Agenda item

To receive an update on the work and consider its impact.

DECISION

 

•           To accept the report and note the observations.

•           To ask the Cabinet Member for Economy and Community to discuss car parking fees and the impact of changing enforcement hours in car parks on the local economy with the relevant Cabinet Members and departments.

The Cabinet Member for Economy and Community presented the report noting that the challenges facing town centres were evident, including changes in shopping habits, the growth of on-line shopping and cost of living pressures. It was explained that the challenge was to re-purpose town centres and make them attractive places to live, work and spend time. It was noted that discussions had begun with the new Welsh Government regarding the field.

It was elaborated that the report buildt on information previously submitted to the Committee and focused on the activities of the Regeneration Programme Service, including town centre regeneration, the development and implementation of regeneration projects and the response to empty properties. Reference was made to the framework for the towns of Gwynedd and the Place Making Schemes developed for Bangor, Caernarfon, Porthmadog, Pwllheli, Bala and Dolgellau. It was noted that these schemes had been prepared since the report was submitted to the Committee in 2023.

The report included information on the development and implementation of regeneration projects and the main grant programmes. It was noted that grants worth £31.8 million had been secured between 2023-26 for the development and implementation of town centre regeneration projects across the county. Reference was made to the projects to be implemented through the Pride in Place Impact Fund and the Local Growth Fund, as well as the work on empty properties in town centres.

It was elaborated that work was being carried out to develop performance measures and collect data to be able to measure the impact of the regeneration work on town centres. Reference was made to the Council's new Economic Strategy and the need to assess the impact of projects as well as monitor the number and condition of vacant properties. It was explained that the final part of the report summarised the main conclusions and lessons learnt, along with further issues to consider over the following months.

During the discussion, the following observations were made:

Clarification was sought regarding the definition of vacant properties. Reference was made to examples in Pwllheli where a shop continued to operate on the ground floor of a building but the top floor was empty, noting that the situation could lead to significant Council Tax Premium costs and put additional pressure on the viability of the ground floor business.

In response, it was clarified that there was no single simple definition of empty properties across the Council, as a number of services and departments related to empty properties and operated under different legislations and regulations. It was noted that the relevant definitions and periods may therefore vary between services. In relation to town centre regeneration work, it was explained that the Service tended to focus on properties that had been empty for more than a year, prioritising substantial buildings in central locations where their condition was deteriorating and impacting the area.

It was noted that there was a marked difference between the performance of different streets and town centres, with some thriving while others found it very difficult to attract new businesses. It was questioned why there was so much difference between one street or town and another. In response, the view was expressed that retail developments on the outskirts of towns were a significant factor. It was noted that towns without nearby external competition tended to perform better, while town centres with significant development on their outskirts faced more pressure. Reference was made to Bangor as a prominent example, and Caernarfon to a lesser extent.

It was further explained that every town was different and faced specific opportunities and challenges. It was noted that Place Making Schemes had been developed over the previous three years for Caernarfon, Bangor, Porthmadog, Pwllheli, Dolgellau and Bala to identify the main challenges and opportunities in each town and to draw up a specific action plan. It was noted that towns across Wales were facing a period of significant change and that there was no single simple or consistent solution for every place. It was emphasised that towns that had been affected by changes in retail needed to be re-purposed, considering what uses and facilities could attract people and make the experience of visiting a town centre more enjoyable. It was noted that a number of external factors influenced town centres and therefore specific solutions needed to be developed for each town.

It was questioned whether parking costs were having a significant impact on town centres. Reference was made to Porthmadog, where people could use a supermarket car park without paying and then walk to the high street, and it was asked whether such arrangements helped the town centre. Reference was made to concerns raised by members from the Bethesda area, in relation to the impact of introducing a charge for the first hour of parking in the Council's car parks on the viability of high street businesses. Although the Environment Department was responsible for parking, it was noted that there was a desire for the matter to be considered across departments due to its economic impact.

In response, reference was made to the report, which already identified matters such as business rate levels and parking fees as potential barriers to increasing vibrancy in town centres. It was noted that parking charges could be a barrier to the economy, but it was emphasised that the car parks generated a significant income for the Council and that consideration needed to be given to how any reduction in charges would be funded. Reference was made to public transport as an option for some residents, including those eligible for free travel on buses. The view was expressed that the matter needed to be considered differently, but it was noted that the fragile financial situation and the need for the Cabinet to consider further cuts made any change challenging. It was confirmed that the matter would be the subject of further discussion by the Cabinet.

Attention was drawn to the significant investment secured for town centre regeneration of around £31 million, noting that the report recognised the difficulty of proving the impact of that investment. Reference was made to an increase in the number of empty properties between 2025 and 2026, following a previous improvement, and to the fact that several additional empty properties were located in Caernarfon, Bangor, Dolgellau and Pwllheli. It was questioned how the Cabinet assessed the effectiveness of the current strategy and what evidence was available to show that the investment was having a long-term impact rather than a temporary one.

In response, it was recognised that impact measurement was an area that needed to be improved. It was explained that the service relied almost entirely on grants to develop and implement projects, and therefore there was a need to work within the guidelines and priorities of the main funding programmes. It was noted that evaluation reports were being carried out to ensure that projects had been implemented in accordance with grant requirements and had achieved the expected outputs and outcomes. However, it was explained that the challenge was to measure the wider impact on the location itself.

It was explained that the matter had been embedded in the new Economic Strategy, with a framework for monitoring and evaluating the difference that the Council was trying to make. It was noted that the method would take into account the direct outputs, the results at a higher level and, ultimately, the impact. It was noted that the model was not perfect due to the large number of other factors influencing local economies, but the hope was expressed that the new structure would enable the Council to create a clearer link between the projects implemented and the results seen. It was confirmed that this work had not been adequately done in previous years and that it was a field that had been identified for improvement.

It was added that measuring the actual difference, impact and outcomes had been one of the main considerations in the development of the new Economic Strategy. Reference was made to the report which set out the types of measures that were intended to be used. It was noted that measuring impact remained difficult due to the constantly changing economy and wider circumstances, but hope was expressed that the new Welsh Government would be able to provide support in this field.

Reference was made to the challenges that on-line shopping was creating for local stores. Dolgellau's performance was compared to Machynlleth, noting that a number of businesses in Machynlleth benefited from cyclist-related economic activity and major facilities in the surrounding area, including bicycle repair and selling businesses, factories, hotels and other services. The view was expressed that Council officers should visit such successful examples and hold discussions to see what lessons could be learnt and what support could be provided to similar enterprises in Gwynedd.

Concern was expressed that much of the funding listed in the report was concentrated on towns, and it was questioned how much support was being provided to communities and areas outside the main towns. Reference was made to a number of projects in Dolgellau and it was noted that despite the investment, the town continued to face challenges and that local businesses were closing or for sale. The need for officers to visit businesses directly and ask what assistance they needed, including whether parking or other factors were at the root of the problems, was emphasised, rather than relying on desk-top information or investing in projects whose impact was uncertain.

In response, it was confirmed that the Service was seeking to visit examples of good practice across Wales to learn from successful projects and interventions. It was explained that the report in question focused specifically on town centres and therefore the figures in it did not provide a complete picture of all the Department's work. It was noted that the figures, for example, did not include community grants and other programmes administered by different services within the Department, and that many groups in rural areas received support through those streams.

The role of local businesses and groups in the regeneration of town centres was emphasised. It was noted that local partnerships were being developed alongside the Place Making Schemes to co-ordinate the action plans and support local organisations to implement projects. Reference was made to the previous year's pilot scheme for town and community councils, which noted that it had been relatively successful and that a similar scheme had been developed for the current year.

It was noted that the business community was a key partner and that the Service sought to ensure that the voice of local businesses and the private sector was included in local partnerships. It was emphasised that the businesses themselves were best placed to explain the challenges they were facing. It was emphasised that the Regeneration Programmes Service was a relatively small service and that the report did not cover the Department's wider work such as business support and events. The view was expressed that there was a need to move away from focusing solely on grants and to consider how different services and provisions within town centres could be intertwined, including parking and responding to business rates challenges.

The work highlighted in the report was welcomed, with particular reference to the Fund for Town and Community Councils. It was noted that economic development and regeneration were important, but that works such as improving footpaths, bus shelters, playgrounds and other local facilities made a significant difference to the quality of life of residents and were highly valued.

It was noted that measuring the direct impact of economic regeneration work was difficult. The view was expressed that data on the number of visitors or the number of people walking through town centres could be one way of generating more direct evidence, but it was noted that any conclusions about the impact of individual activities remained partly theoretical without such data. The challenge was compared to the work of reviving the Welsh language, noting that both areas were facing major social changes that a local authority did not have the capacity to fully manage at a county level.

It was stressed that there was a role to prevent decisions by other parts of the Council from exacerbating negative trends. Reference was made to the location of supermarkets and commercial developments, noting that the location of large shops in the centre or close to a town centre could support the high street, while developments on the outskirts of towns could take activity away from the centre. Reference was made to Porthmadog and Caernarfon as examples where large facilities were close to the town centre, and this was compared to Pwllheli and Bangor where planning or land allocation decisions had led to increased development on the outskirts of towns. The view was expressed that this should be taken into account when considering land allocations for supermarkets and similar developments in the future.

In response, it was noted that the Pride in Place Fund had been set up by the Council prior to the introduction of the Government's scheme of the same name, and it was emphasised that improving the image and quality of towns benefited the local community. In terms of measuring the number of visitors, it was reported that work had begun in the previous year to track town centre data. Reference was made to Gwynedd's town centre profile for 2025 and it was noted that the 2025/26 figures would be available shortly. It was explained that the data could show trends and patterns over time, but it would not be able to prove a direct link between a particular activity by the Council and the change observed. It was confirmed that the development of the datasets would continue, with the hope that they would become more valuable as long-term trends emerged.

Reference was made to cross-departmental collaboration and it was noted that a number of existing regeneration projects already involved collaborative work. It was reported that the Service was working closely with the Highways, Engineering and YGC Department on town centre projects, as well as joint schemes with the Housing and Property Department. The hope was expressed that this collaboration could be further expanded to address a wider range of issues.

The work of the Department was welcomed and the significant financial pressures faced over recent years were recognised. However, concern was expressed about the level of collaboration between departments in decision-making that affected local economies. Particular reference was made to the recent increase in parking charges, noting the impression that there had not been enough discussion between the Environment Department and the Economy and Community Department prior to making the changes. It was stressed that such decisions should not be made in isolation, as parking fees could have a significant impact on businesses.

It was noted that Gwynedd was a large and diverse county and that a uniform approach was not suitable for all areas. Reference was made to efforts to rationalise parking charges across the county, but the view was expressed that different local circumstances needed to be taken into account when setting the charges, as the impact of changes on businesses and town centres could vary significantly between areas.

It was further emphasised that the impact of parking charges could vary significantly between different areas and even between individual car parks. Llandanwg was given as an example, noting that one small business relied heavily on locals and visitors who stayed for a short time to walk on the beach and visit the café. It was explained that the previous arrangement had enabled people to pay for an hour, but there was now a need to pay £4 for four hours. It was noted that locals, and often visitors on less favourable days, did not wish to stay for four hours, and that the loss of even a small number of customers could have a significant impact on a business employing a few people in a rural area. The need for better collaboration between departments was emphasised and for the economic impact of decisions to be assessed based on the circumstances of each area and, where appropriate, every individual car park.

Clarification was sought as to the way different towns had been defined in the report. Reference was made to Harlech, which was at the bottom of the list, and to Llanbedr and Talsarnau which had not been included. Concern was expressed that the approach of prioritising investment might put less emphasis on smaller villages and towns, although creating or protecting even a small number of jobs could make a significant difference in a small area. It was emphasised that attention needed to be paid to the smaller communities as well as the major towns.

Reference was made to the fund for town and community councils and it was questioned whether the guidance on what could be applied for had been clear enough. It was noted that a wide range of projects had received support, with some councils receiving significantly higher amounts than others and many had not received funding. In response, it was explained that the Department had contacted all town and community councils to explain the opportunities available, and had again contacted those who had not responded, which had led to further applications. It was emphasised that no application by a council had been refused and that there was an intention to give local councils the freedom to decide which projects were best suited to the needs of their communities. It was explained that the level of funding was allocated on the basis of population, and therefore that larger areas received more money than smaller areas.

It was questioned whether the opportunity to apply for the fund remained open. In response, it was explained that the latest cycle had just closed at the beginning of July. It was noted that examples of successful projects from the previous year had been shared and that councils had been encouraged to submit applications. It was reported that funding had been earmarked for all town and community councils provided they submitted an application, and it was emphasised that several months' notice had been given of the application period. Reference was made to children's playgrounds and green spaces as examples of the type of projects that could be supported to improve community facilities.

In response to the comments regarding collaboration between departments and parking charges, it was confirmed that the comments had been noted and that the Service would be keen to further develop the cross-departmental work over the following months.

In terms of the definition of different towns, it was explained that the Service had not attempted to create a new definition of town centre, but had used the framework that had already been included in the Local Development Plan. It was noted that the scheme identified Bangor as a sub-regional retail centre, Caernarfon, Porthmadog and Pwllheli as urban retail centres, along with a number of local retail centres. Within the National Park area, it was noted that Dolgellau and Bala were identified as local service centres, with Aberdyfi and Harlech being service settlements. It was emphasised that there was a need to be aware that smaller towns could face greater challenges, and that this was one of the reasons for monitoring the number of vacant units across all towns. It was noted that a high percentage of vacant units in a particular town could provide grounds for further consideration of intervention.

Reference was made to the empty property data, noting that the figure given for Harlech did not seem to match the situation on the ground.

In response, it was explained that an Empty Property Officer visited all town centres in May each year and counted the vacant units on the ground floor. It was noted that the area under consideration was based on the town centre boundary in the planning policies, and therefore it could be a relatively limited area. It was explained that the information was then shared with the Research Unit and adapted where necessary. It was explained that the system was not perfect, but that it had been adopted because there was no other consistent method of identifying vacant properties in local areas. It was emphasised that its main value was to provide a consistent snapshot from year to year to be able to identify trends. It was confirmed that the data for Harlech related to the town centre according to the planning definition.

Reference was made to the wider challenges facing local businesses, including large empty buildings such as former pubs or shops that had left town centres. It was noted that the rural economic situation, wider economic changes, lack of money in residents' pockets and rising energy costs all affected the viability of local businesses. Reference was made to non-domestic rates support as one way the Council could assist businesses to take up empty properties.

A request was made for an update regarding a vacant building, the Corbett Arms Hotel in Tywyn, noting the ongoing cost to taxpayers and concern about how long the issue had taken to be resolved. In response, it was confirmed that work was underway and that a report would be submitted to the Cabinet in September. It was explained that the work had been affected by wildlife matters, and it was recognised that the building was a significant problem that the Council had inherited.

In relation to empty properties more generally, it was noted that the Service was already working with developers and owners through a range of grant schemes. It was noted that contacting some owners was difficult, particularly in Bangor, as many lived outside the area or even outside Wales. Concern was expressed that some individuals were buying properties at a relatively low price, keeping them as assets and allowing them to decline. As a result, it was noted that enforcement options needed to be considered.

It was explained that a grant scheme was in place in Bangor, but it was acknowledged that there were limitations to what could be achieved through grants alone. It was reported that work was underway to consider more proactive options, including whether the Council could directly purchase, restore and lease buildings, or work with local partners to do so. It was noted that such an approach would have implications, but that it could give more control over problematic properties.

The community fund was welcomed and it was noted that it had worked well for many rural community councils. It was questioned whether not-for-profit community companies, which operated shops, cafés or other enterprises and created local jobs, might be eligible to apply. In response, it was noted that the matter could be considered in future, but it was explained that the main purpose of the specific fund was to improve the image of communities through town and community councils, rather than providing direct economic support to businesses. It was noted that other funds were available that may be more suitable for such enterprises.

Reference was made to an idea that had been raised regarding the use of a multi-storey car park in Bangor as a park-and-ride site for Ysbyty Gwynedd, with the possibility that this could attract more people to the city centre. It was noted that there was no certainty that the idea would be feasible, but the view was expressed that there was a need to be prepared to consider different ideas and new approaches to attract people to town centres.

 

RESOLVED

 

·       To accept the report and note the observations.

·       To ask the Cabinet Member for Economy and Community to discuss car parking fees and the impact of changing enforcement hours in car parks on the local economy with the relevant Cabinet Members and departments.