SD1: Terfynau Datblygu

No change

Please find my comments below re LDP

1. – I would like to give my support to the 2 sites included in Llanboidy and Llangynnin.
2. Look at policy regarding converting Barn/ Commercial buildings to residential use. At present you have to advertise the property on open market for 1 year before applying for planning and pay Section 106 contributions. Where by if you applied for holiday let the above are waivered.
3. Must look at building council houses in rural villages for young local families to rent. This would boost the local schools and shops and the welsh language.
4. Need to look at policy regarding how housing needs are monitored. At present you have to register for a council house in your area. There are no council houses in rural areas. That means young people are not going to register as they don’t want to live in towns miles away.
5. I would like to see the 10% policy re building in rural villages increased.
6. Regarding local need and affordable homes, the m2 build rate at present is not adequate with modern day needs.

Finally I fully support the Plaid’s response to the consultation to protect our rural communities and welsh language .

No change.

i support the document regarding change of village boundary in Llanllwch SR/098/002 and believe this
change will not have a detrimental effect on the village or its surroundings as there is 1 property only

No change.

I write in support of the increase to the village boundary in LLANLLWCH candidate site SR/098/002 in
the revised LDP2. The proposal would be to build 1 retirement bungalow for us ,having lived here for
26 years. I do not consider a developement on this site would have a detrimental effect on the
character and setting of the settlement.

An alternative use is proposed for this site - refer to representations 5808 and 5810

Thank you for the opportunity to reply to your plans. With the support of the Tirycoed Road Campaign Group (TRCG), I should like to make the following observations about your proposals. I support the removal of the area to the west of the old Maternity Hospital from being classed as "housing development" (Please see the red circle on map below). This objection is on conservation and access restriction grounds.
I understand from the TRCG that the area qualifies for SINC status, given that the Rhos pasture and hedges are protected habitats. I also understand that the Marsh Fritillary Butterfly is protected under UK law, listed under Schedule 5 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act, and the EU Habitats and Species Directive (Annex II).

I also support the removal of this area from “housing development” because it would make it difficult for potential developers to build roads from Tirycoed Road to the old maternity hospital. As you know, Tirycoed Road is already a single track road for much of the day and is potentially very hazardous for pedestrians and equestrians. I have been informed that in both recent petitions (Daffyd Wyn and TCG) local residents cited traffic issues as a main reason for objecting to PAs PACs and LDPs. The prospect of at least 50 new cars on this road is simply not realistic.
2. I object to housing development on the remaining development site (Please see the purple box on the map below) on conservation grounds and lack of safe access. I have been told that nearly 700 people objected to the housing development on this site, during a door to door petition, caried out by the TRCG.

It is also a fact that the actual size of this site would easily support a great deal more homes than the 25 currently being proposed by the Developers. I clarify my objections on the understanding that the current RLDP cannot be met on the following grounds:
SP2 Retail and Town Centres
Glanamman only has one small convenience store. There are no large retail outlets, unless you travel to Ammanford. The Dentist and GP surgery are oversubscribed and there are no leisure facilities nearby and the local infrastructure is not able to cope with an influx of housing on this scale.
SP3 Sustainable Distribution – Settlement Framework

There are very few services available in this location and this development would put huge strain on existing ones. Glanamman constantly suffers from disrupted water supplies due to the ageing and an inadequate water supply system, which would be overwhelmed by the additional capacity needed.
SP4 A Sustainable Approach to Providing New Homes
There is not an “appropriate number” of homes being suggested for this site. Although 25 dwellings are currently being requested, it is very clear that the site has capacity for at least 100. That would be a massive burden on the local infrastructure and facilities. The access road is not suitable for such volumes of traffic and there are already huge issues with water supply and drainage which cannot be addressed.
SP9 Infrastructure
It is understood that some Tirycoed residents have had to pay for the upgrading of their electricity supply, due to its lack of capacity, I am only too aware how poor the local infrastructure is. Broadband services are particularly poor and an increase in community size is only going to make this problem worse.
SP12 Placemaking and Sustainable Places
I believe that Placemaking should be inclusive and rightly be at the heart of any planning decision. Furthermore, I understand from the TRCG that any development should take account of the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015 which I believe is based on:
• Making the best use of resources;
• Facilitating accessible and healthy environments;
• Creating and sustaining communities; and
• Maximising environmental protection and limiting environmental impact.
Apparently, this housing development will fail to meet most of those expectations. There are also dangers that this development will destroy established habitat and endangered species, it will cause light pollution and it will adversely affect the community cohesion, in which it is being placed.
SP13 Rural Development
Instead of increasing the enjoyment of the countryside, a housing development would seriously decrease it! The site is located on the borders of an area of outstanding natural beauty where wildlife currently thrives. Allowing such a large development on such precious land is, I understand, absolutely against current rural development policy.
SP14 Maintaining and Enhancing the Natural Environment
I understand that any housing development will destroy our unique and bio diverse landscape and our protected habitats and lead to loss of biodiversity. There are very real dangers that any development will lead to the de-wilding of the site and the subsequent loss of the Marsh Fritillary Butterfly, Devils Bit Scabious and other winter visitors. Previous planning applications have absolutely failed to address the issue of habitat destruction (Which, I understand, the developers have been actively engaged in). Endangered species will be displaced and lost and riparian corridors will be blocked preventing otters (which I understand have low numbers in Wales) from travelling.

SP15 Protection and Enhancement of the Built and Historic Environment
I understand that the appropriate use of this redundant building is certainly not to allow its demolition and replacement with a totally unsuitable housing development. Absolutely no consideration has been given to the wishes of the local community nor the protection of this historic site, in the current Developers plans.
SP16 Climate Change
I have been told that the destruction of Rhos pasture, trees and grassy marshland on this site would be an absolute disaster for the local environment. Paving over huge areas for roads and paths will create hard standing that will cause rain water to surge onto surrounding roads and properties, causing flooding. Previous planning applications have had few mitigating measures for renewable energy, carbon negative building materials or energy conservation schemes.
SP19 Waste Management
I have been informed that safeguarding resources would not be achievable if planning permission were granted for this site. The loss of trees and pasture would contribute to Climate Change while the amount of carbon that would be released during the construction phase alone would be damaging to the environment. I would therefore suggest that CCC reclassify the development site as community or public space.
I understand that the importance of community space was highlighted In a recent supreme court ruling - Hilary Term (2023) UKSC 8 on appeal from (2020) EWCA civ 1751- (R (on the application of Day) (Appellant) v Shropshire Council (Respondent) (landmarkchambers.co.uk)) where the court ruled in favour of the local community.
I would suggest that the plan by the TRCG for the site to be used for well-being, conservation and recreation (with a well-being centre, a conservation area with pond, and board-walks for recreation and conservation interpretation), would be better. I would also remind you that the site is adjacent to the most important breeding ground for the Marsh Fritillary Butterfly in the Amman Valley and to your obligations to provide spaces to promote prosperity, health, happiness, and well-being in the widest sense. This would meet the current requirements on the following grounds:
SP1 Strategic Growth
The installation of Health and conservation facilities would be far more beneficial to the community than housing. This site is within easy reach of local Schools, so could be used as an outdoor education centre for children and adults alike.
SP2 Retail and Town Centres
Having a Community lead facility on this site benefits the whole Community.
SP3 Sustainable Distribution – Settlement Framework
I understand that the suggested project (The Tirycoed Well-being Centre) not only uses the existing building foundation as its base, but will also be managed sustainably, the exact opposite of the current proposals.

SP6 Strategic sites

This project, I have been told, will invest in the local Community and provide much need facilities for all, rather than benefiting already very rich people. This inward development will also create local sustainable jobs, benefit local business and bring a much needed boost to the local economy.
SP7 Employment and the Economy
I understand that his project will invest in the local Community and provide much need facilities for all, rather than benefiting Developers. This inward development will also create local sustainable jobs, benefit local business and bring a much needed boost to the local economy. It will also serve as a Community hub, allowing people to meet and interact, something a housing estate will actively discourage.
SP8 Welsh Language and Culture
The proposal to build houses on this site will simply allow wealthier people from outside the local area to have better homes. Our plan will bring the local community together and enhance its integration, keeping the Welsh language alive, rather than causing its demise due to the influx of non-Welsh speaking people.
SP9 Infrastructure
This site could be both built and managed to meet the needs of our local Community as required by the conditions of this section of the RLDP.
SP11 The Visitor Economy
With careful planning, the site could also be made to meet the requirements of local tourism and education. It is in an area of outstanding natural beauty and is full of rare and exotic wildlife.
SP12 Placemaking and Sustainable Places
I believe that the proposed Community development would endeavour to provide spaces to promote prosperity, health, happiness, and well-being in the widest sense. Furthermore the site would be both sustainably managed and built to enhance and improve the local biodiversity, with all the benefits this would bring.
SP13 Rural Development
Again, this site absolutely fulfils the requirements of this section of the RLDP. It actively improves and enhances the available facilities accessible to the local Community, while adding and improving local facilities for all.
SP14 Maintaining and Enhancing the Natural Environment
Habitat conservation is at the heart of what I understand this proposal will include, unlike the ugly development currently proposed, which has habitat destruction at its heart. Improving the landscape naturally, by using cattle to graze the Rhos pasture, establishing ponds and encouraging natural regeneration, are just some of the many ways I have been told that this proposal would fully meet this requirement of the RLDP.

SP15 Protection and Enhancement of the Built and Historic Environment


Thank you for the opportunity to reply to your plans. With the support of the Tirycoed Road Campaign Group (TRCG), I should like to make the following observations about your proposals. I support the removal of the area to the west of the old Maternity Hospital from being classed as "housing development" (Please see the red circle on map below). This objection is on conservation and access restriction grounds.
I understand from the TRCG that the area qualifies for SINC status, given that the Rhos pasture and hedges are protected habitats. I also understand that the Marsh Fritillary Butterfly is protected under UK law, listed under Schedule 5 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act, and the EU Habitats and Species Directive (Annex II).

I also support the removal of this area from “housing development” because it would make it difficult for potential developers to build roads from Tirycoed Road to the old maternity hospital. As you know, Tirycoed Road is already a single track road for much of the day and is potentially very hazardous for pedestrians and equestrians. I have been informed that in both recent petitions (Daffyd Wyn and TCG) local residents cited traffic issues as a main reason for objecting to PAs PACs and LDPs. The prospect of at least 50 new cars on this road is simply not realistic.
2. I object to housing development on the remaining development site (Please see the purple box on the map below) on conservation grounds and lack of safe access. I have been told that nearly 700 people objected to the housing development on this site, during a door to door petition, caried out by the TRCG.

It is also a fact that the actual size of this site would easily support a great deal more homes than the 25 currently being proposed by the Developers. I clarify my objections on the understanding that the current RLDP cannot be met on the following grounds:
SP2 Retail and Town Centres
Glanamman only has one small convenience store. There are no large retail outlets, unless you travel to Ammanford. The Dentist and GP surgery are oversubscribed and there are no leisure facilities nearby and the local infrastructure is not able to cope with an influx of housing on this scale.
SP3 Sustainable Distribution – Settlement Framework
There are very few services available in this location and this development would put huge strain on existing ones. Glanamman constantly suffers from disrupted water supplies due to the ageing and an inadequate water supply system, which would be overwhelmed by the additional capacity needed.
SP4 A Sustainable Approach to Providing New Homes
There is not an “appropriate number” of homes being suggested for this site. Although 25 dwellings are currently being requested, it is very clear that the site has capacity for at least 100. That would be a massive burden on the local infrastructure and facilities. The access road is not suitable for such volumes of traffic and there are already huge issues with water supply and drainage which cannot be addressed.
SP9 Infrastructure
It is understood that some Tirycoed residents have had to pay for the upgrading of their electricity supply, due to its lack of capacity, I am only too aware how poor the local infrastructure is. Broadband services are particularly poor and an increase in community size is only going to make this problem worse.
SP12 Placemaking and Sustainable Places
I believe that Placemaking should be inclusive and rightly be at the heart of any planning decision. Furthermore, I understand from the TRCG that any development should take account of the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015 which I believe is based on:
• Making the best use of resources;
• Facilitating accessible and healthy environments;
• Creating and sustaining communities; and
• Maximising environmental protection and limiting environmental impact.
Apparently, this housing development will fail to meet most of those expectations. There are also dangers that this development will destroy established habitat and endangered species, it will cause light pollution and it will adversely affect the community cohesion, in which it is being placed.
SP13 Rural Development
Instead of increasing the enjoyment of the countryside, a housing development would seriously decrease it! The site is located on the borders of an area of outstanding natural beauty where wildlife currently thrives. Allowing such a large development on such precious land is, I understand, absolutely against current rural development policy.
SP14 Maintaining and Enhancing the Natural Environment
I understand that any housing development will destroy our unique and bio diverse landscape and our protected habitats and lead to loss of biodiversity. There are very real dangers that any development will lead to the de-wilding of the site and the subsequent loss of the Marsh Fritillary Butterfly, Devils Bit Scabious and other winter visitors. Previous planning applications have absolutely failed to address the issue of habitat destruction (Which, I understand, the developers have been actively engaged in). Endangered species will be displaced and lost and riparian corridors will be blocked preventing otters (which I understand have low numbers in Wales) from travelling.
SP15 Protection and Enhancement of the Built and Historic Environment
I understand that the appropriate use of this redundant building is certainly not to allow its demolition and replacement with a totally unsuitable housing development. Absolutely no consideration has been given to the wishes of the local community nor the protection of this historic site, in the current Developers plans.
SP16 Climate Change
I have been told that the destruction of Rhos pasture, trees and grassy marshland on this site would be an absolute disaster for the local environment. Paving over huge areas for roads and paths will create hard standing that will cause rain water to surge onto surrounding roads and properties, causing flooding. Previous planning applications have had few mitigating measures for renewable energy, carbon negative building materials or energy conservation schemes.
SP19 Waste Management
I have been informed that safeguarding resources would not be achievable if planning permission were granted for this site. The loss of trees and pasture would contribute to Climate Change while the amount of carbon that would be released during the construction phase alone would be damaging to the environment. I would therefore suggest that CCC reclassify the development site as community or public space.
I understand that the importance of community space was highlighted In a recent supreme court ruling - Hilary Term (2023) UKSC 8 on appeal from (2020) EWCA civ 1751- (R (on the application of Day) (Appellant) v Shropshire Council (Respondent) (landmarkchambers.co.uk)) where the court ruled in favour of the local community.
I would suggest that the plan by the TRCG for the site to be used for well-being, conservation and recreation (with a well-being centre, a conservation area with pond, and board-walks for recreation and conservation interpretation), would be better. I would also remind you that the site is adjacent to the most important breeding ground for the Marsh Fritillary Butterfly in the Amman Valley and to your obligations to provide spaces to promote prosperity, health, happiness, and well-being in the widest sense. This would meet the current requirements on the following grounds:
SP1 Strategic Growth
The installation of Health and conservation facilities would be far more beneficial to the community than housing. This site is within easy reach of local Schools, so could be used as an outdoor education centre for children and adults alike.
SP2 Retail and Town Centres
Having a Community lead facility on this site benefits the whole Community.
SP3 Sustainable Distribution – Settlement Framework
I understand that the suggested project (The Tirycoed Well-being Centre) not only uses the existing building foundation as its base, but will also be managed sustainably, the exact opposite of the current proposals.

SP6 Strategic sites
This project, I have been told, will invest in the local Community and provide much need facilities for all, rather than benefiting already very rich people. This inward development will also create local sustainable jobs, benefit local business and bring a much needed boost to the local economy.
SP7 Employment and the Economy
I understand that his project will invest in the local Community and provide much need facilities for all, rather than benefiting Developers. This inward development will also create local sustainable jobs, benefit local business and bring a much needed boost to the local economy. It will also serve as a Community hub, allowing people to meet and interact, something a housing estate will actively discourage.
SP8 Welsh Language and Culture
The proposal to build houses on this site will simply allow wealthier people from outside the local area to have better homes. Our plan will bring the local community together and enhance its integration, keeping the Welsh language alive, rather than causing its demise due to the influx of non-Welsh speaking people.
SP9 Infrastructure
This site could be both built and managed to meet the needs of our local Community as required by the conditions of this section of the RLDP.
SP11 The Visitor Economy
With careful planning, the site could also be made to meet the requirements of local tourism and education. It is in an area of outstanding natural beauty and is full of rare and exotic wildlife.
SP12 Placemaking and Sustainable Places
I believe that the proposed Community development would endeavour to provide spaces to promote prosperity, health, happiness, and well-being in the widest sense. Furthermore the site would be both sustainably managed and built to enhance and improve the local biodiversity, with all the benefits this would bring.
SP13 Rural Development
Again, this site absolutely fulfils the requirements of this section of the RLDP. It actively improves and enhances the available facilities accessible to the local Community, while adding and improving local facilities for all.
SP14 Maintaining and Enhancing the Natural Environment
Habitat conservation is at the heart of what I understand this proposal will include, unlike the ugly development currently proposed, which has habitat destruction at its heart. Improving the landscape naturally, by using cattle to graze the Rhos pasture, establishing ponds and encouraging natural regeneration, are just some of the many ways I have been told that this proposal would fully meet this requirement of the RLDP.
SP15 Protection and Enhancement of the Built and Historic Environment
The current proposal to simply destroy the existing building on this site should be revisited. Any required works could be carried out sympathetically and in an environmentally sensitive way.
SP16 Climate Change
Again, the proposal fully meets these requirements by using sustainable methods and by protecting valuable natural assets. There would be no need to destroy vast areas of natural land, as would be the case if a housing development was allowed. The building of a well-being centre (with carbon negative and eco-friendly building materials) would have minimal impact on carbon stocks and carbon emissions.
SP17 Transport and Accessibility
This site already has transport links that can be used to reach it from all over Carmarthenshire. I understand that the plans would include access to Electric vehicle charging points, to encourage sustainable travel to the site.
SP18 Mineral Resources
These proposals would actively promote improvements to the environment encouraging carbon sequestration and improving the local landscape to the benefit of the environment.
SP19 Waste Management
I believe these proposals would be investing in solar and wind power installations to make the site self-sufficient for its energy and thus reducing reliance in carbon generation.

An alternative use is proposed for this site - refer to representations 5832 & 5833.

Thank you for the opportunity to reply to your proposed revision of the Local Development Plan. With the support of the Tirycoed Road Campaign Group (TRCG), I should like to make the following observations about your proposals and why I believe they should be amended.
I support the removal of the area to the west of the old Maternity Hospital from being classed as "housing development" (Please see the red circle on map below). This objection is on conservation and access restriction grounds.
I understand, from the TRCG, that the area qualifies for SINC status, given that the Rhos pasture and hedges found within them, are protected habitats. I also understand that the Marsh Fritillary Butterfly, which is found on this site, is also protected under UK law, listed under Schedule 5 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act, and the EU Habitats and Species Directive (Annex II).
I also support the removal of this area from “housing development” because it would make it difficult for potential developers to build roads from Tirycoed Road to the old maternity hospital. As you are aware, Tirycoed Road is already a single track road for much of the day and is potentially very hazardous for pedestrians and equestrians. I have been informed by the TRCG, that in both recent petitions (Daffyd Wyn and TCG) local residents cited traffic issues as a main reason for objecting to PAs PACs and LDPs. The prospect of at least 50 new cars on this road is simply not realistic.
2. I object to housing development on the remaining development site (Please see the purple box on the map below) on conservation grounds and lack of safe access. I have been told that nearly 700 people objected to the housing development on this site, during a door to door petition, caried out by the TRCG.

It is also a fact that the actual size of this site would easily support a great deal more homes than the 25 currently being proposed by the Developers. I clarify my objections on the understanding that the current RLDP cannot be met on the following grounds:
SP2 Retail and Town Centres
Glanamman only has one small convenience store. There are no large retail outlets, unless you travel to Ammanford. The Dentist (Which is not in Glanamman) and GP surgery are oversubscribed, I myself have waitited over 9 days for a telephone appointment and this is not an uncoomon occurance, I do ot feel there is capacity for anymore reisdents in this area. Plus there are no leisure facilities nearby. The local infrastructure is not able to cope with an influx of housing on this scale.
SP3 Sustainable Distribution – Settlement Framework
There are very few services available in this location and this development would put huge strain on existing ones. Glanamman constantly suffers from disrupted water supplies due to the ageing and an inadequate water supply system, which would be overwhelmed by the additional capacity needed.
SP4 A Sustainable Approach to Providing New Homes
There is not an “appropriate number” of homes being suggested for this site. Although 25 dwellings are currently being requested, it is very clear that the site has capacity for at least 100. That would be a massive burden on the local infrastructure and facilities. The access road is not suitable for such volumes of traffic and there are already huge issues with water supply and drainage which cannot be addressed.
SP9 Infrastructure
It is understood that some Tirycoed residents have had to pay for the upgrading of their electricity supply, due to its lack of capacity, I am only too aware how poor the local infrastructure is. Broadband services are not to a very high standard and an increase in community size is only going to make this problem worse.
SP12 Placemaking and Sustainable Places
I believe that Placemaking should be inclusive and rightly be at the heart of any planning decision. Furthermore, I understand, from the TRCG, that any development should take account of the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015 which I believe is based on:
• Making the best use of resources;
• Facilitating accessible and healthy environments;
• Creating and sustaining communities; and
• Maximising environmental protection and limiting environmental impact.
Apparently, this housing development will always fail to meet most of those expectations. There are also dangers that this development will destroy established habitat and endangered species, it will cause light pollution and it will adversely affect the community cohesion, in which it is being placed.
SP13 Rural Development
Instead of increasing the enjoyment of the countryside, a housing development would seriously decrease it! The site is located on the borders of an area of outstanding natural beauty where wildlife currently thrives. Allowing such a large development on such precious land is, I understand, absolutely against current rural development policy.
SP14 Maintaining and Enhancing the Natural Environment
I understand that any housing development will destroy our unique and bio diverse landscape and our protected habitats and lead to loss of biodiversity. There are very real dangers that any development will lead to the de-wilding of the site and the subsequent loss of the Marsh Fritillary Butterfly, Devils Bit Scabious and other winter visitors. Previous planning applications have absolutely failed to address the issue of habitat destruction (Which, I understand, the developers have been actively engaged in). Endangered species will be displaced and lost and riparian corridors will be blocked preventing otters (which I understand have low numbers in Wales) from travelling.
SP15 Protection and Enhancement of the Built and Historic Environment
I understand from the TRCG, that the appropriate use of this redundant building is certainly not to allow its demolition and replacement with a totally unsuitable housing development. Absolutely no consideration has been given to the wishes of the local community nor the protection of this historic site, in the current Developers plans.
SP16 Climate Change
I have been told that the destruction of Rhos pasture, trees and grassy marshland on this site would be an absolute disaster for the local environment. Paving over huge areas for roads and paths will create hard standing that will cause rain water to surge onto surrounding roads and properties, causing flooding. There have been a number of times when we have had considerable amounts of water flowing down Tirycoed Road, removing the Rhos pasture and adding more roads and houses will make this worse. Previous planning applications have had few mitigating measures for renewable energy, carbon negative building materials or energy conservation schemes.
SP19 Waste Management
I have been informed that safeguarding resources would not be achievable if planning permission were granted for this site. The loss of trees and pasture would contribute to Climate Change while the amount of carbon that would be released during the construction phase alone would be damaging to the environment. I would therefore suggest that CCC reclassify the development site as community or public space.
I understand that you have already been informed of the importance of community space, which was highlighted In a recent supreme court ruling - Hilary Term (2023) UKSC 8 on appeal from (2020) EWCA civ 1751- (R (on the application of Day) (Appellant) v Shropshire Council (Respondent) (landmarkchambers.co.uk)) where the court, quite rightly, ruled in favour of the local community.
I would suggest that the plan, by the TRCG, for the site to be used for well-being, conservation and recreation (with a well-being centre, a conservation area with pond, and board-walks for recreation and conservation interpretation), would be much better. I would also remind you that the site is adjacent to the most important breeding ground for the Marsh Fritillary Butterfly in the Amman Valley and to your obligations to provide spaces to promote prosperity, health, happiness, and well-being in the widest sense. This would meet the current requirements on the following grounds:
SP1 Strategic Growth
The installation of Health and conservation facilities would be far more beneficial to the community than housing. This site is within easy reach of local Schools, so could be used as an outdoor education centre for children and adults alike.
SP2 Retail and Town Centres
Having a Community lead facility on this site benefits the whole Community.
SP3 Sustainable Distribution – Settlement Framework
I understand that the suggested project (The Tirycoed Well-being Centre) not only uses the existing building foundation as its base, but will also be managed sustainably, the exact opposite of the current proposals.
SP6 Strategic sites
This project, I have been told, will invest in the local Community and provide much need facilities for all, rather than benefiting already very rich people. This inward development will also create local sustainable jobs, benefit local business and bring a much needed boost to the local economy.
SP7 Employment and the Economy
I understand that his project will invest in the local Community and provide much need facilities for all, rather than benefiting Developers. This inward development will also create local sustainable jobs, benefit local business and bring a much needed boost to the local economy. It will also serve as a Community hub, allowing people to meet and interact, something a housing estate will actively discourage.
SP8 Welsh Language and Culture
The proposal to build houses on this site will simply allow wealthier people from outside the local area to have better homes. Our plan will bring the local community together and enhance its integration, keeping the Welsh language alive, rather than causing its demise due to the influx of non-Welsh speaking people.
SP9 Infrastructure
This site could be both built and managed to meet the needs of our local Community as required by the conditions of this section of the RLDP.
SP11 The Visitor Economy
With careful planning, the site could also be made to meet the requirements of local tourism and education. It is in an area of outstanding natural beauty and is full of rare and exotic wildlife.
SP12 Placemaking and Sustainable Places
I believe that the proposed Community development would endeavour to provide spaces to promote prosperity, health, happiness, and well-being in the widest sense. Furthermore the site would be both sustainably managed and built to enhance and improve the local biodiversity, with all the benefits this would bring.
SP13 Rural Development
Again, this site absolutely fulfils the requirements of this section of the RLDP. It actively improves and enhances the available facilities accessible to the local Community, while adding and improving local facilities for all.
SP14 Maintaining and Enhancing the Natural Environment
Habitat conservation is at the heart of what I understand this proposal will include, unlike the ugly development currently proposed, which has habitat destruction at its heart. Improving the landscape naturally, by using cattle to graze the Rhos pasture, establishing ponds and encouraging natural regeneration, are just some of the many ways I have been told that this proposal would fully meet this requirement of the RLDP.
SP15 Protection and Enhancement of the Built and Historic Environment
The current proposal to simply destroy the existing building on this site should be revisited. Any required works could be carried out sympathetically and in an environmentally sensitive way.
SP16 Climate Change
Again, the proposal fully meets these requirements by using sustainable methods and by protecting valuable natural assets. There would be no need to destroy vast areas of natural land, as would be the case if a housing development was allowed. The building of a well-being centre (with carbon negative and eco-friendly building materials) would have minimal impact on carbon stocks and carbon emissions.
SP17 Transport and Accessibility


Thank you for the opportunity to reply to your proposed revision of the Local Development Plan. With the support of the Tirycoed Road Campaign Group (TRCG), I should like to make the following observations about your proposals and why I believe they should be amended.
I support the removal of the area to the west of the old Maternity Hospital from being classed as "housing development" (Please see the red circle on map below). This objection is on conservation and access restriction grounds.
I understand, from the TRCG, that the area qualifies for SINC status, given that the Rhos pasture and hedges found within them, are protected habitats. I also understand that the Marsh Fritillary Butterfly, which is found on this site, is also protected under UK law, listed under Schedule 5 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act, and the EU Habitats and Species Directive (Annex II).

I also support the removal of this area from “housing development” because it would make it difficult for potential developers to build roads from Tirycoed Road to the old maternity hospital. As you are aware, Tirycoed Road is already a single track road for much of the day and is potentially very hazardous for pedestrians and equestrians. I have been informed by the TRCG, that in both recent petitions (Daffyd Wyn and TCG) local residents cited traffic issues as a main reason for objecting to PAs PACs and LDPs. The prospect of at least 50 new cars on this road is simply not realistic.
2. I object to housing development on the remaining development site (Please see the purple box on the map below) on conservation grounds and lack of safe access. I have been told that nearly 700 people objected to the housing development on this site, during a door to door petition, caried out by the TRCG.

It is also a fact that the actual size of this site would easily support a great deal more homes than the 25 currently being proposed by the Developers. I clarify my objections on the understanding that the current RLDP cannot be met on the following grounds:
SP2 Retail and Town Centres
Glanamman only has one small convenience store. There are no large retail outlets, unless you travel to Ammanford. The Dentist (Which is not in Glanamman) and GP surgery are oversubscribed, I myself have waitited over 9 days for a telephone appointment and this is not an uncoomon occurance, I do ot feel there is capacity for anymore reisdents in this area. Plus there are no leisure facilities nearby. The local infrastructure is not able to cope with an influx of housing on this scale.
SP3 Sustainable Distribution – Settlement Framework
There are very few services available in this location and this development would put huge strain on existing ones. Glanamman constantly suffers from disrupted water supplies due to the ageing and an inadequate water supply system, which would be overwhelmed by the additional capacity needed.
SP4 A Sustainable Approach to Providing New Homes
There is not an “appropriate number” of homes being suggested for this site. Although 25 dwellings are currently being requested, it is very clear that the site has capacity for at least 100. That would be a massive burden on the local infrastructure and facilities. The access road is not suitable for such volumes of traffic and there are already huge issues with water supply and drainage which cannot be addressed.
SP9 Infrastructure
It is understood that some Tirycoed residents have had to pay for the upgrading of their electricity supply, due to its lack of capacity, I am only too aware how poor the local infrastructure is. Broadband services are not to a very high standard and an increase in community size is only going to make this problem worse.
SP12 Placemaking and Sustainable Places
I believe that Placemaking should be inclusive and rightly be at the heart of any planning decision. Furthermore, I understand, from the TRCG, that any development should take account of the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015 which I believe is based on:
• Making the best use of resources;
• Facilitating accessible and healthy environments;
• Creating and sustaining communities; and
• Maximising environmental protection and limiting environmental impact.
Apparently, this housing development will always fail to meet most of those expectations. There are also dangers that this development will destroy established habitat and endangered species, it will cause light pollution and it will adversely affect the community cohesion, in which it is being placed.
SP13 Rural Development
Instead of increasing the enjoyment of the countryside, a housing development would seriously decrease it! The site is located on the borders of an area of outstanding natural beauty where wildlife currently thrives. Allowing such a large development on such precious land is, I understand, absolutely against current rural development policy.
SP14 Maintaining and Enhancing the Natural Environment
I understand that any housing development will destroy our unique and bio diverse landscape and our protected habitats and lead to loss of biodiversity. There are very real dangers that any development will lead to the de-wilding of the site and the subsequent loss of the Marsh Fritillary Butterfly, Devils Bit Scabious and other winter visitors. Previous planning applications have absolutely failed to address the issue of habitat destruction (Which, I understand, the developers have been actively engaged in). Endangered species will be displaced and lost and riparian corridors will be blocked preventing otters (which I understand have low numbers in Wales) from travelling.
SP15 Protection and Enhancement of the Built and Historic Environment
I understand from the TRCG, that the appropriate use of this redundant building is certainly not to allow its demolition and replacement with a totally unsuitable housing development. Absolutely no consideration has been given to the wishes of the local community nor the protection of this historic site, in the current Developers plans.
SP16 Climate Change
I have been told that the destruction of Rhos pasture, trees and grassy marshland on this site would be an absolute disaster for the local environment. Paving over huge areas for roads and paths will create hard standing that will cause rain water to surge onto surrounding roads and properties, causing flooding. There have been a number of times when we have had considerable amounts of water flowing down Tirycoed Road, removing the Rhos pasture and adding more roads and houses will make this worse. Previous planning applications have had few mitigating measures for renewable energy, carbon negative building materials or energy conservation schemes.
SP19 Waste Management
I have been informed that safeguarding resources would not be achievable if planning permission were granted for this site. The loss of trees and pasture would contribute to Climate Change while the amount of carbon that would be released during the construction phase alone would be damaging to the environment. I would therefore suggest that CCC reclassify the development site as community or public space.
I understand that you have already been informed of the importance of community space, which was highlighted In a recent supreme court ruling - Hilary Term (2023) UKSC 8 on appeal from (2020) EWCA civ 1751- (R (on the application of Day) (Appellant) v Shropshire Council (Respondent) (landmarkchambers.co.uk)) where the court, quite rightly, ruled in favour of the local community.
I would suggest that the plan, by the TRCG, for the site to be used for well-being, conservation and recreation (with a well-being centre, a conservation area with pond, and board-walks for recreation and conservation interpretation), would be much better. I would also remind you that the site is adjacent to the most important breeding ground for the Marsh Fritillary Butterfly in the Amman Valley and to your obligations to provide spaces to promote prosperity, health, happiness, and well-being in the widest sense. This would meet the current requirements on the following grounds:
SP1 Strategic Growth
The installation of Health and conservation facilities would be far more beneficial to the community than housing. This site is within easy reach of local Schools, so could be used as an outdoor education centre for children and adults alike.
SP2 Retail and Town Centres
Having a Community lead facility on this site benefits the whole Community.
SP3 Sustainable Distribution – Settlement Framework
I understand that the suggested project (The Tirycoed Well-being Centre) not only uses the existing building foundation as its base, but will also be managed sustainably, the exact opposite of the current proposals.
SP6 Strategic sites
This project, I have been told, will invest in the local Community and provide much need facilities for all, rather than benefiting already very rich people. This inward development will also create local sustainable jobs, benefit local business and bring a much needed boost to the local economy.
SP7 Employment and the Economy
I understand that his project will invest in the local Community and provide much need facilities for all, rather than benefiting Developers. This inward development will also create local sustainable jobs, benefit local business and bring a much needed boost to the local economy. It will also serve as a Community hub, allowing people to meet and interact, something a housing estate will actively discourage.
SP8 Welsh Language and Culture
The proposal to build houses on this site will simply allow wealthier people from outside the local area to have better homes. Our plan will bring the local community together and enhance its integration, keeping the Welsh language alive, rather than causing its demise due to the influx of non-Welsh speaking people.
SP9 Infrastructure
This site could be both built and managed to meet the needs of our local Community as required by the conditions of this section of the RLDP.
SP11 The Visitor Economy
With careful planning, the site could also be made to meet the requirements of local tourism and education. It is in an area of outstanding natural beauty and is full of rare and exotic wildlife.
SP12 Placemaking and Sustainable Places
I believe that the proposed Community development would endeavour to provide spaces to promote prosperity, health, happiness, and well-being in the widest sense. Furthermore the site would be both sustainably managed and built to enhance and improve the local biodiversity, with all the benefits this would bring.
SP13 Rural Development
Again, this site absolutely fulfils the requirements of this section of the RLDP. It actively improves and enhances the available facilities accessible to the local Community, while adding and improving local facilities for all.
SP14 Maintaining and Enhancing the Natural Environment
Habitat conservation is at the heart of what I understand this proposal will include, unlike the ugly development currently proposed, which has habitat destruction at its heart. Improving the landscape naturally, by using cattle to graze the Rhos pasture, establishing ponds and encouraging natural regeneration, are just some of the many ways I have been told that this proposal would fully meet this requirement of the RLDP.
SP15 Protection and Enhancement of the Built and Historic Environment
The current proposal to simply destroy the existing building on this site should be revisited. Any required works could be carried out sympathetically and in an environmentally sensitive way.
SP16 Climate Change
Again, the proposal fully meets these requirements by using sustainable methods and by protecting valuable natural assets. There would be no need to destroy vast areas of natural land, as would be the case if a housing development was allowed. The building of a well-being centre (with carbon negative and eco-friendly building materials) would have minimal impact on carbon stocks and carbon emissions.
SP17 Transport and Accessibility
This site already has transport links that can be used to reach it from all over Carmarthenshire. I understand that the plans would include access to Electric vehicle charging points, to encourage sustainable travel to the site.
SP18 Mineral Resources
These proposals would actively promote improvements to the environment encouraging carbon sequestration and improving the local landscape to the benefit of the environment.
SP19 Waste Management
I believe these proposals would be investing in solar and wind power installations to make the site self-sufficient for its energy and thus reducing reliance in carbon generation.

I therefore hope you will now give due consideration to both my and the Communities wishes to ammend your current proposals and allow the correct usage of this land.

No change

This representation supports the inclusion of land at Meinciau Mawr Farm
within the development limits for Meinciau which corrects the anomaly
whereby the current development limits cut through the middle of an
agricultural barn and associated farmyard.
The revised development limits will not lead to any additional environmental
pressure, but instead will foster sustainable growth and allow for a wider
choice of housing type within the Pontiets/Meinciau/Ponthenri Tier 2 Service
Centre. The potential development of this land would be in keeping and in
character with the settlement and will ensure a deliverable source of future
housing for this sustainable community.

In addition, residential development at this location:-
· would not be detrimental to the amenity of adjacent properties;
· would satisfy recognised housing and sustainability objectives;
· would not have a detrimental impact on the landscape or nature
conservation interests.
Furthermore, the site is not impeded by any access, ground condition, flood
risk, hydrological, ecological, archaeological or land ownership related
constraints and its delivery is assured.
The inclusion of this land within revised development limits for Meinciau is fully
supported.

Extend development limits to the referenced area of Capel Dewi.

This representation objects to the exclusion of this site from the development
limits for Capel Dewi – a designated Tier 3 Sustainable Village. The inclusion of
this site within new development limits for this part of Capel Dewi would
reflect similar such ‘outliers’ elsewhere in Carmarthenshire.
The designation of development limits around this cluster of dwellings would
provide recognition and certainty for this section of Capel Dewi which has seen
incremental development over the years. This section of the village has grown
in similar fashion to the main section and its lack of development limits has
not protected the adjacent countryside from development.
Designating the proposed development limits will both afford control and the
opportunity for appropriate development in this sustainable Tier 3 village.
The site’s inclusion would not lead to additional environmental pressure, but
instead will lead to the fostering of sustainable growth and allow for a wider
choice of housing type.
Its development would be in keeping and in character with the settlement and
will ensure a readily deliverable source of future housing for this sustainable
community.
In addition, residential development at this location:-
· would not be detrimental to the amenity of adjacent properties;
· would satisfy recognised housing and sustainability objectives;
· would not have a detrimental impact on the landscape or nature conservation interests.
Furthermore, the site is not impeded by any access, ground condition, flood
risk, hydrological, ecological, archaeological or land ownership related
constraints and its short term delivery is assured.
It is considered that this site is sustainable and readily deliverable and offers a
valuable development option within this Tier 3 Sustainable Village.
The inclusion of this land within designated development limits would be fully
supported.

Include site in plan

This representation objects to the exclusion of this site and the existing development opposite from the development limits for the Black Lion Road part of Cross Hands. Its inclusion would form a natural ‘rounding off’ to this part of the settlement and would not lead to additional environmental pressure, instead fostering sustainable growth and allowing a wider choice of housing type within this Tier 1 Principal Centre. Its development would be in keeping and in character with the settlement and will ensure a readily deliverable source of future housing for this sustainable community. The proposed site offers a valuable development option in this part of Cross Hands.
In addition, residential development at this location:-
· would not be detrimental to the amenity of adjacent properties;
· would satisfy recognised housing and sustainability objectives;
· would not have a detrimental impact on the landscape or nature conservation interests.
Furthermore, the site is not impeded by any access, ground condition, flood risk, hydrological, ecological, archaeological or land ownership related constraints and its short term delivery is assured.
It is considered that this site is both sustainable and deliverable and can accommodate an appropriate form of development. The site is readily available and there is sufficient interest in the locality for development to take place within the early years of the plan period.
The inclusion of this land within revised development limits would be fully supported.

No change requested

HOM1: Housing Allocations: Why have SeC16/h2 and SeC16/h3 been removed from being identified as Residential Allocation? Why has the Development Limits boundary been altered with the removal of SeC16/h3?

(pic attached of the previous version so you know what I'm referring to…I don’t think those sites have been built on already have they?)

11.351 Why does the Air Quality Management Areas (AQMAs) for Llandeilo not appear as a layer on the interactive map?

(I don’t think I’ve missed it have I? https://carmarthenshire.opus4.co.uk/planning/localplan/maps/2nd-deposit-revised-carmarthenshire-local-development-plan-2018-2033-proposals-map#/center/51.8874,-3.9964/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 )

11.550 Towy Valley Transport Corridor (Towy Valley Cycleway) This is described as ‘to Llandeilo’. The current planning application for this does not include any connection to Llandeilo.

Changes not to have been made to extend the boundary limit.

Objection to application SR/098/002 to the change in the boundary limits being extended,this has on several occasions been refused! so why has it been proposed yet again ! what's changed?.
The highway infrastructure is inadequate, lack of footpaths and already a danger to pedestrians and cyclists.
The increase in the volume of traffic is at capacity before the development of 36 houses in llangain!!.
Public services, drainage/ sewers adding potential increase to flooding.
The detrimental effects on hedgerows and removal of old established trees.
Concerns still relate to both sites SR/098/002 and SR/098/001 both sites not suitable for development.

Include site within the plan

HOM4. Affordable housing local resident leaving parental home own family on low income. Land has been in family ownership for 20+ years. Born grown in the surrounding area. Remain close to extended family. Development would be consistent with the character of the area. Has water connection, access to public transport, local school, shop, post office.