wrexham ldp 2nd phase report

Cass Associates ARCHITECTURE • LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE • PLANNING • ECOLOGY

WREXHAM COUNTY BOROUGH COUNCIL LOCAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT

PHASE II: PRE-DEPOSIT CONSULTATION

November 2007

931 – WCBC LDP PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT CASS ASSOCIATES PHASE II: PRE-DEPOSIT CONSULTATION NOVEMBER 2007

Cass Associates ARCHITECTURE • LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE • PLANNING • ECOLOGY

WREXHAM COUNTY BOROUGH COUNCIL LOCAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT

PHASE II: PRE-DEPOSIT CONSULTATION

Prepared by

Cass Associates Studio 104

The Tea Factory 82 Wood Street

Liverpool L1 4DQ

Tel: 0151 707 0110 Fax: 0151 707 0332

E-mail: [email protected]

931 – WCBC LDP PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT CASS ASSOCIATES PHASE II: PRE-DEPOSIT CONSULTATION NOVEMBER 2007

Contents

1 Introduction

2 Methodology

3 Results

4 Conclusions and Recommendations

Figures

1 Map of workshop sub-areas

Tables

2.1 Sub – areas and workshop details

Appendices

A Schedule of WCBC ‘drop – in’ sessions

B Delegate invitation letter

C Workshop programme

D Delegate Packs

E Post – workshop evaluation questionnaire

F Summary of revisions to workshop programme and format after first event

G Data analysis of the results from the workshops undertaken under the revised format

H Data analysis of the results from the first workshop

1 931 – WCBC LDP PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT CASS ASSOCIATES PHASE II: PRE-DEPOSIT CONSULTATION NOVEMBER 2007

1 Introduction

1.1 Wrexham County Borough CounciI (WCBC) formally commenced preparation of the 2006-2021 Local Development Plan (LDP) in late 2006. In accordance with the terms of its statutory obligations under the Wrexham Local Development Plan Delivery Agreement (2006), WCBC commissioned Cass Associates to design and deliver the ‘pre-deposit participation’ (Regulation 14) and ‘pre-deposit consultation’ (Regulations 15 and 16) elements of its community engagement requirements.

1.2 The ‘pre-deposit participation’ was undertaken in January/February 2007. The outcomes of this stage are detailed within the ‘Phase I: Pre - Deposit Participation’ (February 2007) report prepared by Cass Associates and ‘Developing the Vision: Report of Findings’ (March 2007) prepared by WCBC.

1.3 This report concerns the ‘pre-deposit consultation’ element, herein referred to as Phase II. The aim of Phase II was to inform delegates of the strategic direction of the draft ‘Preferred Strategy’ (October 2007) and enable them to make representations to the Council. Representations on the document will be used to inform the preparation of the ‘Deposit LDP’ in 2008.

1.4 The purpose of the report is to:

• provide WCBC with feedback on the effectiveness of the community engagement activities;

• provide recommendations on potential follow-up activities; and

• act as an evidence source for WCBC to demonstrate to internal and external auditors compliance with the Delivery Agreement.


2 Methodology

Public Engagement Format

2.1 In order to engage directly with communities across the whole of Wrexham County Borough and identify localised strategic planning issues, six sub-areas were identified by the Council and a public engagement workshop held within each (Figure 1).

2.2 The six sub-areas and workshop details are presented in Table 2.1.

Table 2.1 – Sub-Areas and Workshop Details

Sub-Area Town Workshop Venue Date

South West Ruabon Ruabon Community Centre 24 September 2007

East Gresford Gresford Memorial Hall 26 September 2007

Wrexham Wrexham Wrexham Guildhall 27 September 2007

Ceiriog Valley Chirk Chirk Memorial Hall 1 October 2007

Maelor Bangor Bangor Racecourse 2 October 2007

North West Brynteg Brynteg Memorial Hall 4 October 2007

2.3 An additional workshop was held on the 3 October 2007 at Wrexham Guildhall to focus upon borough-wide strategic planning issues.

2.4 In parallel with the workshop programme, WCBC ran public ‘drop-in’ sessions throughout the County Borough at public institutions, delivered by the Council’s Planning Policy Team. A schedule of these sessions can be found in Appendix A.

Identifying Delegates

2.5 The process of identifying delegates was agreed in advance with WCBC. Delegates were principally identified using the WCBC’s database of individuals and organisations (such as Community Councils and local community groups) that had previously expressed an interest in participating in the LDP process. Delegates not on the database that had attended the Phase I workshops and subsequently registered their details were also included.

2.6 In order to maintain the onus on ‘public engagement’, commercial organisations such as planning consultants and development companies were excluded from the delegate list. A separate consultation event, without the involvement of Cass Associates, was held by WCBC to engage with these interested parties.

2.7 Delegates were approached by letter from the Council (Appendix B) and asked to register in advance by telephone, email or letter so that an indication of an appropriate level of participation at each workshop could be achieved and further publicity be conducted if necessary.

2.8 Although delegates were principally identified through the WCBC database in order to target individuals and groups that had previously expressed an interest in participating in the LDP process, the Council also undertook wider advertising. This comprised of posters in public buildings (libraries/community centres) and an advertisement within the Council’s magazine, which is distributed to all households throughout the Borough. As with the delegates targeted


through the WCBC database, these promotional materials requested delegates to register in advance.

2.9 It is important to note that although delegates were asked to register in advance, an open door policy was in operation throughout; anyone who asked to attend could do so. Some people who attended the workshops had been notified by colleagues, friends, relatives or neighbours.

Workshop Programme and Format

2.10 The content and format of the workshops was informed by the objectives for this phase of public engagement. These objectives included:

• Explain where WCBC are within the LDP consultation process

• Summarise responses from the ‘pre-deposit participation’ phase as a reminder of the issues raised in the public engagement workshops and as a summary of the comments received from other stakeholders

• Explain how the representations received in the previous round of public engagement workshops have influenced the draft ‘Preferred Strategy’, so that participants can make the connection between their contributions and what has been produced

• Explain the Council’s draft ‘Preferred Strategy’

• Enable delegates to formulate a response to the draft ‘Preferred Strategy’

• Ensure that delegates are aware of the need to respond to the draft ‘Preferred Strategy’ in writing and the appropriate means of doing this.

2.11 To effectively address these objectives a workshop format based upon a series of presentations and discussion groups was adopted. Appendix C contains a workshop programme that details the workshop structure. The workshop structure and presentation content were subject to changes following the first workshop held in Ruabon on 24 September 2007, in order to improve the workshop experience.

2.12 As evident from the programme, whilst the workshops were managed and facilitated by Cass Associates, WCBC planning officers played an important role in the delivery of a presentation on the draft ‘Preferred Strategy and in responding to delegate queries.

2.13 To complement the content of the workshops and provide an information source that could be taken away and utilised in the preparation of representations, delegate packs containing a copy of the summary draft ‘Preferred Strategy’, the PowerPoint presentation slides and the LDP comments form were made available at the workshop event (Appendix D). It should be noted that in response to comments received from delegates in the early workshops, WCBC also posted an agenda and copy of the summary draft ‘Preferred Strategy’ to delegates upon their registration.

2.14 When delegates registered they were asked if they would like to participate in Welsh at their chosen workshop and receive Welsh translated documentation. A small number of delegates requested this, and as a result Cass Associates provided a Welsh speaking facilitator and the Council made available the relevant translated materials.


Monitoring and Data Collection

2.15 To assess the quality of the workshop sessions each delegate was requested to complete a ‘post-workshop evaluation questionnaire’ (Appendix E). These questionnaires were based upon open and closed questions that were designed to monitor the effectiveness of the workshops in terms of delivery and format, and to provide an early indication of the number of residents intending to submit representations to the Council.


3 Results

3.1 As detailed within Section 2 of this report, the Phase II workshop programme was initially scheduled to comprise of seven workshops (six sub-area and one borough wide). However, delegates of the first event, held for the southwest sub-area in Ruabon on the 24th September 2007, expressed dissatisfaction with the effectiveness of that particular workshop. The structure of the workshop programme and content of the presentations were substantially revised as a result prior to delivery of the remaining six workshops, taking account of the feedback received at that first workshop. The key changes are noted in Appendix F.

3.2 In order to ensure that communities in the southwest sub-area had a similar opportunity to participate in the consultation process to other sub-areas, the decisions was taken to hold a second event in the Ruabon sub-area, based on the revised format. This ‘repeat’ event was held at different venue in Ruabon (the Wynnstay Arms Hotel) on 7th November 2007.

3.3 The results of the evaluation questionnaires for the workshops undertaken under the revised format have been compiled within a spreadsheet (Appendix G). A summary of these results based upon overall responses is detailed below. In the interests of consistency the results for the first event at Ruabon, which show a high level of dissatisfaction amongst delegates, have been compiled separately (Appendix H). It is important to note that when the results of the initial Ruabon workshop are compared against those of the ‘repeat’ workshop, there is a considerable improvement in delegate experience. This reflects the effectiveness of the revisions to the workshop programme and content which were undertaken after the initial workshop.

3.4 Of the 213 delegates that registered to attend the revised workshops, 183 attended, of these 90 provided responses to the questionnaire (49% of attendees).

3.5 Analysis of the responses indicates that delegates overall had a positive impression of the event with 10% responding excellent, 70% good and 20% adequate (of those answering the question). A similarly positive response was received in terms of usefulness, with 16% responding excellent, 66% good, 17% adequate (of those answering the question).

3.6 On the three questions regarding the grading of the components of the workshop (the presentation about the results of the previous consultation, the presentation on the draft Preferred Strategy and the group discussions), for all three questions, of those answering the question, between 80 – 85% of delegates responded either excellent or good. The remainder largely cited adequate, although 5% of respondents considered the group discussions to be poor.

3.7 With regard to the question relating to the intention of submitting representations to the Council, of those answering the question, 98% expressed a positive intention. Whilst this could reflect a positive response to the effectiveness of the workshop in enabling delegates to make representations, it could also reflect a pre-existing intention to engage in the LDP process.

3.8 The open questions provided the opportunity for delegates to expand upon these closed questions and express their opinions on the most valuable aspects of the workshops and areas for improvement. A full breakdown of responses is detailed within Appendix H. In terms of the valuable aspects of the workshop, common responses related to; the presentation given by Council planning officers on the draft Preferred Strategy as it enabled interaction with Council representatives, and the group discussions which enabled the sharing of views and constructive dialogue. In relation to suggested improvements to the event, common


responses included; more effective distribution of delegates to avoid monopolisation of the discussion by several members of the same interest group, requests for a greater length of time to engage with Council planning officers and wider advertising by the Council to increase participation.


4 Conclusion and Recommendations

4.1 The aim of Phase II was to inform delegates of the strategic direction of the draft ‘Preferred Strategy’ (October 2007) and to enable them to make representations to the Council. Based upon the objectives outlined in Paragraph 2.10, a workshop format, comprising of presentations and group discussions was utilised to address this aim.

4.2 Despite experiencing problems at the initial workshop, the evidence suggests that the programme has been successful in achieving this aim. As indicated in the analysis of the evaluation questionnaires, respondents expressed an overall positive impression of the event and its usefulness, commenting extremely positively on the delivery and content of the three core components of the workshop (the presentation about the results of the previous consultation, the presentation on the draft Preferred Strategy and the group discussions).

4.3 Furthermore, the early indication from the analysis is that a significant proportion (98%) of those who completed questionnaires intends to make representations on the draft ‘Preferred Strategy’. However, care should be taken in the interpretation of this result as whilst this could reflect a positive response to the effectiveness of the workshop, it could also reflect a pre-existing intention to engage in the LDP process.

4.4 Although the evidence suggests that delegates found the workshop programme useful, a number of recommendations were made as to how to bring about improvements. As detailed in Paragraph 3.8, these primarily relate to addressing the monopolisation of the discussion groups by some delegates, requests for a greater length of time to engage with Council planning officers and wider advertising by the Council to increase participation.

4.5 In relation to the first issue, this is a problem commonly encountered in public engagement exercises as interest groups and some individuals are naturally more empowered to engage, by virtue of their level of experience or strength of personality. Addressing this issue is always difficult, indeed, throughout both the Phase I and Phase II workshop programmes Cass Associates have endeavoured to utilise different methods when breaking down delegates into discussion groups, and to ensure that all delegates had an equal opportunity to participate. Unfortunately, this problem is difficult to address, much of the success of an event depends upon being reactive to such issues and seeking to sensitively manage groups through positive facilitation.

4.6 With regard to the second issue, the Council have actively sought to provide representatives at each of the workshops, not only to deliver the presentation on the draft ‘Preferred Strategy’, but also to participate in discussion groups and respond to delegate queries. This is a positive approach to public engagement and one that should be commended. Although some delegates recommended a greater length of time to engage with planning officers, in an evening lasting 2 ½ hours which addresses varied complex issues, an increase in the duration of the event could act as a deterrent to participation. It should be noted that in addition to commissioning and attending the workshops, WCBC also operated a series of ‘drop-in’ sessions throughout the County Borough. These were advertised by the Council through a Borough wide leaflet drop and at the workshop events as part of the Council presentation.

4.7 Finally, in relation to the recommendation of wider advertising to increase participation, the Council have sought to pro-actively involve the public and other stakeholders in the LDP consultation process through a variety of means in accordance with the Delivery Agreement. These approaches have included advertising within the local press and at public buildings, creating a prominent dedicated webpage for LDP consultation within the Council’s website,


as well as the ‘drop-in’ sessions mentioned above. The public engagement workshop programme was primarily advertised through an invitation to individuals and groups (such as community groups) on the WCBC database who had expressed an interest in being involved in the LDP process. This was to ensure that the number of delegates attending the events was manageable in terms of facilitation, so that the workshop experience was positive and valuable to all those attending. It should be noted that the workshops operated on an ‘open door’ policy and that anyone who expressed an interest in participating was entitled to do so. Advertising the workshop events on a wider scale to increase participation may detrimentally impact upon the effectiveness of any future workshop programme unless the programme is extended to include additional workshops in those areas where there is greatest demand.

Figure 1: Map of workshop sub-areas

RU

AB

ON

MO

UN

TA

IN

BE

RW

YN

MO

UN

TA

I NS

Community Workshop Areas 2007

KEY

Railway/station

A-road

�

Wrexham Local Development Plan : Key Issues and Strategy Options. © Crown copyright. O.S. Licence No. 100023429. October 2006. Not to scale.

Wrexham

Marford

Gresford

Rossett

Penley

Bettisfield

Hanmer

Bronington

Tallarn Green

Overton

Llay

Chirk

Pontfadog

Glyn Ceiriog

Holt

Ruabon

Rhosllannerchrugog

Penycae

Johnstown

Wrexham Industrial

Estate

Bangor-is-y-Coed

Marchwiel

Bwlchgwyn

Coedpoeth

Minera

BrymboGwersyllt

Summerhill

Broughton

Acrefair

Cefn Mawr

Trevor

Burton

Llanarmon Dyffryn Ceiriog

WorthenburyCross Lanes

Rhostyllen

Froncysyllte

�

�

�

�

�

Ceiriog Valley

South West

Maelor

EastNorth West

Wrexham

Appendix A: Schedule of WCBC ‘drop-in’ sessions

Drop-in Sessions

If you want to speak to a planning officer about the Preferred Strategy a number of drop-in sessions have been arranged for the public and you can attend any one of these:

• Monday 15 October 2007: 2pm - 5pm at Stiwt, Rhos

• Tuesday 16 October 2007: 12.30pm - 3.30pm at Llay Park Resource Centre, Creche, Llay

• Wednesday 17 October 2007: 3pm - 6pm at Wrexham Library Foyer, Wrexham

• Thursday 18 October 2007: 2pm-5pm at Chirk Library

• Friday 19 October 2007: 3pm-6pm at Overton Library

• Monday 22 October 2007: 4pm-7pm at Coedpoeth Library

• Tuesday 23 October 2007: 5pm - 8pm at Darland Sport Centre Community Room, Rossett

• Wednesday 24 October 2007: 4pm - 7pm at Ebenezer Chapel, Cefn Mawr

• Thursday 25 October 2007: 4pm - 7pm at Cartrefle Community Centre, Cefn Rd, Wrexham

• Friday 26 October 2007: 4pm-7pm at Bronington Primary School

• Monday 29 October 2007: 4pm-7pm at New Broughton Community Centre, Bersham Road, New Broughton

• Tuesday 30 October 2007: 4pm-7pm at Rhosddu Community Centre,

• Wrexham Wednesday 31 October 2007: 4pm-7pm at Oliver Jones Memorial Hall, Dolywern

• Thursday 1 November 2007: 4pm-7pm at Gwersyllt Community Centre

• Friday 2 November 2007: at 4pm-7pm at Holt Community Centre

Appendix B: Delegate invitation letter

Aug 2007 Planning Policy 01978 292013 [email protected]

Dear Sir / Madam Invitation to Local Development Plan - Preferred Strategy workshops The Council is drawing up a new planning framework - 'the Wrexham Local Development Plan' - to guide future growth and development in the County Borough up to 2021. This will replace the current Wrexham Unitary Development Plan. The current stage in the Plan preparation process is the 'Preferred Strategy'. It sets out: a vision for the Plan; how much new housing and employment development is needed; broadly where this new development will go; and the strategic policies, which are the most important planning policies to address the key issues. The Preferred Strategy has been developed following engagement with key stakeholders and local community representatives at the beginning of the year, and has been informed by a number of technical studies. It is not set in stone and should be seen as a starting point for discussion. To help us prepare the new Plan, we want your views on the Preferred Strategy. During September and October we have organised seven workshops similar to those carried out at the beginning of the year across the County Borough. The purpose of these workshops is for you to have your say on the Preferred Strategy. Independent Consultants, Cass Associates, will run the workshops and discussions will focus on strategic, rather than site specific issues. If you have a specific issue you want to discuss with a planning officer, please phone or visit us at the planning department or visit one of the drop-in session we will be running across the County Borough in October. We will write to you in due course confirming the dates, times and venues of these drop-in sessions. Details of how you can register your attendance in included on the attached sheet along with dates, times and venues. We hope you will be able to attend a workshop and would appreciate you contacting us by Friday 14 September to register your interest. Yours Sincerely (for Chief Planning Officer)

Appendix C: Workshop programme

WREXHAM LOCAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN

CONSULTATION ON DRAFT “PREFERRED STRATEGY”

PROGRAMME

6.30 – 6.40 Tea and coffee

6.40 – 6.45 Welcome by Wrexham CBC Planning Officer

6.45 – 7.15 Introduction by Cass Associates

• Purpose of this evening

• Outcomes of earlier evidence based information gathering and engagement

7.15 – 7.45 Break out groups for discussions facilitated by representatives from Cass Associates

• Discussions will centre around the issues raised from the earlier evidence gathering stage

7.45 – 8.00 Tea and coffee

8.00 – 8.15 A presentation on the Council’s draft Preferred Strategy by Wrexham CBC Senior Planning Officer

8.15 – 8.50 Break out groups for discussion

• Discussions will centre on your views on how much growth and where new development should go and issues that you may wish to raise in your response to the draft Preferred Strategy

8.50 – 9.00 Concluding comments

• A reminder that the outcome of the workshop is that you have a better understanding of the Council’s draft Preferred Strategy and how you may best respond to the Council’s ‘Comments Form’

9.00 Finish

Appendix D: Delegate Pack

This document is available a variety of accessible formatsincluding large print, Braille and on audio cassette or computerdisk.

If you would like a copy in an accessible format or in a languageother than English or Welsh or would like someone to explain it toyou please contact:

Policy SectionPlanning DepartmentWrexham County Borough CouncilLambpit Street, Wrexham LL11 1AR

Telephone: 01978 292013

© Wrexham County Borough Council 2007

1

PLAN THE FUTURE WITH US!

Have you even been delighted or dismayed about a development in yourarea? Or have you said to yourself "I would have never allowed thatdevelopment there!" Well, this is your opportunity to get involved in theplanning system, by participating in the preparation of the 'Wrexham LocalDevelopment Plan.'

WREXHAM LOCAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN 2006 - 2021

PREFERRED STRATEGY

The Council is drawing up a new planning framework - 'the Wrexham LocalDevelopment Plan' - to guide future growth and development in the CountyBorough up to 2021. We need to plan for where people will live, work, playand how they’ll get around; once adopted, the Council will use the Plan todecide whether planning permission should be granted or refused.

The current stage in the Plan preparation process is the 'Preferred Strategy',which provides a basis for meeting the economic, social and environmentalneeds of the area. It sets out:• the vision and key objectives for the Local Development Plan;• how much housing and employment development is needed;• which towns and villages will grow and which will stay the same;• the strategic policies, which are the most important planning policies to

address the key issues; and• the key diagram, showing the areas in the County Borough that will be

affected.

Land allocations and detailed planning policies are not included in PreferredStrategy, but will be set out in a future 'Deposit Plan'.

This leaflet summarises the key elements of the Preferred Strategy

YOUR ROLE

Planning can affect your quality of life because it can change the area whereyou live, work or visit. We want your views on the Preferred Strategy. Do youthink the strategy has the right emphasis, have all strategic issues beenadequately addressed, do any issues need to be strengthened?

This is the first stage of public dialogue to test whether the draft PreferredStrategy is right. Your views are valuable and they will ensure the Plan issound, and sustainable. At the back you will find a response form. Please letus have you comments by 26th November 2007.

2

KEY DRIVERS FOR CHANGE

The following key social, economic and environmental issues have beenidentified as the most important in the County Borough; the Preferred Strategyseeks to address them through spatial planning:

• The County Borough has a buoyant housing market and increasinghousing affordability problems.

• Recent demand for specific housing tenures and types is increasinglyoutstripping supply.

• Pockets of social and economic deprivation or physical decay existthroughout the County Borough but particularly in some Western Villagesand parts of Wrexham.

• The local economy is over dependent on manufacturing and suffers fromlow skills, low wages and inadequate accessibility.

• The County Borough has an oversupply of employment land some of it inthe wrong location and of inadequate quality.

• Key strategic employment sites with good access to the A483(T) need tobe safeguarded for employment use.

• There are growth opportunities for strong retail, leisure, health andeducation sectors in Wrexham.

• Significant physical, infrastructure and policy constraints limit developmentopportunities.

• Public transport service improvements are required to enhanceaccessibility between and within settlements and employment, educationand health centres.

• The design quality of development needs to be enhanced.• Carbon emissions need to be reduced through a more efficient and

effective settlement pattern and sustainable land use, transport andbuilding.

• The historic, built and natural environments are important assets thatdefine the County Borough’s sense of place and require protection andenhancement.

• Community cohesion and local distinctiveness needs to be stimulated byphysical regeneration and better design.

THE VISION

The Plan's long-term vision must help deliver and reflect, in land use terms,national and regional strategy and the local community strategy. Theproposed vision is as follows:

"Sustainability will underpin the planning strategy designed to deliverregenerated and cohesive communities and a prosperous and diverseeconomy within a better quality environment".

Do you think the vision has the right emphasis? - Please answer using thecomments form on the back pages

3

THE PREFERRED STRATEGY

a) Principles of the Preferred Strategy:

The following four key principles will guide the preferred strategy:

Sustainable Development Better Quality Environment Prosperous Economy Community Cohesion and Equality of Opportunity

b) How much development

i) Housing

The County Borough needs to provide 6300 new homes by 2021 (about 420new homes each year). This is broadly inline with past completions (the 5-year average (2001-2006) = 410 new homes per year)

The Council has carried out a number of studies and taken the view that thereis capacity within the existing town and village settlement limits, so it is likelythat no additional greenfield land outside existing settlement limits willbe needed to accommodate this level of housing growth.

The new homes will come from:• The existing housing land supply (sites with planning permission and

undeveloped sites allocated in the Unitary Development Plan) which total4001 homes; and

• Vacant or under-used land within existing settlement limits capable ofaccommodating an additional 3995 homes, of which between 60% and80% (that is 2397 and 3196 homes) are realistically expected to comeforward before 2021.

Do you agree with the preferred level of housing growth? - Please answerusing the comments form on the back pages

ii) Employment

The County Borough needs to provide 120 hectares of land in the rightlocations for employment development (this equates to about 8 hectares ofland being developed each year up until 2021). This is slightly higher thanrecent development rates, to allow for potential growth in the education andhealth sectors.

The County Borough has lots of available land for employment, but some of itis not suitable for the modern businesses we want to attract to the area, suchas the health, education and service sectors. The Council will therefore needto re-evaluate the land supply and de-allocate the poor sites (these sites maybe allocated for other uses such as housing, or be taken out of the settlement

4

limit completely) and make sure the good sites are saved for employment useonly. In particular, key employment sites with good access to the A483 will besafeguarded for employment use.

Most employment sites will be located on existing industrial and businessparks, but some brand new sites may also be needed to met the requirementsof the Strategy.

Do you agree with the preferred level of employment growth? - Please answerusing the comments form on the back pages

c) Where Development will go

i) Areas where development is promoted

The Preferred Strategy directs most new development to the areas in theCounty Borough in need of social, economic or physical regeneration; thisincludes the settlements of Wrexham, Broughton, Brymbo, Cefn/Acrefair,Chirk, Coedpoeth, Gwersyllt, Llay, Penycae, Rhos/Johnstown, Ruabon,and Rhostyllen. In addition, some small-scale growth will be dispersedamong appropriate rural villages, namely Gresford and Rossett.

Sustainable development is a key principle of the plan, and the PreferredStrategy focuses development on these settlements as they have:• the best public transport provision, a good range of local facilities (such as

schools, health centres, leisure centres etc) and places of employmentclose by, which will reduce the need to travel by private car; and

• a sizeable amount of previously developed, under-used or vacant land.

This approach protects the natural environment and important locallandscapes, encourages new job opportunities in regeneration area, meetslocal housing demand, and supports local shops and community facilities.

Do you agree with the areas where development is promoted? - Pleaseanswer using the comments form on the back pages

ii) Areas where development is restricted

The strategy restricts growth within other settlements that:• do not have a range of key community facilities,• have insufficient infrastructure (such as roads, sewers and utility services);• have poor access to employment; or• have severe environmental constraints.

The settlements within this category, mainly situated in the rural west and eastof the County Borough, are: Bangor-is-y-coed, Bersham, Bettisfield,Bronington, Burton, Bwlchgwyn, Cross Lanes, Dolywern/Llwynmawr,Hanmer, Llanarmon Dyffryn Clwyd, Froncysyllte, Garth, Glyn Ceiriog,Gwynfryn, Halton, Holt, Horsemans Green, Marchwiel, Marford, Minera,

5

New Brighton, Overton, Penley, Pentre, Pontfadog, Rhosrobin,Southsea, Sydallt, Tallarn Green, Tanyfron, Tregeiriog, Trevor, Trevalynand Worthenbury.

New development is limited only to that with existing planning permission fordevelopment, infilling and the re-use of existing buildings within existingsettlement limits and the conversion of suitable buildings in the adjacentcountryside.

Do you agree with the areas where development is restricted? - Pleaseanswer using the comments form on the back pages

iii) Areas where development is prohibited

Generally the western, southern and eastern parts of the County Boroughcontain lots of high quality historic landscapes where development isinappropriate and where the protection and enhancement of these landscapesand valuable natural habitats is very important. These areas include thewestern uplands of the Ruabon and Eglwyseg mountains, the remote westernCeiriog valley and the potential Berwyn Range Area of Outstanding NaturalBeauty and, in the east, the historical Maelor Saesneg which contains theRiver Dee and its floodplain. No development will be allowed in theseimportant areas of the County Borough.

Do you agree with the areas where development is prohibited? - Pleaseanswer using the comments form on the back pages

To read the full Preferred Strategy consultation document please visit theCouncil's web-site: www.wrexham.gov.uk/planning and click on the'Wrexham Local Development Plan Consultation' link. Paper copies arealso available for public viewing in local libraries, or through your CommunityCouncil. Alternatively, please contact the planning department:

By phone: 01978 292013By fax: 01978 292502By e-mail: [email protected] writing to: Wrexham LDP, Planning Department, Wrexham County

Borough Council, Lambpit Street, Wrexham, LL11 1ARInteractively: visit www.wrexham.gov.uk/planningIn person: visit the Planning Department at the above address and

ask to speak to any member of the planning policy team(opening hours: 8.45am-5.15pm Monday to Thursday,8.45am-4.45pm on Friday).

7

Comments Form (summary leaflet)

Completed by (insert name) ………………………………………………………...

Organisation (if appropriate) ………………………………………………………..

Address (or other contact details)………………………………………………….………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

1. The Vision

Do you think the vision has the right emphasis? Yes / NoPlease use the space below to explain why:

2. How much Development

i) Do you agree with the preferred level of housing growth? Yes / NoPlease use the space below to explain why:

ii) Do you agree with the preferred level of employment growth? Yes / NoPlease use the space below to explain why:

8

3. Where Development will go

i) Do you agree with the areas where development is promoted? Yes / NoPlease use the space below to explain why:

ii) Do you agree with the areas where development is restricted? Yes / NoPlease use the space below to explain why:

iii) Do you agree with the areas where development is prohibited Yes / NoPlease use the space below to explain why:

Please continue on another sheet of paper if necessary and return to:

Wrexham LDPPlanning DepartmentWrexham County Borough CouncilLambpit StreetWrexhamLL11 1AR

1

Welcome

NewLocal Development Plan

• Decides where future development will go

• Replaces existing Unitary Development Plan

• Current stage – Council’s draft Preferred Strategy

• Not cast in stone – it will change

• Your input will influence how it changes

2

Why this workshop ?

• Comments Sheets

• Send to the Council by 26 November

• Our role ?

• We’re here to help you work out what to say

LDP consultation opportunities

Delivery Agreement

Full draft plan

Gathering information and setting objectives

Public examination

Adoption

Draft Preferred Strategy2006

2007

2007

2008

2010

2010

Alternative sites

2009

3

Information gathering earlier this year

Purposes:

• Identify the main issues• Initial steer for draft Preferred Strategy• Doesn’t “fix” anything

What was involved

• Gathering views – including community representatives

• Gathering information – housing, jobs, renewable energy

• Policy context – national and regional

4

How much growth ?Where could it go ?

• Growth and change• Pros and cons• Housing and employment

Burning issues

• Affordable housing• Community cohesion • Infrastructure • Economic

diversification• Quality of new

development

• Natural environment

• Urban sprawl• Transport • Wrexham • Sustainability &

climate change

5

What do you think ?

• Group discussions in a moment• Effectively a blank canvas• No right or wrong answers • Everyone may have different views –

that’s fine• Put your views across – send the Council

your Comments Form by 26 November

Food for thought…New development might have benefits – but it must…• Support local communities – particularly affordable

housing for local needs.• Be supported by investment in transport,

infrastructure and community facilities.• Be sustainable – regenerate land previously

developed, conserve natural environment, link jobs and homes, renewable energy.

• Promote a more diverse local economy.• Take account of local needs and distinctiveness.

A note of caution was sounded… is all this possible ?

1

Planning for our future

Wrexham Local Development Plan 2006-2021

Draft Preferred Strategy

October 2007

Key LDP StagesIssues and Options: - Stakeholder engagement carried out in January and February 2007Draft Preferred Strategy:Draft Preferred Strategy: -- Formal 6Formal 6--week week consultation period from 15 October consultation period from 15 October -- 26 November 26 November 20072007Draft Deposit Plan: - Formal 6-week consultation period in summer / autumn 2008Submitted Alternative Sites: - Formal 6-week consultation period in spring 2009Independent Examination in Public: - Spring 2010Adoption: - Late 2010

2

Done So Far

Gathering/ analysing informationGathering viewsIdentifying main issuesConsidering optionsInitial steer for draft strategy

Key Issues

Affordable housingCommunity cohesionEconomic diversificationDevelopment quality and designGrowthInfrastructureNatural environmentSustainability and climate changeTransportUrban sprawlWrexham’s role

3

Draft Vision and Objectives

Sustainability underpinningconsolidationregeneration cohesive communities prosperous and diverse economy within a better quality environment

How Much Growth: Housing

6300 new homes by 2021 (420 pa)The new homes will come from:

• The existing housing land supply• Vacant or under-used land within

existing settlement limits

No greenfield allocations

4

How Much Growth: Employment

120 hectares of employment land by 2021 (8 hectares pa)Good access to A483Existing oversupply will need to be re-evaluatedMost on existing sites but some new sites may also be needed

Growth AreasSustainable locations:– best public transport provision, a range of local

facilities and places of employment close by– a sizeable amount of brownfield land within existing

settlement limitsMost growth will be directed to areas in need of regeneration:– Wrexham, Broughton, Brymbo, Cefn/Acrefair,

Chirk, Coedpoeth, Gwersyllt, Llay, Penycae,Rhos/Johnstown, Ruabon and Rhostyllen

Limited growth in appropriate rural villages:– Gresford and Rossett

5

Areas Of Restricted Development

Unsustainable locations:– poor range of key community facilities, inadequate

infrastructure, poor access to employment – environmental constraints

Existing committments/ infill only in:– Bangor-is-y-Coed, Bersham, Bettisfield, Bronington,

Burton, Bwlchgwyn, Cross Lanes, Dolywern,Hanmer, Froncysyllte, Garth, Glyn Ceiriog,Gwynfryn, Halton, Holt, Horsemans Green, Llanarmon DC, Marchwiel, Marford, Minera, New Brighton, Overton, Penley, Pentre, Pontfadog,Rhosrobin, Southsea, Sydallt, Tallarn Green,Tanyfron, Tregeiriog, Trevor, Trevalyn and Worthenbury

Protected Areas

Important landscape/ biodiversity– Western uplands of the Ruabon and Eglwyseg

mountains – Ceiriog valley and the potential Berwyn Range

AONB – The Maelor which contains the River Dee and

its floodplainHistoric townscapeA483 route corridor

6

Strategic Policies

Reflecting objectivesDetail developed in Deposit PlanSome traditional e.g.– green barriers, settlement limits, transport, waste

management, mineralsSome new/ stronger emphasis e.g.– energy efficient building, renewable energy,

design, affordable housing, gypsy and traveller accommodation

Key Diagram

7

Further information

Visit our office: Lambpit Street, Wrexham

Visit our website: www.wrexham.gov.uk

Visit your local library

All our information is available in Welsh or alternativeformats on request

Appendix E: Post – workshop evaluation questionnaire

Wrexham LDP consultation: Feedback questionnaire

1 What was your overall impression of this event ?

excellent good adequate poor 2 How would you rate its usefulness to you ?

excellent good adequate poor 3 Will you send a consultation response to the Council about the draft “Preferred Strategy” ?

yes no 4 Please grade the various sessions for presentation and content: excellent good adequate poor Presentation about results of previous consultation

Presentation on draft Preferred Strategy

Group discussions

5 Which session(s) did you find most valuable? Why?

6 How could we improve this event?

Please return the completed form to one of the organisers

Thank you

Cass Associates, Studio 104, The Tea Factory, 82 Wood Street, Liverpool, L1 4DQ

Appendix F: Summary of revisions to workshop programme and format after first event

After poor feedback from the first workshop of the series, it was decided that substantial revisions were needed to both programme and content for the remaining workshops. The Council and consultants worked together on a package of changes, which included:

• Summaries of draft Preferred Strategy sent out to all participants in advance.

• A complete redesign of the workshop.

• Greater opportunity for discussion, particularly in smaller groups.

• Greater involvement of Council planning officers, through sufficient attendance to have one Council officer in each group discussion.

• Reduced length and improved quality for presentations.

• More accurate description of this stage of the LDP process as the first public consultation stage.

• For the second Ruabon workshop, better venue with improved acoustics.

The workshop programme contained in Appendix C and the presentation slides in Appendix D are the revised versions.

Appendix G: Data analysis of the results from the workshops undertaken under the revised format

Number of completed feedback forms 16

Excellent 2

Good 10

Adequate 4Poor 0

Excellent 2

Good 13

Adequate 1Poor 0

Yes 16No 0

Please grade the various sessions for presentation and content Excellent Good Adequate Poor

Presentation about results of previous consultation 1 12 1 0

Presentation on draft Preferred Strategy 2 11 2 0Group Discussions 1 8 5 1

More time for discussion

Avoid repetition, both Cass and the Council gave similar presentations

Better plans of housing sitesGet more people to attend

More time for 'open floor' discussions

More reasons/justifications behind some of the strategies

The persons who run this meeting to be more truthful

Vast improvement on the original presentation, much better presentation, groups more informative

Discussion groups gave a broad view on ideasdiscussion but not enough detail

How could we improve this event?

Poorly advertised by the council

1st discussion session as members gave more constructive criticism and suggestions

Presentation of preferred strategy

Question timeThe discussion groups were informative and helped me to address other problems which I Hadn't considered

How would you rate its usefulness to you?

Will you send a consultation response to the Council aboutthe draft preferred strategy?

Which session did you find most valuable? Why?

Discussion sessions

Cass AssociatesARCHITECTURE • LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE • PLANNING • ECOLOGY

RUABON

What was your overall impression of this event?


Excellent 1

Good 6

Adequate 1Poor 0

Excellent 2

Good 5

Adequate 1Poor 0

Yes 7No 1




More planning department involvement

Start on time

Better division of groups (slight imbalance of numbers)

Extra time needed to discuss with planners

No suggestions - most useful

Group discussion

All as an initial insight into issues/process and how these might be addressedAll



Will you send a consultation response to the Council about the draft preferred strategy?

Which session did you find most valuable? Why?Presentation of Preferred Strategy - I came to find out what was happening and how the proposals were developed


GRESFORD



Excellent 0

Good 6

Adequate 0Poor 0

Excellent 1

Good 5

Adequate 0Poor 0

Yes 6No 0



Presentation on draft Preferred Strategy 2 4 0Group Discussions 3 2 1 0

Try to encourage more to become involved

Ask about issues - it was left to the public to bring up subjectsReferral to current UDP - problems and how it could be improved in new LDP

All sessiond proved informativePresentations


More structure to discussion




Group discussions

ARCHITECTURE • LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE • PLANNING • ECOLOGY

Cass Associates

WREXHAM TOWN



Excellent 1

Good 5

Adequate 1Poor 0

Excellent 0

Good 4

Adequate 3Poor 0

Yes 7No 0






CHIRK

How could we improve this event?Better involvement from community




First discussion group

Group discussions - good to hear others opinionsGroup discussions - opened up opinions


Excellent 1

Good 21

Adequate 5Poor 0

Excellent 4

Good 19

Adequate 4Poor 0

Yes 27No 0



Presentation on draft Preferred Strategy 3 23 1Group Discussions 8 18 0 1


BANGOR





Both sessions extremely useful and informative

Excellent facilitators and good to have access to planners

Both sessions extremely valuable

Group discussions - given an opportunity to listen to views of other people and clarify own thinking

Broadcast onlineLimit length of presentations

Group discussions helped in providing wider viewsDiscussions with planning officers


Provide refreshments at the interval!

Mix up the discussions groups more so you get a wider range of views

Continue on the same lines


Excellent 1

Good 8

Adequate 4Poor 0

Excellent 3

Good 6

Adequate 3Poor 2

Yes 14No 0




Time too short to address the planners. Needed more time to debate issues.




Better facilitation control of special interest vocalists

More time

Afternoon workshops lasting longer would have been better foR me

Better quality maps/pplans as the one's provided were difficult to read and understand


Too many issues not discussed, not possible to cover allChanging groups for each session rather than staying in the same groups may have given a broader perspective

Ask people not to discuss site specific issues

Both sessions were interesting - different participants raising key issuesWhole evening far more understandable and less stressful than previous experience at Ruabon workshop

Discussion, although control needed to prevent monopoly by some speakers/contributorsGroup discussions as got some new/varied points of view. I hope the council will listen to the inout and be forward thinking.


WREXHAM BOROUGH



Excellent 3

Good 6

Adequate 3Poor 0

Excellent 2

Good 7

Adequate 3Poor 0

Yes 11No 1




Does not require improving

Too small a venueAllow groups to intermix, move around room to get a mixture of views

All council officers approachable


Get more people to attend

Open floor questions and answers

Group discussions and presentations

Presentation two

Group discussions - exchange of ideas

Equally informative




Group discussions


BRYNTEG


Count %

Excellent 9 10

Good 62 70

Adequate 18 20

Poor 0 0Total 89

Excellent 14 16

Good 59 66

Adequate 15 17

Poor 2 2Total 90

Yes 88 98

No 2 2Total 90

Please grade the various sessions for presentation and content

Excellent (Count)

Good (Count)

Adequate (Count)

Poor (Count)

Presentation about previous consultation 10 60 16 0



Will you send a consultation response to the Council about the draft Preferred Strategy?


TOTAL


Appendix H: Data analysis of the results from the first workshop


Excellent 0

Good 0

Adequate 1Poor 13

Excellent 0

Good 0

Adequate 3Poor 10

Yes 10No 4





RUABON






Group discussion - our views were listened to

Waste of time, discussions were between locals and nobody took notes

Better timekeeping

Questions to the planning officer should be at the end of the presntation not during

Talk about LDP was too vagueSack the consultants. Ask Isobel Garner to present the case.

Should have open forums, not small groups

More assured presentation

Send out 'Report of Findings' prior to meeting

Other formats BSL/Welsh

Group discussions were the most valuable but without plans for local area it was difficult to identify with the council's proposalsThe group discussion was interesting in so far as we reached some form of consensus on most issues but the organisers had forgotten the questionnaires

Planning officer presenting should answer all questions from the floor

Havng more local planning officers present

PA system

Larger screen for presentation

Clearer maps

wrexham ldp 2nd phase report

Documents

deposit ldp

public engagement workshop

deposit consultation

cass associates studio

schedule of wcbc

pre deposit participation

aim of phase

local development plan