Agenda item

Ebbw Valley Railway

To consider the report of the Corporate Director of Regeneration & Community Services.

Minutes:

 

 

 

Having regard to the views expressed by the Proper Officer regarding the public interest test, that on balance, the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighed the public interest in disclosing the information and that the report should be exempt.

 

RESOLVED that the public be excluded whilst this item of business is transacted as it is likely there would be a disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraph 14, Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act, 1972 (as amended).

 

Consideration was given to the report of the Corporate Director of Regeneration and Community Services.

 

At the invitation of the Chair, the Corporate Director gave details of the proposal which would assist with the implementation of the infrastructure necessary to achieve the objective of both Welsh Government and the Council of increasing service frequency.  It was noted that the loan would be interest free and would not be taken out until due diligence and the establishment of a Joint Venture arrangement had been agreed – should this not be agreed the monies would be repaid in full.

 

The views of Members were, thereupon, sought (summarised below) and were responded to by the Corporate Director of Regeneration & Community Services/Chief Officer Resources:

 

-      A Member indicated that he would only support the proposal if the Newport link was guaranteed and that work be undertaken in partnership with Caerphilly and Newport and the financial burden was shared between the three authorities.

 

The Member acknowledged the opportunity of an Abertillery spur but pointed out that Abertillery town centre had been ravaged during the pandemic with shop closures and asked whether an impact assessment would be undertaken to assess any potential impact that this would have on existing businesses.  He concluded by stating that increasing the number of trains to 4 per hour may be too many and could potentially make the line unviable at a future point in time.

 

The Corporate Director advised that there had been some considerable debate when the railway had first opened regarding passenger patronage and this modelling had been based on known patronage levels – the WelTAG Study would determine if patronage numbers were realistic.  With regards to the town centre, this would be reassessed to determine how the town could be changed over time to maximise the opportunities between the town and rail link.   It was noted that an economic impact assessment would be undertaken, as part of the project.

 

The work in terms of the Newport link would be reliant on a third party and this would be incorporated as part of the Joint Venture agreement which would set out key deliverables for the project. In terms of partnership working with the other two authorities, there was no reason why the three councils could not work together to maximise the benefits going forward and the Corporate Director said that this could form part of future engagement.

 

In reply to a question regarding risk in terms of an increase in the Minimum Revenue Provision (MRP) it was confirmed that if the loan was accepted and the Joint Venture was not agreed, the funding could be repaid so there would be no risk implications for the Council.  However, if the income stream was achievable, the MRP provision would not be required.

 

-      The Leader of the Labour Group expressed his concern regarding a potential increase in the MRP as there would already be an uplift of £1.8m for 2022/2023.  Whilst he was not opposed to the proposal he advised that he would propose an alternative recommendation at the appropriate juncture.

 

-      It was pointed out that whilst people were working from home there would be less commuters using trains and concern was expressed that the authority would not be able to recoup the monies and this could result in a large liability for Blaenau Gwent, which was a deprived area. Therefore, the funding commitment should be shared between all the councils that would benefit from the proposal.  The Member felt that the situation should be assessed currently and post Covid and said that now was not the right time to make the decision.

 

Councillor W. Hodgins left the meeting at this juncture.

 

The Corporate Director advised that patronage was key and Welsh Government had undertaken their own due diligence on the modelling work and he gave an assurance that there would be no impact on the council taxpayer for Blaenau Gwent for any repayment.  He emphasised that the loan could not be received until the Joint Venture agreement had been established.

 

-      Another Member said that the funding should be utilised to improve the connectivity and transport infrastructure within the County Borough as a whole.  This would enable residents to travel to employment opportunities with the County Borough and this should be given a higher priority. In addition, the proposal could potentially place a financial burden on the next administration and the Member felt that it was not the time to make this decision.

 

-      Reference was made to the Cardiff Capital Region City Deal projects and that the Abertillery spur project had been held in abeyance and said that further clarity was required on this proposal.

 

The Corporate Director advised that the Abertillery spur and the Metro formed part of the Cardiff Capital Region City Deal projects – this proposal was a separate project funded by Welsh Government.  The City Deal Abertillery spur project had been held in abeyance at the present time because it formed part of a larger project.  He emphasised that if the Council determined not to partake in the venture, the funding would ultimately be returned to U.K. government - it was noted that separate applications had already been made to the U.K. government for funding for this project.  This opportunity would provide an ability to future proof the project into next financial year subject to a Joint Venture agreement.  This could then be synchronising with the City Deal project for the Abertillery spur.  

 

The Chief Officer Resources stated that she understood the financial concerns that had been raised by Members and advised that should the proposal be approved, a Joint Venture agreement would then be developed in the next 3 months with other parties in order that sufficient income would be achieved, however, should a Joint Venture agreement not be reached the monies would be repaid immediately without any impact on the council taxpayer.

 

-      A Member requested that the Leader open dialogue with the Leaders of Caerphilly County Borough and Newport City Councils regarding an agreement to work in partnership.  He also asked whether the Leader shared his concern regarding the potential detrimental effect that this could have on the town centre of Abertillery.

 

The Leader of the Council advised that if the report was agreed and it would be of benefit to the project and the Council he would liaise and open dialogue with the Leaders of Newport and Caerphilly as requested.  He referred to the points and concern that had been raised and advised that he had also raised similar points and had sought assurances regarding the proposal.  Whilst a decision was required on the offer of funding, the major decision would be taken by Council when Members considered the detail contained within the Joint Venture agreement.

 

The Leader continued by stating that he had concerns around every town centre and the Council had very little or no control regarding business closures and wanted to see a thriving Blaenau Gwent.  He pointed out that these were issues of concern throughout the region and advised that colleagues in Newport and Cardiff were also concerned about the effect the pandemic would have on town centre shopping.  A fresh approach was required for some of the town centres and work was underway on this – a Town Centre Strategy had already been adopted.  Whilst his priority would always be as a Ward Councillor for Abertillery, in his capacity as Leader of the Council his overarching priority was for the general wellbeing of Blaenau Gwent as a whole. 

 

In reply to a question the Corporate Director reported that budgetary controls would form part of the Joint Venture agreement.

 

The Executive Member – Regeneration & Economic Development said that the Joint Venture agreement would include details around all the concerns and points that had been raised and advised that the protection of the council was paramount throughout the process.  He referred to a recent announcement made by the Minister and said there was a new focus on connectivity and work had commenced on this and included investment in other valley lines to improve services.  In terms of town centres, work had already commenced on looking at new and different options.

 

The Leader of the Labour Group pointed out that the reports should be presented by Executive Members in the future.

 

Following a lengthy discussion, the Executive Member Regeneration & Economic Development proposed that Option 1 be endorsed.  This proposal was seconded.

 

Councillor W. Hodgins returned to the meeting midway through the alternative proposals being discussed.

 

The Leader of the Labour Group, on behalf of the Labour and Minority Independent Group, thereupon, proposed the following alternative recommendation:

 

The content of Option One be supported with the following stipulations added:

 

·        The Newport link was a firm commitment.

·        That Blaenau Gwent would not carry the burden of the arrangement alone and that discussions with Newport and Caerphilly open immediately.

·        Further detailed assurance and projections showing that income from the extra trains would cover Blaenau Gwent’s loan repayments were produced for Members to examine, and that Members were given more time, with reports provided, to scrutinise the project.

·        A detailed analysis to give assurance around the Minimum Revenue Provision (MRP) repayments highlighted in the report.

 

This alternative proposal was seconded.

 

A recorded vote was, therefore, requested.

 

In Favour of the alternative proposal – Councillors P. Baldwin, D. Bevan, M. Cross, P. Edwards, L. Elias, K. Hayden, H. McCarthy, J. Millard, M. Moore, J. C. Morgan, K. Pritchard, T. Sharrem, T. Smith, S. Thomas, H. Trollope, B. Willis, L. Winnett.

 

Against the alternative proposal – Councillors J. Collins, M. Cook, N. Daniels, D. Davies, G. A. Davies, G. L. Davies, M. Day, D. Hancock, M. Holland, S. Healy, J. Hill, J. Holt, J. Mason, C. Meredith, J. P. Morgan, L. Parsons, G. Paulsen, K. Rowson, B. Summers, G. Thomas, J. Wilkins.

 

Abstention – Councillor W. Hodgins

 

The vote on the alternative proposal was not carried.

 

As there was no stated intention voiced from any Member present, to oppose Option 1, the proposed course of action in not proceeding to a recorded individual vote on the preferred option was acceptable.

 

It was, therefore, unanimously,

 

RESOLVED, subject to the foregoing, that the report which related to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the authority) be accepted and Option 1 be endorsed, namely that:

 

(i)           the offer of the funding as set out in the report be accepted and authority be delegated to the Corporate Director Regeneration & Community Services, and the Chief Officer Resources, to negotiate on behalf of the Council and act as a signatory to the funding agreement.

 

(ii)         the Council engaged with relevant parties to develop a Joint Venture arrangement for agreement at a future Council meeting.

 

(iii)        the Council agreed to the amended prudential indicators in relation to the Authority’s external debt limits i.e. Authorised Limit and Operational Boundary (attached as Appendix1).