Update 4.30pm 19 February
After a brief cross-examination of the head of planning, Eifion Bowen, the court was adjourned until tomorrow, which is expected to be the final day.
Sadly Debbie Williams, manager of the council's notorious Press Office, was not called. Now that would have made for some interesting testimony.
Observers may have spotted that all of Mr James's witnesses today, bar one retired officer, report indirectly to Mr James and are on "his" payroll. Rather oddly, he told the court yesterday that the council employs 9,500 people, whereas Meryl used to boast, "Mark and I employ 9,000 people". Perhaps something has gone wrong with payroll.
Having heard the reporting from today's cross-examinations you have to feel sorry for some of them, as they were damned if they did, and damned if they didn't [give evidence for the boss, that is].
Update 12.40 am 19 February
Three more witnesses for Mr James have since been cross-examined, all involved in the events which resulted in Jacqui's arrest for filming. All three have said on oath that they could not be sure that she was filming.
One of the witnesses was former council solicitor, Mr Lyn Thomas. In 2008 the Western Mail wrote an opinion piece criticising the council's libel indemnity amendment. The article can be found here. This incensed the council's top brass who considered it to be unbalanced. A formal complaint was made to the paper, and Mr Thomas wrote a letter denying that the council had adopted a policy of indemnifying officers and members for libel claims.
How Mr Thomas squared his letter with the amendment which had been passed is destined to remain a mystery.
Update 11.20 am 19 February
First up this morning is a council officer, Mr John Davies. Mr Davies was sent up to the public gallery when Mr James and others suspected that Jacqui Thompson was filming. It transpired under cross-examination that Mr Davies changed his statement several times after speaking to the council's solicitor and the police. It also became apparent that Mr Davies has poor eyesight, and he acknowledged that he needs to go for an eye test. In addition he admitted that he touched Jacqui Thompson, although in his (much amended) statement he claimed that there was no physical contact. Strangely no copy of his original draft statement (the one he wrote before submitting it to the council's solicitor) appears to have survived.
Despite this, the council accused Jacqui of attempting to pervert the course of justice.
Oh dear.
Update 19 February
Court 14 is a relatively small courtroom with pretty much everyone sitting cheek by jowl. As the case has gone on, it has become noticeable that the James team has been growing in size. Yesterday his legal team far outnumbered \Jacqui Thompson's, and they were joined by a number of council officers, including Eifion Bowen, head of planning, Debbie Williams, manager of the council's press office, Lyn Thomas, former head of law and administration, and the ever-present Linda Rees Jones, current head of law. Three more are expected to join the throng today, along with Cllr Ivor Jackson from Llandovery.
This may help to explain why we are expecting another sharp rise in council tax this year.
**********************************************************
Day Four of the James v Thompson libel trial saw Mark James take the stand and face cross-examination. For everyone who was not in court today, the next best thing was following developments on Twitter using the hashtag #daftarrest.
After a pretty miserable three days for Jacqui Thompson last week, the court got its first real opportunity to see what she has been blogging about for the last few years.
Expect a detailed account from Mrs Angry in due course, but it is fair to say that for anyone who followed today's proceedings, the reputation of Carmarthenshire County Council is in shreds, and Mr James has for the first time had to submit himself to questions which should have been asked long, long ago in County Hall.
Possibly the most embarrassing admission came towards the end of the session today when James admitted that he had not actually read Jacqui Thompson's blog until he set about deciding whether to counter-sue and embark on litigation which could cost the council taxpayer hundreds of thousands of pounds.
What Mr James has unwittingly done here is to let the cat out of the bag. This admission, and the fact that he appears to have dragged half of the council's officers along, is the clearest evidence we are likely to get that this is not Mark James CBE acting in a personal capacity but the council suing a resident for defamation. In other words, the council's case is politically motivated and an attempt to silence one of its few remaining critics in the media.
The court heard of secret meetings. One took place in January 2012 to approve the indemnity, and James claimed he could not remember whether he stayed or left the meeting in which he had a direct personal interest. Other secret meetings, undocumented, took place to form a plan to "deal with" Jacqui Thompson.
At times Mr James seemed to be suffering from a severe case of amnesia. He could not remember that there had been any controversy about the change in the council's constitution to allow publicly funded libel actions. He could not remember that an MP had called for a public inquiry into the planning department.
He admitted that he had not consulted council members before sending his allegedly libellous letter to the Madaxeman blog, and he acknowledged that in hindsight, perhaps he should not have sent it.
He admitted that he had sent "prejudicial" material about Jacqui Thompson to the Chief Constable of Dyfed Powys Police before she was arrested, and he acknowledged that he had asked for the police to be called when he believed she was filming a council meeting. But he maintained that the arrest had nothing to do with him.
James also admitted that the council's ban on filming was not actually documented anywhere, and that the council had never placed either Jacqui or her husband on its persistent complainants list.
He was also questioned about some of the council's visionary regeneration schemes and its use of public money, such as maintaining two part-time chauffeurs. This apparently costs £33,000 a year. Asked whether he thought that was a lot of money, James replied, "If you say so".
Several other observers in court have noticed the presence of Mrs Rees Jones, the council's Head of Law, in court throughout the proceedings so far, and questions are being asked about what that is costing the taxpayer and what her role is in this case.
If that were not enough to give Carmarthenshire residents a fit of the vapours, Cneifiwr has it from a reliable source that Mr James and Mrs Rees Jones have been shuttling back and forth between Paddington and Carmarthen in First Class.
Stay tuned for a fuller and more elegant account from Mrs Angry later this evening.
Monday, 18 February 2013
Synchronised tree planting and other expenses
Thanks to a Western Mail freedom of information request, we now know that the local government gravy train is still running as normal, despite spending cuts on just about everything else. Carmarthenshire County Council, needless to say, leaves quite a few lesser Welsh councils in the dust when it comes to expensive travel and hotel accommodation for its senior officers and councillors.
In the year to November 2012 it spent £37,000 on 200 hotel trips, which works out at £185 per stay.
Among the trips was a jaunt to Kenya. The council, famous for its vast press office and PR machine, refused to comment on what this was all about, but the Western Mail notes that the trip coincided with a synchronised tree planting exercise in Carmarthenshire and Kenya.
The council's own archive of press releases has nothing to report on this excursion, but the Daily Post and the council's Discover Carmarthenshire website are more forthcoming, explaining that the project was organised as a part of the royal Diamond Jubilee celebrations, and involved planting woods at the National Botanic Gardens and at a site on the slopes of Mount Kenya.
Where the county council fits in here is not clear, unless it was in the council's role in providing ongoing financial support to the National Botanic Gardens to help keep them afloat.
That trip cost the council taxpayer £240 in hotel accommodation. Not included in that cost would have been a rather bigger bill for eco-friendly air travel, something which would have wiped out a chunk of the carbon emission reductions to be produced, eventually, by the new woods.
The one remaining mystery in all of this is the identity of the lucky jet setter from Carmarthenshire. If any readers know, feel free to drop Cneifiwr a line in confidence.
Meanwhile, the Caebrwyn libel trial continues, and the chief executive and assorted other council officers will have headed back up to London. Unlike MPs and other riff-raff, Mr James and the council's Head of Law were comfortably ensconced in First Class.
In the year to November 2012 it spent £37,000 on 200 hotel trips, which works out at £185 per stay.
Among the trips was a jaunt to Kenya. The council, famous for its vast press office and PR machine, refused to comment on what this was all about, but the Western Mail notes that the trip coincided with a synchronised tree planting exercise in Carmarthenshire and Kenya.
The council's own archive of press releases has nothing to report on this excursion, but the Daily Post and the council's Discover Carmarthenshire website are more forthcoming, explaining that the project was organised as a part of the royal Diamond Jubilee celebrations, and involved planting woods at the National Botanic Gardens and at a site on the slopes of Mount Kenya.
Where the county council fits in here is not clear, unless it was in the council's role in providing ongoing financial support to the National Botanic Gardens to help keep them afloat.
That trip cost the council taxpayer £240 in hotel accommodation. Not included in that cost would have been a rather bigger bill for eco-friendly air travel, something which would have wiped out a chunk of the carbon emission reductions to be produced, eventually, by the new woods.
The one remaining mystery in all of this is the identity of the lucky jet setter from Carmarthenshire. If any readers know, feel free to drop Cneifiwr a line in confidence.
Meanwhile, the Caebrwyn libel trial continues, and the chief executive and assorted other council officers will have headed back up to London. Unlike MPs and other riff-raff, Mr James and the council's Head of Law were comfortably ensconced in First Class.
Sunday, 17 February 2013
James v Thompson: a conspiracy of malcontents
On Friday Cneifiwr and three others travelled to London having been advised that they might be called to give evidence in the James v Thompson libel case.
Counsel for the chief executive of Carmarthenshire had objected strongly to much of the statements provided by the four, and in the pre-trial review the week before last, large sections of the statements had been struck out as a result of the wrangling.
Counsel for Jacqui Thompson was keen for the judge to hear independent evidence from three of the witnesses from Carmarthenshire so that he could understand the context of Jacqui's blog: that this was not the work of a lone, misguided obsessive, but an accurate record of the way in which local democracy has been subverted in the county.
This is a county which, if the council's annual report is to be believed, is more prosperous, healthier and happier than ever before, and anyone who disagrees is a troublemaker and guilty of running the council down, or worse.
The judge decided that, in his words, he did not intend to "take an opinion poll", and so three of the four witnesses had travelled to London in vain.
The remaining witness was Martin Milan, author of the Madaxeman blog to which Mr James wrote a letter attacking Jacqui Thompson and her family. Mr Milan gave Mr James an opportunity to withdraw the letter before publication, but the chief executive opted to have it published.
Much of the cross-examination of Mr Milan by Mr James's counsel appeared to be based on a theory that Mr Milan and Jacqui Thompson were part of a conspiracy (although that word was not used) to entrap Mr James into making his statement, but that theory fell rather flat when Mr Milan said he had not consulted Jacqui Thompson about whether to publish Mr James's letter.
An excellent and detailed account of the court proceedings can be found on Mrs Angry's Broken Barnet blog. Mrs Angry will be in court next week to keep us informed as the case continues into its second week.
It is good to see that media interest in the case is growing, as the realisation dawns that a victory for Mr James could open the floodgates and encourage many more councils and government bodies to sue critics for libel by proxy.
One intriguing aspect of the case is the presence throughout the proceedings of Mrs Linda Rees Jones, the county council's Head of Law. Mrs Rees Jones is not a member of Mr James's legal team in court, but sits at his side making notes. Clearly the council feels that her services as Monitoring Officer and chief legal officer are of secondary importance while she supports the chief executive for a couple of weeks.
An interesting subject for a Freedom of Information request would be how many hundreds of hours Mrs Rees Jones has devoted to a case which in theory is being brought by Mr Mark James in a personal capacity rather than by the county council. Her presence rather gives the game away, and county councillors in particular might like to ask why Mr James needed her services in addition to the rest of his eye-wateringly expensive legal team in court.
Whether they will ever be allowed to ask such an impertinent question is quite another matter.
Counsel for the chief executive of Carmarthenshire had objected strongly to much of the statements provided by the four, and in the pre-trial review the week before last, large sections of the statements had been struck out as a result of the wrangling.
Counsel for Jacqui Thompson was keen for the judge to hear independent evidence from three of the witnesses from Carmarthenshire so that he could understand the context of Jacqui's blog: that this was not the work of a lone, misguided obsessive, but an accurate record of the way in which local democracy has been subverted in the county.
This is a county which, if the council's annual report is to be believed, is more prosperous, healthier and happier than ever before, and anyone who disagrees is a troublemaker and guilty of running the council down, or worse.
The judge decided that, in his words, he did not intend to "take an opinion poll", and so three of the four witnesses had travelled to London in vain.
The remaining witness was Martin Milan, author of the Madaxeman blog to which Mr James wrote a letter attacking Jacqui Thompson and her family. Mr Milan gave Mr James an opportunity to withdraw the letter before publication, but the chief executive opted to have it published.
Much of the cross-examination of Mr Milan by Mr James's counsel appeared to be based on a theory that Mr Milan and Jacqui Thompson were part of a conspiracy (although that word was not used) to entrap Mr James into making his statement, but that theory fell rather flat when Mr Milan said he had not consulted Jacqui Thompson about whether to publish Mr James's letter.
An excellent and detailed account of the court proceedings can be found on Mrs Angry's Broken Barnet blog. Mrs Angry will be in court next week to keep us informed as the case continues into its second week.
It is good to see that media interest in the case is growing, as the realisation dawns that a victory for Mr James could open the floodgates and encourage many more councils and government bodies to sue critics for libel by proxy.
One intriguing aspect of the case is the presence throughout the proceedings of Mrs Linda Rees Jones, the county council's Head of Law. Mrs Rees Jones is not a member of Mr James's legal team in court, but sits at his side making notes. Clearly the council feels that her services as Monitoring Officer and chief legal officer are of secondary importance while she supports the chief executive for a couple of weeks.
An interesting subject for a Freedom of Information request would be how many hundreds of hours Mrs Rees Jones has devoted to a case which in theory is being brought by Mr Mark James in a personal capacity rather than by the county council. Her presence rather gives the game away, and county councillors in particular might like to ask why Mr James needed her services in addition to the rest of his eye-wateringly expensive legal team in court.
Whether they will ever be allowed to ask such an impertinent question is quite another matter.
Thursday, 14 February 2013
What the Papers Say - James v Thompson Trial
The Press Office in County Hall is probably having a collective nervous breakdown as it digests reports on the opening day of the trial yesterday.
Quote of the day has to go to Tim Minogue who writes Private Eye's Rotten Boroughs column. Tim retweeted a comment he made after Jacqui's arrest for filming a council meeting:
Carmarthenshire council already in hole over #daftarrest. Yesterday threw away spade and hired JCB.
The Guardian's take can be found here, while the Western Mail has an excellent account of yesterday's proceedings here.
An honourable mention also goes to the South Wales Guardian which carried a pre-trial report on the questionable legality of the council's infamous libel indemnity clause here. Readers will recall that the council withdrew advertising from the paper after it a carried a mildly critical piece on the management of a regeneration project in Ammanford. The council subsequently claimed that the decision was taken on purely commercial grounds but then removed the blacklisting without explanation.
The Carmarthen Journal, which likes to think of itself as the local paper of record, had this to say: [sound of wind whistling as tumbleweed is blown down King Street].
Admittedly, reporting a case like this presents a challenge to a weekly newspaper, but perhaps they will do better next week. At least they will be able to quotetheir editor the chief executive who will by then have taken the stand.
For a detailed account of yesterday's court action, however, see Mrs Angry's report here. Mrs Angry is a woman of a certain age who usually blogs on the bizarre goings-on in the Tory-run London Borough of Barnet. When not blogging about local government, Mrs Angry is a passionate knitter and a calamitous cook. She also has a peculiar fixation with the Carmarthenshire cockle industry.
Cneifiwr really is now signing off for a few days.
Quote of the day has to go to Tim Minogue who writes Private Eye's Rotten Boroughs column. Tim retweeted a comment he made after Jacqui's arrest for filming a council meeting:
Carmarthenshire council already in hole over #daftarrest. Yesterday threw away spade and hired JCB.
The Guardian's take can be found here, while the Western Mail has an excellent account of yesterday's proceedings here.
An honourable mention also goes to the South Wales Guardian which carried a pre-trial report on the questionable legality of the council's infamous libel indemnity clause here. Readers will recall that the council withdrew advertising from the paper after it a carried a mildly critical piece on the management of a regeneration project in Ammanford. The council subsequently claimed that the decision was taken on purely commercial grounds but then removed the blacklisting without explanation.
The Carmarthen Journal, which likes to think of itself as the local paper of record, had this to say: [sound of wind whistling as tumbleweed is blown down King Street].
Admittedly, reporting a case like this presents a challenge to a weekly newspaper, but perhaps they will do better next week. At least they will be able to quote
For a detailed account of yesterday's court action, however, see Mrs Angry's report here. Mrs Angry is a woman of a certain age who usually blogs on the bizarre goings-on in the Tory-run London Borough of Barnet. When not blogging about local government, Mrs Angry is a passionate knitter and a calamitous cook. She also has a peculiar fixation with the Carmarthenshire cockle industry.
Cneifiwr really is now signing off for a few days.
Wednesday, 13 February 2013
James v Thompson - the trial begins - Updated
For those of you who use Twitter, you can follow the trial with the hashtag #daftarrest. It is good to see that the case is attracting a good deal of media attention, and Jacqui Thompson will be pleased to see some of her supporters in the gallery.
Jacqui's barrister began his opening remarks by saying, "You can’t criticise the council’s ability to fund libel claims or you will be sued for libel."
Not long after proceedings got underway, the case was adjourned briefly to allow the judge time to read various papers relating to the scope of the case and to view footage of a council meeting filmed by Jacqui on Youtube. The judge later reported that he was unfortunately unable to access Youtube because of IT security settings at the Royal Courts of Justice. Proceedings were expected to resume this afternoon.
Back in Wales, the South Wales Guardian reports that the legality of the council's controversial constitutional amendment allowing it to fund libel cases has been questioned.
Needless to say, no expense is being spared by the council when it comes to Mr James's legal representation by one of the leading and, you can bet, most expensive libel specialists in Britain. Nice to see that our council tax is being put to good use.
Cneifiwr has been advised that he may be called as a witness, and will be going off air for a couple of days as a result.
The trial is expected to continue into next week. More to follow.
Update
Jacqui has been giving evidence this afternoon, and there are four or five people tweeting live from the courtroom. Wrexham and Carmarthenshire councils may wish to note that the world has not yet come to an end as a result of this exercise in transparency.
Among those tweeting from the courtroom is Heather Brooke, the campaigner for transparency in public life, who was instrumental in bringing the scandal of MPs' expenses to light.
Here is a sample of one of her tweets from court:
As local newspapers diminish, councils are becoming private fiefdoms. Skins of public servants growing ever thinner.
The court was adjourned at 4pm and will resume again tomorrow.
Update 8pm
The trial is expected to run for 5-7 days. The council's Chief Executive and Head of Law, Mrs Linda Rees Jones as well as Mrs James were all in court today to watch proceedings, and will both presumably be there for the duration. Guess who's paying for that.
Jacqui spent most of the day giving evidence and will tomorrow undergo cross-examination. Mr James will take to the witness box next week.
If today's Twitter feed from the courtroom was anything to go by, this could turn into the council's biggest ever PR disaster. And that's saying something.
Jacqui's barrister began his opening remarks by saying, "You can’t criticise the council’s ability to fund libel claims or you will be sued for libel."
Not long after proceedings got underway, the case was adjourned briefly to allow the judge time to read various papers relating to the scope of the case and to view footage of a council meeting filmed by Jacqui on Youtube. The judge later reported that he was unfortunately unable to access Youtube because of IT security settings at the Royal Courts of Justice. Proceedings were expected to resume this afternoon.
Back in Wales, the South Wales Guardian reports that the legality of the council's controversial constitutional amendment allowing it to fund libel cases has been questioned.
Needless to say, no expense is being spared by the council when it comes to Mr James's legal representation by one of the leading and, you can bet, most expensive libel specialists in Britain. Nice to see that our council tax is being put to good use.
Cneifiwr has been advised that he may be called as a witness, and will be going off air for a couple of days as a result.
The trial is expected to continue into next week. More to follow.
Update
Jacqui has been giving evidence this afternoon, and there are four or five people tweeting live from the courtroom. Wrexham and Carmarthenshire councils may wish to note that the world has not yet come to an end as a result of this exercise in transparency.
Among those tweeting from the courtroom is Heather Brooke, the campaigner for transparency in public life, who was instrumental in bringing the scandal of MPs' expenses to light.
Here is a sample of one of her tweets from court:
As local newspapers diminish, councils are becoming private fiefdoms. Skins of public servants growing ever thinner.
The court was adjourned at 4pm and will resume again tomorrow.
Update 8pm
The trial is expected to run for 5-7 days. The council's Chief Executive and Head of Law, Mrs Linda Rees Jones as well as Mrs James were all in court today to watch proceedings, and will both presumably be there for the duration. Guess who's paying for that.
Jacqui spent most of the day giving evidence and will tomorrow undergo cross-examination. Mr James will take to the witness box next week.
If today's Twitter feed from the courtroom was anything to go by, this could turn into the council's biggest ever PR disaster. And that's saying something.
Monday, 11 February 2013
Dw i eisiau byw yn Gymraeg yng Nghastell Newydd Emlyn
Yn sgîl canlyniadau trychinebus y Cyfrifiad mae Cymdeithas yr Iaith yn mynd ati i ddangos ein bod ni eisiau byw mewn cymuned Cymraeg ei hiaith trwy addunedu byw yn Gymraeg.
Y prif fwriad gyda'r addunedau yw eu cyflwyno i'r Cyngor Sir ar Fawrth y 1af ond byddwn ni'n defnyddio manylion pobl er mwyn cysylltu gyda nhw i'w diweddaru am yr ymgyrch yma'n benodol a weithiau am ddigwyddiadau eraill.
Mae'r ffurflenni ar gael yn Siop y Wiber, Iago (siop lyfrau) a Chwmni Iaith (Parc Busnes Antur Teifi, Aberarad) tan ddiwedd yr wythnos nesaf. Dim ond enw, rhif ffôn a chyfeiriad e-bost sy eisiau - mae'n hawdd!
Ewch amdani i ddangos bod yr iaith Gymraeg yn bwysig i chi!
Y prif fwriad gyda'r addunedau yw eu cyflwyno i'r Cyngor Sir ar Fawrth y 1af ond byddwn ni'n defnyddio manylion pobl er mwyn cysylltu gyda nhw i'w diweddaru am yr ymgyrch yma'n benodol a weithiau am ddigwyddiadau eraill.
Mae'r ffurflenni ar gael yn Siop y Wiber, Iago (siop lyfrau) a Chwmni Iaith (Parc Busnes Antur Teifi, Aberarad) tan ddiwedd yr wythnos nesaf. Dim ond enw, rhif ffôn a chyfeiriad e-bost sy eisiau - mae'n hawdd!
Ewch amdani i ddangos bod yr iaith Gymraeg yn bwysig i chi!
Empty Properties
Crunching and interpreting data from the 2011 census will no doubt go on for some time to come, but one interesting set of statistics relates to properties returning "no usual resident". These were properties which were either vacant at the time of the census or second homes. Not included in the figures it seems are the many thousands of holiday lets which are a major feature in many coastal and rural areas of Wales.
The full data set for Wales can be found here. To view detailed figures for each authority at ward level, click on the name of the council.
[NB This link appears to be unstable. To find the data, go to the ONS website here. Select "Get data by topic", then choose "Housing". Scroll down to "Household Spaces, 2011 (QS417EW)". Select and click on "Next" at the bottom of the page. To view, click on "Next" and then select "2011 Administrative Hierarchy". Click on "Next", and you will see the data for Wales. To drill down, click on Wales, and then click on an individual county to see ward level data.]
The overall percentage for "no usual resident" for Wales as a whole was 5.97%, compared with 4.25% for England.
Within Wales there is a wide variation between the 22 local authorities. Leading the field with the highest percentages of vacant properties and/or second homes were the following:
Not suprisingly, there is a wide variation at ward level as well. Abersoch in Gwynedd is probably the most extreme case, with 54% of properties returned as "no usual resident".
The figures for the remaining local authorities were as follows:
Only 7 of the 22 Welsh authorities were below the average for England.
In some cases the figures throw a question mark over proposed Local Development Plans which provide for a massive expansion of house building.
Carmarthenshire is one which comes to mind. Its LDP is based on a projection that the number of households would soar from 78,000 in 2006 to just over 93,000 in 2021. Five years into this period, and the number of households was static at 78,000. The number of empty properties, on the other hand, rose from 3,574 in 2001 to 5,326 in 2011.
The full data set for Wales can be found here. To view detailed figures for each authority at ward level, click on the name of the council.
[NB This link appears to be unstable. To find the data, go to the ONS website here. Select "Get data by topic", then choose "Housing". Scroll down to "Household Spaces, 2011 (QS417EW)". Select and click on "Next" at the bottom of the page. To view, click on "Next" and then select "2011 Administrative Hierarchy". Click on "Next", and you will see the data for Wales. To drill down, click on Wales, and then click on an individual county to see ward level data.]
The overall percentage for "no usual resident" for Wales as a whole was 5.97%, compared with 4.25% for England.
Within Wales there is a wide variation between the 22 local authorities. Leading the field with the highest percentages of vacant properties and/or second homes were the following:
Authority
|
At least one usual resident
|
No usual resident
|
% vacant
|
Gwynedd
|
52,473
|
8,602
|
14.1
|
Pembrokeshire
|
53,122
|
7,590
|
12.5
|
Angelsey
|
30,594
|
3,589
|
10.5
|
Ceredigion
|
31,562
|
3,107
|
8.9
|
Conwy
|
51,177
|
5,022
|
8.9
|
Powys
|
58,345
|
5,137
|
8.1
|
Merthyr Tydfil
|
24,264
|
1,990
|
7.6
|
Carmarthenshire
|
78,829
|
5,326
|
6.3
|
Not suprisingly, there is a wide variation at ward level as well. Abersoch in Gwynedd is probably the most extreme case, with 54% of properties returned as "no usual resident".
The figures for the remaining local authorities were as follows:
Authority
|
At least one usual resident
|
No usual resident
|
% vacant
|
Neath Port Talbot
|
60,393
|
3,624
|
5.7
|
Rhondda Cynon Taf
|
99,663
|
5,647
|
5.4
|
Denbighshire
|
40,546
|
2,191
|
5.1
|
Swansea
|
103,497
|
5,480
|
5
|
Blaenau Gwent
|
30,416
|
1,536
|
4.8
|
Bridgend
|
58,515
|
2,983
|
4.8
|
Monmouthshire
|
38,233
|
1,845
|
4.6
|
Torfaen
|
38,524
|
1,705
|
4.2
|
Cardiff
|
142,557
|
6,042
|
4.1
|
Vale of Glamorgan
|
53,505
|
2,159
|
3.9
|
Newport
|
61.172
|
2,433
|
3.8
|
Caerphilly
|
74,479
|
2,765
|
3.6
|
Wrexham
|
57,029
|
2,015
|
3.4
|
Flintshire
|
63,781
|
2,057
|
3.1
|
Only 7 of the 22 Welsh authorities were below the average for England.
In some cases the figures throw a question mark over proposed Local Development Plans which provide for a massive expansion of house building.
Carmarthenshire is one which comes to mind. Its LDP is based on a projection that the number of households would soar from 78,000 in 2006 to just over 93,000 in 2021. Five years into this period, and the number of households was static at 78,000. The number of empty properties, on the other hand, rose from 3,574 in 2001 to 5,326 in 2011.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)