Loading
It questioned the Executive Member and officers on delivery, risk, funding and public engagement. It then made six recommendations and asked for more detailed future reports. No declarations of interest were made.
1.1 The Chair welcomed Members and Officers to the meeting. 1.2 Apologies had been received by Councillors Stuart Ashley, Karl Gauden, Norma Parrish & Nathan Yeowell.
2.1 There were no declarations made.
3.1 The minutes of the previous meeting held on 9 July 2026 were confirmed as an accurate record.
4.1 There were no outstanding actions and the action sheet was noted.
5.1 The Chair introduced the item and welcomed the EM and officers to the meeting. The DCE gave a brief overview of the report and the Chair then proceeded to questions. 5.2 In response to Members’ questions the EM and officers provided the following answers: • The DCE explained that the programme had an overarching lead and individual project managers. The Portfolio Management Office (PMO) sat outside delivery and provided assurance that projects followed appropriate practices, remained within approved parameters and escalated concerns where necessary. The SDR added that the PMO role was being clarified so that it did not become a second project-management function. • Officers agreed that future reports should include a staffing structure or schematic showing the separation between project delivery and assurance. • The DCE advised that live projects had project-management arrangements, but external support was needed to accelerate delivery and provide market expertise. This was part of the rationale for appointing a development and investment partner. • In response to a follow-up on cost, the DCE said project-management, consultancy and design costs were already built into budgets. The partner was not expected to increase costs and could improve commercial viability. The SDR added that Council staff would gain skills by working alongside the partner. • The DCE explained that full regeneration impacts could take time to emerge. Expected benefits included jobs, homes, environmental improvements and improved links between places. The IHoE&P added that grant-funded schemes also had specified outputs, including site appraisals, development opportunities and public-realm improvements. • In response to a question on value for money, the DCE said monitoring depended on the intended outcome. Measures could include footfall, vacancy and occupancy rates, housing units and occupied business units. More strategic outcomes would be assessed through logic models linking an intervention to its expected result. • Members observed that the report did not clearly show timetables, milestones, dependencies or progress by phase. Officers accepted the point and welcomed future reporting that explained the development cycle and activity taking place before visible delivery began. • The IHoE&P explained that engagement took place through surveys, events, consultations and ongoing discussion with businesses, stakeholders and community organisations. Feedback had influenced work on Pontypool town centre and the emerging activation strategy. • The DCE said the Council wanted to move towards co-design, where objectives, available budgets and competing priorities were explained before communities helped shape projects. • In response to questions about broadening participation, the DCE acknowledged that traditional consultation often reached people with the time and inclination to attend. He outlined work with businesses, community venues and partners, together with shadow-board opportunities for young people. The EM gave an example of young people on the Cwmbran Neighbourhood Board surveying their schools and presenting the findings. • Members highlighted that weekday daytime engagement excluded many working residents. The DCE accepted that the balance should be reviewed and referred to evening, weekend and community-based activity, while noting the need to balance this with available staff resources. • The DCE confirmed that social-media feedback was considered and could lead to changes, but represented only those residents who chose to participate online. The EM added that communications should explain the history and funding journey of projects more clearly. • The DCE welcomed clearer visibility of projects from engagement and planning through to completion. He suggested Member seminars on the project-development cycle and more frequent communications about work taking place behind the scenes. • The DCE identified funding decisions, construction inflation, procurement, planning, technical design and programme complexity as common causes of delay. Projects could require additional funding or value engineering where costs exceeded budgets. • In relation to the British, the DCE described heritage, ecology and ground-condition constraints, community co-design, funding applications, COVID-related construction inflation and technical-design delays. The scheme had progressed to tender, after which the final market price and scope could be considered. • The IHoE&P advised that the canal project was progressing, although not at the pace Members or communities might wish. Funding remained a challenge because of the scale and ambition of the project. • In response to a question on new funding opportunities, the DCE said a small scheme might be absorbed, while a major opportunity could require Members to consider deferring or stopping an earlier-stage project. He cautioned against repeatedly changing priorities simply to follow new funding streams. The EM noted that the Council had delayed its Levelling Up Fund application to build capacity for a later round. • The DCE said the development and investment partner would help diversify funding and bring private-sector expertise. The SDR expected further capital opportunities and confirmed that Members would be briefed, with appropriate decisions returning to Cabinet or Council. • Members requested clearer public information about successful funding awards. Officers agreed that communications should explain where funding came from, what it could be used for and why ring-fenced funding could not be redirected to unrelated services. • The DCE explained that grant conditions were set out in award letters. Project changes could be managed through formal change requests or revised letters. The IHoE&P added that officers maintained dialogue with funders about delivery challenges, claims, changes and possible extensions. • The DCE identified construction inflation as the greatest portfolio-wide risk. Mitigation could include redesign, value engineering, reduced outputs, additional external funding or further Council resources. Revised prices could also require planning permissions to be reconsidered. • In response to a question about a project moving from amber to red, the DCE explained that the project manager would first seek to resolve the issue before escalating it to the Senior Responsible Officer. The PMO would challenge the position through highlight reporting, with significant matters escalated to the Joint Executive Team, Cabinet or Council. • The IHoE&P said the Pontypool activation strategy began with a discovery phase examining parking, footfall, spending, cleanliness, safety and other challenges. Findings would inform worthwhile uses, events, property activity and a stronger civic and cultural offer. • The DCE cited the British as an example of consultation changing project design. Community engagement had influenced the areas prioritised, the watercourse design and proposed materials. He acknowledged that co-design could add time and cost but considered community support essential. • The SDR cited St James’s Church as an example of partnership with a private owner. Levelling Up Fund support was linked to agreed outputs, while the owner retained the risk of cost overruns and unforeseen works. • The DCE said investor confidence depended partly on visible pride in place and collaboration between the Council and communities. Footfall resulted from the combined effect of businesses, events, activities and the wider town-centre offer. • In relation to changing partner priorities, the DCE explained that grant award letters operated as formal agreements. Variations could be agreed through revised letters, but it would be difficult for a funder to change the terms unilaterally after an award had been accepted. • Officers confirmed that long-term projects required continuing engagement. The IHoE&P referred to partnership arrangements involving residents, businesses and stakeholders, while the DCE said major programmes needed dedicated links between project officers and communities. • The CO reported established relationships with canal partner organisations and outlined significant clearance work intended to improve water flow and create volunteering opportunities. Members raised concern about low water levels, fish deaths and declining public confidence. The EM acknowledged that historic under-maintenance in the southern section had contributed and advised that large-scale maintenance was planned, followed by an ongoing maintenance budget. • In response to questions about repeated value engineering, the DCE said revised planning applications provided further opportunities for public representations and changes were discussed with funders. The SDR added that Levelling Up Fund projects were being progressed towards fixed prices to reduce unforeseen delivery costs. • The DCE explained that projects used a RACI model to identify who was responsible, accountable, consulted and informed. Project managers handled day-to-day delivery, while Senior Responsible Officers became involved where issues affected scope, cost or timescale. • In response to a follow-up on maintenance, the DCE confirmed that the service or community responsible for maintaining an asset was now expected to be involved at project conception through the PMO gateway process. • The DCE advised that the Council’s Deal, federation work and Marmot principles influenced project selection and delivery. Projects were reviewed for their contribution to economic opportunity, health equity, active travel, green infrastructure, natural surveillance and investment objectives. 5.3 Officers and the EM left the meeting and members and the TLS and AD&MSTL remained. 5.4 Recommendations Upon completion of their scrutiny activity, the Committee offered the following recommendations:- Recommendation 1:- The Economy & Environment Committee recommended members be provided with more detailed and regular updates on strategic regeneration projects, including progress against milestones, key risks, funding positions and delivery timescales, to support effective scrutiny and oversight, improving transparency and assurances. This should include receiving more timely notification where projects are at increased or sudden risk of delay, cost pressures or significant funding changes, including details of the likely impact on delivery timescales, project outcomes and any mitigating actions being taken to address the risks. Recommendation 2:- Enhancing communication with residents and communities should be a priority, providing clear and timely information on the key phases, milestones and delivery timelines of regeneration projects, helping communities to understand project progress, expectations and anticipated benefits. If these change are due to any value engineering through project management, then this should be made clear. Recommendation 3:- The committee recommended clearer and more transparent communication of strategic regeneration project funding sources, investment secured, any competitive process, and the benefits delivered to local communities. This should include clear explanations that many regeneration schemes are funded through a combination of Council resources, Welsh Government grants, UK Government programmes and other external funding opportunities, rather than solely through Council budgets. By providing this context, residents can better understand how investment is leveraged into the borough, the parameters that apply to it, the additional value being generated from external funding, and the rationale for delivering regeneration projects alongside other Council services and priorities. Recommendation 4:- Public consultation and engagement arrangements for Strategic Regeneration Programme projects should be strengthened by adopting a more inclusive, proactive and accessible approach to community engagement. This should ensure that residents, businesses, community groups and other stakeholders are provided with meaningful opportunities to influence proposals at an early stage, through a range of engagement methods tailored to different audiences. Where appropriate, consultation events and engagement sessions should be held outside of core working hours, including evenings and weekends, to maximise participation and ensure that those with work, caring or other daytime commitments are not excluded from the decision-making process. The committee further recommends that feedback received is clearly communicated back to communities, demonstrating how local views have informed project development and final decisions. Recommendation 5:- The committee recommended the Executive Member facilitate an all-member seminar with the Council’s new development and investment partner, providing members with an opportunity to understand the partnership’s objectives, delivery approach and planned regeneration priorities Recommendation 6:- To assess the extent to which completed projects have delivered their intended outcomes, anticipated community benefits and value for money, members recommended robust post-project evaluation arrangements are embedded across the Strategic Regeneration Programme. Identifying lessons learned, examples of good practice, as well as any areas where expected outcomes have not been fully achieved will support continuous improvement and maximise the impact of future investment. Additional Comments & Observations from the Committee: Members welcomed the detailed responses provided by the Executive Member and officers, however, requested that future reports provide a greater level of detail where appropriate, particularly in relation to project progress, risks, funding and delivery milestones, to ensure Members are adequately informed and able to undertake effective scrutiny ahead of committee consideration.
Part of an issue followed across 2 meetings
7.1 The date of the next meeting was scheduled for 19 November 2026. 7.2 The meeting ended at 12.20pm
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.
The minutes record no declarations of interest.
Lists the council's current councillors only. Co-opted members, officers and former councillors aren't shown.