Minutes:
The Committee was
provided with an update on the proposed scheme of works and the emerging health
and safety issues at the Cefn Coed museum site; the report also provided
information on the Cefn Coed Working Group that was going to be set up to help
shape future plans for the site.
Members were informed
that a grant application was made to Welsh Government for around £1.8 million,
which had been approved; the Council was then obliged to put in the reminder of
the money required to put a scheme together (£800,400 as detailed in the
circulated report).
It was stated that the
original scheme that was created sought to deliver on a number of elements
including a new visitor centre, external works and an outdoor play area. An
initial due diligence was undertaken on the site which raised a number of key
questions and necessitated a more detailed due diligence exercise; this
included further investigation on a number of issues, including consultation
with CADW, and as a result of this work, it became clear that it was not
possible to process with the original scheme and an alternative proposal was
therefore put forward. It was highlighted that the revised scheme was unable to
be progressed due to the time elements involved; it would have taken around 18
months to develop, however the Council had to spend the money within 4-5 months
(by March 2021). As a result of this, it was agreed with Welsh Government that
the Council would complete survey work instead, in order to understand the
issues on the site and to ensure that the Council was in a good position to bid
for money, should another round of grant funding become available.
Officers confirmed that
the survey work had been completed and it highlighted a number of issues; one
of which was the existing health and safety concerns for the site. It was
mentioned that it would cost the Council over £1 million to deal with the
health and safety concerns. In relation to the works that Officers were
proposing as part of the revised scheme, it was noted that the initial suggestions
were that this would come in excess of £8 million.
The local Member for
Crynant, who was in attendance at the meeting, shared concerns in regards to
elements of the circulated report and reiterated the value of the site for the
local community and beyond. The local Member also shared information on the history
of the site and personal thoughts and experiences including those of which had
been highlighted by visitors of the museum.
The circulated report
stated that the Council leased around 1.6 acres of land and buildings,
comprising Cefn Coed Colliery Museum, from Welsh Government which was due to
expire in 2077; under the terms of the lease, the Council was responsible for
all repair and maintenance issues. Members raised a number of queries in
relation to the repair work that needed to be undertaken at the museum site; it
was asked if any issues had been raised when the museum was open, and if so why
hadn’t these issues been addressed. Officers explained that the site was one of
many old and complex sites that the Council owned and that there wasn’t enough
money within the budgets to address all issues in all buildings; some of the
more concerning issues were monitored over the years. In relation to the
scheme, it was noted that some of the issues that needed to be looked into were
outside of the Councils current lease. In order to deliver the scheme, the
Council would need to acquire an interest in land that was currently owned and
managed by Welsh Government. It was noted that any health and safety issues at
the museum site were addressed, for example one part of the building had to be
demolished a few years ago due to health and safety concerns. Members were
informed that the survey work that was recently undertaken, was far more
complex than usual and cost over £100k; the Council did not have the capacity
to undertake this type of work in-house, and therefore it was externalised.
Reference was made to
the point in the circulated report which stated that the current operating
deficit was circa £60k per annum. It was noted that the museum did not have a
card payment facility for visitors to use in the shop, which was a missed
opportunity; the museum also didn’t have a drink/snack machine which could have
potentially generated income. It was asked why the museum hadn’t been provided
with card payment facilities and if Neath Port Talbot Council had carried out
income generation exercises at the site. Officers confirmed that one of the
reasons behind establishing the Cefn Coed Working Group was to understand what
was important and how to bring the facility into the 21st century,
particularly in terms of commercial and income generation opportunities. The
Committee was informed that there was previously a card facility at the site,
however as the museum was only open four months of the year, the charges
presented to the Council didn’t make it practical to keep this facility; this
was something that Officers would look into in the future. It was mentioned
that there were card payment facilities that charged per transaction, which
could be looked into for venues such as the museum.
With regards to the
original proposal in 2019, Members queried why issues arose, for example with
CADW. Members were informed that the grant application was put together very quickly,
similarly with a lot of grant applications that were currently ongoing; this
was not an unusual occurrence. As a consequence of this, it was noted that the
Council did not have the opportunity to undertake all due diligence; they then
had a very short period of time to deliver the scheme which was another issue
in the matter.
A provisional sum of
£200k was noted to have been made available by Welsh Government for the survey
work; Officers were asked how much had been spent, and if any left-over monies
would be allocated for future use on surveys. It was explained that around
£110k-£115k had been spent on the surveys that were needed/were able to be
completed; although Welsh Government allocated £200k, the Council was only
provided with the amount which was needed to carry out the work. It was added
that all surveys had now been carried out, and there was currently no further
requirements for any additional surveys that could be undertaken at this time.
Members made reference
to key priority 3 of the Valleys Action Plan which was Community Regeneration;
Cefn Coed Colliery Museum was listed as an action to explore. It was asked if
this action had ever been carried out, to which Officers stated that this would
be one of the Cefn Coed Working Group’s actions going forward when it was
re-established.
Regarding the emerging
health and safety issues contained within the report, it mentioned that the
chimney stack had fresh spalling from height; a grant was secured in 2014 which
paid towards rebuilding parts of the stack. Members asked if Officers could
confirm which parts of the chimney stack were now unsafe and if needed, could
the Council apply for another grant to help with rebuilding. It was noted that
the recent survey listed that the chimney stack was unsafe; the technical
officers would need to look at this to identify which specific parts were
unsafe. Officers confirmed that it was possible to apply for another grant and
that they would need to look into this further to find out what was available
at this current time.
A discussion took place
in relation to the health and safety concerns detailed in the circulated
report. It was asked why any of these issues hadn’t been highlighted
previously, assuming that all health and safety checks were carried out before
the museum opened each year. In regards to the repair works, it was noted that
there had been no available monies to undertake the work; the clear guidance
from the different surveyor teams that carried out the work, confirmed that it
would not be value for money to undertake those works in isolation and that
they should be considered as an overall scheme of work. Officers stated that
visual health and safety surveys were undertaken every year, however this
particular survey was more in-depth and specialists were involved to help
understand the nature of the problems and to give an indication on the cost of
repairs.
Members asked who would
be involved in the re-established Cefn Coed Working Group and stated that they
would like to see Officers, Councillors and Neath Port Talbot Council employees
who were passionate for the museum involved in this. It was noted that the
current proposal listed that the Chair would be the Director of Education,
Leisure and Lifelong Learning; Officers had taken advice from individuals who
best knew the museum, and had knowledge of the history and the passion for it.
The following individuals were currently proposed to be members of the Working
Group:
·
Heritage Education Officer
·
Museum Manager
·
NPT Tourism Manager
·
NPT Head of Property and Regeneration or NPT Regeneration and Economic
Development Manager
·
NPT Property and Valuation Manager
·
Senior Surveyor from Welsh Government
·
Museums advisor for Welsh Government
·
Representative from CADW
It was added that the
Working Group would meet initially with the interested stakeholders and take a
steer as to what was important for the facility and the community, before
completing work including the due
diligence that was needed; following this, the Working Group would come up with
sustainable and appropriate proposals, before presenting them to the
appropriate committee meeting. Officers confirmed that they would keep the
interested stakeholders informed at all times and develop a communications plan
which will also inform the local Members of how they will be communicated with
and how often.
The Committee discussed
the link with CADW in this particular project. Officers mentioned that they
work frequently with CADW on various buildings, and appreciate the difficulty
of their job which included persevering heritage; Officers worked with CADW to
try and identify a solution that was acceptable for all parties.
It was suggested that
the three local Members and the relevant Cabinet Member be involved in the Cefn
Coed Working Group going forward as their input was highlighted to be valuable.
Members were informed that the Head of Legal and Democratic Services, the
Director for Education, Leisure and Lifelong Learning and the Head of Property
and Regeneration would liaise in regards to coming up with a process to involve
those mentioned.
Members expressed the
potential of the site, particularly in terms of tourism. Officers confirmed
that they were committed to exploring all possibilities for the future
development of the site and hoped that the circulated report provided clarity on
the recent work carried out. The Chief Executive encouraged those who had ideas
in regards to what could be delivered at Cefn Coed Colliery Museum, to engage
with Officers and also stressed the importance of engagement with the external
agencies.
It was asked how this
item was going to be dealt with going forward in terms of the Scrutiny
arrangements; it was mentioned that this shouldn’t be looked at in isolation,
and instead be included as one part of a wider strategy for Neath Port Talbot.
Members were informed that the Constitution detailed the different functions
that were allocated to each individual Scrutiny Committee, however where there
were crossing themes for issues, Joint Scrutiny Committees could be facilitated;
in order to determine how the meeting should be facilitated, Officers would
need to look into the subject matter and also take on the views of the Chairs
of the relevant Scrutiny Committees.
Members shared their
concerns in relation to facilitating Joint Scrutiny Committees for this subject
matter. In terms of portfolios, it was explained that the Cabinet Portfolios
were determined by the Leader of Council and the convention within the Councils
Constitution was that the Scrutiny portfolios should mirror the Cabinet
portfolios; essentially the construction of the political portfolios was a
matter for the Leadership. However, it was stated that if it was a wish of the
Members, Officers could identify a mechanism within the framework and
Constitution which would allow the right type of scrutiny to take place on this
particular issue.
Officers provided
clarity on the process of this particular issue going forward; the governance
will be set up and then Officers will consult with the relevant Committees, and
ensure that the progress reports go back to whichever Committee had been
decided to have invested interest in this issue. Members were informed that
there was a cross-over in portfolios; the issues around the estate and tourism
falls within the Regeneration and Sustainable Development Scrutiny Committee’s
portfolio and the culture issues in regards to the museum falls within the
Education, Skills and Culture Scrutiny Committee’s portfolio.
A discussion took place
in relation to the performance of the property and the surveyor work, and
Members asked if Officers could provide further clarity on this. Officers
confirmed that there was a rolling programme of surveys for all of the Council
owned buildings; there was one surveyor undertaking surveys as well as covering
as the Council’s facilities management surveyor. It was noted that due to a
number of factors such as the number of buildings, time element and the change
in prioritisation of buildings, some buildings would only get surveyed once
every 5-6 years, which meant that issues would not be identified regularly. As
previously mentioned, this particular survey was a very specialist type of
survey work; usually the Council’s surveyors would complete a visual survey and
raise any issues that they could physically see, which would then be looked
into further with the Council’s small in-house structural team. It was stated
that the more complex sites would often require external survey work, which
were expensive and take quite a while to complete. Officers highlighted that
they were not shocked that more issues were identified when the external survey
work was carried out, as it was often the case that a number of other issues
will stem from the original issue; it was also often required to find further
funding in order to resolve the issues.
Officers were asked if
the Council’s current survey regime was as effective and sufficient as it
needed to be. It was stated that in order to carry out more survey work than
was currently carried out, a lot more surveyors would be required especially if
they were to carry out the type of work that the external surveyors complete.
Members were informed that Neath Port Talbot Council’s surveyors complete site
visits for all of the buildings, whereas some other Councils in Wales complete
this as a desktop exercise.
Members expressed the
importance of tourism and asked if more Tourism Officers could be added to the
team in order to help with the current and future workloads. It was stated that
in 2017 a decision was made to reintroduce the Tourism Team; it was decided at
that time that more priority would be given to tourism. However, it was noted
that the team was very small, consisting of only two members of staff. Officers
explained that there was an opportunity through the scrutiny process, for
Members to be updated on the work of the team; the Regeneration and Sustainable
Development Scrutiny Committee currently received periodic updates on this
topic. It was mentioned that the pandemic had considerably disrupted some of
the programs that the team had been working on; though, there were plans to
launch the new destination marketing brand later on in the year. Officers
highlighted that as the Council moved forward and started to think of the
recovery process, thought would need to be given to the priorities of the
Council and how to utilise the available resources; however, there were always
going to be limitations due to money and the Council also had to ensure that
priority was given to the significant number of statutory duties.
Following concerns
conveyed by Members in relation to the lack of development at the site, the
Chief Executive provided assurances that there would be genuine commitment from
Officers to look at how this site could be progressed. It was stated that the purpose
of the report was to provide factual information and update Members in regards
to Cefn Coed Colliery Museum, however Officers realised the disappointment that
the loss of the grant had caused. It was added that Officers very much welcomed
Members suggestions in relation to who could provide an input and help the
Council explore how the site could be developed.
It was highlighted that
there were a number of ways to ensure that all Members would be included in the
structures set up in relation to this issue. As suggested, the Local Members
and the Cabinet Member could be included into the structure and Officers would
look at different ways in which this could be done; as well as consulting with
the Members to make sure their views were taken into consideration. In terms of
Scrutiny going forward, if it was the wish of the Education, Skills and Culture
Scrutiny Members and the Regeneration and Sustainable Development Scrutiny
Members to be involved in the ongoing monitoring of this item, then this could
be done via the programming of the Scrutiny Forward Work Programmes.
The Committee discussed
the formalities of the Cefn Coed Working Group; the Head of Legal and
Democratic Services provided clarity on the matter and the functions that the
Group would have and potential ways of how others could be involved in this.
It was proposed and
agreed that the following be added to the recommendation contained within the
circulated report:
·
In relation to the Cefn Coed Working Group, the views of the three Local
Members and the relevant Cabinet Member be sought at key intervals
·
Reports be brought back to the relevant Scrutiny Committees at regular
intervals with updates.
Following scrutiny, the
report was noted.