Agenda, decisions and draft minutes

To appoint a Chair and Vice-Chair for the remainder of the municipal year of 2024/25.

It was proposed and seconded and agreed that Cllr Tim Bowen be the Chair of the Committee.

It was proposed and seconded and agreed that Cllr Deryk Cundy be the Vice-Chair of the Committee.

It was proposed and seconded and agreed that Cllr Tim Bowen be the Chair of the Committee.

It was proposed and seconded and agreed that Cllr Deryk Cundy be the Vice-Chair of the Committee.

The Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting and welcomed the new members of the committee. The Chair confirmed that Democratic Services have received apologies from Cllr S.Yelland and Cllr J. Curtice

The Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting and welcomed the new members of the committee. The Chair confirmed that Democratic Services have received apologies from Cllr S.Yelland and Cllr J. Curtice

There were none.

There were none.

To approve the minutes of the meeting held on 13/02/24 and the 16/04/24 as an accurate record of the proceedings.

The minutes of the meeting held on 13/02/24 and the 16/04/24 as an accurate record of the proceedings

The minutes of the meeting held on 13/02/24 and the 16/04/24 as an accurate record of the proceedings.

The report was noted.

Members were informed that apologies had been received from Audit Wales officers. Jonathan Burnes gave members an overview of the process and the findings of the report.

Members were advised that the Audit Wales Assurance and risk assessment was conducted between October and March 23-24 and that the assessment was to look at the effectiveness of the City deal’s existing management arrangements and how it supports the effective & efficient delivery of the City deal portfolio.

Officers explained that Audit Wales undertook a review of documents, sampling joint committee and portfolio office documents.

Members were also informed that there was a series of interviews, with various key people including the chair of the programme board Wendy Walters, Chris Moore the Section 151 officer the chair of Economic Strategy Board and the deputy monitoring officer.

Officers also explained that there were a series of working groups where leaders from the four local authorities, chief executives, senior managers from the two health boards, universities and regeneration directors attended and this was designed to try to answer the question, ‘do programme management arrangements support the effective and efficient delivery of the city of portfolio?’

Members were advised that Audit Wales found that the arrangements are there to support. It also said that there is clear insight to the portfolio in terms of progress, but there is an opportunity to review the current existing arrangements to make sure that they're fit for purpose going forward.

Officers explained that Audit Wales don't formally make recommendations, but they do look at areas of focus.

Officers will create an action plan and assess those areas of focus against it to look at progress updates.

Members were advised that in the action plan there are 16 areas of focus; the time scales, who will be leading on them, the status, any dependencies, all of those will be reported now on a quarterly basis to of give a feel for where city deal is with those.

8 are currently in progress, 8 are yet to be actioned. Offices said that the headlines of where they are, are things around alignment to CJC, the corporate run committees, benefit realisation evaluation, the phase of the portfolio delivery, portfolio management arrangements, the purpose of economic Strategy Board, the role of regional scrutiny, lessons learnt and wider regional opportunities.

Members were concerned about point AW16 and clarified whether it is the duplication with the arrangements relating to the data being collected and reported locally was also being collected and reported at regional level, leading to potential inefficiencies.

Members noted that in point AW15 the report reflected on whether there is a greater opportunity to raise the profile of the city deal impact with the public. Members felt that it is very important considering the amounts of money involved and asked what sort of plans officers have got for doing that.

Officers stated that in relation to AW16 it depends on people's interpretation of it, but they could be seen as duplication because it's the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

The report was noted.

Matt Holder head of internal audit for the Swansea Bay City deal introduced the report to on the findings and actions of the 2022-23 Internal Audit review into the Swansea Bay City Deal (SBCD) Portfolio. He explained that it is part of the internal audit work undertaken during the 2023/24 financial year.

Matt Holder advised that it was his team and his remit to provide assurance that there's adequate arrangements in place to make sure that the Swansea Bay City dealer can continue to operate and make sure that the outcome is what members want to achieve.

Members were advised that officers took the, the audit scope to the Joint committee on the 16th of November where it was agreed. They then started doing the work in late quarter four due to timing issues.

Matt Holder explained that as part of his role he tries to gain as much assurance as he can so the scope is quite broad. Members were advised that officers are looking at the governance arrangements, project management and the monitor arrangements and the whole undertaking of that. Officers also look at the financial management and risk management arrangements. They do this to look collectively at the region rather than project specific basis. Members were advised that all of the work is done on an evidence-based approach and only things that they can measure.

Matt Hoder explained that they have determined an audit assurance rating of substantial which is the highest rating officers will give. This is because they will never give full assurance because they do a sample basis as they haven't got the ability to do a full sample of everything that's going on.

Members were advised that substantial assurance means that there's a sound system of governance, internal control, financial management and risk management arrangements in place with the controls operating effectively and being consistently applied to support the achievements of the of the objectives in the area audited.

Officers advised that they note the point in the last item about public engagement and duplication and they will consider that when we're doing the audit plan for 24/25.

Officers advised that they will take the Audit Wales report into account and there will be areas that will be picked up and followed to make sure that best practise is delivered across the region.

Officers felt that overall, it is a pleasing report.

The report was noted.

The report was noted.

Oonagh Gavin manager of the Homes as power stations project. Gave members a short presentation on the report provided.

Members asked if as well as the flats on Aberavon Sea front, has the HAPS team made any houses?

Officers advised that there's lots of activity happening across the region and on a regular basis they do a collation of the numbers of houses. Members were informed that there are HAPS houses already existing across all of the four local authority areas.

Members stated that it was good to see the HAPS initiative being so positive and having so many outcomes already.

Members enquired if the £3.7 million in funding that has been allocated, used and developed.  Members asked if the officers are now looking at drawing further money in from the shared prosperity fund and if the HAPS project is just continuing to grow.

Members also noted that the report stated 1804 jobs were created and asked for an outline where those jobs are.

Officers were also asked if any work is being done around rainwater recovery systems and is it being included into any HAPS properties.

Officers clarified that the 1800 jobs are the project target and that hasn’t been reached yet. It is part of the tracking exercise that will be ongoing as the project develops. Officers explained that it is early days with the collation of that data but officers hope within the next few months that they will have more detail on that.

Members were informed that the project was awarded the funding late last year and some of those contracts for the build of the houses or the retrofit of the houses are going through the contracting stage, but officers advised that is creating jobs.

Members asked if the city deal funding has all been allocated already? Officers explained that it had not. Officers referred to the supply chain Development Fund and that they are working on the scope and exercise of that and explained that the project has £7 million at its disposal.

Officers also stated that from the financial incentives fund, they have allocated £3.7 million of the total amount that they have which is £5.75 million.

Members noted that the report says that officers are yet to publish a full list of schemes because there might be legal matters going on in the background and members asked when they were likely to see a full list of schemes.

Members noted that ten jobs created already and that from February the investment has gone up by about £15 million in the last few months, but the number of jobs hasn't, members hoped they would come online shortly.

Officers reiterated that it would take a bit of time to collect the jobs data and advised that since March where officers set out where they were with the legal documentation, things have progressed and they will be able to publicise the schemes in the next few weeks.

Members asked about the Duracell batteries mentioned in  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

The report was noted.

Jonathan Burnes gave members an overview of the January to March and highlighted some of the key portfolio level summaries and the project and programme updates.

On the dashboard, members were advised that there is no overall change to the status, but there have been a few movements within staffing and resources for digital infrastructure. For Yr Egin delivery has moved from green to amber status.

On the risk register members were advised that there are currently 25 portfolio level risks, five  are red risks. There is no change from quarter three. Members were advised that the five red risks are around construction costs, TAN 15 which is the flood risk management maps, in year spend, slippage and delivery of benefits. Officers that they all have mitigations associated with them.

Members were advised that there were 4 amber risks which were closed since the quarter three reporting and these relate to the time frame of the end of current EU funding programmes which is completed. The unallocated £5.3 million of CDL funding which is now allocated through Neath Port Talbot Council for the skill centre operations of the PMO. That moved from the risks to the issues because Ian Williams has departed and the Co-opted members not attending programme and joint programme boards and joint committee, and they are attending, and officers continue to monitor those.

Officers advised that there are no red issues and the only red issue which was previously on there was Campus funding agreement that now has been signed and resolved, and that can come off the issues register.

In terms of the quarterly reports, there was an increase in jobs created from 567 from quarter three to 597 and investment has increased from £272 million to £289 million.

In terms of the construction impact assessment, members were advised that business cases have been written and they are now going into procurement to look at what the funding gap is from what officers thought it would cost to what it actually does cost.

Members were advised that the headline gap is £43 million but through the mitigations that are detailed in the report, it has now reduced to £12 million, and officers are still working on the mitigations on that residual impact.

Members were advised that the key mitigations are to secure additional funding, revisit the construction brief and opening dialogue with the contractors.

Officers explained that the projects identified as experiencing slippage are the waterfront, Yr Egin, digital infrastructure, campuses and support innovation low carbon growth. All of those are subject to the change management process and reporting them through the government arrangements accordingly.

Members asked about the benefits summary and noted that compared to the last report Pentre Awel was created 23 jobs, but the innovation matrix was not included before, and this is the first time it was in this benefits summary.

Officers explained that the Innovation Matrix is nearing its completion, and they have construction jobs created. Officers had thought they had  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

The report was noted.

Jonathan Burnes gave members an overview of the Evaluation Framework as per the report.

Members were advised that this was about bringing everything that was happening previously all together and encapsulating it into a document that is readable by everyone and then a plan to look at what, how, when and who will be evaluating.

Officers advised that the frameworks first question answers why they are evaluating and explained that it is crucial for demonstrating the impact of the city deal over its lifetime and that officers have had lots of feedback through scrutiny, both this committee and through gateway assurance reviews and audit, all looking at emphasising how benefits are now being evidenced and start being reported through the City deal.

Jonathan Burnes advised that he chaired an evaluation task and finish group that oversaw the development of the framework.

The Task and finish Group consisted of project programme leads and PMO team members who met monthly and shaped the framework into the one in the report. They looked at making sure that it was practical and workable in in what they were trying to present. Members were advised that the point of the framework is looking at the rationale, the principles, roles and responsibilities and its methodology.

How are you calculating these things? How, how was it presented and being open and transparent about that approach.

Officers explained that they want to look at two midterm evaluations and a final evaluation for the portfolio. Basing it on years 1 to 7 for midterm evaluation and then the second midterm would be between 25/26 up to 2029/30. The final evaluation will be in 2032/33, which is when the 15 years of the portfolio ends.

Members were advised that in the document every project and programme is listed with a schedule of what will be evaluated and when.

Officers have worked with all the projects and programmes, and they put them into a draught, and these are all collated in the portfolio office into an evaluation profile. The Profile will summarise every evaluation that projects will do, what that will entail and who will conduct it. Officers stated that they don't want to start evaluating things for evaluation’s sake and want to do it at the right time.

The framework will form part of a large document called the monitoring evaluation plan. Officers will do the monitoring reports, this will be the evaluations which help support that reporting.

Members felt that the framework was good but on item 7, in relation to the governance and oversight it should have wording in there about scrutiny so that people are aware that there is a scrutiny function to carry out especially as the document is one of the more important documents the committee scrutinises on a regular basis.

Officers agreed and noted that there is only one reference to scrutiny and that is more about the input as opposed to the process so they will feed that back through the governance process  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.

The Members of the Committee noted the Forward Work Programme.

The Members of the Committee noted the Forward Work Programme and received an update on the planned Forward Work Programme session to be arranged.

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.