The Economy and Culture Scrutiny Committee met to discuss the future of St David's Hall, filming in Cardiff, and the Shared Prosperity Fund. The committee also agreed its work programme for 2025 and 2026.

St David's Hall

The committee received an update on the progress of work to deal with reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete¹ (RAAC) in the roof of St David's Hall, and other required works. Councillor Jen Burke, Cabinet Member for Culture, Parks and Sport, told the committee that securing the future of St David's Hall had been an absolute priority for the council. She explained that the hall required tens of millions of pounds of investment to address a growing backlog of repairs, and that the discovery of RAAC in the roof had forced the council to temporarily close the building.

Councillor Jen Burke said that the council had reached an agreement with the Academy Music Group (AMG) to become the new operators of the hall, and that this partnership would deliver significant private investment into the building, including the replacement of the roof. She added that the agreement safeguarded the hall's role as the National Council Hall of Wales, and that the classical programme would be protected with dedicated dates reserved in the peak calendar.

Councillor Owen Jones asked how the concerns of those who had raised concerns over the last couple of years had been fed into the lease. Councillor Jen Burke responded that feedback had been received from members of the public and elected members, and that this had been taken into account in the agreement with AMG. She added that the cultural education and community programme would be written into the contract with AMG, with over 90 days set aside for cultural and community programming.

Ruth Kayford, OM for Creative Industries and Cultural Development, added that the council had worked closely with key classical music stakeholders, including the BBC National Orchestra of Wales, BBC Cardiff Singer of the World, the Royal Welsh College of Music and Drama, and Cardiff Philharmonic.

Councillor Owen Jones asked how the acoustics of the hall would be protected during the roof replacement. Ruth Kayford explained that the original acousticians when St David's Hall was built, Sandy Brown, had been consulted to do a benchmarking exercise to verify that the acoustics were as special as everybody said they were. She added that AMG had also worked with world-class acousticians, Vanguardia, and that Sandy Brown had been asked to double-check and verify that there would be no audible difference to experiencing classical music in the hall. She said that it was written into the lease that if things weren't right, then it was up to AMG to put it right.

Councillor Anny Anderson asked what the financial implications had been for the council due to the delays. Neil Hanrassi, Director of Economic Development, responded that because the contract was already in negotiation with AMG, there had been no financial implications for the council. He added that there had been some revenue costs associated with holding the building for a period until the lease transferred, but that these costs had now transferred to AMG.

Councillor Anny Anderson also asked where the council was with efficiency savings that had previously been unachieved. Neil Hanrassi responded that all the financials associated with St David's Hall had now moved out of the council, so there was no more requirement for savings or any implications in terms of finance for the council. He clarified that the subsidy for St David's Hall had been closer to £2 million each year.

Councillor Rodney Berman asked about the timescale for reopening, and whether the hall would be ready in time for Cardiff Singer of the World in 2027. Councillor Jen Burke responded that building work had already started, and that it was anticipated that it would be an 18-month build. Ruth Kayford clarified that BBC Cardiff Singer of the World wasn't cancelled because of what's happening in St David's Hall, but was postponed because of their own procurement exercise of who was going to run BBC Cardiff Singer of the World.

Neil Hanrassi added that the BBC wanted assurance as soon as possible, and had asked for a detailed programme of the works before Christmas. He said that AMG were saying that they could provide that in January, and that there was a discussion ongoing around whether that gave the BBC enough certainty in terms of the timeline.

Councillor Rodney Berman raised concerns that construction projects have a tendency to slip, and asked what the contingency was in place if it were to slip to threaten the Singer of the World 2027. Ruth Kayford responded that the BBC were delivering a gala concert in the Wales Millennium Centre on 8 October as part of Cardiff Music City Festival, and that it would be a challenge for the BBC to find a new venue.

Councillor Catriona Brown-Reckless asked for more information about the proposed lease or business sale agreement, and what costs relating to St David's Hall could come back to the council in the future. Neil Hanrassi responded that it was a difficult question to answer on the fly, and that he was mindful of confidentiality. He offered to come back to Councillor Catriona Brown-Reckless separately with whatever he could provide in the public domain.

Councillor Catriona Brown-Reckless responded that she was asking the question for everybody else out there, and that one of the reasons for having a scrutiny committee meeting was so that these questions are asked and answered in a public forum. She asked if there wasn't any information that could be given to the meeting now, could the committee have an answer to that question in a public forum at the next Economy and Culture scrutiny committee.

Neil Hanrassi responded that the question had been answered in detail the last time the committee had discussed the issue in public domain, but that a couple of years had passed and he couldn't remember the detail. He added that he didn't want to make a mistake in terms of the detail, or say something that ought to or should be remaining confidential without having first of all rehearsed that detail.

Councillor Catriona Brown-Reckless asked that her concern that there isn't sufficient information on this in the public domain be recorded in the minutes and in the correspondence.

Councillor Eleanor Hopkins asked for a timeline for when the repairs are fully starting on the roof, and whether there were any other major issues to the building's stability that could potentially push back the date that the hall was expected to be reopened. Donna Jones, the Assistant Director of County Estates, responded that the roof replacement was one of the main schemes for the project, and that it was a very complex building from that point of view. She added that a lot of the work would be done internally, so it's not as if you're going to see scaffolding and lots of works being done externally.

Councillor Margaret Lewis asked what role the council would have going forward, and whether TUPI² would apply for staff. Neil Hanrassi responded that the relationship with AMG was very much determined by the lease going forward, and that there would be monitoring by the council as part of the lease to monitor that the works were undertaken in line with the terms of the lease. He added that TUPI didn't come into play because the building was closed, and that staff were dealt with through the council's policies for redeployment and voluntary severance. Councillor Peter Wong asked whether the wider building that St David's Hall is attached to, including Queen's Arcade and St David's building, also had RAAC. Donna Jones responded that the wider building is not in the council's ownership, but that there had been a survey within the wider building because ultimately it was built at the same time. She confirmed that there was no work with regards to that building that would impact on St David's Hall.

Councillor Peter Wong asked whether, irrespective of the relationship with AMG, St David's Hall would have had to close anyway because of the updated health and safety guidance on the concrete. Councillor Jen Burke responded that the issues with the roof were known already, and that RAAC was the material that was used in St David's Hall. She added that the safety advice was to close the building.

Donna Jones added that the council already knew that there was RAAC in the building, and had a very robust monitoring programme in place. She said that during 2023, some additional engineering guidance came out, and the risk was potential failure, immediate failure.

Councillor Peter Wong asked how complex the requirement was in order to replace a listed roof with an entirely new construction that replicated and the design involved in that. Donna Jones responded that it was very complex, not just because RAAC is through the whole of the span of the roof, the flat roof, but actually it is very challenging to position cranes and to work on the roof. She added that the solution that has been sourced is to actually replace the roof from inside, and that's because of how challenging it is to work on that building and the very tight footprint that St David's Hall occupies.

Ruth Kayford added that Sandy Brown's work was important to make sure that the design didn't sort of fail the acoustic test, and that the building got listed while discussions were initially going on with AMG, which added significant additional time to the whole process of securing planning permission and for agreeing the designs for the roof.

Councillor Peter Wong asked whether the current design was approved by CADW³. Donna Jones responded that her understanding was that it was all good to go now, and that everything's all the approvals they need are in place. Councillor Peter Wong asked who oversees the work going forward. Donna Jones responded that AMG are responsible for the work in line with the planning conditions, but that the council would have oversight in terms of the work undertaken through the lease.

The committee agreed to send a letter to Councillor Jen Burke to seek more information on the type of agreement in place, what that means for the liability for the council, and what the contingencies are if something goes wrong. The committee also agreed to include Councillor Catriona Brown-Reckless's concerns about confidentiality and information not being in the public domain in the letter.

Filming in Cardiff

The committee received a cabinet response to the filming in Cardiff inquiry recommendations. John Day, OM for tourism and investment, said that the sector was important for Cardiff, employing something like 3,000 people. He added that the spirit of the work was really important for the council's overall economic objectives, and that the council did a lot of direct work in this area to support filming.

The committee had made 14 recommendations to the cabinet, of which nine were accepted, four were partially accepted, and one was not accepted.

The recommendation that was not accepted was a recommendation to explore the possibility for there to be an automatic flag on the Council's cost centre system that suggests using the 'Access for Filming' budget cost centre when the text entered includes relevant words such as film, filming, TV, drama etc. The cabinet response stated that the Council's SAP financial ledger system does not have this functionality and therefore this is not able to be put in place.

The recommendations that were partially accepted related to the introduction of a rate card for council locations, a separate fees and charges regime for film productions that bring long-term repeat business to Cardiff, the resources available in the Film Office for managing film requests, and the resources available in Network Management for dealing with film-related administration. The cabinet response stated that these would be explored and considered as part of the budget setting exercise.

Councillor Margaret Lewis asked if there were any alternative tracking methods that could be used for the recommendation that was rejected. John Day responded that the council would look to include GL codes⁴ within its spend analysis. Councillor Peter Wong said that the task and finish group had a clear depth and also potentially a very productive outcome. He asked if any of the recommendations had been implemented so far. John Day responded that some of them would have an impact on the service area budgets, which would have to be considered as part of the budget set and exercise things.

Councillor Katrina Brown said that it was lovely seeing filming in Cardiff actually producing so many positive results for the city.

Councillor Rodney Berman said that it was good to see Cardiff depicted in programmes or films.

The committee agreed to receive a progress report on the work required to implement the agreed recommendations in April or May.

Shared Prosperity Fund

The committee received an update on the Shared Prosperity Fund (SPF). John Day, OM for tourism and investment, gave a presentation outlining some of the outcomes and outputs that had been achieved from the SPF. He said that the breadth of the impact of SPF was getting to the thousands in terms of the number of events that have been supported, and that circa 6,000 volunteering opportunities had been identified. He added that 111,000 people had somehow almost touched some form of engagement as part of SPF.

John Day said that the SPF had supported tens of thousands of people in the city in terms of either direct community support through community organisations, tens of thousands had been supported in terms of skills support, and hundreds of businesses had direct access to support through SPF. He added that thousands of events had also been supported.

John Day said that the majority of the spend took place in the last year, and that the council hadn't really been able to capture fully the impact of the amount of that spend because necessarily it takes some time for the impacts to come through. He noted that the biggest amount of funding was focused on the people and skills area, and that the interwork service within Cardiff Council was massively reliant on SPF funding.

John Day said that the council was currently in the transition year with SPF, and that it had taken a cabinet report in October last year outlining the road map for how it would deal with that should it come through. He added that the allocation for this financial year was around £14 million, which is around about a 40% drop.

John Day said that the information the council had to date was that there is a budget of £211 million next year for Wales, which broadly covers the SPF and its type of activities, albeit with some slightly different language. He added that this was equivalent in cash terms to this year's transition, and that it was set for three financial years from April next year onwards. He said that the council was still waiting to understand how that funding will be used, and just confirmation on the governance around what SPF will look like post April 2026.

Councillor Peter Wong asked what representations had been made to try to make sure that Cardiff is no worse off than it was before. John Day responded that representations had been made collectively with the other local authorities, and that all they were able to do really is promote the good work that they've done to date through SPF. He added that the administration costs of the lead body and the region for delivering SPF is less than half a percent, which means that money is flowing out to communities and organisations.

Councillor Margaret Lewis asked what lessons had been learned from the SPF program, and how will these inform success of schemes. John Day responded that the first and most obvious issue that the council had with it was the timescales involved in deploying the funding, and that there's a very real lesson to be had there in terms of what happens with the next round. He added that if you're designing these programmes there's got to be a significant leading for them to be done efficiently, and that's not just about making sure you're spending the money it's about making sure spent in the right places and you're undertaking the appropriate community engagement to understand where it goes in future spending priorities.

Councillor Eleanor Hopkins asked if the council didn't keep all the funding and it gets allocated to someone else how would you decide out of the three main sectors in a way where the majority of the funding will go. John Day responded that there would be an element of understanding what's having the biggest impact, which would have to fit in with the criteria of the funding. He added that ultimately if there's a decision between political priorities as for cabinet and others to determine what that would look like, but for officers there would need to be a prioritization of the projects which have delivered and those which a requirement actually in some cases for employment to stay in place.

Councillor Eleanor Hopkins asked why there were only four trees planted as part of the scheme. Sasha Morgan, the outcome delivery officer for the SPF, responded that that was from a specific project, Green and So On, that the council did with Cardiff University.

Councillor Rodney Berman asked if any form of risk assessment had been done as to what the impact would be of every funded project. John Day responded that the council was going through that risk assessment as they speak, and that they've been doing a fairly detailed piece of work with all of the various projects as part of SPF to identify what the impact would be in terms of a cessation of funding in terms of the services they deliver and the impact that would have on communities. He added that the exercise was also seeking to identify the number of jobs that that would be risk as part of SPF, and that there are jobs that would be at risk if funding isn't put in place in the future.

Councillor Rodney Berman asked if that was something that the council would be able to share with the committee at a later stage. John Day responded that ideally they wouldn't come to that, but that they were having to do that in preparation.

Councillor Katrina Brown-Reckless asked whether officers find the share prosperity fund mechanism a helpful way of allocating funding. John Day responded that overall it has been a good process, and that there's been this flexibility in it that allows funding to get out to what would be local priorities. He added that if you would compare it with some of the previous structural funds approaches where the grant rules often determined where the money was spent rather than what people actually thought was needed in an area, and I think that that has been relatively positive experience because it's shaped by what people want to deliver and and how they determine how they want to do that.

Councillor Anny Anderson asked if there was any idea when the council expected to hear what will be happening with the next phase of funding. John Day responded that he didn't know, and that the council had emphasized the importance of speed in making that decision at all points where they can.

Councillor Anny Anderson asked if there was any further information on what a trailblazer neighborhood is. John Day responded that he understood it's a small area that'd be considered as part of it with some targeted support over a 10 year period, but that other than that he was just waiting for further information in terms of what it would mean.

Councillor Owen Jones said that Adamstown is certainly a trailblazing and needs the funding. He asked whether the department was under pressure from every direction to go can we use this here can we use it here, and so how is prioritization quite hard. John Day responded that the money was allocated at the start of the year, and that that was fairly in stone.

Councillor Owen Jones asked if there is a better project that isn't in place that has now been thought up, is that the best use of this funding. John Day responded that in the context of this year because the council had such a reduction it enabled the prioritization of those projects which were actually delivering and doing things. He added that the council do need to consider for what would be the council internal projects that whole prioritization of whether we want to be doing those things in the first place anyway.

Councillor Peter Wong asked if the council was lobbying the UK government or Welsh government as well. John Day responded that the council had regular meetings with UK officials, and that there will be correspondence with both UK government.

Councillor Peter Wong asked for examples of what was really excellent data gathering or more difficult from some of the projects. Sasha Morgan responded that the constraints of the program is when someone achieves an outcome we need like a signed piece of paper from that individual, and that the numbers are way higher for things like well-being and hubs.

The committee agreed to send a letter to Councillor Huw Thomas to ask for a risk analysis of where the council is with SPF projects.

Work Programme

The committee agreed its work programme for 2025 and 2026. The committee agreed to undertake a short scrutiny on allotments, and to establish task and finish groups on place-based economic initiatives and improving the experience of city centre users.

Councillor Peter Wong volunteered for the City Centre Management task and finish group. Councillor Peter Jenkins volunteered for the Place Based Economic Interventions task and finish group.

Corporate Joint Committee, Joint Overview and Scrutiny Committee and Western Gateway Partnership

The committee received an update on the Corporate Joint Committee (CJC), its Joint Overview and Scrutiny Committee, and the Western Gateway Partnership.

Angela Holt, a council officer, reported that the Western Gateway Partnership had closed in June 2025 after the UK Government withdrew funding.

Angela Holt said that there had been meetings of the CJC in March, June and July, and that the next meeting was scheduled for October. She added that there had been one meeting of the CJC scrutiny since the last update, and that this had elected a new chair and vice chair, and held a review of scrutiny.

Councillor Owen Jones said that the sheer vastness of the CJC can be difficult to scrutinize, but that clear steps were being taken towards that.

The committee agreed to circulate the CJC scrutiny annual report.

Correspondence

The committee received an update on correspondence. Angela Holt reported that there were quite a few responses outstanding, but that a response had been received from Councillor Bradbury to the committee's letter following its employment services short scrutiny.

Urgent Items

There were no urgent items.

Way Forward

The committee discussed the way forward.

Date of Next Meeting

The next meeting will be held on Tuesday 14 October 2025 at 4.30pm.