Allocate the site for housing within the Revised LDP.

HOM1 (Housing Allocations) / SP16 (Sustainable Distribution - Settlement
Framework) / SP3 (A Sustainable Approach to Providing New Homes)
We have reviewed the housing allocations proposed in the Deposit LDP and note
that only 94 dwellings are proposed in Llangennech. Llangennech is a Tier 2
(Service Centre) which is the second highest tier within the settlement framework.
Llangennech lies within Cluster 2 (Llanelli Area) and within Cluster 2 it is the
settlement that is proposed to accommodate the least amount of residential
development. We note that Burry Port (another Service Centre in the same cluster)
has been allocated 501 dwellings, over five times the amount allocated to
Llangennech whilst Trimsaran/Caraway (also a Service Centre in the same
cluster) has been allocated 345 dwellings. We consider that the distribution of
development within Cluster 2 should be more balanced and proportionate to
ensure that the plan is effective (test of soundness 3).
Llangennech is a highly sustainable settlement, as reflected in its identification as
a Service Centre Settlement in the deposit LDP. Paragraph 10.10 of the Deposit
LDP states:
“Llanelli remains the focus for delivery within this area, along with villages within its
urban outskirts. The service centres which fall within this cluster are key
components in the delivery of new homes and jobs given their overarching
relationship to the rest of the cluster. This cluster has the highest population
density within the county.”
The settlement of Llangennech benefits from numerous facilities and services
including Ysgol Gymraeg Llangennech (a Welsh medium primary school with an
infant and junior school), a GP surgery, nursery, convenience store, post office,
pharmacy and formal sports provision. The settlement is well served by public
transport in the form of a railway station and bus stops. The settlement also
benefits from an established employment area providing valuable job
opportunities.
The settlement is within easy reach of junction 48 of the M4 meaning that
development in Llangennech is unlikely to have as much impact on the A4138 as
development in Llanelli and all the other Cluster 2 settlements with the exception
of Hendy/Fforest. This is because traffic coming off the M4 to Llanelli, Burry Port,
Kidwelly, Pembrey and Trimsaran/Caraway will all need to travel on the A4138 and
through Llanelli. Allocating significant development in the Service Centres beyond
Llanelli is likely to lead to traffic implications as the infrastructure serving these
centres all run through the town of Llanelli. Locating additional residential
allocations in Llangennech as opposed to the settlements west of Llanelli will
assist in delivering the housing requirement, in line with the settlement hierarchy,
in a more proportionate manner which will, as a result assist in reducing the
amount of traffic running through Llanelli.
INF4 (Llanelli Wastewater Treatment Works Catchment Surface Water
Removal)
We also note that development in Llanelli and Burry Port will need to be subject to
draft Policy INF4 and the Burry Inlet SPG as the sites drain into the Llanelli Waste
Water Treatment Works. According to the LDP, within this catchment area there
are concerns that the connection of foul flows generated by new development
introduces the risk of deterioration in the water quality of the Carmarthen Bay and
Estuaries European Marine Site (CBEEMS). This is due to the fact that the
majority of the sewer system in the Llanelli WWTW area is combined (surface and
foul). DCWW has requested that all new development within the catchment be
subject to a requirement to undertake compensatory surface water removal from
the system as part of the granting of planning permission. The LDP (11.204) states
that:
"there is a concern that introducing additional foul flow can lead to overloading to
the WWTW, as well as an increase in the frequency of discharges from storm
sewerage outflows out to the CBEEMS during significant rainfall. There can also
be potential localised flooding issues resulting from these issues."
Given the above concern and necessary compensation requirements we question
the logic of directing so much development to the affected area when suitable
alternatives are available in the cluster. The settlement of Llangennech lies outside
of the catchment in question and therefore we argue that it would be appropriate to
reduce the quantum of development in the Burry Inlet area and to provide some of
the redistributed quantum of development in the nearby settlement of
Llangennech, therefore retaining the quantum of development in Cluster 2.
As previously explained, only 94 dwellings are proposed to be developed in
Llangennech during the lifetime of the plan. All of the 94 dwellings are expected to
come forward within the 6-10 years timeframe with none expected to come forward
within the 0-5 years timeframe. We consider that additional allocations should
therefore be made in Llangennech to ensure that a suitable supply of housing is
able to come forward in the short term to meet local needs. We consider that our
client's site is well placed to meet this short term need because heads of terms
has been agreed with Persimmon Homes, a national house builder to bring the site
forward in the short term if the site is allocated. It is widely acknowledged that, if
allocated, that the site would be capable of early delivery. The Council in its
assessment form states:
"Given the site's size, greenfield status and location close to the M4, it is likely to
have a market appeal."
In addition, Persimmon Homes has provided a Statement which is appended to
this submission. The statement states:
"The viability of the site has been assessed by Persimmon Homes West Wales
utilising external and abnormal rates from a comparable site (in terms of size and
topography) currently under construction in our West Wales Region.
Persimmon Homes West Wales expects to continue its track record of delivering
housing sites in the Region at a rate in excess of 50 dwellings per year and at
‘policy level’. That is, we consider this site to be deliverable with an on-site
provision of Affordable Housing at a rate of 20% together with Education, Open Space, Transportation contributions in line with those on comparable sites
currently under construction in Carmarthenshire.
It should also be noted that following this assessment of the viability of the site,
Persimmon Homes West Wales concluded that it was appropriate to agree the
Heads of Terms for the sale of the land with the landowner. I trust that this serves
to demonstrate our commitment to developing this site and that it is technically
deliverable in line with the Council’s housing delivery aspirations."
Including our client's site would assist in ensuring that Llangennech remains a
vibrant and viable settlement. Additional housing in this area in the short term will
assist in supporting the local primary school in Llangennech. There is a risk that in
delaying the vast majority of development until 2025-2030 that the settlement and
its services and facilities will become stagnant. A critical mass of population is
required in the short term to ensure the vibrancy of the town's facilities and
services.
As explained in our candidate site submission (documents attached again for the
Inspector's benefit) we consider that our client's site is suitable for development. It
is immediately adjacent to the settlement boundary (to the south and east) and
within close proximity to the primary school and other facilities such as play areas,
playing fields and bus stops. There are very limited physical and environmental
constraints and there is no flooding issue - the Council's SFCA confirms that the
site is in the best category in terms of flooding as it has a Risk Category of Low.
Importantly some of the Council's proposed allocations are at a Medium and High
risk of flooding according to the SFCA (February 2023) prepared by JBA. This
includes Nantydderwen (PrC3/h14 33 units), land adjacent Brynlluan (PrC3/h18 29
units) and land off Heol y Parc (PrC3/h8 18 units).
We consider this to be a concern given the recent flooding in South Wales and the
Welsh Government's aspiration of ensuring resilient developments (Well Being
Goal as set out in the Well-being of Future Generations Act) that are not at risk of
flooding. The consultation document on TAN15 seeks to direct development to
Zone 1 (very low risk) and only to Zone 2 (low risk) if the development meets strict
tests. We consider that suitable sites that are of the very lowest flood risk should
be allocated ahead of others that have a higher flood risk. Our client's site
(SR/086/075) should be looked at positively in this regard.
We have demonstrated that the site is viable given the developer interest, meaning
that there is certainty that the site can be delivered. We query whether the
proposed allocations benefit from the same certainty in terms of delivery.
We consider that as currently drafted the plan is not sound. We consider that the
plan fails test of soundness 2 (is the plan appropriate) and test of soundness 3 (will
the plan deliver). We set this out below:
Test of Soundness 2 - Based on the above, we do not consider that the Plan is
logical, reasonable and balanced. The distribution of development across Cluster 2
is unsuitable and the sustainable and desirable settlement of Llangennech has
been overlooked as a settlement to accommodate a fair and reasonable amount of
residential development. We do not consider that the candidate sites put forward in
Llangennech (including SR/086/075) have been considered as a fair alternative to the current sites proposed for allocation in the LDP. The Council notes in its
candidate site assessment for SR/086/075 that the scale of allocations in
Llangennech is appropriate in terms of meeting the identified growth requirement
for the settlement but has not provided evidence to substantiate this claim. In
addition, the Council states that the identified growth requirement (94 dwellings) is
reflective of its role and function within Cluster 2 as a whole. We disagree with this
statement. No evidence has been put forward to explain why Llangennech has
been apportioned the least amount of growth amongst the cluster 2 Service
Settlements. There is no logic or consistency to this disproportionate approach
given that Llangennech is a highly sustainable settlement with ample services and
facilities.
The site assessment for SR/086/075 concludes that:
“ Development would lead to an unnecessary encroachment beyond the
development limits. The site is spatially detached from Llangennech and allocating
for housing at this location isconsidered illogical. The site will remain outside of
development limits”
We disagree with this statement as the site is adjacent to the settlement boundary
of Llangennech and not spatially detached? There is no logic in the LPA’s
assessment of this site. Any greenfield site, will by its very definition be beyond the
development limits.
Test of Soundness 3 - Based on the above, we do not consider that the plan will
deliver, especially in the short term. A specific example is that only a very limited
number of dwellings (67) are to come forward in the settlement of Llangennech in
the short term (as defined by Carmarthenshire Council) first 8 years of the plan
(average of 7.5 per year). This is not an effective way of delivering growth and
planning gain to this area. Within Cluster 2, this is a very small proportion of
growth. This is a noticeable void which would be detrimental to the health of the
settlement.
We also query whether the sites allocated will be capable of meeting the revised
TAN15 policy when it is published given that some of the sites are located in areas
of potential flooding. If the sites are not able to meet TAN15 policy then they will
not be deliverable. This will render the LDP undeliverable.
HOM1 (Housing Allocations) / SP6 Strategic Sites / SG2 Reserve Sites / SG1:
Regeneration and Mixed Use Sites
In addition to the points that we have raised about the strategy and spatial
distribution of development we also wish to make comments about the suitability,
viability and deliverability of the housing allocations that have been proposed. This
is in the context of our consideration of the fact that site SR/086/075 is a suitable
and deliverable site with limited technical or environmental constraints. We have
attached our comprehensive candidate site submission as well as a recent
statement from Persimmon Homes confirming their continued interest in the site
and that they consider the site to be deliverable in the short term.
Foul Water (Llanelli WWTW
The issue of foul water being treated at Llanelli WWTW is widely acknowledged
and we have referenced this in our response above. We consider this to be an
impediment to the delivery of the large number of dwellings located in this
catchment area. Whilst there may be a solution to each respective site, the issue is
likely to cause a delay to the delivery of these sites and the added burden of the
compensatory matters (in kind works or financial contribution) may have a
consequential impact upon viability, meaning that affordable housing and other
planning obligations cannot be delivered as the plan has envisaged. Has the
mitigation been included in the Local Plan Viability Assessment? Have the
impacted sites explained how they will overcome the issue in relation to their site?
Rolled Forward Allocations and General Lack of Information About
Viability/Deliverability
Planning Policy Wales (Edition 11 states) emphasises the importance of
deliverable sites. It states that as part of demonstrating the deliverability of housing
sites, financial viability must be assessed prior to their inclusion as allocations in a
development plan. At the ‘Candidate Site’ stage of development plan preparation
land owners/developers must carry out an initial site viability assessment and
provide evidence to demonstrate the financial deliverability of their sites. For sites
that are key to the delivery of the plan, a more detailed viability appraisal is
required.
We are concerned about sites that have been allocated in previous development
plans that have not been developed being allocated again without sufficient
justification/evidence that they will be delivered this time around. We consider that
these sites should not be included again unless robust evidence is presented. We
are also concerned that candidate sites have been allocated without any real
information being provided about their viability/deliverability. For our client's site we
have provided regular updates to the Council regarding the firm developer interest
in developing the site in the short term and an update in the form of a Statement
from Persimmon Homes that is attached with our deposit representations. We are
concerned that a number of sites have been allocated without a developer that is
lined up to build out the site, especially those that are to contribute to the
development trajectory in the first 5 years. In reviewing the Council's assessment
of sites we are concerned with the lack of certainty about deliverability.
We set out a few examples below:
Emlyn Brickworks, Penygroes (177 dwellings)(PrC3/MU1) - This site was
allocated in the previous LDP for 250 dwellings. It was also allocated in some form
in the previous UDP and before then the Dinefwr Local Plan. Various planning
permissions and variations have occurred over the years since the early 2000s.
Despite this, only 9 dwellings have been completed on site. We understand that
full planning permission (E29521) is in place since 2014 for the development of a
further 70 dwellings but development has not been forthcoming, highlighting that
there is a deliverability issue for this site. The LPA's candidate site assessment for
this site acknowledges that there is an issue but continues to propose allocation of
the site:
"The site presents an opportunity to regenerate or redevelop a previously
developed site. However, given that the site has been previously allocated with
only a small portion of the previous allocation being developed, it is considered more realistic that a smaller area of the site is carried forward into the revised LDP
which would be more manageable to develop. Further information will be sought
as necessary from the landowner to demonstrate the site's deliverability and
viability, particularly given the potential remediation costs."
It is currently identified as a site that will deliver housing in year 10-15 of the Plan.
This further highlights the uncertainty regarding the delivery of this site. We consider that credible information about the deliverability and viability of the
site should be presented now before committing to allocating the site again. If the
site cannot demonstrate that it can be delivered then the LPA should identify other
sites that can provide the necessary evidence. PPW (Para 4.2.18) states that for
housing regeneration sites, where deliverability is considered an issue, planning
authorities should consider excluding such sites from their housing supply so that
achieving their development plan housing requirement is not dependent on their
delivery. We don’t consider that this site should be used as a component to meet
the housing requirement. The site should either be removed from the LDP or
identified as a housing led regeneration site that does not form part of the supply
to meet the housing requirement.
We are also concerned that Policy HOM1 does not differentiate between
completions, sites with planning permission, sites under construction and new
allocations. This should be clarified in the final version of the LDP.
Burry Port Waterfront (364 dwellings) (SeC4/MU1 and SeC4/h2)) - The initial
outline application for this site was submitted in 2008 and outline permission was
subsequently granted on 27 January 2016. However, to this date no development
has come to fruition. We are aware that an extension of time was issued in
December 2019 in order to extend the timescale for submission of reserved
matters. However, prior to any development commencing a number of pre
commencement conditions require discharging and reserved matters approval will
be required. We are not aware that a developer is on board. This raises real
questions about the delivery of the scheme. As a housing led regeneration site we
consider that if the LPA wish to continue allocating this site then it should not be
relied upon in the Council's housing land supply due to the uncertainty about
delivery. As explained above, we are also concerned about the SFCA's
classification of the site as an amber flood risk where JBA (the Council’s flood
advisors) note that they have ‘concerns for the allocation’.
Brynlluan, Gorslas (29 dwellings) (PrC3/h18) - The site has been identified to
deliver housing in the 10 to 15 year timeframe. We question why so much time is
required to deliver a fairly small scheme. The Council's Candidate Site
Assessment states that "Additional information will be sought as necessary as the
LDP progresses towards examination to identify when the site is likely to be
brought forward." We assert that information about the deliverability of the site
should be presented now to understand why the long timescale is required,
otherwise sites that have provided this information should be prioritised.
Land at factory site between no. 22 & 28 Bethesda Road (30 dwellings)
(PrC3/h28) - The Council's Candidate Site Assessment states that "the site is
subject to planning permission, however, further information will be sought as necessary as the LDP progresses towards examination to identify when the site is
likely to be brought forward". If the site benefits from planning permission then we
question why the site is not being brought forward. Is there an issue to the
deliverability of the site? The initial outline planning permission was granted in
2013 and no reserved matters applications have been forthcoming. We suggest
that if credible evidence is not presented to demonstrate deliverability then the site
should not be reallocated. Evidence has not been provided to demonstrate that a developer will build the site.
Land off Heol Llannon, 15 dwellings (SeC11/h1) - The Council's Candidate Site
Assessment states that "Additional information will be sought as necessary as the
LDP progresses towards examination to evidence the site's financial viability and
to identify when the site is likely to be brought forward." The site has not passed
question C26 (Deliverable and Financially Viable). We therefore question how the
Council can propose that the site is allocated when insufficient evidence has been
provided in relation to its deliverability. The site is noted as being delivered in year
10-15 and we question why such a small site would take this long to be delivered.
We have set out a number of examples above where we consider that insufficient
evidence has been provided to demonstrate the deliverability of the site. This totals
615 dwellings. However, we have only cited a few examples. On the whole, we are
generally concerned that the LPA has allocated sites without the robust evidence
that is required by PPW and the Development Plan Manual to demonstrate that
the sites are deliverable from a technical and financial perspective. This includes a
number of Council owned sites. The Council should be transparent about the
timetable for delivery of its own sites.
We note the Welsh Government's research into stalled sites prepared by Arcadis.
One of the recommendations of the report is for LDPs to identify sites which are
deliverable. This requires LDPs to provide evidence of deliverability, viability and to
set a trajectory for development. We do not consider that the LDP as drafted
currently has gone far enough in demonstrating the deliverability of sites. If the
LDP is progressed in its current form then we consider that stalled sites will
continue to be evidenced. The Report explained that Carmarthenshire had the
highest number of stalled sites (approximately 70) out of all of the Welsh LPAs.
The LPA should seek to adopt an LDP which does not risk further stalled sites.
As a result of this analysis we consider that the Deposit Plan fails Test of
Soundness 3 (Will the Plan Deliver). Not delivering enough housing will have
significant consequential impacts on the Council's ability to attract new jobs to the
area as the LDP aspires to do. Other sites put forward as part of the LDP process
have better prospects of being delivered and written evidence has been provided
of this. This includes our client's site (SR/086/075) which continues to have firm
developer interest in the form of national housebuilder Persimmon Homes.
Policy SG2: Reserve Sites
It is unclear where the reserve sites are located because they are not identified on
the draft proposals map. It is also unclear what form of development will come
forward as part of these sites and therefore we question whether the policy is
sound. We question whether the policies will deliver (test of soundness 3).
We also question the fact that only two sites are to include residential uses and
one of these SG2/4 (Former Ennis Caravans, Cross Hands) has doubts over its
delivery prospects.
We have serious reservations about the deliverability of these sites and whether
the policy will be effective? We cannot see that a site assessment has been
carried out for these sites including evidence on financial viability. Reserve sites
need to be deliverable in order for the LDP to be adaptive and effective.
Policy SG1: Regeneration and Mixed Use Sites
The Welsh Government’s LDP Manual makes it clear that LPA’s should
“consider the reality of the land bank to be delivered. Sites unlikely to be delivered
should be de-allocated and not ‘rolled forward’ from the previous plan. It could be
prudent to identify such sites separately as regeneration sites which do not county
towards the housing requirement.”
It is unclear to us why regeneration sites such as Emlyn Brickworks (PrC3/MU1)
forms part of the housing supply under HOM1 as it is clear that there has been
deliverability issues for a prolonged period of time. The Regeneration sites
identified under Policy SG1 should be separate to the land supply and should be
treated as ‘bonus sites’. Emlyn Brickworks has been allocated in various plans
over the years and failed to deliver. The LDP Manual states, in terms of rolling
over allocations:
“If an LPA wishes to retain such sites but cannot evidence they will be delivered,
i.e. for aspirational or regeneration purposes, they can still be allocated in the plan
but not relied upon as contributing to the provision. It will not be appropriate to
include such sites in the windfall allowance. They should be treated as ‘bonus
sites’.”
The fact that the SG1 sites are included in the housing supply is a concern and we
consider it fails the test of soundness 3 (will the plan deliver). There are better
sites available to the Council that are deliverable and will ensure that the housing
requirement can be delivered.