Venue: Multi-Location Meeting - Council Chamber, Port Talbot & Microsoft Teams. View directions
Contact: Charlotte John Email: c.l.john@npt.gov.uk
No. | Item |
---|---|
Chair's Announcements Decision: The
Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting and confirmed that Democratic Services
have received apologies from Cllr C. Holley, Cllr V. Holland
and Cllr S. Yelland. Minutes: The
Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting and confirmed that Democratic Services
have received apologies from Cllr C. Holley, Cllr V. Holland, and Cllr S.
Yelland. The Chair thanked officers for organising the site visit on the 26th of January 2024 to Pembroke Dock Marine and advised that members found it informative and helpful in understanding the scale and progress of the project. The chair also made members aware of two ‘Meet the City Deal’ events coming up in Swansea on the 20th of March and Neath Port Talbot on the 9th of April. |
|
Declarations of Interest Decision: Cllr
Mike Harvey declared an interest in Item 8 as he provides advice on this
project as part of his role as a sign of crime officer with South Wales Police. Minutes: Cllr
Mike Harvey declared an interest in Item 8 as he provides advice on this
project as part of his role as a sign of crime officer with South Wales Police. |
|
Minutes of the Previous Meeting PDF 355 KB To
approve the minutes of the meeting held on the 04.07.23 and the 24.10.23 as an
accurate record of the proceedings. Additional documents: Decision: Minutes
of the meeting held on the 04.07.23 and the 24.10.23 were approved as an
accurate record of proceedings. Minutes: Minutes
of the meeting held on the 04.07.23 and the 24.10.23 were approved as an
accurate record of proceedings. |
|
Audit of Accounts Report PDF 411 KB Additional documents:
Decision: This
item was not scrutinised. Minutes: This
item was not scrutinised. |
|
Joint Committee Statement of Accounts PDF 342 KB Additional documents: Decision: The
report was noted. Minutes: Chris
Moore Section 151 Officer presented the report as included in the agenda pack. Members
sought clarification on the total investment package noting that £235 million
is the UK funding investment and wanted to know how much has been drawn down so
far for the City Bay Deal region and what was left to come. Officers
advised that over 6 years of funding it’s been at £23million a year (£138
million in total so far). The funding is over a 15-year period and the
mechanism that was originally agreed was that £241 million would be put out
across the region. The report states £235 million presently as one project was
slightly under at that time of writing, but that will have gone back up to £241
million as the expectation now. Members
were advised that the obligation to each constituent authority or project lead
authority would be to upfront the funding of the project as the profiling can
only be released across the 15-year period. Officers advised that Welsh
Government did start paying a bit more in advance of the 15-year profile and UK
Government have looked at reprofiling their funding and have submitted a
profile where some of the money can be drawn down more quickly and means it is
an advantage for local authorities would need to borrow less. The report was noted. |
|
Update on GVA for Portfolio Monitoring & Evaluation PDF 245 KB Additional documents: Decision: Following
scrutiny of the item, the Chair resolved to write to the Swansea Bay City Deal
Board to highlight the inconsistency that effectively scrutiny of this has been
removed (with permission), but GVA figures are still being used to promote City
Deal activity. The
report was noted. Minutes: Ian
Williams, Swansea Bay City Deal Portfolio Development Manager presented the
report as included in the agenda pack. Members
clarified that the abbreviation of SMART means Specific Measurable Realistic
Achievable Time based. Officers confirmed this. Members acknowledged that GVA
(Gross Value Added) is amorphous and difficult to quantify and understood where
the decision had come from. Members
stated that they were disappointed that when the project started, that figures
were used and now they can’t be quantified. Members wanted to have confirmation
on where GVA would be used as they noted that on a business case level it can
be used but other areas it can’t. Members
also asked what other markers are going to be used to give an overall
understanding of how the whole project is doing rather than individual projects
as individual projects can’t be scrutinised unless members ask specifically, or
if they have a presentation on them. Members
stated that the role of scrutiny is to understand the value to the whole of the
Swansea area but felt the goal posts have moved. Officers
explained that GVA as a calculation will still be used in the business cases
but what the calculation does in the economic appraisal is that it bases it on
assumptions and multipliers, this means officers can’t evidence and attribute a
project and programme intervention directly to GVA. Officers explained that
they can talk about the economic impact of a building and used Swansea Areana
as an example and explained that they can talk about the economic impact of the
direct consequence of having the arena, including the economic impact of it,
ticket sales, footfall, support to the all the direct businesses associated
with it, in and around the arena. Members were informed that officers would
then use an evaluation model to look at any other evidence in the wider impact
of the city centre and surrounding areas, for any economic impact. Officers
explained however that it wouldn't necessarily be GVA used. Members
were also given the example of Yr Egin where economic
assessments around phase one and there are economic impact indicators within
that report. Officers explained that having S4C as an anchor tenant within Yr Egin with all the surrounding supply chain and all the
companies involved in the building itself will have economic impact directly
and indirectly to the supply chains and the surrounding area. Officers
explained that all the economic appraisals will happen once things are
operational, but they will also do an economic impact of construction as well.
Members were advised that there are approximately 120 different measurements of
success indicators that all business cases have identified. Members were advised that those were economic indicators that they are already using and that while it might not just be at the portfolio level for every single one, just because of the nature of what the what the project or building may entail officers gave reassurance that they are measuring the economic impact. It's just not attributing GVA to the ... view the full minutes text for item 6. |
|
Additional documents:
Decision: The
report was noted. Minutes: Nicola Pearce Director of Environment &
Regeneration Neath Port Talbot County Borough Council gave members a
presentation on the Supporting Innovation & Low Carbon Growth Programme
including the change request to incorporate the National Net Zero Skills Centre
of Excellence as per the report included in the agenda pack. Members enquired about the hydrogen stimulus
programme and what proportion of this whole project is based around that.
Members noted that there is only really a market for large vehicles using
Hydrogen with only 300 Hydrogen cars in the UK. Members asked why City Deal funding is being put
into hydrogen when it's not it's not working as an alternative apart from for
heavily subsidised large vehicles. Members also asked if officers are encouraging
partners to look at overnight tariffs for energy when charging EV's as well
with the infrastructure because of the significant savings that organisations
can have if they have an overnight tariff. Members sought clarification on what was meant by
the term ‘hybrid building’ as referred to in the presentation. Officers advised that the Hydrogen Stimulus Project
and the Bay Technology Centre are part of the original 7 projects that were
given approval. Members were advised that the Bay Technology Centre facility
has been built and it is currently operational and is an energy positive
building, meaning that it generates more energy than it requires to operate.
Officers advised that it is over 50% let. Officers explained that the project is connecting
the surplus energy to the hydrogen research facility which is within 100 metres
of the facility. This spare electricity is being utilised to generate hydrogen.
Members were advised that the project paid for an
additional electrolyser within the hydrogen research facility which is operated
by the University of South Wales to enable the increased generation of
hydrogen. Officers highlighted that it was always envisaged that hydrogen would
be utilised within Neath Port Talbot’s large freighter fleet and they
anticipate that hydrogen is considered to be the future for the larger vehicles
such as waste and recycling freighters and there is provision within that hydrogen
stimulus project to pay towards one vehicle just demonstrate the effectiveness
of that Co-location of Neath Port Talbot’s (NPT) fleet with the hydrogen
stimulus project. In relation to EV charging, officers explained that
electric vehicles are linked to the smaller pool cars that NPT as an authority
and the public’s domestic vehicles will be utilising more of going forward. NPT
are investing across the region in infrastructure and charging facilities. The
market is also providing charging facilities where it makes business sense. Officers are delivering a project under Supporting
Innovation and Low Carbon Growth called ‘The Electric Vehicles Charging
Infrastructure Route map’, which will establish where the ‘not spots’ of large
areas of the region are, where the market will not intervene to install
infrastructure as they will not get a return on their investment. Members were made aware that there are significant numbers of the population that require access to that charging infrastructure ... view the full minutes text for item 7. |
|
Innovation Matrix & Precinct Update PDF 360 KB Additional documents: Decision: The
report was noted. Minutes: Ian
Walsh (Innovation Matrix SRO) and Geraint Flowers (Innovation Matrix Project
Lead) presented an update to members on progress on the Innovation Matrix
Project and the outcomes of the recent external Gateway Review. Members
commented that they thought whole project looks good and that they could see
that it is comprehensive. Members welcomed the fact that so many partners have
signed up before its ready. Members congratulated officers on all the hard work
involved and look forward to hearing an update that on Yr
Egin Part 2 in in March. The report was noted. |
|
SBCD Quarterly Reporting Q3 2023/24 PDF 420 KB Additional documents:
Decision: The
report was noted. Minutes: Jonathan Burns Director of the Swansea Bay City
Deal gave a summary of the Swansea Bay City Deal Quarterly Monitoring Reports
for Quarter 3, covering dashboards, summary of risks and issues and benefits,
procurement, pipeline change notifications and the audits of Gateway Assurance
review and the internal audit action plan. Members noted that in previous meetings that an
independent review had been mentioned and that it had been discussed in the
meeting today that GVA as an overall statistic is not going to be needed and
asked if an independent review will go forward and what sort of things will be
looked at in terms of reviewing whether the Swansea Bay City Deal overall is a
success. Officers advised that yes, there will be reviews
and that there will be evaluations across the portfolio both at project
programme level and at portfolio level. The intention was this would happen
this coming financial year, but buildings need to be in operation for at least
24 months, if not 2 years depending on what the buildings are to properly
evaluate them. Officers can’t answer if it will all happen on a particular date
or particular year. Officers explained that Ian Williams is
coordinating with all the projects on what will be evaluated, when will it be
evaluated and how will it be evaluated. Those three questions will be answered
in the evaluation framework officers are developing. Officers haven't agreed
with joint committee yet that they will do a portfolio evaluation next
financial year or the year after. But as projects progress, Officers will be
evaluating at project level and they can share that with the Joint Committee
and at Scrutiny Committee level to have a look at what is being evaluated more
locally, with individual projects. Members were advised that these would need to be
done at an appropriate time, otherwise officers would be doing evaluations and
paying an excessive amount of money for external views on this. Officers gave
reassurance that they are internally monitoring and know that the job numbers
are higher than what they are currently, but they must be formally reported. Officers gave the example that Swansea arena has
been in operation for two years and officers haven't put in the operational
roles of what the arena has into those numbers. Swansea council may want to
look at a wider evaluation, not just the direct jobs because of the arena being
there. Officers are working with all partners to identify those, and they hope
to bring back through governance is a summary of all the different indicators
not just at portfolio level, but the next level down with the projects and
programmes across 120 indicators. The report was noted. |
|
Financial Monitoring Q3 2023/24 PDF 999 KB Decision: The
report was noted. Minutes: Members
did not have any questions on the report. The
report was noted. |
|
Carbon Reduction Assessment of the SBCD Portfolio Report PDF 515 KB Additional documents: Decision: The
report was noted. Minutes: Peter Austin Business Engagement Manager made
members aware that the Carbon Reduction Assessment of the Swansea Bay City Deal
Portfolio Report was a piece of work officers did back in 2022 at the request
of the programme Board and was a point in time exercise. Members were advised that the presentation by
Nicola Pearce earlier in the meeting showed that here in 2024 the projects are
adapting to the demand and the need for net carbon actions. The report was noted. |
|
Forward Work Programme 2022/23 PDF 17 KB Decision: The
Members of the Committee noted the Forward Work Programme. Minutes: The
Members of the Committee noted the Forward Work Programme. |
|
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. |