Wales. Officers confirmed that there are support level agreements in place with constituent local authorities for democratic services, audit and finance. These are provided by Neath Port Talbot, Pembrokeshire and Carmarthenshire respectively. There is also a small business support function and a wider programme board made up of regional directors and relevant lead officers. The officer explained the role of the Private Sector Advisory Board as a source of independent external expert advice across the three key workstreams. The officer then described the flow of decision-making. Policy and development begins with the programme board, with early engagement through the Private Sector Advisory Board, before matters move through sub-committees, overview and scrutiny, and then to the Corporate Joint Committee as the formal decision-making body. Members were informed of the wider stakeholder engagement arrangements. These involve Welsh Government, regional learning and skills partnership co-optees, Swansea University, University of Wales Trinity Saint David, Hywel Dda University Health Board, Swansea Bay University Health Board, and regular engagement with the other Corporate Joint Committees across Wales through formal arrangements under the Welsh Local Government Association. Officers outlined that the City Deal has nine business cases, each managed by project teams within lead authorities including universities, health boards, local authorities and private sector organisations. Project teams feed into the regional Portfolio Management Office, then to the Portfolio Board. Previous regional scrutiny arrangements of the City Deal have now transitioned into the current overview and scrutiny committee. The former Economic Strategy Board private sector function has also transitioned into the Private Sector Advisory Board. Reporting goes to the South West Wales Corporate Joint Committee and onwards, in City Deal matters, to the Welsh and Cities and Growth Deals Implementation Board. This is required because annual drawdown of City Deal funding depends on demonstrating progress and proper governance and monitoring at portfolio level. The drawdown process runs annually over the 15-year period of the City Deal to 2033. The overview was noted.
Members considered the report as circulated within the agenda pack. Members were reminded that the budget 2026/2027 was approved at the Joint Committee meeting in January. Quarter 1 indicates a projected overspend of £395,000. The forecasted year end reserve balance is set to reduce from £1.585m to £1.191m. Members were updated on the principal variances. Support services are showing an underspend of almost £39,000 because of a long-standing vacancy in the accountant post. This links to the current review of the target operating model for the Corporate Joint Committee and City Deal, which may lead to a changed finance role later in the year. External audit fees are projected to be about £10,000 higher due to an anticipated increase in Audit Wales costs for the performance audit element of its work. The largest area of overspend is within the sub-committees, with a forecast overspend of £600,000 due to increasing activity levels. This is partly offset by additional Welsh Government grants. Officers have identified £200,000 for the regional development plan and a further £100,000 for the strategic development planning sub-committee. Officers broke down the strategic development planning position. A Welsh Government grant of £100,000 received in 2025 to 2026 has been placed into reserves at year-end. A further £200,000 of reserves had been agreed for use by the strategic planning sub-committee at the Joint Committee in March. When combined with the existing sub-committee budget allocation of £21,800, this creates a one-year budget of £421,800. The regional management office is showing an underspend of £43,000, mainly from consultancy and specialist advisory fees, with smaller underspends in translation and printing budgets. The additional Welsh Government grant income of £200,000 and £100,000 is reflected. Members sought information on longer-term Welsh Government funding for the Strategic Development Plan. Members said the position had been raised each time the matter had come forward and that current funding only appeared sufficient to get the work started and show willing. Members queried whether, given the recent change of government in Cardiff and pressures around the Welsh budget, there were any indications of either a more positive approach or a retrenchment in funding. Officers confirmed that there had been no commitment to further funding from Welsh Government. The officer said the current funding would not be enough to deliver the plan over the required five years and that officers needed to be realistic about that. Officers added that recruitment to a strategic development lead post was now under way so that the region would have capacity to push the agenda forward. Following scrutiny, the report was noted.
Members considered the report as circulated within the agenda pack. Officers outlined that the updated risk management strategy built upon work undertaken earlier in the year to create a proportionate approach capable of managing the key risks within the Corporate Joint Committee. The strategy has already been considered by the Governance and Audit Committee and feedback from that committee had been used to refine the version before Members. Officers advised that the risk profile of the Corporate Joint Committee was modest but still developing. The strategy sets out a clear framework for risk management, including risk appetite, roles and responsibilities, escalation routes, and the relationship between strategic, programme and operational risk registers. The intention is to embed risk management more systematically across governance and assurance arrangements. Officers confirmed that the next step would be to work with each workstream to identify local risks properly and escalate the more strategic or significant risks so that they could be scrutinised, monitored and controlled. The format of the risk register was queried by members. Members commented that most risk registers use a red, amber, green system, which is easier to read, and that the current risk tolerance matrix appears more complicated than formats used previously. It was queried whether a more familiar presentation method could be used. In addition, concerns around how risk was being determined were also raised. Officers advised that a red, amber and green categorisation was intended to be included on the risk register and that it had not appeared because it had dropped out during the export from the system into the report format. Officers accepted the point about the level of detail and said that, in future, members would be presented with a streamlined view focused on those risks becoming more serious and those of strategic importance, while full access to all material would still remain available if required. Members queried both revenue and capital funding risks. Members specifically referred to page 37 and the RTP Result 2 entry, which warned that if long-term funding were insufficient or uncertain, the Regional Transport Plan would not be deliverable beyond ambition statements. Members were concerned that without a major change in capital funding available to Welsh Government, there was a risk that the organisation would be unable to deliver its ambitions, including the Swansea Metro Vision. Officers agreed that financial risks needed to be properly reflected on the risk register and said officers would work with lead officers so these flowed through and could be tracked. Officers said the region needed to ensure South West Wales was central to funding considerations from government. A new regional investment prospectus has been developed, setting out ambitions and beginning to make the case for a regional growth framework and a regional investment fund. Meetings were being lined up with portfolio holders, and an engagement event is being arranged for Members of the Senedd, Cabinet Ministers and regional MPs so that the region could showcase its ambitions across economic well-being, transport and strategic planning. Officers advised that the region was also working actively with the other three Corporate Joint Committees across Wales so that South West Wales could pursue both regional and pan-Wales opportunities and compete with English combined authorities. Members expressed concerns around the Regional Transport Plan and said there was at least a positive position in having prepared work and being ready to seize future opportunities. Further risks were identified by members, namely the appetite of constituent authorities to continue supporting the Corporate Joint Committee levy, particularly with local government elections approaching next year and the possibility of political change and different attitudes to funding the Corporate Joint Committee. Officers advised that work was under way to streamline operational costs and develop a new target operating model, so that constituent authorities could see clearly where the levy was being spent and what it was delivering. Officers outlined £600,000 of grant funding brought into the Corporate Joint Committee during the current financial year through regional transport, capacity building, strategic development planning work and local growth funds. Following scrutiny, the recommendation outlined in the report was supported to the South West Wales Corporate Joint Committee.
Members considered the report as circulated within the agenda pack. Officers confirmed that the region had been successful at the readiness check stage in February 2026 and South West Wales had been the only region in Wales to secure access to up to £20 million. Members were informed that the focus is industrial resilience and innovation, supporting regional clusters in energy and material security. The portfolio is due for submission in early September, with the UK Research and Innovation panel meeting late September. UK Research and Innovation is co-producing the portfolio with the region, and its experts are supporting development. Officers outlined the criteria in order to access the fund. The portfolio must align with local priorities and the regional economic delivery plan, show how innovation investment can generate wider economic and social value, focus on scale and impact rather than small projects, and reflect the most impactful opportunities available in South West Wales. Officers advised that a programme board had been established to decide the final list of projects using the UK Research and Innovation assessment criteria. The Corporate Joint Committee meeting in July would be asked to endorse the key principles in the report and to delegate final portfolio approval to the Chief Operating Officer in collaboration with the leader of the Corporate Joint Committee and the chair of the Economic and Wellbeing Committee. The direction of travel within the portfolio is built around three interconnected anchor projects. The first is offshore deployment and installation systems, increasing manufacturing capability of platforms and substructures in the region. The second is reducing barriers to adoption of hydrogen as an alternative fuel switch. The third is material recovery and valorisation, combining the supply chain to recover and process critical materials from waste. Alongside those anchor projects, targeted challenge calls are planned. Cross-cutting themes cover skills, private sector leverage and investment, and the use of artificial intelligence and technology. Officers advised that a proportion of the funding may be held back as the programme runs for five years and technology could change significantly during that period. Members sought clarification on the timescale for hydrogen capture and progress on that work and also queried how organisations would apply for grants of this type. Officers advised that the region already has a strong hydrogen production cluster but is looking to reduce barriers faced by hydrogen off-takers. A test and challenge process is part of portfolio development, and an oversight board of industry, academia and government had met the previous day. Officers outlined there needs to be a fuel switch, but the timeline and cost of hydrogen are currently prohibitive, so the portfolio work will examine how to reduce those barriers and map the production timeline. With regards to applications, officers advised that once approval was secured from UK Research and Innovation after the September panel stage, an open call would be launched and publicised through the recently launched Corporate Joint Committee website. Members sought confirmation if this work was taking account of previous hydrogen transport work, including hydrogen buses in the Swansea region, which had faced viability and delivery problems. Members also queried if Transport for Wales was involved, given the importance of transport to hydrogen infrastructure, and sought clarification on whether key partners such as Associated British Ports were fully engaged, especially in relation to offshore wind and Port Talbot. Officers advised that the region is already investing in hydrogen through the City Deal, with Neath Port Talbot leading a related project and a funding programme having been launched a few weeks earlier. The work package under this fund would look across industry, transport and energy systems to reduce barriers to adoption. On retaining part of the budget, officers said this was to avoid allocating all funding immediately and to preserve flexibility for developments that may arise one or two years into the programme. On partner engagement, officers confirmed that Associated British Ports was engaged through technical workstreams and that the programme was also linked with organisations such as Hyppo Hydrogen and other partners contributing expertise, whether or not they were themselves seeking Local Innovation Partnership funding. Members queried when more detailed targets, specific goals and posts created would be available so that the committee could track progress over time. Officers outlined that detailed outputs and outcomes would be developed with UK Research and Innovation after the panel stage. These would cover items such as new or improved research and development and innovation infrastructure, stronger partnership governance, new products or services, job creation and match funding. Members referred to a wider UK ambition for 19 per cent of long-term energy to come from hydrogen but said no hydrogen project had yet been seen to sustain itself commercially beyond the period of initial funding support. Members welcomed the challenge and process involving academia and cautioned against spending money on hydrogen without a sustainable future having yet been demonstrated, while recognising there may still be a future role for hydrogen. Officers advised that work with the University of South Wales through the City Deal hydrogen stimulus project was trying to increase the availability of hydrogen, while recognising that cost remains a barrier and that reducing cost is essential to encourage off-takers. Officers quoted international examples such as Kitakyushu in Japan are already using hydrogen in a commercial setting for vehicles including ambulances and refuse collection vehicles. The region could learn from countries like Japan on hydrogen production and use. Following scrutiny, the recommendation outlined in the report was supported to the South West Wales Corporate Joint Committee.
Members considered the report as circulated within the agenda pack. The fund operates under three themes, supporting business, economic infrastructure, and skills and employability, and is heavily capital biased. The programme runs for three years from April 2026. Welsh Government had directed that existing Shared Prosperity Fund regional architecture be used to get the programme up and running. In South West Wales, this meant existing regional arrangements could be used immediately. The business support element is already active across the region through local authority teams, meeting regionally for consistency. The anchor project model previously used under the Shared Prosperity Fund has been refined and carried forward with an economic development focus. To date one year of funding has been confirmed, pending transition from a purely local authority-led position into the Corporate Joint Committee governance structure. Officers advised that South West Wales was on the front foot because it already has an economic delivery plan, a prospectus and investment strategy, and a strong pipeline of projects, including those prioritised during the investment plan process. Due to the limited length of the programme and quarter one of year one has already ended, decisions will be required to be taken in a timely manner. Officers proposed bringing forward an early expression of interest process, ideally before the end of the month, so that larger potential investments, particularly in energy and transport, and any other qualifying regional projects, could be identified and brought back for approval. It was anticipated that regionally significant schemes would need approval no later than mid-autumn. Members queried if housing could fall within the economic infrastructure theme. Members referred to viability problems for sites in Neath Port Talbot and more widely across South Wales, particularly in relation to contamination, flooding and other abnormal costs. Members noted that similar work had been done for commercial and industrial sites and asked whether the Local Growth Fund in Wales could be used to address viability gaps for housing sites, particularly where this would support growth and allow people to remain living in the area. Officers advised that Welsh Government had not pushed the programme towards housing, but sites and premises funding could potentially be considered, subject to what funding becomes available in years two and three. The immediate focus is more on strengthening economic development teams’ ability to continue their site-enabling work, rather than direct housing intervention, but he was happy to raise the point with Welsh Government colleagues. The officer added that discussions were being arranged with Welsh Government officials around regional working groups to explore how departmental funding could align with this programme and whether a small amount of gap funding from the Local Growth Fund could unlock wider packages of development. Following scrutiny, the report was noted.
Members considered the report as circulated within the agenda pack. Officers provided a short presentation on the agenda item. Officers explained that the digital infrastructure programme had recently completed an options appraisal following a recommendation from the most recent gateway review. This related to unallocated funding of just over £2.3 million, arising mainly because the Connected Places dark fibre project had come in significantly under budget and because the programme had also secured an additional sum of just over £1 million from the Welsh Government Local Broadband Fund for the Better Swansea Bay Area full fibre infrastructure build project. The options appraisal looked beyond the current programme end date of March 2027. All options had to remain aligned with programme aspirations and strategic objectives. The officer said the programme was entering a pivotal phase in which it would move from direct capital investment in infrastructure to acting as a regional enabler for long-term economic growth while also continuing to address inclusion issues. A key part of the appraisal was to convert some capital to revenue so that important resources could be retained both centrally and in local authorities. Officers outlined within Connected Places, the proposal is to extend the central regional team but with a changed focus away from direct infrastructure investment and towards driving further investment from commercial rollout and larger interventions such as Project Gigabit and Welsh Government’s Extending High Speed Broadband Wales, leveraging investment already made, supporting innovation, and overseeing the strategic work programme with local authority teams. The team is now smaller than originally planned, with two project managers and a communications officer, but the structure could flex if additional funding were attracted, with scope to add a programme manager and another project manager. With regards to the rural workstream, broadband engagement officers would continue. Members were advised that Carmarthenshire and Pembrokeshire still have relatively low superfast availability despite good growth in their fibre footprint. In more urban counties the gap is narrowing, but there are still residents and businesses left behind. The role of the officers is therefore expected to change over the next two years, with more focus on digital inclusion and helping businesses adopt technology that uses the future-proof infrastructure. The job description is being reviewed accordingly. Officers then described the social value element. Experience from digital inclusion funds already awarded had shown that some organisations can achieve transformative results with only a small amount of funding. The proposal for each local authority to receive two £15,000 funds per county, to be awarded through a scheme that would be designed centrally with proportionate key performance indicators. Feedback from organisations previously funded had been that funding needs to be outcome-based and not overburdened with reporting requirements. Within the Next Generation Wireless workstream, digital connectivity relationship managers have already been playing an important role in supporting both fibre and mobile rollout, removing barriers within local authorities, handling wayleaves and highways issues, and supporting current work to address poor connectivity. These posts would continue because fibre and mobile delivery will also continue beyond 2027. A smaller amount of funding would be made available for Internet of Things projects, building on the existing digital innovation network and enabling regional partners to move from proof of concept to fuller delivery. A larger 5G innovation fund would remain available in dormant form in case new UK Government funding opportunities arise. Officers advised that the programme’s benefits align with and build on existing outputs and outcomes. A mid-term gross value added assessment completed in October 2024 attributed £160 million of gross value added to work around barrier busting and easing the deployment of infrastructure. Officers advised that, without these regional and local resources, there would be a real risk of slowdown, particularly affecting the hardest to reach communities and businesses. Member reflected on the programme and commented that in Pembrokeshire, approximately 70 per cent of premises now have access to superfast broadband through a range of providers. Members praised the work of the Pembrokeshire broadband engagement officers and said that a pilot project in part of the members ward had been successful, with residents still using the provider introduced through that work. Members ask for clarification on the proposed Digital Inclusion Fund. Members referred to digital inclusion work in Neath Port Talbot previously funded through the Shared Prosperity Fund, which had now scaled back and was at risk. Members asked whether there had been discussion with officers in Neath Port Talbot about using the new fund to continue that work seamlessly, rather than allowing an existing service to stop and then creating a separate new fund. Officers advised members that the options appraisal related to delivery beyond March 2027 and that the capital projects remained in full delivery at present, so those specific discussions had not yet taken place. Officers indicated that the intention is for the new scheme to remain open, transparent and equitable, especially for smaller organisations that do not have large teams or experience in drafting extensive bids, but that officers would look to support continuity where possible. Following scrutiny, the report was noted.
Members considered the report as circulated within the agenda pack. Officers explained that it is the strategic business case for the City Deal portfolio and demonstrates the case for change, policy alignment, value for money, affordability and deliverability. The process has now become standardised and is based on two rounds of consultation across projects, programmes, stakeholders and government, with quarter four monitoring information incorporated. Members were advised that the portfolio business case remains valid, impactful and aligned with the original Heads of Terms for the City Deal from 2017 and 2018. All partners remain committed to delivering headline business cases and benefits. There has been delivery variance and delay in some projects, but delivery is continuing despite difficult economic conditions over the past five years, including inflationary and construction cost pressures. Officers advised that benefit realisation is now beginning to accelerate and that the next scrutiny meeting would hopefully receive the first evaluation based on the innovation matrix, enabling a closer look at economic impact and jobs created. Officers updated on the City Deal assurance framework across the Economic, Commercial, Financial and Management Cases. It was reported that the Economic Case contained limited changes, primarily updates to narrative summaries and quarter four employment information, although further project and programme-level business case development remains necessary as schemes progress from Outline Business Case to Full Business Case stage following procurement and implementation. In relation to the Commercial Case, values and narrative information had been updated in line with quarter four monitoring, including procurement pipeline information, community benefits, mitigation measures relating to the construction impact assessment funding gap, procurement routes, and revised procurement information for the two hotel projects. The Financial Case demonstrated the continued affordability of the portfolio, with forecast investment increasing by £68 million to £1.458 billion from the original Heads of Terms figure of £1.274 billion, reflecting inflation, extended delivery timescales, and the reshaping of certain projects. Members noted that £190 million of the £241 million City Deal grant had been drawn down, of which 67% had been distributed to lead delivery organisations, and that the reported in-year variance of £31.5 million was attributable largely to profiling and delivery slippage between financial years rather than a reduction in forecast outputs. Under the Management Case, Members were advised that the portfolio comprises 39 project components across nine business cases, with eight completed, 19 in delivery and 12 at pre-delivery stage. Updates had been made to monitoring and evaluation arrangements, including the introduction of a benefits realisation dashboard and strategy, together with a document retention policy and project closure template. The latest gateway review remained rated Amber-Green, the highest available status, and Members were directed to the programme delivery roadmap extending to 2030 and beyond. Officers also noted the appendices accompanying the report, including the document retention policy, private sector contribution report, risk registers and issue logs, which remain available on request. Members welcomed the report and asked that clear visibility be maintained around benefit realisation, especially in relation to jobs. Members had consistently been advised that jobs would take a number of years to accumulate after the start of the City Deal, but that, now that more programmes had been completed and others were in the pipeline, the benefit realisation matrix would be particularly important. Officers were in agreement and advised that the key test for the City Deal is benefit realisation. Officers informed members that the new dashboard would come to the next scrutiny meeting and would cover investment and jobs. Officers added that the portfolio now has 118 identified benefits and status tracking is in place to show whether each is completed, on track, at risk or not started. Officers indicated that 11% per cent of jobs had now been created and that further evaluation would show those figures ramping up as project benefits mature. Following scrutiny, the report was noted.
Members considered the report as circulated within the agenda pack. Officers advised that the Joint Committee had previously set a five-year operational budget ending in 2024 to 2025, followed by a one-year interim budget for 2025 to 2026. A further budget was therefore required for 2026 to 2027. The proposed interim operational budget for 2026 to 2027 totals £1.738 million. It is to be funded by interest earned on cash balances together with the 1.5 per cent top slice deducted from government grant before payment to partners. Officers advised that the budget is affordable, subject to the top slice of £843,000 being generated and interest income being earned. Officers added that the remaining top slice of approximately £790,000 would be generated across the remainder of the City Deal period as constituent authorities and lead delivery bodies draw down grant, and that this would offset the projected deficit shown at the end of 2026 to 2027. Interest income for the year is projected at around £1 million. This will be credited to the accounts and then transferred to lead project authorities at year-end, giving a net nil effect on the accounts. Staffing assumptions had also been reviewed in the context of wider structural review work. Officers advised that the PMO Manager and Project Development Manager posts had been vacant for several years and would not be replaced during the year, so the budget had been set on that basis. A 3.5% inflation rate had been applied to salaries, and a table in the report showed the assumptions used for other parts of the budget. Additional budget provision includes £6,000 for an annual assurance review required by Welsh and UK Governments and £20,000 for an external review of the Portfolio Management Office. A further £40,000 had been allocated to publicise City Deal success stories, including production of the annual report, portfolio brochure and website updates. Officers also advised that legal and democratic services were being provided by the City and County of Swansea for the first quarter and would then transfer to Neath Port Talbot for the rest of the year. There were no questions on this item. Following scrutiny, the report was noted.
Members considered the report as circulated within the agenda pack. The officer referred Members to Appendix A. Joint Committee and accountable body expenditure for the year totalled £3.061 million. Officers outlined the specifics of the expenditure set out in Appendix A. Reserve balances showed a deficit of £256,000 at the end of 2024 to 2025 and a further projected deficit of £434,000 at the end of 2025 to 2026, creating a carried forward reserve deficit of £690,000. The officer said this was primarily a timing issue relating to the generation of the top slice and would be offset in future years as grant continued to be claimed. Turning to investment, officers advised that the portfolio is now valued at £1.458 billion, an increase of £68 million from the earlier quarter one reprofiling. This comprises an additional £53.8 million of private sector investment and £15 million of additional public sector investment. Total spend during the year across public, private and grant funding came to £134 million. The in-year underspend was £31.5 million and was spread across almost all projects, though projects were continuing to progress and deliver. Officers then progressed to summarise the main variances. The officer concluded with the private sector leverage position. More than £233 million of private sector investment had been leveraged by the end of the financial year, representing about 30 per cent of the total private sector investment target of £772 million and around 32 per cent of total portfolio spend to date. Most projects forecast private sector investment later in their delivery profiles, with £184 million currently forecast in 2026 to 2027 and almost £260 million in 2027 to 2028. There were no questions on this item. Following scrutiny, the report was noted.
The Forward Work Programme was noted.
There were no urgent items.
Decision as recorded
Resolved: to exclude the public for the following items pursuant to Section 100A (4) and (5) of the Local Government Act 1972 and the relevant exempt paragraphs of Part 4 of Schedule 12A to the above Act.
Resolved: to exclude the public for the following items pursuant to Section 100A (4) and (5) of the Local Government Act 1972 and the relevant exempt paragraphs of Part 4 of Schedule 12A to the above Act.
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.