Live From Angel Street - January Communities Committee

The next webcast Bridgend Council (BCBC) meeting I'm going to focus on is the Community, Environment & Leisure Scrutiny Committee, held on Wednesday (27^th January) – you can watch it he....

Read More

Westminster 2015 : The Results

(Pic : Reuters via The Guardian)

First thing's first - I can rip my crap predictions up. Predicting is a mug's game as the polling companies are finding out to their cost. As has been said elsewhere, it's the most surprising result in a UK election since 1992, even 1945.

Read More

Bridgend's Deprivation Mapped

The Caerau Park and Tudor estates are placed near the top of the most
relatively deprived areas in Wales. What about the rest of the county?
(Pic : zoopla.com)

Last week, the latest figures from the triennial Welsh Index of Multiple Deprivation (WIMD) were released by the Welsh Government and Office of National Statistics. Deprivation itself is defined, statistically, as a "lack of access to opportunities or resources".

The WIMD collects data from each of Wales' 1,909 Lower Super Output Areas (LSOAs) – there's roughly one for every 1,000-1,500 people – and compares them to each other, giving policy makers and the general public an idea how relatively deprived neighbourhoods are compared to the rest of Wales (not the rest of the local authority).

So it's important to point out from the start that ranking lowly doesn't mean a community is "affluent" and it doesn't measure precisely how deprived a community is – only how deprived a community is compared to every other community in Wales.

The WIMD has an overall ranking, but it also has 8 separate types of deprivation each LSOA is measured against, with some indicators weighing more heavily in the final ranking than others :

• Income – Proportions of people with an income below a certain level and claiming income-based benefits and tax credits.
• Employment – A general lack of employment, based on claims for out-of-work benefits.
• Health – Lack of good health, including : long-term disabilities, low birth weights, cancer incidences and death rates.
• Education – Numbers of people with no qualifications, truancy levels, university admissions and GCSE pass rates.
• Access to Services – The ability to access everyday services essential for day-to-day living (food, GP appointments, after school clubs), and the travel times to reach such services.
• Community Safety – Overall crime levels, based on police and fire service statistics.
• Physical Environment – Proximity to big polluters, flood risk and air quality.
• Housing – Lack of adequate housing, including overcrowding and no access to central heating.

In terms of the all-Wales figures, St James' in Caerphilly is now ranked as the most relatively deprived community in Wales, though many of the names towards the top are all too familiar – Rhyl West, Splott, Queensway 1 in Wrexham (Caia Park), Twyn Carno (Fochriw, I think), Penydarren 1 (Galon Uchaf area of Merthyr) and Caerau 1 in Bridgend (Caerau Park and Tudor Estates).

With the number crunching done, it's worth taking a look at the picture in Bridgend in some more detail.

Overall Ranking & Changes Compared to 2011

(Click to enlarge)

The 2014 listings aren't really all that different to those in 2011.

The areas you would expect to be more deprived were, including : Caerau, Morfa ward (which includes Wildmill), Bettws, and at a more local level the Brackla Meadows estate, Bryntirion (the area around the Labour club), the Marlas estate in North Cornelly and the Queens Avenue area of Sarn.

As you would also expect, the valleys are relatively more deprived than the coastal/Vale areas, and the suburbs of Bridgend (including Litchard, Broadlands and the Coity end of Brackla), as well as Porthcawl, come out of it rather well.

In terms of how the rankings have changed since 2011, very few areas have dramatically become relatively less deprived than they were, though Sarn 2 (the southern half of the village) fell the most places along with the Hendre area of Pencoed, Nottage in Porthcawl and Cornelly 2 (South Cornelly and Kenfig village). It looks like – despite their overall poor ranking – levels of deprivation in Caerau, Bettws and Morfa have stalled or have even improved slightly compared to the rest of Wales.

In terms of areas which have moved up the rankings, then Brackla comes off particularly badly, especially Brackla 1 (the area around Tremains Primary) and Brackla 4 (Priory Oak, Trem-y-Mor). All Garw Valley wards have slipped – and weren't in a great position in the first place – but it's Pyle 1 (a large chunk of Kenfig Hill) and Pendre – Carwyn Jones' old council ward – which have risen the sharpest in the rankings compared to 2011.

Income & Employment

(Click to enlarge)

These are perhaps two of the more important measures of deprivation as low incomes and lack of high quality employment will limit opportunities by themselves.

In terms of income, the picture perhaps isn't quite as bad as many would believe. Even in parts of the valleys – especially Pontycymer, Maesteg, Nantyfyllon (Caerau 5), Ynysawdre and Bryncethin – incomes are near enough in the middle compared to the rest of Wales, or even slightly exceeding this. These areas have lots of cheap housing and might be attractive for younger working families priced out of other areas, while Maesteg has always had a settled middle class.

Unsurprisingly, Porthcawl and the villages and suburbs of Bridgend and Pencoed do well. You need to remember though that Welsh income levels aren't great compared to the UK anyway.

With employment, however, the differences are more stark, with pronounced problems in the valleys and urban centres (Morfa, Pyle, Porthcawl East & West Central) as you might expect – Caerau 1 ranks as the 4^th most deprived area in terms of employment in the whole of Wales. Bridgend doesn't do too great overall, but clearly employment opportunities are much better south of the M4 and around Pencoed than elsewhere in the county.

Health & Education

(Click to enlarge)

There are five big pockets of areas where people are more deprived in terms of health compared to the rest of Wales – Caerau & Maesteg, Nantymoel, the central Garw Valley (Bettws, Llangeinor, Ynysawdre), North Cornelly & Pyle and the big estates in and around Bridgend town centre (Wildmill, Brackla Meadows, Ystrad Fawr). Again, this shouldn't be a surprise.

As you might expect the areas with good health are Broadlands, Laleston, Litchard and Brackla. These areas are not only generally wealthier than the average, but some areas - like Brackla - are generally younger than the rest of the county.

The north-south split is starker in education than any other measure. Pretty much all of the areas with low-ranking wards in terms of educational deprivation are located in and around Porthcawl, Pencoed and Bridgend, while the valleys have numerous areas that rank in the top 20% most deprived in Wales. The M4 almost matches the boundary perfectly as even Cornelly and Pyle fit in "the north".

That doesn't mean everywhere south of the M4 is doing well (Wildmill & Brackla Meadows) or that everywhere north of the M4 is doing badly (Llangynwyd & Aberkenfig).

Access to Services & Community Safety

(Click to enlarge)

Access to services is as much an infrastructure problem as one of the facilities being in close proximity. Blaengarw and Nantymoel have quite a few shops and services close at hand, ditto the upper Llynfi valley, so these areas do well. More rural areas like Cefn Cribwr and Coychurch, as well as "overheated" areas like Broadlands, will do badly. If you're close to a town centre you're going to rank well on this, so it doesn't really tell us much.

Community safety doesn't really tell us much either, as the closer you are to a town centre, the more crime will be committed. This means urban wards like Morfa and Porthcawl West & East Central will score worse than leafy suburbs like Broadlands, Litchard, Penyfai and Newton.

Caerau, Aberkenfig and Bettws don't really count as either so their poor scores on community safety probably indicate problems other than population density - presumably high levels of anti-social behavior.

Environment & Housing

(Click to enlarge)

You would expect areas close to Bridgend and Maesteg town centres to suffer from pollution problems, but there's a strip of particularly poor-scoring areas stretching from Aberkenfig to Pencoed. I think the culprits are the M4, traffic problems caused by the awkward road layout around Bryncethin, Tondu and Sarn, the Brynmenyn industrial estate and the fact the three main tributaries of the River Ogmore confluence in this area, which is prone to floods.

Ogmore Vale stands out and I have absolutely no idea why other than the polluting industries – like car scrappage and recycling firms - on the Penllwyngwent industrial estate.

On the flipside, you would expect rural wards and Porthcawl – with its seafront and access to the sand dunes - to score well, so no real surprise there.

Housing is the category where Bridgend county on a whole does very well compared to the rest of Wales, so this is clearly one of Bridgend's core strengths. It's probably because large amounts of housing have been built since the 1970s, like Brackla, or more recently, like Broadlands and Tondu, meaning they're often of a higher spec than the terraced houses of old. It's generally the areas where Edwardian and Victorian terraced houses are the only option – like the Garw Valley, Morfa 1 & 3 and Oldcastle 1 (the area around Nolton Street and Cowbridge Road) – which score poorly.

What can we learn from WIMD 2014?

Is enough being done in Bridgend's relatively deprived neighbourhoods?
(Pic : Wildmill Communities First)

Things haven't changed dramatically – As I've said, the areas of Bridgend you would've expected to rank towards the top and bottom have done so. Although these figures are relative, it's hard to tell if Welsh Government and local authority schemes like Communities First are really targeting the core issues that result in higher deprivation : unemployment, poor education and low incomes.

A better environment doesn't mean better life chances – The Bridgend valleys boast some of the finest scenery in south Wales, and since the end of mining, the environment of these areas has improved. The people there are still broadly worse off than those living in and around the M4 though. It makes you wonder if "sustainable development" is really going to improve people's well being or not, and whether local communities are being assisted to make the most of the natural environment.

Sarn and Pencoed are on the up; Brackla and Pendre are on the way down – Again, you have to remember that these figures are relative, but what's clear is that Sarn and Pencoed are becoming relatively less deprived compared to the surrounding areas, while Brackla and Pendre are starting to slip. Brackla is also, arguably, the most diverse council ward in Bridgend, as you can go from some of Wales' most grinding deprivation to some of its swankiest postcodes in a 20 minute walk.

Something needs to be done with "the usual suspects" – Marlas, Caerau, Bettws, Wildmill, Brackla Meadows - yet again they're mentioned for the wrong reasons. I could probably write fifty blogs on the state of Bridgend, but the question remains - what can be done to turn these areas around? With regard Caerau, in the last fortnight I mentioned there were plans for a holiday resort in the Afan Valley, which might generate much needed employment in the area and make use of Caerau's strengths – but those plans have stalled. Valleys 2 Coast had/have plans for housing renewal programmes in Wildmill (pdf) and Careau Park (pdf) too, but again presumably nothing will happen without the funding. New houses won't necessarily solve problems relating to crime, unemployment and low incomes either.

Read More

New law to rein in abandoned horses

A lovely horse, and some not so lovely horses.
The Welsh Government are cracking down on illegal fly-grazing via a new law

There've been instances across Wales of horses being left to fly graze on public land or farmland illegally, and for some time, the Welsh Government have wanted to clamp down on abandoned horses.

Bridgend and the Vale of Glamorgan are, in fact, picked out as "hot spots" for fly-grazing.

In 2011, more than 250 stray horses and ponies rampaged around Laleston and Coity, some managing to get onto the M4. In 2012, stray horses in the Bryntirion area of Bridgend took over playing fields and invaded both the local secondary school and people's gardens. Byron Davies AM (Con, South Wales West) has also raised concerns about ~200 abandoned horses in the Gower.

Horses can be temperamental, so can be dangerous to anyone who isn't used to handling them. It's usually the fire service and police who deal with the horses themselves, but local authorities have complained that the powers they currently have are "inadequate to enable them to tackle the issue."

In response, last week Natural Resources and Food Minister Alun Davies (Lab, Blaenau Gwent) introduced the Control of Horses Bill to the National Assembly.

A bit of controversy

Once again, the Welsh Government have sped up legislation, this time bypassing the first committee stage, which usually includes evidence from interested outside parties and experts. The Bill's fairly short and easy to understand so I don't think they're trying to pull a fast one, but you've got to wonder if the Welsh Government are starting to bypass legislative stages out of habit.

Ironically, Welsh Conservative leader - and farmer - Andrew Davies (Con, South Wales Central), might've provided the impetus by suggesting in previous debates that a fly-grazing law "could be required this winter" if it's harsh enough to put animals at risk. He believed the Welsh Government should "reach out to opposition parties to try to instigate a speedy passage of the Bill".

So they did, and the minister says he received concrete cross-party for it. That's the clear party political view, but - putting aside unrelated criticism of Alun Davies over the last 48 hours for a moment - it's not the view shared by the Assembly's committees.

Respective chairs of the Environment & Sustainability and Finance Committees - Dafydd Elis Thomas AM (Plaid, Dwyfor Meirionnydd) and Jocelyn Davies AM (Plaid, South Wales East) - criticised the decision at some length during the first debate on Tuesday.

Simon Thomas AM (Plaid, Mid & West Wales) - speaking on behalf of the Constitutional & Legislative Affairs Committee - said they didn't have a chance to scrutinise the legislation beforehand and that the committee "didn't like working this way."

A William Graham AM (Con, South Wales East) amendment to the debate motion "regretting" the decision to bypass the first committee stage failed to pass by just two votes.

What the law intends to do

The law covers "all equine animals".
(Pic : zoochat.com)

Bill here (pdf), explanatory memorandum here (pdf).

The Bill :

• Gives local authorities the power to seize, impound and dispose of horses which are either :
• On highways or in public places without lawful authority
• On land without the consent of the landowner/occupier ("landowner" includes local authorities themselves)
• Places statutory duties on local authorities to:

• Give written notice at the point of seizure and to the police within 24 hours.
• Take reasonable steps to find the horse(s) owner and inform them in writing within 7 days of seizure.
• Keep a public register of all horse seizures.

• Will mean horse owners are liable for the costs of any seizure of horses under this law, and the local authority won't be obliged to return a horse until payment has been received in full.
• Will mean if the horse owner, or someone on their behalf, hasn't been found/come forward with 7 days, local authorities have the power to arrange for the "disposal" of the horse, including euthanasia.
• Outlines that if money made from disposal falls short of the costs of seizure then the owner will be liable to make up the difference, but also if the disposal exceeds costs of seizure then the local authority will be required to pay the owner the difference.
• Places a duty on Welsh Ministers to draft regulations for an appeals process.
• Repeals/supersedes clauses relating to wild horses in previous local government legislation.

"Horse" for the purpose of the Bill is defined as a horse, donkey, pony, mule, hinny (whatever one of those is) and "any other equine animals". Zebras of Wales - not just the Treorchy kind - have been put on notice then, while somewhere there's a zoologist crying.

I know I'm talking theoretically here, but you can imagine what the public reaction might be if a zebra escaped from a travelling circus, zoo or sanctuary, wasn't recovered in time, and was (somehow) set to be put down under this law.

The Assembly's Finance Committee have asked for updated estimates of how many horses the Welsh Government would expect to be destroyed should the Bill become law. It's also said in the explanatory memorandum that the law will be reviewed two years, or sooner, after it becomes law.

What the law means

The explanatory memorandum says the Bill has been welcomed by animal welfare organisations and equine societies such as RSPCA, Redwings and Blue Cross,  who've seen sharp increases in the number of horses seeking re-homing or being abandoned.

The overriding goal of the law is clear cut, and it's obvious the Welsh Government are getting tough with fly-grazers.

Horse owners would have a week to reclaim their horse(s) if seized by a local authority. If not, the horse will either end up re-homed or in a knacker's yard, with the owner facing a hefty bill for their trouble.

7 days might seem harsh – previous limits were 14 days - and it was raised by Joyce Watson AM (Lab, Mid & West Wales) in the Environment & Sustainability Committee, while Julie Morgan AM (Lab, Cardiff North) had concerns about the potential impact on gypsies and travellers.

You've also got to wonder if disposal is the best solution, when compulsory microchipping of horses - in the same manner as dogs - might be better in the long-term.

Alun Davies told the committee he would expect "any responsible horse owners to check their horses on a daily basis". Negligent horse owners might have also seen the old limit as 14 days of free food for their horse(s) at the expense of someone else's land.

Some existing laws – like the Animals Act 1971 and Animal Welfare Act 2006 – place duties on owners to ensure the welfare of animals they own, and gives landowners the power to detain livestock that stray onto their land. Legislation specific to some old counties of Wales also granted local authorities the power to seize stray animals, however those provisions don't cover the whole of Wales, while the Control of Horses Bill will.

A similar, but significantly more extensive, law was passed in the Republic of Ireland in 1996. I think it perfectly highlights the difference between the sovereign powers an independent nation has and devolution.

The current cost of fly-grazing to the police, RSPCA, councils, equine societies and fire service is said to be a cumulative £1.2million a year.

The average cost – citing examples in Bridgend and Vale of Glamorgan – of a horse seizure is around £500 per horse, while other local authorities like Swansea say the costs are between £1,000 and £1,500 per horse.

The costs of the proposed law are mixed. Some local authorities operating under the local laws mentioned above will already carry out some of the functions outlined in this proposed Bill, so it won't cost them anything. For the rest, it might cost around £600 per horse.

To put things in perspective, Bridgend, Vale of Glamorgan and Swansea impounded 154 horses in 2012 alone – which is much higher than I had expected, working out at almost three horses a week.

At national level, a contract for secure accommodation for seized horses would cost around £450,000 to set up, and £300,000 per year afterwards. It'll cost the Welsh Government £11,000 to issue the appropriate statutory guidance.

I'd also propose another, less politically correct, solution to the problem:

         

I don't understand why people are squeamish about eating horse meat. It's eaten across Asia and mainland Europe – especially France, Italy, and northern Europe - we have loads of them, it's better for the environment as horses fart less methane than cows and they're all free range. It's also completely legal, just unfashionable.

It might encourage those thinking of abandoning their horses to sell them instead. You have to wonder if there would be a market for Welsh boucheries chevalines.

Read More

Dirty deeds done dirt cheap - Round III

Did the "local property boys and girls" simply run rings around the agents?
Or is something fishy going on?
(Pic : BBC Wales)

I'm loath to end the Assembly year on a bad news story, but this constitutes a bubbling scandal that's worth following closely due to its potential impact.

It's escalated further, with BBC Wales reporting on Monday that the EU-backed Regeneration Investment Fund for Wales (RIFW) handling of a deal with South Wales Land Developments (SWLD) has been referred to the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) by the Wales Audit Office (WAO). That's a lot of acronyms. It hasn't been confirmed yet, but hasn't been denied either.

It's worth pointing out that, at this stage, it doesn't mean anything's wrong, just that the auditors must've had information significant enough to be sent to the highest fraud authority in EnglandandWales. Not looking good, is it?

A recap of the story so far

• Dirty deeds done dirt cheap? (18.9.12)
• Digging deep into deals done dirt cheap (11.2.13)

• A parcel of WDA-owned land was sold by RIFW to Guernsey-based South Wales Land Developments for £20.6million in March 2012.
• The value of some of that land – especially around Cardiff – will have sky-rocketed due to (at the time undisclosed) housing development plans. It's estimated from under £2million to £120million in Cardiff alone.
• This was an obvious business opportunity. The parcel should've have loads of interested parties, but it seemed RIFW, or their agents, approached developers directly rather than selling the land on the open market, which is odd in itself.
• Byron Davies AM (Con, South Wales West) referred the deal to the Wales Audit Office in September 2012 after the deal raised his suspicions.
• The Wales Audit Office widened the scope of their inquiry after a preliminary investigation in late 2012.
• In February 2013, the then Deputy Minister for Social Justice and Regeneration, Huw Lewis (Lab, Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney), suspended RIFW projects (except Neath town centre) and launched a double internal Welsh Government investigation into both RIFW itself, and the deal.
• On Monday, after the best part of a year, the WAO (apparently) referred the deal to the Serious Fraud Office. The Welsh Government are yet to comment, and Carl Sargeant (Lab, Alyn & Deeside) became the minister in charge in March.

Update 19/07/2013 : Carl Sargeant released a written statement on the 17th July, which was linked to by an anonymous contributor further down. You can read it here.

The statement is pretty much what you would've expected. He confirms that the double Welsh Government investigation into RIFW ordered by Huw Lewis is still ongoing, but says that no further details will be released until after he's discussed it with the agents (Amber) and the RIFW board. There's no mention of Lambert Smith Hampton.

He also confirms that RIFW will remain suspended (but he doesn't mention the Neath town project, which is still going ahead AFAIK), and hints that it's likely that RIFW will be wound up, subject to alternative arrangements being found. Understandable, but a bit "deckchairs and Titanic". He says all this will be completed "by the end of August", and of course I'll come back to it.

Needless to say, the fact that this was a written statement, released on the last day of the Assembly term, denying AMs the opportunity to question the minister on this until September, hasn't gone down well. Byron Davies AM raised a point of order during the last Assembly debate on the 17th, and Deputy Llywydd David Melding (Con, South Wales Central) gave Carl Sargeant, and other ministers, a sedate ticking off for constantly pulling stunts like this.

They're getting twitchy about it, and so they should be.
The key issues

The land valuation process – It's been hinted that the land was sold at a 2009 value, rather than its value at the point of sale in 2012. That could be because the agents thought it would be hard to shift – which would make them pretty silly in the case of the Cardiff land. Was it under-valued deliberately?

Cardiff's LDP – The BBC report says the Cardiff land alone was sold to SWLD at an "agricultural rate" of ~£15,000 per acre. This is land that anyone with even a casual interest in planning/development would've known was being eyed up for housing, despite no formal plans being put forward. So it had huge potential value, yet was sold for practically peanuts. A few months after the sale, Cardiff Council revealed that it was going to be used for housing, and SWLD – who were directly courted by the agents - were sitting on a goldmine. That hints at either inside knowledge (fraud?), a stitch up, or incompetence by RIFW.

The claw back agreements – The Welsh Government had, sensibly, included clauses where they would benefit from land value rises after sale. However, as Nick Servini says, it appears some plots didn't have these agreements, whilst the claw back agreements might've been set too low. In the case of the Cardiff land alone, it could cost the Welsh Government tens of millions of pounds.

South Wales Land Developments Ltd – Who are they? What are they up to? Why Guernsey? All valid questions with no answers at the moment. On the surface, it looks like they're a legitimate property company and are currently seeking outline planning permission for housing developments on the land they bought – including Pyle and Brackla in Bridgend county. Getting planning permission raises the value of the land when selling to potential developers – a "land bank". The Brackla application agent is RIFW's Investment Manager – Lambert Smith Hampton – the other applications have been dealt by other agencies.

What the Welsh Government knew – Technically, RIFW is "arms length" of the Welsh Government, but ultimately under its control. The fund was managed on the ground by various managers/boards etc. But how much of a leash did the Welsh Government have? Were they monitoring it properly? What are the backgrounds of the people on the management board? Did they have any interests themselves?

Why might've this been referred to the SFO?

How about "Economically Responsible?"

The overriding issue as I understand it is that if RIFW had kept hold of the land until  Cardiff Council revealed their draft LDP, they could've sold the Cardiff land - alone - for something approaching £120million, and doing so directly to the flock of housing developers who would've come knocking on their door.

They sold it instead, along with loads of other bits of land, for £20.6million to a mysterious offshore company. To add insult to injury, the Welsh Government might've had embarrassingly-low claw back clauses, and might've lost out on significant sums of money.

And it all might've been done deliberately and with prior knowledge.

We (or rather, the Welsh Government on our behalf) are the ones who could've been defrauded – by potentially tens of millions - sums literally 500,000 (perhaps upwards of a million) times greater than the average night in a Cardiff hotel.

That money could've been match-funded for significant regeneration projects in our Objective One towns and cities during sluggish economic conditions. Instead, at the moment it looks like it's heading for an offshore bank account.

That's why this is serious, and why heads should roll. This is not only potentially corrupt, but possibly an example of gross incompetence by the Welsh Government, or more likely people working on their behalf.
It's unclear at the moment precisely why this has been referred to the SFO. But I suspect - as I said in my second post on this - that it's because of a "failure to disclose information".

That information being something like prior knowledge of Cardiff's (or others) Local Development Plan – and subsequently, the fact that this "cheap" RIFW land was going to be worth a fortune. Or, it could be a business relationship/interest between parties that wasn't disclosed when it should've been. Both might count as fraud, and there are other possibilities too.

I said this had the potential to be one of the biggest scandals of the devolution era, and I doubt I'll be far off. If the SFO are getting involved, this could be heading towards a criminal investigation. It's unclear how far up this is going to go, or where.

Read More

Census 2011 : A Changing Bridgend

• Census 2011 : What's stunting Welsh?
• Census 2011 : Losing our religion?
• Census 2011 : National Identity & Ethnicity
• Census 2011 : Disability,Carers & Health
• Census 2011 : Qualifications
• Census 2011 : Demographics I – How old is Wales?
• Census 2011 : Demographics II– Its meaning for Wales
• Census 2011 : The Home & Relationships

In this final look at the 2011 census data, I'm going to look at Bridgend down to ward level to see how the county's changed between 2001 and 2011. I've used an ONS data table tool to compile this.

If you have no idea which ward is which, here's a map :

Map of Bridgend Council wards
(Click to enlarge)

Population & Population Density

Change in population 2001-2011
(Click to enlarge)

Population density per ward in 2011
(Click to enlarge)

The population of Bridgend County rose by ~10,500 between 2001 and 2011, from 128,645 to 139,178. Most of that can be accounted to housing developments. Brackla and Cornelly's population rose by over 1,000 each, while in Bryntirion, Laleston & Merthyr Mawr it rose by a whopping 4,417 – almost certainly due to the Broadlands development – and more than doubling the population of the ward (+102% increase).

Brackla remains the most populous ward overall, with a population of 11,749.

Coity will likely see the biggest increase between 2011 and 2021, with the Parc Derwen development likely to add at least 2,500 people.

Not all wards experienced population rises. The Maesteg and Caerau area, Cefn Glas and Litchard/Pendre areas all lost more than 4% of their populations, with Pendre experiencing the sharpest drop of 11.9%, closely followed by Cefn Glas (-11.8%).

Population of major settlements in Bridgend County

• Bridgend (including Penyfai, Coychurch Lower & Coity wards) : 49,404
• Bridgend "Urban Area" (including the Aberkenfig/Sarn area & above) : 60,824
• Maesteg (including Caerau and Llangynwyd) : 20,612
• Porthcawl : 16,005
• Pyle/Cornelly : 14,464
• Pencoed : 10,054

In terms of population density, the second map clearly highlights major settlements. At least 43% of the county live in Bridgend town itself and its immediate surroundings, with Morfa (40.2 people per hectare), Porthcawl West Central (37.8) and Brackla (36.6) being the most densely populated wards, and Blackmill (1.5), Aberkenfig (1.7) and Bryncethin (1.8) the least densely populated.

There's also the prospect, depending on how other towns have changed, that Bridgend is now pushing to be in Wales' top 5 urban areas by population.

Demography

Mean age per ward
(Click to enlarge)

% of the resident population aged 65+
(Click to enlarge)

Porthcawl is a significant pocket of wards with a higher average age compared to the rest of Bridgend county, while the younger wards tend to be the suburbs of Bridgend itself – Brackla (mean age 35.5), Coity (37.9) and Bryntirion, Laleston & Merthyr Mawr (35.1). Bettws also has a younger than average population (36.6).

This could reflect the housing market. Brackla and Broadlands attracting younger families, for example, while Porthcawl and suburbs like Litchard are known to be popular with retirees or older, stable families. It could also reflect reduced average life expectancy in deprived wards north of the M4.

There's a similar pattern reflected in the percentage of residents of pensionable age. Porthcawl is once again way out ahead of the rest of the county in terms of over 65s, with Nottage (30.1%) and Rest Bay (36.6%) having the highest percentage of pensioners in the county, closely followed by Coychurch Lower (35%). Cross reference this with the religion, national identity and limiting illness figures and you'll see a pattern.

Religion

% of the population describing themselves
as "Christian" in 2011
(Click to enlarge)

Change in % of non-religious 2001-2011
(Click to enlarge)

The dominant organised religion in Bridgend is – surprise,surprise – Christianity and its denominations, with 55.1% of people describing themselves as such. The second largest organised religion is Islam. Bridgend had 529 Muslim residents in 2011, or 0.4% of the population. "Other religions" are the third largest group, closely followed by Buddhists and Hindus (0.4, 0.3 & 0.2% of the population respectively). All of these smaller religions saw growth in numbers between 2001 and 2011. 43.7% of people were irreligious or gave no religion.

What's clear is that Christianity is strongest in the Porthcawl and Maesteg areas, and the leafier suburbs and villages surrounding Bridgend (Litchard, Cefn Cribwr, Pen-y-fai and Coychurch). Compare that map with the one for over 65s further up and that perhaps explains why. It also corresponds roughly with where religious-affiliated primary schools are.

In terms of the non religious, there's a uniform rise across the borough, echoing national trends, with a few exceptions – notably Pendre and Coychurch. Pendre has a very committed community church in the ward, and shares its neighbourhood with the Princess of Wales Hospital, becoming a popular  base for Filipino nurses. Filipinos being amongst the world's most devout Catholics, and Bridgend also has a large Polish contingent.

National Identity

% of residents giving some or
exclusive Welsh identity in 2011
(Click to enlarge)

% of residents giving some or exclusive
English national identity in 2011
(Click to enlarge)

There's a very clear north-south split between a strong Welsh identity in the valleys, and a still strong, but weaker, Welsh identity in Bridgend constituency and Pencoed.

The strongest Welsh identity is in the upper Llynfi valley - all wards above 85%. The weakest is in the eastern half of Bridgend – Coity (66.8%), Brackla (68.5%), Coychurch Lower (67.9%) - and Porthcawl.

It almost flips to the exact opposite when it comes to English identity, with stronger English identity south of the M4 – almost exactly mirroring the figures for Welsh identity. However, the English remain a relatively small minority, with only 7 wards having an English population above 10%, with the largest in Coity (14.8%).

British-only identity is weak across the county, with the strongest being in the southern half – in particular Porthcawl (averaging around 18%) - and the weakest north of the M4, with several wards recording single figure levels of "Britishness". The average is around 13.5% per ward.

Place of Birth

% of residents not born in Wales in 2011
(Click to enlarge)

Change in % of residents not born in Wales
2001-2011
(Click to enlarge)

There's another clear north-south split, with more people in the southern half of the county being born outside Wales than the valleys. There's an average of 17% per ward, but it's higher than 20% in 11 wards – all of them in Bridgend town and Porthcawl. The lowest percentages of people born outside Wales are in the Maesteg area, with around 7% in Caerau, Maesteg East & West.

In terms of how it has changed since 2001, there's no clear pattern, but the Bridgend area, Garw Valley and Ogwr Valley have seen the biggest upward change. Nantymoel surprisingly saw the biggest increase at 6.3%, closely followed by Oldcastle (3.8%) and Cefn Glas (3.5%).

Penyfai saw the sharpest fall at -2.7%, with Litchard the next closest at -1.2%. There's a bit of a surprise that Bryntirion, Laleston and Merthyr Mawr has seen a fall (-0.8%), as you would've expected the executive homes in Broadlands to have attracted English migrants in particular. Similarly the Porthcawl area.

Similar to national trends, the raw numbers indicate the increase being mostly down to European Union migration since 2004 enlargement, with the English-born topping it up.


Qualification Levels

% of residents with no qualifications in 2011
(Click to enlarge)

% of residents with at least a degree-level
qualification in 2011
(Click to enlarge)

Another clear north-south split. The big cluster of high numbers of people with no qualifications are the three valleys, with Bettws (48.5%), Caerau (44.5%) and Sarn (39.5%) all possessing exceptionally high levels. The average for wards north of the M4 appears to be in the low 30s, while south of the M4, only Morfa (31.4%) stands out as particularly high.

So there's a clear, indisputable link between poor education and deprivation, illustrated graphically on the map, as the wards with high levels of the unqualified are amongst the most deprived wards in the county.

On the flipside, wards south of the M4 generally have the higher proportions of people holding at least a degree level qualification. The highest in Rest Bay (39.4%), followed by two other Porthcawl wards – Newton (35.4%) and Nottage (34.5%). Bryntirion, Laleston & Merthyr Mawr (36.6%) and Coychurch Lower (30.4%) also had high percentages. This points towards the executive homes in Broadlands being popular with the professional middle classes, and migration of retirees holding degrees.

Most people in Bridgend fell "in between". However, on average in each ward, those with no qualifications (30%) outnumber those with degrees (22.5%). The general trend is a rapid move towards a better qualified population, like the rest of Wales.

Limiting Illnesses

% of population with a limiting
illness in 2011
(Click to enlarge)

Change in % of population with limiting
illnesses 2001-2011
(Click to enlarge)

There's no set pattern across the county in terms of the proportion of people with limiting disabilities (describing themselves as in bad or very bad health). The ward average was 26.2% in 2011. The valleys, Porthcawl and some suburbs of Bridgend appear to be the areas with more disabled or ill compared to the rest.

As to how this has changed, there's a surprise in store. It appears as though the health and well being of people north of the M4 is improving – especially in the Ogwr and Garw valleys (and Cornelly). Ynysawdre saw the sharpest fall of 5%.

However, the health of people in the southern half of the county, especially Bridgend and Porthcawl, appears to be getting worse. This reflects the national trend where "wealthier" areas have seen declines in overall health compared to the stereotyped valleys. Coychurch Lower, for example, saw an 8% rise in limiting illnesses compared to 2001.

When you cross reference this with the age figures you can see that not only are long-standing problems with disabilities apparent, but it also highlights the impact of an ageing population, with "older wards" like Nottage, Newton, Rest Bay and Coychurch Lower having higher percentages of those with limiting illnesses compared to "younger" wards like Brackla.

Welsh speakers

% of over 3s who can speak, read or
write Welsh in 2011
(Click to enlarge)

Change in % of over 3s who can speak,
read or write Welsh 2001-2011
(Click to enlarge)

Bridgend has never really been a hotbed of the Welsh language, being one of the more Anglicised parts of south Wales. However, there are pockets of strong Welsh-speaking ability – in particular the Maesteg area. Llangynwyd had the highest percentage of Welsh speakers aged over 3 in the county at 18.9%. What is a bit of a surprise though is that both Penyfai (15.1%) and Bryncethin (16.7%) also have quite strong figures.

Overall though, Bridgend county remains well below the national average for Welsh speakers, with an average of 13.5% per ward.

Like national figures, the trend has been downwards since 2001. Although Llangynwyd was the only ward with a 20%+ percentage in 2001, there were several other wards in the high teens at the same time. Across the county, the Welsh speaking population fell on average by 2.5% per ward, with sharper declines in  : Coity (-7.4%), Litchard (-4.9%) and Oldcastle (-4.6%).

Only two wards saw a rise – Bryncoch and Bryncethin (both +0.3%). The numbers also held up relatively well in Pencoed and the western half of Bridgend itself – in particular Bryntirion.

Taking the two figures together, it hints that future demand for Welsh medium education is likely to come either from the Ynysawdre/Sarn area, or western Bridgend (Penyfai, Broadlands, Bryntirion).

Read More

Vibrant & Viable Places - A new regeneration strategy

In the last month, the Welsh Government unveiled its latest
regeneration strategy, including more carefully targeted funding.
(Pic : BBC Wales)

A few days before the cabinet reshuffle, Communities and Tackling Poverty Minister, Huw Lewis (Lab, Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney) laid a new Welsh Government regeneration strategy/framework/"thing" in front of the Senedd.

Entitled : Vibrant and Viable Places, it outlines the Welsh Government's new principles and approaches towards regeneration as a whole.

Recent Policy

The Welsh Government has/had seven key regeneration areas – including things like Communities First, EU programmes, Flying Start and Enterprise Zones - as well as more specific programmes like Newport Unlimited and the Valleys Regional Park initiative.

It's said that the benefits of this approach included more flexible funding, an ability to address specific local issues and use of partnerships in delivery across several different providers.

However, some of the drawbacks were said to be too rigid boundaries, a lack of clarity on the criteria for establishing regeneration areas, poor timing and co-ordination with regard funding and objectives which were far too broad, perhaps vague.

New policies that are being developed in relation to this include city regions for economic development, local growth zones (whatever the hell they are), a new round of European funding and Welsh Government legislation – including new planning, housing and sustainable development Bills.

How do the Welsh Government define "regeneration"?

“....an integrated set of activities that seek to reverse economic, social, environmental and physical decline to achieve lasting improvement, in areas where market forces will not do this alone without some support from government.”

Believe it or not, I think that's pretty much as clear a definition as you can get.

I just think the Welsh Government have failed to deliver on the "lasting improvement" aspect. While "integrated activities" gets bogged down in too many agencies and too many little schemes tied to overly ambitious targets.

For example, trying to contribute to the perfectly laudable goal of ending child poverty by 2020 by using European funds on projects like the well-meaning, but colossal failure, Genesis 2. That scheme provided plenty of "mentoring", "raising self-esteem" and "advisers" but very few jobs.

Under the new approach, the Welsh Government want to achieve three key outcomes :

1. Prosperous Communities – More jobs, better transport, better internet access, private sector investment, successful town centres and coastal towns, sustainable development.
2. Learning Communities – Improved skills, "higher aspirations" and "a belief in a better future."
3. Healthier Communities – Safer, healthier, more environmentally pleasing. Better houses.

They're going to closely monitor outcomes here, including reductions in long-term unemployment, reductions in people experiencing poor health etc.

Who's going to do it?

The report acknowledges that private sector involvement is shaky at the moment, and "hard to achieve", but this was the first area they want to look at. They want to attract the private sector by bringing in "good quality development(s)" and providing things like business mentoring and joint working between public and private sector.

In a somewhat surprising move, it looks as though the third sector is being (quite rightly) brushed aside somewhat. Third sector bodies will only be involved at "the right level and at the right time". There's a special focus here on registered social landlords – which ties in with their focus on "coastal communities" – who can deliver capital projects and already have a relationship with their communities. I don't know why faith groups are outlined as "disadvantaged or excluded" though.

Most of the detailed focus though, is on the public sector. Local authorities are said to be the leading organisation here, as they generally lead regeneration efforts anyway. However, the report says that regeneration will have to be "seen in the context of wider regional economies" and "regional working." Collaboration, then. They do also say, somewhat paradoxically, that they want town and community councils more actively involved in regeneration decision-making though.

Using my recent posts on local government as a guide, this sort of thing would probably be done by single provincial assemblies and governments, not 6-7 unitary authorities working together putting councillors and appointees on various regional boards. Just saying/plugging.

The Welsh Government itself will be actively involved in areas such as housing - especially good quality, environmentally friendly housing. Huw Lewis outlined his white paper on this last year.

Heritage also gets a nod, by giving places a "sense of character" to generate a sense pride in their communities. I'm pleasantly surprised they put that in as it's often overlooked. But will there be a conflict between housing and heritage – especially if we end up carpeting over areas with new housing estates?

There's a full run down of other areas, like the economy, health, transport, and various plans and strategies in the report itself. It's too many to go into here. The report just lists anything remotely related to the three outcomes I listed earlier.

Funding & Targeted Funding

Regeneration funds will be targeted at coastal towns in particular,
however with an acknowledgement that there can be no
promise of a return to "former glories."
(Pic : BBC Wales)

This is probably the most significant part, and a somewhat radical, welcome departure from standard Welsh Government policy - targeting funds at specific areas of focus rather than broad brush strokes that can be atomised into piddling little schemes.

As for funding, there are several streams – EU convergence, Welsh Government themselves, Big Lottery Fund, local authority contributions and private sector investment. There are few specific numbers given, and the budgets vary anyway.

As for the targets:

• Town centres – The losing battle to "save the high street". They acknowledge something different is needed, including better use of heritage assets and more residential development in town centres. They also want to make better use of town centres for business start ups, rather than established chains. That means improving things like broadband.
• Coastal towns – I think they clearly mean Rhyl and Colwyn Bay in this, but as I've seen through Bridgend Council's attempts to regenerate Porthcawl, it's easier said than done. They want to "maximise unique selling points without holding out false hope of....recapturing....faded glories of the past."
• Communities First clusters – Self-explanatory.

Existing regeneration commitments will be "top sliced", and local partnerships will now bid for regeneration funds - based on the three priority areas. They'll have to come up with better plans, and prove that the projects they're bidding for will have a tangible impact. That could be more jobs, retaining spending within Welsh supply chains and commitments to sustainable development.

I guess the responsibility for delivery now lies with Carl Sargeant (Lab, Alyn & Deeside), and he'll be assisted in this via a new Ministerial Advisory Group.

The Welsh Government will closely monitor these "outcomes", and it's expected that the new framework/strategy/"thing" will fully roll out by April 2014.

Some good, some bad

Regeneration's one of those areas that could be said to have been "hit and miss" since devolution rather than an outright good or poor.

There are some regeneration schemes you can point to as successes, or potential successes. The two obvious examples would be Bargoed's Big Idea and The Works in Ebbw Vale. It's unclear whether the likes of Neath town centre, Pontypridd and Swansea will head the same way.

Big flops could include the vast bulk of Communities First areas in general and you'll probably have to include the likes of Porthcawl too. Though they're not complete write offs yet.

The heart's there. The heart's always been there. But this is nothing we haven't heard before. I do think better targeted funding is long overdue, but should've been done in the first place.

I outlined some of the problems facing town centres in particular on my recent post on Bridgend. I think the Welsh Government do realise some of those issues, but don't seem overly keen to address the bigger problems. You can't entirely blame them as there's more risk attached to tackling those big issues head on.

Of the three key outcomes, it was "belief in a better future" that got to me. Of course we all want that, and things are never as bad as they appear to be.

I firmly believe many Welsh towns and communities have great untapped potential if they have the right kind of investment targeting the right sort of projects.

That will mean more than simply propping up "the high street" or putting down nice paving stones.

Read More

Digging deep into deals done dirt cheap

A brief recap

Back in March 2012, the Regeneration Investment Fund for Wales (RIFW) – an "arms-length" Welsh Government body - sold a bundle of 18 plots of publicly-owned land across Wales to a Guernsey-based company called South Wales Land Developments (SWLD) for £20.6million. RIFW's aim is to raise money through land sales to match fund/loan to companies working on urban regeneration projects in West Wales & The Valleys.

One of those parcels of land, in the Lisvane area of Cardiff, was earmarked – something of an open secret - by the incoming Labour Cardiff Council administration for housing as part of their changed Local Development Plan.

If you had the money, and were involved in property development, you would've had to have been brain dead not to show interest. It appears as though potential buyers - including SWLD - were "canvassed" directly rather than the sites going out on open sale, which is rather strange. In short, it wasn't a completely open tendering process.

As everyone knows, land values are based on a number of factors including planning consent or strategic land use plans. In this case, the value of the Cardiff land sold to SWLD will have risen from just under £2million to ~£120million because of Cardiff Council's outline proposals for housing.

Former police officer Byron Davies AM (Con, South Wales West) noticed that this was "odd" and referred the matter to the Wales Audit Office for investigation last September. Things began to steamroll, and eventually the WAO expanded the scope of the investigation.

Nearly five months on, Minister for Housing, Regeneration and Heritage, Huw Lewis (Lab, Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney) ordered a double internal investigation into both the handling of the sales and how RIFW operates. Eight RIFW projects (except one in Neath town centre) have now been suspended.

Who's diddled who?

"Claw back clauses" were inserted into the deal to ensure that if land values rose, some money could be claimed back by the Welsh Government (or "taxpayers" i.e you and me). That's perfectly sensible.

However, as BBC Wales' Nick Servini pointed out, we don't know much about these claw back arrangements, which parcels of land they apply to, or how much the Welsh Government could expect to make back.

There's the possibility that, from the Lisvane land alone, if there wasn't some significant claw back agreement then RIFW (and by extension, the rest of us) could've missed out on up to £100million, possibly on purpose due to the "closed" tender.

An anonymous commentator on my last visit to this linked to a European Investment Bank presentation on RIFW. Some of RIFW's goals (slides 13-14) included :

• A seemingly immediate need to "meet cash flow requirements for (their) investment profile".
• Targeting up to "£55million of private sector investment in 2011/12".
• "Securing planning consents to add value to (RIFW's assets)".

Securing planning consents? How about insecure ones like several thousand houses on the outskirts of Cardiff? That would certainly "add value to assets" - whether houses actually get built or not.

We all know how finicky the EU are about tendering processes. This might come close to falling under the definitions of some sort of fraud – perhaps "failure to disclose information when required to". That's before mentioning all the other unanswered questions about SWLD, RIFW projects themselves (or lack of) and the fund managers' handling of this.

As the anonymous commentator also pointed out, there didn't seem to be any requirement to get the best possible price. That's probably so regeneration projects can get started immediately – even if RIFW weren't doing very much at the time. I'm not business-minded, but although that might make political sense, it doesn't make much business sense.

They also claimed that the land was marketed at a 2009 valuation, not a March 2012 (point of sale) valuation - which is more than a little "odd".

If you have an asset - unless you don't have the option of negotiation (i.e liquidation) or you want a quick sale - you sell it for the best price you can get. And sometimes to get the best price you need as many people bidding as possible. Neither of those things appears to have happened - and this is, essentially, many millions of pounds of public money at stake.

Even if SWLD were in negotiations for up to a year before the sale, it would've been blindingly obvious to anyone with half a brain that ANY open land around Cardiff was going to be worth a fortune because of housing requirements. So why were RIFW so keen to sell it for such a "low" price, bundled in with so many other pieces of land (some of which equally valuable), to a company based in a tax haven, that was set up rather quickly and quietly, with more than a few "local connections"?

Land bank, anyone?

Even if they're not directly responsible for RIFW, the Welsh Government are certainly accountable. These "internal reviews" tend to mean answers are slow to come by. There's plenty of questions to answer for all involved. Especially :

• Who valued the sites?
• What were those valuations based on?
• How was the land marketed?
• Why the urgency to generate cash flows despite RIFW being practically dormant?
• The details of alternative tenders.
• What prior knowledge did anyone involved have about things like Cardiff's LDP?

Both Inside Out and Glyn Beddau have pointed out other possible talking points – too many to go into here. These things usually turn out to be less suspicious than first presumed, but I think this one's smelling rather ripe.

This could've been the case of rushed, lazy sale that's potentially lost millions of pounds in match funds for regeneration (gross incompetence). Or, it could've been a knowingly bad sale to benefit "someone" ("market abuse"/insider dealing, possibly fraud). It could even be a combination of the two – which could potentially make it one of the worst scandals of the devolution era.

Beth yw "cute hoor" yn Gymraeg?

Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Oh, please! Make it stop!
(Pic : BBC Wales)

There've been other questionable, but unrelated, planning and development proposals in Wales over the last few years too. More recently - in Gwynedd - the sale of a failed arts centre to private owners. That's also been referred to the auditors.

But in the Powys, Neath Port Talbot and Bridgend area, you can point to developments involving open cast mines. They were actually quite "impressive" proposals. Impressive in a "yeah, right" way.

One involved a "resort" in the Amman Valley. The second involved building some sort of Smurf village/Teletubbyland in a big hole on the outskirts of Kenfig Hill on the Bridgend-NPT border.

Gwenda Thomas AM (Lab, Neath) asked for the Amman scheme to be called in because of the scale/impact. Bethan Jenkins AM (Plaid, South Wales West) has often warned that these schemes are a "front" to smooth through extensions to mining licences - which are due to run out over the next few years. AMs have campaigned for more robust exclusion zones around open cast sites since the Assembly was founded. So the mines have a PR problem then.

Local councillors' responses were mixed. Some (understandably, but somewhat hastily) welcomed the prospect of jobs and investment, while others shared similar concerns to the AMs.

When the Kenfig/Margam scheme was revealed, first of all I had to check the date. Second, when I tried to blog on it I couldn't write as it was so funny. The thought of council cabinet members smiling, wearing Bob the Builder hard hats, as they looked over these plans was too much. It may as well have been a base on the Moon.

I wouldn't object to spending quality time with Christina Hendricks and Salma Hayek on a sweltering tropical paradise island. So sweltering, that it would mean they walk around in tight, but revealing clothing, while I occasionally get diverted with fruit, monkey butlers and grilled seafood.

Someone could offer me that, and bring me some flattering artist's impressions of what such a glorious undertaking would look like. But in order to obtain that dream, I would have to wash jock straps by hand at their Central Asian salt mine for 30 years. Also, they can't guarantee the desired outcome – more a loose promise/I.O.U.

"But look at the artist's impressions!" they'll say. "Look what you could have! Just sign here!" If you were a dopey guy easily mesmerised, you might ignore the fact that by the time you're free, Christina and Salma will have free bus passes.

A similar thing almost happened with these open cast mine projects, which would've prevented them being returned to their natural state. That's not so funny.

It's lucky some people still have their heads screwed on, because several people leading these open cast schemes, also involved in the sale of them – involving offshore-registered companies - were recently put on trial for conspiracy to defraud.

Hmm. Sounds familiar.

Read More