Agenda, decisions and draft minutes

The Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting. The Chair confirmed that Democratic Services have received apologies from Cllr J. Curtice, Cllr G. Morgan and Cllr D. Cundy.

The Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting. The Chair confirmed that Democratic Services have received apologies from Cllr J. Curtice, Cllr G. Morgan and Cllr D. Cundy.

Jon Burnes, Peter Austin and Steven Aldred - Jones declared an interest in Item 8 The Future Role of the SBCD PoMO. As they are staff of the Portfolio Management Office.

Jon Burnes, Peter Austin and Steven Aldred - Jones declared an interest in Item 8 The Future Role of the SBCD PoMO. As they are staff of the Portfolio Management Office.

Following Scrutiny the report was noted.

Stephen Aldred Jones gave members an overview of the report as published in the agenda pack.

Members were concerned about the significant difference between the allocated funds (£69,000,738) and the actual spend (£601,000) from the total capital of £242 million. They felt that the discrepancy suggests that a large portion of the allocated funds has not been utilised yet and they were concerned about the efficiency and progress of the projects and investments planned.

Officers explained that the actual money spent to date is £71.5 million and there are additional committed expenses that haven't been invoiced yet. There are forecasts for future spending.

Officers explained that the commitments column in the report represents expenses that have been incurred but not yet invoiced. This means that these are amounts that will be paid once the invoices are received.

Members were advised that timing of when these invoices are received can vary, which is why the actual spend might appear lower until those invoices are processed. This can create a lag between when the expense is committed and when it is officially recorded as spent.

Officers stated that they will check the wording in the report to see if they can provide better clarity in future reports on this.

Members asked if the grant money being drawn down from the Welsh or UK Government will be at the project's start or at specific waypoints, or on a set date?

Officers explained that the UK Government provides funding over 10 years, while the Welsh Government does it over 15 years up to 2033. The UK Government front-loaded its funding, so it is received quicker. For Swansea Arena, the eligible spend is spread over 8 years, with annual drawdowns based on progress. There are waypoints set by the governments, and once those are met funds are released.

Officers explained that they provide an annual portfolio business case update, scheduled for the next quarter, and are subject to scrutiny by a joint implementation board. Officers will present the progress update to release the next tranche of funding.

Following Scrutiny the report was noted.

Following Scrutiny the report was noted.

Jonathan Burnes gave a summary of the dashboard information and project specifics:

Starting with the RAG Status (Red, Amber, Green):

Skills: Apprenticeship figures are lower than anticipated, moving the status from green to amber. Efforts are underway to improve these figures with all partners involved.

Red Risks:

•         Increased Construction Costs.

•         Projects Not Delivering on Outputs/Outcomes.

•         Flood Risk Management Mapping: Officers awaiting feedback from Welsh Government and Natural Resource Wales for mitigation.

Red Issues:

•         Slippage/Reforecasting: Projects and programmes are addressing slippage, with improvements seen in Quarter 3 compared to Quarter 2. They are continuing their efforts to catch up by Quarter 4.

•         Delivery Against Project Milestones: Driven by financials and deliverables of outputs like buildings and course delivery which is impacting the wider infrastructure.

Benefits:

•         Jobs: Increase of 119 jobs between Quarter 2 and Quarter 3, now totalling 742 jobs, mainly due to the waterfront project.

•         Investment: Increased by £64 million between Quarter 2 & Quarter 3, now totalling £459 million of the £1.3 billion investment.

•         Procurement Schedule:

•         Minimal changes noted from Quarter 2 to Quarter 3.

Members noted an increase in jobs to 742, but felt it was concerning that the total projected number was approximately 9,700. They asked what the current job projection is and given the job losses in the region, is the programme on track to create more employment, or is it falling short?

Officers initially set a target of 9,000 jobs, now forecasting 9,700. This forecast mainly includes direct jobs in construction, with wider impacts yet to be recorded. They advised that significant job increases will be seen once evaluations are complete.

Currently, 7 out of 36 projects are completed, with 17 infrastructure projects in the pipeline. Officers explained that as these projects progress, job numbers should increase. Officers monitor and mitigate delivery risks, providing annual updates and evaluations to release funding.

Members were informed that there are evaluation profiles and benefit definitions used to track progress and detailed reporting on each project is extensive, covering over 100 deliverables, including job creation.

Members understood the officers' points but had concerns about job projections at 71/72 Kingsway. They noted that a flexible office space provider occupies 20,000 Ft2. and noted that they could house anywhere from 10 to 100 people.

Members accept the uncertainty of how many people will occupy the space but emphasised the importance of other jobs being created as well. Members noted that significant job increases won't be visible until businesses are fully operational, and contracts are in place.

Members asked for a breakdown of the 742 jobs by area, particularly focusing on Pembroke Dock Marine as it is a low-income area.

Officers explained that the dashboard benefits summary shows how the 742 jobs are distributed across projects. Pembroke Dock Marine it has 77 jobs logged but more have been created and not yet reported due to pending evaluations. Since the infrastructure was only completed last summer, job numbers are expected to increase as the area  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

Following Scrutiny the report was noted.

Peter Austin gave members an update on the report.

The focus was on future business case development. City Deal Programme Board had asked officers to focus on future elements of business case development that are construction dependent.

Out of 23 projects, seven have been completed or are about to complete.

There are two main assessments: 1) likely increase in costs due to inflation and 2) risk assessment on how cost increases might affect business case delivery.

Previously, cost assessments were done on a project basis, and the risk/issue assessment at a Business Case level but now they will include forecasted risks and issues for future elements at project level as well.

Officers mentioned Pentre Awel as an example as it has multiple stages which are flexible in delivery timescale and market dependent. Officers want to ensure all stakeholders are aware of deliverability.

There is an anticipated shortfall of £42.6 million for projects yet to be delivered, these are conservative estimates due to some costs yet to be determined.

Members were advised that future iterations of the report will provide more detailed assessments for upcoming projects.

In terms of risk management, officers are breaking down ‘risks’ and ‘issues’ into manageable pieces to address them early in the process and the recent reassessment of risks has led to a reduction in red risks and high amber risks for completed projects.

There are no construction cost concerns for the seven completed projects, but a gap exists for the next set of projects to start being delivered.

Following Scrutiny the report was noted.

Following Scrutiny the report was noted.

Peter Austin gave members an overview and explained that the forecast from projects remains positive, with a projection of £32 million over the original target of £637 million.

Several projects are overachieving, contributing to the positive outlook.

The risk status has been reduced from red to amber due to increased confidence from the projects in achieving their targets.

Digital projects are particularly timely and in high demand, leading to significant progress beyond initial business case expectations.

Officers felt that the report continues to be very positive, reflecting the strong performance and potential of the projects.

Following Scrutiny the report was noted.

Following Scrutiny the report was noted.

Debbie Smith monitoring officer for the city deal presented the joint report compiled by herself, Paul Thomas, the deputy chief executive in Carmarthenshire Council and Craig Griffiths head of legal and democratic services in Neath Port Talbot Council.

Members advised that the review has been endorsed by the joint committee on February 13th.

Officers explained that the purpose of reviewing the PoMo support to the joint committee was driven primarily by funding issues. Members were advised that initially PoMo funding is running out and was funded by a 1.5% government top slicing and by partner contributions. Partner contributions stopped in 2023, making current funding insufficient.

Officers are reviewing objectives to assess the support provided by PoMo as well as exploring efficiencies and better use of support services. Officers will explore potential alignment of PoMo with the Corporate Joint Committee (CJC) for broader regional impact.

Members were advised that the terms of reference for the review have been endorsed by the Swansea Bay City Region Joint Committee and involve a representative group of officers from the four councils. Key members include:

Debbie Smith, Paul Thomas, Craig Griffiths and Chris Moore (151 officer for both City Deal and the CJC) and the Directors of Economic Development from each of the four councils. These officers are crucial for understanding the support needed to deliver the functions of both the City Deal and the CJC.

The terms of reference also explain what the review will cover including looking at the governance framework, the decision-making structures, accountability, affordability, transparency and mechanisms of the city deal and consider alignment with the CJC, the regional transport planning, economic regeneration.

The review will look to identify overlaps, gaps and opportunities for alignment and provide recommendations to enhance collaboration, enhanced governance and enhanced delivery.

Members were advised that the review will identify which staff members are within its scope, including those directly funded by PoMo and those on SLA arrangements funded by city deal grants. Officers feel that it is important to consult these staff members to understand their perspectives on the future support needed for delivery of both the City Deal and the CJC.

Officers need to consider the requirements and expectations of Welsh and UK Governments. Members stated that most projects are in the delivery phase, their timelines vary. There will be an ongoing requirement to report outputs to both governments to satisfy funding arrangements.

Officers will review CJC functions and governance arrangements, considering different PoMo delivery models in Wales and alignment possibilities. They will also assess the internal resources available in each of the four councils, as officers are involved in project delivery.

Officers need to assess their role within the support mechanism and engage with the government. The joint committee approved the report last month and meetings have started, with more planned. Dialogue with key personnel is ongoing and Audit Wales has been consulted. Officers can't provide a timeline for completion and reporting yet.

Members are concerned about linking up with other organisations. They felt  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

The forward work Programme was noted.

The forward work Programme was noted.

Any urgent items at the discretion of the Chairperson pursuant to Section 100BA(6)(b) of the Local Government Act 1972 (as amended).

There were none.

There were none.