To receive questions, if any, from Members.
Minutes:
Question No. 1
The following question was received from Councillor Phil Edwards, Leader of the Minority Independent Group and was responded to by Councillor Nigel Daniels, Leader of the Council:
Question:
Following the revelation in a recent meeting that CCTV cameras would be installed in the Arcade in Abertillery. Would the Leader explain where the funding came from and who decided to site them there?
Response:
The CCTV camera in Abertillery Arcade was a replacement for a long standing now obsolete camera that was installed due to high levels of anti-social behaviour experienced in that area in the Arcade a considerable number of years. Unfortunately, now due to the continuation of anti-social behaviour in this confined area and following a data protection impact assessment, the decision process taken by officers had been based on strong information and intelligence received by the local police, the community and information and complaints received from residents together with local Abertillery Members. This had brought the appropriate Council officers to determine and conclude that in the interests and principle of the CCTV camera arrangements, that a replacement was required and funding for this camera had been met from within the existing CCTV revenue budget.
Supplementary Question:
There were private properties located in the Arcade (which the Council seemed to be supplementing) and the gates on the Arcade were locked each evening and the Member, therefore, asked how anti-social behaviour could be persisting in this area.
Response:
Abertillery Arcade was the Council’s responsibility and the Council had a duty to clean and maintain it and there was a small budget available for that purpose. Whilst the Leader was unable to divulge the details of how anti-social behaviour was persisting even though the gates were secured nightly by officers, he gave an assurance that this was fully supported by the police because it would enable them to identify the perpetrators and take appropriate action. This course of action would also protect Council property.
Question No. 2
The following question was received from Councillor Hedley McCarthy, and was responded to by Councillor Dai Davies, Executive Member for Regeneration and Economic Development:
Question:
Given recent adverse press reports about Trinity Chapel, which still stands idle and empty after six years. Would the Executive Member for Regeneration explain to Council why the project was at an impasse and why we were no nearer completing than we were at the start of this term in 2017?
Response:
The Executive Member for Regeneration and Economic Development commenced by stating that he regretted that the completion of Trinity Chapel had not been achieved during his time as Executive Member.
He referred to the first part of the question which stated that ‘Trinity Chapel had stood idle and empty for six years’ and pointed out that the building had been acquired by the local authority in 2009/2010, so, therefore, it had been idle and empty for many years prior to 2017. During 2015 there had been investment of £1.2m spent on the project and at that time this had not included an internal refit and reiterated that the building had been left in this condition for a considerable period of time.
In 2017 ways of continually funding the project had been investigated and at that time discussions were entered into with a third party who was prepared to invest a significant amount of funding to complete the building. Part of this agreement was a CAT transfer of the asset to a third party at some point in the future.
In order to allow the project to progress, plans for the use of the building were designed in conjunction with the third party and a tender process undertaken to complete the internal refit. This process had taken much longer than predicated as a significant amount of due diligence had to be undertaken at that time, which was critical due to the amount of previous funding that had already been spent on the building.
Soon after the pandemic struck the community, U.K. and world and priorities had to change to address the emergency response. During this time the Trinity Chapel project and work on the building was held in abeyance for in excess of 18 months due to the lockdown. In addition, during the pandemic building costs had spiralled in these 2 years, therefore, when the lockdown was lifted and discussions resumed with the third party, the project costs had increased significantly. As a result, third party had asked for a retendering exercise which was undertaken and a grant application for funding submitted to Welsh Government to complete the project. This funding application had been successful and funding had been provided which could be used as match funding to complete the project.
The Executive Member continued by stating that he would, therefore, argue against the fact that no work had been done - a considerable amount had been done in the time available, however, the delays which had been faced had been significant. The Executive Member referred to a press article which had made comments about the amount of money that had been spent on Trinity Chapel and that had commented that the project in hindsight should have been dealt with differently and pointed out that press article referred to the time prior to 2017.
The Executive Member concluded by providing an assurance that the Council would be prudent in terms of any further expenditure that would be used on the project and he was still hopeful that Trinity Chapel would be able to be completed at some point in the future.
Supplementary Question:
The Member said that if completed, Trinity Chapel could have been used as a resource during the pandemic and pointed out that Abertillery had no banking facilities. He asked whether the Executive Member and Leader take responsibility for this fiasco?
Response:
The Executive Member said that he would certainly take responsibility that he had wanted the project completed but pointed out that plans for the building dated back to 2013 before he had been involved and these plans included a number of schemes for Abertillery including the Trinity Chapel project, which the then Leader had endorsed at that time.
He pointed out that one such proposal related to the location of the current library which was not fit for purpose and proposed that it be relocated to the town centre to increase footfall. The Executive Member acknowledged the issue regarding the banking arrangements and said that working in conjunction with the third party he hoped that once the work on the building had been completed, banking services would be available within the town.