Brecon Beacons National Park Authority

Community Involvement Report

Contents 1. Introduction ...... 3 2. Members and Stakeholders ...... 5 2.2 The Members Workshop ...... 5 2.3 Matrix Results ...... 7 2.4 The Stakeholders Workshop ...... 10 2.5 Matrix ...... 13 3. Engagement Workshops ...... 17 3.1 Community Engagement Workshops – Introduction ...... 17 3.2 ...... 19 3.3 Crai ...... 20 3.4 ...... 21 3.5 Crickhowell Town Council Statement ...... 22 3.6 ...... 23 3.7 ...... 24 3.8 ...... 25 3.9 Llangattock ...... 26 3.10 ...... 27 3.11 ...... 29 3.12 Llangynidr Community Council Statement ...... 30 3.13 ...... 31 3.14 Talybont ...... 32 3.15 Tawe Uchaf ...... 33 3.16 ...... 34 3.17 Trallong Community Council Statement ...... 35 3.18 ...... 37 3.19 Vale of Grwyney Community Council Statement ...... 38 3.20 ...... 40 3.21 Conclusion ...... 41 4. Appendix 1 ...... 42 5. Appendix 2 ...... 48

1. Introduction

1.1 National Park Authority (BBNPA) has commenced work on preparing the Local Development Plan (LDP).

1.2 Part 6 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 20041 requires each local planning authority in to prepare a LDP for its area (section 62 of the 2004 Act). The process will build upon the substantive work that BBNPA has undertaken with its communities in developing its Unitary Development Plan (UDP). The LDP will become the Development Plan for the BBNPA, eventually superseding the current UDP.

1.3 The BBNPA LDP will act as the Development Plan for the BBNPA over a rolling 15 year period with regular monitoring reviews. It will comprise a strategy and integrated set of policies and site specific proposals that are linked to the vision of the NPA’s constituent authorities’ community strategies and the BBNPA National Park Management Plan (NPMP). As with previous development plans the LDP will be used to encourage appropriate development and minimise inappropriate projects. It will therefore provide a basis by which planning applications can be determined consistently and appropriately.

1.4 The Government’s stated intention in changing the planning system has been to make the production of development plans become faster, more responsive to change and based on sound community involvement.

1.5 The Delivery Agreement (DA) is a public document of the BBNPA, incorporating its project plan and its policy for involving the community in LDP preparation. It is an agreement between the Brecon Beacons National Park Authority (BBNPA) and the Welsh Assembly Government (WAG) and relates specifically to the Local Development Plan. “The Delivery Agreement was consulted upon widely in August 2006. It underlines the importance of the LDP within the authority, emphasises the scope and influence of the Plan and alerts external partners, stakeholders and the community from whom inputs shall be sought.”

1.6 A key aspect of the LDP is the involvement and consultation with stakeholders and communities. As a result a number of workshops and engagement sessions were undertaken. These helped establish initial ideas on the strategic issues facing the National Park and helped to build consensus on the strategic direction of the LDP.

1 The 2004 Act 1.7 The BBNPA held a BBNP Members and two Stakeholders workshops in November 2007. Additionally, several community engagement workshops were held in 2008 which involved various Community and Town Councils throughout the BBNP.

2. Members and Stakeholders

2.1 Introduction

2.1.1 On The 11th, 14th, and 15th November 2007 workshops were held between BBNPA, NPA Members and Stakeholders.

2.1.2 The LDP workshops commenced with a short introduction on the Park’s purposes, links with the National Park Management Plan (NPMP), and a summary of the key aspects of the LDP. A presentation was given on the key issue papers by BBNPA followed by a discussion in which groups were asked to reach a consensus on the 3 most important issues.

2.1.3 A Vision and Objectives presentation was given, which set out the draft vision for the NPMP and LDP. The Key Stakeholders and Members were asked to amend the Visions and Objectives as they saw fit. The participants then checked that the objectives were consistent with the vision.

2.1.4 Furthermore, Sustainability and Climate Change and Strategic Development Options were presented to the members and stakeholders. Each group was asked to use a sustainability matrix to score each option, rating whether they assist or conflict with the Sustainability Appraisal Objectives.

2.1.5 An overview of Sustainability Appraisal (SA)/ Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) was presented to the participants. There were also discussions regarding the proposed options for the LDP, which included, altering, highlighting problems or proposing new options.

2.1.6 Finally, a presentation was given on the next steps in the process and there was opportunity for attendees to ask questions or share more views.

2.1.7 A summary of the evidence presented is available in Appendix 2.

2.2 The Members Workshop

2.2.1 The main comments regarding the issues presented in the Members Meeting are as follows:

Climate Change – Seen as the main ‘overarching’ theme.

Sustainability – Frequently mentioned and linked with other issues.

Affordable Housing – Considered a very important issue be many, particularly with regards to allocating affordable housing land in smaller villages.

‘Live Work’ or ‘Mixed Use’ Sites.

On site renewable energy – Communities that meet their own energy requirements locally

Public Transport – seen to be just as important as where developments are located. Residential development in smaller areas was just as apt if there is public transport.

Local Employment – more land needed to be allocated for employment and is essential to ensure sustainability is possible.

Coupling of Housing and employment – hoped to promote reduced use of transport.

Retail Core Areas – concept that was discussed alongside ‘living above shops’ and both were viewed as an important contribution to improving retail

2.2.2 Climate Change and Affordable Housing were seen as the two primary issues that the LDP should address.

2.2.3 Vision – Some members stated that ‘the vision covers all issues well’ and the terminology was good. Additionally they stated that with regards to ‘Resilient, open and responsive to drivers of change’, the Park should be ‘exemplars of sustainable development’.

2.2.4 On the individual Objectives presented during the members meeting the following points were raised:

Climate Change – Noted that it was not prioritised

Town Centres

Housing – The point that it should not only be sustainability but also has to meet targets. The Issue regarding need was mentioned as well as the need to find ‘sustainable land’.

Place Making – the term ‘encouragement’ was disputed and it was suggested that it be more forceful

Economy and Employment

Sustainable Design and Construction

Social Inclusion – suggested it could be a sub bullet for Affordable Housing or Place Making

Transport – Point of integration should be made clearer, that it is ‘encouraging reduction in carbon emitting. Suggested that focus should not only be on Cars but that buses and lorries should also be investigated Waste – Recycling Centres and that the NP should be encouraging the Unitary Authorities to have better waste management

Health and Well Being

Natural and Cultural Heritage

Resources – Link between Energy Efficiency and Climate Change was raised and that efficiency should be promoted.

Micro generation – was raised as a topic which could be added, encouraging the relaxation of restrictions and increasing flexibility would aid in becoming more sustainable

2.2.5 Respondents also raised the need to link the objectives to the vision, to ensure interlinkages between objectives and to recognize the relationships between objectives and how they impact on one another. Additionally, it was thought that the structure should be in bullet points not paragraphs.

2.2.6 Response to the Climate Change Options:

Option 1: One member indicated strong disapproval Option 2: Deemed not ambitious enough Option 3: Believed to be the most feasible option based on previous discussions Option 4: This was acknowledged as the exemplar option. The need to be ambitious was noted however as were the consequences of this option Option 5: This option was disapproved

2.3 Matrix Results

2.3.1 During the workshops the participants were asked to complete a matrix where the Sustainability and Climate Change objectives were measured against the Sustainability Appraisal (SA) Objectives. They were asked to score each Climate Change objective by giving the following point scores

+2 if it considerably assists the SA Objectives +1 if on balance they assist SA Objectives 0 if there is no effect on the SA Objectives, -1 if on balance they conflict with the SA Objectives, -2 if they considerably conflict with the SA Objectives ‘?’ if the relationship is unclear.

The following charts are formed from the results of these matrices.

Sustainability and Climate Change Matrix Average 25 20 15 10 5 0 -5 1 2 3 4 5 -10 -15 -20 -25 -30 -35

Figure 1: Sustainability and Climate Change Matrix Average Scores

2.3.2 Figure 1 shows the average scoring for the Sustainability and Climate Change Matrix, it can be seen that Options 3 and 4 both scored positively indicating little or no conflict with the SA Objectives. The remaining objectives both scored negatively which identifies non-interventionist strategy, continuation as present and the prevention of any future development as options that do conflict with the SA Objectives.

Option 1 2 3 4 5

Group 1 1st 2nd

Group 2 1st 2nd

Figure 1: Sustainability and Climate Change Plenary.

2.3.3 It can be seen in Figure 2 that Options 3 and 4 were both the highest scored options by both of the groups that took part in the exercise.

2.3.4 Response to the Strategic Development Options Option 1: Two members indicated strong disapproval Option 2: The term affordable housing was written next to this option Option 3: No Comments Option 4: Circled on one sheet Option 5: Received approval by one member Option 6: Strong disapproval indicated by two members

Strategic Development Options Average 10

5

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 -5

-10

-15

-20

-25

-30

Figure 3: Strategic Development Options Average Scores 2.3.5 Figure 3 shows that the majority of the Strategic Development Options scored highly with the members with options 1 and 6 scoring negatively. The large negative scoring for Option 1 indicates a large conflict between Sustainability Appraisal Objectives and a non-interventionist strategy option, whereas there is a much smaller conflict between a New Town Development Option and the Sustainability Appraisal Objectives. Options 2, 3, 4 and 5 show a moderate positive scoring for each indicating little or no conflict with SA Objectives.

Option 1 2 3 4 5 6

Group 1 1st

Group 2 1st

Figure 4: Strategic Development Options Plenary

2.3.6 The plenary session showed some variation in opinion, although Group 1’s speaker stated that option 5 was the most popular, it was not the case for the whole group. In the other group they identified 4 as the most popular option which concurred with the whole table’s results.

2.4 The Stakeholders Workshop

2.4.1 The main comments regarding the issues presented in the Stakeholders Meeting are as follows: Climate Change – most participants acknowledged the importance of Climate Change and some believed it should be built into the plan. Many regarded Climate Change not as a single issue but one that should be in the background of all issues.

Sustainability – suggested that this should replace climate change, so that it was actively promoting a greener way of life-rather than just focusing on Climate Change.

Loss of the Younger Population

Jobs for the community

Education

Transport

Sustainable Communities – not only as a way of tackling Climate Change but also improving Communities. Key to this was reducing the need for transport, via more local jobs and services.

Landscape – Primary issue but not at the cost of the communities meaning that the protection or management of the National Park should not hinder the people living there. The idea of balance between man and nature was also discussed

Transport – idea of ‘Integrated Transport’ was raised as was provision for non- motorised traffic. Tourist Transport as well as Local Peoples transport needs were also recognised as it acknowledged that there was a variation in terms of demand.

Affordable Housing – Linked with the need to protect the indigenous population. Similarly linking housing and employment was mentioned, thereby reducing the need for transport to and from work. Developing housing near good infrastructure was also suggested as a way of reducing reliance on motorised transport.

2.4.2 Most of the issues raised were found to be interlinking with the majority having direct links back to sustainability.

2.4.3 Vision – Many participants suggested that the vision should be shorter and that many points within the Vision had already been achieved, they should be identified and the word ‘maintained’ employed. Another point was that the Vision should include the idea of ‘enhancement’. It was also suggested that Communities should be mentioned in the vision.

2.4.4 Groups noted the need for the term ‘prevention’ to be included where the Vision mentions undesirable change, with regards to the effect of climate change.

2.4.5 Objectives – It was noted that some objectives should perhaps be grouped together more and that certain objectives link, for example not just to each other but to sustainability. The links and crossovers should be acknowledged and illustrated in some way.

2.4.6 On the individual Objectives the following points were raised: Climate Change – Prevention and mitigation should be mentioned in the objectives

Town Centres – Need to focus on village facilities. Community or settlement centres should include smaller communities and include sustainability issues. Focus should not just be on larger settlements.

Housing – Properly identify where housing is needed, and whose needs should be considered. Some believed that focusing on what the park already has is key, while others shifted the focus to the necessity not to compromise the National Parks purposes and another group believed that environmental constraints should be acknowledged and that adequate housing can address community sustainability issues.

Place Making

Economy and employment – Suggestion of a rural development program. Concentrating on what is already in the area and not allocating new land. The need to be flexible in order to better adapt to the future was also identified alongside education

Sustainable Design and Construction – Resource efficiency and local sourcing was raised as well as merging the idea with infrastructure. ‘Re-use of materials in deconstruction’ was another issue raised in this area

Social inclusion – Second homes, community facilities, gypsy caravans and affordable homes were all highlighted in addition to the provided text on social inclusion

Transport – The idea of reducing the need for cars was noted and, walking and cycling were highlighted as a sustainable means of travel and should be promoted

Waste – BBNPA should encourage Unitary Authorities to adopt sustainable waste strategies

Health and Wellbeing

Natural and Cultural Heritage – Word Natural should be replaced by environmental

Resources – o Minerals: it was suggested that coal and gravel required a direct mention. o Reducing energy usage and local sourcing of water was suggested

2.5 Matrix

Sustainability and Climate Change Options 25

20

15

10

5

0 Average 1 2 3 4 5

Matrix ScoreMatrix -5

-10

-15

-20

-25

Figure 5: Sustainability and Climate Change Matrix Average Scores

2.5.1 It can be seen in Figure 5 that Option 1 was the only option that scored negatively in the matrix; this indicates that a non interventionist strategy would conflict significantly with the SA Objectives. The other options all scored positively with Option 3 scoring the highest demonstrating a climate change theme to the LDP as having the least amount of conflict with the SA Objectives according to the Stakeholders.

Option 1 2 3 4 5

Group 1 1st 2nd 3rd

Group 2 1st 2nd

Group 3 1st

Figure 6: Sustainability and Climate Change Plenary– 14/11/07

Option 1 2 3 4 5

Group 1 1st 1st

Group 2 1st 2nd

Figure7: Sustainability and Climate Change Plenary– 15/11/07

2.5.2 During the plenary session the groups reported back their preferred options after putting all the options through the Matrix.

As one can see from Figure 2 and 3, the preferred option was Option 3, with one group opting for a joint preference of Option 3 and 4.

All the other groups supported Option 4 by classing that as the 2nd option. When the average of the Matrix scores is taken, (see figure 4) Option 3 has the highest average score and Option 4 is certainly second.

Figure 2 shows that Group 1 thought that 5 was the 3rd best Option however the average graph states that Option 2 is above Option 5.

2.5.3 Response to the Options

Option 1: One highlighted the Park’s duty to conserve and enhance the Park’s special qualities. Similarly that ‘non intervention' would mean that we would perhaps lose the National Park’s special qualities.

Option 2: This was noted as being unsustainable and limits the opportunity to respond to other issues. It was also noted that this option does not take ‘on board improving knowledge’.

Option 3: Instead of just a Climate Change theme, add ‘Sustainability’ theme. Also add a sustainability theme to ‘employment, communities and transport’ for example.

Option 4: Highlighted as just a single issue, ‘are (there) other issues which need to be considered?’ Another group noted that a planning document should be ‘balanced’ and therefore shouldn’t have just one option.

Option 5: No development means no economic growth which will hinder sustainability-economy is within sustainability. Growth is important. ‘Without development there is little chance of improvement to address climate change issues.

2.5.4 Figure 8 displays the average Score for the Strategic Development Options Matrix. Similarly to the Sustainability and Climate Change Options Matrix, Option 1 - the Non-Intervention Strategy scored the lowest.

All the other options scored positively, with Option 4 scoring the highest.

This implies that a ‘concentration strategy’ would best comply with SA objectives.

Options 2 and 6 came second and third respectively, also indicating that the ‘no Greenfield development’ and ‘new town’ strategies would also comply with SA Objectives according to the Stakeholders.

Strategic Development Options 15

10

5

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 -5 Average Option

Matrix ScoreMatrix -10

-15

-20

-25

Figure 8: Strategic Development Options Average Scores

2.5.5 The plenary session showed some variation in opinion:- 4 of the groups believed option 4 was the best option; Workshop 1’s Group 3 disagreed and believed it was 3rd to Options 6 and 5. The second workshop’s Group 1 also believed that Option 5 was joint 1st. The average scores do indeed show option 4 to be by far the highest scored option, however as rightly identified by Workshop 1, Group 1, and Option 2 was the second most favourable option. Option 6 was the 3rd best option.

Option 1 2 3 4 5 6 Group 1 2nd 1st 2nd 3rd / 1st Group 2 1st 2nd Group 3 3rd 2nd 1st Figure 9: Strategic Development Options Plenary– 14/11/07

Option 1 2 3 4 5 6 Group 1 1st 1st Group 2 1st Figure 10: Strategic Development Options Plenary– 15/11/07 3. Community Engagement Workshops

3.1 Community Engagement Workshops – Introduction

3.1.1 The National Park is committed to finding innovative ways of involving our key stakeholders in the preparation of the Local Development Plan. As such a primary objective of our CIS was the desire to work closely with our town and Community Councils in order to provide each council with the opportunity to be responsible for organising the consultation for their own wider community.

3.1.2 As such, in December 2007 our constituent Community and Town Councils were invited to attend a series of Training Workshops organised in conjunction with Planning Aid Wales (an independent, charitable organisation which aims to increase public participation in planning).

3.1.3 The series of 3 Training Workshops provided Community Councillors with opportunities to learn more about the LDP process and provided training in techniques for wider community engagement.

3.1.4 As a result of these workshops a Community Engagement Toolkit was produced and supplied to all participating community and town councils to enable them to encourage engagement of their own communities

3.1.5 In general terms the Toolkit was designed to allow people to:

Participate in the public engagement process Get involved in ways which are fun Reflect on the life of the community Enable more inclusive forms of consultation participation

3.1.6 Communities were then encouraged to sign up to engage in the LDP preparation process by organising their own community engagement events based on the consultation framework set out in the ‘toolkit’.

3.1.7 This approach enabled each Community Council to adapt the toolkit framework as appropriate to their own area, which in turn helped them best engage their own communities. Although a feedback form was provided to each Community Council to enable consistency in reporting their findings, the necessity of difference in each event produced varying results in varying formats. As a result consistent quantitative analysis has not been possible.

3.1.8 This Report therefore sets out the qualitative evidence as presented by each participating council.

3.1.9 Additionally, individuals and groups who were unable to attend the engagement sessions were invited to give comments to the Strategy and Policy Team. This Report includes summary of the key points received. Copies of the full reports are available online in the LDP Public Access Forum.

3.1.10 The NPA provided maps of the Community Councils area for each event and a member of the Strategy and Policy Team attended where requested the majority of events to offer support and provide planning advice.

3.1.11 A copy of the Candidate Site Register was taken to each engagement session. This allowed the Community Councils to comment on all those sites in their area which had been submitted to the Authority for consideration for inclusion in the LDP. Subsequently, the completed Candidate Site Register was sent to the Community Councils to enable further comment.

3.1.12 This Report shows a summary of the key issues raised by each of the Community Councils who took part in the engagement workshops. The key points and themes from the Community Engagement have been incorporated into the Preferred Strategy. Copies of the full reports of the detailed feedback provided by each community council are available online in the LDP Public Access Forum.

3.1.13 BBNPA is very grateful to all the Community Councils who took part in the consultation process and organised the engagement sessions. The National Park is also indebted to all those who attended the events and made valuable contributions.

3.2 Brecon

3.2.1 Of the many comments received it is apparent that Brecon has many outstanding features which its residents enjoy. Primarily emphasis was on:- the special quality landscape of the National Park the friendliness of the local community; and its location in respect to the rest of Wales.

3.2.2 Issues that the residents felt negatively affect the quality of the town include: Lack of employment and affordable housing for young people P Poor choice of shops Poor public transport

3.2.3 Many people feel that there should be more housing developments – particularly affordable housing. There is varied opinion as to whether boundaries for housing developments should be allowed to extend into green field areas.

3.2.4 Additionally there is varied opinion regarding the need for land for employment. There were suggestions to extend the current business park in Brecon and particularly out of town industry. However, several people feel that there is currently enough land available that is not being properly utilised. This also applies in particular to the quality of commercial retail premises within Brecon. Many residents who took part in the engagement exercise felt that there is a great need to improve local employment opportunities.

3.3 Crai

3.3.1 Residents in Crai reported that the „Quality of the environment is superb‟ and that they „would like to see it stay that way...‟ which emphasises the need to maintain the environment in their area.

3.3.2 Relevant issues that the residents raised include the need for farmers to provide housing for their children and the need for permission for development on farmland for necessary buildings i.e. workshops and light industrial units.

3.3.3 The residents would like to see the current UDP development boundary extended in the LDP and that it should encompass all the area around the development in the village, including some of the surrounding fields (a map with the proposed development boundary was supplied to BBNP).

3.3.4 Additionally, several residents suggested that a mixed development in the village for approximately 30 houses on around 4 acres of land over the next 10 – 30 years would be appropriate. This was coupled with the desire by many of the residents to have some sort of renewable energy scheme i.e. hydro power or wind turbines. However, it must be noted that opinions were divided on this topic.

3.4 Crickhowell

3.4.1 Majority of residents in Crickhowell feel that affordable housing for local people is incredibly important while open market housing is not a priority. In addition to this the majority of residents within Crickhowell would like to see redundant farm buildings converted into housing, and many more would like to see them converted into housing for local people. Other comments included conversion of redundant farm buildings into mixed use or tourism developments.

3.4.2 Other issues that the residents have include the lack of public transport available in the area, new housing development is to be limited, speed restrictions in the town and more of a police presence. There is also a great desire to have facilities for younger people to enjoy.

3.4.3 Additionally, there were mixed comments to the suggestion of a bypass of Crickhowell to reduce traffic problems. Some people agreed, however the majority were against the suggestion.

3.4.4 Aspects of the Economy that residents find important to a Sustainable Community include: Local Employment Opportunities Transportation including Public Transport Vitality/Viability Of the Town Sustainable Tourism Local Food Production

3.4.5 The individual merits of these were stated by the community with some residents stating that they are all equally important to achieving a Sustainable Community.

3.4.6 Aspects of the Community that residents find important to a Sustainable Community include: Community Facilities Affordable housing for local people Community Waste facilities and recycling Cultural and historical heritage

3.4.7 Similarly to the aspects of the Economy, the merits of each comment were debated and many felt that all are important to achieving a sustainable community

3.4.8 Aspects of the Environment that residents find important to a Sustainable Community include: Climate Change Renewable Energy Production Conservation/enhancement of the environment Natural Beauty

3.4.9 Again each point was debated by the community and several stated that each point is equally important.

3.5 Crickhowell Town Council Statement

3.5.1 A statement was submitted which set out the views of the Town Council . This was independent of the views raised by residents in the Community engagement session.

3.5.2 The main comments received from Crickhowell Town Council indicated that the residents feel Crickhowell is a ‘picturesque‟ market town that enjoys terrific views of the National Park. Emphasis was also placed on the fact that Crickhowell is a popular tourist destination and is host to a wide range of activities including; hang gliding, paragliding, caving, canoeing and sailing.

3.5.3 Moreover, various events which the residents enjoyed in the past in Crickhowell include, Dragon Festival, Splash Day and Medieval Market. The Council is also mindful of the high quality employment at Elvicta and Granada Park Industrial estates and would like to encourage the expansion of good quality employment.

3.5.4 Conversely, issues that the residents have with the area include de-population in the area due to various facts: the threat of diminishing tourist numbers due to competition with areas along the Heads of the Valleys Flash flooding that the town suffers from being situated in a low lying area at the base of a watershed, which the council feels is exacerbated by more recent developments.

3.5.5 Additionally, there are several issues regarding traffic problems that the Council would like to see addressed.

3.5.6 Crickhowell Town Council has a strong commitment to affordable needs housing, that is preferably Carbon Neutral and phased according to proven demand. It is also suggested that any future developments in Crickhowell should have regard to the need to provide suitable employment opportunities. This would help address issues with depopulation, community vitality and provide a sustainable economy. Furthermore, Crickhowell Town Council would wish to encourage the LDP to be supportive of local farm support businesses, farm diversification, better use of infill sites and green development.

3.6 Glyn Tarell

3.6.1 Aspects of the area that the communities of Glyn Tarell like include the quietness, the surrounding scenery and landscape, the community atmosphere and the wildlife in the surrounding area.

3.6.2 The residents feel that the area would benefit with the addition of several facilities, such as a: Community centre Recycling facilities Shops A post office

3.6.3 The majority of the residents fell that the area does not need more housing however some residents were in favour of small discrete developments and affordable housing for local people. This was with the caveat that new housing should come with the addition of community facilities.

3.7 Llanelly

3.7.1 Positive comments received by Llanelly Community Council included: the aesthetic qualities of the countryside The local shops (post office, dentist, public houses etc.) The surrounding wildlife Footpaths Clydach Gorge Quiet atmosphere Friendliness of the local community.

3.7.2 Negative comments about the area received by the council include: Speeding traffic The duelling of the A465 along the Clydach Gorge Excessive construction of dwellings without providing enough infrastructure.

3.7.3 In residents would like to restrict development of new dwellings within the curtilage of existing dwellings, limit new developments in general to prevent excessive growth of the area and allow more affordable holiday lets to increase tourism for the area.

3.7.4 In Llanelly Hill residents feel there are too many homes that are out of keeping with the surrounding area, that Eco-designed homes should be encouraged and that there is currently too much development in the area.

3.7.5 Some specific ideas for the local community included the easing of planning regulations on small scale renewable energy schemes (for individual dwellings) and that any new developments should be carbon neutral.

3.8 Llanfrynach

3.8.1 Aspects of the area that the residents of Llanfrynach Community Council enjoy include:- the scenery, quietness, open spaces, cohesive communities, proximity to local facilities, and friendliness of the community. The majority of these aspects were reiterated many times over by the local residents.

3.8.2 On the other hand, aspects that the residents of Llanfrynach Community Council do not like are:- the lack of public transport, tourists who do not respect the countryside, lack of local parking and fast traffic along narrow roads.

3.8.3 Development boundaries: Opinion is divided as to whether the residents are happy with the current development boundary with 15 people voting ‘yes’ and 12 voting ‘no’ (24 people did not vote and 5 didn’t know).

3.8.4 The majority of residents did not have a specific site in mind for the location of new developments.

3.8.5 Affordable Housing There is also a clear demand for some affordable housing in the area with 36 people suggesting the need.

3.8.6 Employment Land Again there is division on the topic for land for employment with 12 people saying there should be none whereas 19 people suggested that some would be appropriate. It is also suggested that employment land should be located in well hidden areas as to not upset the scenery. This is also the case with land to be allocated for shops with 20 people stating that there should be some and 14 saying that there shouldn’t be any.

3.8.7 The majority of the residents would like land to be allocated for community and recreational facilities such as park/play area, community centre and a sports field.

3.8.8 Developments that they do not wish to see were:- caravan sites, large housing estates and heavy industry.

3.9 Llangattock

3.9.1 The residents of Llangattock rate the Natural Beauty and wildlife as some of the most important aspects of the environment along with its conservation and enhancement. Additionally, community waste facilities are seen as a priority followed by local community facilities.

3.9.2 Concerns that residents have include:- lack of support for new allotments, flood maps that have major inaccuracies, more emphasis on local attractions in LLangattock to improve tourism, and that new buildings have to conform to the highest standards of sustainability.

3.9.3 Development Boundaries: Residents of Llangattock feel that there is no need to extend the current development boundary from the current one in the UDP.

3.9.4 No more land should be allocated for further speculative housing.

3.9.5 However, a survey is currently being undertaken to determine the need for affordable housing for local people which the Council will fully support.

3.10 Llangors

3.10.1 Results from the Community Engagement Sessions in Llangors show that aspects of local area that residents like include: Peace + Tranquillity Beauty Community Spirit Close Knit Community Security Wildlife

3.10.2 However aspects of the community that the residents do not like include: The fast traffic Threat of development and increasing traffic No public transport Drugs being sold in the community New houses not in keeping with the area

3.10.3 The key issues for the residents of Llangors with regards to sustainability are as follow: Affordable Housing Local Food Production Local Employment Opportunities Natural Environment Transportation Wildlife

3.10.4 Some of the members of Llangors would like to keep the current development boundary, while others would like to extend it west of the Community Hall and school grounds to the road down to the lake. It should be noted that of all the different aspects of the engagement the discussions regarding Settlement Strategy and Development Boundary received the least response.

3.10.5 Future development needs listed by the residents included the need for affordable housing for both the young and elderly, supporting farmers and related industries and to protect the local beauty of the area.

3.10.6 The capacity for future development in the area considered was to be defined as having enough development to sustain the community without exceeding the need. There a willingness to provide affordable housing for local families according to proven demand. Some residents do not want to see the continued trend of unsympathetic development. Additionally, brown field sites are preferred for development as opposed to green field.

3.10.7 There was a mixed response to affordable housing as part of the ‘Acceptable Development’ section of the engagement with the majority being keen to see ‘some’ or ‘a lot’. This compares favourably with the response for open market housing where there was a strong feeling that there should be very little or none.

3.10.8 There was a general feeling that some land should be available for employment development so long as it provides towards local needs. This does not include land for heavy industrial development. There was a mixed response as to how much land should be available for food production employment with the majority in favour of ‘some’ or ‘a lot’. Furthermore, many of the residents would like to see some land available for Community Facilities, with many more people in favour of more recreational facilities.

3.11 Llangynidr

3.11.1 The majority of the residents were in favour of none of very little housing development in the National Park or Llangynidr. There were mixed comments for affordable housing or local people in housing need. 12 members of the community in favour of very little development or none and 18 in favour for substantial development for affordable housing only.

3.11.2 During the engagement events large scale maps of the area were provided, the participants indicated on these maps where they thought development was not appropriate. Substantial objections were given towards the Candidate Sites submitted within Llangynidr.

3.11.3 General comments received include: Improved Sports Facilities Bus service on weekends to and Brecon Speed Control in the village Provision of Youth Club

3.12 Llangynidr Community Council Statement

3.12.1 Positive aspects of living in the community in Llangynidr include nice friendly people lively community good facilities green spaces the countryside and quietness.

3.12.2 Negative aspects of living in the community include litter lack of public transport and misuse by visitors of local areas.

3.12.3 Residents believe that less space should be allocated to development than already proposed. Due to issues with access and negative impacts on tourism, employment and community vitality. The Community Council therefore suggests that less space should be allocated to development.

3.12.4 The primary form of development that would be considered acceptable by the Community Council is infill confined to affordable housing for local need.

3.12.5 Expansion for employment development is opposed due to constraints with highways and environmental issues.

3.12.6 Community Facilities are already well covered in Llangynidr with a large village hall, tennis courts and playing fields.

3.13 Myddfai

3.13.1 Comments received from Myddfai Community Council describe the positive aspects of living in the community as the peace and quiet, the rural surroundings friendly people good community spirit and the low crime rate.

3.13.2 Negative aspects of living in the community include- the lack of a public house lack of public transport poor quality roads to the area and no village meeting place.

3.13.3 With regards to the economy local employment opportunities were supported along with improved transportation, including public transportation, local food production and the vitality/viability of local villages and hamlets.

3.13.4 Affordable housing for local people and community facilities were also supported by many of the residents along with community energy production and protection of the areas cultural heritage.

3.13.5 The majority of residents were opposed to land being offered for market housing while some people suggested a little bit of market housing is appropriate. It should be located within an enlarged settlement boundary, should not be excessive and should utilise reclaimed land instead of green fields.

3.13.6 Land to be used for commercial purposes was also opposed however an outlet for household needs or local food/heritage/tourist shop was supported by some.

3.13.7 Many people supported the need for community/recreational facilities in the area.

3.14 Talybont

3.14.1 Residents in Talybont commented on the following positive aspects of living in the area. the pleasant communities and the beautiful countryside the fact that the shop and post office were available in the principle community and good access to fresh air and a clean environment.

3.14.2 Negative aspects of living in the community include the increasing pressure agriculture in the area is coming under uncontrolled development in the surrounding area impacting negatively on the local environment poor public transport difficulties in retaining young people lack of local employment and principal community is dominated by the car with poor provision for parking. 3.14.3 The main issues in the community include: Supporting a sustainable community through housing affordability Local employment opportunities Protection of existing services Minimisation of carbon emissions and fuel consumption Reducing the human impact on the environment

3.14.4 The Community Council feels that it would be appropriate for new development to be located in places that minimise carbon emissions and retain existing local services. It feels therefore that Talybont-on-Usk village itself could benefit from suitable development as it will help to support village services. The Council does not consider other communities and hamlets within our area should be further developed for housing, however, there may be opportunities for small scale development.

3.14.5 Acceptable development should consist of more housing with a wider price range, including affordable housing within Talybont village. Other development should be restricted to small scale commercial development preferably using redundant buildings. Green energy production is also encouraged.

3.14.6 Unacceptable development would include any new large scale developments including tourism or visitor services (caravan sites, outdoor centres, hotels) and offices. Sand and gravel and other mineral extraction are greatly opposed.

3.15 Tawe Uchaf

3.15.1 Aspects of the Community that the residents of Tawe Uchaf like include its Natural Beauty, Wildlife and Cultural Heritage and would like to see them protected accordingly. Conservation/Enhancement of the environment was rated as the highest priority.

3.15.2 Aspects of the community that residents did not like include recent building demolition in the village and several new developments.

3.15.3 The Community would like to see the Settlement Boundary around Penycae to include areas outside the current perimeter. They would also like to reduce the number of new developments due to recent developments. It was however noted that prospective local developers were not present during the engagement sessions.

3.15.4 A large emphasis was placed on local employment opportunities followed by sustainable tourism.

3.16 Trallong

3.16.1 Residents of Trallong enjoy: The Scenic views Good quality communities and neighbours Peace and quiet.

3.16.2 Issues that residents have with the local area include inadequate transport links and speeding motorbikes.

3.16.3 Issues that Residents scored highly include: Housing development remain in keeping with the landscape Old building materials to be offered locally Sensible alternative routes for large vehicles Proper signage and clearance of undergrowth around footpaths Active centre for trade/barter Facilities to enable elderly to stay in the village Shared Community Transport scheme Use Hall Protect Wild Flowers in the Local Church Grass verge Flower Reserves Support local business/agriculture Use hall for exhibitions in the summer

3.16.4 On average the residents of Trallong would like to see between 25 and 50% affordable housing and 1 to 25% retail, office based and industry.

3.16.5 The community also recognises the importance of local employment opportunities public transport improving the viability of the area local food production affordable housing community energy production community facilities for all ages as aspects of sustainability that must be improved.

3.17 Trallong Community Council Statement

3.17.1 The Community Council submitted a statement summarizing the Community Council’s own views. This is independent of the issues raised through the community engagement event.

3.17.2 Issues reported by the council regarding local issues and distinctiveness include: Bus route is distant from most housing; nearest stations – Abergavenny & Fortnightly mobile library Weekly general rubbish collection – no recycling Two halls for community use – little else no school, post office, pub, shop, petrol pumps etc. Conservation – general awareness and promotion Employment land – farming, garage workshops, metal workshop, wood drying kiln Poor infrastructure, limited highway capacity and death of obvious ‘candidate sites’ inhibit potential for development Economic and environmental pressures on farming which, other than seasonal tourism, is the main source of income Limited scope for new housing for local people – limited by landscape, lack of candidate sites, local appreciation of the present environment, and the ratio of local income to cost of purchasable rentable accommodation Communication/connectivity difficulties in a thinly populated hilly area – Poor mobile/TV/Broadband reception Only 2 bus routes are confined to A40 with limited daily detour Weight limit on all but one bridge, with alternative routes unsuited to large vehicles

3.17.3 Advantages/Disadvantages of life in the area:

Advantages Disadvantages

Landscape, enhance by long-established Noise & disturbance from road & air traffic, farming tradition & invasive motorbikes & leisure off road vehicles

Small interknit community Distance from shops, schools, Post office, health centre, entertainment/leisure facilities Neighbours and lack of crime Lack of employment in the vicinity

No recycling facilities

3.17.4 Most important issues in terms of sustainability: Dwindling opportunities in farming Challenge of cutting transportation costs and emissions in this far-flung area Need for sustainable schemes for generating food and power, ideally using – local resources, local employees, local skills Preserving the quality of landscape, air, space, and community, while encouraging tourism as a source of income

3.17.5 The general feeling is that the previous UDP boundaries should remain. Much of the BBNP area lies within two landed private estates; no ‘candidate sites’ are obvious. A current issue for the council is the conflict that may arise between new planning criteria for ‘Eco-friendly’ housing and the established criteria for sites, appearance etc.

3.17.6 The council feels that the area has no capacity for large development – residential or industrial but the council favours sympathetic, sustainable, conversion of derelict/unused rural buildings made available to local people as dwellings, and, where appropriate, as small scale workshops and sources of employment.

3.18 Vale of Grwyney

3.18.1 Aspects of the local community that the residents enjoy include the good community spirit, well maintained village, peaceful and that it is safe for children.

3.18.2 Negative aspects of living in the community include: The increasing traffic The possible development of the site at Cwrt-y-Gollen No houses available for younger people No public services No parking available for houses

3.18.3 Generally the residents of the Vale of Grwyney would welcome a small residential development of about 10 houses that would meet local needs, however, the proposed development at Cwrt-y-Gollen is found to be excessive. Furthermore, any proposed development should fit in architecturally with the surrounding area.

3.18.4 Several residents suggested that instead of a residential development at Cwrt-y- Gollen the area would benefit from some sort of Sports/Leisure Centre.

3.18.5 Residents would also oppose any development on the school fields and that with additional housing the bus service should be reintroduced.

3.19 Vale of Grwyney Community Council Statement 3.19.1 The Vale Of Grwyney Community Council submitted a statement setting out its own views. This is independent of the views expressed through the community engagement event.

3.19.2 Aware that the areas do need some increase in housing to avoid becoming sterile villages inhabited by only the rich, old citizens, week-enders and tourists which would result in losing what few public facilities are left

3.19.3 Presently there is a vibrant community with activities based around the churches, active village halls, local school and three public houses

3.19.4 Would like People join in the activities from outlying areas

3.19.5 Villagers value the peace and quiet of village life and the surrounding scenery

3.19.6 The Council opposes any large scale development which will ruin this and lead to suburban life on a large estate rather than the community spirit found in this village.

3.19.7 Council is in favour of small scale development – particular is for affordable housing for children of locals

3.19.8 Needs will not be met by building a large estate at Cwrt-y-Gollen and the VoGCC have been consistent in their opposition to the UDP proposals

3.19.9 Do not see the need for more than 20 houses at , more than 6 at Llangenny and 15 at Llanbedr

3.19.10 Any proposed housing development at Cwrt-y-Gollen should not be included in the LDP

3.19.11 Majority of houses should be affordable and for local people

3.19.12 Village ‘planning envelope’ should be expanded if necessary to provide small scale development

3.19.13 No building on the school field nor the playground at Llanbedr, the ‘Dragon Field’ and playground at Llangenny and the cricket field in Glangrwyney

3.19.14 New houses should fit in with the surrounding area

3.19.15 Increasing need for employment opportunities to go hand in hand with affordable housing thus enabling local people to remain in the area and the site at Cwrt-y- Gollen seems suitable for light industry

3.19.16 Sustainability – much quoted in the WAG and BBNPA literature. Small scale development in all our villages will sustain the existing communities

3.19.17 VoGCC Local Housing Needs Survey carried out with the help of Rural Housing Enabler 2005 showing a need for local affordable housing

3.19.18 VoGCC Survey of 35 houses at Dan Y Gollen, our most recent development, showing that most of these houses are not occupied by local people, that they were not ‘affordable’, that most workers travelled at least 10 miles to get to work rather than working locally, and that primary age children from the estate went to school in Crickhowell not Llanbedr

3.19.19 Recent community engagement meetings reflect these views

3.20 Ystradfellte

3.20.1 Aspects of the community that residents of Ystradfellte like: Heritage and Culture Friendliness of the Community Scenery of the countryside Peace and Tranquillity Nature Trails

3.20.2 However, aspects of the community that the residents of Ystradfellte did not like include; Feel they have little say on issues such as tourism No recycling service No public meeting place Too many visitors coming to the area Lack of public services/public transport

3.20.3 Many people would like to see some affordable housing development however the scale of this should be kept in line with proven local demand.

3.20.4 The majority of residents in Ystradfellte feel that more community facilities would be appropriate for the area. They would like the development to be situated close to the village and to include things such as a park or facilities for younger people.

3.20.5 There is some contention as to whether employment land should be allocated in the area with roughly the same amount of people both agreeing and disagreeing. It is clear however that should employment land be allocated, only some is wanted. Additionally, there was great opposition by residents in Ystradfellte to any allocation for land for new shops.

3.20.6 Developments that generally the residents do not want to see happen include new large housing estates, excessive holiday accommodation, wind farms and industrial estates.

3.20.7 The paramount comment that came from the report was that any new development should be located on sites that are currently disused before any Greenfield space be taken.

3.21 Conclusion

3.21.1 BBNPA received many valuable reports from the Community Councils within the National Park. It becomes instantly apparent from the information received that each Community is unique with respect to its qualities and needs.

3.21.2 Even though the differences between the Communities can be large there were certain ‘resounding’ themes that were mentioned by all the Reports. These included the outstanding scenery and beauty of the park, along with its biodiversity and the need to maintain and enhance these features.

3.21.3 Additionally, the majority of the Communities expressed an interest in provision for affordable housing, however it was stipulated by many of the Communities that this would have to be in accordance with proven local demand.

3.21.4 Furthermore, many Communities expressed an interest in employment land to sustain the local Communities, however, the amount of employment land desired by most of the Communities was small and specified as enough to provide job opportunities for local residents.

3.21.5 Many of the negative issues raised varied between Communities. However the LDP will attempt to address these issue where it is able.

3.21.6 The amount of time and effort dedicated to the process by the Community Councils and their respective communities is greatly appreciated by the Authority.

3.21.7 As previously stated copies of the original detailed reports of each engagement process submitted by the Community Councils to the National Park are available to read in the LDP access forum.

4. Appendix 1

The following individuals organizations and bodies were contacted by letter, inviting them to one of our two LDP stakeholder workshops.

Contact List. Abergavenny & District Tourist Association Abergavenny Communities First Abergavenny Town Council AM for Brecon & Radnorshire AM for Caerphilly AM for Carmarthen East & Dinefwr AM for Cynon Valley AM for & Rhymney AMs for Mid & West Wales AM for Monmouth AM for Neath AM for Torfaen Aman Community Network Antur Cwn Taf/Tywi Biodiversity Information Service Black Environmental Network Wales Black Mountains Graziers Association Black Voluntary Sector Network Wales Blaenau Gwent CBC (Development Plans Manager Chief Executive, ) Blaenau Gwent Local Health Board Town Council Blorenge Commoners Association Brecknock Access Group Brecon Action Ltd. Brecon and District Local Community Forum Brecon Beacons Commoners Association Brecon Beacons Park Society Brecon Beacons Tourism Association Brecon Chamber of Trade Brecon Town Council British Geological Survey (District Geologist, Wales) British Horse Society British Waterways Commoners Association Brynmawr Town Council BT Group PLC Buckland Manor Commoners Association Caerphilly CBC (Chief Executive, Strategic Planning and Urban Renewal Manager) CAIR ( Disablement Association) Camarthenshire Local Health Board Cambrian Caving Council Campaign for the Protection of Rural Wales Caravan Club Carmarthenshire County Council (Chief Executive, Head of Planning, Principal Housing Development Officer) CAVS CCW Cefn Llechid Commoners Association Civic Trust for Wales Civil Aviation Authority Cnewr Estate Coal Authority (Estates and Environmental Section) Commission for Racial Equality (Wales) Council for National Parks Country Land and Business Association (Wales Director) CPRW Monmouthshire Branch Crai Community Council Crickhowell & District Civic Society Crickhowell Community Forum Crickhowell Town Council Crucorney Community Council Cwmamman Town Council Cymdeithas y Cerddwyr/The Ramblers' Association Dan yr Ogof Showcaves. The National Showcaves Centre for Wales Defence Estates (Estates Advisor) Department for Trade and Industry Department for Transport Rail Group Design Commission for Wales Disability Rights Commission Disability Wales/Anabledd Cymru Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee Dwr Cymru Welsh Water (Planning Team Leader) Dyfed- Police Dyffryn Cennen Community Council Environment Agency Wales (Planning Liason Team Leader) Equal Opportunities Commission Equality and Human Rights Commission Wales, Disability Rights Commission Farmers Union Wales Farming and Wildlife Advisory Group Cymru Forestry Commission Wales Freight Transport Association Limited Friends of the Earth Cymru GAVO Glamorgan Gwent Archaeological Trust Glanaman Pedol Twrch Graziers Glyn Tarell Community Council Goetre Fawr Community Council Grosmont Community Council Gwent Wildlife Trust Community Council Gypsy Council Hay Chamber of Commerce Hay Town Council Herefordshire County Council (Chief Executive, Head of Town Planning) Community Council Home Builders Federation Community Council Land for People LARA Community Council Llandeusant Community Council Llandovery Town Council Llandybie Community Council Llanelly Community Council Llanfihangel Cwmdu, & Community Council Fawr Community Council Llanfrynach Community Council Community Council Llangattock Community Council Llangorse Community Council Llangorse Commoners Association Llangynidr Community Council Community Council Community Council Llantilio Pertholey Community Council Community Council (Chief Executive) Community Council Merthyr Tydfil CB Council (Chief Executive, Clerk) Merthyr Tydfil Local Health Board Mid and West Wales Fire and Rescue Service, (District Officer, South Powys, Chief Fire Service Officer) Mid Wales Tourism Ministry of Defence Minority Ethnic Women's Network (MEWN) Mobile Operators Association Monmouthshire County Council (Housing Officer, Development Plans Manager) Monmouthshire Local Health Board Myddfai Community Council (Principle Officer Development Policy) Nantyglo & Blaina Community Council National Farmers Union Cymru National Grid PLC (Land and Development Policy Manager) National Playing Fields Association National Trust (Land Use Planning Advisor, East Wales Area Manager) Neath Port Talbot CB Council Network Rail NG Transco North Monmouthshire & South Powys (Rural Housing Enabler) One Voice Wales PAVO Pembrokeshire Coast National Park Authority Planning Aid Wales Community Council (Development Plans Manager) Powys and Mid Wales Chamber of Commerce (Affordable Housing Officer, Housing Strategy & Operations Manager, Director of Planning, Economic Development, & Reg, Chief Executive, Principal Planning Officer) Powys Local Health Board Quarry Products Association Quarter Bach Community Council Rail Freight Group RCT Area 1 Development & Regeneration Rhigos Community Council Rhondda Cynon Taff CB Council (Director of Development and Regeneration, Chief Executive) Rhondda Cynon Taff Local Health Board Rhymney Community Council Royal Commission on Ancient and Historical Monuments for Wales Snowdonia National Park Authority (Policy and Community Manager) South Wales Fire and Rescue Service Sports Council for Wales Sugar Loaf Commoners Association Swalec Regeneration Group Talgarth Town Council Talybont Community Council Tawe Uchaf Community Council The Church in Wales The Crown Estate Office The Disabled Ramblers The Home Office The National Federation of Self-Employed and Small Businesses Ltd (FSB) Torfaen CBC (Chief Executive, Forward Planning) Torfaen Local Health Board Tourism Partnership Mid Wales Trallong Commoners Association Trallong, Penpont, & Nant Bran Community Council Trapp & Llandyfan Graziers Association Traveller Law Reform Project Town Council Tregoed Estate Vale of Grwyney Community Council & District Commoners Association Vaynor Community Forum Wales and the West Utilities Ltd Wales Council for Voluntary Action Wales Environment Link WCVA Mid Wales Office Welsh Assembly Government (Development Plans Team) Welsh Association of National Parks Western Power Distribution Community Council Ystradfellte Community Council Community Council Ystradgynlais Community Forum

Map of all the participating Community Councils:

5. Appendix 2

Summary of key issues presented during Members and Stakeholders workshops

Key Issues Presented to Members and Stakeholders

Sustainability and Climate Change - Climate Change is happening and in response the BBNP LDP must minimise the impacts through the location of new developments and land uses; and the design of buildings in their surroundings. Strategic Development Options - Climate Change and the need for a sustainable settlement strategy - Requirement to locate development away from Flood Risk areas - Need to locate development in most appropriate place to satisfy population, housing and employment projections - Requirement to consider National Park Purposes in the location of new Development - Requirement to consider statutory and non-statutory land designations Housing - Household projections versus the environmental capacity - Locate housing in the most sustainable locations - Sustainable Construction - Affordability of Housing for local people - Meeting accommodation needs of Gypsies and Travellers Economic Development & Employment - How much/type of employment land is needed - Should existing employment sites continue to be retained for employment use with a presumption against development or should a more flexible approach be considered? - All commercial development to contribute to on-site renewable energy – Merton Rule (i.e. 1-20%) Transport - Transport dominated by use of the private car - Poor Public Transport – need for better use of bus - National Park Purpose/Environmental restrictions - Need for a reduction in the need for travel Greenhouse Gasses – location of development - To provide an integrated transport system that encourages healthy and active lifestyles, and supports local communities Retail and Town Centres - Whether the identified Prime Retail Cores should be protected - Whether a retail hierarchy should provide a framework for retail development within the park - The need for additional retail space - Location of retail stores in key settlements only? - Ensuring the vitality and viability of Town Centres

Vision and Objectives

LDP guidance states that all LDP’s should be based on a vision of the future. This vision should be based on objectives and priorities of the relevant community strategy. LDP guidance identifies the National Park Management Plan as the Community Strategy for the National Park. As a result the LDP will take its vision from the NPMP:

Vision

Recognised internationally for its value as a protected area, whose character continues to be shaped by the long standing interactions between people and the processes of nature. Widely acclaimed for its natural beauty, geodiversity, biodiversity, and cultural heritage which are being conserved and enhanced by its stakeholders through traditional and innovative means. A sought-after destination providing an outstanding variety of sustainable opportunities for all to understand and enjoy its tranquillity, rural character, Welsh way of life, sense of remoteness and other special qualities. Resilient, open and responsive to change – particularly climate change – and its stakeholders proactive in mitigating and adapting to the effects of undesirable change through local action. A living landscape where innovative approaches to sustainable development and renewable energy are encouraged and tested for the benefit of the environment, the economy, and local communities. Managed sustainably through active partnerships among the Park’s stakeholders so that it continues to be a source of inspiration and enjoyment for future generations. Monitored over the long term to improve future policy management practise.

Objectives

Climate Change – To ensure that all development is responsive to, & mitigates the effects of climate change on the natural and built environment of the park

Town Centres – To maintain & encourage the vitality and viability of the parks town centres.

Housing – To allocate sufficient land for market and affordable housing to meet the identified need.

Place Making – Encourage development which contributes to the creation of sustainable places.

Economy and Employment – To allocate sufficient land for the provision of a variety and mix of employment opportunities. To encourage a better link between the provision of employment and housing.

Sustainable Design and Construction – Improve the physical quality, energy efficiency, accessibility and sustainable design and construction of all development throughout the park.

Social Inclusion – Promote integrated communities, with opportunities for living, working and socialising for all.

Transport – To integrate transport and development and provide opportunities to access modes of transport other than the car.

Waste – Encourage better waste management through community and domestic scale schemes Health and Well Being – Enable development that encourages a healthy and safe lifestyle and promotes well being

Natural & Cultural Heritage – Conserve and enhance the natural beauty, biodiversity and cultural heritage.

Minerals – To enable the efficient and sustainable use of minerals

Energy – Help achieve national targets for greater renewable energy production through community and domestic scale schemes.

Water – Encourage responsible use of air, water and soil resources.

Sustainability and Climate Change

The options for Sustainability and Climate Change that were presented to the workshop attendees are as follows:

Option 1: Non Intervention Strategy. No specific efforts to combat Climate Change. Leave development to market forces. Demand led approach to development and contributions to climate change being the responsibility of individuals. Inevitable risk of call-ins/ appeals and determination by the WAG.

Option 2: Continue as Present. This approach would see Climate Change awarded similar weight in the development plan process as in the UDP. Option 3: Climate Change theme to LDP (also taking into consideration other issues such as National Park purposes/ affordable housing etc.) Climate Change as a key over-arching theme to the LDP (as far as possible without compromise to the National Park Purposes). This would include: A reduction in demand for energy; an increased use of renewable energy; Sustainable building design; On-site waste management etc

Option 4: Climate Change as a Priority. Climate Change as a dominant theme to the LDP. A priority over other issues.

Option 5: Prevent any Future Development. No development at all will take place within the National Park.

Strategic Development Options

Option 1: Non Intervention Strategy. No framework to influence development, therefore leaving development to market forces. Continuation of previous growth patterns and demand led. Inevitable risk of call-ins/appeals and determination by the Assembly Government

Option 2: No Greenfield Development. No increase in settlement boundaries or any new allocations. This option would encourage development to be located of previously developed (Brownfield) land.

Option 3: Affordable Housing Only Strategy. Limited expansion in settlements where there is a proven need for affordable housing for local people. Provides growth where it is needed most. No provision of market housing.

Option 4: Concentration Strategy. This strategy would concentrate the majority of the Park’s development in the major settlements of the National Park. Concentration of development near services, including locations with better public transport links. Possibility of affordable housing only in smaller settlements

Option 5: Dispersal Strategy. This strategy would seek to distribute housing and employment opportunities at a rate that is broadly ‘pro rata’ to the existing population.

Option 6: New Town. A new settlement to be created in the most appropriate location to meet development pressures. This would provide limited expansion in existing settlements.

Community Participation Toolkit

A guide to involving communities in preparing Local Development Plans

March 2008

Working towards a fairer planning system

Contents

Page

1. Introduction 3

2. Community participation – The key issues to think about 5

3. Planning for community engagement events 10

4. Open meetings 12

5. The ‘Ideas’ wall’ 14

6. Living in ………………………… 15

7. Sustainability and its meaning in your locality 17

8. Settlement strategy and boundaries 21

9. Local issues, local distinctiveness and local evidence 23

10. Acceptable development 26

11. Interviews (please note health warning) 28

1. Introduction

Planning authorities in Wales need to involve their local communities at an early stage of preparing new-style Local Development Plans, or ‘LDPs’. Local Development Plans will replace Unitary Development Plans, Structure Plans and Local Plans. They will set out a range of policies and proposals for the future development and use of land across the whole planning authority area. Once an LDP is adopted by the planning authority, the Plan will be the most important thing to consider when deciding planning applications.

It is vital that local communities have a voice from the very earliest stages of preparing LDPs. Community and Town Councils are the main link between planning authorities and local communities. Local councils have a key role in helping make sure that the local communities in their area are meaningfully involved in preparing the LDP. The Brecon Beacons National Park Authority recognises this key role for Community and Town Councils in developing a LDP for the National Park. The Authority has been working with Planning Aid Wales (an independent, charitable organisation which aims to increase public participation in planning) to provide training for community councillors to help make it happen.

This Community Participation Toolkit has been developed to offer Community and Town Councils a set of tools and techniques to use when engaging with their communities. The aim is for local councils to work with their local communities to prepare a local contribution to the early stages of preparing the Brecon Beacons Local Development Plan. The tools and techniques described in this Toolkit were first presented and trialled at three training workshops held in , and Gilwern on the 27th and 28th of February 2008. Where necessary, tools and techniques have been adapted to take account of comments made by local councillors attending these workshops.

Town and Community Councils may want to approach the matter of engaging with their communities in different ways. This Toolkit therefore offers councils a variety of possible approaches and techniques for engagement, and also provides advice for using them. Individual councils should carefully consider which approaches are most likely to suit their local circumstances. Most of the tools and techniques described can be used as part of public drop-in events or meetings, where an accessible public space (such as a village hall or local school) is used. Local people are invited to call in over a set period and to give their views on the main planning issues. Planning Aid Wales feels that drop-in events or open days held over a half day or full day are likely to be the most appropriate way to get people meaningfully involved in the relevant planning issues at this stage of plan preparation. We advise local councils to seriously consider following this route.

The Toolkit also contains a very basic guide to interviewing techniques. However, it is important to note that people conducting interviews should ideally receive some training beforehand. While interviewing may seem an easy option for community engagement, the crafting of materials and the skills required to work in this way are crucial. If it is not done properly, the resulting information will lack credibility and much effort will be wasted.

In general, the tools and techniques covered in this Toolkit are designed to allow people to:

participate in the public engagement process by doing things;

get involved in ways which are fun;

reflect on the life of the community;

take part without drawing attention to themselves.

In relation to the last point, it is very important that people should not be asked to put their names against any comments they may wish to make, and that attention is not drawn to what any particular individual has said.

2. Community participation – The key issues to think about

Why have community participation?

People are generally quite averse to the idea of change. However, some change is inevitable and local communities are much more likely to see the need for change if they have been invited to take part in developing plans for the future. Also, if people can feel some ownership for a plan by helping to prepare it (rather than being given the plan by someone else), they will feel much more positive about the finished product.

For community participation to work properly, it is necessary to start from where the community is, not from where the experts are. Good community participation provides a shared and agreed picture of the result, or end-state, that a community wants to create. It also stimulates communities to work together to take the action needed to bring it about.

Levels of participation

There are a number of different ways in which organisations (including town and community councils and local planning authorities) can involve their local communities. These can be expressed quite simply:

Explain to local people what might happen in the future, and ask them what they think about it.

Give local people options for dealing with what might happen in the future, and discuss with them what these options mean. They may have other options to put forward for consideration.

Work with local people to consider the possible options for facing the future, and decide together which ones will give the best results for individual communities as well as the wider community.

Work with local people to agree what needs to be done in the future, and work together to make sure it gets done.

When working with local communities at the very early stages of LDP preparation, local councils should be aiming to do the first three of these things. They should be explaining the opportunities for people to get involved in planning for the future of their areas, seeking their opinions about the available options, and then deciding together which options will be best for the local community as a whole.

Once decided, they should be feeding back local opinions to the local planning authority and working with their communities to try and make it happen. To make sure that the process of feeding back local opinions and preferences is both credible and sound, it is vitally important that a written record is kept of:

what was done to explain the issues to local people;

which options were considered;

who took part;

what people thought of the options, and;

how agreement was reached.

Approaches for explaining, consulting and deciding

The table below shows the different approaches which we consider to be the most appropriate for explaining, discussing and deciding together:

Suggested approach

Local media (e.g. newspaper articles, notice boards)

Explaining Public exhibitions and displays

Publications

Public events (e.g. focus groups, workshops, drop-ins)

Questionnaires

Discussing Interviews

Deciding together Public meetings

It is worth thinking about the ‘discussing’ stage in a little more detail, as there are trade-offs between the three suggested approaches. For each approach, the table below gives a rating (either high, medium or low) for: the number of people likely to be reached; the number of issues which are likely to be covered; and the depth in which issues are likely to be covered.

Number of people Number of issues Depth of coverage likely to be reached likely to be covered of issues

Public events Medium Medium High Interviews Low / Medium Medium Medium

Questionnaires Medium / High Medium / High Low

Public meetings and drop-in events encourage people to interact with each other. This and the greater time available for reflection and discussion explains why issues can be covered in more depth. For these reasons, we recommend that local councils give serious consideration to arranging public, participatory events in preference to using interviews or questionnaires.

Other things to be borne in mind when selecting an approach or approaches which will best suit your local circumstances are:

The need for clarity and openness

An open approach increases participation because people can join in at whatever stage and in whatever way suits them. Clarity and openness increase participation by reducing any fear that others will try to control or manipulate the process.

The need for diversity

The greater the diversity, the wider the range of ideas, contacts and resources available. However, the greater the diversity, the harder it is to establish common ground.

The need to engage people

Do whatever it takes to engage people in the process. Examples include making public events and meetings fun, and holding them in places and at times that suit the people you want to engage (and not just the organisers). Make sure written material is clear and easy to understand. You may also want to think about offering support for the hard of hearing and people with visual impairments.

Choosing the most appropriate approach to suit local circumstances

The main factor influencing the choice of approach is the trade-off which needs to be made between the key principle of diversity and the time, effort and resources consumed in organising public events.

A single meeting with invited participants

Diversity is guaranteed - the key groups who need to be involved have already been identified, and then the key people within each group have been identified and invited. However, this can all take a lot of time and sustained effort.

On the up-side, it may be easier to create a good public profile for a single event. On the down-side, you may choose to involve more people than can meaningfully participate in a single event.

Several meetings on a neighbourhood / village basis

Although there are several meetings, this approach is likely to require less effort overall because of the saving in time of not having to invite people individually. However, there is likely to be less diversity than with invited participants for two reasons: some people are unwilling to attend open meetings, and; neighbourhoods / villages are usually fairly homogenous.

Several meetings tacked on to meetings / events already happening

This requires even less effort as meetings are already arranged. However, there is likely to be still less diversity as people attending meetings or events which are already happening are often homogenous (according to the subject of the meeting / event).

Some key principles

When undertaking any community engagement work the following principles need to be adhered to:

Anonymity

It is important to allow people opportunities to express their views and preferences in ways that do not draw attention to themselves. Many people lack the confidence to express their views openly.

Confidentiality

Participants need to be assured that their comments will be unattributed (i.e. comments can be made in a public setting but the person who gave them will not be individually identified).

Equality

Each person’s views are important and everyone’s comments should be treated in the same way and given the same weight.

Ability

Generally, it is only an articulate and confident minority who are able to respond directly or to fill in questionnaires. This means that genuinely participatory approaches and techniques should be used wherever possible. We have found that all sectors of the public are both able and willing to give their views – they just need to be given the right opportunities.

Communication

Even within one particular area, communication skills are likely to vary. Culture and experience are both major influences on this, but other determining factors include literacy skills, expectations, confidence and self-esteem. In order to effectively communicate ideas and information in a fair and equitable way, a range of mediums should be available including verbal, written and visual formats.

Comprehension

Language used should be tailored to meet individual needs, and questions should have built in checks to ensure that they are understood. 3. Planning for community engagement events

Who to involve ?

You should set out by identifying all the particular groups that you will try to involve, and also the resources available for you to do it. Obviously, the choice of groups will depend on the issues under consideration and resources available, but as a baseline you should try to make sure that the disadvantaged have opportunities to participate. You should also think about: which people are most likely to be affected by what is happening (or likely to happen) in the area; which people are most likely to influence what happens in the area; and which people are likely to be able to provide good information about the area.

Some examples of the types of people you should be looking to involve are:

older people disabled people young people local business people cultural and ethnic minority groups people on low incomes community and workplace groups, and other local organisations specialist groups and associations

The resources available for reaching all these people are likely to be limited so you will need to think creatively about the most effective ways of using them.

Having established who should be involved and the resources available to make it happen, you will then need to select the approaches which are likely to succeed given your local circumstances.

How to involve them ?

First, decide whether you are aiming to explain, discuss or decide (sometimes it’s all three). For most community participation events, a small steering group decides who are the best people to invite to represent the groups you have identified. When it comes to inviting people, please bear the following points in mind:

People respond better if an approach is made directly (or at least endorsed by) someone they trust. You might want to seek out ‘community champions’;

Explain how people will benefit by taking part / attending;

Try to involve decision-makers early on, to show people that their views are more likely to be listened to and acted on;

Choose an appropriate approach for explaining to people what is going on. Think carefully about who you want to reach, then think about how they usually receive information (e.g. do they read local newspapers, look at notice boards, etc?);

In order to reach a range of people, you are likely to need a range of approaches and methods. Is there a need to hold meetings or events at different times of the day? (e.g. to suit those at work during the day, and the elderly who can be uncomfortable about going out after dark);

Explain what is expected of people who get involved and what they in turn they can expect from the organisers. This might include a timetable, or a commitment by the organisers to use the results for the benefit of the whole community.

Some do’s and don’ts

Do try to get the local media on board at an early stage.

Don’t ignore groups that do not immediately become involved – chase them;

Don’t ignore BBNPA officers - they are as important as the community in this plan- making process and they need to be involved.

Timing

Allow as much time as possible to prepare. The main reason for this is that it is vital to allow sufficient time for local support and engagement with the process to build up. This will increase the sense of local ownership and people’s willingness to be involved.

4. Open public meetings

Subsequent sections of this Toolkit focus on a range of participatory techniques which aim to identify and gather together the views of local community members. Open public meetings offer by far the best environment for using the tools and techniques explained in the following sections 5 to 10.

Open public meetings are usually held in community venues such as village halls or schools, but they can also be held in the open air (weather permitting), marquees, public houses, etc. They are also usually held over an extended time period (a half or full day) in order to allow as many members of the community to attend. You will need to consider the needs of particular groups, such as parents with young children (who may have difficulty attending during the evening), people who work (who may not be able to attend during the day), and older people (who may not want to leave their homes after dark).

Open public meetings are quite different than normal public meetings - they are less formal, people do not have to attend at a specific time (essentially they are ‘drop-in’ events), people do not have to speak publicly, and control of the event by one or two people is not made apparent.

Open meetings work best if they can be linked to another event or activity. For example, is there an annual event coming up in your community, such as a school fair or a fete? If so, it may be possible to secure some space at these events to carry out community engagement activities. Alternatively, you may choose to organise a public event dedicated to the issues surrounding LDP engagement, with a range of activities and exhibits which will help to draw people in (for example, stands from different groups, activities for children, old photographs and maps of the area, etc).

Some do’s and don’ts for public open meetings

Do …

o welcome people discreetly

o allow people to participate at their own pace

o encourage people to take part

o explain why you are carrying out the exercise

o explain the importance of people giving their views

o use simple language

o offer refreshments if possible

o thank people for their participation

o explain what will happen next

Do not …

o have speeches

o link the open meeting to events at which people can’t ‘mingle’ (e.g. concerts)

o use language which is confusing or ambiguous

o allow individuals to dominate

o have formalised seating arrangements (e.g. rows of seats)

o have seating at all, if possible

The following sections describe some tools and techniques that can be used in public open meetings or smaller focus group activities. The tools and techniques covered include:

The ideas’ wall (section 5)

Living in ….. (section 6)

Sustainability and its meaning in your locality (section 7)

Settlement strategy and settlement boundaries (section 8)

Localised issues, local distinctiveness and local evidence (section 9)

Acceptable development (section 10) 5. The ‘Ideas’ Wall’

This technique aims to give participants a ‘blank wall’ (or canvas) which will allow them to articulate their views about any local issue. Although some issues may not be directly or even indirectly related to planning or LDP preparation, the resulting information will still be useful for Community and Town Councils as an indication of local views and feelings.

Description

This activity provides an opportunity for members of the community to identify any ideas that they may have to improve village or community life by writing them down on an ‘Ideas Wall’. It is important to recognise that the less articulate members of local communities may never have had an opportunity to make their ideas and views known – this techniques aims to allow them to put forward ideas in a way which does not draw undue attention to their contribution.

Any idea placed on the Ideas Wall, no matter how far fetched or unrealistic, is important – the very fact that it appears can spark off another person’s train of thought leading, often, to a more viable idea.

The ‘Wall’ can be made up of display panels, or any other vertical, smooth surface. The wall is then covered with large sheets of paper, each with a pre-drawn pattern of ‘bricks’. Each ‘brick’ space provides an opportunity for participants to write up an idea for improving village / community life. To avoid duplication, if individuals agree with an idea which already appears on the wall, they can indicate support for it by placing a tick by that idea. If they disagree with the idea, they can place a cross by it.

Equipment needed

Display stands / wall; flipchart paper; marker pens; masking tape. 6. Living in …………………………

This technique provides another way of finding out more about the issues or factors which people think of as making an important contribution to village or community life. It also helps to identify the factors they would most wish to change.

If people are asked to express the things they most like about living in their area or community, their responses can give a clear indication of what they least want to change. These are the things that anyone looking to influence plans for future development in the community would be best advised to leave alone. Conversely, if people are asked to express the things they least like about living in their area or community, their responses indicate which things they would be more ready to accept being changed.

Description

Two different types of shape are drawn and cut out form individual sheets of A4 paper. One shape represents something which is positive, for example a T shirt (representing ‘top’). The other shape represents something which is negative, for example an item of underwear (representing ‘Pants’). On the shape representing something positive, write the statement: ‘The thing I like most about living in (insert name of the village or community area) is …’. On the shape representing something negative, write the statement: ‘The thing I like least about living in (insert name of the village or community area) is…’.

Place a washing line across the room and encourage people to peg the completed paper shapes, both positive and negative, on the washing line using clothes pegs.

Equipment needed

Pre-prepared cut-out paper shapes representing something positive and negative, with ‘the thing I like most… / the thing I like least… already written on; string / plastic washing line; clothes pegs; pens.

7. Sustainability and its meaning in your locality

The following criteria are suggested by the Brecon Beacons National Park Authority as the things which are most important for influencing / determining the move towards a more sustainable future in the National Park.

The criteria are grouped under categories covering economic, community and environmental issues.

Economy

o Local employment opportunities

o Transportation, including public transport

o Vitality / viability of towns and villages

o Sustainable tourism

o Local food production

Community

o Community facilities

o Affordable housing for local people

o Community waste facilities

o Community energy production

o Cultural heritage

Environment

o Climate change

o Renewable energy production

o Conservation / enhancement of the environment

o Natural beauty

o Wildlife

The views and opinions of local communities on these issues are key to achieving more sustainable patterns of development in the future. There are two key questions:

What does sustainability mean to people in your locality?

What opportunities are there for increasing the sustainability of your community?

It needs to be recognised that there are likely to be a wide range of views among local people as to the relative importance of the above sustainability criteria. Some people may consider the future provision of affordable housing as the most important factor; others may think that preservation / enhancement of the environment, or future provision of more and better jobs is even more important.

The ideal, best possible solution would be to strike a working balance between the economic, community and environmental criteria. This would mean that when people were asked to give their opinion on the relative importance of the issues, they would collectively agree that they are all of equal importance.

The technique outlined below aims to measure how far we are from achieving the ideal.

Description

Write each of the fifteen sustainability criteria (or less if you choose to group some together) listed above as a heading on a separate sheet of flipchart paper, and put all the sheets up on a wall or large display panel.

Give each participant six sticky dots and ask them to place the dots on those criteria which they think are of most importance for achieving sustainability in the local community / area. The reason for providing six dots only is to encourage participants to think about and prioritise the issues which are most important to them.

You may choose to provide different coloured dots to different age groups (e.g. children and teenagers; people in their twenties to late forties; people in their fifties and over).

Analysis

Count the dots affixed to each criteria sheet. If one or more criteria sheets have far more dots affixed than others, it is safe to assume that these are the issues that provide real opportunities to make the community more sustainable.

If different coloured dots have been used for different age groups, this will provide an indication of how the different generations view the sustainability of their communities.

What is a ‘sustainable community’?

In order to explain the concept of ‘sustainable communities’ to participants, you may choose to provide one or more definitions (there are lots out there!). For example, the Academy of Sustainable Communities gives the following definition:

‘Most people want to live in a place where they know their neighbours and feel safe. A place with good homes, local shops, lots of jobs and opportunities for young people to get a good education.’

The diagram below is another way of getting people to think about the range of issues which together make up the concept of ‘sustainable community’

Equipment needed

Flipchart paper; blutack / masking tape, lots of coloured dots, marker pen.

8. Settlement strategy and settlement boundaries

The Local Development Plan (LDP) will establish settlement boundaries for towns, larger villages and possibly also small settlements. Settlement boundaries define for the local community and for people wishing to develop land where new development will, or will not, be acceptable in principle. For many people the extent of a settlement helps to define local identity, and the settlement boundary should therefore be sensitive to local needs and preferences. This means it is vital that communities provide as much local information and knowledge to the planning authority as they can in the early stages of LDP preparation. This will help to establish settlement boundaries which are acceptable from the perspectives of both local communities and the planning authority.

In order for this to happen, the National Park Authority is encouraging Community and Town Councils to consult with their communities about the best way to define individual settlement boundaries. Community and Town Councils will play a key role in drawing together the views of their respective communities. This will be supported by a statement explaining how the local community was consulted, what comments were received, and how those comments were combined to give an agreed view on behalf of the whole community.

Equipment needed

Large scale map of settlements (to be supplied by BBNPA); sheet of plywood; pins; string / wool / thread; post-it notes; pens.

Description

BBNPA has agreed to provide each Community and Town Council with a large-scale map of the settlements within their area. This map will show the current settlement boundary, as defined in the adopted Unitary Development Plan. Each map should be mounted on its own sheet of plywood, but remember to make the plywood sheet sufficiently wide so that post-it notes can be stuck all the way around it.

Looking at the map, participants are asked to consider the different types of development they think will be needed in their settlement over the next 10 to 15 years. Examples of types of development which might be needed include housing, shops, offices / light industrial, recreation, community facilities, etc.

Participants are then asked to place pins in the map to show those locations where (or where not) they think these different types of development might best be located. They are then invited to write comments on a post-it note to explain the type of development which should (or shouldn’t) happen in each identified location. To make a visual link between locations on the map and relating comments, participants also affix a pin to the relating post-it and link them together by tying a piece of string / wool / thread between the two pins. This will provide a clear visual indication of locations where local people will be willing to accept different types of development, and also those locations where they do not want to see development happening.

Analysis

The best way to record the outcomes of this activity is to take a photograph of the map and post-its, and then number each of the individual post it notes starting from one specified place (for example, number 1 post-it could be the first post-it working clockwise from the top right hand corner of the map). After the participation event, the comments contained on individual post-its can then be written up, with the photograph providing a reference of the locations to which they refer.

(The lower of the two images below shows a map where photographs were used instead of post-it notes.) 9. Local issues, local distinctiveness and local evidence

Before the Local Development Plan can be adopted by the local planning authority, it will need to be ‘examined’ by an independent Planning Inspector. The process of examination is designed to assess whether the Plan is ‘sound’ (which means it must be based on good planning principles). One of the ten ‘tests of soundness’ is that the Plan and its proposals should be founded on a ‘robust and credible evidence base’.

Local communities know most about their localities and are therefore one of the best sources of local knowledge. This local knowledge needs to be captured at an early stage of LDP preparation to provide a ‘robust and credible evidence base’.

The final plan will benefit enormously if Community and Town Councils can work with their local communities at this early stage of plan preparation to identify the key local issues which need to be addressed in the LDP and, where appropriate and / or possible, provide the evidence which is needed to quantify or explain the nature of the issues. Of course, local councils and communities can not be expected to be able to provide all the information which is required for a ‘robust and credible evidence base’, but it is often surprising how much local people know about their local area – they just need to be asked.

The type of local information which is useful for forward planning is listed below. Ideally, information about all these issues needs to be available for each town, village and hamlet that might be defined as a ‘settlement’ in the LDP.

Existing situation

o Existing services (shops, doctors, schools, etc) and facilities

o Conservation issues / designations

o Description of the existing housing stock

o Description of existing employment land / facilities

o Capacity of existing sewerage / water / electricity infrastructure, and any concerns over their capacity to take further load.

Future development needs o Housing requirements, including the need for affordable housing (recent local housing needs surveys can provide useful information on this)

o Employment requirement (where appropriate)

Future development capacity o Potential for growth / capacity to absorb new development

o Environmental constraints

o Land / locations which might be suitable for new housing

o Highway capacity issues

o Availability of / need for recreation sites

o Opportunities

o Constraints

o Any other issues

The above list is by no means exhaustive. Any additional issues or information which local communities consider to be relevant to the forward planning process will be gratefully received by the planning authority.

Once the evidence base has been assembled, it will be used as the basis for developing a ‘Preferred Strategy’ for the Brecon Beacons Local Development Plan. This will contain proposals for a settlement hierarchy for the national park and, more specifically, proposed boundaries for individual settlements and proposed allocations of land for future development. Once published, local councils and communities will be invited to comment on the proposals contained in the Preferred Strategy document.

Description

There is no one participatory approach or technique which is capable of capturing all the information held by local communities. Some definition / description of what are the key local issues, and what makes particular areas distinctive from other areas, will result from the participatory approaches set out earlier in this Toolkit.

As one suggestion, however, you may wish to consider writing each issue as a prominent heading on a flipchart sheet, and laying all the sheets out on tables. Participants are then invited to write their comments and suggestions on post-it notes and place them on the relevant sheets.

Equipment needed

Flipchart paper, pens, post-it notes, tables.

Analysis

All that is required is to write up the comments / suggestions placed under each heading as separate bullet points. 10. Acceptable development

The Local Development Plan will define areas and land where, once the Plan is adopted, the principle of future development will be regarded as acceptable. At this stage of the plan preparation process, it is useful for the National Park Authority to find out the level of development which would be acceptable to local communities. It is important to recognise that in order to develop a ‘sound’ LDP, the Authority will have to make some difficult decisions about which land to identify to accommodate a sufficient amount of different types of development (e.g. housing, shops, employment). As land for development will need to be identified in some locations, Community and Town Councils are encouraged to work with their communities to explain the planning issues and to find out how community members feel about the prospect of future development taking place in their localities.

The National Park Authority suggests that communities in the National Park should be invited to consider the acceptability of the following types of development taking place in their area:

Housing development

o Land for affordable housing for local people in housing need

o Land for housing for the open market

Employment development

o Land for office-based employment

o Land for light industrial employment

o Land for heavier employment users (e.g. transport haulage)

o Land for food production employment

Retail development

o Land for retail / shopping development

Community development

o Land for community facilities

o Land for recreational facilities

Description

Write each of the types of possible future development identified above (you may wish to suggest others, or combine some together on to one sheet) as a prominent heading at the top of individual sheets of flipchart paper. It is better to use the sheets in ‘landscape’ format rather than ‘portrait’.

Draw a line from one side of the paper to the other with the heading ‘none’ written at one end and ‘substantial’ at the other. You may want to make this a little more elaborate by segmenting the line by marking specific points along it (e.g. 10%, 20%, 30% to 100%).

Affix the sheets to a wall with blutack and invite participants to place a cross somewhere along the line to indicate the level of that type of development that they would be willing to see happen in the locality. An example of how a completed sheet may look like is given below:

Affordable housing for local people in housing need

none substantial

X X X X X XX XX X

X X X X XXX X X XX

Equipment needed

Flipchart paper; blutack; marker pens 11. Interviews

Health warning:

It is important to recognise that the people designing and carrying out interviews need some skills. For interviews to provide credible information which can be used in the forward planning process, the interviewing process needs to be thoughtfully designed and professionally run.

The most common problem is that interviewers asking leading questions. Other problems are: failure to listen closely; repeating questions that have already been asked; failure to probe when necessary; failure to judge and / or record the answers; and asking vague or insensitive questions.

If you are considering using interviews as a way of identifying local opinions and preferences, we strongly recommend the use of professional interviewers or training for volunteers.

One-to-one interviews

When conducting one-to-one interviews, care must be taken to ensure that the person being interviewed is comfortable, at ease, and is not intimidated by the interviewer or the location of the interview. The interview should be held at a time and location which is suitable for the interviewee. An agreed length of time should be allocated for the interview.

The attitude of the interviewer is very important and the interviewee must be made to feel:

that their views are important;

that the interviewer wants to learn from them.

It is especially important not to prejudge the interview or ask leading or loaded questions (see section below on semi-structured interviews).

The following points need to be considered in designing the interviewing process: How will you invite people to take part in the interview?

What is the aim of the interview?

How will you explain the aim to the interviewee?

How will you ensure that the person you are interviewing is comfortable and happy to give their views?

What sort of relationship do you wish to have with the interviewee?

How can you achieve this relationship?

How much time do you wish each interview to last for?

How can you assure interviewees that the information they provide will be confidential?

How can you ensure that confidentiality is maintained?

How will you encourage more detailed responses (i.e. not just ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answers)?

How will you end the interview?

Group interviews / focus groups

All the above points are also relevant to group interviews. In addition though, with groups it is important to make sure that all the group members’ views are heard and no single person’s viewpoint predominates. Group interviews can be held with people from a particular organisation (e.g. WI, young farmers, older people’s groups, etc) or with participants from a variety of backgrounds.

Semi-structured interviewing

Semi-structured interviewing is a tool that can be used in one-to-one interviews, group interviews / focus groups, or as part of a community drop-in event or ‘open day’.

Introduction

Semi-structured interviews are conducted with a fairly open framework which allows for focused, conversational, two-way communication. They can be used both to give and to receive information.

Unlike a structured questionnaire framework, where detailed questions are formulated in advance and answers recorded according to an agreed procedure, semi-structured interviewing usually starts with a few pre-arranged general questions or topics. This small number of questions and topic areas form the basis for a more detailed exploration of the possible relationship between these topics and the issues for the community. As the interview proceeds, more specific, unprepared questions are asked which allow both the interviewer and the person being interviewed the flexibility to probe for detail or to discuss issues.

Semi-structured interviewing is guided only in the sense that some form of interview guide, such as the example matrix set out below, is prepared beforehand to provide a framework for the interview. Notes are taken by the interviewer to record the conversation. We do not recommend the use of recording equipment as people are often wary of having their comments ‘on record’, and the main principle of anonymity would be breached.

Awareness ? Problems ? Suggestions ?

Development

boundaries

Sustainability criteria

Existing services The reasons why semi-structure interviewing is often used in the context of community participation are:

it can obtain specific quantitative and qualitative information from a sample of the population;

it allows probing to obtain useful information which is relevant to specific issues, but which might not otherwise be uncovered;

it can provide a wide range of insights and perspectives on specific issues.

Some benefits

Less intrusive to the person being interviewed as two-way communication is encouraged - those being interviewed can ask questions of the interviewer.

Provides an opportunity for learning – often the information obtained from semi- structured interviews will provide not just answers, but the reasons behind the answers.

People are more likely to feel comfortable about discussing sensitive issues.

Helps interviewers become better acquainted with community members.

Description of method

1. Design (facilitator and / or interview team) an interview framework such as the matrix example provided below. Specify the topics or questions which are to be included for discussion.

2. Establish the sample size and the method of sampling to be used.

3. Interviewers can conduct a number of practice interviews with each other and / or with a few community members. This allows them to become familiar with the questions, and also to get feedback on their two-way communication skills.

4. Record only brief notes during the interview, but immediately following the interview elaborate upon the notes.

5. Analyse the information gained at the end of each day of interviewing, preferably with other members of the interview team.

6. Discuss the overall results of the analysis with community members so that they can challenge the perceptions of the interview team. This makes the process more participatory and fair.

One possible template for semi-structured interviews

Issue Awareness ? Problems ? Suggestions ?

Development boundaries

Sustainability

Existing services

Affordable housing for local people

Housing for the open market

Employment

Recreation

Community facilities

Retail