ABERTILLERY RAILWAY STATION

The town of Abertillery in Blaenau Gwent (has a population of about 18,000) and high unemployment. As a former mining town, since the 80's,has suffered a significant increase in benefit receipt, a significant decline in amenities and relatively low economic and employment opportunities. In Scotland simular former mining towns have benefited economically and socially from having old railway lines to Glasgow opened. The re-opening of the Ebbw Vale line to Cardiff (and hopefully eventually to Newport) has brought opportunities to the Ebbw Valley.

Sign the petition to open a train station at Abertillery.

A direct rail link and a railway station in Abertillery would give people access to job opportunities in Cardiff and on the coastal belt. The restored rail link would also bring tourism to a beautiful and historic part of our country. At present the floored devolution settlement means that the Department for Transport makes the final decision on re-opening old railways and building new stations, even if the National Assembly wants it done.

TAKING THE LONG VIEW?

When it comes to economic development (sustainable or otherwise) I am no longer sure that the Westminster system of Government is capable of taking, let alone sticking to any long term decisions, they take. I have my doubts about the current development model being considered by the Labour in Wales Government (‘pushed’ is far too dynamic a word to be associated with this inert government) in Cardiff Bay. Despite the rhetoric and the speech making I suspect that we have reached that point where there are no new ideas, merely recycled old ones.

With the government in Cardiff bay effectively passing itself off as the old Welsh Office in drag, I would not be surprised if we see a new ‘Welsh Development Agency’ launched in the relatively near future. Following old flawed models of economic development planning for Wales (‘one egg, one basket’) just won’t wash anymore, and neither will simply waiting for a Labour victory in Westminster which might (from a Labour in Wales perspective) start the largesse flowing down the M4 again.

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.

One, but, not the only, potentially key area for economic activity is that of our town centres. Over the years regeneration scheme has followed regeneration scheme yet with a few exceptions we have failed to find a way of creating the right conditions for sustainable prosperity in most but not all of our towns. Regeneration has become one of those words that has no real meaning anymore. It is 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? This is something that 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 (having vacuumed up significant funds to distant bank accounts) have the various schemes made a difference?

I suspect that ‘regeneration’ is now an industry in itself and a pretty well paid one at that. Beyond any immediate physical improvements to the locality and the local environment, do many of the regeneration schemes make 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 community’s greatest resource – is ironically its people. So rather than regeneration and redevelopment professionals moving in and engaging in a token consultation process they should directly talk to local people and 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 bottom up rather than the top down. The bottom line should be when spending public money, work it extra hard and squeeze out every single 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. As had been said elsewhere, regeneration should be a process rather than an event.

Over the last thirty years, we have all seen the commercial hearts of many of our communities have been seriously damaged as a result of a combination of aggressive policies pursued by the larger retail chains and exceptionally poor decision making on the part of local government and central government indifference. The result of the abject failure or indifference of local and central government when it comes to developing realistic local economic plans leads to a failure to create a level playing field for local businesses and suppliers. This when combined with some very questionable planning decisions over the last thirty years, has directly lead to many of our town centre's being "regenerated" to death.

The rise in the number of shops owned by larger retail chains damages the local economy, drains profit out of the area to remote corporate headquarters and reduces local job opportunities. Ten pound spent in a local business circulates in the local economy three times longer than if it is spent in a non local business. A real side effect of this is a real loss of a sense of community, a loss of local character as our high streets has lead to our high streets losing lost their distinctive local shops which have been replaced by “micro-format” supermarket or chain store branches and any real loss of choice for the customers.

Now the National Assembly Government is now looking to simplify the planningprocess to held railroad through large developments potentially overturning logical planning decisions and local opposition. Yes, the planning system needs overhauling, but, not at the expense of fundamentally damaging democratic control of the planning process – already weakened by years of National Assembly / Welsh Office indifference to local needs. Any plans to speed up the planning process should not at the cost of creating unsustainable developments that further damage the regional economy, our high streets and our communities.

Oddly enough, poor regulation, stupidity and greed and a desire by Government’s (of all political hues) to look the other way as long as things appeared (on the surface at least) to be working all contributed to drop us all in it economically. Now here in Wales, our local authorities, certainly not the best guardian of the public interest and our environment have been bluntly told, by the Welsh Government, that they should recognise that ‘there will be occasions when the economic benefits will outweigh social and environmental considerations’. 

It is one thing to have ‘a Government of Spivs, by Spivs and for Spivs’ in Westminster, quite another to have a government of the inert and the inept in Cardiff Bay allegedly standing up for Wales.  Sadly neither government appear to have any real interest in sorting out our economic problems.  The rules and regulations are now blamed for the lack of economic growth rather than it being a combination of the banking crash, the bankers recklessness and years of stupidly allowing the so called ‘free market’ to drive economic policy and economic planning. 

A GOVERNANCE OF SPIVS...

The Westminster government is promising (in England) to get planning officers "off people's backs" with a relaxation of current rules. In true Spiv fashion ‘ for a limited period, people will be allowed to build larger extensions on houses (up to eight metres for detached homes and six for others). Shops and offices will also be able grow to the edges of their premises as Plan A (harsh Public Sector Cuts) fails and a note of desperation creeps in Westminster ministers seek to boost the economy.

On the surface it sounds good; it seems reasonable, save for the fact that somewhere amidst the smoke and mirrors is a plan to reduce developer’s obligations to build proportional amounts of affordable housing. Not that long ago, a matter of a few months, the Westminster government rewrote the entire planning framework (for England) despite some fierce resistance from countryside campaigners. Now Westminster ministers want further changes to planning rules (in England) in an attempt to boost house-building and revive the economy.

Meanwhile this side of the bridge a major change in planning rules in Wales aims to ‘tilt the balance in favour of economic growth over the environment and social factors’. This decision may be aimed quite specifically at overturning those few occasions when our Local Authorities have rejected some developments (often at the behest of local residents) rather than putting economic needs ahead of economic and environmental benefits.

The Labour in Wales run Welsh government will formally announce this controversial move sometime next month. The problem lies not with the planning system, which is far too weak, and has proved itself to be more than capable of blatantly ignoring expressed local concerns, with few real consequences for the decision makers. Any meaningful supervision of the planning process by the Welsh Assembly Government has proved to be pretty minimal.

Quietly in Westminster we are moving towards having ‘a Government of Spivs, by Spivs and for Spivs’. The rules and regulations are blamed for the lack of economic growth rather than it being a direct consequence of the banking crash, the bankers recklessness and years of allowing the so called ‘free market’ to drive economic policy and economic planning. Oddly enough, overregulation and red tape did not cause the financial crash – the banks did.

Poor regulation, stupidity and greed and a desire by Government’s (of all political hues) to look the other way as long as things appeared (on the surface at least) to be working all contributed. Now here in Wales, our local authorities, certainly not the best guardian of the public interest and our environment have been bluntly told, by the Welsh Government, that they should recognise that ‘there will be occasions when the economic benefits will outweigh social and environmental considerations’.

Tell that to the residents of Torfaen, who have been fighting the plan and the good citizens of Abergavenny who have been fighting to retain the livestock market in the town. Or perhaps the concerned residents of Carmarthen who are worried about the impact of over large housing developments or the concerned residents of Holyhead who are opposed to new marina development. All these people (and all of us) have been ill-served by the planning system, by our local authorities and our own Government in Cardiff – why should we expect the Westminster Government to be any different...

THE SAME OLD STORY

The UK Attorney General asked the Supreme Court to decide whether parts of the Local Government Bill (2012) (which is about byelaws) are within assembly powers, provoking a degree of indignation from Cardiff Bay. The Bill was waiting for Royal Assent to become law having been passed by AMs before the summer recess this month.

The legislation would have been the first Bill to become law since the referendum in March last year. The Attorney General’s decision to obstruct the first bill to be passed in the Assembly since the successful referendum last year decision to block a new Welsh law should not really surprise anyone.

Traditionally both Westminster and Whitehall have always been fairly hostile or indifferent to devolution in Wales. The Attorney General’s decision indicates that the UK government has still not recognised the historic referendum result. This is simply the UK government interfering in our affairs something that is both unacceptable and fundamentally undemocratic.

The sooner the devolution settlement is amended so that, as in Scotland, we use a Reserved Powers model where everything is presumed to be devolved save for a handful of exceptions, the better. Aside from clearly defining the Assembly's current responsibilities, this would eliminate any future pointless time wasting spats between London and Cardiff.

WATER SOVEREIGNTY?

Cofiwch Dryweryn

Water is going to be a valuable resource for the people of Wales in future years, and who controls it, I suspect one of the key issues. The issue of water understandably raises strong emotions and stirs long memories here in Wales, especially when the likes of Boris Johnson starts chattering on about a network of canals being needed to carry water from the wet North to the dry South (for the ‘wet North’ read ‘Wales).

Now Boris's brainwave, is not a new idea, back in 1973, the Water Resources Board, the government agency (now defunct) published a major report that advocated building a whole raft of infrastructure to aid the movement of water, not to mention constructing freshwater storage barrages in the Ouse, Wash and Morecambe Bay, using a network of canals to move water from north to south, extending reservoirs and building new aqueducts, not to mention constructing a series of tunnels to link up river basins to aid the movement of water.

The plan for water in 1973

Despite the demise of the Water Resources Board in 1974 (two years before the 1976 drought) and its replacement by regional water management bodies, which were privatised in the 1980’s the issue has never really gone away. The Environment Agency produced a report entitled "Do we need large-scale water transfers for south-east England?" (in 2006), in answer to its own question at the time it said no.

Yet faced with a prolonged period of drought in the South East of England, DEFRA itself held a drought summit on the 20th of February this year. The Con Dem Government continues to doggedly pursing its Water for Life agenda, as part of which the Water Industry (Financial Assistance) Bill to be met. The Government has stated that it remains committed to the remaining legislative measures set out in Water for Life and fully intends to publish a draft Water Bill in the coming months.

Whatever Westminster decides to do, we (in Wales) need to have democratically control of our own resources, we could start with repatriating control of the crown estates transferring control of lands in (and off) to the Welsh Government in Cardiff. For the life of me I can see no realistic reason why this feudal anachronism cannot be consigned to the dustbin of history.

This should be followed up by taking a long hard look at our water resources and what we get for them and how we can develop them. I see absolutely no reason why the Welsh people cannot fully benefit from any future exploitation of Welsh resources, including our water. We need a whole Wales strategy to develop and to conserve our water supplies and our planning regulations will need to be tweaked or rewritten accordingly.

Most people will not be particularly shocked to discover that coincidentally that the Government of Wales Act specifically excludes the Assembly from making any laws relating to water supply – hmm – odd that isn't it? The bottom line is that our water resources should belong to the Welsh people, not to Private corporations or to the UK Government.

JUDGE, JURY, EXECUTIONER AND BENEFICIARY

Conservative dominated Monmouthshire County Council (MCC) desire to dispose of the cattle market site (and the Cattle Market) in Abergavenny to temporarily boost the local authorities coffers is well known and well documented. Now MCC to fulfil it's development plans has to persuade the National Assembly to repeal the original parliamentary legislation (dating for the 19th century) which gives Abergavenny the legal right to hold a market within the town - as part of one of three Abergavenny Improvement Acts.

MCC has long struggled to balance the books for many years, suffering from a poor financial settlement, which has driven the Authority to dispose of its assets for relative short term financial gain. The harsh reality is that MCC, along with many local authorities across Wales, is far too small to be viable in terms of finances, delivery of services and economies of scale. What has effectively happened is that local residents in Monmouthshire (and elsewhere) have ended up paying the price for the demise of Gwent.

Most people can see, with the exception of MCC and its planners; that the public, given a choice, are more than happy to buy local produce and to support local retailers. Most people don't want to see a local high street entirely dominated by national chains. A successful dynamic and diverse local economy has a place for the larger retailer and the supermarket chain, but, not at the expense of everything else and particularly when it will lead to the destruction of our small town high streets.

Over a number of years there have been various ongoing campaigns to retain the livestock market (n Abergavenny and to preserve the unique character of Abergavenny as a traditional market town shows. There have been detailed surveys (of residents, visitors and local small farmers have been undertaken), petitions raised and research commissioned and conducted over the years - all showing that both local residents, visitors and many local farmers wish to retain an active Cattle Market in Abergavenny.

Now MCC should have made the most of these real opportunities to get things right when it came to planning the long term economic future of Abergavenny - they did not. They repeatedly failed to grasp opportunities to begin the whole sorry process afresh, working hand in hand with concerned local residents, farmers and small businesses to ensure that Abergavenny retains its Cattle Market and it's fundamentally unique character as a market town - yet for reasons of short term financial gain they chose not too.

Across Monmouthshire (and elsewhere in England and Wales) we have to often in the past seen ill-thought out unsympathetic redevelopments that have had a detrimental effect on the local economies in both Chepstow and Monmouth and elsewhere. The retention of the cattle market in Abergavenny presents a real opportunity to do something fundamentally different, something that should be able to address both environmental and economic concerns and contribute to the retention of the unique character of the market town that is Abergavenny.

Oddly enough the National Assembly Ministers has to repeal the nineteenth century Abergavenny Improvement Acts before any development of the cattle market site can actually take place. Additionally under Section 77 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 the National Assembly has the power to call in any applications for planning permission for their own determination, something that clearly should have been done in this specific case - so far they have chosen not to do this.

While there is often a tendency to consider that development proposals are best dealt with by planning authorities that know their area, its needs and sensitivities, it is pretty obvious that with regard to MCC, and the redevelopment of Abergavenny and its cattle market this is clearly not the case, hence a real a pressing need to call in this proposed development. Even when MCC changed the composition of the Planning Committee because it returned the wrong verdict (against rather than in favour of the development), there was barely a peep from the National Assembly.

Even at the eleventh hour, planning applications can be called in when they raise issues of more than local importance, issues which are in conflict with national planning policies; could have wide effects beyond their immediate locality; may give rise to substantial controversy beyond the immediate locality and are likely significantly to affect sites of scientific, nature conservation or historic interest or areas of landscape importance which covers almost every single aspect of MCC's proposed redevelopment of Abergavenny cattle market.

Most people can see that Abergavenny needs to retain its unique, attractive features and not join the sterile trend towards large retail and supermarket-dominated clone town centre deserts – save for MCC and the National Assembly that is. In the not so recent past a whole range of suppliers, traders and small businesses who sell to consumers and too each other have along with whole communities suffered from this increasingly well recognised but misguided model of retailing and economic development. Elsewhere in Monmouthshire, the damage done to Monmouth and Chepstow by ill-thought out retail chain dominated economic redevelopment - no one in their right mind would want to damage Abergavenny's economy and unique character as a market town - save for MCC that is.