Agenda and minutes

The Chair welcomed the Committee.

There were none.

To approve the minutes of the meeting held on 06/12/22 and the 28/02/23 as an accurate record of the proceedings.

The minutes of the meeting held on 06/12/22 and the 28/02/23 were approved as an accurate record of the proceedings.

Members were provided with a PowerPoint presentation by Sharon Burford Project Manager for Pentre Awel informing them of an overview of the progress made and status of the Pentre Awel Project as detailed within the report circulated.

Members wanted to know who would be running the leisure element in Pentre Awel and how the jobs would be created in zone 1 and who would be the employer.

Officers advised that Carmarthenshire Council will be running Zone 1 and therefore the leisure element. Llanelli Leisure centre is beyond economic repair, as part of the capital programme a new one needs to be built and the decision was that this would come to Pentre Awel.

Officers advised that the focus is on how to work with the health board to look at the national exercise referral scheme and step it up. Members were advised that people attending the clinical rehabilitation area (physiotherapy) could be encouraged and potentially move across the corridor to become more independent and take control over their own physical rehabilitation program.

Officers advised that the businesses will be private businesses, catalysed by the universities or through the clinical research with Hywel Dda.

Officers would expect spin-up but also encourage businesses across the wider area, working with the internal economic regeneration teams and provide specialist support around things like intellectual property.

Following scrutiny, the Committee noted the report.

Members were presented with information pertaining to Swansea Bay City Deal Highlight Report, Phil Ryder Provided some Key highlights to members as detailed within the report circulated.

Following the update, members wanted to know about the risks to digital infrastructure if public sector partners don't prioritise delivery and adoption of digital infrastructure and if in fact there was a problem currently.

Officers explained that there is no problem with the partners but the nature of digital means that it is a risk for the programs as they rely heavily on the private sector to deliver digital infrastructure improvements across the region. This means that if there is any issue affecting the private sector to slow down or stop across the region then it could cause an impact to the program. However, it is not an issue at this point.

Members wanted to know about the overall effect of inflation on all the projects to construction costs. Officers advised that they have assessed the funding gap as of the end of last year and will update this going forward on the projects regularly.

Officers also explained that the management of these projects has been done through a range of activities, some additional finding from the authorities and some value engineering activity has been undertaken. So far there officers advised that there has been nothing removed from the scheme that has affected the objectives or delivery of the scheme because of value engineering.

Officers explained that if Inflation costs got worse then there may be a possibility to rationalise some of the targets to achieve the aims and objectives of the deal, but the projects aren’t at that stage.

Officers also explained that there has been a change procedure in place. If they would need to bring anything through regional governance to alter something, that would change any of the deliverables.

Officers advised that there is a process in place to ask for approval for any mitigations beyond value engineering or extra funding from lead deliverers but none of these are needed now.

Members were also advised that there have been some increases in Wherefore funding which have been used to help mitigate costs. Wherefore funding is coming to an end shortly, so where it has been available, officers advised that they have utilised the extra funding to mitigate the pressures.

Following scrutiny, the Committee noted the report.

Members were provided with a presentation and a brief background of the portfolio business case by Ian Williams Portfolio Development Manager updating them on the City Deal Portfolio Business Case as detailed within the report circulated.

Officers explained that the original portfolio business case was produced in August 2020 and was a requirement of Government. It is based on the original heads of terms for the city deal and the projects and programmes that were selected for that.

Members were advised that the Portfolio Business case has been developed in line with the HM Treasury 5 case model and that It went through a rigorous review with government and following that it was approved with the first tranche of funding.

It was explained that the business case will be subject to an annual review and updated by the Project Management Office (PMO) for the city deal and submitted back to government to act as an annual trigger for the release of City deal funding.

Officers advised that is the 4th iteration of the business case and has passed through programme board and City Deal Joint Committee last month. The information within the business case is based on quarter 3 monitor information which as also passed through the relevant governance boards.

Following the presentation there were no questions from Members.

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.