Leader of the Welsh Conservatives and Clwyd West MS Darren Millar is disappointed that Conwy County Borough Council has overlooked deprived communities in his constituency when selecting a neighbourhood for the UK Government’s Pride in Place programme.
At a meeting this week, Conwy County Council’s Cabinet voted that the cash injection, which will be spread over 10 years, should be allocated to deprived parts of Llandudno instead.
In his representation to the council, Darren had proposed three options:
OPTION 1 - Conwy East Coastal, comprising a coastal belt including the following communities:
- Abergele/Pensarn
- Pentre Mawr East
- Belgrano
- Towyn
- Deprived parts of Kinmel Bay
OPTION 2 - Bay of Colwyn Arc, comprising large parts of the Bay of Colwyn and Llysfaen including;
- Llysfaen
- Old Colwyn East
- Upper Eirias
- Glyn
- Rhiw
OPTION 3 - Colwyn East and Rural, a smaller neighbourhood which forms part of the Bay of Colwyn Arc in Option 2 above, including;
- Llysfaen
- Old Colwyn East
- Upper Eirias
Darren also highlighted that the Council’s report relied on an incorrect interpretation of UK Government guidance, particularly the assertion that neighbourhoods in constituencies already containing a Phase One Pride in Place town were ineligible.
He stressed that guidance published by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government makes clear that this restriction does not apply in Wales, which has different selection criteria from England and Scotland.
He also raised concern that the Council had unnecessarily limited its assessment to neighbourhoods of around 5,000 residents despite UK Government guidance permitting neighbourhoods with populations of between 5,000 and 15,000, and allowing smaller areas where there is a strong case.
He said as a result, areas with comparable, and in some case higher levels of deprivation, and significantly larger populations, were excluded from consideration.
Commenting Darren said:
“I am deeply disappointed by the decision made by Conwy's Cabinet on Monday.
“They appear to have undertaken an unnecessarily restricted review of the potential neighbourhoods that could benefit from this much needed investment based on incorrect interpretation of the UK Government guidance.
“The alternative neighbourhoods I put forward have comparable, and, in some cases greater, levels of deprivation, significantly larger populations, and long-standing challenges.
“Given this outcome, the Council now has a responsibility to set out a clear and credible plan for how it intends to invest in the neighbourhoods that have missed out.”
ENDS
