1

2

Internship report

The impact of the Wellbeing of Future Generations Bill on "local" Wales.

Version: 1.0

12 December 2014

Pieter Louwers

Placement organization: Cynnal Cymru

Academic Supervisor: Dr. Richard Cowell, Cardiff University

Office Supervisor: Rhodri Thomas, Training and Development Manager

Picture cover: Edited picture taken in Three Cliffs Bay

3

Table of contents 1. Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 4

1.1 Context .......................................................................................................................................... 4

1.2 Research problem ......................................................................................................................... 6

1.3 Research questions ....................................................................................................................... 6

1.4 Structure ....................................................................................................................................... 7

2. Theoretical Framework ......................................................................................................................... 8

3 Methodology ......................................................................................................................................... 9

4. Key players in the Wales sustainable development planning structure, important relationships and

key messages .............................................................................................................................................. 10

4.1 SD planning structure.................................................................................................................. 10

4.2 Relationships and key messages ................................................................................................. 13

5. The FG Bill: recent activities, changes and trends. ............................................................................. 15

6. The role, activities, barriers and opportunities of Town and community councils to contribute to

well-being plans. ......................................................................................................................................... 17

6.1 Local well-being plans: role of community councils ................................................................... 17

6.2 Wales activities in terms of planning for the future, several case studies ................................. 18

6.3 Barriers and opportunities to contribute to well-being plans .................................................... 20

7. Best practice from England ................................................................................................................. 22

8. Conclusion and Recommendations..................................................................................................... 23

Literature .................................................................................................................................................... 25

Glossary ....................................................................................................................................................... 27

Appendix A: Interview guide ....................................................................................................................... 32

Appendix B: Short questionnaire for TC related to the "Wellbeing of Future Generations Bill" ............... 33

Appendix C: All TC subject to the Well-Being Future Generations Bill including map, including link ........ 34

4

1. Introduction

1.1 Context

Sustainable development (SD) can be seen as a "Wicked issue" ever since it was defined in 1987 in the

Brundtland report by the World Commission on Environment and Development and further on in the

Rio Summit (1992) and the Summit in Johannesburg (2002). According to Williams & Thomas (2004) this

"wicked issue" requires strong collaborative cooperation between state, market and civil society as well

as public, private and voluntary agencies. Issues such as climate change and pollution make SD a truly

global issue that can only be addressed by top-down as well as bottom-up cooperation between

governmental levels. The Brundtland report defines sustainable development as development that

meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their

own needs. In other words developers should be aware of the impact their development has on the

future. On European level several directives and policy frameworks were created to support sustainable

development in this sense. The currently seventh European environment action programme sets out the

environmental objectives and actions to achieve them for 2014 till 2020 (EC, 2014).

The UK government translated this international perspective into their national legislation by creating

overarching strategic documents on SD and embedding SD in several policy areas (Williams & Thomas,

2004). The UK had a sustainable development commission since 2000 but closed it on March 2011

(Sustainable Development commission, 2011). This central role has been passed on to the Department

for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra). As known, SD is a term that is interpreted in different

ways. According to Hopwood et al. (2005) the UK interprets sustainable development in a way that in

order ‘to move towards more sustainable development, we need more growth not less’. In other words

sustainable development should be led by the market. Followers of this belief feel that increased

information, changing values, improved management techniques and new technology all operating

through the market are the best ways to achieve sustainable development (Hopwood et al, 2005). This is

also why looking at recent UK Governmental activities many actions are related to business planning,

reorganization, learning and technical solutions for reducing waste, water usage and carbon emission.

This fits within the Anglo-Saxon planning system of the UK. According to Williams & Thomas (2004) a

trend can be seen of increase of SD importance in the UK since it is imbedded in multiple policy areas

such as waste management, energy, transport and planning. However the actions of the UK have been

rather ineffective according to Williams & Thomas (2004).

Wales, even though limited by the UK legislative and statutory context in many ways, has made

significant progress regarding policy developments. The system of Public Service boards (PSB) and

Unitary Authorities in Wales and the difference in scale are unique compared to England. Since the

government of Wales act in 1998, SD was taken as its central organizing principle giving the National

Assembly for Wales (NAfW) an informing duty towards all its partners. Creating partnership

organizations such as Public Service Boards is what separated Wales from the rest of the UK in

attempting to get stronger bonds between the local and national government Williams & Thomas

(2004). According to Netherwood (2012) the Welsh Government suggested that SD as a central

organizing principle would include, long term approaches to policy, joined up approaches to achieve

5

environmental, social and economic outcomes, equality and resource efficiency, long term cost savings

and less impact on future generations in terms of costs, pollution and disasters.

The Well-being of Future Generations Bill (FG Bill) was recently presented to the committee and is now

up for public consultation. With this bill the Welsh Government wants to integrate sustainable

development as a central concept in its public structure. During the Scrutiny of the FG bill Peter Davies,

commissioner for sustainable development, mentioned that the FG Bill can be seen as an "umbrella bill",

an overarching bill that will guarantee sustainable development throughout all levels of governance in

Wales (Peter Davies, 2014). According to planning, the FG Bill will become law in spring 2015.

According to the "Wales We Want National Conversation" the FG Bill has the aims to work towards

achieving a prosperous, resilient, healthier, more equal Wales with cohesive communities and a vibrant

and thriving culture and Welsh language. This will be done by:

Creating a common aim and objectives.

Having Public Service Boards (PSBs) develop local well-being plans representing the local aim

and contributing to the common aim.

Each public body must set objectives to contribute to the well-being goals.

A public body must also publish a statement explaining what/ how/ why and how much time it

will take to realize the well-being goals.

The FG bill wants communities to become stronger in decision making by putting the once with a

200.000 pounds annual income or expenditure on a statutory footing. This has as consequence that TC

are obliged to make bottom-up plans which will be contributing to the well-being plans of PSBs. This way

the national government hopes to represent communities and citizens better. According to Jeff

Cuthbert, previous minister for communities and tackling poverty (2014) the FG bill tries via long term

thinking, an integrated approach, engagement, collaboration and preventative action to set up a

framework within which Welsh public authorities will seek to ensure SD, defined by the Brundtland

report (1987), is met.

The organization where this internship was taken is Cynnal Cymru - Sustain Wales. Cynnal Cymru was

established in 2002 as a response to the first SD scheme in Wales which was published in 2000. Cynnal

Cymru is a third sector independent networking organization that works alongside the government to

promote SD in Wales. In the past 12 years Cynnal Cymru evolved into an organization that brings

together practitioners working on SD. With the end of the SD commission in 2011 and the start of a SD

commissioner to bring leadership in SD in Wales Cynnal Cymru took on the additional role as

independent policy advisor in order to support the commissioner (Cynnal Cymru, 2013). Cynnal Cymru

ran several projects that promote sustainable development and some of them are related and relevant

to this research. A project ran by my supervisor Rhodri Thomas is Strong Roots which tried to improve

community planning. The aim was to make TC able to lead and support SD. This was a very successful

project increasing awareness of risks and SD with towns and communities. Another programme that is

led and supported by Cynnal Cymru is the National Conversation the Wales we want. This programme

tries to create a better understanding amongst citizens but besides creating public awareness about the

FG Bill it also reports on the wants and needs from the community for future generations in their town

6

or community. Cynnal Cymru also promotes and educates communities throughout their projects by

organizing events and projects involving citizens throughout Wales.

As mentioned in the glossary, PSBs will be obliged to develop well-being plans which should represent

the local aim and local well-being as well as the common aims. Town and community councils that will

be duty to the FG Bill will have to create a form of bottom-up plan representing the current state of

well-being and vision for the community or town. According to the bill now these plans will be used for

consultation on for the Local Well-being plans. According to several organizations and academics there

is a gap in policy and research on Town and Community Councils and the FG bill could have a significant

role in changing the role of Town and Community Councils and representing the citizens in Wales.

1.2 Research problem

The new FG Bill has the chance to become a unique law that could become an example for other

member states which want to place SD centrally in their governance system. As mentioned before it is a

law that puts SD right at the top of the agenda making it an overarching objective for all acts within

Wales. This leads to unique discussions and uncertainties of its impact. The governance structure of

Wales contains a public body very close to the citizens called Town and Community Councils. They are

statutory authorities and for now some of them will have to create a plan setting out the vision of the

town or community they are representing when the bill turns into law in 2016. In theory Wales is

governed multi-level but in practice Town and Community councils are not involved enough. Especially

in bigger strategies and plans set up by Unitary Authorities and the Welsh Government. In other words

the community and citizens are not represented enough in Wales. By implementing this new law the

Welsh government hopes to increase SD and develop long term goals for Wales. The current influence

and involvement of the Town and Community Councils and fast learning curve that Town and

Community councils will have to undertake to participate into the planning system is what is really

interesting. The Sustainable Places Research Institute, One Voice Wales, Cynnal Cymru and Peter Davies,

the commissioner for sustainable development all mention that there is a lack of research within this

area and are looking forward to this report to see what the role of Town and Community councils is and

what it should be in Wales.

1.3 Research questions

Main research question:

What effect does the "Wellbeing of Future Generations Bill" have on the "Local Service Boards" and

"Town and Community Councils", are the related councils prepared, do they have barriers and

opportunities contributing to the Bill and can stakeholders in Wales learn from England?

Research questions:

1. Who are the key players in the planning structure and regeneration? Which Town and

Community Councils will be subject to The Wellbeing of Future Generations Bill and what LSBs

are they located in?

7

2. What is Wales doing for the future? Do the related Town and Community Councils have place

planning or resilience planning and are there barriers or opportunities to contribute to the PSBs'

Wellbeing plan?

3. What can stakeholders in Wales learn from England?

1.4 Structure

In chapter two the theoretical framework used for this research is described.

In chapter three the way the empirical research problem was approached is shown.

In chapter four the public actors in SD in Wales are visualized and the key players are defined.

In chapter five the FG bill is analyzed, the changes that are recently happening in line with the FG bill

and trends that are affecting Wales.

In chapter six the possible role, current activities and the barriers and/or opportunities to contribute

to Well-being plans of Town and Community Councils subject to The Bill are analyzed.

In chapter seven the best practices from Shropshire are analyzed.

In the appendix you will find the interview guide used on the key players regarding the FG bill, a

survey usable for the Town and Community Councils subject to the bill, and the table of Town and

Community Councils subject and in which area they are located in including a map and a link to an

interactive map.

8

2. Theoretical Framework

As a starting point, this research sets a theoretical framework which will constitute the basis of the

subsequent analysis. This research uses Decentralization and Result Based Accountability (RBA) in an

attempt to explain the trends and activities in Wales. Decentralization is a trend which started in the

U.K. in the 1990's with the new labour run government. This new labour oriented government brought

fundamental changes to the political administrative organization of the UK. This also meant increased

devolution of government functions to Wales and new bodies on regional level (Dühr et al., 2007). The

trend of decentralization is extra supported by the European Union via regional funding initiatives such

as INTERREG and funds such as European Regional Development Funds (ERDF) in order to create and

stimulate the regional identity (Zonneveld and Waterhout, 2005). Even though there is criticism against

the process of decentralization and the risk of increased disparity it seems rather inevitable and the

responsibilities of the regional and local authorities seem to grow (Marks et al, 2002). According to Dühr

et al. (2007) in Wales the European programmes were used to inform the development of new national

planning strategies. This trend of decentralization of governmental roles leads to a shift of powers to the

local and the regional throughout Europe and it seems to increase. According to Peter Davies, SD

commissioner of Wales, the governance of the FG bill is not organized top down but centrally. Does this

mean that the new FG Bill contributes to this trend of decentralization by laying the responsibility at the

centre of governance at the Local Service Boards instead of at the nation state? Another programme

that has been mentioned as an issue that shows as proof of decentralization in Wales is Community

Asset Transfers (CAT). This programme refers to a shift in management and ownership of buildings or

land from public bodies to communities (Development Trust Association Wales, 2012). According to

several interviewed organizations related to local well-being such as One Voice Wales, Tredegar Town

Council and Llannon Town Council the issue of responsibilities and tasks transferred down to a more

local level is causing difficulties for the local authorities and the Town and Community Councils.

A theory suitable for this research and often used throughout Wales' public bodies is the one of RBA.

This theory designed by Mark Friedman (2005) is used throughout the world. The theory of RBA tempts

to turn policy-making towards more measurable outcomes. It tries to shift governance to use simple

language, create good outcomes and results (Friedman, 2005). This is also what the FG Bill tends to do.

The FG Bill lays the role of RBA at the centre of governance by giving the involved bodies the role of

performance measuring and yearly reporting on the well-being of the population. RBA consists of two

parts population accountability and performance accountability. Population accountability focuses on

the whole society and their well-being or on a select group, a customer's population that consists of

services, health managers focusing on the well-being of these populations (Friedman, 2005). According

to Mark Friedman (2005) defining RBA we use results or outcome such as a condition of the population

and we measure this via indicators or benchmarks. And finally we look at the performance in which we

measure how well a programme works, how well the organization performs and if anyone is better off.

During my internship I participated in a day of lecturing which was presented by Mark Friedman himself.

I estimate that there were around 400 participants from a variety of public organizations present at this

lecture which was given in the City Hall in Cardiff on 11th September 2014. This, in my eyes, shows the

relevancy of this theory and that it is accepted as a useful way to focus policy making in a more targeted,

measurable and communicative way throughout Wales. The fact that the FG Bill also tempts to shift

9

towards a government with measurable performances shows that it is accepted in the Welsh

government.

3 Methodology

This research was undertaken in accordance of the ethical guidelines of the three Universities part of

PLANET Europe Erasmus Mundus Masters Programme. The three months internship was undertaken in

several overlapping phases. The first phase from September till November consisted of Data collection

and analysis. The second phase from November till half November consisted of best practice from

England. The third and final phase was the reporting phase which started in October and ended in

December.

The first phase: Data collection and analysis consisted of Desktop research, Semi Structured interviews.

This phase started with developing general knowledge about the Wales planning structure and

gathering data on the Wellbeing of Future Generations Bill such as the list of Town and Community

councils subject to the bill. After gaining knowledge on the planning structure an organogram was

created for the actors related to the Wellbeing of Future Generations Bill. This organogram was used to

do target semi-structured interviews on different authorial levels in order to gain a perspective on the

way authorities interpret the Bill and its implementation and consequences. The interviews were

conducted with representatives from each authority which in most occasions were the respondents

mostly familiar with Town and Community Councils, sustainability or the FG Bill. The interviews' aim was

to gain an insight in the activities that public bodies currently do or are planning to do to contribute to

the FG Bill and to figure out if the relations between the public bodies subject to the bill were as good in

practice as in theory. The interview guide (see appendix A) consisted of open questions as well as closed

questions asking about general information and opinions. This guide was used at all interviews. This way

the results would be easily comparable.

The second phase: Best practices from England consisted of the case of Shropshire in England where

development of parish and neighbourhood planning is in a further stage. All the parish and community

councils in Shropshire have a local plan that is published on the Shropshire Councils' website. The case

of Shropshire was analyzed via desktop research and after extracting the best practice ideas and

differences with Wales it is used for the recommendations in the final report.

In the third and final phase this report including conclusion recommendations was written. During this

phase some of the interviews and analysis continued. They were passed on to the organization as data

to continue reporting with. In this final phase a presentation was given to an audiance consisting staff

members of Cynnal Cymru and its board and One Voice Wales.

10

4. Key players in the Wales sustainable development planning structure, important

relationships and key messages

4.1 SD planning structure

In Wales SD is currently embedded in the planning structure, top down through Welsh government and

promoted and steered by the commissioner for sustainable development (SD) Peter Davies who is

supported by Cynnal Cymru. SD is embedded in the Government of Wales Acts of 1998 and 2006. This

legislation gives the task to Ministers to set up a SD scheme promoting SD. The ministers are obliged to

report annually on the progress. The FG Bill will change the governance structure laying the

responsibility not only at national level but also for all other public bodies. Public Service Boards (PSB),

now called Local Service Boards (LSB) will get the statutory duty to produce local well-being plans

supported by local needs assessments. The well-being plans should contribute to the national aims as

well as the local needs (Welsh Government, 2014). The PSBs are geographically organized using the

same borders as the 22 Unitary Authorities and will exist as a statutory partnership organization. This

way of centrally organizing SD brings actors into play in a different way. In order to explain this

structure, see the organogram on Figure 1 (Next page). As shown on Figure 1 and as far decided by

Welsh Government, PSB will consist of Natural Resources Wales (NRW), Fire & Rescue Authority, Unitary

Authorities and Local Health Boards. They will also consult other important partners such as National

Park Authorities, Public Health Wales, Velindre NHS Trust, National Library, Sports Wales, Arts Council,

National Museum, Welsh Government and Town and Community councils (Welsh Government, 2014).

To start from top to bottom in Figure 1, the UK Government is directing Wales via legislation. Welsh

Government translates this into new National laws such as the FG Bill and the Planning Bill estimated to

get Royal Assent in 2016 and in the summer of 2015. In terms of the FG Bill, Welsh Government sets out

the national long term goals as well as national indicators to measure the progress. NRW, right

underneath Welsh Government, ensures the natural resources of Wales. It "has the purpose to ensure

that all the natural resources of Wales are sustainably maintained enhanced and used, now and in the

future" (NRW, 2014). Most importantly they give grants and funding to community groups to achieve

sustainability and to promote sustainable usage of natural resources (NRW, personal communication, 13

October, 2014). In line with the FG bill the contribution of NRW to the well-being goals is to manage the

natural resources in a sustainable way. All public bodies are obliged with the FG bill to set well-being

objectives that contribute to the common goals, set indicators to measure the progress of these goals

and to report annually (Welsh Government, 2014). In the FG Bill Local Authorities, Local Health Boards,

National Park Authorities, Welsh Fire department and Natural resources Wales are seen as public

bodies. This is why they are red in colour in figure 1 meaning that they will have the statutory duty of

reporting the well-being of their population and measuring population accountability in the eyes of

Mark Friedman (2005). One of the public bodies unique in Wales is the Town and Community Councils.

As recorded by One Voice Wales (OVW) there are 840 communities in Wales of which 730 own a

council. The once with a budget over 200.000 pounds, currently 53 according to Wales Audit Office

(2013) , will be subject to the bill and will have to make a well-being plan in which they will describe the

current status of their Town or Community including a vision for the future. The third sector

organizations have the aim within this structure to communicate, guide, train and educate other actors,

citizens or groups of citizens.

12

Figure 1: Organorgram. (Data Source: UK Government,

2013; Welsh Government, 2013)

13

4.2 Relationships and key messages

With the appearance of the FG Bill new actors came into play, public bodies got different roles or tasks

and relations between them has to be established or enhanced. Some of these relations already exist.

For this research several of the key players have been interviewed and the relationships as mentioned in

theory by various papers are in practice different. According to NRW (personal communication, 13

October, 2014) the FG Bill is generally well conceived and NRW sees a real chance to learn through

partnership working. In their eyes working in partnership is most enjoyable and profitable and Local

Service Boards are a good place to bring communication together. NRW mentioned as an example the

partnership works done under the project called Strong Roots. In the interviewees eyes this project

helped them enhance the relations between, Cynnal Cymru and One Voice Wales and the targeted

communities (personal communication, 13 October, 2014). The key message from NRW is that the FG

Bill is definitely a good step ahead but a vast learning curve has still to be made. Involved policy-makers,

politicians and other actors will have to gain knowledge, the skills and will have to gain support by

convincing people. Therefore good communication and benchmarking is very important. Regarding the

FG Bill PSB will have a key role to play. They will not only have to bring together every actor but also

provide support, training and the backup for all actors to understand the aims of the FG Bill.

PSB are one of the most important organizations within the FG Bill scheme. The goals set by Welsh

government are translated into Local goals and aims, measured via indicators. At the LSB conference

organized by Welsh Government in November, 2014 the leaders of all 22 LSBs gathered to give their

opinion on the FG bill. The Welsh Government promised to use the feedback from the LSBs to adjust the

FG Bills' guidance to make it more suitable

for them. LSBs are supposed to have

relationships with all actors shown above,

taking some onboard and to use others for

consultation. As example, Ceredigion LSB

(personal communication, 4 November, 2014)

mentioned that they currently have 5 partnership

groups (shown in figure 2) and a LSB advisory

group. They mentioned that they used the 'Shared

Purpose, Shared Delivery' guidance from

Welsh Government. They setup a

reporting structure in which the five

partnership groups reports to the LSB. The

LSB monitors each group. The key message

send out by the LSBs during this conference was that so far the Single Integrated Plans (SIP) were

made but reporting annually was quite difficult. They mentioned that improvements were good but that

it was quite hard to measure real results in the way Mark Friedman presents them. In other words they

felt good with what they did and achieved but the LSBs were not able to identify what difference they

made with their plans, especially concerning children and young people. The general impression the

LSBs send out was that the reports were confusing in their eyes and they felt that it was a box ticking

Figure 2: LSB Partnership

Ceredigion

Source: Ceredigion ( 2014)

14

exercise trying to work towards the common goals. I suggest that this is because of the developing stage

they are in and the pressure of time. The LSBs feel that they need time to review their system to see if

they are assessing right, using indicators. The main message send was that LSBs miss local data this

makes it difficult to assess the right things. Creating a working and trusting relationship is important for

a LSB to fully function. This seems quite difficult with so many actors around the table from different

angles. Another issue is that LSBs are supposed to cover a huge array of aspects and that there is no

knowledge or resources to cover all these aspects. Many mentioned that the theory of Friedman and

the implementation by Welsh Government is good in theory but leads to difficulties in practice. Lack of

data was the main motive.

As mentioned before Town and Community Councils (TC) are unique public organs functioning on the

most local level of governance. According to One Voice Wales (OVW) TC come in different sizes and

forms with no correlation related to activity or size whatsoever (personal communication, 26

September, 2014). Some TC are aware of the FG Bill and have started to develop some sort of bottom-

up plan in order to either be able to defend their local ideas, inform citizens or to prepare for the duty of

the bill. TC are supposed to have relations with Local Authorities and LSBs but they often feel excluded

or misunderstood. This is mainly because TC communicate on a different level as the other public bodies

which often use different jargon and communicate on a more strategic level. As far as heard throughout

interviews TC are greatly supported by OVW and have good relationships with National Park Authorities

(NPA). In theory even though TC are small they should be well connected with other actors because they

hold the local knowledge of a community. In practice many of them live in their own world only looking

at their own community and the issues that play. They never communicated much with other

organizations before especially not with other neighbour TC (personal communication, 26 September,

2014).

NPA will create a local well-being plan for their National park. Their relationships are mainly with the

Local Authorities, TC and LSBs within their park as well as with Welsh Government. NPA are an

important organization in the FG Bill structure of governance. They communicate with LSBs, UA, and

Welsh Government but also directly with TC. This is the reason why they have much knowledge and

insight in the wellbeing of the citizens of the National Park. According to the Brecon Beacons NPA

(personal communication, 19 September, 2014) a role of conversation, access, understanding and a legal

duty around social being and wellbeing are embedded within their legislation. This includes the role of

social being and wellbeing of the local communities within the National Parks. This role does not have

much budget associated with it. So often through the other duties of the park they tend to embed the

role of wellbeing of local communities (personal communication, 19 September, 2014). The Brecon

Beacons NPA feels that they have an educating and communicating role towards communities regarding

their planning roles. The Brecon Beacons NPA did a national conversation in spring, 2014 involving the

TC. The Brecon Beacons NPA believes in the FG Bill and generally thinks that bringing the voices together

democratically will help local sharing and will contribute to increase of wellbeing within the National

Park. They worry if TC can take on the duty of the bill since they are mainly voluntary based and some of

the new tasks they will get will be quite time consuming. Another issue will be that the TC will have to

work together horizontally while they have strong identities and will probably not want to work

15

together since they never did this before. NPA Brecon Beacons mentioned that they have been included

in the SIP of Powys and that they felt it was a lengthy process with a not very detailed outcome. Since a

SIP has such a wide range of topics. They feel that the SIP is currently not very linked with other

authorities.

5. The FG Bill: recent activities, changes and trends.

The FG Bill is an umbrella bill involving all public bodies and many other actors. A brief overview of the

most important actors and their relationships was given in the previous chapter. Since the FG Bill is in an

evolving state some activities, decisions and trends of reasonable impact happened during this

internship period that should be noted.

Welsh Government published a white paper on the reforming of local government 25 July 2014. This

paper indicates that the Local Authorities are small and not able to deal with the risks they face. A

merge of the Local Authorities is suggested in which the Commission wants to reduce the number of

Local Authorities from the current 22 to 10 to 12. Not only will this help Local Authorities to deal with

serious small scale issues but also will communication with public service organizations progress as well

as that it will save in the long term. According to Welsh Government (personal communication, 4

November, 2014) a Paving bill will turn into act September 2015. This act will structure the steps

necessary for the merge. Local Authorities (LA) are asked to voluntary merge on an early basis by Welsh

Government but so far none have replied to this. Merging of LA will have huge consequences on all

public bodies, in particular TC on which tasks will be transferred onto. LSBs currently have SIPs which are

already leaning towards becoming a Well-being plan. LSBs actively include the ideas of the FG Bill as it

looks now. If the fusion of Local Authorities happens the LSBs will automatically merge as well since they

are bound to Local Authority geographical areas meaning that these plans will also have to be merged

into new plans covering a wider area with a wider array of topics, priorities and issues. Furthermore TC

will have significant impact from this merge as well. This devolution will lead to loss of assets on local

level which means that if TC wants certain assets to exist they will have to take the responsibility for

maintaining them. This asset transfer to a public body that is run mainly on voluntary basis will lead to

disappearance of certain aspects in town and communities. According to Tredegar (personal community,

October, 2014) this merge and asset transfer worries them. There are several locally important historic

buildings abandoned and in decay because the Unitary Authority has signed them as not important or

does not have the priority to take care of it. Tredegar says not to have any capacity to take care of these

buildings either so they just fall apart in frustration of the TC.

On Thursday 11 September 2014 the First Minister of Wales, Carwyn Jones announced a reshuffle of the

cabinet. He felt focus on tough choices was necessary. According to him this new cabinet has the skills

and experience to deliver the changes that Wales need in the upcoming months. Important for the FG

Bill is that Carl Sargeant is now Minister for Natural Resources which also includes Sustainable

Development and the FG Bill. Getting a new cabinet always leads to reshuffle of thoughts, ideas and

sudden changes which can lead to confusion and a shift of focus by involved actors. The new Minister

Carl Sargeant also has to be educated into the FG Bill in order to fully understand what the idea is in

16

order to be able to defend it during the scrutiny stage. Several activities/ projects were launched in

order to promote or to get a response or to educate actors related to the FG Bill. Cynnal Cymru supports

or manages them delivered through Peter Davies, commissioner for Sustainable Futures.

Currently a National Conversation "The Wales we want" is going on. This National Conversation will feed

into the FG Bill. It is an open conversation in which anyone can present the issues that matters them.

According to Peter Davies (2014) the answers will help shape the long-term vision for Wales and the

future generations. It targets individuals, businesses, communities to identify their problem. On the

website they are organized per theme. The Wales We Want was launched in February 2014 and over

150 organizations have signed up as Future Champions. Future Champions are individuals, communities

or businesses who signed up for the National Conversation. A Future Champion receives email updates

and information on helping Future Champions to hold a conversation with their sector, group or

community about the Wales We Want. A Future Champion will get the tools to capture views, an online

platform to feedback the views and conversations captured and access to a network to share ideas. By

engaging with the people of Wales through the National Conversation the Welsh Government hopes to

get a better understanding of the challenges that people face in their everyday lives as well as those of

their families and communities. The National Conversation should not just help build up public

awareness about the Bill, but will lead to a report that will be used in the FG Bill by June 2014.

Welsh Local Government Association (WLGA) developed an "early adopters" programme for local

authorities to actively engage with the FG Bill. This programme will help Local Authorities get more

feeling for the idea behind the FG Bill. The Local Authorities will start to work towards the requirements

of the FG Bill immediately. Not only will the Local Authorities who sign up get free support from WLGA

and will be prepared for the duties that are to come with the FG Bill they will also be able to shape the

guidance for the FG Bill. Currently 13 of the Local Authorities have signed up for this programme. Their

names and locations are visible on the interactive map shown in Appendix C.

17

6. The role, activities, barriers and opportunities of Town and community councils to

contribute to well-being plans.

After interviewing several TC, attending a Town Plan launch, talking to local partners of Strong Roots and

engaging with academic reports on TC from Alan Netherwood and other academic reports the general

impression of TC is quite significant. TC occupy an interesting area in the governance structure of this

country. They are the most local form of governance closest to citizens and communities and know

often exactly how these communities work. What is unique about TC is that they are a public body that

has had no reporting duty before and yet they are closest to the citizens. This has led to the result that

TC are often quite active for their community but that they do not report on their activities so the

activities remain unknown. TC are an important facet in the Welsh governance system and could play an

indisputable role in the FG Bills sustainability structure. Yet TC are often underestimated, not taken

seriously or misunderstood by the other public bodies. The FG Bill hopes to bring change in this by

making some of the larger TC subject to the bill. In general TC take the FG Bill positively. At the Penarth

Town plan launch was mentioned that they see this as the chance to shape the community they live in.

It is going to be hard work but they feel that they should bring the community together to engage in the

bigger discussion with the community (personal communication, September 2014). Even though Town

Plans will be merely supplementary guidance and not statutory plans TC feel that these plans will be

able to give them an insight on the position they are in and the plans can nevertheless be used as a tool

to defend the local vision for the Town or Community and will help to raise funding to realize the vision.

Impressions from interviews are that TC often want to actively be involved and help their community.

Yet they feel that they lack the competence to contribute to the bigger discussions. Mark Friedman

(2005) mentions in his research the importance of local actors as they hold the knowledge of the local

area.

6.1 Local well-being plans: role of community councils

According to the FG Bill the role of community councils is consulting. The FG Bill mentions that if a

community council is subject to the bill, so with an income or expenditure of at least £200,000 "... A

community council must take all reasonable steps in its area towards meeting the objectives included in

the local well-being plan and guidance that has effect in its area..." (Welsh Government, 2014, P.22). If

the commissioner and the community council are consulted by the Welsh Ministers then "...A

community council must publish, in respect of each financial year in which it was subject to the duty

under subsection (1), a report of the progress it has made in its area in meeting the objectives included

in the local well-being plan that has effect in its area..." (Welsh Government, 2014, P.22). The Welsh

Ministers must guide the community councils that are subject to the duty. The Town or Village plan that

a TC will have to produce will feed in the local well-being plan of the PSB as guidance. According to OVW

and several TC this is worrying since they feel that this will not change anything to the current situation

in which a Town Plan is not being used by higher authorities. Currently TC that have produced a bottom

up plan are often thanked for their effort and LSBs are impressed with the reports but will generally not

use them for their well-being reports. Consultation in this sense will be very minimalistic since there is

no duty on taking the visions of TC by heart. After analyzing and hearing the key messages from LSBs

18

and TC it seems to me that the role for TC should lay in gathering the ideas and visions of their citizens,

combining them in one shared vision and sharing their local knowledge and local data with the LSBs

which then combine the gathered local knowledge into common knowledge to use this as basis for their

well-being plans together with data directly from citizens, policy, fire and health departments. According

to One Voice Wales (personal communication, September, 2014) one aspect is important for the place

plans TC are producing. Higher authorities should not limit TC with themes and they should not consult

on their specific issues but also consult on the matters that TC concern. In the current activities of

consultation this often leads to the frustration that TC do not feel heard. According to One Voice Wales

it is very important that TC should be engaged in the development not only consulted as mentioned in

the FG Bill but involved in the PSB structure. If communities are to engage with the democratic process

they should get more ownership over their future agendas and the directions. The William's report

(2014) sees an increased importance in the role for TC. It advices TC to merge into larger ones to

become more efficient.

6.2 Wales activities in terms of planning for the future, several case studies

In Wales more and more TC feel the need to create a bottom up plan. Even though they are not

statutory they are often very useful for the community. In this chapter several cases are described. The

sources for this chapter are the plans itself and interviews with involved councillors, independent

consultants or involved architects. Village Plans encourage development that respects local identity and

community’s social and economic needs. Village plans, if done well, bring the communities together and

help create a stronger sense of community.

In Llannon a Parish Plan was launched in partnership with Tumble Sports Association and a team of

independent consulters. The Town Plan includes an Urban Design analysis, a community group analysis,

a community consultation exercise and recommendation to the most appropriate delivering body for

the strategy. Several scenarios for the town were created including how they should contribute to the

communities well being (Harrison Design Development, 2008). According to an independent consultant

(personal communication, October, 2014) the Parish plan was a great success. It was used to do Welsh

language research and to gain funding which helped create facilities within the community. Currently

Llannon is taken over by asset transfers which has affected them with more tasks and cutbacks severely

this has led to a delay in renewing the plan. The County Council used it as a strategic document in which

urban landscape is taken into consideration. The strategic document of Llannon can be seen as an

interactive process because the asset transfer programme has been fitted into it. Even though the UA

does not give significant reference to the plan it is recognized in a sense that officers did gave funding on

basis of the plan. In some way the Llannon Parish plan can be seen as a success for the Parish. According

to the independent consultant (personal communication, October, 2014) the plan from Llannon was

very optimistic and covers a wide area of topics. It could be seen more as a wish list for the long term

future.

In Penarth a Town plan was launched 30 November 2014 in partnership with White Design an architects

and sustainability consultancy and Jones Lang Lasalle an investment management company. The plan is

a continuous plan that used citizen consultation to generate a top 5 themes for Penarth and to create

19

alternative solutions for issues Penarth is currently dealing with. The plan is build upon the Local

Development Plan (LDP) from the Vale of Glamorgan council. Penarth feels that with the

implementation of the FG Bill and the cut in funding for the Vale of Glamorgan they can assist in

delivering services that otherwise would be lost. Penarth hopes that their plan will be adopted as

Supplementary Planning Guidance by the PSB and could therefore fulfil a number of formal roles. The

Vale of Glamorgan will adopt a new LDP in 2016 and Penarth hopes that this is the opportunity to

support this LDP with their Town Plan giving it formal roles on higher level. The Town plan launch was

successful yet the response from the audience was quite negative. The citizens did unfortunately not

have much faith in the plan and felt that other priorities were more important such as creating more

parking space, better maintenance of the park and maintenance of pavements. These roles are not the

responsibility of a town council but of the UA. Citizens in Penarth have issues thinking long term and feel

that there are short term problems to be solved within their daily life. It is important for a town council

to show the relevancy of a town plan so that citizens see that this is the chance for them to really make

a difference or their community. Thanks to the FG bill, active TC now have the chance to decide the

future for their community.

Radyr & Morganstown wrote a village plan in order to direct the community's future. They did this

together with Radyr & Morganstown Association (RMA) and organized two projects for Cardiff

University planning students. The students created a Town plan and did a site appraisal of the town. The

community has grown rapidly the last few years and they feel that bringing the community together

through community activities is important. The village plan is used to describe the community's facilities

and to ask citizens what is important and what should change within the village. They used a

questionnaire to approach their community actively. With the Village plan they also hope to influence

local and national decisions about further development. The Village plan was mentioned in the Welsh

Assembly Government's Community Cohesion strategy as an excellent example. Radyr & Morganstown

Community Council (R&MCC) would like the Village Plan to be adopted by Cardiff County Council (CCC)

as Supplementary Planning Guidance. This means that CCC would have to consider the Village Plan when

it decides large-scale planning applications. Radyr & Morganstown decided to review their report every

five years.

Tredegar joined a project of Strong Roots and created with the help of Cynnal Cymru a climate resilience

programme called Tredegar Live. They created, in their eyes, a more professional risk management

approach which is different since it tries to cover the risks related to climate change in their area. In

their eyes it keeps the plan partly more realistic. They still hope to write a long term vision for Tredegar

but as it is now they created an action plan/ risk map in which the risks Tredegar can have due to

climate changes are mapped out and it describes what actions are supposed to be taken in order to

decrease the risk. This led to the development of actions such as increase local food production,

improve insulation of buildings and reduce carbon emission. The partners were of Strong Roots,

members of Blaenau Gwent and groups within the community. Tredegar hopes to raise awareness

within the community and thinks this will lead to a stronger more resilient community. According to

members of the Tredegar live project (personal communication, October, 2014) the project is a little

delayed since they are currently strongly coping with Asset Transfer and the impacts of this aspect. They

20

are worried that locally important buildings will be lost since some buildings are already decaying

because there is no one taking responsibility over them. Even though some buildings such as sport

centres are part of leisure trust they are still being sold off in auctions by Blaneau Gwent County

Borough Council. Even protected buildings will not be maintained and are just collapsing according to

Tredegar live (presonal communication, October, 2014). Asset Transfer will be a real issue if funding and

support is not passed on with the tasks (personal communication, October, 2014).

Llanelli prioritised an emergency resilience plan for Llanelli as part of the Llanelli we want programme.

According to the Welsh Government contact person in Llanelli (personal conversation, October, 2014)

FG Bill was pushed in attention in Llanelli to raise awareness and to shift attention towards Llanelli and

the problems it is dealing with. Llanelli is not quite advanced enough to cope with the issues but they

are motivated to change. The Old community's first desponded into a community partnership. These

new community partnerships are more accountable according to Welsh government but they are very

top down coordinated having three themes appointed by Welsh Government, health, education and

prosperity. Llanelli we want is a community partnership gathering the wants and needs of the

community which could then contribute to the national conversation Wales we want. Where Llanelli

currently stands is that Llanelli talked with Carmarthenshire and an LSB officer to integrate their

community strategy well in the well-being report from Carmarthenshire. In the last session Llanelli had a

Llanelli we want conversation and number 1 priority was a resilience emergency plan. The voting was

done by 40 community group representatives'. One of the reasons why emergency planning got so high

on the agenda was probably because Llanelli was participant in the Strong Roots project which

stimulated to think about emergency planning. Besides that there was already some form of emergency

training within the community which led to publicity for resilience promoting it to the top of the agenda.

Llanelli will have a new emergency planning seminar 24th October with NRW, LA emergency planning,

blue light services, the community and few businesses. In this seminar they hope to map out the

communication, how to cascade information in emergency. They already did an audit at the community

buildings for evacuation but what is still missing are people with local knowledge, in cooperation with

time banking they tried to assign street ambassadors which can help on the ground. They could also be

called flood wardens.

6.3 Barriers and opportunities to contribute to well-being plans

TC have a quite large amount of barriers and opportunities in order to achieve the goals of the FG Bill.

TC have not been actively taking part of the FG and governance structure before which means that they

will have new opportunities. They will be able to play a different role in community planning which will

give them a chance to design their own future. Furthermore TC will be able to collaborate with new

partners and therefore take part in new shared learning partnerships and processes. This way TC will

become more integrated and eventually deliver better as a public body. If a town plan is in place TC will

be able to do even more. With a plan in place TC will be able to create funding for the realisation of their

vision and they will be able to use this funding to develop facilities for their community. With a town

plan in place communities will also be able to defend their community and use their plan for

communication purposes which will lead to the creation of an identity for their Town or community.

21

With a plan in place they will also be able to report activities which will lead to transparency and

recognition of this part of the public sector. Not only will the recognition be from other public bodies

but also from their own community which will increase the local support. According to One Voice Wales

(personal communication, September, 2014) there are quite some barriers that have to be solved before

TC could truly be effective in the system. As mentioned before they have not been part of the

governance structure. They were co-opted onto the LSBs before but the strategic language, different

interests and topics not being related to daily local issues TC are currently not represented on the LSBs.

LSBs communicate often about social care and education and TC focus more on local related issues and

are more practically oriented. TC also feel that the issues they deal with seem not big enough for LSBs to

deal with. To get TC represented, involved and more integrated they will need to be trained to work and

interact in partnerships with the other bodies. Another issue is that TC do not feel recognised as a fully

functioning tier of governance let alone feel heard or taken serious.

Nevertheless there are real opportunities for TC such as taking on some of the services and assets from

higher authorities and to work with other bodies to deliver new models with a better vision or assets

sharing. Coordinating the sector to take the opportunities available for them is necesary though. There

will be a challenge culturally to transform TC from consulates to doers. This is quite a step of change

according to One Voice Wales (personal communication, September, 2014). If we would put in place

effective separate authority level engagement methodologies as the Williams report (Williams

Commission, 2014) mentions TC should cluster in order to become more viable and to be able to

collectively deal with the assets that will be given to them. According to One Voice Wales (personal

communication, September, 2014) this will need a big learning curve for TC and some pilot work should

be done in order to figure out how this should be achieved. The Williams report (Williams Commission,

2014) mentions that after reducing the UA there will be an increasing role for TC in the future. In their

current status TC feel that they are not ready or supported enough moneywise, skill wise or legislative

wise to take on the roles that will be given to them by the FG Bill. In general TC are worried that services

might be lost. Throughout my interviews I heard repeatedly that TC often do not feel heard by other

authorities with which they are supposed to communicate. On the other side the communication about

the funding available for TC is also lacking. According to Brecon Beacons NPA (personal communication,

September, 2014) the National park grand funds to a variety of different groups for energy and facilities

but TC tend not to apply for this fund at all.

22

7. Best practice from England

After implementation of the Localism Act in 2011 Parish and Town councils (PT) gained significantly

more importance and power in England. The Localism Act (2011) gave the "General Power of

Competence“ to PT meaning they can do anything as long as it is not limited by other acts. PT can create

neighbourhood plans which can contain policies for the use of land in the area. PT are also allowed to

permit the development they want to see in full or in outline without the need of planning applications

only if at least two thirds of the council is elected. PT have the same power as TC in Wales to raise

precept but they are not allowed to increase the rate in order to realize any of their developments.

Having said this it shows that PT have significantly more power than TC in Wales. PT are also recognized

more as a formal tier in government. Shropshire (2010) sees the plans TP create as vital in delivering

local ambitions. It also mentions that place plans bring together infrastructure and investment

requirements as well as the bottom up priorities and aspirations. Place plans in Shropshire are used as

input for the LDF Implementation plan and the Infrastructure Delivery Plan. According to Shropshire

(2010) communities can contribute in several ways. They can directly contribute to the local plan, they

can create an OT plan which influences the local plan policy wise and they can play a central role in the

annual review of the local needs. Furthermore PT have the duty of providing allotments if necessary and

requested by the community according to the allotment act (1908). In England groups of citizens who

form a community forum can also have formal powers to develop and realize projects if they have the

capacity and skills to form a neighbourhood plan. In Wales TC do not have such powers they are very

much restricted by the Local Authorities and their plans are merely used for guidance and there is

currently not even a duty to take note of TC plans at all.

According to Local Government Leadership (2010) there is a similarity between Wales’ Local Service

Boards (LSBs), and England’s Local Strategic Partnerships (LSP). Both LSBs and LSPs are specifically set up

to include a wide section of community leaders from across the sectors. They are both non-statutory

bodies; however LSPs are responsible for the allocation of an area’s neighbourhood renewal funding (if

applicable) and are charged with developing and overseeing Community Strategies. LSBs have

responsibility for agreeing and overseeing their Local Delivery Agreement, which focuses on working

together to tackle complex, intractable issues and is often based on the priorities in the Community

Strategy and other existing strategies. There is no funding attached to this delivery. Two key areas

where LSPs and LSBs differ are in central Government representation and joined-up learning

opportunities. LSBs have a direct connection to their central Government through their WAG board

member that is lacking in LSPs. This could be a useful relationship to exploit in jump-starting a place-

based agenda. Additionally, LSBs have the existing framework of the LSB Innovation Networks to draw

upon. These could also be useful in quickly sharing information and experiences across potential pilot

areas. A difference though is that in Shropshire communities get the opportunity to either function as

community hub or as community cluster. A community cluster is a group of (two or more) rural

settlements. In combination, the settlements within the community cluster will offer a range of services

contributing to a sustainable community. In Wales a National programme funded by Welsh Government

called Communities First attempts to achieve prosperity, learning, health and tries to tackle poverty by

forming 52 community clusters in Wales but this project does not really seem to create community

clusters but invites them to collaboratively work together.

23

8. Conclusion and Recommendations

As seen throughout the assignment, decentralization is an undisputable fact in Wales. This fact is also

supported by the Williams report which advices TC to merge so that they can cope with the

responsibilities that will be passed down onto them. In Wales decentralization led to asset transfer,

tasks and responsibilities being passed onto the lowest level of governance TC while money and skills

often stay behind. TC in Wales are unique in a way that they do not have any formal powers and that

they are merely based on voluntary basis. TC come in different sizes and forms with no correlation

related to activity or size. The theory of RBA from Mark Friedman is widely used throughout Wales. Yet

the effects and the true outcome is doubtful. The RBA theory is harder to implement in practice then in

theory as seen by the messages send by LSBs. In many cases the LSBs feel that they cannot generate

measurable outcomes in the way Mark Friedman represents it because they often lack the precise data

that is needed. The FG bill is an umbrella bill which could lead to big changes in Wales but connection

can still be fine-tuned. Currently there is a too weak connection with the new planning bill which speaks

about consultation with communities but the role of place plans is completely left out. TC currently also

lack connections with LSBs and have no input in the currently functioning SIPs. NPAs mention that they

are not really sure what LSBs do and what well-being plans are meant to deliver. In my eyes, TC can be

seen as local knowledge clusters and are therefore important organizations for LSBs who lack data and

information. A combination of formal powers, support and good Local knowledge means you can do

truly interesting SD work. Currently TC lack the skills and capacity, economically and socially but also

recognition and transparency to realize the goals of the FG Bill. Guidance and funding will be necessary.

Organizations like OVW, and PAW can play a vital role in this. The William's report pledges for no two

tear within the TC sector, yet this bill creates a two tear system by making half the TC subject to the bill.

Another issue mentioned is that LSBs speak about bigger strategies while TC often only deal with local

problems such as maintaining parks and garbage etc. In general in Wales there is a positive attitude

towards the currently appearing place plans. They are acknowledged but they are not being integrated

yet as is done in England. Even though TC do not have the General Power of Competence as in England

with a plan in place TC have the chance to design their own future, have shared learning moments which

will help them work with new partners, get more support from their community, generate funding,

defend their community and the vision and create and identity. The FG Bill, if implemented well, will

stimulate co-operative work between UA and TC. Asset Transfer in an early stage though will lead to

services and tasks being lost. TC are in their current state not capable of taking on most of the tasks that

are currently done by UA.

24

Overall I would recommend that public Wales should aim to have one common language and

terminology. Currently terminology is mixed throughout organizations, different terms are used by

different organizations meaning the same and the same terms are used in a different meaning. A start

has been made in the Glossary of this report. TC should also be profiled differently. LSBs are looking for

data and local knowledge as input for their plans. If TC would be seen as local knowledge clusters,

organizations that gather local knowledge from citizens, then the relevancy will also be seen by LSBs and

perhaps they will be more integrated in the system. Furthermore LSBs should be transparent and aim to

involve all public bodies in their planning process. This will lead to better understanding and better

connections between the public bodies. My final recommendation is that TC should be a fully

functioning tier of local government including a reporting duty and full-time skilled staff. This would lead

to transparency and publicity for TC which will then gain more local support, recognition which will

contribute to good use of local knowledge in Wales. I would therefore recommend all TC to be subject

to the FG bill so there will be no two tiers in the sector. But before this is possible a big learning curve is

necessary which costs time. Yet if TC are not consulted but engaged in the process the learning process

will be increased and this will eventually lead to more integrated governance in Wales.

25

Literature

Barker, T. (2012) Neighbourhood Development Plans.

C. Hay and M. Kenny. Oxford, Oxford University Press.

Ceredigion (2014) PREPARING THE CEREDIGION FOR ALL ANNUAL REPORT 2013/14 [PowerPoint slides]

Cynnal Cymru (2013) History of Cynnal Cymru. Findable on: http://www.cynnalcymru.com/our-history

Davies, J. S. (2009). The New Localism. The Oxford Handbook of British Politics. M. Flinders, A. Gamble,

Development Trust Association Wales (2012) Community Asset Transfer good practice negotiations

Dühr, S. & Stead, D. & Zonneveld, W. (2007) The Europeanisation of spatial planning through territorial

cooperation. Special Issue of Planning Practice & Research, Vol. 22, No. 3

European Commission (2014) General Union Environment Action Programme to 2020 Living well, within

the limits of our planet. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2014

Friedman, M. (2005). Trying hard is not good enough. Trafford on Demand Pub.

Harisson Design Development (2008) Tumble Regeneration Strategy Llannon

Hopwood, B., Mellor, M., & O'Brien, G. (2005). Sustainable development: mapping different

approaches. Sustainable development, 13(1), 38-52.

Local Government Leadership (2010) Local public services in Wales: developing a whole area approach.

SOLACE Wales.

Local Government Leadership (2010) Local public services in Wales: developing a whole area approach

Marks, G., Haesly, R., & Mbaye, H. A. (2002). What do subnational offices think they are doing in

Brussels?. Regional & Federal Studies, 12(3), 1-23.

Shropshire (2010) SHROPSHIRE PLACE PLANS Delivering Local Priorities through Partnership Working

UK Government (2013) Beginners guide on Governmental structure. found on

www.ons.gov.uk/ons/guide-method/geography/beginner-s-guide/administrative/england/parishes-and-

communities/index.html

Welsh Government (2012) Shared Purpose – Shared Delivery: Guidance on integrating Partnerships and

Plans

Welsh Government (2014) Well-being of future generations (Wales) Bill

26

Williams Commission (2014) Williams Report: Commission on Public Service Governance and Delivery

Williams, P. M., & Thomas, A. (2004). Sustainable development in Wales. Joseph Rowntree Foundation. World Commission on Environment and Development, (1987), Our Common Future (The 'Brundtland

Report'), Oxford University Press.

Zonneveld, W., & Waterhout, B. (2005). Visions on territorial cohesion. Town Planning Review, 76(1), 15-

27.

Personal Communication:

Anonymous, Brecon Beacons National Park Authorities Personal Communication 19 September 2014

Anonymous, Llanelli Personal Communication 7 October 2014

Anonymous, Llannon Personal Communication 17 October 2014

Anonymous, Natural Resources Wales Personal Communication 13 October 2014

Anonymous, One Voice Wales Personal Communication 26 September 2014

Tredegar Live Team, Personal Communication 17 October 2014

27

Glossary

Several terms related to planning and sustainable development are inconsistently used within Wales,

the UK and in Europe. Terminology is mixed throughout organizations, different terms are used by

different organizations meaning the same and the same terms are used in a different meaning. Several

organizations attempted to define some of the terms. To fully understand the planning system in Wales

we use the definitions mentioned below. The source of the definitions varies but they are mainly

defined by public bodies. Several definitions are clarified by Shropshire Council in England

(Shropshire.gov.uk), the Wales Local Government Authority (www.wlga.gov.uk), Penarth Town Council,

the National Conversation "The Wales We Want" and by One Voice Wales. The terms defined in this

document are all understood in the context of the Well-being of Future Generations Bill.

Bottom up Plans

Plans at a local level, are often defined as “bottom up plans”. The term bottom up plans can be seen as

the umbrella term or place plans, town plans, village plans, community owned resilience plans and

emergency plans. These plans have the advantage of being close to the citizens and attempt to deal with

their local concerns. The plans are often recognised by contributing to a place and the identity of this

place. A bottom up plan tries to use local skills and knowledge to set out actions in order to make the

place better.

Place plan

Place plans identify the local priorities and infrastructure requirements for communities in England

and Wales. In England they are being developed by Shropshire Council in partnership with local

communities, parish and town councils and local infrastructure and service providers. In Wales Town

and Community Councils develop the plans working together with Unitary Authorities and Local

Service Boards. A Place Plan is a non statutory document that brings together the views, opinions

and needs of the whole community, covering relevant social, economic and environmental issues.

Town Plan (Definition used in Penarth's Town Plan)

A town plan can be described as a vision for the town that includes general improvements and helps

the local community and businesses. The Penarth Town Plan will be rooted in the everyday

experience of Penarth, understood by the community through shared discussion. A town plan

should be guided by a reflection of the citizens' concerns and aspirations about the future of “their”

town. The Penarth Town plan contains a long term “vision” with which the community can begin to

chart ways of approaching the challenges and prioritising actions to be taken forward in the short-

term.

Village Plan (Community Councils Definition used from Radyr & Morganstown Village Plan)

A Village plan is similar to a town plan but on smaller scale. Since the Radyr & Morganstown's Village

plan was included in the Welsh community cohesion strategy as an excellent example of community

work it is here used as definition for what a village plan means. A village plan helps direct a

community’s future. Radyr & Morganstown used its village plan to present the community’s facilities

28

and to inform citizens. It also asked citizens what facilities they wanted to keep and what changes

they wanted in the community. Another aim of the village plan was to influence local and national

decisions about future developments by having a vision for the future. A village plan also helps to

influence local and national decisions about further development by providing information about

the community and what the community would like and need in the future.

(Community Owned) Resilience/ Emergency plan

Another form of bottom up plan are plans that are related to risks and emergencies. In line with the

global impact on climate change several Town and community councils started creating an action

plan by mapping risks and threats for their community. Llanelli for example created a resilience plan

as part of Cynnal Cymru's Strong Roots programme. Its aim was for groups and organizations to

understand the local risks and to work together to become more resilient through emergency

planning and education. According to Llanelli a Community Emergency/Resilience Plan maps out

vulnerabilities, strengths, skills, knowledge and resources within each ward. In order to do this a

strong cooperation with emergency services and citizens is necessary.

Community strategy (England)

Community strategies are intended to bring together all those who can contribute to the future of

communities within a local authority area, to agree on the key priorities for the area and pursue

them in partnership. As such, the preparation and implementation of community strategies will

involve the local authority and a wide range of organizations in the public, private, voluntary and

community sectors, as well as local people.

Community clusters (Definition used by Shropshire Council and Welsh Government)

A community cluster is a group of two or more rural settlements. In combination, the settlements within

the community cluster will offer a range of services contributing to a sustainable community. The scale

and type of growth required, as well as the location of any new development, is also being prepared in

partnership with parish or Town councils and the local community. In Wales a National programme

funded by Welsh Government called Communities First attempts to achieve prosperity, improved

learning, better health and tries to tackle poverty by forming 52 community clusters in Wales.

Development Plan Documents (DPDs) (Definition used by Shropshire Council)

DPDs are the statutory development documents prepared by the Unitary Authorities in England. They

indicate potential sites for future development and include policies which planning applications can be

assessed against. The DPD will include selected housing policies and form part of the Local plan.

Flood zones (Definition used by UK government)

The flood zones identify the probability of flooding from rivers (and the sea). In the UK the high

probability zone comprises land as having a 1 in 100 or greater annual probability of river flooding (1%).

The medium probability zone comprises land as having between a 1 in 100 and 1 in 1000 annual

probability of river flooding (1%- 0.1%). Excluded in flood zones is the presence of flood defences. The

29

zones provide an indication of the areas at risk of flooding in England and Wales. Flood zone data is

produced by the Environment Agency and is not focused on individuals but on areas.

Local development plan/ Strategic plan

Every local planning authority in Wales has a statutory duty to prepare a local development plan within

the framework set by national planning policy in Planning Policy Wales. Under Section 38(6) of

the Planning Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, planning applications must be decided in accordance with

the adopted Local Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

Planning Policy Wales, Section 3.1 “Taking Planning Decisions” gives more information on material

considerations. LDPs provide the proposals and policies to control development of the local area for the

next 15 years and should be prepared in 4 years.

Local Service Boards or Public Service Boards (Local government Leadership, 2010)

Local Service Boards (LSB) are non-statutory partnerships across the 22 local authority areas in Wales.

After implementation of the FG Bill they will be named Public Service Boards (PSB). PSB will become a

statutory body in Wales. In LSBs leaders of local public and third sector come together to ensure public

services are effective and citizen focused. LSBs try to improve the quality of life and cooperation

between sectors. It tries to provide leadership to solve difficult issues across public services. Unitary

Authorities (UA) are the main drivers of LSBs. An LSB does not have an office but is merely a partnership

of the UA, third sector and local voluntary services. The Welsh Government decided that the LSBs are

the best delivery body for the Well-being plans. This is mainly because of their collaborative leadership

role. The core of the LSB in relation to the FG Bill should consist of UA, police, health service, county

voluntary council, and a senior representative of the Welsh Government. Besides this core other

organizations are necessary to deliver the Single Integrated Plan such as: higher education, Communities

First, housing associations and registered social landlords, public service, business, third sector and the

community. LSBs have the aim to improve the economic, social and environmental well-being of its area

in accordance with the local aim taking in consideration the objectives of the common aim. According to

the FG Bill an LSB has to make an assessment of the current state of well-being in all three aspects in its

area and create a well-being plan setting out how it will pursue the local aim.

Local well-being plan (Welsh Government, 2014)

According to the white paper of the Well-being of Future generations bill (FG Bill) a public services board

must prepare and publish a “local well-being plan” setting out how the board is to pursue the local aim.

This plan will replace the SIP when the bill turns into act. According to the FG bill, a local well-being plan

must include objectives and set objectives in accordance with the sustainable development principle to

contribute to the achievement of the well-being goals within its area. Furthermore the local well-being

plan must include steps to meet the objectives and include a timeframe in which they wish to achieve

the objectives. PSB will report yearly on the progress towards meeting the goals in the local well-being

plan.

30

Localism (Davies, JS, 2009)

Localism describes a range of political philosophies which prioritise the local. Generally, localism

supports local production and consumption of goods, local control of government, and promotion

of local history, local culture and local identity. Localism can be contrasted with regionalism

and centralised government, with its opposite being found in the unitary state.

Neighbourhoods' development plans (England)

According to Barker (2012) Parish and town councils and neighbourhood forums can write a

Neighbourhood Development Plan (NDP) for their area. The NDP can set out policies and plans for that

area, like a Development Plan Document but on a very local level. The NPD is there to guide local issues.

Subject to conforming to national policies, as well as local plan policies for the area, and gaining support

through a referendum of the local area, this plan will be adopted as a formal part of the development

plan. This means that planning decisions have to be made in accordance with the neighbourhood plan

(and other parts of the development plan) unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

SAMDev Plan (Definition used by Shropshire Council)

The SAMDev Plan stands for Site Allocations and Management of Development Plan. This plan has as its

main aim to allocate areas of land for future development in Shropshire (excluding Telford and Wrekin).

It will also contain new management of development policies which will be used in determining future

planning applications.

Single Integrated Plan (SIP)

The current non statutory plan of Local Service Boards is called the Single Integrated Plan. The Welsh

Government (2012) considers that a Single Integrated Plan should be used to meet the statutory duties

in relation to the development of plans and strategies under the following legislation:

Local Government (Wales) Measure 2009 (Part 2: Ss 37-46) – Community strategies;

Children Act 2004 (Part 3: S26) – Children and Young People’s Plan;

National Health Service (Wales) Act 2006 (Part 3: S40) – Health, Social Care and Well-being

Strategies;

Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (Part 1: S6) – Strategies for the reduction of crime and disorder,

strategies.

Children & Families (Wales) Measure 2010 sections 11 & 12 – the duties in respect of local

authorities to assess for sufficient play opportunities and to promote and facilitate participation by

children in decisions of the authority.

Single Integrated Plans in the context of the FG bill are meant to bring strategies together. Modified

national sustainable strategies from top down and ideas and visions from bottom up are supposed to

meet each other in the Single Integrated Plan. With implementation of the FG Bill this plan will

transform into local well-being plan and with this transformation also become statutory.

31

Supplementary Planning Documents (SPDs)/ Explanatory Memorandum (Definition used by Shropshire

Council and Welsh Government)

SPDs give further clarification and guidance on policies contained in the development plan documents,

and can cover a wide variety of issues. Bills such as the Well-being of Future Generations Bill in Wales

have similar documents called Explanatory Memorandums which in complement the main act by

incorporating the regulatory impact assessment and giving extra explanation on the act. Currently

members of the Early Adopters programme feed into the SPD also called guidance of the FG Bill. They

help to focus the guidance on how the bill is supposed to be interpreted.

32

Appendix A: Interview guide

Thank you for giving me the opportunity of interviewing you. I’m Pieter Louwers I am an Erasmus master student doing an internship at Cynnal Cymru. I am doing a research on the effect of the "Wellbeing of Future Generations Bill" on the "Local Service Boards" and "Town and Community Councils". What are the barriers and opportunities to prepare for the Bill and what is the input from local authorities on the resilience plans and place plans/ integrated plans from the Unitary Authorities/LSB's. Am I allowed to record this interview, I will use it for my own research only and you will stay anonymously?

1. What is your current role/ knowledge in this subject?

2. Do you think the "Wellbeing of Future Generations Bill" will lead to big changes in the

planning structure in Wales? For example more integrated planning?

3. What is the role of LSB's in delivering the goals the Bill seeks to achieve?

4. What is the role of Town and Community Councils in delivering the goals?

5. Do you think Town and Community Councils have the capacity to either meet the duty of The

Bill (if they are above the £200K limit) or to contribute to the goals of The Bill?

6. Do you think that the Town and Community Councils subject to the bill will have barriers in

contributing to the LSB's wellbeing plan or will it create opportunities and if so which?

7. The 22 LSB have Single Integrated Plans (used to be called Community Plans) what input did

the town and community councils have in these plans?

33

Appendix B: Short questionnaire for TC related to the "Wellbeing of Future Generations Bill"

Dear Town or Community Councillor, The role of Town and Community councils in the "Wellbeing of Future Generations Bill" is still unclear. Through this brief questionnaire your answer will be helpful to indicate the role of Town and Community Councils in delivering the goals of the "Wellbeing of Future Generations Bill". Your feedback will help the development of the "Wellbeing of Future Generations Bill" and its implementation. I am an academic researcher working with Cynnal Cymru supported by One Voice Wales and by Peter Davies, 'Commissioner for Sustainable Futures'. I am doing a research on the effect of the "Wellbeing of Future Generations Bill" on "Local Service Boards" (LSB) and "Town and Community Councils". I am especially interested in the barriers and opportunities for Town and Community councils to prepare for the Bill and the input from them on the single integrated plans/ community plans from the LSB.

1. Does your council have any form of Strategy, Town Plan, Community Plan or Resilience plan?

If yes, who are the organizations you have worked with?

2. Do you have any formal contacts with your Local Service Board? If yes, please give further

details.

3. Have you had any input on the Single Integrated Plans/ Community Plans from the Local

Service Boards? If yes, please give further details.

4. Have you had any input on the Local Development Plan from the Local Service Boards? If yes,

please give further details.

5. Do you think the "Wellbeing of Future Generations Bill" will lead to big changes in the

planning structure in Wales? For example more integrated planning?

Thank you kindly for your time.

34

Appendix C: All TC subject to the Well-Being Future Generations Bill including map, including

link

Town and Community Councils Council Size Number in the list from Wales Audit Office List and the interactive map LSB

Llanelli Town Larger Councils 1 Carmarthenshire

Llanelli Rural Larger Councils 2 Carmarthenshire

Barry Town Larger Councils 3 Vale of Glamorgan

Abergavenny Smaller Councils 4 Monmouthshire

Abergele Smaller Councils 5 Conwy

Aberystwyth Smaller Councils 6 Ceredigion

Bae Colwyn Smaller Councils 7 Conwy

Beaumaris Smaller Councils 8 Isle of Anglesey

Blaenhonddan Smaller Councils 9 Neath Port Talbot

Brecon Smaller Councils 10 Powys

Bridgend Smaller Councils 11 Bridgend

Buckley Smaller Councils 12 Flintshire

Builth Wells Smaller Councils 13 Powys

Caergybi Smaller Councils 14 Isle of Anglesey

Caernarfon Smaller Councils 15 Gwynedd

Caia Park Smaller Councils 16 Wrexham

Caldicot Smaller Councils 17 Monmouthshire

Carmarthen Smaller Councils 18 Carmarthenshire

Chepstow Smaller Councils 19 Monmouthshire

Coedffranc Smaller Councils 20 Neath Port Talbot

Connah's Quay Smaller Councils 21 Flintshire

Conwy Smaller Councils 22 Conwy

Cwmbran Smaller Councils 23 Torfaen

Dinas Bangor Smaller Councils 24 Gwynedd

Flint Smaller Councils 25 Flintshire

Haverfordwest Smaller Councils 26 Pembrokeshire

Hawarden Smaller Councils 27 Flintshire

Holyhead Smaller Councils 28 Isle of Anglesey

Laleston Smaller Councils 29 Bridgend

Llandudno Smaller Councils 30 Conwy

Llanidloes Smaller Councils 31 Powys

Llannon Smaller Councils 32 Carmarthenshire

Llantrisant Smaller Councils 33 Rhondda Cynon Taff

Llantwit Fardre Smaller Councils 34 Rhondda Cynon Taff

Llantwit Major Smaller Councils 35 Vale of Glamorgan

Maesteg Smaller Councils 36 Bridgend

Magor with Undy Smaller Councils 37 Monmouthshire

Milford Haven Smaller Councils 38 Pembrokeshire

35

Mold Smaller Councils 39 Flintshire

Neath Smaller Councils 40 Neath Port Talbot

Newtown and Llanllwchaiarn Smaller Councils 41 Powys

Pembrey & Burry Port Smaller Councils 42 Carmarthenshire

Pembroke Smaller Councils 43 Pembrokeshire

Penarth Smaller Councils 44 Vale of Glamorgan

Pontypool Smaller Councils 45 Torfaen

Pontypridd Smaller Councils 46 Rhondda Cynon Taff

Porthcawl Smaller Councils 47 Bridgend

Prestatyn Smaller Councils 48 Denbighshire

Rhosllanerchrugog Smaller Councils 49 Wrexham

Rhyl Smaller Councils 50 Denbighshire

Welshpool Smaller Councils 51 Powys

Ystradgynlais Smaller Councils 52 Powys

Link to interactive map visualising the list above and the map below including the early adopters:

https://www.google.com/maps/d/edit?mid=zxtDeYzS11XY.kNNWRUopfaMQ

36