Venue: Multi-Location Meeting - Council Chamber, Port Talbot & Microsoft Teams. View directions
Contact: Tom Rees Email: t.rees1@npt.gov.uk
No. | Item |
---|---|
Chair's Announcements Decision: 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. 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. |
|
Declarations of Interest Decision: 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. Minutes: 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. |
|
Q3 Financial Monitoring 2024/25 Decision: Following
Scrutiny the report was noted. Minutes: 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. |
|
Q3 SBCD Portfolio Monitoring 2024/25 Additional documents:
Decision: Following
Scrutiny the report was noted. Minutes: 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. |
|
Construction Impact Assessment Summary Report Additional documents: Decision: Following
Scrutiny the report was noted. Minutes: 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. |
|
Private Sector Investment Report Additional documents: Decision: Following
Scrutiny the report was noted. Minutes: 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. |
|
The Future Role of the PoMO Additional documents: Decision: Following
Scrutiny the report was noted. Minutes: 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. |
|
Forward Work Programme 2024/25 Additional documents: Decision: The
forward work Programme was noted. Minutes: The
forward work Programme was noted. |
|
Urgent Items Any
urgent items at the discretion of the Chairperson pursuant to Section 100BA(6)(b) of the Local Government Act 1972 (as amended). Decision: There
were none. Minutes: There
were none. |