Bwrdd Tyfu Canolbarth Cymru / Growing Mid Wales Board

CJE gave an update on the Mid Wales Growth Deal Portfolio assurance arrangements which provides independent insight into whether plans are strategically aligned, well-managed, and capable of delivering its objectives. He reported that the previous Assurance review was presented to the board in May 2024 when the Portfolio was in a transitional phase, and that an Amber rating had been assigned and an action plan developed to consider the key themes that reflected the identified gaps and necessary interventions. CJE noted that Adam Davies has recently appointed as a Portfolio Planner which will add capacity to the team in terms of the baseline delivery of project plans and identifying potential slippage at an earlier stage. He also noted that meetings are now held bi-monthly as opposed to quarterly, and that Project Boards are meeting on the monthly basis which has made a significant improvement in terms of the cadence of delivery as well as identifying non-delivery. The capacity of the team has also been reviewed internally, with additional checks and balances carried out at an earlier stage, and the provision of additional support in order that projects are able to progress. He gave assurances that all avenues will have been thoroughly explored before any recommendation to stop a project is placed to the Board, and that the next portfolio assurance review would be presented in early September and reported to both Governments if approved. He gave a brief overview of the actions and progress made against these key actions during the past 12 months, and outlined the key areas for development over the next 6 months which include: • Project Delivery Management Enhancement; • Portfolio Reporting; • Portfolio Delivery Plan Execution; • Resource Capacity and Capability Development; • Securing Investment Funding; and • Embedding Portfolio Ways of Working and Continuous Improvement. BD addressed the issue of phosphates throughout the region, recommending that pre-application submissions are presented at the outset to identify potential problems at a later stage. He also asked whether Officer had considered the level of additional support that they are able to provide to projects post funding, considering that new projects will also require support at this time. JB reiterated the concern regarding a need for a pre-application assessment to ensure a seamless wrap around service and ensure that the right conversations are taking place regarding conservation, highways etc. co-ordinated at the pre-application stage.

CJE gave an update on the Mid Wales Growth Deal Portfolio, which included the digital programme, an update on projects, the Mid Wales Commercial Property Investment Fund, the Portfolio RAID Register, Case Delivery Timeline and Integrated Assurance and Approval Plan. He noted that 4 of the 6 projects are on track, and that 2 are lagging slightly, however they are where they expected them to be. He highlighted that there are still some significant risks, as well as consistent themes around capacity and capability for managing the larger schemes with each project having their own ways of working, however they are working closely with the to understand the challenges and identify the gaps and are confident that they will be able to deliver, although they may need to come to an agreement where match-funding is not available, without absolving them of the need to contribute. DO gave an overview of the digital projects and prioritisation methodology of the Mapping Analysis project, the availability of networks, download speed thresholds, ranking and the weighting criteria. He also gave an outline of the open access agreements with broadband and mobile providers to make use of council assets which have been mapped on the council assets map included in the infrastructure report, noting that significant progress had been made with a number of operators. CMSD questioned the terminology relating to “hard to reach” noting that it was reflective of a city centric mentality. DO confirmed that the terminology was in line with that of the similar projects being delivered by the UK Government and that their focus was on the objective rather than the name, however if Members felt that a change was required, it could be discussed by the Programme Board. He noted that nowhere is impossible to connect, however there are limitations in terms of funding with connections to some properties estimated to be around £200k. BD noted that as rural authorities, it was important to apply our own methodology and insist that network coverage is provided to all. CJE noted that the window for applications to the Property Investment Fund had now closed with 35 applications received and funding to support circa 17 to 18 of these applications. He noted that this was positive as it had identified a demand, and that this information would be included in future reports. JB noted that this has highlighted to Ministers the importance of this funding and the multiplying effect in terms of properties and employment.

CJE gave an update on the Strategic Portfolio Business Case, risks, constraints and dependencies, which included a Portfolio Health Check, the financial case and management case. He noted that workshops had been held earlier in the year to consider the content of the report, and that the key changes related to the project at the University of Wales Trinity St David’s Lampeter Campus, which was note being integrated into the Green Futures interventions. He noted that the Strategic Portfolio Business Case would be presented to the UK and Welsh Government before the end of the year. Following a discussion and a vote it was unanimously RESOLVED to approve the Strategic Portfolio Business Case ACTION – To present the Strategic Portfolio Business Case to the UK and Welsh Government for approval.

DH presented a report to the board which outlined the principles of the Financial Management Strategy for review and approval by members of the Mid Wales Growth Deal, noting that the strategy had also been considered in detail by the Portfolio Delivery Boards. He noted that the strategy would evolve naturally over time and would require a regular review over the lifetime of the Growth Deal. He also highlighted some of the financial risks that the Mid Wales Growth Deal would need to manage and proposed that the interest earned in the early years is used to provide a level of underwriting buffer; lobbying the Welsh Government and UK Government for a one-off revenue fund; and that both Local authorities proactively aim to lever in other external funding; and that both Local Authorities commit to setting aside funding of up to £500k to support the development and delivery of Programmes and Projects outside of the current annual contribution. DH noted that the 2025/26 it was anticipated that the expenditure would cross the threshold of £2.5m which would require an additional level of year-end accounting. He noted that the profile for expenditure shows a cashflow surplus in the early years meaning interest earned of £300k during 24/25 and that it is anticipated to increase to £600k by the end of 26/27. This surplus would be ring-fenced to matters relating to the growth deal, with a cashflow negative profile expected later in the deal, however further considerations would be required if it was anticipated that the available funding would be exceeded. He highlighted that the maximum overall top-slice from the £110m agreed by both the UK and Welsh Government was 4%, with the approved Portfolio Management Budget being £869k for this financial year, but with an expectation that this will decrease over the longer term of the deal. He noted that the Finance Team were monitoring the expenditure and future forecasts very closely and providing regular reports to both Governments. He also drew attention to the key accounting principles regarding Capital and Revenue expenditure and professional standards relating to RIBA Stages and how that linked to OBC and FBC milestones and the ability for Projects to make retrospective claims (for eligible capitalisable expenditure) back to the OBC stage once projects reached the FBC Capital approval stage. It was noted again that the UK and Welsh Government had failed to recognise the need for revenue funding, as large projects may not have the necessary capacity to drive their projects forward. He noted that there may be elements of irrrecoverable VAT (particular for any project with a Further Education type dynamic), but that this would be considered as an eligible cost by exception only. He noted the due diligence approach to be taken by the team, reading across to the risk register, and using external reports where necessary, and checking that there are no outstanding debts by those receiving funding to either local authority. The strategy also proposed that if the CLO: Finance and Procurement and 151 Officer, Ceredigion County Council (who is responsible for Mid Wales Growth Deal financial matters) is of the view that the financial risk of a proposed decision is not duly and appropriately covered within acceptable tolerances, then the Section 151 Officer for Powys County Council will be notified and a decision required regarding the basis for financial risk and if appropriate how the costs would be shared between both Councils, possibly requiring a form of Risk Sharing Agreement if it got to that point. JB thanked DH for his report which provided the Board with the necessary assurances required. BD noted that interest had been accumulated upon the in-year underspend within WG and asked if there was an argument that could be put forward to request the whole of the funding upfront. DH noted that the funding was transferred towards the end of the financial year, and that he would be pushing for it to be transferred no later than mid-year, however being able to demonstrate more delivery of projects was going to be critical to achieving this as that would provide us with a much stronger case. Following a discussion and a vote it was unanimously RESOLVED to approve the Financial Management Strategy

CJE presented the Benefits Management Strategy to the board, outlining the process for implementing a benefits realisation management approach. He noted that it was a requirement for the Board to have a Benefits Management Strategy, however the content of this report did not change any of the current arrangements or procedures. He relayed the high-level targets and the headline benefits of the growth deal. JB asked whether the Benefits Management Strategy was set in stone, or whether it could be reviewed as required. CJE confirmed that this was the prerogative of the Board, and that they may ask for it to be reviewed if required. Following a discussion and a vote it was unanimously RESOLVED to approve the Benefits Management Strategy.

BD recommended that the Leaders visit the location of the projects. This was agreed by JB who asked CJE to include in their diaries at an appropriate time.

• 10th July 2025 (2 – 4pm) – Digital Programme Board • 17th July 2025 (3 – 5.30pm) – GMW Board • 29th July 2025 (2 – 4pm) – Portfolio Delivery Board The report relating to items 12 and 13 are not for publication as they contain exempt information as defined in paragraph 14 of Part 4 of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972 as amended by the Local Government (Access to information) (Variation) (Wales) Order 2007. If, following the application of the Public Interest Test, the Council resolves to consider this item in private, the public and press will be excluded from the meeting during such consideration, in accordance with Section 100B(2) of the Act. EXCLUSION OF PUBLIC Members were requested, when dealing with the following items on the agenda to consider whether to exclude the public from the Meeting. RESOLVED To exclude the public and press from the meeting.

The Board considered the Outline Business Case for Phase 1 of the ‘Cynefin – The Great Heart of Wales’ Project. RESOLVED to approve the recommendations in the report.

The Board considered the request for revenue support. RESOLVED to approve the recommendations in the report.