·
To select appropriate items from the Cabinet agenda for pre-decision
scrutiny (cabinet reports enclosed for Scrutiny Members)
Minutes:
Cabinet
Scrutiny scrutinised the following Cabinet items:
Self-Assessment
2021/2022
Members
received information on the Council’s draft self-assessment for 2021/2022. The
Council is required to publish the self-assessment within 4 weeks of approval
as per the circulated report.
Members
commented on the amount of detail in the report and suggested the idea of
having a conclusion at the start to get a better overview at the beginning of
reports. Officers advised that they had a statutory requirement to include
specific details but advised that they will be introducing an easy read version
when they publish. Officers also advised that they will take on board comments
about having a summary at the beginning of reports, when they put together the
2022/23 assessment.
Following
Scrutiny, the Committee was supportive of the proposals to be considered by the
Cabinet Board.
Establishment
of Liaison Forum in Respect to Afan Valley Adventure
Resort
Members
were informed of the request of Wildfox Resorts Afan Valley Limited, to establish a liaison forum with
representatives of Wildfox Resorts Afan Valley Limited in respect of the development of the Afan Valley Adventure Resort. The main purpose of the
liaison forum is to ensure the maximisation of the social, environmental, and
economic benefits of the Afan Valley Adventure Resort
for the local communities, as per the report.
Members
expressed concerns relating to both items 8 and 9 of the Cabinet agenda pack.
It was noted that the valley’s community impact and workforce impact for both
reports detailed that there were no implications. Members felt that there would
be considerable workforce impacts in relation to the reports due to
administrative support that would be required from relevant departments.
Members
also felt that there may be an impact on other wards and consideration of
including members from the Lower Afan valley on the
liaison committee would be beneficial. Officers explained that it would be open
to members who had been appointed to the appropriate forums to identify if
there are any issues that could have neighbouring impacts on adjacent wards and
the terms of reference can always be reconsidered in those forums.
Members
also queried the possibility of having the minutes of the liaison forum
circulated to the Scrutiny Chairs. Officers advised that as the liaison
committees are outside bodies, the minutes would not be circulated to all
representatives of the council. Officers further suggested that as part of the
forward work program of scrutiny, that the council find ways to make sure
chairs were regularly kept updated and to try and find ways to put standing
items on agendas and consider those matters.
Officers
took on board the points raised and advised that when looking at the valley and
workforce impacts the reason there were no impacts recorded on the report was
due to the purpose of the report detailing the set up in general, relating
specifically to the governance framework that has been put in place and the
terms of reference. It was noted that further reports detailing the works of
the projects would include the appropriate impacts.
Following
Scrutiny, the Committee was supportive of the proposals to be considered by the
Cabinet Board.
Establishment
of an Advisory Panel in Respect of the Global Centre for Rail Excellence
Members
were informed of the Establishment of an advisory panel in respect of the
Global Centre of Rail Excellence and the terms of reference of the Global
Centre of Rail Excellence Advisory Panel established by GCRE Ltd. They also
were asked to agree Council representatives to the various committees
established by the Advisory Panel, following a request by GCRE Ltd, as per the
circulated report.
The
main discussion for this item took place under Item 8. Members noted that they would
need to make sure that NPT Representatives on those committees are aware of
concerns of locals so that they can represent them fully.
Following
Scrutiny, the Committee was supportive of the proposals to be considered by the
Cabinet Board
Phase
One of the Accommodation Review.
Members
were advised that officers were seeking approval to close five of the Neath
Port Talbot Council’s operational staff-based office accommodation buildings
and declare them surplus to operational requirements with effect from 31st
March 2023 as per the report.
Officers
explained the purpose of this accommodation review is to enable the local
authority to reduce the number of buildings the authority is occupying because
not only is the authority paying rent on those, but also the energy usage and
other resulting utility bills associated with those occupied buildings.
Reducing the buildings would help to drive down costs so that services can be
protected and to ensure that sustainability principles that the authority, the UK
government, and Welsh government want to achieve which is a secure Net Zero
carbon by 2030 are being met.
Officers
stated that they will be looking to utilise the buildings that are being
retained in the long term as they do not want to move staff into another
building which is going to cost the authority to operate or alternatively move
them into another building that may form part of a later phase of the
accommodation strategy.Officers stated that this is
just Phase One of a multi-phased strategy.
Members
sought clarification and detail on the issue on page 91/92 of the report, where
up to six rooms in Cimla hospital being retained for specialist training
purposes for social services and wanted more detail on why and whether there is
a timeline in place and a process for arranging relocation.
Officers
advised that the rooms have been retained for manual handling training and a
timeframe for officers to take out that specialist equipment and relocate it
has not been decided, however officers will let the committee know as soon as
soon as they have one. Officers also provided a brief explanation of what staff
would be moving and where they would be moving to in relation to social
services.
There
was a discussion about the detail of the report with members suggesting that
the report should have had detailed breakdowns on each proposal and an
explanation on the saving costs of the closure of buildings or the surrendering
of the lease. Officers agreed to provide a more detailed breakdown for members
and circulate them after the meeting along with further detail being included
in future reports.
There
was a discussion around the security and ongoing costs of keeping and maintain
empty buildings until they are sold. Officers advised that not all properties
would require security to be present. The properties would be inspected once
vacated to ensure that they are secure, and the authority will have a care and
maintenance responsibility for them going forward.
Members
were advised that the authority will have service charges and buildings will
still need to be heated while they're empty to prevent any damp penetration and
disrepair. Officers advised that compared to the costs incurred by buildings
fully occupied or partially occupied it will be significantly less.
There
was a discussion around potential implications for the ending of leases with
CVS which could cause knock on affects for local people and cause costs moving
forward. Officers said that in pre-liminary discussion with the organisations
who own the buildings, there would not be an adverse impact upon those owners
because of the authority removing itself from the leased property.
Members
questioned how the report achieves its savings in regard to the £158,000.
Members wanted to understand if that included business rates and if it assumes
the immediate sale of those two buildings quickly. Members felt there was
detail lacking in terms of whether the report assumes that the authority will
still have the two properties for 12 months. Members felt it there was not
enough detail to understand what it is they were agreeing to and that the
report has been used in a line of a budget to balance the budget but there is
no guarantee that it will come through to fruition. Members expressed concerns
that there should be more detail within that budget paper and asked that this
information is circulated to all members of council as it is relevant to the
budget that will be decided in Council in March.
Officers
explained that in the report there are several assumptions that have been built
into the costs, as officers will not know the outcome as it's all associated
with the marketing of that property. Officers advised that the responsibility
approving the sale of properties rests with the cabinet board for decision. Members
expressed concerns that without knowing whether the assumption that has been
used on the cost saving relies on sales happening and some members were
uncomfortable that they may recommend a decision that may result the sale of a
building without considering other options.
Following
Scrutiny, the Committee was supportive of the proposals to be considered by the
Cabinet Board with One member voting against the recommendation.
Capital
Budget Monitoring Report 22/23 as of the End of December 2022
Members
were provided with information in relation to the delivery of the 2022/23
Capital Programme as per the report.
Officers
also provided an overview of the report advising that it is the monitoring
report for the capital program as at the end of December. It detailed that the
previous Capital programme agreed by Cabinet was 70.4 million pounds this
report proposes a new capital programme for this year of 54 million pounds with
a number of amendments detailed in the report showing the changes from the
previously approved budget to the one proposed in front of Cabinet.
Members
raised concerns in relation to the number of areas that are listed for
reprofile and the number of under-spends throughout the report. Members
highlighted 29 areas of reprofiling at an estimate of £21,000,000 for the
capital projects next year. Members highlighted the Disabled Facilities Grant,
City Deal, Margam Park, Supported Living and school maintenance as areas they
wanted clarity on.
Officers
agreed that there was a significant amount of reprofiling. Officers explained
that with the Disabled Facilities Grants there was a significant amount of
budget carried forward from 2021/22 due to an inability to get contractors to
work during the pandemic, which was added to the 22/23 budget. Due to capacity
of the supply chain, it was reprofiled again because again they cannot get
people to do the work.
Officers
explained that there is limited capacity within the regeneration team in
relation to the City Deal, and difficulties in being able to recruit suitable
people to the project teams. Officers have been working throughout the year in
terms of the Shared Prosperity Fund bids, the Levelling Up Fund bids, the Wild
Fox resort etc, which means that some of those City deal projects have had to
move into next year.
Officers
also advised that in terms of some of the school programme, the Welsh
government has allocated additional money during the year, so that has moved
the money into next year. This means that the authority is spending some Welsh
government money instead. Officers also explained that there is a limited
window where you can undertake Capital work in schools so there is a capacity
and a profiling issue.
In
relation to supported living, officers explained that it is a contribution the
authority is making towards a project that City and County of Swansea are
running, which means a delay in terms of contribution to that project.
In
relation to Margam Park, officers advised that there is further work being
undertaken in terms of the project there, with the report due back before and
the relevant cabinet board soon.
Members
wanted to know what officers are doing to address the lack of workforce in
relation to implement Capital Works programs going forward.
Officers
explained that the authority has strengthened several functions in the
environment directorate across Planning, Highways and Regeneration and that the
authority will be looking to do the same with the shared Prosperity fund monies
that they have got.
It
was also explained that there will be a proposal coming forward in the next
couple of months around some of the more strategic Investments the authority
has got and a reshaping of the way in which the authority responds to those.
Further
proposals will emerge in the next couple of months meaning that resources for
the larger projects are limited. It was
explained that the authority has been unable to recruit people to project teams
despite extensive attempts utilising various channels for the advertising. The
authority has however secured approval from the programme board to appoint a
consultant to undertake duties in terms of the first phase so that the
authority can make progress.
The
authority has got risk registers in place for all projects and officers report
to programme boards on a regular basis in relation to those risks and officers
are comfortable they can achieve the outcomes that were initially identified
albeit subject to the delays referred to in the item.
There
was a discussion around the lack of detail in reports around the items
discussed, officers gave some context around the shift in the risk profile that
the councillors needed to manage. The Chief Executive advised that because lots
more information is put into every report, it is consuming even more officer
time and officers are very much struggling in some areas in terms of capacity
and encouraged members to ask for more detail to understand risks.
Members
asked officers if Pontardawe Arts centre Cinema will have the money spent on it
in the coming financial year, members also questioned that given inflation, the
projects reprofiling at the same amount could mean that the project may need
some additional funding.
Members
stated that the budget papers make it clear that the projects and centres will
start covering their own costs in full without subsidy. Members felt that
particular public centres may find this difficult and noted the importance of
the upcoming budget discussion.
Following
Scrutiny, the Committee was supportive of the proposals to be considered by the
Cabinet Board.
Revenue
Budget Monitoring Report for 2022-2023 as at the End of December 2022
Members
were provided with information in relation to the Council’s projected revenue
budget position as per the report. Officers also added that they were pleased
to note that the latest projection is that that the Council’s overspend
(excluding schools) has reduced to £86k after reserve movements.
Members
queried page 123, and the section relating to levies and contributions, aside
from the Fire Authority, the report listed other levies and contributions.
Members wanted an example what those are those bodies were.
Officers
explained that there is a £46,000 for the Swansea Port Health Authority Levy,
£1000 Levy for the Margam Joint Crematorium Committee £117 000 Levy for the
Corporate Joint Committee. There is also a contribution towards the Archive
Service for £96 000 and a contribution towards the Magistrates Court of ten
thousand pound given the £270,000 that is detailed in total.
Members
questioned the report section on page 119 relating to the housing advice
support tenancy service predicting and overspend of £656,000. With the report
saying it is incorporated into policy. Members highlighted that the report does
not explain how the overspend will be paid for.
Officers
advised that it is a change of Welsh Government policy. Officers have put it in
as a pressure under consideration. Officers explained that the authority is
looking at the rapid rehousing policy and implementing that as soon as possible
as it is hoped that will bring some of that down. Officers also advised that
the authority needs to move to more of a prevention element of this in the hope
that it will bring the overspending down, advising that officers are working on
a different approach to housing over the coming months and are doing a lot of
work behind the scenes to try and reduce the overspend. He informed members
that they will be updated in more detail in the next couple of months.
Members
were sympathetic to the work of officers and disappointed that the change in
legislation has not been funded and noted that it is a matter of lobbying the
Welsh Government to seek funding for such matters.
Following
Scrutiny, the Committee was supportive of the proposals to be considered by the
Cabinet Board.
The
2022-2023 Risk Register Monitored and Report
Members
received an update on the Council’s Strategic Risks as per the report.
Members
asked for an update on the risk of a land slip at Panteg, Cyfyng Road. Officers
explained that there had been issues in relation to the demolition of phase one
of Cyfyng Road. The authority are liaising with the owners of the properties
and the solicitors acting on their behalf are currently making last-minute
amendments which will not make any significant difference to the outcome.
Officers
have the contractor’s Health and Safety and Construction Design Management
details, which have been considered internally, with the contractors hoping to
be on site in the middle of March. Officers advised that two weeks prior to
starting on site the authority will be advising the local community that the
works are going ahead to demolish phase one and are hoping that after the
demolition of phase one we will then have a momentum for phase two.
Members
were advised that phase two is more complex as the insurance companies are
still failing to pay out the owners of those properties because they do not
think there is a real health and safety issue associated with those properties.
Officers are hoping that once phase one is started that it will send a clear
message to the insurance companies and phase two can be progressed.
Members
asked about the risk of there being insufficient investment in the Council's
major infrastructure and wanted to know if the authority have considered the
risk of buildings maintenance when putting together the risk register. As well
as whether it was possible to have an up-to-date condition record of all its
buildings, whether that risk has been considered and assessed and not met the
criteria to be put in the register.
Officers
explained that the report seems to be missing the mitigations as the authority
does have property asset management plans but seems to have fallen off the
report. For example, the basis in which the authority selects schools within
the Strategic School Improvement program considers the risks around the
buildings. Officers reiterated that there are mechanisms in place that have
assessed the risks around the authority’s property assets, but it appears that
the lines relating to building maintenance must have been accidentally left out
on this iteration of the report.
It
was agreed that there was some missing detail from the report that reflect the
arrangements around property asset management and those would be included in
the next report next time
It
was also agreed that officers would circulate a copy of the Asset Management
Plan to members.