NEWPORT'S CHARTIST MURAL DESTROYED!

And end to childhood memories in Newport

The destruction of the popular Chartist mural, just off John Frost Square (in Newport) today has robbed many Newport residents of part of their personal and cultural history. I have fond memories of walking past the mural as child with my grandmother and being fascinated by it. Now its gone, reduced to rubble on the (relative) quiet by a by the Labour Party in Newport, which was anxious to avoid embarrassing scenes at a demo planned for the weekend.

The pathetic excuses made by Labour in Newport and their refusal to engage and find a way to save the mural just about sums up the way the town of Newport has been treated over the years. Few people are against development or redevelopment but it needs to be sustainable and sympathetic to the needs of the town. The failure to work with local indigenous small businesses in and around Newport is a reality that has done great economic damage to the local economy and has weakened our economy.

We have to do something different, yet another shopping centre, which promises much but may well deliver little of lasting benefit, exactly as did the Kingsway Shopping Centre (in the 1970's).  Any shopping development should contain retail opportunities for small local businesses as money spent in local businesses circulates three times as long as money spent in 'UK national chains. Simply filling the development with chains means that what local money is spent will get hoovered up and vanished out of town as rapidly as possible. Various attempts to develop or redevelop Newport over the years, largely via the questionable vehicle of Newport Unlimited (more like 'Newport limited') have failed to deliver lasting economic growth. Planned local council cuts of some £34 million pounds won't help, but, neither will a complete lack of vision and the contempt which has been demonstrated for the towns inhabitants today.

A CROWN FOR YOUR THOUGHTS?

Meanwhile Community Land Scotland, which represents Scotland's community landowners has in submissions to the UK Scottish Affairs Committee and Scottish Scotland Bill Committee, for radical reform of the way the Crown Estate operates in Scotland and for some of its roles should be taken over by community groups. MPs and MSPs are looking into the future of the Crown Estate's functions in Scotland at the moment.

The Crown Estate in rural Scotland owns 91,400 acres (37,000ha) of agricultural land, 12,300 acres (5,000ha) of forestry, residential and commercial property, salmon fishing rights, the Fochabers and Glenlivet estates in Moray, Whitehill Estate in Midlothian and land surrounding Stirling Castle. Not to mention 50% of the foreshore and beds of tidal rivers in Scotland and almost all the seabed out to 12 nautical miles.

For the record Community Land Scotland's members own some 500,000 acres (202,343ha). Recently a Scottish Agricultural College (SAC) report produced by researcher Dr Sarah Skerratt, suggests that community land ownership plays a successful role in encouraging people to live and work in remote and rural areas.

The SAC report noted that while many communities did not have the range of skills and capacity they needed for the task of purchasing and developing their land. People worked to overcome the challenges by bringing in training, guidance and support to help when they necessary. There is no reason why the Crown Estate's holdings in Wales should not also bring communal benefits to the Welsh people.

While not everything that works in Scotland will work in Wales the concept of local communities benefiting from ownership of local resources, be they land or energy or redevelopment schemes for that matter is something that we need to develop. There should be no barriers to this happening right across Wales basically wherever there are communities (urban or rural) willing to give it a go.

ECONOMIC REALITY AND VERBAL ASPIRATION

When it comes to economic development and regeneration providing the best conditions to enable our communities to grow and flourish, a sound planning policy is a key component. We should favour local small to medium sized enterprises and need to have much better thought out and far more consistent planning policies for in, out and edge of town retail developments, before our communities are damaged beyond repair.

Our Local Authorities have been too often tempted as developers offer includes, sweeteners and inducements to ease the passage of proposed developments. They may be advised of the financial consequences of planning applications being taken to appeal if permission is refused - so much for local democracy! Local Authorities periodically fail to have adequately researched retailing policies within their development plans. If retailing needs have not been assessed then it’s difficult to amend or refuse any potentially damaging planning applications from developers, then local small businesses and consumers pay the price.

Despite the talk (or lip service) about improving the vitality and viability of our town centres, many retail developments have consistently undermined this aim, many local authorities have turned a blind eye to the economic and social consequences of out of town or edge of town retail developments. The economic reality has fallen well short of the verbal aspiration, just look at the damage that has been done to Abergavenny, Chepstow and Monmouth within Monmouthshire and elsewhere in Wales.

How can local regeneration schemes work, when the once thriving commercial heart of our high streets has already been seriously damaged by an inability to compete on level terms with the increasingly aggressive tactics of supermarkets and retail chains who are chasing an ever larger market share. More than ever, our planners need to think about the long term economic consequences of planning decisions, to take the longer term view, rather than get fixated on short term financial gains and questionable inducements from developers.

You may have noticed that regeneration comes and goes in phases, in any particular community or town regeneration schemes will have cleaned areas up, built in cycle routes, created transport plans, pedestrianised streets, reopened them to traffic, re-pedestrianised them and made certain streets shared space with both cars and pedestrians (this is not as crazy as it sounds, and actually works) and so on.

We have restricted parking, created parking and removed parking, made it free and charged for it, created bus lanes, removed bus lanes and varied the hours when bus lanes can operate, etc - now this is all well and good and may reflect the latest trend in regeneration and development, but has it made the places where we live, work and shop any better? Has the regeneration process or scheme increased or generated wealth in our communities or provided people opportunities to get jobs, to go into business for themselves or generate wealth?

Regeneration is that often perceived (and sometimes it is) as being driven from the top down i.e. by elected bodies as a process that merely consults after the plans have been drawn up rather than before, during and after - any process run this way runs the risk of becoming deeply flawed. Our communities, towns and cities have over the years has been the recipient of much grant aid, development and redevelopment schemes and initiatives - how can we measure success?

Measuring a regeneration schemes success should be a key factor in the regeneration process. This is the question that needs to be asked - after the cement and the paint has dried, after the regeneration professionals have moved on - have the various schemes made a difference, I mean beyond any immediate physical improvements to the environment, have they made a real difference when it comes to wealth generation in the area affected by the regeneration scheme? If the end result is in reality a makeover, and the targeted community is no better off, save for being bereft of the 'regeneration funds' that have been effectively siphoned off by professional regeneration companies - is this success?

We need to think beyond the tick box list of the regeneration schemes managers? One key component that is often ignored or marginalised is the communities greatest resource - its people. So rather than regeneration and redevelopment professionals moving in and engaging in a token consultation process they should directly talk to and engage with local people and actually find out what they would like to be done, what they actually want for their community and their town.

Regeneration schemes and projects should be directed from the bottom up rather than the top down model that we often seem to pursue. When spending public money, then work it hard and squeeze out every possible benefit and maximise the impact locally of the regeneration process and build local benefits into the tendering process - whether by employing local people, using local resources, local skills and local input. If you are reusing or renovating old buildings then any regeneration scheme needs to ensure that old buildings can make a living after the regeneration scheme is finished.

If we do this rather than merely making a token gesture towards public consultation then any regeneration schemes will, with hard work really begin to deliver tangible benefits to our communities. After all regeneration should be a process rather than an event.

REGENERATION

Yesterday I was in Tenby at a conference on 'Town Centres' which looked at regeneration and the regeneration process and how it works - it was interesting and touched on a number of different themes and gave much food for thought. There was an interesting mix of participants, not just Plaid members, but representatives from a whole variety of different organisations and interest groups. A number of different ideas and concepts were discussed, some of which I have blogged on previously.  

Certainly if you live in various parts of Gwent or are intimately familiar with your home community, then Over the years you will have noticed that redevelopment / regeneration comes and goes in phases, in any particular community or town regeneration schemes will have cleaned areas up, built in cycle routes, created transport plans, pedestrianised streets, reopened them to traffic, re-pedestrianised them and (as is the case in Newport) make certain streets shared space with both cars and pedestrians (this is not as crazy an idea as it sounds, and actually works) and so on.

We have restricted parking, created parking and removed parking, made it free and charged for it, created bus lanes, removed bus lanes and changed the hours when bus lanes operate, etc - now this is all well and good and may reflect the latest trend in regeneration and development, but at the end of the day has it made the places where we live, work and shop better? Has the regeneration process or scheme increased or generated wealth in our communities or provided people with the opportunities to get jobs, to go into business for themselves or generate wealth? 

One of the (many of us would like to hope) unintended features of redevelopment is that quite often it is (or is perceived as being) driven from the top down i.e. by elected bodies whether they be Town or County Councils or the National Assembly - a process that merely consults after the plans have been drawn up rather than before, during and after - any process run this way runs the risk of becoming deeply flawed. The communities and towns and cities of South Wales have over the years has been the recipient of much grant aid, development and redevelopment schemes and initiatives - how can we measure success?  

Measuring a regeneration schemes success should be integral to the regeneration process. This is the question that needs to be asked - after the cement and the paint has dried, after the development / redevelopment / regeneration professionals have moved on - have the various schemes made a difference, I mean beyond any immediate physical improvements to the environment, have they made a real difference when it comes to wealth generation in the area affected by the regeneration scheme? If the end result is in reality a makeover, and the targeted community is no better off, save for being bereft of the 'regeneration funds' that have been effectively syphoned off by professional regeneration companies - is this success?

How do you make regeneration projects work beyond the tick box list of the regeneration schemes managers? One key component that is often ignored or marginalised during the regeneration process is the communities greatest resource - its people. If we truly want to build and develop strong sustainable communities then any regeneration scheme should from the start and at every stage of the process.

Rather than regeneration and redevelopment professionals coming into an area and engaging in a largely token consultation process it is vitally important that they should directly talk to and engage with not just local elected representatives but local people (who are a major asset to the process) and actually find out what they would like to be done, what they actually want for their community and their town.

Regeneration schemes and projects should be directed from the bottom up rather than the top down model with a built in token consultation element that we often seem implemented in the past. One other key thing to remember as was said yesterday, if you are spending public money, then you need to work it very hard and squeeze out every possible benefit.

We also need to maximise the impact locally of the regeneration process and build in local benefits into the tendering process - whether by employing local people, using local resources and / or local skills and local input. If regeneration schemes are reusing or renovating old buildings then any regeneration scheme needs to ensure that old buildings can make a living after the regeneration scheme is finished.

If we do this rather than merely making a token gesture towards public consultation then any regeneration schemes will with hard work really begin to deliver tangible benefits for our communities. After all regeneration should be a process not merely an event.