Polisi Strategol – SP1: Twf Strategol

No change to Plan.

Having reviewed the 2nd Deposit Revised Carmarthenshire Local Development Plan 2018-2033
(hereinafter referred to as the LDP), via:
https://www.carmarthenshire.gov.wales/home/council-services/planning/local-development-plan2018-2033/second-deposit-revised-local-development-plan/#.Y-9SSWTP1D8
I have been instructed by my client to make general representations to a number of the LDP’s Policies
and paragraphs; and specific representations to Policy HOM1, relating to housing allocation ref.
PrC3/h4, on Land at Tirychen Farm, Dyffryn Road, Ammanford. I have therefore enclosed a
Representation Form, completed as necessary, which should be read in conjunction with this letter
setting out my client’s representations to the 2nd Deposit Revised LDP.

General Representations to Section 8, Paragraphs 8.6 to 8.8 and 8.20
Section 8 of the LDP considers a number of alternative Strategic Growth and Spatial Options to support
the delivery of housing and employment growth in the County.
Regarding Strategic Growth Options, paragraphs 8.6 to 8.8 of the LDP confirm a preferred ‘Ten Year
Trend Based Projection’, forecast to deliver 8,822 new dwellings (588 new dwellings per year) and 276
new jobs per year over the LDP period 2018-2033. Regarding Spatial Options, paragraph 8.20 of the
LDP confirms a preferred ‘Balanced Community and Sustainable Growth Strategy’, whose key
components are summarised in paragraph 9.57 of the LDP to include these targets for new dwellings
and new jobs, distributed to the County’s most sustainable locations in accordance with a Settlement
Hierarchy, whilst recognising the need to support the County’s rural areas and rural economy.
My client supports the LDP’s preferred Strategic Growth and Spatial Options – they will deliver new
housing in line with requirements and new jobs to match the same; and represent an optimistic, though
not unrealistic set of assumptions and aspirations, geared towards encouraging housing and economic
growth in the County over the LDP period.

General Representations to Section 11, Strategic Policy SP1
Strategic Policy SP1 reflects the LDP’s preferred Strategic Growth and Spatial Options, confirming inter
alia provision of 9,704 new dwellings to meet a requirement of 8,822 new dwellings over the LDP
period, distributed in a sustainable manner consistent with the LDP’s Spatial Strategy and Settlement
Hierarchy. My client supports Strategic Policy SP1 – it sets the context for delivering new housing in
line with requirements; and represents a sustainable and optimistic, though not unrealistic strategy
geared towards encouraging and delivering new housing in the County over the LDP period.

General Representations to Section 11, Strategic Policy SP3
Strategic Policy SP3 builds on Strategic Policy SP1 by confirming that the provision of growth and
development will be directed to sustainable locations in accordance with a Spatial Framework based
upon a four Tier Settlement Hierarchy, with the County divided into six Settlement Clusters. My client
supports Strategic Policy SP3, in particular the designation of Ammanford/Crosshands as a ‘Tier 1
Principal Centre’ at the top of the Settlement Hierarchy in the County’s Settlement Cluster 3. In this
respect, Ammanford/Crosshands is a highly sustainable location to which new housing and employment
development should be directed; and it is entirely appropriate for the settlement to be positioned at
the top of the County’s Settlement Hierarchy.

General Representations to Section 11, Strategic Policy SP4 and Paragraphs 11.71 to 11.74
Strategic Policy SP4 confirms that in order to meet the requirement for 8,822 dwellings over the LDP
period, 9,704 new dwellings will be provided between 2018-2033, in accordance with the LDP’s
Settlement Framework. My client supports Strategic Policy SP4 - it sets the context for delivering new
housing in line with requirements, with a reasonable and realistic ‘buffer’ to ensure those requirements
are satisfied; and therefore represents a sustainable and achievable strategy for meeting the County’s
housing needs over the LDP period.
Moreover, my client supports paragraphs 11.71 to 11.74 of the LDP, which confirm that the majority
of new residential development, including housing allocations (defined in paragraph 11.79 of the LDP
as sites capable of yielding 5 dwellings or more), will be directed to the County’s Tier 1 Principal Centres.

Specific Representations to Policy HOM1 and Housing Allocation Ref. PrC3/h4, on Land at
Tirychen Farm, Dyffryn Road, Ammanford
I made representations for my client on 13 August 2018, in response to your Authority’s ‘Call for
Candidate Sites’, requesting that land at Tirychen Farm, Dyffryn Road, Ammanford, be considered as a
‘Candidate Site’ for allocation for housing in the Revised LDP. My client is the Freehold owner of the
land, as edged in red and blue on the enclosed Location Plan ref. 09-012/01 REV B.
In response to these representations, land owned by my client at Tirychen Farm, Dyffryn Road,
Ammanford, was included within your Authority’s Candidate Sites Register of December 2018 under
refs. CA0326 and SR/004/012, as in principle suitable and appropriate for allocation for housing. The
extent of land concerned is shown shaded in red on the enclosed extract from your Authority’s
interactive Candidate Sites map, which is available via:
http://carmarthenshire.opus4.co.uk/planning/localplan/maps/candidatesites#/x:261756/y:212431/z:10/b:14/o:2305

I made further representations for my client on 14 January 2019, in response to your Authority’s
Candidate Sites Register consultation, putting forward the case for allocating Candidate Site ref. CA0326
(Site Ref. SR/004/012) in the LDP for circa 330 dwellings. Having reviewed the 2nd Deposit Revised LDP
and in particular Policy HOM1, I note that land owned by my client at Tirychen Farm, Dyffryn Road,
Ammanford, is proposed as an allocation for 150 dwellings, under ref. PrC3/h4 and as shaded in brown
on the enclosed extract from the LDP’s interactive Proposals Map, which is available via:
https://carmarthenshire.opus4.co.uk/planning/localplan/maps/2nd-deposit-revised-carmarthenshirelocal-development-plan-2018-2033-proposals-map#/center/51.7938,-
4.0059/zoom/16/baselayer/b:31/layers/o:9423,o:9424,o:9435,o:9436,o:9437,o:9446,o:9447,o:9448,
o:9449,o:9524,o:9525,o:9526,o:9527,o:9528,o:9529,o:9530,o:9531,o:9532,o:9533,o:9560,o:9561,o:
9562,o:9563,o:9564,o:9579,o:9580

Whilst the principle of housing allocation ref. PrC3/h4 is supported by my client, it is considered that
the current terms of the allocation must be improved upon. In this respect, my client’s objections to
housing allocation ref. PrC3/h4 are set out in the following paragraphs.
You will be aware that land owned by my client at Tirychen Farm, Dyffryn Road, Ammanford is currently
allocated for 250 dwellings in the Carmarthenshire Local Development Plan (LDP) 2006-2021, under
ref. GA3/h17 in Policy H1. Moreover, the site benefits from an extant outline consent ref. E/38686
granted on 8 October 2019 (as a renewal of outline consent ref. E/21663 granted on 10 October 2014)
for 289 dwellings, with access and layout granted in detail at the outline stage, as per the enclosed
copy of consented Planning Layout ref. 09-012/05 REV F.
The site’s existing allocation ref. GA3/h17 for 250 dwellings in Policy H1 of the Carmarthenshire Local
Development Plan 2006-2021; and the terms of the site’s extant outline consent ref. E/38686 for 289
dwellings clearly and unequivocally demonstrate that the site is suitable and sustainable, and available
and achievable. At the very least, therefore, allocation ref. PrC3/h4 in the 2nd Deposit Revised LDP
should be increased from 150 dwellings to 289 dwellings, to reflect the fact that the site is a consented
‘commitment’ for 289 dwellings in Ammanford - a highly sustainable Tier 1 Principal Centre at the top
of the County’s Settlement Hierarchy.
However, the site’s allocation ref. PrC3/h4 in the 2nd Deposit Revised LDP can easily be enlarged to
match the boundaries of Candidate Site ref. CA0326 (Site Ref. SR/004/012) included within your
Authority’s Candidate Sites Register of December 2018, making best use of available land that is mostly
already allocated and indeed, already consented for housing. Planning Layout ref. 09-012/05 REV E
enclosed, showing a detailed layout for a total of 336 dwellings, was first submitted with outline
application ref. E/21663 on 20 August 2009; and demonstrates that enlarging the site’s allocation ref.
PrC3/h4 to match the boundaries of Candidate Site ref. CA0326 (Site Ref. SR/004/012) could be
achieved without any harmful impacts upon the locality – the enlarged allocation would be contained
in the landscape and by retained woodland in my client’s ownership; and would be integrated with the
289 dwellings already consented under the terms of outline consent ref. E/38686. In this regard, please
refer to the enclosed Landscape Masterplan ref. SP17000 10A, which was also first submitted with
outline application ref. E/21663 on 20 August 2009.
Furthermore, enlarging allocation ref. PrC3/h4 to yield circa 80 additional dwellings over and above the
‘committed’ 289 dwellings that are already consented on the site would avoid the need to make an
equivalent housing allocation elsewhere in the County. As such, my client requests that housing
allocation ref. PrC3/h4 in Policy HOM1 of the 2nd Deposit Revised LDP is confirmed for circa 330
dwellings, using the boundaries of Candidate Site ref. CA0326 (Site Ref. SR/004/012) contained within
your Authority’s Candidate Sites Register of December 2018.

I hope you will find this letter and the enclosed helpful and that you will take account of and act upon
my client’s representations when progressing the 2nd Deposit Revised LDP. I would be grateful if you
would keep me updated with the LDP’s progress and in the meantime, please contact me if you have
any queries with this letter, or if you need to discuss any matter in more detail.
I look forward to hearing from you in due course.

No change to Plan.

Policy SP1: Strategic Growth
We support Policy SP1 which includes provision for 9,704 new homes to meet the identified housing requirement of 8,822 and consider this to be an achievable level of growth for the County.
We would reiterate the importance of enabling appopriate levels of growth in smaller sustainable villages, such as Pendine, in addition to larger key settlements, to ensure these housing targets for the Plan period can be achieved.

Policy SP3: Sustainable Distribution – Settlement Framework
The categorisation of Pendine as a ‘Tier 3 Sustainable Village’ within the Settlement Framework is supported. We agree that locations in this tier are
suitable for housing allocations, as per paragaph 11.74 of the Written Statement. In terms of the distribution of growth in Carmarthenshire, we support the notion at
paragraph 11.72, which recognises that much of the County is rural and housing is needed in these locations, not just in the larger top tier settlements. Accordingly,
the Plan should enable and encourage incremental growth of smaller sustainable villages, such as Pendine, to support their local population and economy.
Increased housing supply should be supported in locations where people already live, to ensure that local people have the opportunity to buy homes and continue to live in these areas, rather than needing to move elsewhere within or outside the
County. This will be crucial to address one of Carmarthenshire’s key issues: ageing population and out-migration of younger and working age people.

Policy SD1: Development Limits
We wholly support the alterations proposed to the development limit boundary of Pendine, which now includes Curtilage of Nieuport Farmhouse (Candidate Site Ref: SR/126/004); the western part of Land adjacent to Crofters Rest (Candidate Site Ref: SR/126/001); and a small area of Land rear of St Margarets Park (Candidate Site Ref: SR/126/002), to form a slightly larger housing allocation at Nieuport Yard (ref: SuV61/h1).
The inclusion of these sites ensures that the organic growth of Pendine can be supported through deliverable, viable and policy-compliant housing schemes,
which will contribute towards meeting the RLDP’s objectives. The above sites (as well as additional adjacent land) lie within the ownership of the site promoter, Mr T. Pearce, and represent logical extensions to the existing built form of Pendine. We
therefore support that these sites present valuable opportunities for a suitable level of growth within this ‘sustainable village’ (Tier 3 as per Policy SP3).
Notwithstanding the above, we propose that the development limit should be extended further to also include the remaining part of Land adjacent to Crofters
Rest, to encompass the full site as per the candidate site submission originally submitted in 2018 (ref: SR/126/001). Inclusion of the full extent of the Land adjacent to Crofters Rest presents an opportunity to provide a modest amount of additional housing. The site is also entirely within the site promoter’s ownership, thereby eliminating any land ownership constraints to delivery. The total site is a rectangular parcel of land comprising approximately 0.5ha, which is currently arable/general agricultural land. The site is relatively free from physical constraints, with a flat topography. There is
an existing hedgerow bounding the site to the north, separating the site from the B4314 road. Other than this hedgerow, the site is free from other landscape
constraints. The site is not subject to any statutory nature conservation or archaeological designations, nor tree preservations orders. The site does not lie
within a defined flood plain (TAN 15 Development Advice Maps). We note that the site is located within a Special Landscape Area, however so is the majority of the built settlement of Pendine. Considering this, together with the
partial inclusion of the site within the amended development limits, the landscape designation is not considered to unacceptably constrain the future development of the whole site at Crofters Rest.
As demonstrated for the western part of the site (now proposed to be included within the settlement) the access track off B4314 can suitably be extended
eastwards to accommodate further housing. Inclusion of this land would represent a logical extension to Pendine that would provide symmetry with the existing
housing located immediately north of B4314 (detached bungalows) yet would not extend the built settlement any further eastwards than the existing situation to the
north. The site lies in close proximity to existing residential development in Pendine and
is therefore assumed to be capable of providing appropriate services and utilities
connections. In our view, the extension of the development limit to include the remaining land
adjacent to Crofters Rest within the forthcoming LDP, represents a viable and deliverable opportunity to provide an appropriate range and choice of housing to
meet small scale additional growth within Pendine. The allocation of the full extent of the site would also provide additional flexibility as to the size and range of units
that could be offered on site, to meet local demand in a sustainable manner.

Policy HOM1: Housing Allocations
In particular, we support the allocation of site ref: SuV61/h1 - Land at Nieuport Yard, for the delivery of 10 units. Part of the site already benefits from an
implemented planning permission for 5 units (planning permission ref: 2/21251).

Policy HOM2: Housing within Development Limits
We support Policy HOM2, which notes that whilst sites capable of delivering 5 or more dwellings are allocated for housing, there are smaller unallocated sites within
the settlement limits throughout the County which may be available for the delivery of small scale housing development. We support that proposals on such sites
should be permitted provided they accord with the relevant RLDP policies. Policy AHOM1: Provision of Affordable Homes We support the RLDP objectives for delivery of affordable housing in meeting the
needs of Carmarthenshire. We note that on-site AH contributions will be sought on developments of 10 or more dwellings, based on a percentage that rises
incrementally depending on the total number of dwellings proposed. Policy AHOM1 states that: “The affordable housing target percentage noted is a target
to be used as a starting point for affordable housing negotiations.” We would agree that among other considerations, viability should be taken into account when negotiating the amount of affordable housing contribution that should be sought for
any given scheme, to ensure the deliverability of market housing schemes.Policy AHOM1 also notes that: “Where adjacent and related residential proposals
result in combined numbers meeting or exceeding the above thresholds, the council will seek an element of affordable housing based on applying the above
target percentages to the aggregate number of dwellings.” Again, we would reiterate that this policy should be applied with careful consideration of the overall
viability of housing developments between the LPA and developers.

Policy SP16: Climate Change
We support this policy and recognise the importance of the Council’s wider goals to address climate change, including reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
However we would suggest that, in terms of Policy SP16, the design requirements for small-scale housing developments should be no more onerous than the
relevant Building Regulations requirements, in order to ensure that proposals remain deliverable and viable to meet the identified housing need over the Plan period.

Amend the Plan

Introduction

Persimmon Homes West Wales write to submit these representations in respect of the current Carmarthenshire Deposit Local Development Plan (2018 to 2033) (“Deposit Plan”) consultation. As the Council will be aware, Persimmon Homes West Wales are actively promoting two additional candidate sites for residential allocation in the Deposit Plan, both of which have Option Agreements in place:

Land off Church Road, Gorslas (SR/067/002)
This submitted site is 2.7 hectares of undeveloped land, located to the north of Gorslas.

Land at Fforest Road, Fforest (SR/069/003)
Two options have been submitted for the site. The first forms 15.24 hectares and the second 4.5 hectares of undeveloped land which is situated directly adjacent to the eastern boundary and settlement building line of Fforest. Part of the site is allocated for housing in the adopted Carmarthenshire Local Development Plan (Site T3/7/h8).

Promotional documents were submitted as part of the candidate site submission which provide a full overview of each site.

Persimmon Homes are currently within the planning application process and delivering units on a number of sites which are detailed in the Deposit Plan – of which are relevant commentary on these is provided below.

This letter focuses on the key concerns with the Deposit Plan and overall housing strategy, reflecting on each matter with regard to the ‘tests of soundness’, to ensure compliance with the requirements of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and Planning Policy Wales 11 (PPW 11) (February 2021).

Soundness
The fundamental requirement for a Local Development Plan to be sound is prescribed in the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. With regard to the ‘tests of soundness’, whilst there is no statutory definition of ‘soundness’ the Development Plans Manual (Edition 3) (March 2020) advises that the following criteria should be considered:

Test 1. Does the plan fit?
Test 2. Is the Plan appropriate?
Test 3. Will the Plan deliver?

Policies and comments

Persimmon Homes West Wales raise concern regarding the Plan Period, noting that if adopted in 2024 as targeted, the Plan will effectively only cover a relatively short Plan Period Post Adoption of 10 years. It is considered a more proactive approach would be to Plan for a 15 year period from the point of adoption to allow for greater certainty over the longer-term (particularly if a future LDP is likely to suffer from such delays and to align the Plan with Future Wales: the National Plan (2040). Such an approach would call for the allocation of additional sites to meet the housing need for the extended Plan Period.

The Deposit Plan as currently drafted fails Test 1 and 3 in terms of the current Plan Period, with regard to the effectiveness of the Plan Period and the need to fit with other plans and policies. We consider a 15 year plan period from the anticipated point of adoption should be implemented and additional residential site allocations which are available and deliverable should be allocated to meet housing need (Church Road, Gorslas and Land at Forest).

SP3: Sustainable Distribution – Settlement Framework
SP3 directs the provision of growth and development to sustainable locations. This takes a 4 tiered approach in terms of the settlement framework. These include the principal centres, the service centres, sustainable villages and rural villages. The principal centres remain as Carmarthen, Llanelli and Ammanford/Cross Hands, which includes Gorslas, where the majority of development will be directed. Fforest/Hendy is defined as a Service Centre in Cluster 2 where 15-20% of development will be directed. We support the provision of Housing Allocations in Principal Centres and Service Centres

As part of the review process, Persimmon Homes are promoting the inclusion of sites SR/069/003 (Option 1 and 2) in Fforest and SR/067/002 in Gorslas in the Deposit Plan.

It is considered that the future development of the residential sites at both Gorslas and Fforest (option 1 and 2) which have been submitted as Candidate Sites would be coherent and consistent with the Local Development Plan vision, objectives, preferred strategy and Deposit Plan Policies.

SP4: A Sustainable Approach to Providing New Homes
This Deposit Plan proposes to use the ten-year based projection from Turley’s Housing and Economic Growth Report and utilise the Council Tax vacancy rate of 3.8% to underpin the future growth requirements for this revised Deposit LDP. This results in the following for the plan period:
- Projected population change between 2018-2033: +14,468
- New homes requirement: + 588 per year
- New Homes requirement during the plan period: 8,822
- Jobs creation value per annum: +276

This will result in 13 units less over the plan period from the original Deposit Plan which was consulted upon.
This Deposit Plan’s strategic policy (SP1) outlines the LDP will provide for the future growth of a sustainable economy and housing requirement through the provision of:
- 9,704 new homes to meet the identified housing requirement of 8,822 with a 10% flexibility allowance.
- The focus on regeneration and growth reflects the Council’s core strategic ambitions with development distributed in a sustainable manner consistent with the spatial strategy and settlement framework.

This will result in 456 less new homes in the plan period from the original Deposit Plan which was consulted upon. A more ambitious housing requirement would facilitate the economic growth required in the county and will be more effective in achieving the Council’s vision and objectives. Persimmon Homes considers that the plan lacks ambition in regards to the housing numbers.

The removal of the 5 year housing land supply policy within PPW 11 and TAN 1 and the replacement with the housing trajectory approach to monitor the delivery of LDP housing requirements, places even greater importance on ensuring that the housing trajectory is credible and realistic and it is critical that the housing allocations proposed in emerging Local Development Plans are appropriately and robustly evidenced to ensure that they are realistically deliverable.

Planning Policy Wales Edition 11 sets out the land use planning policies of the Welsh Government with its primary objective being to ensure that the planning system contributes towards the delivery of sustainable development and improves the social, economic, environmental and cultural well-being of Wales.

PPW 11 states that the ‘planning system must:
- Identify a supply of land to support the delivery of the housing requirement to meet the differing needs of communities across all tenures;
- Enable provision of a range of well-designed, energy efficient, good quality market and affordable housing that will contribute to the creation of sustainable places; and
- Focus on the delivery of the identified housing requirement and the related land supply’.

‘The supply of land to meet the housing requirement proposed in a development plant must be deliverable. To achieve this, development plans must include a supply of land which delivers the identified housing requirement figure and makes a locally appropriate additional flexibility allowance for sites not coming forward during the plan period. The ability to deliver requirements must be demonstrated through a housing trajectory. The trajectory should be prepared as part of the development plan process and form part of the plan. The trajectory will illustrate the expected rate of housing delivery for both market and affordable housing for the plan period. To be ‘deliverable’, sites must be free, or readily freed, from planning, physical and ownership constraints and be economically viable at the point in the trajectory when they are due to come forward for development in order to support the creation of sustainable communities’.

‘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. At the ‘Deposit’ stage, there must be a high level plan-wide viability appraisal undertaken to give certainty that the development plan and its policies can be delivered in principle, taking into account affordable housing targets, infrastructure and other policy requirements’.

Flexibility Allowance
The flexibility allowance in terms of housing numbers is to be included in a Plan to ensure it will remain effective in the event of changing circumstance such as non-delivery of key sites and / or other unforeseen issues. The Development Plan Manual indicates that a 10% flexibility allowance should be the starting point in terms of housing provision. Persimmon Homes West Wales are of the view that the appropriate rate should be set based on local circumstances. We consider that a greater level of flexibility should be allowed for in the Plan to increase the change of meeting the housing needs of the County. Such a flexibility allowance will assist in overcoming uncertainties regarding housing deliverability and viability and would also allow additional flexibility given the shorter time period on which the Plan is proposed (10 years from adoption). The provision of 15% flexibility would increase the housing supply to 10,145 and increase the allocated plots by 441 dwellings.

Site Allocations
Persimmon Homes supports the allocation of the Strategic Site at Carmarthen West and would like to provide confirmation that as one of the largest house builders in West Wales, we are currently going through the Planning Application and Design process for 343 dwellings on Carmarthen West and are also actively working to obtain an Option Agreement for an additional 300 units. The site is considered deliverable and viable and we therefore support the inclusion of the site in the Plan under reference PrC1/MU1.

Persimmon Homes supports the allocation of Dafen East Gateway for the delivery of housing under reference PrC2/h23. We are currently within the Planning Process for the development scheme and intend to begin construction on site as soon as we are able. We are confident that the development site will be delivered in line with the Housing Trajectory as set out in the Deposit Plan. In regards to this allocation, the site is currently 20% affordable housing with the planning application complying with this policy level, we therefore request that the affordable housing requirement is reduced from 30% (which does not fall in line with AHOM1 at 25%) to the current level of 20%.

AHOM1: Affordable Housing
Persimmon Homes West Wales Object to the nature of the Affordable Housing Provision Policy AHOM1. The changes to the Affordable Housing percentages at a blanket of 25% on sites which are over 101 plots does not consider the changes in viability and locality of a site across the County Council area.

If you require any further information on the above or would like to discuss any points, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Amend Plan

1. Introduction
1.1. Pegasus Group is instructed by the Co-operative Group (the ‘Co-op’) to submit
representations to the Carmarthenshire Second Deposit Revised LDP consultation.
1.2. The Co-op own a Site referred to as ‘Land south of Penygroes Road, Gorslas’ (the ‘Site') and
are promoting the Site for residential development. A copy of the Site Location Plan is
enclosed with a copy of these representations (Appendix 1) and the extent of the land is
shown below:
1.3. The Site comprises an area of c. 6.5ha and is considered to be capable of accommodating
approximately 120 dwellings.1
1.4. A call for sites form was submitted to the Council in August 2019 by Pegasus Group on behalf
of the Co-op. A copy of this submission is also appended to these representations
(Appendix 2).
1.5. Representations were submitted to the Deposit LDP in March 2020 and these are
resubmitted here and amended as necessary. The Site has not been included as a candidate
site in the Second Deposit Revised LDP and we consider that it should be included as a
residential allocation for the reasons given in these representations.
1 Assuming 30dph on 60% of the site.
R002 | CE | April 2023 2
Executive Summary
1.6. These representations respond directly to the following policies and paragraph references,
as set out in the Second Deposit Revised LDP:
 Preferred Spatial Option (Chapter 8);
 Paragraph 8.20;
 A New Strategy (Chapter 9);
 Policy SP1: Strategic Growth;
 Policy SP3: Sustainable Distribution – Settlement Framework;
 Policy SP4 – A sustainable Approach to Providing New Homes; and
 Policy SD1: Sustainable Distribution - Development Limits.
1.7. Our comments on the above policies would support a higher quantum of growth to the Tier
1 settlements in the interests of making the plan more effective in delivering its key aims and
more appropriate in terms of delivering sustainable development and mitigating its impact
on climate change.
1.8. This will, in turn, require the identification of additional sites for housing at these settlements
and we consider that the Site should be allocated for residential development as part of this
process, based on the updated sustainability appraisal we have undertaken using the
Integrated Sustainability Appraisal (ISA) template provided for developers. This
demonstrates that the Site is a sustainable, deliverable and logical location for housing.
R002 | CE | April 2023 3
2. Preferred Spatial Option (Chapter 8)
2.1. Paragraph 8.20 sets out the preferred Spatial Option and is unchanged from the Deposit
Draft LDP. The Option is stated as being a hybrid of a Balanced Community and Sustainable
Growth Strategy. The Spatial Option acknowledges the need to recognise and reflect
investment/economic benefits and opportunities, seeks to be community led, and will aim to
allocate development in a sustainable way.
2.2. Whilst we are broadly supportive of the preferred Spatial Option, we feel that it needs to be
more explicit in stating that the strategy needs to align with the ambitious economic
aspirations of the plan.
2.3. At present, we do not feel that this is reflected in the proposed Spatial Option and, therefore,
it has not been fully justified in the context of the Council's economic growth ambitions.
2.4. We would stress that this does not require wholesale changes to the proposed Spatial Option
as this could still be community led and the delivery of sustainable development should be
at the heart of all Plan strategies. However, we would wish to see it reflect the Council's
ambitious economic growth aspirations and acknowledge that this will influence the spatial
distribution of development.
R002 | CE | April 2023 4
3. A New Strategy (Chapter 9)
3.1. We are broadly supportive of the Plan's ambitions to deliver economic growth and an uplifted
housing requirement to support this. However, the perceived reduced importance of
delivering the Council's ambitious economic growth targets within the Preferred Spatial
Option has manifested in what we consider to be an ineffective Plan Strategy.
3.2. This is because the Second Deposit Revised LDP seeks to take a balanced approach to the
distribution of housing supply (paragraph 9.4), despite the fact that it will be reliant on only
a few key centres to deliver the vast majority of the economic growth it aspires to (namely,
Llanelli, Ammanford/Cross Hands and Carmarthen).
3.3. We accept that growth will need to come forward at all levels of the settlement hierarchy
(including rural areas) to support the vitality and viability of the diverse communities across
the county. However, the Plan's focus on delivering economic growth and a balanced
approach to the distribution of development are unlikely to be an effective combination in
meeting the plan's aspirations.
3.4. The plan acknowledges that the Tier 1 settlements are the strongest economic drivers from
a market demand and delivery perspective and states that they will receive an "appropriate
proportion" of the anticipated growth. However, this should be quantified within the plan
(which it is not at present) alongside the level of housing and other types of development
needed to be delivered in conjunction with it.
3.5. The Plan Strategy needs to be more realistic in acknowledging that it cannot rely on lower
order settlements and rural areas to deliver the economic growth it aspires to and that the
Tier 1 settlements will likely need to play a greater role than is currently identified.
3.6. It also needs to acknowledge that employment sites will only come forward where they have
access to good services, facilities and infrastructure. Furthermore, they will also need to be
accessible for the local/regional labour market.
3.7. It is, therefore, essential that the Plan identifies the supporting development and
infrastructure that needs to be delivered alongside employment sites in order to stimulate
investment and economic growth. The plan currently fails to do this, and this has resulted in
deficient policies which are discussed further below.
R002 | CE | April 2023 5
4. Policy SP1: Strategic Growth and Policy SP4: A
Sustainable Approach to Providing New Homes
4.1. As stated above, we support the Council's decision to deliver a higher quantum of dwellings
over the plan period to align with the Council's economic growth ambitions. We support the
proposed 10% flexibility applied to the housing requirement as this will provide a reasonable
(albeit not optimal) level of flexibility to improve the prospects of meeting the minimum
housing requirement.
4.2. However, we question why this has been reduced from the 15% flexibility applied in the First
Deposit Revised LDP. This is particularly important in the context where one of the reserve
sites under Policy SG2 has been removed.
4.3. In addition, we are not convinced the distribution of housing has been properly justified in
the context of the ambition to deliver higher levels of economic growth. Our principal concern
is that the ambitions to deliver economic growth will be jeopardised by the balanced
approach to distributing growth across the county.
4.4. This has, in turn, resulted in a distribution pattern that does not appear to appreciate the
importance of the spatial relationship between employment growth and housing delivery as
they support the delivery of one another.
4.5. In simple terms, the distribution strategy does not take a realistic view of the capacity of
lower order settlements to deliver economic growth, relative to the Tier 1 settlements and
has, accordingly, failed to allocate a sufficient level of housing in close proximity to key
employment areas.
4.6. It is important for housing to be delivered in close proximity to key employment areas for a
number of reasons. Two particularly pertinent reasons are as follows:
1. It encourages commuting via alternative modes of transport to the private motor
vehicle in the interests of sustainability and mitigating impacts on climate change;
2. Housing delivery creates a critical mass and local workforce which stimulates
investment and job creation.
4.7. Policies SP1 and SP4 (including their supporting text) need to clearly justify the overall
quantum of development to be delivered at each settlement tier and then explain how it will
be distributed to support the economic aspirations of the plan, alongside its sustainability
and community aspirations. Its failure to do so at present is a significant deficiency with the
plan that needs to be addressed.
R002 | CE | April 2023 6
5. Strategic Policy SP3: Sustainable Distribution –
Settlement Framework
5.1. Policy SP3 sets out the settlement hierarchy and settlement clusters. We largely agree with
the structure and support the Ammanford/Cross Hands area being included within the first
tier – Principal Settlements.
5.2. We also agree with the assertion that growth and development will be directed to sustainable
locations in accordance with the spatial framework; however, as mentioned above, we have
some reservations with how this has been implemented.
5.3. Whilst we note that the highest proportion of development is due to be delivered at the Tier
1 settlements (a principle we support), we consider that too great a proportion of growth has
been allocated to lower order settlements. As stated above, the Plan is unrealistic in the way
it proposes to distribute growth to deliver its economic aspirations and the allocation of
housing sites to support this is also unsuitable as a result.
5.4. If the Plan is serious about delivering economic growth, sustainable development and
mitigating its impacts on the environment to combat climate change, then it needs to rethink
its distribution framework and allocate higher levels of development to the Tier 1
settlements.
R002 | CE | April 2023 7
6. Policy SD1: Development Limits
6.1. This policy states that development within the identified development of Tier 1-3 settlements
will be acceptable, provided that they accord with other relevant policies of the LDP.
6.2. Whilst there are exceptions to this rule (for example, Policy HOM6), the policy does not set
out a scenario whereby development for traditional housing can come forward beyond the
development limits. This will be problematic in circumstances where the Council's housing
delivery fails to keep pace with their proposed annual requirement.
6.3. Whilst we support the principle of identifying specific sites to meet the development needs
of the district within the LDP to guard against excessive unplanned development, Local Plans
still need to be sufficiently flexible to ensure that housing and other types of development
can come forward to meet the needs of the population. This is especially important in
situations when delivery does not match up with the plan's target levels of growth. This could
be due to any number of reasons, from deficiencies with the plan, unforeseen technical issues
affecting the delivery of certain sites or broader macro-economic factors.
6.4. We note the identification of Reserve Sites (Policy SG2) and acknowledge that this will go
some way to securing supply in the event allocated sites cannot come forward albeit one of
the reserve sites has been removed from the Second Deposit Revised LDP over the Revised
Deposit version. However, we would question whether this is a sufficiently flexible approach
that will help to guarantee the delivery of the plan's housing requirement. We note that the
delivery of a reserve site will need to be subject to a masterplanning exercise. This
requirement is something that would potentially delay its delivery and prevent it from
addressing a specific need (e.g. housing shortfall) in a timely manner.
6.5. As such, we consider that this policy should incorporate wording to allow for development in
sustainable locations that would otherwise comply with the relevant policies of the LDP in
the event that the supply and delivery of housing failed to keep pace with the Local Plan
Housing Requirement (i.e. the absence of a five-year supply of housing land).
6.6. We would suggest additional wording to the policy to make it clear to prospective applicants
when it would be acceptable to propose development on unallocated sites. This would
provide certainty and allow for windfall sites to come forward in accordance with the LDP to
meet shortfalls when they arise.
6.7. We acknowledge that the plan has attempted to plan positively for housing growth in
particular and sought to incorporate measures to secure this (10% buffer to the housing
requirement (albeit reduced from 15%) and the identification of reserve sites) over the plan
period. However, we consider that policy SD1 should incorporate additional flexibility to allow
development to come forward under certain circumstances (as specified above) in order the
ensure the plan can remain as effective as possible for its duration.
R002 | CE | April 2023 8
7. Land to the south of Penygroes Road, Gorslas,
Llanelli
7.1. As stated in the Introduction, the Co-op controls an area of land to the south of Penygroes
Road, Gorslas comprising a number of fields which cover an area of around 6.5ha and would
be capable of delivering c. 120 dwellings.
7.2. Vehicular access could be taken from the B4556 to the east with an emergency/pedestrian
access being taken from the north via an existing driveway/access.
7.3. The Site is well related to development around the 6-way junction along the A476 which is
home to a number of services and facilities that would meet the day to day needs of future
residents.
7.4. The Site is also well related to existing and future large-scale employment and commercial
development areas at Cross Hands.
7.5. The Site's proximity to these services, facilities and employment opportunities would reduce
the reliance on the private motor vehicle to meet the day to day needs of future residents
and would encourage the use of active modes of travel such as walking and cycling.
7.6. The Site is free from any land use allocation or other designations that would otherwise
constrain development; it could be made available for development in the short-term and
be built out comfortably within a five-year time frame once detailed planning permission is
granted.
R002 | CE | April 2023 9
8. Integrated Sustainability Appraisal
8.1. Our representations to the Deposit LDP in March 2020 included an assessment of the
sustainability of the Site with regard to the guidance available at that time. Since then, the
Council has published an Integrated Sustainability Appraisal (ISA) document for consultation
alongside the Second Deposit LDP.
8.2. Paragraph 1.7 of the ISA states that:
“The Council strongly advises that in responding to the Deposit rLDP, any relevant new,
site(s) proposed should be accompanied by an integrated Sustainability Appraisal
(incorporating Strategic Environmental Assessment). A site not subject to ISA is unlikely
to be considered suitable for allocation in the plan.”
8.3. As a result, we have provided an assessment of the sustainability of the Site against this
updated criteria in the below table.
8.4. As shown by our responses, the Site performs extremely well against the various elements of
the SA with only the fact that the Site is a greenfield site and may contain high carbon soils
being the only constraints affecting the Site's development.
9. Summary Representations
9.1. These representations have been submitted on behalf of the Co-op in respect of its land to
the south of Penygroes Road, Gorslas. The Co-op is promoting the Site for residential
development and consider it to be a sustainably located, deliverable and logical site for the
proposed use. The Co-op has a good track record of promoting sites for development and
working with developers and house builders to ensure that sites are sold on and deliverable.
It does not sit on sites or ‘land bank.’
9.2. Whilst we are broadly supportive of the economic aspirations of the LDP and agree with the
uplift to the housing requirement accordingly, we have reservations with the proposed
strategy to deliver this ambitions targets.
9.3. This is namely down to the following reasons:
 The Preferred Spatial Option and Plan Strategy appear to have diminished the
importance of delivering these said economic aspirations;
 They are unrealistic in their view that lower order settlements will be able to deliver the
currently proposed economic growth and role Tier 1 settlements will need to play has
been underestimated;
 There is a disconnect with the spatial distribution of employment development and
residential development and it is not clear how they will support the delivery of one
another; and
 The proposed flexibility measures notwithstanding, we consider that the plan should
include a policy to facilitate development beyond the defined settlement limits in the
case of severe plan failure.
9.4. We suspect that when the plan is reviewed in light of these issues, a higher proportion of
growth will be identified at the Tier 1 settlements and this will require additional housing
allocations to be included.
9.5. Our client's Site is available, deliverable and sustainably located. We have assessed it against
the Council's ISA template and it has performed very well with few minor issues. We would,
therefore, support a new policy allocating the Site for residential development in the final
version of the LDP.

Amend Plan

Carmarthenshire Local Development Plan 2018-2033 – Deposit Draft
Objection on behalf of Evans Banks Planning Ltd

Further to the publication of the above document, we have been asked by our Clients to
review its contents, policies and proposals and advise them of any aspects we believe would
unreasonably affect their aspirations and interests. In doing so w consider it necessary to
make a formal representation to the “soundness” of the Carmarthenshire Deposit Local
Development Plan, including in relation to the provisions of Strategic Policy SP1 (Strategic
Growth). As a result, we offer the following for the Authority’s consideration, and Inspector’s
in due course.

Policy SP1 represents the Council’s strategic position with regard to the County’s growth
during the Plan period. It sets out that within the Plan period (2018-2033) the document is
expected to deliver “9,704 new homes to meet the identified housing requirement of 8,822.”
through a range of housing supply components. The ‘new homes’ figure has been reached
through research undertaken by and on behalf of the Council, advising that it has taken into
account a range of factors and data sets in reaching that figure. However, through our own
examination and consideration, we have identified that certain factors have not been given full or any consideration during that process, which are summarised as follows.

Like most counties in Wales, Carmarthenshire has seen not one, but two of its previous development plans fail in terms of delivering sufficient housing to meet the level of housing need the very same plans have identified. In the associated Topic Papers published by the Council, it is admitted that whilst the current adopted Carmarthenshire Local Development Plan (LDP) was expected to deliver on average 1,103 dwellings per annum, it in fact delivered less than half (501 dwellings per annum), with the previous Unitary Development Plan showing a similar trend.

Since the adoption of the current LDP in December 2014, the housing market in Carmarthenshire has seen steady growth in terms of demand, for both new and existing units. However, with supply levels of new housing being far lower than the adopted Plan identified as being needed (by some 7,500+ units), this has had a significant impact on the County’s demographics.

What increase in housing stock there has been, has indeed provided a growth in population since 2011, but only of 2.2%. However, 18.9% of the County’s population is now aged 65 years and over. In contrast, the number of people aged 15 to 64 in the County has decreased by 2.5% and those aged 15 years and under has decreased 0.8%. In addition, according to the submitted Topic Papers, the average household size is expected to have now risen to a figure of 2.30, whereas previous projections had thought it would only be 2.05.

The above therefore clearly illustrates the ongoing impact of the failure of previous Plans to deliver sufficient housing to meet the needs of its native population, as well as those wishing to move to the County to assist with the Council achieving its strategic economic objectives.
As a result, it is not considered that the current housing figure being put forward by the Deposit LDP is sufficient to compensate for the historic under provision and prevent the current worrying and unsustainable demographic trends from being reversed.

We therefore respectfully request that this Representation be given careful examination, and that the housing need figure be revisited to ensure that the document passes all the relevant tests of soundness.

Ni nodwyd unrhyw newid penodol
___
No specific change noted

Diolch am y cyfle i ymateb 2il CDLl Cyngor Sir Gaerfyrddin a nodaf fy sylwadau isod. Rwy’n fodlon i’m sylwadau ysgrifenedig gael eu hystyried gan yr Arolygydd ond nid wyf am siarad mewn sesiwn gwrandawiad.
Cynghorydd Meinir James
Ward Llangyndeyrn

Thank you for the opportunity to respond to Carmarthenshire County Council's 2nd LDP and my comments are noted below. I am happy for my written comments to be considered by the Inspector but I do not wish to speak at a hearing session.
Councillor Meinir James
Llangyndeyrn Ward



SP1 Twf Strategol 8 Opsiynau Twf
SP8 Y Gymraeg a Diwylliant Cymru
Mae 8,822 yn nifer rhy uchel o dai mewn cyfnod cymharol fyr a fydd yn handwyol iawn i’r Gymraeg yn Sir Gaerfyrddin. Mae darpariaeth hefyd yn yr 2il CDLl ar gyfer hyd at 9,704 o dai newydd yn fygythiad pellach i’r Gymraeg barhau a ffynnu yn ein cymunedau.
Mae rhagestyniadau twf poblogaeth Llywodraeth Cymru yn amcangyfrif cynnydd llawer is yn y boblogaeth ac yn gyffredinol mae mwy yn marw nag sydd yn cael eu geni yn Sir Gâr. Yn ôl ffigyrau Llywodraeth Cymru, 4100 o gynnydd yn y boblogaeth a welwyd mewn 10 mlynedd yn 2011.
Dylid ystyried beth yw’r gofynion yn y cymunedau ond mae opsiwn gofodol yn ystyried y defnydd o dir yn hytrach na’r effaith ar y defnydd tir ar y bobol a’r gymuned.
Mae’r opsiwn a ffefrir hefyd yn rhy uchelgeisiol o ran yr economi ag yn anelu at dyfiant llawer rhy gyflym fydd hefyd yn effeithio’n fawr ar y Gymraeg yng nghymunedau’r Sir.
Mae’r Cynllun yn nodi mai mewnfudo yw’r prif ffactor sy’n effeithio ar nifer y boblogaeth yn y Sir a phobol ifanc yw’r nifer fwyaf sy’n gadael y Sir. Mae angen i ni gadw ein pobol ifanc yn y Sir i sicrhau dyfodol a defnydd o’r Gymraeg yn ein cymunedau. Mae angen tai fforddadwy a thai pris cyrraeddiadwy i’n pobol ifanc i’w galluogi i brynu tŷ ag i aros yn y Sir. Mae adeiladu nifer fawr o dai, mawr, drud, allan o gyrraedd y rhai sydd am brynu eu cartref cyntaf.
Mae angen twf graddol a gofalus i ddiogelu a datblygu ein cymunedau i fod yn gymunedau hyfyw. Mae nifer o gadarnleoedd y Gymraeg yn ein pentrefi a chymunedau gwledig ac mae angen cynyddu niferoedd siaradwyr Cymraeg yn arbennig yn yr ardaloedd hyn.
Byddai 6500-7000 o dai yn ffigwr yn fwy realistig o ran y darpariaeth sydd ei angen gyda 45% o rhain yn dai fforddadwy, canran a awgrymir yn Fframwaith Datlbygu Cenedlaethol 2040 (Llywodraeth Cymru) yn rhoi bron 3000 o dai fforddadwy, a galli hynny gynnwys tai fydd y Cyngor yn eu prynu fel stoc dai hefyd.
Mae Fframwaith Datblygu Cenedlaethol 2040, Llywodraeth Cymru, yn nodi bydd angen 23,400 o dai yn Rhanbarth Canolbarth a De-Orllewin Cymru tan 2039 a thros y 5 mlynedd cyntaf fod angen 45% o rhain i fod yn dai fforddadwy. Mae Sir Gaerfyrddin yn rhan o’r rhanbarth yma sy’n cynnwys poblogaeth o dros 900,00 ac yn cynnwys Castell Nedd Port Talbot ac Abertawe ymhlith yr 8 ardal sydd o fewn y rhanbarth. Mae 8,822 o dai fel a nodir yn yr ail CDLl yn 37.7% o gyfanswm y tai mae Llywodraeth Cymru yn nodi sydd ei angen o fewn y rhanbarth. Nid yw hyn yn realistig nac ymarferol ac yn ategu bod 8,822 yn ffigwr rhy uchel ar gyfer Sir Gaerfyrddin.
Mae angen i ni fod yn uchelgeisiol dros ein cymunedau a pharhad y Gymraeg yn Sir Gaerfyrddin ond rhaid sicrhau bod yr uchelgais wedi’i nodi ar yr elfennau perthnasol fydd yn sicrhau cymunedau ffyniannus er lles ein trigolion. Mae pryder mawr bod cyfanswm y tai a fwriedir yn yr 2il CDLl yn atal ffyniant a pharhad y Gymraeg yn iaith gymunedol yn Sir Gaerfyrddin.

SP8 Y Gymraeg a Diwylliant Cymru
11.173
Nid yw ffigyrau niferoedd siaradwyr Cymraeg yn Sir Gaerfyrddin yng nghyfrifiad 2021 wedi’u hystyried ar gyfer yr 2il CDLl a’r ffigyrau o 2011 sydd wedi’u defnyddio, wedi dyddio. Gan fod y ffigyrau diweddaraf wedi dangos cwymp sylweddol i nifer y siaradwyr o fewn y Sir mae oblygiadau pell gyrhaeddol i’r 2il CDLl o ystyried y ffigyrau’n fanwl. Dylid edrych nid yn unig ar gyfanswm y nifer o siaradwyr Cymraeg, ond ym mhle mae’r nifer uchaf o siaradwyr er mwyn diogelu a datblygu’r Gymraeg yn y cymunedau hynny.
Dylai polisïau cynllunio a fabwysiedir o fewn yr 2il CDLl alluogi parhad a datblygiad y Gymraeg yn iaith fyw ym mhob cymuned o fewn y Sir gyda sylw arbennig yn cael ei roi i’r cymunedau sydd á’r canrannau uchaf o siaradwyr yng nghyfrifiad 2021.
Gan fod y niferoedd wedi gostwng yn sylweddol o fewn y Sir ers cyfrifiad 2011, mae’n amlwg nad yw’r polisïau cynllunio presennol yn ddigonol i barhad y Gymraeg yn iaith hyfyw o fewn y Sir. Rhaid wrth bolisiau cryf i sicrhau bod y Gymraeg yn ffynnu yng nghymunedau’r Sir.
Mae’n rhaid ail edrych ar yr 2il CDLl gan ddefnyddio ffigyrau Cyfrifiad 2021 i sicrhau bod y CDLl yn “hyrwyddo’r Gymraeg a’i diwylliant” (Amcanion Llesiant Sir Gaeryfrdidn 2017-18) “ac mae hefyd yn ymrwymedig i gyfrannu at nod hirdymor Llywodraeth Cymru o sicrhau 1 miliwn o siaradwyr Cymraeg erbyn 2050”(Cymraeg 2050: Miliwn o siaradwyr Cymraeg, Llywodraeth Cymru 2017). Mae Deddf Llesiant Cenedlaethau’r Dyfodol yn nodi “Cymru â diwylliant bywiog lle mae’r Gymraeg yn ffynnu” ac mae angen sicrhau bod y ffigyrau o’r cyfrifiad diweddaraf i sicrhau y gall Sir Gaerfyrddin gyrraedd y nod hwnnw.

WL1: Y Gymraeg a Datblygiadau Newydd
Er mwyn sicrhau bod ein cymunedau yn leoliadau “lle mae’r Gymraeg yn ffynnu”, rhaid cael Asesiad o’r Effaith ar y Gymraeg ar gyfer pob datblygiad o 5 tŷ neu fwy yn yr 2il CDLl gan gynnwys y dyraniadau tai sydd ym mholisiau HOM1 a HOM3. Mae pob datblygiad yn mynd i effeithio ar y Gymraeg yn y gymuned.
Nid yw Cynllun Gweithredu Iaith yn ddigonol ar gyfer y datblygiadau hyn nag unrhyw ddatblygiad o fewn y Sir, i sicrhau parhad a thwf y Gymraeg yn iaith hyfyw yn ein cymunedau. Mae angen Asesiad Effaith ar y Gymraeg a wneir yn annibynnol ac allanol ar raddfa a lefel sydd ar gyfer unrhyw asesiad arall e.e. priffyrdd, NRW, cadwraeth. Rhaid i’r Asesiad Effaith ar y Gymraeg gael ei drin a’i drafod hefyd ar yr un statws a’r asesiadau statudol eraill. Mae pwysigrwydd y Gymraeg yng nghymunedau’r Sir yn haeddu’r ystyriaethau ar y lefel hyn er mwyn cyrraedd y nodau a osodir yn neddfwriaethau Llywodraeth Cymru ac yn amcanion a nodau Cyngor Sir Gaerfyrddin a osodir yn Amcanion Llesiant Sir Gaerfyrddin a Strategaeth y Gymraeg.
Mae angen bod yn rhagweithiol i weld y cynnydd yn y Gymraeg a ddymunwn er lles ein cymunedau.
SP5 Strategaeth Tai Fforddiadwy
AHOM1: Darparu Tai Fforddiadwy – Cyfraniadau Ar-safle
Dylid gosod polisi amodol bod rhai o’r tai fforddiadwy i’w hadeiladu ar ddechrau’r datblygiad neu o leiaf yn rhan o’r 5 neu 10 tŷ cyntaf yn y datblygiad i sicrhau y caiff y tai fforddiadwy eu hadeiladu yn y tymor hir, yn ddi-rwystr.
Mae’n amodol i annedd sengl rhan-dalu swm cyfnewid wrth i’r annedd gael ei adeiladu a dylai amod tebyg i fod yn rhan o gyfraniad ar-safle at dai fforddiadwy hefyd.
Bydd hyn yn galluogi i ymateb i’r galw am dai fforddiadwy ynghynt hefyd gan y bydd yr anheddau ar gael ar ddechrau datblygiad a heb orfod aros i ddatblygiad gael ei gwblhau.

SP11 Yr Economi Ymwelwyr
11.247
Er lles ein cymunedau, a sicrhau tai i bobol leol a thai fforddiadwy i brynwyr cartrefi cyntaf, mae angen gosod cyfyngiadau ar hawliau datblygu a ganiateir i newid anheddau sy’n bodoli eisoes i gartrefi gwyliau, ail gartrefi, a hefyd llety gwyliau dros-dro fel Airbnb. Mae angen gosod canran o gartrefi o’r math yma a ganiateir mewn cymuned i sicrhau bod bywyd cymunedol yn parhau drwy gydol y flwyddyn a chartrefi priodol ar gael i bobol leol.

SP16 Newid yn yr Hinsawdd
Polisi CCH3 – Pwyntiau Gwefru Cerbydau Trydan
11.498/11.499/11.500
Byddai’n fwy addas a chost-effeithiol a chynaladwy i roi pwyntiau gwefru ‘3-fas’ (3-phase) ymhob annedd newydd. Gallai hyn alluogi’r preswylydd i’w defnyddio ar gyfer gwefru trydan a pwmpiau gwresogi. Byddai hyn hefyd yn galluogi’r preswylydd i ddefnyddio’r technoleg diweddaraf pan fyddent ei angen e.e. ni fydd gan bob preswylydd gar trydan yn syth a gallai’r pwynt gwefru trydan EV rhydu a mynd yn ofer yn y cyfamser.
Byddai hefyd yn well i asesu’r ddarpariaeth lleol wrth glustnodi gofodau pwynt gwefru mewn datblygiadau meysydd parcio gan y gallai fod llawer o bwyntiau gwefru yn y cyffiniau neu os nad oes dim byddai angen cynyddu’r 10%.
11.495/11.497
Mae’r heriau trafnidiaeth gyhoeddus a’r amrywiaeth yn y gofynion yng nghymunedau Sir Gaerfyrddin yn cynnig cyfle i hybu cynlluniau Ceir trydan cymunedol/i’w rhannu a syniadau eraill newydd y dylid eu hystyried yn opsyniau i ateb y gofynion.

CCH6
Wrth wynebu’r argyfwng newid hinsawdd dylid ystyried polisi cryfach nag anogaeth a rhoi ffafriaeth i roi neu gorfodi rhoi paneli solar, er enghraifft, ar bob tŷ mewn datblygiadau newydd yn enwedig ar bob tŷ fforddiadwy. Os yw to’r tŷ yn wynebu’r de, gorllewin neu’r dwyrain mae hwn yn ddewis fyddai’n gost effeithiol ar sawl lefel ag yn ateb cymharol syml ag effeithiol i leihau allyriadau carbon. Mae paneli solar ar gael sy’n gallu cael eu rhoi yn y to fyddai’n arbed gwario ar osod teils ar y to.
CHH7: Newid yn yr Hinsawdd – Fforestydd, Coetiroedd a Phlannu Coed
Tra’n cydnabod pwysigrwydd plannu coed a choetiroedd fel ymatebion i’r argyfwng hinsawdd, mae cynlluniau i brynu ffermydd lleol er mwyn cyflawni hyn yn tanseilio’r polisi. Dylid mabwysiadu opsiynau a chynlluniau i ffermwyr lleol i ddefnyddio rhan o’u tir i blannu’r coed a choetiroedd.
Byddai hyn yn sicrhau amddiffyn yr amgylchedd, treftadaeth ddiwylliannol, cymunedau a’n tirwedd ag yn sicrhau bywiolaeth i gadw’n pobol ifanc yng nghefn gwlad.


4 Sir Gaerfyrddin – Cyd-destun Strategol
Trosolwg pwynt 4.48
Tra’n cydnabod pwysigrywdd treftadaeth adeiledig y Sir, mae hyn yn her mawr yng ngyd-destun yr argyfwng newid hinsawdd yn arbennig mewn tref fel Llanymddyfri lle nad oes modd, ar hyn o bryd, i osod ynni adnewyddadwy fel paneli solar ar adeiladau’r dre. Nid yw’n ardal addas ar gyfer melinau gwynt chwaith ac mae hynny’n rhoi her arbennig i’r dref i fod yn gynaladwy.

Yn sgil yr argyfwng sydd o ran newid hinsawdd, mae angen datrys y math yma o sefyllfaoedd a chael hyblygrwydd gan fod paneli solar, er enghraifft, yn osodiad dros-dro a ddim yn amharu ar strwythur yr adeiladau.

SP1 Strategic Growth 8 Growth Options
SP8 Welsh Language and Culture
8,822 is too high a number of houses in a relatively short period of time which will be very detrimental to the Welsh language in Carmarthenshire. There is also provision in the 2nd LDP for up to 9,704 new homes which poses a further threat to the Welsh language in terms of its continuity and its ability to thrive in our communities.
The Welsh Government's population growth projections estimate a much lower increase in population and overall more die than are born in Carmarthenshire. According to Welsh Government figures, in 2011 a population increase of 4100 was observed over 10 years.
Consideration should be given to what the requirements are in the communities, but a spatial option considers the land use rather than the impact of the land use on the people and the community.
The preferred option is also too ambitious in terms of the economy and it aims for far too rapid growth which will also greatly impact the Welsh language in the County's communities.
The Scheme identifies immigration as the main factor affecting population numbers in the County and young people are the largest number leaving the County. We need to keep our young people in the County to ensure the future and use of Welsh in our communities. We need affordable housing and housing at an attainable price for our young people to enable them to buy a house and stay in the County. Building a large number of large, expensive houses is out of reach for those who want to buy their first home.
Gradual and careful growth is needed to protect and develop our communities into viable communities. Many of the Welsh language strongholds are located in our villages and rural communities and the numbers of Welsh speakers need to be increased in these areas in particular.
A figure of 6500-7000 houses would be more realistic in terms of the provision needed with 45% of these being affordable housing, a percentage suggested in the National Development Framework 2040 (Welsh Government). This would provide almost 3000 affordable homes, which could include houses that the Council will buy as housing stock as well.
The Welsh Government's National Development Framework 2040 states that 23,400 houses will be needed in the Mid and South West Wales Region until 2039 and over the first 5 years 45% of these are required to be affordable housing. Carmarthenshire is part of this region which includes a population of over 900,00 and includes Neath Port Talbot and Swansea among the 8 areas within the region. 8,822 houses as set out in the second LDP is 37.7% of the total number of housing that is identified by the Welsh Government as being required within the region. This is neither realistic nor practical and reinforces that the figure of 8,822 is too high for Carmarthenshire.
We need to be ambitious for our communities and the continuation of the Welsh language in Carmarthenshire but we must ensure that the ambition is based on the relevant elements that will ensure thriving communities for the benefit of our residents. There is great concern that the total number of houses intended in the 2nd LDP is preventing the prosperity and continuation of Welsh as a community language in Carmarthenshire.

SP8 Welsh Language and Culture
11.173
The figures for the number of Welsh speakers in Carmarthenshire in the 2021 census have not been considered for the 2nd LDP and the figures from 2011 that have been used, are out of date. As the latest figures have shown a significant drop in the number of speakers within the County the 2nd LDP has far-reaching implications when considering the figures in detail. One should look not only at the total number of Welsh speakers, but also where the highest numbers of speakers are located in order to protect and develop the Welsh language in those communities.
Planning policies adopted within the 2nd LDP should enable the continuation and development of Welsh as a living language in all communities within the County, with particular attention given to the communities with the highest percentages of speakers in the 2021 census.
As numbers have decreased significantly within the County since the 2011 census, it is clear that the current planning policies are not sufficient for the continuation of Welsh as a viable language within the County. Robust policies are required to ensure that the Welsh language thrives in the County's communities.
The 2nd LDP must be revisited using 2021 Census figures to ensure that the LDP "promotes Welsh language and culture" (Carmarthenshire Well-being Objectives 2017-18) "and is also committed to contributing to the Welsh Government's long-term goal of achieving 1 million Welsh speakers by 2050" (Cymraeg 2050: A million Welsh speakers, Welsh Government 2017). The Well-being of Future Generations Act states "A Wales of vibrant culture and thriving Welsh language" and the figures from the latest census need to be upheld to ensure that Carmarthenshire is able to achieve that goal.

WL1: Welsh Language and New Developments
To ensure that our communities are locations "of thriving Welsh language", a Welsh Language Impact Assessment must be held for all developments of 5 or more houses in the 2nd LDP including the housing allocations included in the HOM1 and HOM3 policies. Every development is going to impact the Welsh language in the community.
The Language Action Plan is not sufficient for these developments or any development within the County, to ensure the continuity and growth of Welsh as a viable language in our communities. A Welsh Language Impact Assessment is required which is undertaken independently and externally at a similar scale and level as would be for any other assessment e.g. highways, NRW, conservation. The Welsh Language Impact Assessment must also be dealt with and discussed with the same status as the other statutory assessments. The importance of the Welsh language in the County's communities deserves to be considered at this level in order to reach the goals set out in Welsh Government legislations and in Carmarthenshire County Council's objectives and aims set out in Carmarthenshire's Wellbeing Objectives and the Welsh Language Strategy.
We need to be proactive to see the increase in the Welsh language that we desire for the benefit of our communities.

SP5 Affordable Homes Strategy
AHOM1: Provision of Affordable Homes - On-site Contributions
A conditional policy should be set that some of the affordable homes are to be built at the beginning of the development or at least as part of the first 5 or 10 houses in the development to ensure that the affordable homes are built unhindered in the long term.
It is conditional for a single dwelling to pay in part a Commuted Sum as the dwelling is built and a similar condition should also be part of an on-site contribution to affordable homes.
This will also enable an earlier response to the demand for affordable homes as the dwellings will be available at the beginning of development and without having to wait for development to be completed.

SP11 The Visitor Economy
11.247
For the benefit of our communities, and to ensure housing for local people and affordable homes for first home buyers, restrictions need to be placed on permitted development rights to change existing dwellings into holiday homes, second homes, and also temporary holiday accommodation such as Airbnb. A percentage of this type of homes allowed in a community needs to be set to ensure that community life continues throughout the year and that suitable homes are available to local people.

SP16 Climate Change
Policy CCH3 – Electric Vehicle Charging Points
11.498/11.499/11.500
It would be more suitable and cost-effective and sustainable to install 3-phase charging points in all new dwellings. This could enable the resident to use them for electric charging and heating pumps. This would also enable the occupant to use the latest technology when they need it e.g. not every resident will have an electric car at once and the EV electric charging point could rust and go to waste in the meantime.
It would also be better to assess local provision when allocating charging points in car park developments as there may be many charging points in the vicinity or if there are none the 10% required would need to be increased.

11.495/11.497
The public transport challenges and the diversity of requirements within Carmarthenshire communities offer an opportunity to promote community/shared electric car schemes and other new ideas that should be considered as options to meet the requirements.

CCH6
When facing the climate change crisis, more robust policy should be considered than encouragement and preference should be given to installing or enforcing the installation of solar panels, for example, on all houses in new developments particularly on all affordable homes. If the roof of the house faces south, west or east this is an option that would be cost effective on many levels as a relatively simple and effective solution to reduce carbon emissions. There are solar panels available that can be installed in the roof that would save spending on installing tiles on the roof.
CCH7: Climate Change – Forest, Woodland, and Tree Planting
While recognising the importance of planting trees and woodlands as responses to the climate crisis, schemes to buy local farms to achieve this undermine the policy. Options and schemes should be adopted for local farmers to use part of their land to plant the trees and woodlands.
This would ensure that the environment, cultural heritage, communities and landscape are protected and would ensure livelihoods to retain our young people in the countryside.

4 Carmarthenshire – Strategic Context
Point 4.48 overview
Whilst recognising the importance of the County's built heritage, this is a major challenge in the context of the climate change crisis, particularly in a town such as Llandovery where it is currently not possible to install renewable energy such as solar panels on town buildings. It's also not a suitable area for wind turbines and that poses the town a particular challenge to be sustainable.

In light of the climate change crisis, these kind of situations need to be resolved and there needs to be flexibility as solar panels, for example, are a temporary installation and do not impair the structure of the buildings.

Ni nodwyd unrhyw newid penodol.
___
No specific change noted.

Carem fynegi fy nghefnogaeth llwyr I’r ddogfen mae’r Cynghorwraig Carys Jones wedi ei baratoi ar y Cynllun Datblygi Lleol (LDP) ar ran Cynghorwyr Plaid Cymru sydd ar Gyngor Sir Gâr.

Credaf ei bod yn hollol bwysig i Gyngor Sir Gâr ac ar draws Cymru gyfan, fedri cefnogi pobl lleol sydd yn byw yn ein hardaloedd gwledig neu am ddod yn ôl i’w hardal genedigol, gael y cyfle a phob cefnogaeth i adeiladu yn yr ardal eu magwyd.
Mae pobl lleol yn mynd yn hynnach ac felly am ymddeol yn yr ardal ac nid am orfod mynd I fyw yn y pentref neu dref agosaf, maent hwy a chenedlaethau cynt wedi gwasanaethu eu hardal wledig lleol a dylem fedri eu cefnogi.
Gweler yr angen ar ieuenctud sydd wedi mynd I ffwrdd I wella eu haddysg neu i weithio sydd am ddod yn ôl I fyw neu am ddechrau bywyd teuluol yn nghefn gwlad ac felly cefnogi yr ysgol a’r diwylliant Cymreig lleol. Yn yr oes hon, gyda chostiau byw mor uchel mae codi teulu yn haws drwy gael Datcu a Mamgu neu aelodau eraill o’r teulu i warchod a chludo plant fel bod angen, yn werthfawr dros ben ac amrhisiadwy. Hefyd gyda phwysau trwm ar yr Awdurdodau Iechyd mae cael ieuenctu I gynorthwyo edrych ar ôl aelodau hynnach o’r teulu yn ysgafnhau ar hyn.
Nid oes daear ar gael I bawb o fewn y CDLl/LDP yng nghefn gwlad ac felly dylem fod yn medri edrych ar geisiadau yn unigol ac yn medri bod yn hyblug I drafod ar yr hyn sydd yn cael ei ofyn amdano ac hyn tu allan ir LDP
Yr Ardaloedd Gwledig yw cadarnle yr Iaith Gymraeg a gyda’r iaith Gymraeg yn mynd i lawr yn nifer y siaradwyr dylem fod yn cymeryd hyn i ystyriaeth a gwneud y gorau i anog tyfiant yr iath ym mhoblogaeth cefn gwald Cymru.
Mae Llywodraeth Cymru am weld nifer y Siaradwyr Cymraeg yn Filiwn erbyn y Flwyddyn 2050 ac os na wneir yr amodau cynllunio yng nghefn gwlad Cymru yn llawer mwy hyblug a’r modd I ddefnyddio synnwyr cyffredin, yna nid oes posib achub ar yr iaith fel y bwriedir.

Gobeithio y gwnewch ystyried o ddifri beth sydd gennyf I’w ddweud uchod ac y gwnewch weithredi yn ffafriol.

Dear Department
I would like to express my full support for the document that Councillor Carys Jones has prepared on the Local Development Plan (LDP) on behalf of Plaid Cymru Councillors on Carmarthenshire County Council.

I think it is vital for Carmarthenshire County Council and the whole of Wales, to be able to support local people who live in our rural areas or who want to come back to the area to have the opportunity to do so and every support to build in the area they grew up in.
Local people are getting older and want to retire in the area, they do not want to have to go and live in the nearest village or town, they and generations before them have served their local rural area and we should be able to support them.
There is demand from young people who have gone away to improve their education or to work who want to come back to live or start family life in the countryside and therefore support the local Welsh school and culture. In this day and age, with the cost of living so high, raising a family is made easier by having grandparents or other family members to help look after and transport the children as necessary, this is extremely valuable and priceless. Also with considerable pressure on the Health Authorities, having young people to help look after older family members will ease this pressure.
There isn't land available for everyone within the LDP in the countryside and so we should be able to look at applications individually and be able to be flexible to discuss what is being asked for and this should be done outside of the LDP.
Rural areas are the heartland of the Welsh language and with the number of Welsh speakers decreasing we should be taking this into account and doing our best to encourage the growth of the language in the rural population of Wales. The Welsh Government wants to see the number of Welsh speakers reach a million by 2050, if planning conditions in rural Wales are not more flexible and the means to use common sense, then it won't be possible to save the language as intended.

I hope you will consider what I have said above seriously and that you will act favourably.

Amend Plan to address these issues

Submitted on behalf of all Plaid Cymru Councillors on Carmarthenshire County Council – April 2023

SECOND REVISED LOCAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN 2018 - 2033
CYNGOR SIR GÂR
RESPONSE TO PUBLIC CONSULTATION March/April 2023
This document attempts to measure the aims of the LDP against the specific proposals as regards RURAL
DEVELOPMENT, SUSTAINABLE RURAL COMMUNITIES and the WELSH LANGUAGE.
It is compiled from the point of view of Local Members who attempt to build strong rural communities
within the limitations presented in the Local Development Plan and the the Planning environment.
Critical issues faced by rural communities at this time include:
• De-population – loss of young people, leading to loss of young families, leading to loss of
generation of children and further young people – a cycle which rural communities cannot control
nor influence;
• Altered demographic – increasing purchase and occupation of residential dwellings by older
couples or individuals, either retired or preparing for retirement, both local and from afar –
ultimately leading to “retirement villages”;
• Market forces – demand of older generations who have the means to purchase a rural lifestyle
pushing property prices beyond the reach of younger working families;
• Media marketing – “lifestyle” programming on TV and other media encouraging urban dwellers to
aspire to idyllic rural locations thus squeezing local lower earners from access to the local market;
• Tourism – economic considerations from the (sporadic) visitor industry is prioritised above the
economic contribution of (permanent) rural residential working families;
• Yr Iaith Gymraeg – Planning Statements placing the Welsh Language in a priority position while
Planning Policy failing to protect or develop Welsh Language rural strongholds;
• Community – traditional rural community structures breaking due to fragmented demographic,
contrasting cultures and consequential loss of cultural heritage;
• Community Services – lack of young families stepping into and running the voluntary community
services such as sports clubs, PTAs, Church/Chapel groups, social events etc.;
• The Family – breakdown of “family care cycle”. While young families are not living near their
parents, care of the elderly by the younger generation and childcare by the older generation
cannot be provided, resulting in isolation and additional pressures on Care Services.
• Local Culture – not necessarily being recognised or acknowledged by new demographic. Absence of
younger generation to inherit and exercise local culture and tradition resulting in their demise and
disappearance.
How can the LDP support ordinary people in ordinary rural communities to develop their economy,
language and culture?
TAN 6: 2.1.2 “Planning authorities should assess the needs and priorities of rural communities. They
should interrogate published sources of information such as the Wales Rural Observatory, and if
necessary commission research to identify rural economic and social conditions and needs.”
The Wales Rural Observatory ceased to exist in 2014. The most recent report on rural communities was
published in 2013. Many of the issues above were identified at that time:
“A common concern … was that disproportionately high housing prices, fuelled by demand for
commuting, second homes, holiday homes and retirement accommodation, was taking owner
occupation beyond the reach of many people resulting in young people and young families being
driven out of the communities where they worked or had grown up.”
Ten years later, however, these issues remain unaddressed in national and local policies.
2
LDP: Carmarthenshire County Council Second Deposit Revised Local Development Plan - Written Statement
TAN: Welsh Government Planning Policy and Guidance: National Policy - Technical Advice Note
PPW: Welsh Government Planning Policy Wales – Edition 11 2021
As recommended, Carmarthenshire County Council has commissioned its own research to identify rural
needs:
MOVING RURAL CARMARTHENSHIRE FORWARD – Report and Recommendations of the Carmarthenshire
Rural Affairs Task Group – June 2019:
“As a local authority we cannot directly influence decisions that are made in Cardiff, London and
Brussels but we can strongly urge our representatives to do whatever they can to safeguard the
future of rural Carmarthenshire and rural Wales. This is essential so that future generations can
live, work and spend their leisure time in communities where valued traditions can be maintained,
but are also resilient enough to adapt to an ever-changing social and economic landscape. This
report seeks to encapsulate that crucial balance between preservation and progression.”
There is a disconnect between the recommendations in the MOVING RURAL CARMARTHENSHIRE
FORWARD report – supporting the efforts of local people to maintain and develop rural communities –
and the inflexibility of the planning framework.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
OBSERVATIONS AND CONSIDERATIONS ON
SPECIFIC ASPECTS OF THE LDP
(A number of observations and considerations are common to more than one Strategic Policy)
LDP: HOM3 - Homes in Rural Villages
11.90 This part of the Plan's rural policy framework seeks to establish a flexible but controlled approach to
the delivery of new homes within those (Rural Villages) settlements. The Plan utilises a criteria-based
assessment to define small scale housing opportunities in rural villages and to meet the need for new
homes in rural parts of Carmarthenshire at a scale and at locations which maintain the essential character
of the countryside.
PPW Housing 4.2.1: Planning authorities must understand all aspects of the housing market in their
areas, which will include the requirement, supply and delivery of housing. This will allow planning
authorities to develop evidence-based market and affordable housing policies in their development
plans and make informed development management decisions that focus on the creation and
enhancement of Sustainable Places.
TAN 2.2.1: Many rural communities can accommodate development, particularly to meet local needs.
New development can help to generate wealth to support local services, ensuring that communities are
sustainable in the long term. A key question for the planning authority, when identifying sites in the
development plan or determining planning applications, is whether the proposed development
enhances or decreases the sustainability of the community. In particular, planning authorities should
support developments that would help to achieve a better balance between housing and employment,
encouraging people to live and work in the same locality.
Observations:
• The policies exert much control but very little flexibility within rural settlements.
• The “character of the countryside” is not defined in planning terms. It seems to refer to the
appearance of the countryside while it should, in fact, refer to all aspects of rural life. It is the
biodiversity, the nature, the traditions and, primarily, the local knowledge of the history and culture
of that part of the countryside which forms the character.
• If we lose the local residents then we lose that knowledge and protection.
3
LDP: Carmarthenshire County Council Second Deposit Revised Local Development Plan - Written Statement
TAN: Welsh Government Planning Policy and Guidance: National Policy - Technical Advice Note
PPW: Welsh Government Planning Policy Wales – Edition 11 2021
• The criteria-based assessment prioritises maintaining the character of the countryside above
maintaining a local community.
• The policies fail to recognise the contribution of the local community to maintaining the character of
the countryside through its knowledge, traditions and protective practices.
CONSIDERATIONS:
• To apply additional flexibility to policies for rural villages to allow the needs of the
community to be met.
• To acknowledge the role of village residents in the enhancement and protection of the
“character of the countryside”.
• To measure the contribution a development makes to the well-being of the community
as opposed to considering only the perceived potential harm.
• To assess and recognise the scale of development required in rural villages to secure their
future as community strongholds.
LDP: HOM3 - Guidance on Acceptable Plots
Infill sites within these rural villages will take priority over other locations;
Where appropriate, sites adjoining a rural village are also acceptable. Such sites will be required to adjoin
the boundary of one property which forms part of the rural village group. All proposals which adjoin a group
(as opposed to infill sites) will be required to demonstrate the following:
• there is an existing physical or visual feature which provides a boundary for the group -
reducing pressure for unacceptable ribbon development or rural sprawl;
• where such a feature does not exist, there should be potential for such a feature to be provided
so long as it is in character with the scale and appearance of the group;
• Proposals located in open fields adjoining a group, which have no physical features to provide
containment will not be considered acceptable.
Observations:
• While infill sites should take priority over other locations, this should not exclude other locations.
• These rigid limitations appear logical in theory, but they are not practical in many rural settlements.
• The limitations do not take into account variances in our local topography.
CONSIDERATIONS:
1. To consider further potential development capacity in and around rural villages.
2. To apply rounding-off of boundaries to include capacity which logically allows sensitive
development.
3. To evidence actual harm against the potential for community benefit in setting and
respecting development boundaries.
LDP: HOM3 - Housing within development limits
Proposals which exceed the 10% cap above the number of existing homes in the settlement, as at the LDP
base date, will not be permitted except where they conform to Policy AHOM1 in relation to the provision of
affordable homes.
Observations:
• A settlement of 100 houses may only grow by 10 homes during the life of the LDP.
• A hamlet of 10 homes may only grow by 1 home during the life of the LDP.
• The rigidity of the 10% cap is not sympathetic to the aspiration to build sustainable rural
communities.
4
LDP: Carmarthenshire County Council Second Deposit Revised Local Development Plan - Written Statement
TAN: Welsh Government Planning Policy and Guidance: National Policy - Technical Advice Note
PPW: Welsh Government Planning Policy Wales – Edition 11 2021
• While an exception is provided for Affordable Housing, the needs of a community may also include
market housing such as bungalows, “downsize” accommodation and dwellings to fit growing
families.
• If the linguistic and cultural vitality of rural villages is encouraged to grow from the inside, then rigid
caps are not appropriate.
CONSIDERATIONS:
1. To measure each application for a residential dwelling on its merits in the context of its
community, not only the context of development boundaries.
2. To assess the potential for development within or bordering the development limits in
the context of the particular settlement, and provide flexibility of boundaries where the
geography/topography does not allow expansion.
3. To provide for exceptions where affordable/local needs housing cannot be
accommodated within or bordering the development limits.
4. To consider the need for market housing to meet the needs of those who will not qualify
for Affordable Housing.
5. To remove the 10% cap above the number of existing homes in the settlement.
LDP: HOM4: Homes in Non-Defined Rural Settlements
Proposals for new single homes in settlements, hamlets and groups of dwellings which are not identified
under Strategic Policy SP3 will be permitted where they meet a local need for affordable housing and
conform to the following:
• It represents sensitive infill development of a small gap within an otherwise continuous built-up
frontage; or, is an appropriate rounding off of the development pattern;
• The development is of a scale that is consistent with the character of the area;
• The proposal will not result in an intrusive development in the landscape, and will not introduce a
fragmented development pattern;
• The size of the property reflects the specific need for an affordable dwelling in terms of the size of
the house and the number of bedrooms;
• That the occupancy of the dwelling is restricted both on first occupation and in perpetuity to those
who have a need for an affordable dwelling.
11.93 There are a notable number of small settlements or groups of dwellings throughout the County which
have not been defined within the settlement framework, and as such do not have development limits.
11.94 It is also noted that such provision needs to be delivered within the backdrop of a national agenda
centred on sustainability with placemaking at its heart. In this respect reference is made to the provisions of
PPW Ed.11 which requires that all residential development away from existing settlements or centres be
strictly controlled. The policy therefore in reflecting the provisions of national policy restricts local
affordable need dwellings in rural areas to established groups of dwellings.
PPW Strategic Placemaking 3.44: Consideration should be given to whether specific interventions from
the public and/or private sector, such as regeneration strategies or funding, are required to help deliver
the strategy and specific development proposals.
PPW Development in the Countryside 3.60: Development in the countryside should be located within
and adjoining those settlements where it can best be accommodated in terms of infrastructure, access,
habitat and landscape conservation. Infilling or minor extensions to existing settlements may be
acceptable, in particular where they meet a local need for affordable housing or it can be
demonstrated that the proposal will increase local economic activity. However, new building in the
open countryside away from existing settlements or areas allocated for development in development
plans must continue to be strictly controlled.
5
LDP: Carmarthenshire County Council Second Deposit Revised Local Development Plan - Written Statement
TAN: Welsh Government Planning Policy and Guidance: National Policy - Technical Advice Note
PPW: Welsh Government Planning Policy Wales – Edition 11 2021
PPW Housing Delivery 4.2.24: In the open countryside, away from established settlements recognised
in development plans or away from other areas allocated for development, the fact that a single house
on a particular site would be unobtrusive is not, by itself, a good argument in favour of permission;
such permissions could be granted too often, to the overall detriment of the character of an area.
11.95 Whilst the Revised LDP is supported by a robust evidence base it is acknowledged that details of
housing need changes over time. Affordable housing proposals will be required to submit evidence
demonstrating the specific local need and ensure that the proposal provides for the size, type and tenure of
houses required. Proposals to meet speculative local need application will not be considered, rather they
should relate to an identified need from individuals/families within the specific area.
11.96 Where available, local housing needs surveys should be utilised in providing this evidence.
Alternatively, other forms of evidence may be considered appropriate including Strategic Housing Market
Area Assessments and local needs/Lettings registers.
Observations:
• Each regulation is based on geography and existing development patterns. The “protection” of the
settlement image takes priority over the actual needs of local people.
• There is no provision at all for dwellings which are not Affordable Housing. Not all local people need
Affordable Housing, but they have Local Housing Needs for a variety of reasons.
• Small Settlements or Groups of Dwellings are common in our rural countryside. While needing to be
“controlled”, exceptions should be possible where there is evidenced local need.
• Such exceptions should not be limited to Affordable Housing as many mature members of the
community do not qualify. Older members of the community have a strong need to remain in their
community for reasons of health, mental health and social interaction.
• Box-ticking to qualify for Local Needs does not always allow local people to express their unique
needs or to argue their case outside the specific requirements.
• While Local Needs/Letting registers may confirm the needs of young families seeking housing, many
members of the community who have local needs are excluded from housing registers.
• Retiring local farmers or other rural workers will not qualify for Affordable Housing in their life-long
community. No provision is possible for families or individuals who need to stay within their support
network in Non-Defined Rural Settlements.
CONSIDERATIONS:
1. To prioritise the needs of the people and the community over the visual or conceptual image
of the settlement.
2. To use the actual housing needs of applicants to drive the policy, not devise a policy which
excludes the very housing needs it is intended to address.
3. To provide some capacity with the policy for those who do not qualify for Affordable
Housing but whose needs are equally important.
4. To define what “too often” means in granting permissions in the open countryside, and
consider the local needs of individuals above non-defined caps.
5. To consider the need within the community for young families, not only the need of a family
to live in a location.
6. To provide a needs-assessment which is not exclusively a “box-ticking” exercise.
7. To prioritise matching the needs of individuals with the needs of the community over
reducing numbers on Housing Registers.
LDP: AHOM2 - Affordable Housing - Exceptions Sites
Proposals for 100% affordable housing development on sites adjoining the Development Limits of defined
settlements (Tiers 1-3 in Policy SP3), will, in exceptional circumstances be permitted where it is to meet a
genuine identified local need (as defined within the Glossary of Terms) and where:
6
LDP: Carmarthenshire County Council Second Deposit Revised Local Development Plan - Written Statement
TAN: Welsh Government Planning Policy and Guidance: National Policy - Technical Advice Note
PPW: Welsh Government Planning Policy Wales – Edition 11 2021
• The site represents a logical extension to the development limits and is of a scale appropriate, and
in keeping with the character of the settlement;
• The benefits of the initial affordability will be retained for all subsequent occupants;
• It is of a size, scale and design compatible with an affordable dwelling and available to low or
moderate income groups;
• There are no market housing schemes within the settlement, or projected to be available which
include a requirement for affordable housing.
TAN 6: 2.2.4: They (planners) should also ensure that any sites identified for development are effectively
available and likely to be brought forward for development by the owner. This is particularly important in
smaller settlements, where a limited number of landowners may control land supply
TAN 2: 10.12: It is important that there is adequate housing provision in rural areas to meet the needs
of local people and to contribute to the delivery of sustainable communities. Development plans must
set out how planning at the local level will contribute to meeting identified rural affordable housing
needs.
TAN 2: 10.16 Local planning authorities must set out in their development plan their definition of ‘local
need’ for affordable housing in rural areas, within the overall aim of contributing to the delivery of
sustainable communities. This can include:
• existing households needing separate accommodation in the area;
• people whose work provides essential services and who need to live closer to the local
community;
• people with a family connection or long standing links with the local community; and
• people with a job offer in the locality who require affordable housing.
For some of these categories the area within which needs will be considered ‘local’ must also be
defined in the development plan. This may include:
• the village or group of villages;
• the community council area;
• an electoral ward or group of wards;
• the local authority area.
TAN 2: 10.14 Rural exception sites are not appropriate for market housing.
11.124 An affordable dwelling must be compatible with WG's Design Quality Requirement standards to limit its
size, scale and design to ensure that the dwelling falls within a reasonable and acceptable affordable dwelling
cost for future occupants. In exceptional circumstances, a departure from these standards may be considered
appropriate where they are to meet the occupant's needs and are clearly evidenced and justified.
Observations:
• Availability of land dictates the potential for Exception Sites.
• While Exception Sites provide the potential for Affordable Housing adjoining Local Development
boundaries, this may not be possible in many rural villages.
• The topography of our area does not always permit development outside existing settlements and
steep gradients make affordable construction unviable.
• Where land may be available, other factors may not meet requirements such as Highways, SAB
assessments etc. thus limiting the potential for development.
• Non-availability of land in and around Defined and Non-Defined Rural Settlements results in no housing
to meet local needs.
7
LDP: Carmarthenshire County Council Second Deposit Revised Local Development Plan - Written Statement
TAN: Welsh Government Planning Policy and Guidance: National Policy - Technical Advice Note
PPW: Welsh Government Planning Policy Wales – Edition 11 2021
• There are natural boundaries between communities which dictate social interaction. A nearby
community, across a river or motorway, may be more alien to a local individual than a town twenty
miles further afield.
• There is no provision at all for market housing in many rural settlements. If you don’t qualify for Local
Needs, or there is no Local Needs capacity in your community – you can’t live there.
• The size, scale and design of Affordable Housing cannot accommodate a growing family, especially
where children are not all of the same gender and vary in age.
• “Exceptional Circumstances” may not be so exceptional. Some quite ordinary circumstances exclude
local people from qualifying for Local Need.
• Young families wishing to return to their area to bring up their children and who have owned a
home in another area will not qualify for Affordable Housing, but cannot afford open market
housing.
• There is no guidance on what constitutes an “exception”. The policy accommodates nuclear families
with 2.4 children. There is no provision for Blended Families whose needs are more varied and
extensive.
CONSIDERATIONS:
1. To acknowledge that Exception Sites are at the discretion of local landowners, access/highways
restrictions, SAB requirements and other limiting factors.
2. Where no Exception Sites can be identified, to exercise flexibility in considering alternative sites
which may deviate from the current permitted sites.
3. Where particular individual “locality” needs are identified, to consider applications for nonaffordable
housing development in the interest of the individual, the family and the community.
4. To consider the definition of “local” in the context of the individual and the community rather
than by a radius of concentric miles.
5. To assess the needs of growing families when calculating the size, scale and design of Affordable
Housing in order to provide long-term security and a decent quality of life.
6. To acknowledge the housing aspirations of young families in rural areas as a material planning
consideration.
LDP: EME4 - Employment Proposals on Non-Allocated Sites
Proposals for employment development on non-allocated sites, but within the development limits of a
defined settlement will be permitted where:
• it is demonstrated that no other suitable existing or allocated employment sites or previously
developed land can reasonably accommodate the proposal;
• the development proposals are of an appropriate scale and form, and are not detrimental to the
respective character and appearance of the townscape/ landscape;
• The development is compatible with its location and with neighbouring uses.
Employment proposals outside the development limits of a defined settlement (Policy SP3) will be permitted
where:
• The proposal is directly related to a settlement or hamlet; or
• The proposal is supported by a business case which demonstrates that its location is justified; and
• The proposal is of an appropriate scale, size and design.
11.165 For proposals outside the development limits of a defined settlement, they must show that they are
directly related to a settlement or hamlet, or supported by a business case which justifies its location. The
Plan recognises that small-scale enterprises have a vital role to play in the rural economy and contribute to
both local and national competitiveness and prosperity. Many commercial and light manufacturing
activities can be appropriately located in rural areas without causing unacceptable disturbance or other
adverse effects. In this respect, the development of small businesses would address any local need for
employment accommodation.
8
LDP: Carmarthenshire County Council Second Deposit Revised Local Development Plan - Written Statement
TAN: Welsh Government Planning Policy and Guidance: National Policy - Technical Advice Note
PPW: Welsh Government Planning Policy Wales – Edition 11 2021
PPW: The Rural Economy 5.6.4 To unlock the full potential of rural areas, planning authorities should
adopt a positive approach to employment arising from foundation and innovative and technology
based sectors, including research and development, in addition to employment arising from the
traditional agriculture, forestry and leisure sectors. Proposals for diversification, new startups and
micro-businesses should also be encouraged, where appropriate, to generate new job and wealthcreating
opportunities.
TAN 6: 2.2.2: Development plans should define local need taking into account the social, economic and
environmental characteristics of the area. Where possible existing definitions of local need,
for example affordable housing to meet local need, should be adopted, or if necessary modified
to include other land uses.
Observations:
• There is no connection provided between Employment on Non-allocated Sites and the needs of rural
villages to remain sustainable. Living and working within the community is vital to its existence.
• Some capacity has to be provided to acknowledge the place of small-scale businesses within rural
communities. There is no provision for small-scale commercial enterprises.
• The increase in home-working needs to be supported by flexibility across all genres of employment.
Additional space may be needed – inside and outside development limits – to accommodate future
working practices.
• This will be mitigated by reduction in travel and healthier work-life balances, thus meeting the aims
of our well-being goals.
CONSIDERATIONS:
1. To apply flexibility in meeting the needs of local people to work within their community.
2. To provide working spaces which accommodate local employment in areas outside or
without development limits.
3. To encourage satellite working as and when technology permits during the lifetime of the
LDP.
LDP: SP 8 - Welsh Language and Culture
The Plan supports development proposals which safeguard, promote and enhance the interests of the
Welsh language and culture in the County. Development proposals which have a detrimental impact on the
vitality and viability of the Welsh language and culture will not be permitted unless the impact can be
mitigated. All development proposals subject to WL1, will be expected to identify measures which enhance
the interests of the Welsh language and culture.
11.174 The Plan seeks to 'promote the Welsh language and culture'[59] and is committed to contributing to
the Welsh Government's long-term aim of achieving 1 million Welsh speakers by 2050[60]. To deliver on this
aim, the Council will support, promote, and enhance the Welsh language as a viable community language
by ensuring that there are sufficient and proportionate employment and housing opportunities to sustain
both the rural and urban communities in the County and by implementing an effective monitoring
framework. In doing so, the Plan seeks to ensure that the local population have the opportunity to remain in
Carmarthenshire rather than leave in search of work opportunities and housing, as well as the opportunity
to return. Through aiming for sustainable growth, the Plan will also maximise opportunities for non-Welsh
speakers who move to the County to be integrated into community life at a scale and pace that will not
undermine the vitality and viability of the Welsh language and culture.
11.177 The Plan also seeks to safeguard, promote, and enhance the Welsh language in Carmarthenshire
through other relevant policy objectives, namely through the provision of housing and affordable housing,
promoting a vibrant economy and employment opportunities and the provision and retention of community
facilities, amongst others.
9
LDP: Carmarthenshire County Council Second Deposit Revised Local Development Plan - Written Statement
TAN: Welsh Government Planning Policy and Guidance: National Policy - Technical Advice Note
PPW: Welsh Government Planning Policy Wales – Edition 11 2021
TAN 20: 1.4.8 Section 70(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1992 (TCPA) clarifies that
considerations relating to the use of the Welsh language may be taken into account when determining
applications for planning permission, so far as they are material to the application. This may apply to
any application in any part of Wales. This provision does not give any additional weight to the Welsh
language above any other material consideration.
LDP: WL1 - Welsh Language and New Developments
All development proposals throughout Carmarthenshire will be required to safeguard, promote and
enhance the Welsh language … Proposals which do not accord with the Plan's housing trajectory will be
required to provide a phasing plan outlining the timescales for delivering the homes proposed on the site
and demonstrate that they would not have a negative impact upon the Welsh language which cannot be
mitigated.
11.178 The Welsh Language Action Plan sets out the measures to be taken to safeguard, promote and
enhance the Welsh language. The Welsh Language Action Plan should also outline how the development
proposes to make a positive contribution towards the community's Welsh language groups. This could,
amongst others, include providing support and funding towards organisations and bodies that provide
activities, facilities and education for Welsh speakers and learners, and support and funding towards Welsh
language classes. Welsh Language Impact Assessments (WLIA) will be required to outline the anticipated
impacts of the proposed development upon the Welsh language in the County. The Welsh Language
Supplementary Planning Guidance[61] provides further guidance on when a WLIA is required, clarifying
what constitutes a large scale development, as well as how to produce a WLIA.
11.182 The ISA of the LDP is required to assess the likely effects of the LDP upon the Welsh language. This is
done iteratively at key stages throughout the Plan's production. The likely anticipated effects are presented
in the ISA report, and further information is available within the LDP's evidence base.
TAN 20: 3.3.2 Evidence from the language impact assessment may be material to the application and
may inform whether measures to mitigate or enhance the impacts of the development on the use of
the Welsh language should be applied.
Welsh Language County Strategic Forum: “Language planning work within the LDP process, particularly
the development of a new methodology to measure the impact of land use on the Welsh language” notes
a “Lack of national guidance and dependable information on the impact of construction on the Welsh
language in terms of numbers of permitted locations for house building and their geographical locations.”
Carmarthenshire Welsh Language Promotion Strategy 2023 – 2028: p.7 Despite the positive contribution
of all the above policies, a number of factors that most adversely affect the Welsh language in
Carmarthenshire remain outside their scope. The affordability of housing for local young people for
example is largely influenced by the open market and private sector profits. The same is true with regard
to the influx of older people from outside Wales into Welsh-speaking communities. After the first
Strategy's efforts to work with estate agents to try to gain useful information to address this problem, it
must be recognised that it is only Welsh Government who are in a position to meaningfully influence these
factors. We look forward to working together on innovative efforts by the government in this area of work
and to explore new law-making forces that could mitigate harmful effects on the Welsh language.
Welsh Government: CYMRAEG 2050: a Million Welsh Speakers: Development and the Welsh language -
p.63: The land use planning system should contribute to the vitality of the Welsh language by creating
suitable conditions for thriving, sustainable communities, supported by an awareness of the relevant
principles of language planning. Decisions regarding the type, scale and exact location of developments
within a specific community has the potential to have an effect on language use, and as a result on the
sustainability and vitality of the language. This calls for strengthening the relationship between language
planning and land use planning.
10
LDP: Carmarthenshire County Council Second Deposit Revised Local Development Plan - Written Statement
TAN: Welsh Government Planning Policy and Guidance: National Policy - Technical Advice Note
PPW: Welsh Government Planning Policy Wales – Edition 11 2021
Cyngor Sir Gâr: Notice of Motion 10.7.2019 (unanimously supported): “This council believes that the
whole of Carmarthenshire is an ‘area of linguistic sensitivity and significance’ and that the planning system
has a crucial role to play in supporting the Welsh language across the county. To this end, we believe that
the language should be a Material Planning Consideration in all applications for the development of five or
more houses in rural areas and ten or more in urban areas in every community, irrespective of the
percentage of Welsh speakers.
Observations:
• Cyngor Sir Gâr’s Notice of Motion identifies the whole county as an area of linguistic sensitivity and
as such should be recognised as a positive material consideration in rural areas.
• In reality, the Plan does not acknowledge the importance of small rural communities in its
safeguarding and enhancement of the Welsh Language. Many of our rural villages are the
strongholds of first-language Welsh-speakers and form the foundation of Welsh language and
culture throughout the county. Welsh speakers are concentrated in these areas, but the ability of
young families to live and work within these communities is limited by the Plan and other regulatory
factors.
• The Plan addresses two aspects of Welsh-language safeguarding:
a) It requires assessments on the impact of developments on the Welsh language;
b) It provides for activities, facilities and education which promote the Welsh language;
• The Plan does not provide for sensitive development within the small community strongholds of the
language. Welsh-speakers who cannot build or buy within their villages, or in the surrounding areas,
cannot support the language in their native communities.
• Local people may have access to land which would reduce costs and make the building of their own
home viable. Proportionate development on private land should be made possible where
appropriate.
• Rural Welsh-language villages need proactive policies to offer accommodation in the community –
both to young families in need of Affordable Housing and to those requiring market housing.
• Assessments of the likely effects of the LDP on the Welsh language will depend on the detail
available and be data-led.
• Pre-planning Welsh-language Assessments are appropriate for larger developments in service
centres and towns, however, external assessments do not evidence the actual prosperity of the
language in small villages and communities.
• Welsh-language impact assessments are commissioned by the applicant and may not always be
independent.
• A reversal of thought is required so that the needs of the Welsh language influences the LDP rather
than the LDP attempting to react to perceived needs.
• The data on Welsh-speakers in Carmarthenshire has not yet been based on the 2021 Census and is
out of date.
• There is very little planning guidance attached to the Welsh Government policy to achieve one million
Welsh speakers by 2050.
• While the CYMRAEG 2050 policy calls for strengthening the relationship between language planning and
land use planning, Welsh Government’s own planning policies make this impossible.
CONSIDERATIONS:
1. To recognise the Linguistic Sensitivity of the whole county and the potential of rural
communities to increase the number of Welsh-speakers if supported proactively through the
LDP.
2. To move from assessing impact to providing positive measures to develop Welsh-language
strongholds.
3. To acknowledge that strict controls on market housing in rural areas harms Welsh-language
communities.
4. Where development is evidenced through local need, to balance the potential visual harm to
rural areas against the potential benefit to language and culture.
11
LDP: Carmarthenshire County Council Second Deposit Revised Local Development Plan - Written Statement
TAN: Welsh Government Planning Policy and Guidance: National Policy - Technical Advice Note
PPW: Welsh Government Planning Policy Wales – Edition 11 2021
5. To provide a body to conduct Welsh-language impact assessments which is independent of
the applicant and the Local Planning Authority.
6. To re-assess Welsh-language impact policies as soon as the 2021 Census data is available.
7. To recognise the need for Welsh Government to explore new approaches to planning in
rural areas in order to enable local Welsh Language Strategies to be implemented and to
enable CYMRAEG 2050 to be a realistic possibility.
LDP: SP11 - The Visitor Economy: Respecting the County's social, economic and environmental fabric.
11.234 All parts of the County possess qualities that contribute to the overall sense of place. These include
landscape, nature conservation, social fabric and built environment. These are assets which must be
protected for our future generations and cannot be unduly compromised by tourism related development.
11.235 There should also be an emphasis on providing quality in all aspects of a proposal. In considering the
acceptability of proposals, consideration will be given to location, siting, design and scale, access to the
primary and core highway network and the impact of any resultant traffic generation. Furthermore, the
extent to which the site is serviceable by public transport, walking and cycling are important considerations.
Proposals should reflect the character and appearance of the area with appropriate landscaping and
screening utilised as required.
11.239 The County's rural areas are well placed to accommodate proposals for high quality and sustainable
proposals that are of an appropriate scale. Proposals should respect the County's assets whilst supporting
vibrant rural communities.
11.240 Some tourism related developments, by their very nature, must be located in the countryside. It is
important that these developments do not have any significant negative impact on the landscape, natural
environment, or amenity. In terms of the detailed policies for the Revised LDP, the emphasis is on providing
clarification on the two notable challenges and opportunities facing the visitor economy in Carmarthenshire
which are attractions (somewhere to go) and accommodation (somewhere to stay).
LDP: VE2 - Holiday Accommodation
Proposals for high quality serviced accommodation, including appropriate extensions to existing
accommodation, will be permitted where they are located within, or directly related to a defined settlement
(Policy SP3).
Proposals for serviced and self-catering accommodation that are located outside of the above locations will
only be permitted where they consist of the re-use and adaptation (including conversion) of existing
buildings in conjunction with policy RD4.
All proposals set out above should reflect and respect the role and function and sense of place of the area,
most notably in terms of scale, type, character, design, layout and appearance - as well as those uses
already located in the vicinity of the site.
11.247 Where planning permission is given for permanent holiday accommodation, the Council will
consider the attachment of conditions restricting the use to holiday accommodation only. Seasonal
occupancy conditions may also be used to prevent the permanent residential occupation of such
accommodation. In addition, in areas where the prevalence of second homes and holiday homes are known
to be a serious issue within communities, the Council will consider placing restrictions upon permitted
development rights to change existing dwellings to holiday homes and second homes.
LDP: VE4 - Static Caravan and Chalet Sites and Permanent Alternative Camping Accommodation:
Proposals for new Static Caravan and Chalet Sites will be permitted where:
• they are within or directly related to a defined settlement (Policy SP3), or, they are located or
demonstrate a spatial and functional relationship with a relevant existing tourism facility or
attraction;
• they are of high quality in terms of design, layout and appearance, and will not have an
unacceptable adverse effect upon the surrounding landscape and/or townscape;
12
LDP: Carmarthenshire County Council Second Deposit Revised Local Development Plan - Written Statement
TAN: Welsh Government Planning Policy and Guidance: National Policy - Technical Advice Note
PPW: Welsh Government Planning Policy Wales – Edition 11 2021
• they will not lead to a significant and unacceptable intensification in the provision of sites in the
locality;
Proposals for the enhancement and extension of existing sites will be permitted where:
• it will increase the vitality, sustainability and environmental quality of the site;
• it will not result in an unacceptable increase in the density of units and/or the overall scale of the
site.
• it will not have an unacceptable harm on the surrounding landscape, seascape and / or townscape;
• it provides (where appropriate) for the significant improvement of the overall quality, appearance
and setting of the site.
11.256 This policy recognises that appropriate high-quality proposals should be supported. This recognises
the need to provide a diverse accommodation offer in terms of providing a range and choice of places to
stay within the County.
TAN13: TOURISM – Published in 1997, this document is woefully inadequate to address the needs of
accommodating visitors in 2023 and the future.
Observations:
• “The County’s rural areas are well placed to accommodate proposals for high quality and
sustainable proposals that are of an appropriate scale” suggests that tourism developments take
priority over residential developments. Nowhere does the Plan refer to residential development
located in the countryside in such positive terms, but tourism is accommodated with flexibility.
• The re-use and adaptation (including conversion) of existing buildings outside a settlement is
permitted for visitor accommodation but not for housing for local people.
• No evidence is provided to illustrate why holiday accommodation is considered to have less impact
on the countryside than residential dwellings. This in no way suggests that there be should be
competition between both uses, but it is not clear how holiday accommodation makes a greater
contribution to sustainable communities than housing for local people.
• A “spatial and functional relationship with a relevant existing tourism facility or attraction” includes
the open countryside. If static Caravans and Glamping Pods are of a scale, layout and design
appropriate to the setting, and if properly screened, such developments provide diversification
income to rural areas while providing much needed visitor accommodation.
• The rigidity of travel planning restrictions where public transport is not readily available bars much
unintrusive development.
• While Static Caravan, Chalet and Glamping Pod Sites in rural areas are subject to rigid planning
regulation, the ownership and use of these units as second homes prevents the purchase of
residential family dwellings for holiday purposes. This helps protect traditional rural homes from
second home use, while purchasing a chalet on a park is far less costly as a second home than
purchasing a house.
CONSIDERATIONS:
1. To question if the visitor economy is prioritised over local needs, and consider both
community benefits on equal terms.
2. In light of the recent policy on Second Homes/Holiday Homes Council Tax Premium, to
consider permitting residential use of existing holiday accommodation in the open
countryside which may no longer remain viable.
3. To recognise that small, well-designed accommodation sites in the open countryside provide
diversification opportunities to farming communities and contribute to the local economy.
4. To encourage well-sited Static Caravan, Chalet and Glamping Pod Sites in areas heavily
affected by second home use as an attractive option to potential second home purchasers.
5. To provide a balance of residential and tourism accommodation in rural areas to encourage
mutual support between communities and visitor economy.
6. To replace TAN13 with guidance which is appropriate and relevant to the life of the Plan.
13
LDP: Carmarthenshire County Council Second Deposit Revised Local Development Plan - Written Statement
TAN: Welsh Government Planning Policy and Guidance: National Policy - Technical Advice Note
PPW: Welsh Government Planning Policy Wales – Edition 11 2021
LDP: SP 12 - Placemaking and Sustainable Places
11.269 The Act means that public bodies such as local authorities must work to ensure that developments
should acknowledge and seek to improve the economic, social, environmental, and cultural well-being of an
area.
Observations:
• With regards to social and cultural well-being, there is no provision for placing small rural
communities at the centre of policy, or for building the policies around the needs of village
communities.
CONSIDERATIONS:
1. To recognise the place of small communities in achieving the aims of the Well-being and
Future Generations Act.
2. To allow rural communities to improve and grow on a par with urban communities.
LDP: SP 13 - Rural Development
11.366 The rural settlements of the County have an important role to play in improving the sustainability of
the wider geographical area in which they are located as well as the County's overall sustainability. The
Plan's strategy and settlement hierarchy reflects the significant role which the rural communities play
through supporting growth of a proportionate scale which can make a positive contribution towards the
long-term sustainability of the rural economy and rural communities.
11.367 Proportionate and sensitive development can provide the level of growth required to retain and
enhance the services and facilities provided in the County's rural settlements. It can also serve to safeguard
and promote the Welsh language in rural areas and enhance rural employment opportunities. However, the
Plan seeks to ensure that development and growth does not have negative impacts upon a community's
sustainability. Key to this is ensuring that development is not permitted at a scale or rate which would affect
the community's ability to absorb and adapt to growth and change. This is imperative when considering the
impacts which development can have upon the local infrastructure, the vitality of the Welsh language and
the sustainability of the countryside and natural environment.
11.368 National planning policy has historically sought to restrict unnecessary development in countryside
locations, principally to prevent sporadic and unsustainable growth and to maximise use of infrastructure,
resources and services more commonly available in established urban areas.
11.369 Whilst this principle remains relevant and applicable, there is an enhanced recognition of the
countryside as a place of work, as a home for many, a place to visit for others and a vital ecosystem for
everyone. The Plan is committed to addressing and safeguarding the needs of rural communities. To this
end, the Council established a Rural Affairs Task Group with the aim of assessing the needs of rural
communities and taking positive steps to address these. This Plan supports the aims and outcomes from the
Task Group principally through policies relating to the provision of housing and affordable housing; the
economy and employment; the Welsh language, and the natural environment. Development proposals will
need to demonstrate that they accord with these policies as well as the provisions of national planning
policy.
PPW: Placemaking in Rural Areas 3.38: The countryside is a dynamic and multi-purpose resource. In
line with sustainable development and the national planning principles and in contributing towards
placemaking outcomes, it must be conserved and, where possible, enhanced for the sake of its
ecological, geological, physiographic, historical, archaeological, cultural and agricultural value and for
its landscape and natural resources. The need to conserve these attributes should be balanced against
the economic, social and recreational needs of local communities and visitors. Fostering adaptability
and resilience will be a key aim for rural places in the face of the considerable challenge of maintaining
the vibrancy of communities and availability of services as well as contributing to the Cohesive
Communities well-being goal.
14
LDP: Carmarthenshire County Council Second Deposit Revised Local Development Plan - Written Statement
TAN: Welsh Government Planning Policy and Guidance: National Policy - Technical Advice Note
PPW: Welsh Government Planning Policy Wales – Edition 11 2021
11.373 This understanding of diversity is reflected within PPW in its consideration of sustainable transport
requirements. It recognises there is a need to reflect different approaches to sustainable transport in
defining growth within rural settlements.
TAN 6: 2.2.3 Where development proposals are intended to meet local needs, planning authorities
should recognise that a site may be acceptable even though it may not be accessible other than by the
private car. Development not intended to cater primarily for local needs should continue to be located
in market towns, local service centres or clusters of smaller settlements where a sustainable functional
linkage can be demonstrated and which are accessible by public transport.
Observations:
• “The Plan is committed to addressing and safeguarding the needs of rural communities” - the Plan
does not address the needs of rural communities.
• The Rural Affairs Task Group states that:
“There is of course a recognition of the need for sensitive consideration of a number of factors
when looking at development in rural areas but the Task Group feels that current planning
policy from Welsh Government does not give enough flexibility to enable development, based
on local need, in our most rural communities.”
• While the preservation of the countryside is important, the policy “moth-balls” rural villages as
static entities and “enhances” them by keeping them attractive to visit and view. The policies invite
people to observe the attractive characteristics – culture, tradition, Welsh-language without
attempting to develop these characteristics and make them sustainable.
• Sustainable transport policies are limiting the development of rural housing while they encourage
extending the development of holiday accommodation. The travel footprint of weekly visitors to
and around rural areas is not measured against the travel footprint of weekly activities of local
residents.
CONSIDERATIONS:
1. To place rural communities at the heart of the Strategic Policy.
2. To provide “…enough flexibility to enable development, based on local need, in our most
rural communities”.
3. To define “enhancement” in material terms as regards sustaining and developing the
language, culture and heritage of our rural areas.
LDP: Rural Enterprise Dwellings
11.379 As noted through national policy, a rural enterprise dwelling is required where it 'is to enable rural
enterprise workers to live at or close to their place of work'. This includes encouraging younger people to
manage farm businesses and supporting the diversification of established farms.
11.380 It is not the role or the intention of the Revised LDP to replicate the provisions of national planning
policy. Consequently, reference should be had to the provisions of PPW and Technical Advice Note 6 (TAN6)
in the determination of applications for new rural enterprise dwellings. National policy clearly states that
such proposals should be carefully examined to ensure that there is a genuine need.
11.381 Applications for rural enterprise dwellings should be accompanied by a rural enterprise dwelling
appraisal, with permission only granted where it provides conclusive evidence of the need for the dwelling.
TAN 6: 4.1.1 The Assembly Government’s vision for housing is for everyone in Wales to have the
opportunity to live in good quality, affordable housing, to be able to choose where they live and decide
whether buying or renting is best for them and their families. This vision is applicable to both urban
and rural areas.
15
LDP: Carmarthenshire County Council Second Deposit Revised Local Development Plan - Written Statement
TAN: Welsh Government Planning Policy and Guidance: National Policy - Technical Advice Note
PPW: Welsh Government Planning Policy Wales – Edition 11 2021
Observations:
• The bar for proving “conclusive evidence of the need for the dwelling” is uniquely high for Rural
Enterprise Dwellings in comparison with other housing categories. The amount of necessary
evidence and the years required to compile data makes such applications prohibitive.
• TAN6: 4.1.1 contradicts the lengthy and detailed restrictions placed on individuals and families
attempting to remain in their local community.
• The need to live near a rural enterprise should not be assessed on the employment needs of the
enterprise alone. Families support rural enterprises in many other ways, not only through their
employment on the site.
• Families in alternative fields of employment who have strong ties to the site should be encouraged
to remain within their traditional and cultural setting.
CONSIDERATIONS:
1. To bring the requirements of Rural Enterprise Dwellings in line with the requirements of
all other housing requirements – including urban housing and One Planet Development
housing.
2. To apply the same test of need for a rural enterprise dwelling as that for a dwelling on a
One Planet site.
3. To recognise the potential contribution of Rural Enterprise Dwellings to the sustainability
of language, culture and heritage.
4. To acknowledge that creating an additional dwelling on a rural enterprise site supports
the business and family whether or not the residents are in the employment of the
enterprise.
LDP: RD2 - Conversion and Re-Use of Rural Buildings for Residential Use
Proposals for the conversion and re-use of suitable rural buildings for residential use will be permitted
where:
• the existing use has ceased, and its re-use would not result in the need for an additional
building;
• the design and materials are of a high quality, and the form and bulk of the proposal, including
any extensions, curtilage and access arrangements are sympathetic to and respect: the
surrounding landscape, rural character of the area and the appearance of the original building;
• Proposals for extensions should be proportionate and reflective of the scale, character and
appearance of the original building;
• the original building is structurally sound and any rebuilding works, necessitated by poor
structural conditions and/ or the need for new openings in walls, do not involve substantial
reconstruction;
• where applicable, the architectural quality, character and appearance of the building is
safeguarded and its setting not unacceptably harmed.
TAN 6: 3.6.1 Whilst residential conversions have a minimal impact on the rural economy,
conversions for holiday use can contribute more and may reduce pressure to use other houses in the
area for holiday use.
Observations:
• While RD2 permits the conversion of suitable rural buildings for residential use, the majority of
these buildings lie outside the development limits of rural villages and therefore cannot be
permitted as residential dwellings.
• This excludes a number of surplus farm buildings from being converted to homes for young local
families, although they can be converted for holiday use.
16
LDP: Carmarthenshire County Council Second Deposit Revised Local Development Plan - Written Statement
TAN: Welsh Government Planning Policy and Guidance: National Policy - Technical Advice Note
PPW: Welsh Government Planning Policy Wales – Edition 11 2021
• It is asserted that residential conversions for holiday use can contribute more to the local economy.
Is there evidence that holiday accommodation contributes more to the local economy than
residential families? This statement does not consider factors such as holiday accommodation being
owned by individuals well outside the “local economy” and where the income goes directly out of
the local area, county or country.
• It does not consider the contribution a residential family makes to the local economy on a daily,
weekly and annual basis. A data-based study would provide evidence of this assertion.
CONSIDERATIONS:
1. To apply the same impact measurements of conversion to holiday cottages/barns on the
open countryside as to conversion to residential cottages/barns in the open countryside.
2. To provide evidence of the carbon footprint benefit of tourist against that of residents.
3. To permit re-use/conversion of surplus rural buildings for residential use side by side
with holiday use.
LDP: HOM7 - Renovation of Derelict or Abandoned Dwellings:
Proposals for the renovation of derelict or abandoned dwellings outside the Development Limits of a
defined settlement (Policy SP3) will be permitted where:
• It can be demonstrated that a significant part of the original structure is physically sound and
substantially intact requiring only a limited amount of structural remedial works;
• The building demonstrates and retains sufficient quality of architectural features and traditional
materials with no significant loss of the character and integrity of the original structure;
• There are no adverse effects on the setting or integrity of the historic environment.
11.104 The renovation of abandoned dwellings can make a small but important contribution to the needs of
an area. The architectural value of a number of derelict or abandoned dwellings often reflects the
traditional vernacular and should be recognised in the submission of such proposals. Extensions, access
requirements or other aspects associated with the proposal should be sympathetic to the character of the
original building and the landscape. Proposals which seek to make a positive contribution to the landscape
qualities of the area will be encouraged.
Observations:
• There is very little policy detail or guidance on the re-use of derelict dwellings or ruins to provide
homes for local families. The guidance for derelict dwellings is arbitrary and open to interpretation.
• Sir Gâr no longer has a “tradional vernacular” style of dwelling. Most modern houses have for
decades been built with breeze blocks. It is reasonable that farm buildings constructed from such
materials, possibly with re-facing, should be considered for adaptation as dwellings.
• As part of the Levelling Up strategy, the UK Government has consulted on the “Right to Regenerate”
bill which promises to re-use derelict buildings in public ownership, but not in private ownership.
• Farming unions are encouraging rural owners not to allow their property to fall into the
“Abandonment” category which will require full planning permission for re-instatement as a
residential dwelling.
CONSIDERATIONS:
1. To acknowledge the historic use of a derelict/abandoned dwelling in the open countryside in
order to return it to its traditional residential use.
2. In 2023, to recognise the reality of the nature of the construction of many 20th Century rural
buildings and consider their sensitive re-use as dwellings.
3. To encourage proposals which seek to make a positive contribution to the landscape
qualities of the area.
17
LDP: Carmarthenshire County Council Second Deposit Revised Local Development Plan - Written Statement
TAN: Welsh Government Planning Policy and Guidance: National Policy - Technical Advice Note
PPW: Welsh Government Planning Policy Wales – Edition 11 2021
RE-USE OF PLACES OF WORSHIP
11.450 Many elements of the County's built and historic environment are protected through legislation or
other policy provisions, and as such do not require policies in the revised LDP. The Plan does not therefore
include policies in relation to facets of the built heritage such as Scheduled Monuments as they are
adequately protected elsewhere.
TAN24: Historic Assets of Special Local Interest - 8.1 - Historic assets that the local planning authority
may consider to be of special local interest are not accompanied by any additional consent
requirements over and above those required for planning permission. However, if such assets are to
contribute successfully to the conservation or enhancement of local character their status needs to be
clear in the development management process. If a local planning authority chooses to identify historic
assets of special local interest, it must include policies for their preservation and enhancement in the
local development plan.
Managing Change to Listed Places of Worship in Wales – Welsh Government: 5.13 Closed or Closing
Places of Worship: Listed places of worship may have a continuing and valuable contribution to make
to the community even when they are no longer required for worship. Before they cease to be used for
worship, it is important that there is no unnecessary delay in finding alternative uses compatible with
the significance of the fabric, interior, contents and setting of the building.
CADW - Historic Assets Of Special Local Interest: Local planning authorities may choose to identify
historic assets of special local interest - known as ‘local listing’ … Local listing is important because it
provides the base for local planning authorities to develop policies for their protection and
enhancement. This means that local planning authorities can manage change through the planning
system so that local historic assets continue to contribute to the vitality of the area … Local listing also
provides an opportunity for a community to get involved in the identification of historic assets of
special local interest and in caring for them appropriately.
Observations:
• There is very little guidance on the functional re-use of chapels and churches in rural communities
apart from their historic surroundings and facades.
• Many church and chapel buildings in rural areas are converted for holiday/second home use. This is
not consistent with the interests of “local listing” to preserve the contextual integrity of the
community asset.
CONSIDERATIONS:
1. To acknowledge that the LDP could include measures to assess, secure and re-use closed
Places of Worship for the benefit of the community.
2. To encourage conversations between representatives of closing Places of Worship, planners
and the community before disposal of the asset.
3. To consider placing covenants on Chapels and Churches being converted to dwellings to
ensure they are permanent residential dwellings rather than second homes in order to
protect the historic integrity of the building for the future.
4. To require that CADW exercises flexibility in its approach to the re-use of local historic assets
so that they remain of value and interest to the community.
LDP: RD3 - Farm Diversification
Proposals for farm diversification developments which strengthen the rural economy will be permitted
where:
• It is compatible with, complements and supports the principal agricultural activities of the existing
working farm;
• It is of a scale and nature appropriate to the existing farm operation;
18
LDP: Carmarthenshire County Council Second Deposit Revised Local Development Plan - Written Statement
TAN: Welsh Government Planning Policy and Guidance: National Policy - Technical Advice Note
PPW: Welsh Government Planning Policy Wales – Edition 11 2021
• It has appropriate regard to the highways and transport infrastructure;
• It would not have an adverse impact on the character, setting and appearance of the area and the
surrounding landscape.
11.393 Diversification in rural areas can often add to the income streams and economic viability of farms,
strengthen the rural economy, and add to wider employment opportunities.
11.394 Farm diversification proposals are intended to supplement and support the continuation of the
existing farming activity. Proposals should be accompanied by evidence detailing a justification for the use
and its relationship with the existing farming activity.
11.396 In considering proposals for farm diversification it is acknowledged that their rural context means
that they cannot always be well served by public transport. Consequently, whilst its availability will be taken
into account when considering the nature and scale of the proposal, the potential for certain diversification
proposals which can only be accessible by private car is acknowledged. Such proposals should have regard
to the sustainable transport hierarchy.
Observations:
• While diversification in rural areas is encouraged, the capacity for young families to live and work on
rural sites outside development limits is severely restricted, bordering on the impossible. This is
detrimental to the sustainability of village communities.
• Many farm diversification plans are thwarted at the outset due to their rural siting, thus falling
under the myriad restrictions on development in the open countryside.
• The perceived negative aspects of potential development outweigh the likely positive impacts on
community sustainability.
CONSIDERATIONS:
1. To provide for local families who wish to remain in or return to their community to live and
work in their rural area.
2. To examine the potential community benefit as a material consideration.
3. To provide more flexibility in the sources of income which contribute to a rural enterprise to
allow spouses, partners and their progeny to remain in or return to their family homesteads.
GENERAL - MOVING RURAL CARMARTHENSHIRE FORWARD – Report and Recommendations of the
Carmarthenshire Rural Affairs Task Group – June 2019:
3.2.4: “The Council is currently in the process of revising its Local Development Plan and the Task Group
feels there is a need to redress the current balance to enable appropriate and suitable development
within our rural towns and communities. This development needs to be taken forward based on local
need rather than national targets and regulations. There should of course be a thorough consideration
and understanding of the impact that any residential or business development may have on the nature
and construct of rural communities, especially in terms of its possible positive or negative impact on
the Welsh language, and the size of development should also be comparative to the existing
community, but suitable development in our rural communities needs to be enabled in order to ensure
the sustainability of our rural communities going forward.”
Observations:
• The Task Group has analysed and attempted to address and evidence the critical issues
referenced above. However, it is apparent that the Local Development Plan continues to be led
by national targets and regulations rather than by genuine local need.
19
LDP: Carmarthenshire County Council Second Deposit Revised Local Development Plan - Written Statement
TAN: Welsh Government Planning Policy and Guidance: National Policy - Technical Advice Note
PPW: Welsh Government Planning Policy Wales – Edition 11 2021
WALES RURAL OBSERVATORY - 2013:
The Experiences and Aspirations of Young People in Rural Wales (2013) Housing availability and
affordability - Young families’ experiences of the local housing market in the study areas also indicated
that the current planning system was considered too regulatory and rigid, and often hindered the
development of simple solutions to rural housing needs.
The Experiences and Aspirations of Young People in Rural Wales (2013): Access to the decisionmaking
process - There is growing awareness and interest among the public and policy-makers of the
important and critical role that young people play in forming and sustaining sustainable communities.
This is particularly crucial in terms of rural communities, where the ageing population trend is
particularly marked and where there has been a steady decline in the proportion of the younger
population. Despite this, young people are too often excluded from the decision-making process.
Observations:
• The conclusion of this study summarises the issues faced in our rural communities. Although this
study was published in 2013 there is no evidence that these conclusions are considered in the
development of planning policies.
SUMMARY OF CONSIDERATIONS IN RESPECT OF THE SECOND REVISED LOCAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN
1. The Plan looks at rural communities from the outside. There is no recognition of the living,
breathing, day-to-day rural village. The Plan needs to reverse its perspective.
2. The needs of real people are secondary to ideas, policies, regulations and planning
aspirations. The needs of rural families should be the primary consideration.
3. The projected image of the countryside takes priority over the people who live in it. The
people who create, enhance, protect and conserve this image should be heard.
4. Prohibiting development in many rural communities is contrary to the planning presumption
to permit reasonable development in other geographic or demographic areas. The planning
presumption should be applied consistently across all areas.
5. The Plan does not consider the needs of local people who do not fit the Local Needs criteria.
Young professionals – teachers, nurses - who are not first-time buyers do not qualify for
Affordable Housing but can’t afford open market houses in their rural villages. The Plan
should apply the needs of the community as a material consideration and provide for all
young families.
6. Ordinary circumstances in urban areas are considered exceptional in rural areas. The Plan
should not mitigate against rural families and young people.
7. The social and economic benefits of small rural businesses are outweighed by the
requirement to project a particular image of the countryside. Small rural businesses are part
of the culture and inheritance of the countryside and should be encouraged within the Plan.
8. The Plan provides for projected damage to the Welsh language and culture in future
developments. It does not provide for the development of the Welsh language and culture
in its existing strongholds. The Plan is reactive to Welsh-language issues, not proactive. The
rural policies within the Plan should emanate from the Welsh-language strongholds to
achieve CYMRAEG 2050.
9. The Plan prioritises the visitor economy over local needs in rural communities. The tourist,
throughout the year, may eat, sleep and breathe the open countryside, but the local
resident may not. The Plan should provide for parity of opportunity between all rural
enterprises.
10. Amended Planning Use Classes (2022) requires that planning permission is needed to change
a residential dwelling to a holiday/second home. It will take many years for this amendment
to impact on rural house prices and availablity. The Plan should consider applying flexibility
while these factors bring some equity to housing availability in rural areas.
11. Placemaking and Sustainable Places policies are imposed on rural villages. The policies
should be formulated from the inside outwards, not the outside inwards.
20
LDP: Carmarthenshire County Council Second Deposit Revised Local Development Plan - Written Statement
TAN: Welsh Government Planning Policy and Guidance: National Policy - Technical Advice Note
PPW: Welsh Government Planning Policy Wales – Edition 11 2021
12. Active Travel and other Carbon Net Zero requirements prohibit residential dwellings in rural
areas. The Plan excuses the visitor industry from similar carbon footprints. The Plan should
apply the same standards to residents and visitors alike and encourage both to work side by
side to reach targets.
13. The requirements for Rural Enterprise Dwellings are practically impossible to meet. This
does not conform with aspirations for sustainable rural communities. The requirements for
ALL residential dwellings across rural areas should be applied equally.
14. Any initiative inside or outside village development boundaries which could benefit local
residents is likely to be prohibited. Strengthening communities should be a material
consideration when assessing local initiatives.
15. Villages without settlement boundaries will not be able to accommodate the needs of their
own residents. The Plan must provide opportunities for such communities to flourish.
Rural villages are not Still Photographs.
They create, motivate, initiate, provide and support like any other community.
It is imperative that the Future Wales National Plan 2040 and the Carmarthenshire Local Development
Plan 2018 – 2033 acknowledge and respect the identity and function of our rural communities.
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Compiled and submitted by Plaid Cymru County Councillors, Cyngor Sir Gâr – April 2023
Cyng. Liam Bowen Cyng. Kim Broom
Cyng. Mansel Charles Cyng. Andrew Davies
Cyng. Bryan Davies Cyng. Ann Davies
Cyng. Glynog Davies Cyng. Handel Davies
Cyng. Karen Davies Cyng. Llinos Mai Davies
Cyng. Terry Davies Cyng. Arwel Davies
Cyng. Alex Evans Cyng. Colin Evans
Cyng. Hazel Evans Cyng. Linda Evans
Cyng. Tyssul Evans Cyng. Deian Harries
Cyng. Ken Howell Cyng. Peter Hughes Griffiths
Cyng. Meinir James Cyng. Gareth John
Cyng. Carys Jones Cyng. Betsan Jones
Cyng. Hefin Jones Cyng. Alun Lenny
Cyng. Jean Lewis Cyng. Neil Lewis
Cyng. Dai Nicholas Cyng. Aled Vaughan Owen
Cyng. Denise Owen Cyng. Dorian Phillips
Cyng. Darren Price Cyng. Emlyn Schiavone
Cyng. Russell Sparks Cyng. Dai Thomas
Cyng. Gareth Thomas Cyng. Elwyn Williams
21
LDP: Carmarthenshire County Council Second Deposit Revised Local Development Plan - Written Statement
TAN: Welsh Government Planning Policy and Guidance: National Policy - Technical Advice Note
PPW: Welsh Government Planning Policy Wales – Edition 11 2021
APPENDIX
Many elements of our planning system create complex dilemmas for Local Members and particularly for
Planning Committee Members when performing our roles and respecting our responsibilities:
• The role of the Local Member is to make the ward community a better place to live and work – to
improve quality of life and to develop and support plans which enhance and protect the
community, the environment and our future generations.
• The responsibility of the Local Planning Member is to observe the legislation, regulations and
guidance which are set down on our behalf to maintain Order within our communities, the Local
Authority and beyond.
The conflict between Members’ roles and Planning Members’ responsibilities gives rise to situations
where councillors are forced to compromise one in favour of the other. The Local Member is regularly
faced with two options:
• To support officers’ recommendations which are damaging to their own community in order to
conform with legislation, or
• To reject officers’ recommendations and act contrary to legislation in order to protect their
residents’ well-being.
It is not possible to reconcile this conflict under current planning policies.

Newid fel y nodir
___
Change as set out

Ymateb aelodau Dyfodol i’r Iaith yn Sir Gaerfyrddin i’r 2il fersiwn Adneuo Cynllun Lleol Diwygiedig Sir Gaerfyrddin 2018 - 2033

Cynllunio a “Datblygwyr” Cyfnewid Poblogaeth

Peth rhyfedd yw iaith, fel y gwyddom. Pwy yn ei iawn bwyll sydd yn gwrthwynebu datblygiad?
Ond pe byddem yn holi nifer o bobl sydd wedi ymwneud â’r gyfundrefn gynllunio yn ddiweddar, byddem yn debygol o ddod ar draws sawl un sydd wedi colli eu pwyll.
Methodd cwmni Carillion yn 2018 oherwydd amddiffyn taliadau bonws i’r Cyfarwyddwyr, dulliau cyfrif anaddas a thalu sylw hollol annigonol i’r cynllun pensiynau. Gadawyd nifer sylweddol o adeiladau gan gynnwys ysbytai yn anorffenedig. Syrthiodd y gost o orffen adeiladuy y Royal Liverpool Hospital ar ysgwyddau’r trethdalwyr.
Adeiladwyd tai niferus ar wlyptiroedd ac ar ben siafftiau glo gan “ddatblygwyr” yng Nghymru a thu hwnt.

Mae cwmni Persimmon wedi adeiladu nifer sylweddol o dai yn y sir. Talwyd £7,000,000 i gyn Brif Weithredwr y cwmni, Jeff Fairburn, mewn bonws dros y blynyddoedd. Dyma’r cyfanswm mae’r un cwmni yn barod i’w dalu i adfer y peryglon ar naw safle lle wnaethant adeiladu tai anniogel.
Nid caenennau/ cladding, yw’r unig elfen beryglus mewn cartrefi yn y DG. Amcangyfrifir bod tua 700,000 o bobl yn byw mewn fflatiau anniogel a hyd at 3 miliwn arall mewn cartrefi nad oes modd sicrhau morgais arnynt am eu bod yn anniogel. Y “datblygwyr” a rheolau’r Llywodraeth sydd yn gyfrifol am y sefyllfa annerbyniol yma.

Cyflwynodd Llywodraeth San Steffan becyn o arian i gynorthwyo tua 200,000 o fflatiau sydd yn y tyrau uchaf. Gwnaethant hyn dan bwysau cyhoeddus. Cyndyn iawn oedd y “datblygwyr” i dderbyn cyfrifoldeb a chynnig iawndal i’r tenantiaid. Rhoddwyd degawd i’r diwydiant adeiladu dalu y £2biliwn o dreth caenen.Dim ond yn ddiweddar oherwydd bygythiadau y Gweinidog yn San Steffan i’w tynnu oddi ar rhestr y cwmniau cymeradwy, mae’r cwmniau wedi bwrw ati o ddifrif i ddatrys y problemau grewyd ganddynt. Ond ers trychineb Grenfell, pan losgwyd 72 o bobl i farwolaeth, ym Mehefin 2017, gwnaeth y pum cwmni adeiladu mwyaf £10 biliwn o elw. Rhywle yn swyddfeydd cyngor Kensington and Chelsea mae cais i “ddatblygu” Grenfell Towers.
Mae’n hen bryd bod yn llawer mwy amheus o “ddatblygwyr” a’u honiadau gwag ac ymddiried mewn cwmniau lleol i ateb gofynion lleol.

Oes angen cymaint o dai?
Nac oes.
Mae ymchwil gan Ian Mulheirn yn dangos bod y cyflenwad tai fel cyfanswm, yn ddigonol. Mae Mulheirn yn gyn economegydd yn y Trysorlys, a Chyfarwyddwr Ymgynghori gyda Oxford Economics. Bellach, mae’n Gyfarwyddwr Gweithredol a Phrif Economegydd gyda “Renewing the Centre” Sefydliad a grewyd gan y cyn Brif Weinidog, Tony Blair.
Yn 2019 cyhoeddodd “Tackling the UK Housing Crisis – is supply the answer?”. Mae’n canolbwyntio ar Loegr ond mae'n cyfeirio at Gymru. Rhag i mi gam gyfieithu, dyma graidd ei ddadl:

“ It is commonly claimed that we have failed to build enough houses to meet the demand for places to live.. But official data suggests this is not the case since the 1996 nadir of house prices, the English housing stock has grown by 168,000 units per year on average, while the growth in the number of households has averaged 147,000 per year. As a result, while there were 660,000 more dwellings than households in England in 1996, the surplus has since grown to over 1.1million in 2018.
Similar trends are apparent in Scotland where a surplus of 74,000 in 1996 had more than doubled to 169,000 by 2017.
And in Wales the surplus increased from 56,000 to 92,000.”

Mae dogfen “Dwelling Stock Estimates, Llywodraeth Cymru” Tachwedd 2019 yn ategu dadansoddiad Mulheirn:
“The figures seem to suggest that in 2019 there may have been a sufficient number of dwellings for the overall number of households in Wales” [tudalen 4]

Mae’r Adran Blaengynllunio yn honni ei fod yn craffu’n ofalus ar rhagamcanestyniadau’r Llywodraeth sydd yn ymwneud â phoblogaeth. Nid yw’n ymddangos bod digon o sylw wedi ei roi i’r dadansoddiad arbennig yma.

Mae Mulheirn yn priodoli’r sefyllfa gwbl gamarweiniol hyn i amcanestyniadau gwallus gan y Swyddfa Ystadegau Gwladol a’r Llywodraeth, sef yr asiantaethau y mae’r adrannau Blaengynllunio yn seilio ffigurau arnynt. Am ddegawdau, bu gor amcangyfrif y twf yn niferoedd yr aelwydydd. Canlyniad hyn oedd gor amcangyfrif cyfanswm y tai oedd eu hangen. Er fod y Swyddfa Ystadegau Gwladol wedi cydnabod y gwendid yn ddiweddar ac addasu’r ffigurau, mae Mulheirn o’r farn bod yr amcangyfrif yn dal i fod tua 15,000 y flwyddyn yn ormodol.
Nid yw’n gwadu nad oes problemau penodol megis di-gartrefedd, yr angen am dai cymdeithasol a thai fforddiadwy ond yn gyffredinol nid oes angen adeiladu miloedd o dai yn y DG ac yn sicr ddim yn y sir yma. Yn y cyfarfod ddiwedd 2020 mi wnaeth Adran Tai y Cyngor ateb y cwestiynau am ddarparu tai sydd yn ateb gofynion penodol y sir.
A yw’n amser i ystyried cyfuno’r Adran Tai a’r Adran Blaengynllunio gan ddeall mae anghenion pobl y sir ac nid “datblygwyr” sydd i hawlio blaenoriaeth bellach?

Y sefyllfa yn Sir Gaerfyrddin:
Pe bai poblogaeth y sir yn cynyddu oherwydd twf naturiol y boblogaeth gynhenid a swyddi niferus i gynnal pobl y sir, byddai angen mwy o dai, a gydag amser ac ymdrech byddai modd troi’r trai ieithyddol yn llanw, a gweld cynnydd yn nifer y siaradwyr Cymraeg. Ond nid fel yna mae.
Ers 2001 mae graddfa marwolaethau y sir wedi bod yn uwch na’r raddfa genedigaethau.
Mae’r un pwynt yn cael ei wneud yn yr Asesiad Iaith, ddiwedd 2019, dogfen mae’r Adran Blaengynllunio yn honni ei fod wedi talu sylw i’w chynnwys. Dyma ddyfyniad o’r Asesiad Iaith:

“ Yng nghyfnod 2017/18 cofrestrwyd y nifer fwyaf o farwolaethau ers 2001 [Atodiad 2.4, pwynt 9].
Os yw raddfa marwolaethau yn gyson uwch na’r raddfa genedigaethau, ac o gofio am yr allfudo sylweddol, byddai disgwyl i boblogaeth y sir syrthio. Nid dyna ddigwyddodd. Mae dogfen drafft cyntaf y CDLl yn egluro:
“Y prif ffactor sydd wedi dylanwadu ar newid i boblogaeth Sir Gaerfyrddin ers 2001/2 yw mewnfudo, lle mae mwy o bobl wedi symud i’r sir nag sydd wedi gadael”

Mae’r adroddiad Asesiad Iaith yn cadarnhau’r patrwm:
“mudo mewnol net yw sbardun mwyaf yn newid yn y boblogaeth o hyd. Gwelwyd cynnydd sydyn yn lefel y mewnlif net, a gyrhaeddodd tua +1,600 yn 2017/18, a gwelwyd cynnydd sylweddol o fwy na 700 o gymharu â’r flwyddyn flaenorol”

Mae dogfen drafft CDLL ddiweddaraf y Cyngor Sir yn tanlinellu parhad y patrwm
“Ers 2011, mae poblogaeth y sir wedi tyfu o ganlyniad i 4,100 o bobl ychwanegol, sef cynnydd o 2.2% mewn 10 mlynedd. Y prif ffactor sydd wedi dylanwadu ar y newid i boblogaeth Sir Gaerfyrddin ers 2001/2 yw mewnfudo.....Mae gan Sir Gaerfyrddin boblogaeth sydd yn heneiddio gyda nifer y marwolaethau yn fwy na genedigaethau bob blwyddyn ers 2001/2.
Cafwyd cynnydd mewn pobl yn symud i mewn i’r sir o fewn y grŵp oedran teulu ifanc 30-44 a grŵp oedran 0-14. Cafwyd cynnydd hefyd yn y grŵp oedran dros 65, stdd wedi cyfrannu at broffil poblogaeth sy’n heneiddio”

Tystiolaeth bellach o boblogaeth yn heneiddio yw ffigurau y plant sydd yn mynychu ysgolion cynradd y sir sydd yn disgyn dros y blynyddoedd:
2016 = 2120 ; 2017 =2065 ; 2018= 1995; 2019 + 1950; 2020+ 1965 a 2021 +1915

**Mae’r dystiolaeth yma, gomisiynwyd gan y Cyngor Sir, yn dangos y perygl i’r Gymraeg o or adeiladu. Nid yw’r Cynllun Datblygu drafft yn un credadwy , yn wyneb tystiolaeth yr Asesiad Iaith na thystiolaeth y Cyngor Sir**

Digwyddodd y Cyfrifiad ym mis Chwefror 2021 adeg y pandemig. Er nad oes gennym ffigurau swyddogol mae’n amlwg bod nifer ychwanegol o fewnfudwyr wedi dod i’r sir, fel siroedd eraill y gorllewin, yn chwilio am gartrefi mewn ardal llai poblog ac anheddau â gardd neu dir.

Heblaw am yr Asesiad Iaith, mae’r Adran Blaengynllunio yn honni talu sylw i farn a chanllawiau Llywodraeth Cymru. Wrth edrych ar y Strategaeth a Ffefrir gan yr Adran Blaengynllunio [ystyriwyd a gwrthodwyd strategaethau amgenach ..gweler isod] mi wnaeth Cyfarwyddiaeth Cynllunio Llywodraeth Cymru sylwadau i’w hystyried.
“mae angen i ganlyniad lefel/dosbarthiad y twf a gynigir ar gyfer y Gymraeg gael ei egluro yn enwedig gan fod lefelau uchel o fewnlifiad ac ymfudo rhyngwladol yn y gorffennol yn cael eu defnyddio i gyfiawnhau’r gofyniad am dai” [Methodoleg Asesu’r Effaith ar y Gymraeg –tud. 23/4]
Dyna’r gwirionedd. Adeiladu tai ar gyfer mewnfudwyr yn bennaf sydd wedi digwydd yn y sir, a hynny pan fo cyflenwad cyffredinol digonol o dai yn sir Gaerfyrddin. Mae ffigurau diweddaraf y Cyngor Sir yn nodi bod ychydig llai na 2,000 o dai gwag yn Sir Gaerfyrddin. Mae’r Adran Tai yn gwneud cynnydd wrth osod nifer o’r tai gwag ar gyfer trigolion y sir. Ond o ystyried y tai ar werth hefyd, sydd ar gael ar gyfer unrhyw dwf economaidd, pa mor debygol neu annhebygol fo hynny, mae stoc tai sylweddol yn y sir ar gyfer pobl sydd yn gweithio yma..

Byddai rhywun yn disgwyl i Adran Blaengynllunio mewn Cyngor Sir ystyried yn ofalus ac ategu i raddau, sylwadau gan Gyfarwyddiaeth Cynllunio y Llywodraeth ganolog. Nid yw’r bwriad i adeiladu 8,822 o dai rhwng 2018 -2033 yn gwneud hynny. Parhau i hybu mewnfudo pobl di- Gymraeg fydd canlyniad adeiladu’r nifer afresymol o uchel. Mae angen amser i weithredu polisiau blaengar y sir o ran Cymreigio ysgolion, gweithluoedd, prentisiaethau a sawl maes arall.

Mae gwaith y Mentrau yn ddigon heriol fel ag y mae, heb barhau i hybu y cyfnewid poblogaeth sydd mor niweidiol i’n hiaith gynhenid.
Mae’r gofid am ddiffyg dealltwriaeth yr Adran Blaengynllunio o flaenoriaethau ieithyddol y Cyngor Sir yn dwysau wrth edrych ar gymalau 11.173 Polisi Strategol SP8 yn honni:
“Trwy amcanu at dwf cynaliadwy bydd y cynllun hefyd yn cynyddu i’r eithaf y cyfleoeddi siaradwyr di-Gymraeg sy’n symud i mewn i’r sir gael ei hintigreiddio i fywyd cymunedol ar raddfa a chyflymder na fydd yn tanseilio bywiogrwydd a hyfywedd y Gymraeg a diwylliant Cymru”
Nid oes unrhyw esboniad sut mae hyn fod digwydd.

Mae canlyniadau Cyfrifiad 2021 yn dangos bod 26.4% o boblogaeth y sir wedi eu geni ”tu allan i Gymru”. Mae hyn yn gynnydd o 2.4% ers 2011 ac yn fwy na hanner y gostyngiad o 4.1% yn y ganran o siaradwyr Cymraeg yn y sir ers 2011. Nid yw’n ymddangos bod y polisi integreiddio yn un llwyddiannus iawn. Nid oes unrhyw dystiolaeth faint o’r 26.4% o boblogaeth y sir anwyd “tu allan i Gymru” sydd yn rhugl yn y Gymraeg.

Dull yr Adran Blaengynllunio o ateb cwestiynau o’r fath yw trosglwyddo cyfrifoldeb i adrannau eraill o’r Cyngor Sir, megis yr Adran Addysg. Cyfeiriwyd uchod at y lefel uchel o fewnfudo i’r sir yn 2017/18. Dadansoddwyd y garfan hynny gan y cwmni luniodd yr Asesiad Iaith. ‘Roedd 30% o’r bobl ddaeth i’r sir yn 2017/18 yn 45 oed neu’n hŷn. [Atodiad 2.4, tud. 96 a 99/100].
Ydy’r Adran Blaengynllunio yn disgwyl i’r garfan yma fynychu ysgol Gymraeg?
**Mae diffyg tystiolaeth gadarn i gyfiawnhau polisiau yn nodwedd o’r CDLl fel y mae**

Nid yw’r mewnfudo yn syndod o safbwynt economaidd na safon byw. Mae’r sir yn lle dymunol i fyw yn arbennig os yw eich sefyllfa economaidd yn un gysurus. Gyda graddfa llog mor isel, mae gwerthu tŷ a phrynu un arall cyfatebol am bris is yn ddull effeithiol o grynhoi swm sylweddol o arian. Erbyn Chwefror 2021, yn ôl Zoopla, gwerth cyfartalog tŷ yn Lloegr oedd £320,757 tra yng Nghymru y gwerth cyfartalog oedd £199,113. Mae’r bwlch wedi cau rhywfaint ers 2021 ond erys bwlch sylweddol rhwng pris cyfartalog tai yn y ddwy wlad.
Wrth gymharu prisiau tai, eto gan ddefnyddio Zoopla, mi wnaethom weld y gymhariaeth yma rhwng Sir Gaerfyrddin ac ardaloedd o Loegr.

BIrmingham Coventry Guildford Brighton Caerfyrddin Sir Gâr

Tŷ pâr [semi] £268k £273k £552k £578K £188k £178k
Ar wahan £463k £427K £1,047k £786k £321k £334K
Gwnaed yr ymchwil ym mis Mawrth 2023.
Mae tai ar werth yn y sir am £400mil, £500mil a mwy. Nid yw’n debygol bydd pobl leol yn medru prynu rhain.

Ceisiodd Mentrau Iaith y sir ganfod gan arwerthwyr tai, pwy sydd wedi bod yn prynu tai yn yr ardal yn ystod cyfnod y pandemig.. Mae’n siwr bod rhai wedi symud o ddwyrain Cymru a rhai wedi dychwelyd i’r sir. Ond mae’r cymhariaeth prisiau tai yn cynnig tystiolaeth ddigonol o fanteision ariannol symud o Loegr i Sir Gaerfyrddin. I’r Cyngor Sir, mae hyn yn fanteisiol ac mae’n siwr bod manteision i dirfeddianwyr, rhai busnesau a mwy o Dreth y Cyngor hefyd .
Ond rhoi pwysau ychwanegol sylweddol ar ein hetifeddiaeth unigryw wna’r mewnfudo. Er yn cydnabod bod rhai yn sicr o elwa o adeiladu 8,822 o dai rhwng 2018 – 2033, fel mudiad pwyso , mae Dyfodol i’r Iaith yn credu bod angen twf graddol a gofalus tra bod y polisiau i Gymreigio’r sir yn dwyn ffrwyth.

Twf Strategol ac Opsiynau Gofodol
Ystyriaethau a’r Dewis Gorau?
Mae’r teitl yn egluro blaenoriaethau’r adran – y defnydd o ofod neu “defnydd tir”, sef sail y gyfundrefn gynllunio. Nid effaith y defnydd tir ar bobl ond yn hytrach defnyddio’r gofod tir ar gyfer adeiladu gan ddadlau bod hynny yn arwain at welliannau economaidd. Honnir bod yr Adran Blaengynllunio yn “ystyried opsiynau a arweinir gan gyflogaeth.” Mae hyn yn ganmoladwy os yw’n cael ei wireddu ac nad yw’r adran yn syrthio i’r fagl bod adeiladu yn unig yn arwain at ffyniant economaidd.
Mae’r Adran Blaengynllunio hefyd yn ystyried “cyfradd anheddau gwag”. Cyfeiriwyd at hyn eisoes. Mae ychydig llai na 2,000 o dai gwag yn y sir. Felly, pe bai gwelliant cyflogaeth yn y sir a hynny yn lleihau’r allfudo gan bobl ifanc y sir, mae tai gwag yma’n barod ar gyfer y gweithwyr. Mae hefyd nifer sylweddol o adeiladau gwag yn y trefi a chefn gwlad gellir eu haddasu’n gartrefi pwrpasol.

Dadl bellach gan yr Adran Blaengynllunio yw bod angen “cysylltu twf poblogaeth a thwf cyflogaeth amcangyfrifiedig”. Ategir y bwriad trwy ychwanegu “Mae’r opsiynau a nodir yn rhagdybio bod datblygiadau tai heb gyfleoedd cyflogaeth yn yr un lleoliad eang, ac fel arall, yn llai cynaliadwy ac y dylid eu hosgoi” Mae’r ddadl yn gywir, mae angen tai ar gyfer gweithwyr. Felly mae angen ystyried y rhagolygon economaidd a chyflogaeth yn ofalus. [gweler isod]

Digon bregus oedd y rhagolygon cyflogaeth wrth i’r Adran Blaengynllunio ystyried yr opsiynau ar gyfer Cynllun Datblygu Lleol 2018 – 2033. Rhoddwyd ystyriaeth i 6 opsiwn. Yr un â’r amcanestyniad lleiaf o ran twf y boblogaeth a’r newid poblogaeth oedd Amcanestyniad Llywodraeth Cymru yn seiliedig ar 2018. Yn ôl y dadansoddiad hwn 4,359 o dai byddai eu hangen dros gyfnod y CDLl i ateb gofyniad o dwf yn y boblogaeth o 6,197. Gwrthodwyd yr opsiwn hwn ac eraill, hyd yn oed yr un oedd yn amcangyfrif bod angen 5,670 o dai i ateb galw twf amcanestynedig o 9,460 o bobl dros gyfnod y CDLl. Hwn oedd “Amrywiolyn “Poblogaeth Uchel” Llywodraeth Cymru yn seiliedig ar 2018.
**Nid yw CDLl y Cyngor Sir yn talu sylw digonol i amcanestyniadau Llywodraeth Cymru**

Mae pob un o’r opsiynau yn honni medru cysylltu’r adeiladu gyda “creu swyddi”. Yn amlwg bydd swyddi yn y maes adeiladu ac yn cynnig budd economaidd mewn rhai meysydd eraill. Ond eglurwyd eisoes bod nifer o bobl yn y sir yn chwilio am waith ac yn byw yn y sir. Hefyd, pa dystiolaeth sydd gan yr Adran Blaengynllunio mai swyddi lleol fydd yn cael eu creu gan “ddatblygwyr” mawr fel Persimmon? Mae’n bur debygol byddai nifer o’r gweithwyr yn dod o’r tu hwnt i’r sir, er mwyn ateb galw’r “datblygwyr” am weithwyr.
Nid oes pwrpas adeiladu tai os nad oes gwaith priodol i’r bobl fydd yn byw ynddynt, fel mae dyfyniadau’r adran yn ei gydnabod. Fel arall, y bobl ddaw i’r tai fydd pobl wedi ymddeol o’r tu hwnt i’r sir gan roi pwysau ychwanegol ar wasanaethau cyhoeddus lleol.

Ar ba sail gwrthodwyd yr opsiynau hyn?
Dyma eglurhad yr Adran Blaengynllunio am wrthod yr opsiynau eraill:
“O ystyried yr effeithiau negyddol posibl amlygir uchod, nid ystyrir ei bod yn ddoeth defnyddio prif amcanestyniad Llywodraeth Cymru sy’n seiliedig ar 2018 ar gyfer y CDLl Diwygiedig. Ni fyddai’n cyflawni Gweledigaeth ac Amcanion Strategol y Cynllun.”

Gan nad yw’r Cyngor Sir yn barod i dderbyn dadansoddiadau Llywodraeth Cymru, mae angen ystyried pwy sydd fwyaf realistig [isod].
Cawn eto yn sylwadau’r adran y cysylltiad hollol aneglur rhwng adeiladu a chadw pobl ifanc yn y sir. Mae ymateb Cymdeithas yr Iaith i’r honiadau annelwig yn llygad ei le:
“Nid yw gobaith ac uchelgais yr un peth â tystiolaeth”. Yn union.

Fwy nag unwaith, mae’r Adran Blaengynllunio yn nodi bod sylw wedi ei roi i’r Asesiad Effaith ar y Gymraeg wnaeth y Cyngor Sir yn 2019. ‘Roedd hyn i’w groesawu. Prin yw’r cynghorau sydd yn rhoi’r fath ystyriaeth i effaith cynllunio ar ein hiaith genedlaethol. Ond mae angen ystyried a chofio mai trafod y Strategaeth a Ffefrir blaenorol, sef adeiladu 8,835 o dai wnaeth yr Asesiad. Mae’r Opsiwn a Ffefrir newydd yr un mor debygol o achosi niwed mawr i’r Gymraeg a gwneud gwaith yr asiantaethau ar y Fforwm Iaith, a mudiadau eraill yn fwy heriol fyth. Anwybyddwyd yr opsiynau oedd yn cynnig twf graddol a fyddai’n cynnig cyfle i’r holl waith adfer y Gymraeg ddwyn ffrwyth dros gyfnod y Cynllun Datblygu.

Y Rhagolygon Economaidd:
Uchod, fe gawsom awgrym fod yr Adran Blaengynllunio yn cyplysu adeiladu tai gyda anghenion cyflogaeth y sir. Felly, beth yw’r rhagolygon economaidd erbyn hyn?
Mae’r CDLl diweddaraf yn rhoi pwyslais trwm ar Fargen Ddinesig Bae Abertawe i greu swyddi a ffyniant. Y ddau brosiect pwysicaf yn y sir yw’r Egin lle mae canolfan S4C a Pentre’r Awel ger Llanelli. Yn y CDLl diwethaf, ceisiwyd ein perswadio byddai Canolfan yr Egin yn diogelu ac , o bosib, yn hybu’r Gymraeg yn yr ardal. Tua 50 o swyddi yn uniongyrchol gysylltiedig â S4C sydd yno. Gerllaw bwriadwyd adeiladu 1,200 o dai. Ar gyfer pwy oedd y rhain?
Piler arall yn twf economaidd arfaethedig y sir yw Pentre Awel ar gyrion Llanelli. Y targed dros y 15 mlynedd nesaf yw “creu hyd at 2,000 o swyddi” a rhoi “hwb o £467 miliwn i’r economi”. Yn yr union ardal, collwyd mwy na 200 o swyddi yn ffatri Schaeffler a 90 arall o ffatri Calsonic yn gymharol ddiweddar. Yn ystod cyfnod Covid cauodd ffatri AIM Altitude yn Dafen a cholli 100 o swyddi da ychwanegol. Dyma tua 400 o weithwyr lleol a fyddai ar gael, gyda’r hyfforddiant priodol, i weithio yn Pentre Awel , ac sydd yn byw mewn tai yn yr ardal eisoes. Mae Llanelli yn ne ddwyrain y sir ac yn gyfleus i Abertawe a Chastell Nedd Port Talbot, ychydig i’r dwyrain, all ddiwallu anghenion Pentre Awel, heb fynd ati i adeiladu miloedd yn rhagor o a dai yn yr ardal.

Cyflymodd y pandemig y tueddiad oedd eisoes yn bodoli i siopa arlein.Yn anffodus, bydd llawer rhagor o weithwyr yn colli eu swyddi oherwydd hyn. Mae Debenhams wedi cau yng Nghaerfyrddin a siopau eraill eisoes wedi diflannu o ganol y dref. Bydd yr un patrwm yn digwydd mewn trefi fel Llanelli a Rhydaman. Digon trist yw canol tref Llanelli ar hyn o bryd ac mae’n gysur deall bod trafodaethau wedi digwydd i newid cymeriad ac adfywio’r ardal. Mae’n dda gweld nifer o siopau llai yn agor, ond go brin gallant gynnig y nifer o swyddi oedd yn y siopau cadwyn mawr. Yng nghefn gwlad, ‘rydym wedi gweld cau nifer o ganghennau y banciau mawr a cholli swyddi yn sgîl hynny. Dyma rhagor o weithwyr sydd eisoes yn byw mewn tai yn y sir ac yn barod i weithio.

Dylai cynllunio adferiad canol trefi’r sir fod yn flaenoriaeth i’r Adran Blaengynllunio. Eisoes, mae nifer o gynghorau yn paratoi i addasu natur canol trefi, gan gynnwys adnoddau hamdden a throi siopau gwag yn aneddiadau pwrpasol i drigolion lleol. Nid adeiladu miloedd o dai yw’r flaenoriaeth, ond sicrhau gwaith sydd yn gweddu i’r sir ar gyfer pobl sydd, ar y cyfan, eisoes yn byw yma.

Mae dogfen “Plans for Carmarthenshire’s economic recovery and growth” yn gwneud y pwynt
“It sets out the authority’s aims to help businesses replace more than 3,000 jobs that have already been lost during the pandemic and safeguarding and replacing up to 10,000 jobs that may have been, or are at high risk of being lost when furlough ends”
Mae diogelu swyddi a chreu swyddi i ateb gofynion poblogaeth bresennol y sir yn ddigon o her. Go brin fod angen 8,800 o dai ychwanegol allai ddenu pobl a fyddai’n ennill y blaen ar y trigolion lleol o ran cael y swyddi a gollwyd.

Mae “uchelgeisiau economaidd y sir” yn ddelfryd digon canmoladwy ond mae’n ymddangos mor bell o realiti â rheinosoros yn dawnsio bale! Twf graddol a gwella’r isadeiledd yw’r uchelgais realistig ac mae’r adran ar ddatblygu gwledig yn cynnig arweiniad deallus i’r cyfeiriad yma. Enghraifft o’r hyn gellir ei wneud yn realistig yw’r defnydd o’r £36.8 miliwn o Gronfa Rhannu Cyfoeth y DU ar gyfer cymdeithasau a busnesau cymunedol a phrosiect Llwybrau Cerdded a Seiclo Dyffryn Tywi.

Dogfennau Poblogaeth a Thai:
Mae adrannau Blaengynllunio yn astudio dogfennau sydd yn ceisio rhagweld tueddiadau poblogaeth ac aneddiadau. Nid yw’r rhain yn ragolygon pendant o’r hyn fydd yn digwydd ond yn amcanestyniadau yn seiliedig ar dueddiadau, Mae nifer ohonynt yn cadarnhau yr hyn sydd yn gynyddol amlwg i ni.
Ystadegau cryno ar gyfer rhanbarth De-orllewin Cymru: 2020 [Llywodraeth Cymru , Mai 20 2020]
“Gan edrych ar awdurdodau lleol, yn Sir Gaerfyrddin y cafwyd y newid net mwyaf yn y boblogaeth oherwydd mudo a newidiadau eraill yn ystod y cyfnod 2017/18. Gwelwyd newid naturiol negyddol yn y pedwar awdurdod lleol yn ystod y cyfnod hwn, sy’n golygu bod nifer y marwolaethau yn uwch na nifer y genedigaethau. Roedd y newid naturiol negyddol uchaf yn Sir Gaerfyrddin”
Mewn geiriau eraill, mae mwy wedi marw na cael eu geni yn y sir a hynny ar raddfa uwch na’r dair sir arall. Ond oherwydd mudo, ‘roedd “ y newid yn y boblogaeth oherwydd mudo net a newidiadau eraill yn gadarnhaol”. Ystyr “cadarnhaol” yw cynnydd i’r ystadegydd, ond i garedigion y Gymraeg, golyga her ychwanegol o geisio cymathu mwy fyth o bobl di-Gymraeg.
Mae Stats Cymru yn cynnig cyfansymiau ar gyfer 2016/7.
2016/7 - Mewnlif mewnol [o fewn y DU] 6,702 All-lif mewnol 6,080
Yn 2018/19 - Mewnlif mewnol [o fewn y DU] 6,900 All –lif mewnol 5,900
[Amcanestyniadau poblogaeth awdurdodau lleol ar 2018/19]

Pa fath o bobl sydd yn mudo? Gwyddom bod nifer sylweddol o bobl ifanc yn gadael y sir yn flynyddol. Pwy sydd yn cymryd eu lle? Ai pobl ifanc fydd yn dychwelyd i’r sir neu fewnfudo gan bobl oed gwaith fel y mae’r Adran Blaengynllunio yn darogan wrth adeiladu gymaint o dai?

Mae Amcanestyniadau poblogaeth awdurdodau lleol sy’n seiliedig ar 2018, Cymru [diwygiedig]
a gyhoeddwyd ym mis Awst 2020, yn ceisio rhagweld yr hyn sydd yn debygol o ddigwydd. Mae’n rhagweld cynnydd o 2.4% ym mhoblogaeth y sir erbyn 2028, fyddai’n dod â chyfanswm poblogaeth Sir Gaerfyrddin i 192,100. Mae hyn 1.7% yn uwch na’r amcanestyniad yn seiliedig ar ffigurau 2014.
Beth fydd yn ysgogi’r cynnydd yn y boblogaeth?
“Amcanestynnir y bydd mudo yn ychwanegu at faint y boblogaeth ar gyfer mwyafrif yr awdurdodau lleol yng Nghymru yn ystod y cyfnod 2018 -2028......Fodd bynnag, ar gyfer y mwyafrif o awdurdodau lleol, bydd mudo net positif yn uwch na’r newid naturiol negatif, gan arwain at gynnydd cyffredinol yn y boblogaeth”
[Cofier ystyr “positif” a “negatif” i’r ystadegwyr}
Gwireddwyd y ddamcaniaeth yng nghyfrifiad 2021. Cynyddodd y ganran anwyd “tu allan i Gymru” o 24% i 26.4%.
Sir Gaerfyrddin - 2021 Geni1,540 Marw 2,592 2020 Geni 1,660 Marw 2,404
2019 Geni 1,744 Marw 2,202 2017 Geni 1,817 Marw 2,230
2016 Geni 1,878 Marw 2,266 .... yr un patrwm ers 2001/2

Lleihad yn nifer y bobl 16 -64 oed fydd yn 17 o’r awdurdodau lleol, gan gynnwys Sir Gaerfyrddin. Dyma’r bobl mae’r Adran Blaengynllunio yn ei honni fydd yn dod i fyw yn y tai sydd i’w hadeiladu. Yn wir, mae’r graff ar dudalen 5 o’r Asesiad Iaith yn dangos mai cynnydd yn yr oed 65+ a 75+ sydd yn debygol rhwng 2018 – 2028. Yn ogystal â chreu heriau i’r gwasanaethau cymdeithasol nid yw’r ystod oedrannau hyn yn debygol o ddysgu Cymraeg. Felly, rhagweld y patrwm o fewnfudo a hynny’n cynnwys canran sylweddol o bobl mewn oed, ac allfudo gyda nifer sylweddol o bobl ifanc a addysgwyd yn y sir wna’r dadansoddiad. Mae hefyd yn rhagweld y patrwm o’r raddfa marwolaethau yn parhau i fod yn uwch na’r raddfa genedigaethau hyd 2028.

Mae dogfennau swyddogol yn dangos symudiad graddol ond clir at rentu ar draul perchnogaeth. Mae’r ddogfen Dwelling Stock Estimates a gyhoeddwyd ym mis Mawrth 2019 yn nodi bod 9,200 o aneddiadu yn y sir yn cael eu rhentu oddi wrth y Cyngor lleol a 3,200 oddi wrth landlordiaid cymdeithasol. Mae’n siwr bod angen cartrefu pobl mewn angen a chynnig aneddiadau addas iddynt. Ond mae rhywfaint o bryder fod nifer o’r cartrefi cymdeithasol yn y sir yn cael eu gosod i bobl o Loegr ac os yw hyn yn digwydd mae’n sicr o wanhau’r iaith ymhellach.

Tuedd arall sydd eisoes wedi cychwyn ac yn debygol o gyflymu yw cartrefi addas i un person. Y disgwyl yw bydd y galw am y math yma o annedd yn cynyddu 27% erbyn 2039. Mae angen i adrannau Blaengynllunio fod yn ymwybodol o’r tueddiadau hyn ac addasu’r amcanestyniadau yng ngoleuni’r datblygiadau a’r dystiolaeth.

Yr Adran Blaengynllunio, Llywodraeth Cymru a’r Gymraeg:
Mae Llywodraeth Cymru yn anelu at sicrhau miliwn o siaradwyr Cymraeg erbyn 2050 ac mae cyfeiriad at le’r Gymraeg mewn nifer o ddogfennau y Llywodraeth. Mae’r CDLL yn cyfeirio at Ddeddf Llesiant Cenedlaethau’r Dyfodol sydd yn cynnwys yr amcan i greu
“Cymru â diwylliant bywiog lle mae’r Gymraeg yn ffynnu”
** Nid yw adeiladu tai fydd yn denu rhagor o fewnfudwyr di- Gymraeg yn gyson â’r amcan hyn**.

Yn wahanol i’r CDLl drafft blaenorol,mae un cyfeiriad y tro hwn at ddogfen Llywodraeth Cymru “Miliwn o Siaradwyr erbyn 2050” . Yna cawn “ I gyrraedd y nod hwn bydd y Cyngor yn cefnogi,hyrwyddo a gwella’r Gymraeg fel iaith gymunedol hyfyw trwy sicrhau bod cyfleoedd cyflogaeth a thai digonol a chymesur i gynnal cymunedau gwledig a threfol y sir a thrwy roi fframwaith monitro effeithiol ar waith”
Gallwn groesawu’r bwriad i gynnig cyflogaeth deilwng a digonol i bobl y sir. Yn ein barn ni, nid oes angen 8,822 o dai i wireddu’r bwriad. Mae angen eglurhad ar y gyfundrefn monitro achos mae ffigurau Cyfrifiad 2021 yn dangod na fu yn effeithiol, os yw’n bodoli o gwbl. Gostyngodd y ganran o siaradwyr Cymraeg y sir o 44.0% i 39.9% Yn rhyfeddol, mae’r ddogfen yn cyfeirio at Gyfrifiad 2011 ac nid un 2021!
** Dyma enghraifft arall o dalu sylw annigonol i bolisi cydnabyddedig Llywodraeth Cymru a hynny mewn sir gyda nifer sylweddol o siaradwyr yr iaith, er gwaethaf y dirywiad pryderus**
Mae dogfen y Llywodraeth Miliwn o Siaradwyr” yn cydnabod allfudiad nifer sylweddol o siaradwyr Cymraeg o’u broydd a mewnlifiad pobl hŷn. Yna, mae’r ddogfen yn gwneud pwynt byddai’n fuddiol i’r Cyngor Sir ei ystyried a gweithredu arno, os yw o ddifrif eisiau cynnal a hybu’r Gymraeg:

Mae hyn yn galw am gryfhau’r berthynas rhwng cynllunio ieithyddol a chynllunio defnydd tir”
Nid oes afflwydd o dystiolaeth yn y Strategaeth a Ffefrir bod y sir yn ymwybodol o’i chyfrifoldeb yn y broses o gynllunio ieithyddol.
** Nid yw’r Cynllun Datblygu Lleol yn ei ffurf bresennol wedi deall oblygiadau gofyniad llywodraeth Cymru**
Mae’n siwr fod yr Adran Blaengynllunio ac felly’r Cyngor Sir yn deall bod trefn hierarchaidd i’r gyfundrefn gynllunio yng Nghymru. Islaw Trefn Gynllunio Cymru daw Cymru’r Dyfodol. Mae’n bolisi allweddol bwysig yn y gyfundrefn gynllunio:
Cymru’r Dyfodol yw’r haen uchaf o gynllun datblygu ac mae’n canolbwyntio ar faterion a heriau ar lefel genedlaethol” a
“Mae’n ofynnol i CDSau a CDLlau gydymffurfio â Cymru’r Dyfodol a rhaid iddynt gael ei diweddaru’n rheolaidd er mwyn sicrhau eu bod nhw’n cydweithio’n effeithiol” [tudalen 6]

Felly, pa mor agos yw’r berthynas rhwng y Strategaeth a Ffefrir gan yr Adran Blaengynllunio a chanllawiau Cymru’r Dyfodol, yn benodol o ran cyfanswm y tai sydd eu hangen? Addaswyd rhanbarth y de Orllewin ar gyfer fersiwn derfynol Cymru’r Dyfodol. Bellach , mae’r rhanbarth yn cynnwys siroedd Penfro, Caerfyrddin, Abertawe, Castell Nedd Port Talbot a Pharc Cenedlaethol Arfordir Penfro.
Amcan gyfrif canolog fersiwn derfynol Cymru’r Dyfodol yw bydd angen 25,600 o dai ychwanegol rhwng 2018/19 a 2038/9. Mae hyn yn ymestyn pum mlynedd tu hwnt i ddiwedd cyfnod Cynllun Datblygu Lleol y sir.
Gan fod cyfnod o 20 mlynedd ar gyfer yr amcan gyfrif canolog rhanbarth de- Orllewin Cymru’r Dyfodol, gallwn rannu’r 25,600 gyda 20 a chael 1,280. Dyma nifer y tai ychwanegol sydd eu hangen yn flynyddol, ar draws y 5 awdurdod i gyrraedd y targed. O rannu’r 1,280 ar draws y 5 awdurdod, , cawn mai dim ond 256 o dai ychwanegol sydd angen i bob awdurdod adeiladu’n flynyddol i gyrraedd at 25,600. Yn olaf, er mwyn gweld faint o dai sydd angen i Sir Gâr adeiladu dros 15 mlynedd y CDLl mae angen lluosi 256 â 15 = 3,940 tŷ ychwanegol.
Hyd yn oed o rannu’r 25,600 rhwng y pump awdurdod cawn y cyfanswm o 5,120 i bob sir ond mae hynny dros gyfnod o ugain ac nid pymtheg mlynedd.
Byddai rhai yn dadlau bod Parc Cenedlaethol Arfordir Sir Benfro mor fach, fel y gellid ei anwybyddu bron wrth geisio darogan cyfansymiau tai yn y siroedd. O wneud hynny a rhannu 25,600 rhwng 4 awdurdod cawn gyfanswm o 6,400, ond eto dros ugain ac nid pymthrg mlynedd y CDLl
Pa bynnag ddansoddiad a ffefrir, mae’n sylweddol llai na’r 8,822 yn y Strategaeth a Ffefrir gan y Cyngor Sir. Mae’r rhain yn dargedau llawer mwy rhesymol o gofio bod tua 2,000 o dai gwag yn y sir yn 2022 heb sôn am adeiladau gwag eraill a’r tai ar werth.

** Dyma enghraifft arall o’ Adran Blaengynllunio/Cyngor Sir yn talu sylw annigonol i ganllawiau clir Llywodraeth Cymru yn nogfen Cynllunio allweddol “Cymru’r Dyfodol”.

Annelwig yw canllawiau’r ddogfen ar sut i sicrhau sefyllfa “sy’n creu’r amodau i’r Gymraeg ffynnu a pharhau i fod yn iaith gymunedol yn y lleoedd niferus lle siaredir Cymraeg bob dydd”.
Mae cyfeiriadau at “y gydberthynas rhwng tai strategol, trafniadaeth a thwf economaidd a’r Gymraeg” cyn gofyn i’r CDLlau gynnwys “hierarchaethau aneddiadau pholisiau dosbarthu twf” ar gyfer creu’r amodau priodol i sicrhau ffyniant y Gymraeg. Penagored ac annelwig yw’r cysyniadau hyn, ond o gadw at y targed canolog dylai fod modd datblygu strategaethau cymathu priodol dros 15 mlynedd cyfnod y CDLL.
Serch hynny mae heriau penodol yn wynebu Mentrau Iaith y sir. “Mae strategaeth ofodol Cymru’r Dyfodol yn nodi dylai ffocws twf yn rhanbarth y De-orllewin fod yn ardal Bae Abertawe a Llanelli”.
O fewn y sir, mae’r ardal yn cynnwys tref Seisnigedig Llanelli, lle mae’r canrannau isaf o siardawyr Cymraeg yn ôl Cyfrifiadau 2011 a 2021, ond drws nesaf yr ardaloedd â’r canrannau uchaf, sef Cwm Gwendraeth a Dyffryn Aman. Bydd “datblygu” sef adeiladu sylweddol pellach yn y dref, ac yn arbennig yng nghymoedd Aman a’r Gwendraeth, yn rhoi pwysau enfawr ar y Gymraeg. Bydd her ychwanegol hefyd yn ardal Caerfyrddin sydd wedi ei ddynodi fel” ardal twf rhanbarthol”. Mae’n bosibl bydd “datblygwyr” a’r Adran Blaengynllunio yn dadlau bod angen tipyn mwy na’r 3,900 neu 5,120 neu hyd yn oed 6,400 o dai os oes datblygu/adeiladu, yn ardal Llanelli a Chaerfyrddin. Ar y llaw arall, mae nifer sylweddol o dai gwag yn y sir ac hefyd nifer o bobl eisoes yn chwilio am waith. Nid yw cyfanswm y tai gwag yn cynnwys y Tai ar Werth. Dyma gronfa ychwanegol o aneddiadau i ddiwallu anghenion gweithwyr yn y sir. Felly, nid oes modd gweld angen am lawer mwy na 5,000 o dai fan pellaf o ystyried y rhagolygon economaidd ansicr. Mae hyn yn arbennig o wir o gofio nad yw’r Cyngor Sir yn gwybod faint o dai sydd Ar Werth yny sir. Mae’r tai yma ar gael ar gyfer unrhyw ddatblygiad cyflogaeth.

Mae’r pwyslais ar dai fforddiadwy a chymdeithasol yn ateb anghenion y sir a chawsom atebion derbyniol gan yr Adran Tai ynglŷn ag ail osod tai gwag yn aneddiadau.Adeiladu tai cymdeithasol a fforddiadwy, gyda fforddiadwy yn ategu cyflogau lleol sydd ei angen, gyda’r lleiafswm angenrheidiol o dai ar y farchnad agored all sicrhau elw i gwmniau lleol. Nid dyma fwriad y Strategaeth a Ffefrir.Yn wahanol i ganllawiau Llywodraeth Lafur Cymru, mae’n agor y drws i fewnfudo pellach a gwneud gwaith heriol asiantaethau’r Fforwm a mudiadau Cymraeg eraill hyd yn oed yn anos.
Mae Ms Meinir Jones, ar ran Comisiynydd Iaith Cymru, yn gwneud yr union bwynt wrth ymateb i’r CDLl blaenorol. Mae’n anodd credu y byddai yn newid ei barn o gofio mai gostyngiad o 13 welwyd yn y cyfanswm tai bwriedir eu hadeiladu nawr yn y CDLl newydd “Mae’r targed newydd o ran tai, sef 8,835, yn llawer uwch na’r angen am dai newydd yn seiliedig ar amcanestyniadau Llywodraeth Cymru” [tud.184 cofnodion y Cyngor Sir, Ionawr 2021]]

Ymateb Llywodraeth Cymru i’r Cynllun Datblygu Lleol:
Ar ran Llywodraeth Cymru mae Mark Newey yn codi cwestiynau perthnasol am y CDLl cyntaf.. Mae’n tynnu sylw at y twf naturiol negyddol ym mhoblogaeth y sir, cyn nodi:
“The authority must fully evidence and explain how the scale of growth relates to the latest projections taking account of housing need and impacts on the Welsh language. The evidence needs to demonstrate where the in-migration will be derived from i.e. neighbouring counties, elsewhere in Wales, the UK or international migration” [tud 182 cofnodion y Cyngor Sir]

Dyma’r math o wybodaeth mae’r Mentrau Iaith wedi ceisio ei ganfod gan yr Arwerthwyr Tai lleol.
Mae tystiolaeth Dylan Phillips ar Gyfrifiad 2011 yn awgrymu’n gryf mai o Loegr daeth nifer i gefn gwlad y sir. Mae fersiwn drafft y CDLl yn cydnabod mai mewnfudo sydd yn gyfrifol am y twf yn y boblogaeth [tud 2] ac mae Cyfarwyddiaeth Cynllunio Llywodraeth Cymru yn dod i’r un casgliad [ tud 2]. Ond pa un ai o Loegr neu ardal Seisnigedig o Gymru daw y mewnfudo mae’n rhwym o arwain at wanhau’r Gymraeg yn y sir.
Mae Mark Newey hefyd yn feirniadol o ddosbarthiad gofodol/spatial distribution y CDLl gan godi amheuaeth am ei effaith ar y Gymraeg.
Mae hyd yn oed yn codi amheuon am effaith y CDLl ar ardaloedd gwledig y sir, er fod y rhan hwnnw o’r cynllun yn dangos ymwybyddiaeth o ddatblygu gofalus a phwysigrwydd y Gymraeg a’n diwylliant cynhenid.
“The Council’s Rural Needs Study” 2019 states that in rural settlements there is a predominant need for affordable homes. ..it is likely that the majority of housing delivered in these settlements will be for market housing. The study also highlights that half of the properties sold in these areas are likely to be for people outside the County Borough. The policy appears at odds with the evidence base.It is unclear how this approach aligns with findings in the SA/SEA, which identifies that growth and inward migration has the potential to dilute the Welsh language”[ tud. 814 cofnodion y Cyngor Sir]

**Fel mae’n sefyll ar hyn o bryd, mae Llywodraeth Cymru yn dangos fwy o ymwybyddiaeth o effaith y CDLl ar y Gymraeg na’r Cyngor Sir. Mae llawer gwell dealltwriaeth ein bod yn sôn am gyfnewid poblogaeth Gymraeg am un Saesneg o ran iaith. Mae targed tai Cymru’r Dyfodol hefyd yn cynnig llawer gwell cyfleon i’r Gymraeg nag amcanestyniad ffuantus yr Adran Blaengynllunio.**

Y Cyngor Sir:
Ateb y Cyngor Sir i’r sylwadau beirniadol oedd y byddai rhagor o ymchwil cyn dod i benderfyniad terfynol. Nid yw’n ymddangos bod fawr ddim wedi newid o ran Strategaeth Twf a’r cyfanswm tai.
Ond cynhaliodd y Cyngor Sir Asesiad Iaith o effaith y CDLl ar y Gymraeg. Prin yw’r awdurdodau sydd wedi ymgymryd â’r fath ymchwil ac mae sir Gaerfyrddin i’w ganmol am wneud. Fel nodwyd eisoes gwendid sylfaenol yr Asesiad oedd ei fod yn asesu effaith y Strategaeth a Ffefrir, oedd yn argymhell adeiladu 8,835 o dai. Ni ystyriwyd yr opsiynau mwy realistig o’r cyfanswm tai sydd eu hangen. Serch hynny, mae’r Asesiad yn dod i gasgliad tebyg i Dylan Phillips a Llywodraeth Cymru:
Mae’r holl senarios yn rhagdybio mai mewnfudo net fydd prif sbardun newid yn y boblogaeth. Er na ddywedir hynny’n benodol, rhagdybir y bydd newid naturiol yn parhau i fod yn negyddol gan leihau’r gronfa neu stoc o siaradwyr Cymraeg presennol dros amser” [atodiad 2.5 pwynt 17, tud 108]
Mae’r sylwadau ar pa mor ddibynadwy yw amcanestyniadau’r Cyngor Sir yn ddamniol. Dyma ddyfyniad o “Methodoleg Asesu’r Effaith ar y Gymraeg” - par 55 “Yn nhermau gwireddu amcanestyniadau poblogaeth, amcanestyniadau aelwydydd a thwf economaidd, nid yw cysondeb gwireddu amcan estyniadau yn arbennig o da” Yn union.

Y gobaith yw bod penderfyniad y Cyngor Sir a basiwyd ym mis Gorffennaf 2019 yn mynd i’w weithredu’n gyson. Dynodwyd y sir gyfan yn un o “sensitifrwydd ieithyddol” ac ymhellach fod yr iaith “yn ystyriaeth Gynllunio Berthnasol”
- Ym mhob cais i adeiladu 5 tŷ neu fwy yn yr ardaloedd gwledig a
- Ym mhob cais i adeiladu 10 tŷ neu fwy yn yr ardaloedd trefol.
Gall hwn fod yn arf cryf i rwystro adeiladu di-angen yn y sir ac mae’n glod fod y sir gyfan wedi ei ddiffinio fel un o sensitifrwydd ieithyddol. Wrth gwrs, mae’n dibynnu pwy sydd yn ymgymryd â’r Asesiad Effaith ar y Gymraeg. Yn y gorffennol, gadawyd i’r “datblygwyr” fwrw ati! Gan fod y Cyngor yn gweld y sir gyfan fel un o sensitifrwydd ieithyddol, mae’n anodd deall pam fod yr un Cyngor yn gweld yr angen i adeiladu 8,822 o dai dros gyfnod y CDLl, sydd yn ôl nifer o asiantaethau yn debygol o wanhau’r Gymraeg.

Yn y gorffennol ‘roedd cadeirydd y Pwyllgor Cynllunio yn agosach ati:

“mae’n debyg taw tua 6,000 o dai fydd y targed am y cyfnod 2021- 2033” oedd geiriau’r Cadeirydd mewn erthyglau yn y papur lleol yn 2018. Rhaid gobeithio y daw ef a’r Cyngor Sir i sylweddoli fod hwn, er yn darged gormodol, yn agosach ati ac y cawn newid sylweddol yn y cyfanswm tai o 8,822 dros gyfnod y CDLl, sydd yn debygol o fod yn ergyd drom bellach i’r Gymraeg yn y sir dros y ddegawd nesaf.

Fel y mae, nid yw Dyfodol i’r Iaith yn medru cefnogi’r Cynllun Datblygu Lleol.
Nid yw’n briodol i Sir Gaerfyrddin yng ngoleuni’r dystiolaeth yn yr Asesiad Iaith na pholisiau Llywodraeth Cymru. Mae’n talu sylw annigonol i bolisiau cenedlaethol megis Deddf Llesiant Cenedlaethau’r Dyfodol a Miliwn o Siaradwyr, heb sôn am Cymru’r Dyfodol sydd yn ganllaw statudol o bwys yn y gyfundrefn Cynllunio. ‘Rydym o’r farn bod y Cynllun Datblygu Lleol yn ansad a bod angen lleihau’n sylweddol y cyfanswm tai bwriedir eu hadeiladu.

The response of Dyfodol i’r Iaith members in Carmarthenshire to the second deposit version of the 2018 – 2033 Carmarthenshire Revised Local Plan

Language, as we know, is a strange thing. Who in their right mind opposes development?
But if we were to ask a number of people who have been involved with the planning system recently, it is likely that we would encounter a number of people who have lost their sanity.

The Carillion Company failed in 2018 due to the protection of bonus payments for the Directors, inappropriate accounting methods and paying entirely inadequate attention to the pension scheme. A significant number of buildings, including hospitals, were left unfinished. The cost of completing the building of the Royal Liverpool Hospital fell on the shoulders of the taxpayers.

Numerous houses were built on wetlands and on top of coal shafts by "developers" in Wales and beyond.

The Persimmon Company has built a significant number of houses in the county. The former Chief Executive of the company, Jeff Fairburn, was paid £7,000,000 in bonus over the years. This is the total amount the same company is prepared to pay to rectify the dangers on nine sites where they built unsafe housing.

Cladding is not the only dangerous element in homes in the UK. It is estimated that around 700,000 people still live in unsafe flats and up to another 3 million in homes that cannot be mortgaged because they are unsafe. The "developers" and Government rules are responsible for this unacceptable situation.

The Westminster Government presented a package of money to help around 200,000 flats in the highest towers. They did this under public pressure. The "developers" were very reluctant to accept responsibility and offer compensation to the tenants. The construction industry was given a decade to pay the £2billion cladding tax. Only recently, due to threats from the Minister in Westminster to remove them from the list of approved companies, have the companies made the effort in earnest to solve the problems that were created by them. But since the Grenfell disaster, when 72 people were burned to death, in June 2017, the five largest construction companies made £10 billion in profit. Somewhere in the Kensington and Chelsea council offices there is an application to "develop" Grenfell Towers.

It is high time we were more suspicious of "developers" and their empty claims and trusted local companies to meet local requirements.


Is there a need for so many houses?
No.

Research by Ian Mulheirn shows that the housing supply as a whole is sufficient. Mulheirn is a former economist at the Treasury, and Director of Consultancy with Oxford Economics. He is now Executive Director and Chief Economist with "Renewing the Centre", an Organization created by the former Prime Minister, Tony Blair.

In 2019 he published “Tackling the UK Housing Crisis – is supply the answer?” It focuses on England but it refers to Wales. To avoid incorrect translation, here is the crux of his argument:

“It is commonly claimed that we have failed to build enough houses to meet the demand for places to live. But official data suggests this is not the case since the 1996 nadir of house prices, the English housing stock has grown by 168,000 units per year on average, while the growth in the number of households has averaged 147,000 per year. As a result, while there were 660,000 more dwellings than households in England in 1996, the surplus has since grown to over 1.1million in 2018.
Similar trends are apparent in Scotland where a surplus of 74,000 in 1996 had more than doubled to 169,000 by 2017.
And in Wales the surplus increased from 56,000 to 92,000.”

The “Dwelling Stock Estimates, Welsh Government” document November 2019 supports Mulheirn’s analysis:
“The figures seem to suggest that in 2019 there may have been a sufficient number of dwellings for the overall number of households in Wales” [page 4]

The Forward Planning Department claims that it scrutinises carefully the Government’s projections relating to population. It does not appear that sufficient attention was paid to this particular analysis.

Mulheirn attributes this completely misleading situation to erroneous projections from the Office of National Statistics and the Government, which are the agencies on which the Forward Planning departments base figures. For decades, the growth in household numbers has been overestimated. The result of this was an overestimation of the total number of houses needed. Although the Office for National Statistics has recently recognized the weakness and adjusted the figures, Mulheirn is of the opinion that the estimate remains around 15,000 in excess per year.

He does not deny that there are specific problems such as homelessness, the need for social housing and affordable housing but in general there is no need to build thousands of houses in the UK and certainly not in this county. In the meeting at the end of 2020, the Council's Housing Department answered the questions about providing housing that meets the county's specific requirements.

Is it time to consider combining the Housing Department and the Forward Planning Department, on the understanding that it is the needs of the people of the county and not those of "developers" which should now claim priority?


The Situation in Carmarthenshire:
If the population of the county were to increase due to the natural growth of the native population and there were numerous jobs to support the people of the county, more houses would be needed, and with time and effort it would be possible to turn the linguistic ebb into a tide, and see an increase in the number of Welsh speakers. But that is not how it is.

Since 2001 the county's death rate has been higher than the birth rate. The same point is made in the Language Assessment, at the end of 2019, a document that the Forward Planning Department claims to have paid attention to its content. Here is an extract from the Language Assessment:
“The 2017/18 period recorded the highest number of deaths was registered since 2001” [Appendix 2.4, point 9].
If the death rate is consistently higher than the birth rate, and bearing in mind the significant emigration, the county's population would be expected to fall. That is not what happened. The first draft document of the LDP explains:
"The main factor influencing population change in Carmarthenshire since 2001/2 has been through inward migration, where more people have come into the County than have left"

The Language Assessment report confirms the pattern:
“Net internal migration continues to be the dominant driver of population change, with a sharp increase in the level of net inflow, reaching approximately +1600 in 2017/18 and showing a significant increase of over 700 compared to the previous year”

The County Council's latest LDP draft document underlines the continuation of the pattern
“Since 2011, the County has seen its population grow by 4,100 people, a 2.2% increase in 10 years. The main factor influencing population change in Carmarthenshire since 2001/2002 has been through inward migration....Carmarthenshire has an ageing population, with the number of deaths exceeding births each year since 2001/2.

There is an increase of people moving into the County within the 30-44 young family age group and the 0-14 year age group. There is also an increase in the over 65 age group which has contributed to Carmarthenshire’s ageing population profile”

Further evidence of an ageing population are the figures of children attending the county's primary schools which have fallen over the years:
2016 = 2120; 2017 =2065; 2018= 1995; 2019 + 1950; 2020+ 1965 a 2021 +1915

**This evidence, commissioned by the County Council, shows the danger to the Welsh language from over construction. The draft Development Plan is not credible, in the face of the evidence of the Language Assessment or the evidence of the County Council.**

The Census took place in February 2021 at the time of the pandemic. Although we do not have official figures it is clear that an additional number of immigrants have come to the county, like other counties in the west, looking for homes in a less populated area and dwellings with a garden or land.

Besides the Language Assessment, the Forward Planning Department claims to pay attention to the views and guidelines of the Welsh Government. When looking at the Preferred Strategy of the Forward Planning Department [alternative strategies were considered and rejected ... see below] the Planning Directorate of the Welsh Government made comments for consideration.
“The consequence of the level/distribution of housing growth proposed on the Welsh language needs to be clearly articulated especially as past high levels of in migration and international migration are being used to justify the housing requirement." [Impact on the Welsh language Assessment Methodology - paragraphs 23/4]

That is the truth. Building houses mainly for immigrants is what has happened in the county, and that when there was an adequate general supply of housing in Carmarthenshire. The latest figures from the County Council indicate that there are just under 2,000 empty houses in Carmarthenshire. The Housing Department is making progress in letting a number of the empty houses to county residents. But considering the houses for sale as well, which are available for any economic growth, however likely or unlikely that may be, there is a significant housing stock in the county for people who work here.

One would expect a County Council Forward Planning Department to consider carefully and to support to some extent, comments from the Planning Directorate of the Central Government. The intention to build 8,822 houses between 2018-2033 does not do that. The result of building this unreasonably high number will be to continue to promote the immigration of non-Welsh speaking people. Time is needed to implement the county's progressive policies in terms of making schools, workforces, apprenticeships and a number of other areas more Welsh.

The work of the Mentrau is challenging enough as it is, without continuing to promote the population exchange which is so harmful to our native language. The worry about the Forward Planning Department's lack of understanding of the County Council's linguistic priorities intensifies when looking at clause 11.173 of the Strategic Policy SP8 which claims:
“Through aiming for sustainable growth, the Plan will also maximise opportunities for non-Welsh speakers who move to the County to be integrated into community life at a scale and pace that will not undermine the vitality and viability of the Welsh language and culture” There is no explanation how this is meant to happen.

The results of the 2021 Census show that 26.4% of the county's population were born "outside Wales". This is an increase of 2.4% since 2011 and more than half the decrease of 4.1% in the percentage of Welsh speakers in the county since 2011. The integration policy does not appear to be very successful. There is no evidence concerning how many of the 26.4% of the county's population born "outside Wales" are fluent in Welsh.

The Forward Planning Department's approach to answering such questions is to transfer responsibility to other County Council departments, such as the Education Department. Reference was made above to the high level of immigration to the county in 2017/18. That cohort was analysed by the company that produced the Language Assessment. 30% of the people who came to the county in 2017/18 were aged 45 or over. [Appendix 2.4, pages 96 and 99/100]. Does the Forward Planning Department expect this cohort to attend a Welsh language school?
**A lack of solid evidence to justify policies is a feature of the LDP as it stands**

The immigration is not surprising from an economic point of view or the standard of living. The county is a pleasant place to live especially if your economic situation is comfortable. With the interest rate so low, selling a house and buying a similar one at a lower price is an effective way to accumulate a significant amount of money. By February 2021, according to Zoopla, the average value of a house in England was £320,757 while in Wales the average value was £199,113. The gap has closed somewhat since 2021 but a significant gap remains between the average house prices in the two countries.

When comparing house prices, again using Zoopla, we saw this comparison between Carmarthenshire and areas of England.
Birmingham Coventry Guildford Brighton Carmarthen Carmarthenshire

Semi-det £268k £273k £552k £578K £188k £178k
Detached £463k £427K £1,047k £786k £321k £334K

The Research was conducted in March 2023.

There are houses for sale in the county for £400,000, £500,000 and more. It is not likely that local people will be able to purchase these.
The county's Mentrau Iaith endeavoured to find out from house auctioneers, who has been buying houses in the area during the period of the pandemic. It is probable that some have moved from east Wales and some have returned to the county. But the house price comparison offers sufficient evidence of the financial benefits of moving from England to Carmarthenshire. For the County Council, this is advantageous and it is likely that there are advantages for landowners, some businesses and more Council Tax as well.

But what immigration does is place significant additional pressure on our unique heritage. While acknowledging that some will certainly benefit from the construction of 8,822 houses between 2018 and 2033, as a pressure group, Dyfodol i’r Iaith believes that it is gradual and careful growth that is needed, while the policy to make the county more Welsh bears fruit.


Strategic Growth and Spatial Options
Things to Consider and the Best Choice?
The title explains the department's priorities - the use of space or "land use", which is the basis of the planning system. Not the effect of land use on people but rather the use of land space for construction, arguing that this leads to economic improvements. It is claimed that the Department of Forward Planning is "considering employment-led options." This is commendable if it is realized and the department does not fall into the trap of thinking that construction on its own leads to economic prosperity.

The Forward Planning Department also considers the "vacancy rate". Reference has already been made to this. There are just under 2,000 empty houses in the county. Therefore, should there be an improvement in employment in the county and if that were to reduce emigration by the county's young people, there are empty houses here already for those workers. There are also a significant number of empty buildings in the towns and the countryside that can be converted into purpose-built homes.

A further argument from the Forward Planning Department is that it is necessary to "link population growth and estimated employment growth". The intention is supported by adding “The options identified assume that housing development without employment opportunities in the same broad location, and vice versa, is less sustainable and is to be avoided”. The argument is correct, housing is needed for employees. Therefore the economic and employment prospects need to be considered carefully [see below].

The employment prospects were quite fragile when the Forward Planning Department considered the choices for the 2018 – 2033 Local Development Plan. Consideration was given to 6 options. The one with the smallest projection in terms of population growth and population change was the Welsh Government Projection based on 2018. According to this analysis, 4,359 houses would be needed over the period of the LDP to meet the requirement of 6,197 in population growth. This option and others were rejected, even the one which estimated that 5,670 houses were needed to meet the projected growth demand of 9,460 people over the period of the LDP. This was the Welsh Government's “High Population” variable based on 2018.
**The County Council's LDP does not pay sufficient attention to the Welsh Government's projections**

All the options claim to be able to link the construction with "job creation". Evidently there will be jobs in the construction field and this will offer economic benefit in some other areas. But it has already been explained that there are a number of people in the county looking for work and they live in the county. Also, what evidence does the Forward Planning Department have that the jobs created by large "developers" such as Persimmon will be local jobs? It is quite likely that a number of the workers would come from outside the county, in order to meet the demand of the "developers" for workers.

There is no purpose in building houses unless there is appropriate work for the people who will live in them, as the department's citations acknowledge. Otherwise, the people who come into the houses will be retired people from outside the county, placing additional pressure on local public services.

On what basis were these options rejected?
This is the Forward Planning Department's explanation for rejecting the other options:
“Given the potential negative impacts highlighted above, it is not considered prudent to utilise the principal WG 2018-based projection for the Revised LDP. It would not have delivered the Plan’s Vision and Strategic Objectives.”

As the County Council is not willing to accept the Welsh Government's analyses, it is necessary to consider who is being most realistic [below].

We find again in the department's comments the completely unclear connection between building and keeping young people in the county. Cymdeithas yr Iaith's response to the vague allegations is absolutely right:
“Hope and ambition are not the same as evidence”. Exactly.

More than once, the Forward Planning Department notes that attention has been paid to the Impact Assessment on the Welsh language carried out by the County Council in 2019. This was to be welcomed. The councils that give such consideration to the impact of planning on our national language are few. But it is necessary to consider and remember that the Assessment was discussing the previous Preferred Strategy, which was to build 8,835 houses. The new Preferred Option is just as likely to cause great harm to the Welsh language and make the work of the agencies on the Language Forum, and other organizations even more challenging. The options that offered gradual growth, that would offer an opportunity for all the work to restore the Welsh language to bear fruit over the period of the Development Plan, were ignored.


The Economic Outlook:
Above, we saw a suggestion that the Forward Planning Department couples the building of houses with the county's employment needs. So, what are the economic prospects now?

The latest LDP places strong emphasis on the Swansea Bay City Deal to create jobs and prosperity. The two most important projects within the county are Egin where the S4C centre is located and Pentre'r Awel near Llanelli. In the last LDP, an attempt was made to persuade us that Canolfan yr Egin would protect and, possibly, promote the Welsh language in the area. There are around 50 jobs there directly linked to S4C. Nearby it was planned to build 1,200 houses. For whom were these intended?

Another pillar in the county's planned economic growth is Pentre Awel on the outskirts of Llanelli. The target over the next 15 years is to "create up to 2,000 jobs" and give "a £467 million boost to the economy". In that very area, more than 200 jobs were lost at the Schaeffler factory and another 90 from the Calsonic factory relatively recently. During the Covid period the AIM Altitude factory in Dafen closed with the loss of an additional 100 good jobs. This is approximately 400 local workers who would be available, with the appropriate training, to work in Pentre Awel, and who already live in houses in the area. Llanelli is in the south east of the county and convenient for Swansea. Neath Port Talbot, just to the east, can meet the needs of Pentre Awel, without building thousands more houses in the area.

The pandemic accelerated the tendency that already existed to shop online. Unfortunately, many more workers will lose their jobs because of this. Debenhams has closed in Carmarthen and other shops had already disappeared from the town centre. The same pattern will take place in towns such as Llanelli and Ammanford. Llanelli town centre is quite sad at the moment and it is comforting to know that discussions have taken place to change the character and regenerate the area. It is good to see a number of smaller shops opening, but they can hardly offer the number of jobs that existed in the big chain shops. In the countryside, we have seen the closure of many branches of the big banks and the loss of jobs as a result. Here are more workers who already live in houses in the county and are ready to work.

Planning the recovery of the county's town centres should be a priority for the Forward Planning Department. Already, a number of councils are preparing to adapt the nature of town centres, including leisure resources and turning empty shops into purpose-built dwellings for local residents. The priority is not to build thousands of houses, but to secure work that suits the county for people who, on the whole, already live here.

The document “Plans for Carmarthenshire’s economic recovery and growth” makes the point,
“It sets out the authority’s aims to help businesses replace more than 3,000 jobs that have already been lost during the pandemic and safeguarding and replacing up to 10,000 jobs that may have been, or are at high risk of being lost when furlough ends”. Protecting jobs and creating jobs to meet the demands of the county's current population is enough of a challenge. There is hardly a need for 8,800 additional houses that could attract people who would gain a head start on the local residents in terms of getting the lost jobs.

"The county's economic ambitions" is a laudable enough ideal but it seems as far from reality as a rhinoceros ballet-dancing! Gradual growth and improving the infrastructure is the realistic ambition and the department on rural development offers intelligent guidance in this direction. An example of what can realistically be done is the use of the £36.8 million from the UK Wealth Sharing Fund for community associations and businesses and the Tywi Valley Walking and Cycling Paths project.


Population and Housing Documents:
Forward Planning departments study documents that try to predict population and dwelling trends. These are not concrete forecasts of what will happen but projections based on trends. Many of them confirm what is increasingly obvious to us.

Summary statistics for the South West Wales region: 2020 [Welsh Government, May 20 2020]
"Looking at local authorities, Carmarthenshire saw the largest net change in population due to migration and other changes during the 2017-18 period. All 4 local authorities experienced negative natural change during this period, meaning the number of deaths was higher than the number of births. The highest level of negative natural change was in Carmarthenshire”.

In other words, more have died than been born in the county and that at a higher rate than the other three counties. But because of migration, "population change due to net migration and other changes was positive". "Positive" means progress for the statistician, but for those who love the Welsh language, it means an additional challenge of trying to assimilate even more non-Welsh speaking people.

Stats Cymru offers totals for 2016/7.
2016/7 - Inward inflow [within the UK] 6,702 Inward outflow 6,080
In 2018/19 - Inward Inflow [within the UK] 6,900 Inward outflow 5,900
[Local authority population projections for 2018/19]

What kind of people migrate? We know that a significant number of young people leave the county annually. Who is taking their place? Is it young people returning to the county or immigration of working age people as the Forward Planning Department predicts when building so many houses?

Local authority population Projections based on 2018, Wales [revised], that was published in August 2020, attempts to foresee what is likely to happen. It predicts a 2.4% increase in the county's population by 2028, which would bring the total population of Carmarthenshire to 192,100. This is 1.7% higher than the projection based on 2014 figures. What will drive the increase in population?
“Migration is projected to add to the population of all local authorities in Wales…in the period 2018 to 2028. However, for most local authorities, net positive migration will more than offset the negative natural change resulting in overall population increases”
[Remember the meaning of "positive" and "negative" for the statisticians]
The theory was realized in the 2021 census. The percentage born "outside Wales" increased from 24% to 26.4%.
Carmarthenshire - 2021 Births 1,540 Deaths 2,592 2020 Births 1,660 Deaths 2,404
2019 Births 1,744 Deaths 2,202 2017 Births 1,817 Deaths 2,230
2016 Births 1,878 Deaths 2,266 .... the same pattern since 2001/2

In 17 of the local authorities, including Carmarthenshire, a reduction will be seen in the number of people aged 16-64. These are the people that the Forward Planning Department claims will come to live in the houses that are to be built. Indeed, the graph on page 5 of the Language Assessment shows that the increase between 2018 and 2028 is likely to be in the age of 65+ to 75+. As well as creating challenges for social services, people in this age range are not likely to learn Welsh. Therefore what the analysis does is predict the pattern of immigration which will include a significant percentage of older adults, and emigration of a significant number of young people who have been educated in the county. It also predicts that the pattern of the death rate being higher than the birth rate will continue until 2028.

Official documents show a gradual but clear shift towards renting at the expense of ownership. The Dwelling Stock Estimates document, published in March 2019, states that 9,200 dwellings in the county are rented from the local Council and 3,200 from social landlords. It is certain that people in need must be housed and offered suitable dwellings. But there is some concern that many of the social homes in the county are being let to people from England and if this is happening it will surely further dilute the language.

Another trend that has already started and is likely to accelerate is homes suitable for one person. It is expected that the demand for this type of dwelling will increase by 27% by 2039. Forward Planning departments need to be aware of these trends and adjust the projections in the light of the developments and the evidence.

The Forward Planning Department, Welsh Government and the Welsh Language:
The Welsh Government aims to secure one million Welsh speakers by 2050 and there is a reference to the place of the Welsh language in a number of Government documents. The LDP refers to the Well-being of Future Generations Act which includes the objective to create
"A Wales of vibrant culture and thriving Welsh language"
** Building houses that will attract more non-Welsh speaking immigrants is not consistent with this objective**.

Unlike the previous draft LDP, there is just one reference this time to the Welsh Government's document "a Million Welsh Speakers by 2050". Then we have " To deliver on this aim, the Council will support, promote, and enhance the Welsh language as a viable community language by ensuring that there are sufficient and proportionate employment and housing opportunities to sustain both the rural and urban communities the county and by implementing an effective monitoring framework”

We can welcome the intention to offer worthy and adequate employment to the people of the county. In our view, 8,822 houses are not required to realize this intention. The monitoring regime requires clarification because Census 2021 figures show that this has not been effective, if it exists at all. The percentage of the county's Welsh speakers fell from 44.0% to 39.9%. Remarkably, the document refers to the 2011 census and not that of 2021!

** This is another example of paying insufficient attention to the Welsh Government's recognized policy and that in a county with a significant number of speakers of the language, despite the worrying decline **
The government's “a Million Welsh Speakers” document recognizes the emigration of a significant number of Welsh speakers from their areas and the influx of older people. The document then makes a point that it would be beneficial for the County Council to consider and act upon, if it is serious about wishing to maintain and promote the Welsh language:
This calls for the relationship between language planning and land use planning to be strengthened”

There is no evidence whatsoever in the preferred strategy that the county is aware of its responsibility in the process of language planning.
**The Local Development Plan in its current form has not understood the implications of the Welsh Government's requirement**
The Forward Planning Department and therefore the County Council probably understand that there is a hierarchical regime in the planning system in Wales. Below Wales' planning system comes Future Wales. It is a vitally important policy in the planning system:
“Future Wales is the top tier of a development plan and it focuses on issues and challenges at the national level” and
“Strategic and Local Development Plans are required to be in conformity with Future Wales and must be kept up to date to ensure they and Future Wales work together effectively” [Page 6]

So, how close is the relationship between the preferred strategy of the Forward Planning Department and the Future Wales Guidelines, specifically in terms of the total housing needed? The South West region was adapted for the final version of Future Wales. The region now includes the counties of Pembrokeshire, Carmarthen, Swansea, Neath Port Talbot and the Pembrokeshire Coast National Park.

The central estimate of the final version of Future Wales is that 25,600 additional houses will be needed between 2018/19 and 2038/9. This extends five years beyond the end of the county's Local Development Plan period.
As there is a period of 20 years for the central estimate of the South West Future Wales region, we can divide the 25,600 by 20 and get 1,280. This is the number of additional houses needed annually, across the 5 authorities to reach the target. By dividing the 1,280 among the 5 authorities, we find that each authority needs to build only 256 additional houses annually to reach 25,600. Finally, in order to see how many houses Carmarthenshire needs to build over the 15 years of the LDP it is necessary to multiply 256 by 15 = 3,940 additional houses.

Even if we divide the 25,600 between the five authorities we get a total of 5,120 for each county but that is over a period of twenty and not fifteen years.

Some would argue that the Pembrokeshire Coast National Park is so small, that it could almost be ignored when trying to predict housing totals in the counties. If we were to do that and divide 25,600 between 4 authorities we get a total of 6,400, but again over twenty and not the fifteen years of the LDP.

Whichever analysis is preferred, it is significantly less than the 8,822 in the Preferred Strategy by the County Council. These are much more reasonable targets bearing in mind that there are around 2,000 empty houses in the county in 2022 not to mention other empty buildings and the houses for sale.

** This is another example of the Forward Planning Department/County Council paying insufficient attention to the Welsh Government's clear guidelines in the key "Future Wales" planning document.

The document's guidelines are vague on how to ensure a situation "that create(s) the conditions for Welsh to thrive and remain as the community language in the many places where everyday life takes place in Welsh". There are references to "the correlation between strategic housing, transport and economic growth and the Welsh language" before asking the LDPs to include "settlement hierarchies and growth distribution policies" for creating the appropriate conditions to ensure the prosperity of the Welsh language. These concepts are open-ended and vague, but by adhering to the central target it should be possible to develop appropriate assimilation strategies over the 15-year period of the LDP.

Nevertheless there are specific challenges facing the county's Mentrau Iaith. "The Future Wales spatial strategy states that the focus of growth in the South West region should be in the Swansea Bay and Llanelli area".

Within the county, the area includes the Anglicised town of Llanelli, where the lowest percentages of Welsh speakers are according to the 2011 and 2021 Censuses, but next door the areas with the highest percentages, namely Cwm Gwendraeth and Dyffryn Aman. "Development" meaning further significant construction in the town, and particularly in the Amman and Gwendraeth valleys, will place enormous pressure on the Welsh language. There will also be an additional challenge in the Carmarthen area which has been designated as a "regional growth area". It is possible that "developers" and the Forward Planning Department will argue that we need quite a bit more than the 3,900 or 5,120 or even the 6,400 houses if there is development/construction, in the Llanelli and Carmarthen area. On the other hand, there are a significant number of empty houses in the county and also a number of people already looking for work. The total number of empty houses does not include the Houses for Sale. This is an additional pool of dwellings to meet the needs of workers in the county. Therefore, it is not possible to see a need for many more than 5,000 houses at the most, considering the uncertain economic outlook. This is especially true bearing in mind that the County Council does not know how many houses are for sale in the county. These houses are available for any employment development.

The emphasis on affordable and social housing meets the county's needs and we received acceptable answers from the Housing Department concerning re-letting empty houses as dwellings. Building social and affordable housing, with affordable corresponding to local wages, is what is required, with the necessary minimum of houses on the open market that can ensure profit for local companies. This is not the intention of the Preferred Strategy. Unlike the Welsh Labour Government's guidelines, it opens the door to further immigration and makes the challenging work of the Forum agencies and other Welsh organizations even more difficult.

Ms Meinir Jones, on behalf of the Welsh Language Commissioner, makes the exact point when responding to the previous LDP. It is difficult to believe that she would change her opinion, bearing in mind that a reduction of 13 was seen in the total number of houses now planned to be built in the new LDP, "The new housing target of 8,835 is significantly higher than the need for new housing based on Welsh Government projections" [page 184 County Council minutes, January 2021]]

Welsh Government Response to the Local Development Plan:
On behalf of the Welsh Government, Mark Newey raises relevant questions about the first LDP. He highlights the negative natural growth in the county’s population, before making the point:
“The authority must fully evidence and explain how the scale of growth relates to the latest projections, taking account of housing need and impacts on the Welsh language. The evidence needs to demonstrate where the in-migration will be derived from i.e. neighbouring counties, elsewhere in Wales, the UK or international migration” [page 182 County Council minutes]

This is the type of information that Mentrau Iaith have tried to find out from the local Estate Agents.
Dylan Phillips' evidence on the 2011 Census strongly suggests that many came from England to the county's countryside. The draft version of the LDP recognizes that immigration is responsible for the growth in the population [page 2] and the Welsh Government's Planning Directorate comes to the same conclusion [page 2]. But whether the immigration comes from England or an Anglicised part of Wales, it is bound to lead to a weakening of the Welsh language in the county.

Mark Newey is also critical of the spatial distribution of the LDP, raising doubts about its impact on the Welsh language. He even raises doubts about the effect of the LDP on the rural areas of the county, although that part of the plan shows an awareness of careful development and the importance of the Welsh language and our native culture.

“The Council’s Rural Needs Study” 2019 states that in rural settlements there is a predominant need for affordable homes. ..It is likely that the majority of housing delivered in these settlements will be for market housing. The study also highlights that half of the properties sold in these areas are likely to be to people outside the County Borough. The policy appears at odds with the evidence base. It is unclear how this approach aligns with findings in the SA/SEA, which identify that growth and inward migration has the potential to dilute the Welsh language” [page 814 County Council minutes]

**As things stand at the present time, the Welsh Government demonstrates a greater awareness of the effect of the LDP on the Welsh Language than the County Council does. It has a better understanding that we are talking about exchanging a Welsh population for one that is English speaking. The Future Wales housing target also offers far better opportunities to the Welsh language than the false projection of the Forward Planning Department.**

The County Council:
The County Council's answer to the critical comments was that more research would be carried out before reaching a final decision. Little seems to have changed in terms of the Growth Strategy and the total number of houses.

But the County Council carried out a Language Assessment of the impact of the LDP on the Welsh language. Few authorities have undertaken such research and Carmarthenshire is to be commended for doing so. As already stated the basic weakness of the Assessment was that it assessed the impact of the Preferred Strategy, which recommended the construction of 8,835 houses. The more realistic options of the total number of houses required were not considered. Nevertheless, the Assessment reaches a similar conclusion to Dylan Phillips and the Welsh Government:
“All scenarios assume that net internal migration will continue to be the main driver of population change. Although it is not made explicit, it is assumed that natural change will continue to be negative thus reducing the pool or stock of existing Welsh speakers over time” [appendix 2.5 point 17, page 108]

The comments are scathing on how reliable the County Council's projections are. This is a quote from "Methodology for Assessing the Impact on the Welsh Language" - para 55 "In terms of realising population and household projections and economic growth, the consistency of realising projections is not particularly good". Exactly.

It is to be hoped that the decision of the County Council passed in July 2019 will be implemented consistently. The whole county was designated as one of "linguistic sensitivity" and further that the language "is a Material Planning consideration"
- In all applications to build 5 or more houses in the rural areas and
- In all applications to build 10 or more houses in the urban areas.
This can be a strong tool to prevent unnecessary construction in the county and it is a credit that the whole county has been defined as one of linguistic sensitivity. Of course, it depends on who undertakes the Impact Assessment on the Welsh language. In the past, the “developers” were left to get on with it! As the Council sees the whole county as one of linguistic sensitivity, it is difficult to understand why the same Council sees the need to build 8,822 houses over the period of the LDP, which according to a number of agencies is likely to dilute the Welsh language.

In the past the chairman of the Planning Committee was closer to it:

“Approximately 6,000 houses probably will be the target for the period 2021- 2033" were the Chairman's words in articles in the local paper in 2018. One must hope that he and the County Council will come to realize that this, although it is an excessive target, is nearer the mark and we shall have a significant change in the total number of houses from 8,822 over the period of the LDP, which is likely to be a further heavy blow to the Welsh language in the county over the next decade.

As things stand, Dyfodol i’r Iaith is unable to support the Local Development Plan.

It is not appropriate for Carmarthenshire, in the light of the evidence in the Language Assessment or Welsh Government policies. It pays insufficient attention to national policies such as the Well-being of Future Generations Act and a Million Welsh Speakers, not to mention Future Wales which is an important statutory guideline in the Planning system. We are of the opinion that the Local Development Plan is unstable and that the total number of houses intended to be built needs to be significantly reduced.

Dyfodol i’r Iaith Carmarthenshire March 2023

Amend Plan to address these issues.

Whilst I fully agree with the proposals submitted by my colleague and fellow Councillor Carys Jones, I wish to submit that the allocation proposed for Drefach Felindre is limited and inadequate for the next ten years. In particular, the allocation of only three houses on the Waugilwen road should be doubled to six, which would accommodate future expansion of the village.

Submissions by Carys Jones - dealt with in another representation

Nid oes unrhyw newid wedi'i nodi.
___
No change specified.

Ymateb Rhanbarth Caerfyrddin Cymdeithas yr Iaith i ymgynghoriad ar Gynllun Datblygu Lleol Diwygiedig Adneuo Sir Gaerfyrddin 2018-2033
Sylwadau cychwynnol

Cydnabyddwn fod amcanion y Cynllun Datblygu Lleol Diwygiedig yn uchelgeisiol a bod dyhead y Cyngor Sir i hwyluso creu swyddi o ansawdd uchel yn un clodwiw.
Wedi dweud hynny a wedi dadansoddi’r dogfennau perthnasol, rhaid i ni fynegi pryderon difrifol am effaith y cynllun ar y Gymraeg a rhai o gymunedau ac ardaloedd
Cymreiciaf Sir Gâr.

Credwn nad yw elfennau allweddol o’r cynllun diwygiedig yn seiliedig ar dystiolaeth gadarn, a bod tipyn o waith i’w wneud i sicrhau dyfodol hyfyw i’r Gymraeg cyn i’r
Cyngor gyflwyno’r Cynllun Adneuo i’r Llywodraeth. Nid oes unrhyw ddadansoddiad o sut y gall creu nifer sylweddol o swyddi mewn un gornel o’r sir gyflawni’r nod o atal yr
allfudiad difrifol o bobl ifainc o’n cymunedau ledled y sir. Camgymeriad sylfaenol yw fod y Cynllun yn trin adfywiad economaidd ac adfywiad iaith a chymunedol fel dau
beth ar wahân yn lle ystyriaeth fanwl o ba fath ar ddatblygu economaidd a fydd o fudd pennaf i’r iaith ac i’n cymunedau.

Er bod "gwarchod, gwella a hyrwyddo'r Gymraeg a hunaniaeth ddiwylliannol" yn un o Amcanion Strategol y Cynllun dydy cynnwys y Cynllun ei hun ddim yn adlewyrchu
hynny.

Ymhellach, mae Strategaeth Hybu’r Gymraeg y Cyngor yn cynnwys y nod o wneud y Gymraeg yn brif iaith y sir. Dydy’r Cynllun Datblygu Lleol ddim yn cyfeirio at hynny o
gwbl, ac yn gweithio yn erbyn hynny.

Anghenion tai ac amcanestyniadau poblogaeth

Fel gyda’r yr ail Gynllun gwrieddiol, mae’n anodd peidio â dod i’r casgliad i’r Cyngor Sir ofyn faint o dai fyddai eu hangen er mwyn cyflawni amcanion ei strategaeth
adfywio gan fod nifer y tai wedi ei seilio ar Adroddiad Tai a Thwf Economaidd (Twf Poblogaeth) Turley.

Mae’r cynllun yn cydnabod y bu dirywiad sylweddol yn nifer y siaradwyr Cymraeg dros y degawdau diwethaf, felly rhaid gofyn pam bod yr ail Gynllun Datblygu Lleol wedi ei seilio ar amcanestyniad deng mlynedd yn Adroddiad Tai a Thwf Economaidd (Twf Poblogaeth) Turley.
Roedd y Cynllun Datblygu Lleol cyntaf wedi ei seilio ar amcanestyniad poblogaeth hefyd, ac yn cynllunio ar gyfer twf.

Mae’r Cynllun Adneuo’n disgwyl twf o 14,468 ym mhoblogaeth y Sir a bod angen 8,822 o dai er mwyn cyflawni amcan o greu 4,140 o swyddi.

Anghytunwn gyda'r Opsiwn a Ffefrir, sef Strategaeth Twf Cynaliadwy a Chymuned Gytbwys felly.

Bydd canolbwyntio'r twf mewn dwy ardal yn nwyrain y sir, Llain Arfordirol Llanelli ac ardal Rhydaman / Cross Hands, yn annog mewnlifiad trwy greu pentrefi cymudwyr.

Mae'r Adroddiad ar yr Ymgynghoriad Cychwynnol yn nodi, mewn ymateb i sylwadau Cymdeithas yr Iaith i bryderon am seilio Cynllun Datblygu Lleol ar gynllun economaidd:

"Further evidence will be produced to inform the economic needs of the County and its impacts upon the County's housing needs."

Mae sylwadau Llywodraeth Cymru i’r ymgynghoriad gwreiddiol hefyd yn nodi:
“Further evidence and explanation is required to explain how and where the level of job growth will be delivered, including both strategic and non strategic allocations. It
is unclear what the level of employment provision is and for what sector and how this translates into a land requirement for employment uses. The current employment evidence base is inconsistent and unclear.

“The authority must fully justify/evidence that the growth levels are directed to the most sustainable places, related to the scale and location of housing need, not impacting negatively on the Welsh language and is realistic and deliverable.”

Does dim cyfeiriad yn y dogfennau diweddaraf at dystiolaeth bellach o effaith nac anghenion yn sgil datblygiadau economaidd.

Dylai’r cyngor gyd-gynhyrchu Asesiad Cymunedol rheolaidd ym mhob ardal o'r sir gyda chymunedau fel partneriaid cyfartal.

Y Gymraeg
Er bod “Asesiad Effaith ar yr Iaith Gymraeg, Rhagfyr 2019” bellach wedi ei gyhoeddi ymddengys nad yw Asesiad o Effaith CDLl diwygiedig Adneuo Drafft Sir Gaerfyrddin
ar y Gymraeg, 2023, ar gael.
Dyma fyddai’r dystiolaeth fwyaf perthnasol o ran y Gymraeg.

Polisi, Y Gymraeg a Diwylliant Cymru

Mae geiriad polisi SP8 yn achos pryder:

“Ni fydd cynigion datblygu sy'n cael effaith anfanteisiol ar fywiogrwydd a hyfywedd y Gymraeg a diwylliant Cymru'n cael eu caniatáu oni bai y gellir lliniaru'r effaith.”

Trwy fynnu mesurau lliniaru mae cydnabod bod effaith negyddol i’r Gymraeg, ac yn unol â’u diffiniad, nid atal effaith negyddol fydd unrhyw fesurau lliniaru ond lleihau’r effaith hynny.

Mae Cymdeithas yr Iaith yn croesawu penderfyniad y Cyngor Sir i ddynodi’r sir gyfan yn ardal yn ieithyddol sensitif eto ond mae angen i’r Cynllun adlewyrchu mor fregus yw’r cymunedau hynny, trwy seilio’r Cynllun ar angen am dai.

Tra yn cytuno ag amcan cymal 11.174 i greu swyddi a chyfleoedd er mwyn galluogi pobl i aros yn y sir anghytunwn bod y twf sy'n cael ei gynllunio yn "gynaliadwy" ac y bydd y Cynllun yn "cynyddu i'r eithaf y cyfleoedd i siaradwyr di-Gymraeg sy'n symud i mewn i'r Sir gael eu hintegreiddio i fywyd cymunedol ar raddfa a chyflymder na fydd yn tanseilio bywiogrwydd a hyfywedd y Gymraeg a diwylliant Cymru.”

Pryderwn bod cymal 11.176 yn nodi y bydd:

“ceisio sicrhau bod datblygu'n mynd rhagddo ar raddfa y gellir ei derbyn a'i chymhathu heb niweidio cymeriad y gymuned.”

Mae “ceisio sicrhau” yn groes i’r egwyddor yng nghymal 11.174 y bydd integreiddio ar raddfa gynaliadwy.

WL1: Y Gymraeg a Datblygiadau Newydd

Mae'n galonogol bod y polisi ei hun yn glir mai bwriad y Cynllun Gweithredu Iaith Gymraeg fyddai nodi mesurau "i ddiogelu, hyrwyddo a gwella'r Gymraeg", ond mae
cymal 11.179 yn cyfeirio at “fesurau lliniaru” Cynllun Gweithredu, sy’n awgrym mai mesurau lliniaru sydd mewn golwg mewn gwirionedd.

Yn ogystal, nodwn eto bod Strategaeth Hybu’r Gymraeg y cyngor yn gosod nod o wneud y Gymraeg yn brif iaith y sir, ac nad yw polisi WL1 yn cyd-fynd â hynny.

Mae’n galonogol hefyd bod y polisi yn rhoi disgwyliadau bod Cynllun Gweithredu Iaith Gymraeg yn dangos bod y datblygiad yn cyfrannu’n gadarnhaol i grwpiau iaith
Gymraeg yn yr ardal.

Dydy hi ddim yn glir beth fyddai'n cael ei ystyried yn ddatblygiad ar "raddfa fawr" ac a fyddai'n gymwys i baratoi Asesiad o'r Effaith ar y Gymraeg.

Credwn bod angen ffigyrau penodol yn yr achos yma, a nodi canran ychwanegol o dai yn achos datblygiad tai neu ganran o weithwyr a phoblogaeth yn achos datblygiadau cyflogaeth.

Nid oes unrhyw sôn o gwbl am y Gymraeg yn y Profion Cadernid. Os mai nod y Cynllun yw “'hyrwyddo'r Gymraeg a'i diwylliant” oni ddylai hynny fod yn rhan o
Brofion Cadernid?

Crynodeb

Mae Cymdeithas yr Iaith yn rhannu’r farn gyffredin i’r Cynllun Datblygu Lleol presennol fod yn fethiant, ac roeddem yn gobeithio y byddai’r Cyngor achub ar y
cyfle pellach hwn i lunio cynllun diwygiedig a fyddai’n newid cyfeiriad trwy flaenoriaethu lles cymunedau ledled y Sir a rhoi lle canolog i’r Gymraeg.

Siomedig felly yw gweld strategaeth gorfforaethol sydd yn canolbwyntio ar gyflawni ychydig o ddatblygiadau yn ne a dwyrain y Sir yn hytrach na rhaglen arloesol o hyrwyddo datblygiadau a chyfleoedd cyflogaeth ar raddfa llai ledled Sir Gaerfyrddin.

Teimlwn yn gryf fod diffyg tystiolaeth o ran y dyraniadau tai a safleoedd cyflogaeth. Nid yw gobaith ac uchelgais yr un peth â thystiolaeth.
Croesawn rai o’r camau y mae’r Cyngor am eu gwneud i liniaru ac asesu effaith datblygiadau ar yr iaith ond mae cryn dipyn o waith i’w wneud o hyd, a’r pryder yw y
caiff buddiannau cymunedau Cymraeg eu gosod yn ail i amcanion strategaeth adfywio’r Cyngor Sir, strategaeth sydd yn ei hanfod yn edrych yn hen ffasiwn erbyn
hyn.

Rhanbarth Caerfyrddin, Cymdeithas yr Iaith Ebrill 2023

Cymdeithas yr Iaith - Carmarthen Region's response to consultation on Carmarthenshire’s Deposit Revised Local Development Plan 2018 - 2033

Initial comments

We recognise that the objectives of the Revised Local Development Plan (LDP) are ambitious and that the County Council's aspiration to facilitate high quality job creation is commendable.
Having said that and having analysed the relevant documents, we must raise serious concerns about the impact of the scheme on the Welsh language and some of Carmarthenshire’s communities and areas where the Welsh language is at its strongest.

We believe that key elements of the revised plan are not based on hard evidence, and that there is a long way to go to ensure a viable future for the Welsh language before the Council submits the Deposit Scheme to the Government. There is no analysis of how creating a significant number of jobs in one corner of the county can achieve the goal of preventing the severe exodus of young people from our communities across the county. A fundamental mistake is that the Plan treats economic regeneration and language and community regeneration as two separate things instead of giving detailed consideration into what kind of economic development will best benefit the language and our communities.

Although "protecting, enhancing and promoting the Welsh language and cultural identity" is one of the Strategic Objectives of the Plan, the content of the Plan itself does not reflect that.

Furthermore, the Council's Welsh Language Promotion Strategy includes the aim of making Welsh the main language of the county. The LDP does not refer to that at all and works against it.

Housing needs and population projections

As with the second original Plan, it is difficult not to conclude that the County Council asked how much housing would be needed to achieve the objectives of its regeneration strategy, as the number of houses is based on Turley's Housing and Economic Growth (Population Growth) Report.

The plan recognises that there has been a significant decline in the number of Welsh speakers in recent decades, therefore one must ask why the second LDP is based on a ten-year projection in Turley's Housing and Economic Growth (Population Growth) Report.
The first LDP was also based on a population projection, and it planned for growth.

The Deposit Plan expects a growth of 14,468 in the County's population and that 8,822 houses are needed to achieve an objective of creating 4,140 jobs.

We disagree with the Preferred Option, which is a Balanced Community and Sustainable Growth Strategy.

Focusing growth in two areas in the east of the county, the Llanelli Coastal Belt and the Ammanford / Cross Hands area, will encourage an influx through the creation of commuter villages.

The Report on the Initial Consultation states, in response to Cymdeithas yr Iaith's comments regarding concerns about basing a Local Development Plan on an economic plan:

"Further evidence will be produced to inform the economic needs of the County and its impacts upon the County's housing needs."

The Welsh Government's comments regarding the original consultation also state:

"Further evidence and explanation is required to explain how and where the level of job growth will be delivered, including both strategic and non strategic allocations. It is unclear what the level of employment provision is and for what sector and how this
translates into a land requirement for employment uses. The current employment evidence base is inconsistent and unclear.

"The authority must fully justify/evidence that the growth levels are directed to the most sustainable places, related to the scale and location of housing need, not impacting negatively on the Welsh language and is realistic and deliverable."

There is no reference in the latest documents to further evidence of impact nor to needs arising from economic developments.

The council should co-produce a regular Community Assessment in all areas of the county with communities as equal partners.

The Welsh Language

Although a "Welsh Language Impact Assessment, December 2019" has now been published it appears that Carmarthenshire's Draft Deposit Revised LDP - Welsh Language Impact Assessment, 2023, is not available.
This would be the most relevant evidence regarding the Welsh language.

Policy, Welsh Language and Culture

The wording of policy SP8 is a cause for concern:

"Development proposals which have a detrimental impact on the vitality and viability of the Welsh language and culture will not be permitted unless the impact can be mitigated."

By requiring mitigation measures it is recognised that there is a negative impact on the Welsh language, and according to their definition, any mitigation measures will not prevent a negative impact but rather minimise that impact.

Cymdeithas yr Iaith welcomes the County Council's decision to designate the whole county as a linguistically sensitive area again but the Plan needs to reflect the vulnerability of those communities, by basing the Plan on housing need.

Whilst agreeing with the objective of clause 11.174 to create jobs and opportunities to enable people to stay in the county, we disagree that the growth being planned is "sustainable" and that the Plan will "maximise opportunities for non-Welsh speakers who move to the County to be integrated into community life at a scale and pace that will not undermine the vitality and viability of the Welsh language and culture."
We are concerned that clause 11.176 states that:
"…will seek to ensure that development occurs at a rate which can be absorbed and assimilated without damaging the character of the community."

"Seeking to ensure" is contrary to the principle in clause 11.174 that integration will be on a sustainable scale.

WL1: Welsh Language and New Developments

It is encouraging that the policy itself is clear that the intention of the Welsh Language Action Plan would be to set out measures "to safeguard, promote and enhance the Welsh language", but clause 11.179 refers to the Action Plan’s "mitigation measures", which suggests that it is mitigation measures that are actually in mind.

In addition, we again note that the council's Welsh Language Promotion Strategy sets a goal of making Welsh the primary language of the county, which does not accord with policy WL1.

It is also encouraging that the policy sets expectations for the Welsh Language Action Plan to show that the development contributes positively to Welsh language groups in the area.

It is unclear what would be considered a "large-scale" development and whether it would qualify to prepare a Welsh Language Impact Assessment.

We believe that specific figures are needed in this case, and that an additional percentage of housing is identified in the case of a housing development or a percentage of employees and population in the case of employment developments.

There is absolutely no mention of Welsh in the Tests of Soundness. If the aim of the Plan is to "promote the Welsh language and its culture" shouldn't that be part of Tests of Soundness?

Summary

Cymdeithas yr Iaith shares the common view that the current LDP has been a failure, and we hoped that the Council would take this further opportunity to produce a revised plan that would change direction by prioritising the wellbeing of communities across the County and placing the Welsh language at its heart.

It is therefore disappointing to see a corporate strategy that focuses on delivering a few developments in the south and east of the County rather than an innovative programme of promoting smaller-scale employment developments and opportunities across Carmarthenshire.

We strongly feel that there is a lack of evidence on housing allocations and employment sites.

Hope and ambition are not the same thing as evidence.
We welcome some of the steps the Council wants to take to mitigate and assess the impact of developments on the language but there is still a long way to go, and we are concerned that the interests of Welsh-speaking communities will be placed second to the objectives of the County Council's regeneration strategy, a strategy that essentially looks outdated now.

Cymdeithas yr Iaith, Carmarthen Region April 2023