Minutes of a meeting held on 11th October, 2016.


Present:  Councillor Mrs. A. Moore (Chairman); Councillor Mrs. P. Drake (Vice-Chairman); Councillors A.G. Bennett, G.A. Cox, A.G. Powell, A.P. Riley, G. Roberts, S.T. Wiliam and M.R. Wilson.


Also present: Councillors L. Burnett, G. John, Dr. I.J. Johnson, P. King and N. Moore. 




This was received from Councillor Mrs. M. Kelly Owen.



438     WELCOME –


Prior to the meeting, the Chairman welcomed Councillor A.P. Riley to his first meeting of the Environment and Regeneration Scrutiny Committee.



439     MINUTES – 


RECOMMENDED – T H A T the minutes of the meeting held on 19th July, 2016 be approved as a correct record.





No declarations were received.





The Chairman had requested that a presentation be made to the Scrutiny Committee in respect of the new arrangements for waste collection in the Vale. The Chairman further stated that it was also timely due to the fact that at a recent Council meeting a number of queries had been raised by Members of the Council in relation to the new arrangements.  As a result, all Members of the Council had therefore been invited to attend the meeting to hear the presentation and take part in the debate should they wish to do so. 


The Operational Manager for Waste Management commenced the presentation by providing a brief overview of the facilities used to treat, process and dispose of recycling and waste, provided an update in terms of waste contracts, an explanation to the recent changes made to the collection rounds, provided an assessment of the problems experienced, lessons learned and outcomes to date together with information in terms of performance and any future changes proposed.


In referring to Waste Disposal, the Operational Manager advised that this included all domestic refuse collected fortnightly, commercial waste, street cleansing waste, HWRC waste and bulky waste.  These were all treated at Viridor’s Energy Recovery Facility (ERF) at Trident Park as part of the Prosiect Gwyrdd initiative.  The 25 year contract from 1st April, 2016 was in place in partnership with Cardiff, Newport, Caerphilly, Monmouthshire and the Vale.  The facility was a 350,000 tonne per annum facility, which was the largest ERF in Wales and could generate enough energy to power 50,000 homes.  Of note was the fact that approximately half of the ERF maximum tonnage originated from the five partners of Prosiect Gwyrdd.


For dry recycling, this included all domestic and commercial recycling collected weekly made up of paper, cans, glass, plastics, cardboard, aerosols, foil and tetra packs.  A three year contract with Casepak Ltd to process and sort the materials was in place, which would expire on 31st March, 2017.  The Department was proposing to extend the contract for a further 12 months and all dry recycling collected was taken to Cardiff City Council’s waste transfer station in Lamby Way by the Vale Council’s collection vehicles.  It was subsequently collected by Casepak Ltd and transported to Leicester to their Materials Recovery Facility.


With regard to food and green waste, this included all weekly domestic and commercial organic waste and was transported to Cowbridge Compost.  Any residual green waste was windrowed.  The Council was contracted up to 31st March, 2017 but this would not be extended or renewed.  From 31st March, 2017 food waste would be treated at a new Anaerobic Digestion Plant which would capture energy recovery from the food waste.  Cardiff Council would be the principal contractor with the Vale having an IAA with Cardiff City Council.  The plant would be operated by Kelda Organic Energy (Cardiff) Ltd, with the energy being taken to a nearby Welsh Water Plant.  Any residual waste would be turned into a sustainable fertiliser recycled to local agriculture and green waste would be Open Windrowed Composted at Lamby Way Depot, Cardiff.


In referring to the new collection rounds that had taken place throughout the Vale in recent months, the need for change was described in order to meet challenging efficiency savings and preparation for Reshaping Services.  The targets were reported as £250k for transport savings and £190k for organic services savings.  The Operational Manager advised that old rounds had become less efficient and the Council had been unable to capture new efficiencies as a result.  There had been low productivity and the fleet spread too far apart to enable team work ethic.  The presentation also provided details of recycling rounds pre 2012, the refuse and recycling rounds that had been revised to incorporate co-mingling and single collection days between 2012 and 2016 and maps which detailed the new refuse and recycling collection days, which were detailed in colour code for each day of the week, excluding Saturdays and Sundays, and the new five recycling collection day zones that had been developed.  Copies of the presentation were available at the meeting and would be placed on the Council’s website.


The challenges that had taken place in establishing the revised rounds had centred around how the Council could effectively communicate with every household.  Of note was the fact that the exercise had been undertaken with the same operational staff who had always implemented change over the years, a six month pilot scheme had taken place in respect of consultation with collection staff, a letter had been sent to every householder, adverts placed in the Barry and District, Penarth Times and the Gem, together with Facebook posts for ten days and Twitter, Council e-news and the internet. 


This had resulted in an increase in communication compared with previous changes that had taken place, although it was noted that more services were delivered than before.  The problems experienced related to the fact that some residents had not even opened the letters, waste was being placed out on the wrong days, the calendar was not being followed, staff learning new areas with an increase in productivity and there had been between one to three weeks variation on revised refused collection days across households. 


The overall outcomes for the service were reported as: 

  • It would improve the Council’s efficiency and reduce costs
  • It would improve staff team working ethic and staff moral
  • Improve ability to share resources
  • A single zone approach reduced the need for multiple support vehicles across the Vale
  • It would assist with street cleansing services and resources could focus on zonal collection days rather than trying to spread across the whole Vale on multiple collection days
  • A single zone approach had the potential to accommodate other service provisions such as grass cutting.

The lessons learned to date included: 

  • The Council would hold staff consultation sessions to reflect back on the collection day changes, assess outcomes and align future approaches
  • Consider all the feedback from residents in terms of the communications used
  • Introduce refresher training sessions for collection staff in terms of returning boxes and bags
  • Implement service quality monitoring
  • Consider using front line C1V staff for engaging with residents prior to any future changes
  • Include communications when capturing public opinions whilst undertaking Recycling Roadshows.

Progress made against savings targets would be undertaken during November 2016. The current existing recycling rate was reported as almost 65%, Welsh Government’s last statutory target in 2015/16 being 58%.  The Vale was the second highest performing Council in Wales in terms of recycling performance during 2015/16 with a recycling rate of over 64%.  Compared with other Authorities in Wales, on a per household basis, the Vale of Glamorgan were ranked as the third lowest in Wales.  Refuse collection costs in the Vale were the second cheapest in Wales.  The Council’s greatest area for improvement was dry recycling where it was ranked ninth in Wales, and the service was sustainable in terms of the receptacles used and did not justify the productivity outcome.


Future changes could include: 

  • Consideration of The Waste Framework Directive and TEEP (Technically, Environmentally and Economically Practicable).  Authorities needed establish whether separating materials would improve quality
  • WRAP (Waste and Resources Action Programme) had a draft report in progress
  • Services would continue to evolve and recycling participation would be ongoing
  • Next recycling target was 64% (2019/20) and 70% by 2025
  • Development of a new waste transfer station
  • Update of our Waste Strategy
  • Consideration of things like black bag restrictions
  • 3GS Environmental Enforcement Officers.

A question and answer session following the presentation, with the Operational Manager advising that he had also received queries from a Member that day, the responses for which he had included in his presentation.  In relation to garden waste, he could confirm that this was causing a number of problems for return after collection as the bags were not weighted and often blew away.  As a result, the Department had recently ordered a new type of green bag similar to the blue recycling bags, which contained weights in order that they could not easily be blown away.  There was also a dedicated supervisor who undertook quality checks following refuse collections on a regular basis.  Photographic evidence of some areas where issues had been raised were also taken and examples of how streets should look when collection had taken place as examples of good practice had been provided to collection staff to show the expectations that were required.   Although aware that some staff had to get used to the new zones, the areas and the new ways of working, it was hoped that this was now beginning to settle down.  It was the intention to speak to C1V staff to analyse the issues and opinions from the public and their experiences in order for the Council to ensure that the service was as efficient and effective as possible.  In November 2016 it was anticipated that an assessment would be made of the service changes and what progress had been made towards savings targets.   


Members welcomed the presentation, accepting that in any new system there would be “teething” problems.  Members considered that effective communication was essential in order to undertake any changes smoothly, with the Operational Manager referring to the fact that the changes had included two systems being changed at the same time.  The only alternative that could have been used was to have deployed more vehicles, but that would have defeated the objective of obtaining efficiency savings.  The Operational Manager could however confirm that, in most cases, the general public had taken the new changes on board, but that there were still issues that needed to be addressed. 


Other questions raised were considered as follows:-




Would   it be possible to undertake dry recycling sorting closer to home than   travelling to Lamby Way in Leicester?

The   Council’s previous provider had been Biffa, but this had not been financially   viable to sustain.  Casepak Ltd had subsequently   been appointed and was one of the flagship organisations in this field in particular   with regard to processing less contamination of waste. It was the Operational   Manager’s view that staying with Casepak Ltd was more efficient for the   Council at present and the contract was shortly to be considered for an extension   of a further 12 months. 

The   packaging of products should be an issue that should be tackled by   supermarkets and manufacturers, which the Council should encourage.

Organisations   should be held accountable with the Operational Manager advising that some   were taking responsibility.  There were   packaging regulations in place, although it was suggested further work could   be done on this by Welsh Government.

How   much extra is it costing for the equipment as a result of the new rounds?

There   were four vehicles and four crews. The reduction in the number of vehicles   equated to £125k per vehicle. This would be reviewed in November where a more   detailed analysis of how the service was doing would be made.  Other measures would also be considered to   see how the rounds could be assisted further.    For example the possibility of exploring part time rounds with an   extension of the working day in some areas.    It was possible that smaller vehicles could undertake double shift   rounds and also drivers could undertake “tip” rounds.  The actual down time that occurred needed   to be considered in more detail and as a result a number of trials would take   place over the forthcoming months to assess the service. 

Theft   of empty receptacles.

This   was an issue but there was not a lot the Council could do.  Of note was the fact that a resident had   chained their wheelie bin to a down pipe. The Operational Manager took the   opportunity to request that Ward specific issues be reported to him by   Members as soon as they occurred.


Councillor Dr. Johnson, with permission to speak, stated that his queries related to how the Department was going to deal with Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMOs), what the future was in relation to the Casepak contract expiring in 2017, what impact productivity targets would have for Trident, the continued use of agency workers and whether the Council had enough staff to deliver the service and referred the three week gap between the collection of black bags.


In response, the Operational Manager advised that the three week gap had been a difficulty but that the new model could not have been implemented without any issues.  The contract with Casepak would end in 2017.  The Department was hoping to extend the contract for a further 12 months and was hoping to construct a transfer station in the Vale of Glamorgan over the next few years.  With regard to HMOs, these were challenging for the Council as people did not take responsibility for the bin source and there was also a large turnover of residents in many flats.  However, he could confirm that the Department would continue to work with the identifying areas and urged Councillors to let him know if there were any issues in their particular wards.  With regard to any future increases in target having an impact on Trident the Operational Manager stated that a 70% target had already been factored in to the contract.  In respect of agency workers, he stated that provided the flexibility for service provision until the Council could decide how best to progress the service.  It was apparent that the Council would always be in need of some agency workers, but the situation at present was a short term arrangement.


In response to a query regarding working together with other Local Authorities to develop plants locally, the Operational Manager advised that he was keen to explore local solutions.  He referred to redundant land at the Atlantic site but stated that this would require a feasibility study and logistical discussions before any proposals would be put forward.


Following a question as to whether recycling rates by Ward were available it was noted that the cost to undertake such a study would be in excess of £50,000 and that it was difficult to get an accurate account of performance on a ward by ward basis in light of the zone system in operation.  A further participative study could be undertaken in order to undertake an analysis of performance, but this would require a substantial outlay in the first instance.  The Cabinet Member for Visible, Leisure and Regulatory Services reassured Members that he had every confidence in the service being successful and although there had been some initial problems, he took the opportunity to commend the teams for the amount of waste they had picked up over the months.  In particular he referred to the number of heavy garden waste bags that had been collected and concluded by thanking the Operational Manager for the presentation and the Chairman for the opportunity for the question and answer session that had taken place.


In concluding the discussions the Chairman thanked the Operational Manager on behalf of the Committee for an excellent presentation and for his comprehensive responses to questions raised. 


RECOMMENDED – T H A T a further update report on the new arrangements be presented to the Committee in due course.


Reason for recommendation


In recognition of the issues raised at the meeting and to monitor progress.





The Accountant for the service area commenced by referring to the adverse variance for Waste Management of £209k, which had been due to an overspend on staffing and transportation costs.  The round changes that had been implemented on 1st August would contribute towards the required savings, although it was anticipated that the changes would reduce the current overspend position by year end and that if it could not be fully achieved, provision would be made elsewhere within the Directorate.  There was currently a £55k favourable variance for Highways and Engineering, with the main reason being the vacant posts currently within the Department, and again it was stated that the underspend could be used to contribute towards overspends elsewhere within the Directorate.


In respect of the Transportation service area a favourable variance of £53k was reported as staffing costs within the division were lower than budgeted for and also income received for producing bus passes had been higher than budgeted for. 


Under Regeneration, the budget to date was currently on target with the income received from the Vale Enterprise Centre workshops currently below budget, with an exercise being underway to maximise income.  For Development Management there was an adverse variance relating to the Local Development Plan as expenditure had been delayed from 2015/16.  Funding had however been set aside in reserves for this purpose and would therefore be drawn down to offset the position.  Planning fee income had also been less than the anticipated profile for August which was considered to be due to uncertainty in the construction market as a result of the Referendum for the UK’s exit from the European Union.  Members were informed that the service was hoping that the situation would improve by the year end.


Appendix 2 to the report detailed the list of savings to be achieved in the year it being noted that whilst progress had been made towards achieving the savings, there had been a delay in commencing some of the schemes.  In respect of the installation of LED lighting, £1.2m had been included in the Capital Programme and installation would be undertaken during the year, however, a full year’s saving would not be achieved until 2017/18.  As a result of the waste collection rounds being revised, it was unlikely that the full savings for this service would be made in 2016/17 and there had been a delay in the exit from the JobFit contract which had resulted in a predicted shortfall against the savings target for Regeneration. 


Appendix 3 to the report detailed the financial progress on the Capital Programme as at 31st August, 2016 and a number of areas were highlighted to Members as detailed within the report as below:-


Safe Routes to Communities – It had been requested that the Port Road Cycle Way budget be increased by £44k and a new scheme included under this heading at the value of £30k for cycle counters.  Both would be funded from Section 106 monies.


Penlan Cycle / Footway – A request had been made that the scheme be increased by £4k, funded from Section 106 monies.


Office Alterations – As part of the closure of the 2015/16 accounts, funding was set aside for office alterations. 


Fferm Goch – Initial works had been undertaken on the Section 106 funded scheme e.g. site visit and topographical survey, however this scheme had now been prioritised for project implementation to be undertaken in 2017/18. 


Barry Regeneration Partnership – There was a budget of £54k included in the Barry Regeneration Programme for works to be undertaken at Gladstone Gardens.  In addition, there was also a budget for works to the Garden of £303k held under the Castleland Renewal Area budget. 


Tackling Poverty – Late additional grant funding was received from Welsh Government in the previous year and was used to fund the Barry Parks Enhancement Programme. 


Five Mile Lane – This was a £25.8m scheme which would be undertaken over several years the original programme had anticipated that land purchases would be undertaken in the year but there had been delays in bringing forward the Compulsory Purchase Orders and therefore it was unlikely that land would be purchased this financial year.  It had therefore been requested that £5.397m be carried forward into 2017/18.


In considering the report, a Member requested an update on the resurfacing of Sully Road and the Cogan Hall Farm Capital Scheme.  Following a query as to how speeding could be reduced on the road as it was a route to St. Cyres School, it was agreed that the Head of Visible Services and Transport provide the required updates   as necessary via e-mail for Members.


Concern was raised in respect of  progress relating to the LED Strategy, it being noted that the Department was currently going out to tender for the project, with it being anticipated that installation would occur from  east to west in the Vale from January 2017, subject to a successful contractor being appointed.  Members requested that as soon as the Department had received the information in relation to the contractor and when work would be timetabled, that all Members of the Council be informed as soon as possible in order to be able to advise their constituents accordingly.


For the Five Mile Lane scheme, the Head of Regeneration and Planning advised that work was currently ongoing relating to Compulsory Purchase Orders, objections for which had been received which were being considered, although most of the issues had to his knowledge now been resolved. 


The Chairman queried the work required to the Vale Enterprise Centre, and the Managing Director advised that the building was relatively well “let” but some parts were not in an appropriate condition for letting.  The intention was to improve the facility in order that further letting opportunities could be made available as there was interest in the accommodation but it needed to be improved in order to recoup such income. 


In referring to some savings not being able to be achieved as a result of various delays, a Member suggested that the Council should be more realistic with its expectations for realising savings when planning and to not be overly optimistic. 


Following consideration of the report, it was subsequently


RECOMMENDED – T H A T, having considered various aspects in detail, the position with regard to the 2016/17 revenue and capital monitoring be noted.


Reason for recommendation


Having regard to the comments and information provided at the meeting.





The Managing Director, in presenting the report, advised that the reports were presented in the new style of performance reporting.  As part of the review of its Performance Management Framework, the Council had recently adopted a new Corporate Plan which reflected the requirements of the Wellbeing of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015 and identified four wellbeing outcomes and eight objectives for the Council.


The performance report was structured in seven parts, four sub-sections covering Outcome Summary, Performance Snapshot, Key Achievements and Challenges, and Corporate Health: Use of Resources and Impact on Improvement; and three appendices,  Appendix 1 providing detailed information relating to the service plan actions which had contributed to Corporate Plan actions, Appendix 2 providing details of Performance Indicator information linked to each Well-being Objective and Appendix 3 providing an explanation of the performance terms used within the report.  The performance report also used the traffic light system Red, Amber, Green (RAG) status and a Direction of Travel to aid performance analysis.  Progress was therefore reported for all key Performance Indicators by allocating a RAG status with Green relating to performance that had met or exceeded target, Amber relating to performance within 10% of target and Red relating to performance that missed target by more than 10%. 


The report stated that at Quarter 1 all 19 Corporate Plan actions under the Outcome were on track to be delivered.  However, at the meeting the Managing Director referred to the fact that this should read 18 out of the 19 Corporate Plan actions were on track to be delivered as slippage had been reported at Quarter 1 on the delivery of the Rural Development Plan, which had been largely due to uncertainty regarding the eligibility of some spends.  This had however since been clarified and work was progressing as planned.  The overall status for the actions however remained as Green. 


During the presentation of the report, the Managing Director highlighted a number of issues contained within the report as below:- 

  • The high take-up of coastal award concessions for attractions at Barry Island and the interest that had taken place in the Barry Island Beach Huts, with all year long rentals being fully booked on the first day of being made available. 
  • Under Waste Management the Vale had recycled an impressive 64% of its waste in 2014/15, although by 2024 this figure would have to be pushed above 70% to meet new national targets. 
  • Five seaside locations in the Vale of Glamorgan had received national coast awards, including two prestigious Blue Flag awards at Whitmore Bay and Penarth Marina. 
  • Work was well advanced in collaborating with the South East Wales Authorities on the City Deal and a Shadow Joint Cabinet had been established to oversee the next stages in working up a City Deal.

Paragraphs 16 and 17 dealt with regeneration projects, it being noted that construction work was underway on a £100k investment into Barry library that would see a state of the art adult learning centre established and the building transformed into a learning hub for the Vale of Glamorgan. 


Of further note also was the fact that all “full plan” applications had been approved – first time at Quarter 1 and the service continued to deliver top quartile performance whilst receiving increased number of applications. 


In relation to key challenges, the Managing Director referred to issues of capacity and skills being referenced in the Outcome Summary, this particularly being the case in relation to the day to day operational issues relating to Highway Engineering and Waste Management which had been mitigated by prioritising workload and using temporary and short term contracts to assist on service delivery at a time when reshaping activity was seeking to introduce new ways of working.  Another key challenge had been the decision to roll out LED lighting across the Vale of Glamorgan within the next six months which would represent an investment of £1.2m with a payback period of 7.54 years. 


In respect of Corporate Health issues, the Managing Director advised that staffing was an issue in certain areas in terms of both appointing to positions and skills required.  However, he advised that managing sickness absence had been more positive in the current Quarter 1 performance than it had been the previous year. 


The report also focused on service risks which related to the LDP, Reshaping Services programme and legislation changes, Waste Management and workforce continuity.  Emerging risks related to capacity to deliver capital schemes, which was being dealt with by prioritising schemes.  With regard to the management of Highway assets, funding had been set aside for the “Big Fill” initiative and resurfacing work and the street care and cleansing team had been able to maintain strategic services in green parks and the resorts. 


The Appendices to the report included detail on the Corporate Plan actions and the Performance Indicators. 


In considering the report, Members were pleased to note the Green status but queried how the status was measured.  It was noted that some of the targets were annual, and that first quarter actions were 25% completed which meant that the Council was on target.  It was suggested that a footnote regarding target measurement be added to the report for future reporting.  Aware that the base report was being presented to Committee during October, it was noted that the next Quarter 2 report would follow in a short timescale and would give a more realistic picture.  Members recognised that it was a work in progress, as it was a new system and the working group of Members and officers that had been appointed would be meeting in due course to consider any further improvements and lessons learned to date. 


The Chairman stated it was a far more meaningful report, in her view, than had ever been reported, recognising it was a work in progress, and she looked forward to future discussions.


In considering the report, a Member made reference to a number of reports that had not been submitted to the Committee which had been requested in their work programme, in particular referring to a road resurfacing report which had been presented to Cabinet in July and had not been reported to Scrutiny Committee and a progress report on the Beach Huts policy which was included on the Committee’s Forward Work Programme for January 2017.  In recognising that these items were indeed outlined within the Committee’s work programme, the Managing Director agreed to address the matter.


Following a query as to when the second road to the Island was to be completed, the Managing Director stated that he was hopeful for completion in the current financial year.  There were, however, housing development works being undertaken near to the highway which had not yet been adopted and as such was playing a part in delaying final completion.  As the road was not adopted as yet, this matter had to be dealt with via negotiation.  In response to a query regarding the number of occasions the pavement in the vicinity had been “dug up and replaced”, the Head of Service for Regeneration and Planning advised that a number of companies had undertaken essential works at different times which had not been well co-ordinated, but unfortunately the Council was not in a position to dictate terms as the development was still within the hands of the developer.  Reference was made by the Managing Director that the second road to the Island was one element of a co-ordinated approach to managing traffic, and that the works undertaken on the Causeway and at the Ship Hill junction had made a very significant different in easing congestion.  A Member of the Committee agreed with this opinion.


During the discussion, the Chairman made reference to the work of the Committee’s Traffic Management Task and Finish Group, noting that key elements of the review had been addressed and she thanked the Members of that Group again for the work undertaken on the project.


Following a request for an update in relation to the Nell’s Point Project, the Managing Director stated that the site had been marketed twice.  In the first instance the response had been poor with the second time the response being more promising. However, due to a potential funding gap by a prospective developer, the issue had not been able to be furthered.  The Department was currently reviewing options and one option was to consider improvements to the former toilet block in order for the building to be more commercially viable with the Council then needing to consider whether the site should be marketed as a whole or as a split site.  It was therefore apparent that other options would now have to be pursued.


A Member raised the issue of fly tipping, with the Head of Visible Services and Transport advising that the new enforcement company 3GS that had been appointed would be able to take on such issues and would be mobilising within the next week.  Following a query for an update report in relation to the service, it was suggested that this be brought to a meeting of the Committee in early 2017 as a couple of months’ worth of information would be able to be presented.  Members were also advised that should there be issues in and around their Wards, that any hot spots be identified and reported via visible@valeofglamorgan.gov.uk and encouragement was given to members of the public to report any issues within their area.


In conclusion, a Member raised concern as to the statement attributed to the Eagleswell School site project in the report, in that it was their view that consultation would be undertaken in relation to options for the site.  However, the action detailed within the report on page 21 referred to the site being prepared for marketing.  The Head of Regeneration and Planning advised that originally the scheme had been authorised to be marketed for retail and housing.  However, it had been established that as a result of the ongoing work for the LDP, the retail capacity was not as high as previously anticipated, with the result that the potential would be for residential and a small scale Metro type store. 


Having fully considered the report, it was subsequently




(1)       T H A T the performance report for Quarter 1 be accepted, noting that it was a far more meaningful report than the previous approach.


(2)       T H A T the outstanding reports as referred to above and as detailed within the Committee’s Work Programme be scheduled to be presented.


Reasons for recommendations


(1)       To ensure the Council clearly demonstrates the progress being made towards achieving its Corporate Plan Well-being Outcomes aimed at making a positive difference to the lives of Vale of Glamorgan citizens.


To ensure the Council is effectively assessing its performance in line with the requirement to secure continuous improvement outlined in the Local Government Measure (Wales) 2009 and reflecting the requirement of the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015 to maximise its contribution to achieving the Well-being goals for Wales.


(2)       In order that the Committee can receive reports and up to date information on projects as outlined and as within the Committee’s work programme.