Agenda item

Cabinet Member – Councillor Nia Jeffreys

 

To consider a report on the above.

 

 

1.    To accept the report and note the observations.

2.    To request that the Eryri National Park Authority make every effort to consult with county councillors where appropriate.

3.    That the Economy and Community Department when undertaking research, looks at the specific matters raised by the committee regarding data etc.

 

Councillor Nia Jeffreys (Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Operational Economy Matters), Roland Evans (Assistant Head – Culture) and Angela Jones (Head of Partnerships – Eryri National Park) were welcomed to the meeting. ⁠

 

Submitted – the report of the Leader and the Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Operational Economy Matters providing an update on the Gwynedd and Eryri Sustainable Visitor Economy Plan 2035, and they invited the committee to scrutinise the progress, the Action Plan and the Measures.

 

The Cabinet Member set out the context and the members were then given an opportunity to ask questions and offer observations. ⁠ 

 

The Cabinet Member was thanked for showing a genuine interest in the field and attending local meetings related to the subject, which highlighted the ease of connection within the Council to be able to make such a scheme a reality.

 

It was noted that the report stated that extensive consultation had taken place when developing the Plan, but with the exception of the workshops held at the beginning, it was not believed that another consultation had taken place with county councillors, at least. An enquiry was made about what consultation had taken place in the National Park area, and with whom? In response, it was noted:-

·         That the consultation took place widely between everyone. Several sessions were held between the Council and the Park with all councillors across the area, including the rural area of Conwy which was in the Park.

·         That the partnership that had been created replaced the former Destination Management Group which previously existed and was maintained by the Council, with the Park feeding into that as well.

·         The Group that had now been established, representing businesses and communities, was an innovative group and truly represented the whole area.  As such, for the first time, there was a full picture of all the projects and activities taking place across the whole area.

·         In addition to the formal consultation, four briefing notes had also been sent to all community councils and councillors across the area, and a further briefing note was planned to be sent to everyone shortly providing an update on everything that had happened over the last few months.

·         That there was also an intention to hold an annual conference that brought together everyone who was interested in the subject, and this was again quite a new and wide-ranging way of getting input from the whole area.

 

In response, it was noted that it was accepted that there had been consultation at the beginning, but it was believed that such a scheme required ongoing consultation. The member also noted that this was the first time that he had heard about the briefing note, and that he was unaware that he had received it. He also noted, as there was no statutory requirement for the Park to consult with county councillors, they were usually left out, and he called on the Park to consult much better with county councillors on matters that were happening within the Park.

 

The officers were asked to elaborate on the role of the Ardal Ni local consultation groups. In response, it was noted:-

·         That the Ardal Ni groups was a fairly new Council forum for engaging with communities to see what their priorities were at a local level.

·         That some of the main issues within the 13 areas were how to get sustainable tourism within the area, with many of the issues also relating to the infrastructure of the visitor economy.

·         That the responses at community level were quite high-level and they had gone through all of the action plans that had been identified and prioritised to try to incorporate them into the action plan.

·         That consultation was currently taking place to agree the operating structures within the 13 Ardal Ni, and it was intended to continue this engagement in implementing the plan with the 13 areas through the community support officers.

 

Concern was expressed that the Measures Dashboard suggested that this was not a sustainable tourism plan, but a sustainable tourism growth plan, with all plans appearing to be leaning towards tourism growth. It was also noted that the data regarding the number of jobs, e.g. did not identify whether those jobs were held by local people or not and whether the wages were sufficient, etc. A desire was expressed to see this type of evidence being gathered to see whether tourism, which was likely to grow anyway, was sustainable and beneficial locally. In response, it was noted:-

·         That the aim of the Scheme was not growth, it sought to ensure a visitor economy that balanced the needs of communities, supports the Welsh language and supports the culture and people of the county.

·         That the councillor had focused on the third principle within the Plan which looked at the economic measures. Traditionally, these were the only measures that would have been available to measure the visitor economy in Gwynedd, and the concern was that we were measuring based on growth and value, rather than based on the outcomes for the environment, the economy and our communities and culture.

·         This was why there was a dashboard attached to the report including not only the governing elements, but also how we looked at the impact of tourism on the Welsh language and on the environment.

·         That a questionnaire would be sent out to communities for the first time asking if they felt tourism was having a positive or negative impact on them as a community and on their language and culture and environment.

·         That there was also an intention to look at how many were employed, as this was an important indicator, but as part of that, it was also intended to look at average pay within the sector as we would wish to see the sector being one that offered good pay, all year round.

·         It also looked at how many businesses used local produce and how much of the local supply chain was boosted through the visitor economy sector.

·         They also looked at growth, not in terms of the number of visitors coming to the area, but how many came at different times of the year, as the aim of the Scheme was to extend the season.

·         That one of the aims of the Academi Croeso Cymru Tourism Talent Network project was to collaborate with schools locally to develop their interest in tourism and the visitor economy and develop a career path for local people within the visitor economy so that the sector was seen as a career opportunity, rather than a casual opportunity or temporary work.

 

A desire was expressed to see more refinement of the measures. In particular, there was a desire to see detail in the number of local people working in the area. Otherwise, there was a danger of having a tourism industry that visited from other areas and did not take root in the community. Concern was also expressed after understanding that one of the aims of a sustainable tourism plan was to extend the tourism season, and the member questioned whether there had been widespread consultation on this objective, as many local people disliked the hustle and bustle of the main holiday season. In response, it was noted:-

·         That a clear message had come out of the consultation about the importance of extending the tourism season to have less impact on the county's communities.

·         That it was also important to extend the season so that workers in the tourism sector could be permanently employed throughout the year, and also for businesses to be able to retain their staff.

·         There was a desire to see a decrease in visitor numbers during the months of July and August, with numbers spread over the whole year in order to gain more sustainable jobs within the visitor economy.

 

A member expressed doubt about the aim of reducing visitor numbers during July and August as people wanted to continue coming to Gwynedd during school holidays regardless.

 

It was noted that there were several references in the documents to research that had been or would be commissioned, which was something to welcome. 

 

It was noted that the Office of National Statistics' website noted that 59% of the labour force in Gwynedd who operated in the restaurants and hotels sector (which tended to be lower paid seasonal work) could speak Welsh, compared with 74% in the construction field (which tended to be full-time work on higher pay). This possibly suggested that holiday homes brought more benefit to the true local population, through alterations and renovations etc., than e.g. hotels or caravan parks not in local ownership. In response, it was noted:-

·         That it was believed that having people temporarily staying in a hotel or camping brought greater benefit to the visitor economy and meant that a house that could be used as a home for a family was not taken out of the housing market.

·         There may be evidence to the contrary, as the holiday homes issue was complex, and the Cabinet Member would be happy to look into that.

 

Hope was expressed that the research in the field would cover these aspects.

 

It was suggested that no economic sector was as dependent on child labour as the tourism sector, and that this suggested a lack of workforce locally, or that local people did not see these as good jobs. It was noted that it was desired to see a small tourism sector locally owned and offering high salaries, but it was not thought that we were decisive enough in our discussions about this area in terms of what we would like to see. In response, it was noted:-

·         That the work was only just the beginning on a plan and the implementation of an entirely new partnership which would focus on trying to achieve the sustainable visitor economy that the partners wanted.

·         This was not going to happen overnight and we had to communicate to communities, members and businesses that this would be a process.

·         There was little research in relation to the impact of tourism on the Welsh language or how many Welsh people were employed within the tourism sector, and through this partnership, interesting and exciting discussions were opening with Bangor University in terms of the research and collaboration opportunities that could be offered.

·         That it was believed that employment for young people over the summer was thought to be quite a healthy thing within the sector, as long as those young people were not exploited, and it was in line with employment legislation. It created opportunities for young people to gain paid work experience.

·         Working with Grŵp Llandrillo Menai e.g. it could be shown that employment in tourism could be seen as a career, rather than just seasonal work. 

·         There were companies in Gwynedd that employed very well within the visitor economy sector and there was also growing interest and activity within the community tourism sector within the county that were keen to see the visitor economy owned by local communities, provide good employment for people locally, and providing a place for the Welsh language and culture locally as well.

 

It was noted that we would look forward to seeing research that addressed some of the issues raised.

 

It was pointed out that the people serving in the hotels and restaurants could not afford to go out to eat as their wages were so low, and unless there was other work except for tourism, etc., the locals would always be poor. In response, it was noted:-

·         The observation that we were always going to keep local people poor was not accepted and this scheme was part of a process of having a better economy, a more sustainable economy, better jobs and better training.

·         Not all the answers were available here, but the vision was here and we were trying to move in the right direction.

 

Meirion / Dwyfor had been identified as the poorest income area in the UK, but an attraction such as Dyfi Cycle Park was an example of sustainable tourism, as it brought a lot of visitors and money to the area, with people staying in B&Bs on farms, etc. It had been suggested that Gwynedd was doing very little to help the economy in South Meirionnydd. They referred to a company that had moved from the area to Powys and questioned the extent of collaboration between the Planning and Economy Departments. In response, it was noted:-

·         In terms of planning policy in general, the Planning Service had been involved in the development of the Strategic Plan, and the action plan had also been shared with the Department.

·         That there was currently a planning policy in place and that the Local Development Plan was in the process of being reviewed. As such, it was hoped that the principles and the Strategic Plan would influence planning policy in the future.

·         That the aim of the different bodies, in coming together, was to have an influence on the planning policies as they were developed.

·         That the Park Authority was also about to review the Eryri Development Plan and it was hoped that the principles would also influence the review of that plan.

 

A member questioned how in practice the crowds could be deterred from visiting the area during the summer holidays and persuaded to come, e.g. in November. It was suggested that instead of developing and promoting tourism, we needed to talk about even reducing tourism. It was thought that Wales could sell itself on a much smaller scale, but to higher standards. It was not believed that there was enough emphasis on training in the Action Plan and we were required to upgrade ourselves to be sustainable and look after our own people, while also securing the linguistic elements.

 

Concern was raised that funding had not been secured for the good research that was underway. Particular reference was made to the research into the impact of tourism on the Welsh language, which was due to report back in March 2025, and questioned the feasibility of this in the face of uncertainty over the financial situation. 

 

There was some scepticism about the measures which highlighted that local people felt positive about tourism, and questioned exactly what that meant. It had been suggested that we need to come up with something much slicker to see real benefit emerge from tourism.

 

The view was expressed that there was an overemphasis on North Eryri and slate in the Plan and that Merionnydd and the Llŷn Peninsula must also be remembered. In response, it was noted that the point was an important one and that the importance of spreading the benefit across the whole county was emphasised.

 

Concern was raised that the report had gone in all but the right direction. It was highlighted that the purpose of the report was to optimise the benefit to Gwynedd from the tourism industry, and that the beauty of Gwynedd meant that the tourism industry would stay here no matter what. It was noted that the tourism industry brought tremendous benefit to the area, but that was not to say it could be the solution to the economic crisis facing Gwynedd. 

 

Appreciation was expressed for the plan, and a member stated they looked forward to seeing more research in the field. In response, it was noted that the points raised were appreciated, and that the Department would be sure to pursue them.

 

RESOLVED

1.         To accept the report and note the observations.

2.         To request that the Eryri National Park Authority makes every effort to consult with the county councillors where appropriate.

3.         That the Economy and Community Department when undertaking research, looks at the specific matters raised by the committee regarding data etc.