CCH2: Ynni Adnewyddadwy y tu allan i Ardaloedd a Aseswyd o flaen llaw ac Ardaloedd Chwilio Lleol

. We suggest that the following are added to the policy:

b. [add]… , including SLAs;
g. Proposals must include an assessment of impact on landscape character, value and qualities, with regard to the cumulative effects of the development with other built, consented and likely (based on Pre-Assessed Area, Future Wales 2040) developments;
h. Proposals for associated infrastructure, such as pylons, cabling and other grid infrastructure, will require undergrounding wherever possible, unless such undergrounding conflicts with ecological, natural or archaeological constraints;
j. Proposals for battery storage plants at Renewable Energy sites must be accompanied by a fire safety strategy and a pollution control strategy, having regard to potential environmental pollution, ground water courses and potential river pollution effects;
k. Renewable and low carbon energy projects which are developed by local communities (located within 5km of the development site) at all scales of MW development will be permitted, subject to the proposed development meeting the criteria above.

This policy would benefit reference to cumulative impacts on landscape character, undergrounding of infrastructure, requirements for battery energy storage plants associated with the Renewable developments, and explicit presumption of consent for renewable development proposals from communities.

The wording should be updated to more specifically define what "unacceptable impacts" are.

The phrasing of "unacceptable" is extremely vague and unspecific. Who gets to define what is unacceptable and according to what criteria? Without a more specific framework of criteria how is the value of "unacceptability" worked out? This vague terminology gives no agreed boundaries as to what is "unacceptable". It is simply a term of personal choice, to be applied according to the whims and preferences of whoever is making the decision. The wording totally diminishes and disempowers any local viewpoints and removes their ability to challenge proposed developments.

No change to the Plan

2nd Deposit Revised LDP – Commentary

Reference and Comment

A. Spatial Strategy
The National Park Authority has no comment on the spatial strategy proposed.

No comment.

Reference and Comment Support/Object/
Other
B. Employment
The Spatial Strategy commentary above sets out where there is consistency of approach on where employment undertakings can take place in the County along with notes of clarification.

The employment and economic development strategy of Carmarthenshire County Council’s Preferred Strategy focusses on the Swansea Bay City Deal, and other Carmarthenshire-specific strategies. Carmarthenshire County Council and this National Park Authority are stakeholders in a Regional Strategic Economic study along with Pembrokeshire County Council and Brecon Beacons National Park Authority. The final report was published in October 2019. The study broadly concludes that there is sufficient strategic land available to meet demand across the area. The policy approach across the Pembrokeshire County Council, Carmarthenshire County Council and Pembrokeshire Coast National Park Authority is to protect strategic and smaller employment sites for employment use.
Support the general conformity of approach.

C. Housing Growth
Pembrokeshire Coast National Park Authority has no comment on the anticipated scale of growth proposed.

D. Affordable Housing
The National Park Authority has no comment.
No comment.

Climate Change
The Authorities have a shared understanding of the need to plan for climate change and to mitigate its impacts and to provide for high quality design to ensure that new development is adaptable to climate change.

This National Park Authority supports the approach taken to future-proofing communities in light of predicted sea-level rise and the identification of a Coastal Change Management Area, supported by the South Wales Shoreline Management Plan. Support in principle. Support Policy PSD1 Placemaking and sustainable places, Policy NE5 Coastal Management NE6: Coastal Development; and NE7 Coastal Change Management Area and SP16 Climate change.
Note: See comment across.

Visitor Economy
Both Authorities recognise the importance of the visitor economy to west Wales and aim to support the sector and attract visitors all year round. Both also recognise that some attractions require a countryside setting but that this should be the exception, and the majority of tourism related development being sustainably located. Support SP11 The Visitor Economy, VE1 Visitor Attractions and Facilities; VE2 Holiday Accommodation; VE3 Touring Caravan, camping and Non-Permanent Alternative Camping Accommodation; VE4 Static Caravan and Chalet Sites and Permanent Alternative Camping Accommodation.

Retail
Both Authorities’ strategies focus on the need to maintain / create vibrant and diverse town, district, and local centres. Retail provision in both Authorities is identified through the retail hierarchy with Carmarthenshire’s hierarchy being based on Sub Regional- High Order Town Centres, Mid Order Town Centres and Lower Order Town Centres. Support SP 2 Retail and Town Centres

Renewable Energy
Both plans have regard to the need to generate more electricity from renewable sources. Pembrokeshire Coast National Park Authority has a renewable energy strategy policy seeking the delivery of appropriate renewable energy developments.

Both Authorities implement joint guidance on assessing the cumulative impact of wind turbines

It would be useful to confirm if Carmarthenshire intends to bring forward the Cumulative Impact of Turbine Guidance in the replacement Local Development Plan.

Carmarthenshire includes renewable energy as part of Strategic Policy 16: Climate Change (parts c and d), and both CCH1: Renewable Energy within Pre-Assessed Areas and Local search Areas and CCH”: Renewable Energy Outside Pre-Assessed Areas and Local Search Areas. Whilst Pembrokeshire does not have Local Search Areas, these policies are broadly in line with this Authority’s Renewable and Low Carbon Energy policy.
LSA for solar is shown on the Proposals map and it is considered that none of these are likely to have an impact on the Pembrokeshire Coast National Park.
Support SP 15 Climate Change and CCH1 / CCH2

Environment
Both Plans seek to ensure that their Plan areas natural and historic environment and landscape will be protected from inappropriate development and, where possible, enhanced.

The Welsh language which continues to be an important component in the social, cultural and economic life of many communities will be protected and supported by managing development sensitively in areas where it has a significant role in the community. Support SP8 Welsh Language and WL1 Welsh Language and New Developments, SP14
PSD3: Green and Blue Infrastructure Network
Maintaining and Enhancing the Natural Environment. SP 15 Protection and Enhancement of the Built and Historic Environment and BHE2 Landscape Character. SP14 Maintaining and Enhancement of the Built and Historic Environment

Note See across for comment.

Regional Working
Strategic Policy – SP 14: Maintaining and Enhancing the Natural Environment: Reasoned Justification: 11.409 In addition, and reflecting the duties placed upon Local Authorities, the Plan has regard to the National Park designation and the purpose for which it is designated, where it may affect the consideration of planning proposals.
BHE2: Landscape Character Development proposals should relate to the specific landscape and visual characteristics of the local area, ensuring that the overall integrity of landscape character is maintained by: …. b) protecting international and national landscape designations including National Parks and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and their settings;

11.456 Carmarthenshire is characterised by diverse and high-quality landscape resources and areas of notable visual value. It also includes or borders a range of landscape designations, including the Brecon Beacons and Pembrokeshire Coast National Parks and Gower AONB.

Appendix 2 Regional and Local Strategic Context:
Regional working: Pembrokeshire Coast National Park Authority’s adopted LDP is broadly compatible with a hierarchical settlement structure and a consistency in the broad planning policy approach with Carmarthenshire. Continuing liaison will ensure a mutual understanding of the respective approaches including through regional arrangements and the scope and progress of the Strategic Development Plan. A proactive approach towards regional and sub-regional working is implicit on policy matters, evidence gathering and strategic considerations.

Minerals
The terrestrial sand and gravel landbank and the apportionment of provision to meet future needs is now considered on a regional basis with the RTS Second Review setting out the contribution that each constituent local authority should make towards meeting the demand for aggregates. There is no requirement for a landbank to be maintained within National Park (PPW 11)

Although Carmarthenshire is now in a separate sub-region to Pembrokeshire, previous combined working arrangements with regard to future apportionments and allocations for sand and gravel as suggested in the RTS1 as recommended to continue in RTS2 with the production of a Statement of Sub-regional Collaboration between Pembrokeshire, Carmarthenshire and Ceredigion to meet the allocation requirement of 3.626 million tonnes.

The Area of Search for Sand and Gravel is located to the west as shown on the Proposals Map, the northern end of which lies approximately 4.3km south east of the Pembrokeshire Coast National Park.
Support the compatibility of approach between the two Plans.
Support SP 18: Mineral Resources.

Waste
Both authorities’ policies on waste management are broadly aligned. Carmarthenshire acknowledges TAN 21 and the need for collaboration between local planning authorities to progress towards an integrated and adequate network for waste management.
Support
Support SP 19: Sustainable Waste Management

Sustainability Appraisal/Strategic Environmental Appraisal

Appendix E: Growth Options
1st Deposit LDP Preferred Growth Option: check shading for ISA3. The appraisal is ‘+/-‘and the shading is that of minor negative effect rather than the yellow of positive and negative effect.

Appendix F: ISA Strategic Policies
SP 2: Retail and Town Centres: ISA Objective 1 has a positive assessment but no commentary.

SP 10: Gypsy and Traveller Provision: ISA Objective 8 is neutral. Could this be a positive since providing sites sustains Gypsy and Traveller culture?

Habitats Regulations Assessment

Comments:

Thank you for considering and incorporating PCNPA’s comments on the Habitat Regulations Assessment Report (2020) as detailed in the appendices to the Habitats Regulations Assessment Addendum report.

4.3 Interim action plan – land available for constructed wetlands.
It is suggested that it would be beneficial to include discussion of the identified lands current use (e.g. to eliminate land of existing or other potential nature conservation value from consideration).
Other discussion points:
The long-term use of wetlands as nutrient sinks is not well understood.
The ability of wetlands to remove nutrients may be influenced by climate change scenarios, e.g. drying out, flood events.

Page 8 (PPP) – while not yet adopted, we note that consultation recently (February 2023) closed on Dŵr Cymru Welsh Water’s draft Water Resources Management Plan 2024
Typos
“3.2.15 ‘screened out screened out’
3.3.2 ‘unlikely to have a significant effects’
4.2.17 ‘there are important’
4.2.20 ‘which can demonstrate not cause the failure’
4.3.1 ‘ready in conjunction’

Thank you for consulting the Welsh Government on the Carmarthenshire County Council Local Development Plan (LDP) 2nd Deposit plan and documents. It is essential the authority is covered by an up-to-date LDP to give certainty to local communities and business.
Without prejudice to the Minster’s powers, the Welsh Government is committed to helping Local Planning Authorities (LPAs) minimise the risk of submitting unsound plans by making comments at the earliest stages of plan preparation. The Welsh Government looks for clear evidence that the plan is in general conformity with Future Wales: The National Development Framework and aligns with Planning Policy Wales (PPW), and that the tests of soundness (as set out in the ‘LDP Manual’) are addressed.
National planning policies are set out in Planning Policy Wales (PPW) Edition 11, which seeks to deliver high quality, sustainable places through a place-making approach. The implementation of the core policy areas in PPW, such as adopting a sustainable spatial strategy, appropriate housing and economic growth levels, infrastructure delivery and place-making, are articulated in more detail in the LDP Manual (Edition 3). We expect the core elements of the Manual, in particular Chapter 5 and the ‘De-risking Checklist(s) to be followed. The development planning system in Wales is evidence led and demonstrating how a plan is shaped by the evidence is a key requirement of the LDP examination.
After considering the key issues and policies in Future Wales, the Welsh Government is of the view that the level and spatial distribution of growth is in general conformity with Future Wales: The National Development Framework. However, the Statement of General Conformity (Annex 1 to this letter) is a ‘caveated response’. Annex 2 of this letter raises fundamental inconsistencies regarding the total housing provision and until these matters have been addressed and their implications understood, it is not possible to give a firm view on matters of general conformity at this time. Annex 2 of this letter also highlights a range of issues that need to be addressed for the plan to align with PPW and DPM. Collectively, our comments highlight a range of issues that need to be addressed for the plan to be considered ‘sound’ as follows:
Annex 1 – General Conformity with Future Wales (Caveated Response)
· Regional Collaboration/Level of growth Further clarity required. Annex 2 – Core matters that need to be addressed (PPW and the DPM)
Our representations are separated into three categories set out by topic area, with further detail in the attached annex.
Category A: Fundamental issues that are considered to present a significant degree of risk for the LPA if not addressed prior to submission stage and may have implications for the plan’s strategy.
None.
Category B: Matters where it appears that the deposit plan has not satisfactorily translated national policy down to the local level and there may be tensions within the plan, namely (not exhaustive):
· Level of Housing Provision
· Delivery and Viability
· Restriction of new homes to Class C3 only
· Gypsy and Traveller Provision
· Best and Most Versatile Land (BMV)
Category C: Whilst not considered to be fundamental to the soundness of the LDP, we consider there to be a lack of certainty or clarity on the following matters:
· Flooding
· Renewable Energy
· Minerals
· Phosphates
I would urge you to seek your own legal advice to ensure you have met all the procedural requirements, including the Sustainability Appraisal (SA), Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) and Habitats Regulation Assessment (HRA), as responsibility for these matters rests with your authority. A requirement to undertake a Health Impact Assessment (HIA) arising from the Public Health (Wales) Act 2017, if appropriate, should be carried out to assess the likely effect of the proposed development plan on health, mental well-being and inequality.
It is for your Authority to ensure that the LDP is ‘sound’, and it will be for the Inspector to determine how the examination proceeds if you submit the plan without addressing the concerns we raise. My colleagues and I look forward to meeting you and the team to discuss matters arising from this response.

The following changes are suggested to the policy:
b. [add]… , including SLAs;
g. Proposals must include an assessment of impact on landscape character, value and qualities, with regard to the cumulative effects of the development with other built, consented and likely (based on Pre-Assessed Area, Future Wales 2040) developments;
h. Proposals for associated infrastructure, such as pylons, cabling and other grid infrastructure, will require undergrounding wherever possible, unless such undergrounding conflicts with ecological, natural or archaeological constraints;
j. Proposals for battery storage plants at Renewable Energy sites must be accompanied by a fire safety strategy and a pollution control strategy, having regard to potential environmental pollution, ground water courses and potential river pollution effects;
k. Renewable and low carbon energy projects which are developed by local communities (located within 5km of the development site) at all scales of MW development will be permitted, subject to the proposed development meeting the criteria above.

Carmarthenshire Residents’ Action Group: Representations to the public consultation of the Second Deposit Revised Carmarthenshire Local Development Plan 2018-2033 and the Integrated Sustainability Assessment
We, Carmarthenshire Residents’ Action Group, are responding to the public consultation on the Carmarthenshire Local Development Plan 2018-2033 (Second Deposit) (‘Revised LDP’) to raise concerns with regard to the plan making process in relation to landscape(s) within the LDP’s geographical area. We request several changes to the plan on the basis that we consider the plan not to be sound and request the opportunity to make representations during the examination process.1
This letter contains a series of comments and objections in relation to landscape policies, and approach to policy making with regard to landscapes, within Carmarthenshire’s Revised LDP drafting process, including the Integrated Sustainability Appraisal (‘ISA’).
This letter also consolidates a series of comments made via the online comments portal on the proposed Revised LDP. It refers Carmarthenshire’s Forward Planning Department and, in due course, the appointed Examination Planning Inspector, to Carmarthenshire Residents Action Group’s petition to maintain the Special Landscape Areas within the 2018-2033 LDP. This petition has raised 438 signatures, details of which are contained within Appendix 1 of this letter.
A strong objection is raised, backed by significant local support, to the removal of Carmarthenshire’s locally designated Special Landscape Areas within the Revised LDP. Objections are also raised with regard to the replacement landscape related policies in the second Deposit Revised LDP with materially weakened policies compared to the existing 2006-2021 LDP (‘Current LDP’). The letter also raises concerns with regard to the assessment carried out in the ISA as it pertains to the Sustainability Objective on Landscape.
Our representations are set out as follows:
1. Objection to the removal of Special Landscape Areas from the Revised LDP;
2. Inadequate Evidence Base;
3. Revised LDP Policies;
4. Specific suggested amendments to Revised LDP Policies;
5. Adequacy of the assessment Integrated Sustainability Appraisal as it concerns Landscape; and,
6. Conclusion
1 It is noted that Welsh Government Local development plan examinations: procedure guidance (28 November 2022) states in paragraph 1.7 that ‘Those who have sought changes to the submitted plan or plan revisions and have indicated that they would like to speak must be invited to the hearings.’

1. Objection to the removal of the Special Landscape Areas from the Revised LDP
‘The use of non-statutory designations such as Special Landscape Areas to protect areas of landscape value has long been a policy tool within the UK planning system. They have been seen by local planning authorities as a means of protecting sensitive landscapes and in developing an understanding and awareness of those features and characteristics that give a locality its sense of place.’2
Carmarthenshire’s 18 Special Landscape Areas (‘SLAs’) listed under Policy EQ6 in the Current LDP have not been carried forward into the Revised LDP.
We recognise that SLAs are a local non-statutory designation, however these areas are an acknowledged designation which carries weight within the Current LDP as a standalone policy. SLAs are also acknowledged and given weight within neighbouring Local Planning Authority (‘LPA’) LDPs.3 The weight given to the SLA designations is recognised across Appeal decisions by the Planning Inspectorate and in Planning Inspectorate recommendations with regard to Development Consent Order applications.4
We object to the Second Deposit LDP on the basis of the removal of the SLAs and request that SLAs are reintroduced into the Revised LDP, either as a standalone policy or that provision is made within the new Policy BHE2: Landscape Character.
This could be achieved by an amendment to Policy BHE2: Landscape Character to add wording as follows:
Proposals must take account of Carmarthenshire’s locally designated Special Landscape Areas (as set out in Appendix X (Appendix 4 of the Current LDP) and shown on the Policies Map). Development proposals will only be permitted where there is no significant adverse impact, including cumulative impact, on the character and quality of the landscape. Development proposals should aim to protect and enhance the features for which the SLA has been designated.
Where appropriate, a Landscape Impact Assessment will be required to assess and justify the impact of the development on Landscape Character and/or the designated area.
In exceptional circumstances, where development is necessary and could result in a significant landscape impact, appropriate mitigation and enhancement measures should be provided, including the undergrounding of associated infrastructure where possible.
Our suggested wording is similar to the City of Swansea LDP which was successfully adopted following Examination in February 2019.5 Appendix 4 of the Current LDP would remain relevant to the Revised LDP and could be brought across, with edits as necessary to increase the robustness of the assessment of the area’s character. SLAs could be added back into the Policies Map, with minor boundary edits as necessary.
2 Bridgend County Borough Council, Designation of Special Landscape Areas, March 2010
3 City of Swansea LDP (adopted February 2019), Ceredigion LDP (adopted 2013)
4 Including, but not solely, APP/M6825/A/12/2189697, APP/M6825/X/13/515763 & APP/M6825/X/13/515764; and Brechfa Forest Connection DCO application ref EN020016;
5 https://www.swansea.gov.uk/article/9914/Swansea-Local-Development-Plan-2010-2025-LDP

Reasons for retention
The retention of the SLAs in the Revised LDP is well supported, with 438 people resident within the county signing Carmarthenshire Residents’ Action Group’s petition.
We argue that the retention of the SLAs is important to fulfil to objectives of the LDP and question if the SLAs are removed if the plan meets its Sustainability Objectives on Landscape set against the baseline criteria. We do not consider that a robust, proportionate and credible case has been set out by the LPA for the removal of this landscape designation. We consider that the removal of the SLAs significantly weakens the Revised LDP’s SO9 regarding sense of place and impacts Carmarthenshire’s planning framework in terms of delivering on sustainable development on the basis of the Well-being of Future Generations Act.
By designating SLAs it is easier for communities, visitors and tourists to engage with the highest value landscapes of Carmarthenshire. The SLA designations are reflective of the local value communities place on these landscapes in a manner not captured in the replacement Policy BHE2: Landscape Character. This revised policy places too much reliance on LANDMAP assessment. Whilst LANDMAP is an excellent tool for those engaged with the planning process, it is harder to engage with than the specifically designated SLAs which have clear and geographical boundaries capturing the outstanding and high quality landscapes of Carmarthenshire. The removal of the SLAs, and their removal from the Polices Map, invariably makes it makes it harder for specific communities and the wider public to engage with the LDP and weakens community representations as part of the planning consultation processes for individual development applications.
We consider that the SLAs improve the delivery of the Revised LDP objectives. Natural Resources Wales (‘NRW’) states that ‘there may be more than one role for an identified SLA: To recognise and protect (through development management) locally valued landscapes important for their distinctive character, qualities and sense of place / bro; To influence positive landscape planning. […]; To raise understanding and appreciation of the importance of local landscapes by communities, visitor and the wider public.’ The SLAs currently provide these roles and retaining them in the Revised LDP would better meet the LDP and ISA Objectives.
The developmental pressures on the landscape have not weakened in the time between the Current LDP adoption and the Revised LDP drafting. The Current LDP Appendix 4 assessment of SLAs specifically states in relation to the Tywi Valley, that ‘Inappropriate development continues to threaten the conservation of this outstanding landscape, hence the reason for its designation.’ We do not see that these reasons for designation have weakened. However, if the LPA consider otherwise, then the evidence of this decision making process should be published.
Planning Policy Wales 11 (‘PPW11’) paragraphs 6.3.12 and 6.3.13 relate to the characteristics of local landscapes. These paragraphs highlight the ability for LPAs to designate SLAs. Paragraph 6.3.13 states that ‘Planning authorities should apply these designations where there is good reason to believe that normal planning policies cannot provide the necessary protection.’ Given that pressures on the landscape have not weakened and that the existing SLAs have proven weight in the planning determination process, we consider that the removal of the SLAs in the Revised LDP runs contrary to this part of PPW11.

Compatibility with Policy and Guidance
In addition to the point with regard to PPW 11 above, our view is that the SLAs are wholly compatible with the Revised LDP, the proposed Policy BHE2: Landscape Character and can be seamlessly incorporated into this policy, or alternatively, the existing policy could be retained in the Revised LDP.
NRW LANDMAP Guidance Note 1: LANDMAP and Special Landscape Areas 2017, endorses a dual approach to landscape management, in line with our suggested edits to the Revised LDP Policy BHE2: Landscape Character. On page 3 of the document, it is stated that ‘in this dual approach, all landscapes will be underpinned equally by LANDMAP […] but in addition to this, landscapes of high local importance will be specifically identified as a SLA with additional guidance being produced for these key landscapes’.
We recognise that there is potential tension between the SLA designation of Llanllwni Mountain SLA and the Cothi Valley SLA, and that these areas are also within the Pre-Assessed Area for Wind Energy in Future Wales 2040 the National Development Plan (‘NDP’). We argue that the SLA designation of these areas is not in conflict with the NDP, including Policies 17 and 18. However, we recognise that this is an area of the Revised LDP which may benefit from further exploration at Examination and we would appreciate an invitation to make representations on this issue.

2. Inadequate Evidence Base
The Issues, Vision and Options paper makes it clear that this 2018-2033 LDP is a review of the previous LDP and not a new local plan (para 1.3, page 2, Issues, Vision and Options Topic Paper, February 2023). There is a general expectation in plan making that evidence is front-loaded. As the Revised LDP revises the Current LDP, it is reasonable to expect that the entire removal of locally designated SLA from the plan should be carried out on a sound, evidence backed, basis. Statements by the LPA during the plan making process did not indicate that SLAs would be removed from the plan at Review or Preferred Strategy stages. The weakening of the landscape policies and the removal of SLAs was not revealed until the publication of the First Deposit LDP in early 2020. Prior to the publication of the First Deposit LDP, the LPA indicated that further evidence would be published if the policy were to be changed.
The 2006-2021 LDP Review Report 2018 did not raise concerns about the effectiveness of the SLA Policy, giving it a green colour coding indicating the policy target was being achieved or exceeded. The report stated in paragraph 9.141 that ‘The Plan identifies Special Landscape Areas (SLAs) within Policy EQ6. These were identified following a formal assessment of the landscape qualities of the County and are a non-statutory designation. It is noted that the policy places an emphasis on enhancement and improvement. There may be opportunities to supplement and/or review the supporting evidence for this policy and explore those wider linkages (e.g. the renewable energy policies and those design related policies).’
Further, Appendix 1 of the Review Report reviewing specific policies states that in relation to Policy EQ6 SLAs that ‘Whilst no fundamental changes are envisaged, the policy will respond to contextual (including legislative and policy changes), factual and evidential changes as well as those resulting from any revisions to the strategy.’ This wording is a standard response to policies which were expected to be kept in the Revised LDP close to their current form. It is difficult to ascertain how the
removal of the SLAs does not constitute a fundamental change, to a degree where evidence justifying this change would reasonably be expected to be published.
Following on from the review, the Preferred Strategy was published in 2019. The Preferred Strategy gave no indication of the intention to remove the SLAs from the Deposit Plan and gave significant indication that landscape policies would remain strong within the Revised LDP. Issue 8 of the LDP issues is ‘Rich landscape or townscape qualities’; the Vision states that ‘rich cultural and environmental qualities are valued and respected’; paragraph 10.19 states that ‘the LDP will promote the principles of sustainability by: Protecting and enhancing biodiversity, townscapes and landscapes’; ‘A New Strategy – Key Components’ paragraph 10.20 states that ‘the key components of the strategy are as follows:’ one of which is to ‘Protect and enhances the natural, historic and built conservation qualities of Carmarthenshire and its high value landscapes’.6
Given these statements, it would not be unreasonable to expect that the SLA policy would remain in the Revised LDP, particularly given specific reference to the protection of high value landscapes. The means of recognising and protecting the areas of outstanding and high value landscapes in the LPA’s geographical area is specifically the Current LDP’s SLA policy.
Furthermore, in response to a representation made on the Preferred Strategy, the LPA stated ‘The consideration of whether any Special Landscape Areas will be identified in the Revised LDP, along with any resultant evidential facets, will be a matter for the deposit LDP.’ [our emphasis].
In our view, it is reasonable to consider that prior to the First Deposit Plan publication that the full SLA policy, or a slightly revised version of it, would remain in place in the new LDP; or that evidence would be published alongside the Deposit Plan to justify removal of the SLA policy given the LPAs statements in the Plan Review and the response to the Preferred Strategy public consultation. Therefore, given the above timeline indicates a very late decision to remove the SLAs from the Revised LDP, we question whether the decision has been carried out with robust, proportionate and credible evidence.
What evidence has been used?
At the date of this letter, the LPA have not provided information within the Plan Evidence Base, as accessed online, for the decision to remove the SLAs from the LDP; nor the evidence that the new landscape Policy BHE2: Landscape Character sufficiently delivers on the aims of the New Strategy which includes the key component to protect and enhance high-value landscapes.
Assessments which have been published by the LPA in relation to Landscape Character are due to expire when the new LDP is adopted. These comprise existing assessments of the SLA areas in Appendix 4 of the Current LDP; there is a reference to NRW’s 48 broad scale, not locally specific, National Landscape Character Areas (NLCA), and the SLAs within the Placemaking and Design SPG (adopted 2016); and consideration of landscapes in the Carmarthenshire Wind Turbine Development Landscape Sensitivity and Capacity Study, prepared by Anthony Jellard Associates.
The SLAs are removed from the Revised LDP. The Placemaking and Design SPG is not slated to be carried forward with the new Revised LDP7. The current status of the Anthony Jellard study is unclear,
6 These parts of the Preferred Strategy are carried into the Second Deposit LDP, February 2023, and are found across Chapters 5-9.
7 See Appendix 3, Second Deposit LDP 2018-2033
it is referenced within the current Wind and Solar SPG; however this SPG is not intended to be carried forward as part of the Revised LDP. The removal of these assessments is likely to leave a gap with regard to the protection and enhancement of landscapes when the new Revised LDP is adopted.
Given the anticipated expiry of these assessments, it is not credible that they can form part of an evidence base for the creation of the Revised LDP policies. No evidence has been provided that any other assessments have been carried out in forming the LPAs landscape character policy or that NRW’s LANDMAP has been utilised to inform revised policy preparation. The Revised LDP states that a Landscape Character Assessment SPG is proposed to be adopted by Summer 2025, but as no draft has been published this does not form part of the evidence base. The target Revised LDP adoption date is Autumn 2024 and with the SPG proposed for Summer 2025, this leaves a significant gap around landscape policy guidance in the interim, even if the Landscape Character SPG is published on time.
The LPAs Cabinet Member for Planning has responded to a question on the evidence base by discussing assessment of development proposals utilising information contained within NRWs LANDMAP. However, this is an existing means of assessment in the Current LDP and will be retained as a means of assessing change to landscape in the Revised LDP, as such it does not make a difference to the baseline. Notably, the question asked to the Cabinet Member for Planning was with regard to the evidence around the formation of new Policy BHE2 and the removal of the SLAs, to which she did not furnish an answer. 8
Finally, the lack of published evidence relevant to the landscape policies of the Revised LDP appears to be in conflict with paragraph 6.3.21 of PPW 11, which states ‘Planning authorities should draw upon LANDMAP in the preparation of landscape plans and assessments needed to inform development plans, SPGs and the development management process. LANDMAP assessments should be published.’ [our emphasis]
In our view, the evidence base for the Revised LDP in terms of Landscape Policy is not sufficiently substantiated and we request that this is interrogated by the Inspector appointed for the Examination.

3. Revised LDP Policies
We argue that the Revised LDP policies are substantively weaker with regard to landscape protection and enhancement than the Current LDP Policies. Comparison of similar policies in relation to placemaking, sustainability, high quality design, landscapes and features of importance, landscape character and renewable energy, between the Current LDP and the Revised LDP, show fewer mentions of the need to ‘preserve or enhance’, that development ‘must’ meet certain criteria, that development ‘will only be permitted’ if specific criteria are met, and the clear setting out of designated Special Landscape Areas with the expectation that development should enhance or improve these areas.
This is in contrast to the Revised LDP which uses wording such as ‘should relate to’, maintaining ‘overall integrity’, ‘development shall demonstrate’, that ‘development must acknowledge’ and ‘demonstrate a clear understanding’. Whilst it is acknowledged that this can be a more positive way of forming LDP policies and there are good reasons for this approach, it would be erroneous to suggest
8https://democracy.carmarthenshire.gov.wales/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=131&MId=6351&Ver=4 [accessed 14 April 2023]
that these changes do not make the Policies easier for development to be consented and weaker in some instances. In our view, this is notably the case with regard to landscape protections and most significantly the removal of a whole policy layer designating Special Landscape Areas. With regard to landscape there is a question if the Policies as currently drafted are sufficiently robust to deliver on the Issues, Vision and Objectives of the plan, as well as key components of the Strategy.
We appreciate that Policies SP12: Placemaking and Sustainable Places and BHE2: Landscape Character, do contain some landscape protections. However, with the removal of the designated SLAs the Revised LDP remains materially weaker with regard to the protection of Carmarthenshire’s highest quality landscapes (outstanding and high value). This is especially the case prior to the publication of the promised Landscape Character SPG, and without publication of this SPG in draft form before examination it is difficult to fully consider the likely strength of these policies.

4. Specific suggested amendments to Revised LDP Policies
In addition to the objection to the removal of the SLA policy and suggestions for its reintroduction, we have the following additional comments on the Revised LDP.

Object. Strategic Policy – SP12: Placemaking and Sustainable Places
Policy point f) ‘Exhibit and demonstrate a clear understanding of the existing local landscape context, natural and built heritage, local character and sense of place.’
Proposed change to ‘Exhibit and demonstrate a clear understanding of the existing local landscape character, natural and built heritage, local context and sense of place; ensuring development proposals protect and, wherever possible, enhance these features.’
This change would deliver the key components of the New Strategy more convincingly in relation to this Policy, one of which is ‘Protect and enhances the natural, historic and built conservation qualities of Carmarthenshire and its high value landscapes.’ It would also deliver Strategic Objective 9 (SO9) more convincingly. SO9 aims ‘To protect and enhance the diverse character, distinctiveness, safety and vibrancy of the County’s communities by promoting a place making approach and a sense of place.’ Currently the specific phrase ‘protect and enhance’ only features in Strategic Policy SP14: Maintaining and Enhancing the Natural Environment which is only one component of the County’s diverse character. Variations of protect and enhance feature elsewhere in the written statement and there is benefit in bringing SP12 more into line with these.

Object. PSD1: Effective Design Solution: Sustainability and Placemaking. Policy point d) states ‘Quality landscapes design solutions’, this appears to be a typo where ‘landscape’ fits better. In our view, for policy point d) to work effectively, either reference to a published Landscape Character SPG, or reference to NRW LANDMAP (especially the Visual and Sensory assessment layer) should be made within this Policy or in the accompanying notes. This would benefit from explicitly stating that it applies to all development, including infrastructure, Renewable and Low Carbon developments, as well as buildings, transport, excavation sites, and smaller scale landscape proposals in the private and public realm.

Object. BHE2: Landscape Character. The use of ‘overall’ in the policy substantively weakens its protection of the landscape character. We request that this word is removed. It is unclear in the current presentation of the policy if the onus is on the applicant to identify the landscape character of the ‘local area’ through their own assessment, or if NRWs LANDMAP data is to be used, or if the
LPAs own Landscape Character SPG is to be used. This should be more explicitly set out and clarified. If the expectation is that the Landscape Character SPG is the baseline then it would be beneficial for this to be published in advance of the Revised LDPs adoption, preferably at the time of Examination. Reference to the Landscape Character Assessment should also be made in the Policy text.
It is also unclear where the key landscape views and vistas mentioned in point e. are set out, in order for them to be protected in the policy. If these are due to be identified in the Landscape Character SPG then, again, this would benefit publication prior to plan Examination.
We also request that reference to SLAs are added into this policy, as set out in section 1 of this letter.

Object. Policy CCH1: Renewable Energy within Pre-Assessed Areas and Local Search Areas. This policy would benefit reference to cumulative impacts on landscape character, undergrounding of infrastructure, requirements for battery energy storage plants associated with the Renewable developments, and presumption of consent for renewable development proposals by communities, as well as those already set out for large scale wind farms. We suggest that the following are added to the policy:
d. Proposals must include an assessment of impact on landscape character, value and qualities, with regard to the cumulative effects of the development with other built, consented and likely (based on Pre-Assessed Area, Future Wales 2040) developments;
e. Proposals for associated infrastructure, such as pylons, cabling and other grid infrastructure, will require undergrounding wherever possible, unless such undergrounding conflicts with ecological, natural or archaeological constraints;
f. Proposals for battery storage plants at Renewable Energy sites must be accompanied by a fire safety strategy and a pollution control strategy, having regard to potential environmental pollution, ground water courses and potential river pollution effects;
g. Renewable and low carbon energy projects which are developed by local communities (located within 5km of the development site) at all scales of MW development will be permitted, subject to the proposed development meeting the criteria above.

Object. Policy CCH2: Renewable Energy Outside Pre-Assessed Areas and Local Search Areas. This policy would benefit reference to cumulative impacts on landscape character, undergrounding of infrastructure, requirements for battery energy storage plants associated with the Renewable developments, and explicit presumption of consent for renewable development proposals from communities. We suggest that the following are added to the policy:
b. [add]… , including SLAs;
g. Proposals must include an assessment of impact on landscape character, value and qualities, with regard to the cumulative effects of the development with other built, consented and likely (based on Pre-Assessed Area, Future Wales 2040) developments;
h. Proposals for associated infrastructure, such as pylons, cabling and other grid infrastructure, will require undergrounding wherever possible, unless such undergrounding conflicts with ecological, natural or archaeological constraints;
j. Proposals for battery storage plants at Renewable Energy sites must be accompanied by a fire safety strategy and a pollution control strategy, having regard to potential environmental pollution, ground water courses and potential river pollution effects;
k. Renewable and low carbon energy projects which are developed by local communities (located within 5km of the development site) at all scales of MW development will be permitted, subject to the proposed development meeting the criteria above.

Object. Table 9 Resource Summary for Renewable Electricity. The Onshore Wind Target to deliver 588.5 MW of additional installed capacity by 2033 is in our view unrealistic given there has not been a call for sites for wind power. By our calculations, extrapolating from the evidence base document, AECOM Renewable and Low Carbon Energy Assessment Section 4.3, delivery of this target may require 75% of the area unconstrained by features such as buildings, roads and rivers in the Pre-Assessed Area in north Carmarthenshire to be developed for onshore wind.9 Given the mix of landowners and small scale farms across this area, delivery of the target may be challenging without large scale land purchases, which would not be feasible or desirable for smaller scale community wind developers. This policy is likely to result in more large scale multi-national corporation wind farm developments across Carmarthenshire. This is notwithstanding the scale of significant adverse impacts, including cumulative impacts, on the landscape a target like this will create.

Object. Policy CCH6: Renewable and Low Carbon Energy in New Developments. This policy could be more ambitious helping to deliver Net Zero targets by requiring all new housing or commercial development to fit solar panels to roofs, unless it is demonstrated by the applicant that to do so would not be viable, or if by doing so would conflict with other policies in the Revised LDP (such as built heritage, townscape or landscape policies).
Object. Policy CCH7: Climate Change – Forest, Woodland and Tree Planting. Specific reference should be made in the policy text to native trees and that planting schemes much be appropriate to the cultural and ecological character of the locality. This is referenced in paragraph 11.534, however due to the large ecological and landscape impacts that can arise from non-native tree planting, in our view the wording should be directly within the policy text.
The AECOM assessment estimates that the Pre-Assessed Area in Carmarthenshire, identified in Future Wales 2040, covers an area of 687 km2. The report assumes a maximum of 5 2MW turbines per 1km2 of land. Applications for new onshore wind at scale is more likely to be focused within the Pre-Assessed Areas due to the favourable planning framework for these locations. The Revised LDP target for installed capacity is an additional 588.5 MW, which using AECOM’s calculations would need to cover a land area of 58.85 Km2, or, 14,542 acres, equivalent to 8.5% of the Pre-Assessed Area. Taking into account the expected delivery of the remaining capacity in the former TAN 8 SSA, there is the expectation that 54.83 km2 will be delivered on a total possible unconstrained area of 73.1km2, or 75% of the unconstrained land in the Pre-Assessed Area. For the purposes of the AECOM study the constrains are National Parks, Natura 2000 sites, Buildings, Roads, Rivers, the TAN8 SSA and Topple Distance buffers applied to buildings, roads and rivers. Calculations taken from data within page 29 and 30 of the AECOM Renewable and Low Carbon Energy Assessment published in the LDP Evidence Base.

5. Adequacy of the Integrated Sustainability Appraisal assessment as it concerns Landscape
We are raising substantive concerns with regard to the robustness of the assessment carried out in the Integrated Sustainability Appraisal (‘ISA’).
The Sustainability Appraisal Scoping Report (published July 2018) set out the parameters of the Sustainability Appraisal, identifying Sustainability Issues and Opportunities, Sustainability Assessment Objectives and Decision Making Influences. This identified Landscape as number 9 of a total of 15 equal issues. Issue 9 is set out as follows: ‘There are several sites designated as of landscape or townscape value within the county. These features need to be protected, and where possible enhanced.’ In the Decision Making Influences, the question, ‘Will the LDP have a positive or negative impact on designated landscapes?’ is posed.
Linking these two quotes is the specific mention of ‘designated landscapes’, not statutory designated, nor ‘Designated’ noun. Special Landscape Areas are considered designated landscapes in this definition. This is the case in comparable LPAs in Wales, PPW11 para 6.3.12 refers to ‘the designation of Special Landscape Areas’ and the Current LDP Policy EQ6 states that ‘Special Landscape Areas are designated…’. Thus, references to designated landscapes in the Sustainability Appraisal, must take into account local as well as statutory designations, including SLAs. The question ‘will the LDP have a positive or negative impact on designated landscapes?’ and that the Revised LDP removes some of these designated landscapes, is an important consideration for the assessments in the Sustainability Appraisal.
Sustainable development is defined in the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015 as the ‘process of improving the economic, social, environmental, and cultural wellbeing of Wales by taking action.’ A change to the development plan which removes some designated landscapes should be considered carefully and assessed robustly on the terms that those designations have been removed, to demonstrate that the change is not an impairment to sustainable development.
Turning to the latest version of the ISA, published February 2023. The prediction of the effects of the plan involves identifying changes to the environmental baseline. The baseline for sustainability objective ISA9 – Landscape is set out in ISA Appendix B (pp.61-67) with the other baseline assessments. This baseline constitutes an introductory paragraph explaining that the Brecon Beacons National Park sits outside the LDP boundaries, along with a copy of the Current LDP Appendix 4 Special Landscape Areas assessment in full, then proceeds to state the ‘Predicted effect without implementation of the LDP’.
In our view, this assessment of predicted effects has been carried out incorrectly. The predicted effects mention protected habitat and species and biodiversity, which are assessed under ISA2 Biodiversity, and fails to comment adequately on changes to landscape as a characteristic in and of itself. Crucially, this assessment fails to note that the locally designated landscapes, SLAs, will continue to be in effect once the Plan period expires. This is, in our opinion, a substantive omission especially given that the baseline text is comprised of Special Landscape Area descriptions and assessing areas noted as being ‘worthy of the protection that the designation of SLAs provides.’
Section 4 of the ISA sets out a summary of the environmental baseline and predicted effects, noting that the future baseline for landscape is declining. This summary has a stronger summarisation of the likely effect on landscape than that set out in the ISA Appendix and states clearly that ‘landscape
protection measures should be strengthened’. As this assessment is provided on the basis that the Current LDP continues to remain in place, the need to have measures strengthening landscape protection must be considered to be in addition to those already in place, including the designated SLAs.
As the ISA needs to take into account the effect of the Revised LDP being adopted, against the baseline of the Current LDP remaining, some assessment of the removal of the local designated SLAs would be expected in the ISA. However, Special Landscape Areas are not mentioned in the main text of the ISA, nor the ISA Appendices, outside of the Baseline and list of Abbreviations. Failure to take account of the loss of this designation from the LDP is, in our view, a major error and questions the credibility of the appraisal of predicted effects on ISA9 – Landscape, throughout the ISA document and brings into question the soundness of the Plan.
There are also other concerning errors and omissions. One example is the review of SP16: Climate Change and associated specific policies CCH1: Renewable Energy within Pre-Assessed Areas and Local Search Areas and CCH2: Renewable Energy Outside Pre-Assessed Areas and Local Search Areas, in Appendix F and G. The appraisal considers the effects on landscape to be ‘neutral’ and with ‘positive and negative effects’. This is not credible given the scale of change proposed to the landscape on the basis of the targets for new wind power generation by 2033, and this target set in the context of the removal of the SLAs from the LDP. A negative effect should be identified. Whether the negative effect should be acceptable on balance is a test that is separate to this specific part of the ISA. The ISA should credibly take into account the high magnitude of the changes, the Plan’s intention to remove the SLA designated landscapes, and the effect characteristics including the scale of cumulative effects, their special extent and their probability; all of which is high impact and likely.
Another example is the review of SP14: Maintaining and Enhancing of the Natural Environment, where the Appraisal comments against ISA9 state that ‘This policy directly refers to the protection and enhancement of Carmarthenshire’s landscape’ (ISA Appendix F, p.46). This policy does not do as the Appraisal states. The protection and enhancement is directed at the natural environment more generally, it is not a policy linked back to ISA9 in its monitoring objectives, and points more generally to a confusion throughout the Revised LDP between the character of landscape as a visual and integral whole vs smaller scale aspects which make up the natural environment, which are nonetheless important, but fundamentally different.

6. Conclusion
The removal of the SLA designations from the LDP cannot but be an adverse change. The failure to take account of this substantive change and substantiate why this is not a significant weakening of the LDP from its current form is of great concern.
We encourage Carmarthenshire’s Forward Planning Department to set this right before the LDP is examined and re-introduce the SLA designations into the Plan to address the issues raised in this letter, re-providing a substantive part of the means to protect and enhance our outstanding and high valued landscapes for future generations.
We re-iterate our request to make representations on the LDP examination on the subject of landscape, with regard to relevant policies.
We appreciate your, and the appointed Planning Inspector’s, consideration of this letter.

No change to the Plan

Dear Sir/Madam,

I write to confirm the statutory safeguarding position of the Ministry of Defence (MOD) in relation to the 2nd Deposit Revised Carmarthenshire Local Development Plan (LDP) 2018 – 2033. The 2nd Deposit Revised LDP sets out the land use policies and proposals including the allocation and use of land through to 2033.

The Defence Infrastructure Organisation (DIO) Safeguarding Team represents the MOD as a statutory consultee in the UK planning system to ensure designated zones around key operational defence sites such as aerodromes, explosives storage sites, air weapon ranges, and technical sites are not adversely affected by development outside the MOD estate. For clarity, this response relates to MOD Safeguarding concerns only and should be read in conjunction with any other submissions that might be provided by other parts of the MOD.

Future Wales, the National Plan 2040 makes clear that military sites and assets in Wales are important to the UK strategic defence systems and emphasises that these sites and assets should be protected from the impacts of development. MOD may be involved in the planning system both as a statutory and non-statutory consultee. Statutory consultation occurs as a result of the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Safeguarded aerodromes, technical sites and military explosives storage areas) Direction 2002 (DfT/ODPM Circular 01/2003) and the location data and criteria set out on safeguarding
maps issued by Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (DLUHC) in accordance with the provisions of that Direction.

The area covered by any 2nd Deposit Revised Carmarthenshire Local Development Plan (LDP) 2018 – 2033 will both contain and be washed over by statutory safeguarding zones that are designated to preserve the operation and capability of defence assets and sites including RAF Pembrey Sands, MOD Pendine, and the Mid Wales Tactical Training Area
Copies of these plans, in both GIS shapefile and .pdf format, can be provided on request through the email address above.
On reviewing the potential allocation sites, the following site references fall within statutory safeguarding zones designated to protect the operational capabilities of defence sites and assets:

Housing Allocations
SAFEGUARDING ZONE(S) AFFECTED
Kidwelly
RAF Pembrey Sands (Range safeguarding zone)
Pembrey
RAF Pembrey Sands (Range safeguarding zone)
Trimsaran Ffos Las
RAF Pembrey Sands (Range safeguarding zone)
Llangadog
RAF Pembrey Sands (Range safeguarding zone)

To provide an illustration of the various issues that might be fundamental to MOD assessment carried out in response to statutory consultation, a brief summary of each of the safeguarding zone types is provided below. Depending on the statutory safeguarding zone within which a site allocation or proposed development falls, different considerations will apply.

• Air Weapon Range Safeguarding Zones serve to regulate developments that could introduce or support populations of large and, or, flocking birds hazardous to aircraft. This can include landscaping schemes associated with large developments as well as the creation of new waterbodies, wetlands and Sustainable Drainage Systems (SUDS). The incorporation of open water, both permanent and temporary, wetlands ponds and ditches provide a range of habitats for wildlife, including potentially increasing the creation of attractant environments for large and flocking bird species hazardous to aviation. In addition, these zones serve to monitor the development of new micro-light/leisure flying sites in the vicinity of air weapon ranges.

• Technical safeguarding zones serve to ensure that air traffic management, primarily radar, navigation, and communications systems are safeguarded to limit the impact of development on their capability and operation. The height, massing and materials used to finish a development may all be factors in assessing the impact of a given scheme. Developments that incorporate renewable energy systems may be of particular concern given their potential to provide large expanses of metal at height, for example in the case of a wind turbine or a solar PV system mounted on a roof

• Statutory safeguarding zones are designated around Military explosives storage sites, to ensure that development and land uses will be compatible with MOD capability. Within these zones, where applicable, requirements relating to the siting, design, and construction of buildings, or changes to land use may apply. In principle, the MOD does not object to land in the outer explosives safeguarding zone being developed for residential, commercial, and industrial land use purposes. Any buildings within this zone must be ‘non-vulnerable’ to blast effects, that is of robust construction, so should an explosive event occur, the structure would not collapse or sustain damage that could cause critical injury to the occupants. Of particular concern within this zone are tall buildings (in excess of 3 storeys), light weight construction and large areas of glazing. The MOD will object to development proposals which support people living, working and congregating within the inner explosives safeguarding zone.

• A significant portion of the 2nd Deposit Revised Carmarthenshire LDP 2018 – 2033 area is within a part of the UK Military Low Flying System, designated as Training Area 7T (Mid-Wales). Within the Tactical Training Area (TTA), fixed wing aircraft may operate as low as 100 feet or 30.5 metres Above Ground Level (AGL) to conduct low level flight training. The introduction of development within the TTA has the potential to introduce a physical obstruction to low flying aircraft operating in the area. As such the MOD would wish to be consulted on any development within the TTA which has a height of/or exceeding 15.2M AGL.

Mineral extraction has the potential to have a significant impact on defence capability and operations, through all stages of the extraction, restoration, and aftercare process. These types of developments have the potential to provide attractive environments to certain large and/or flocking bird species hazardous to aviation safety and therefore may be subject to design requirements or for management plans to be applied. Development types that might require the application of planning condition(s) and/or the use of Planning Obligations to secure legal frameworks for the way development is carried out or managed can include mineral extraction schemes, waste development schemes or proposals associated with waste facilities including any restoration of sites. The MOD requests that the plan highlights that the MOD must be consulted on any mineral extraction, waste or landfill scheme which occupies a statutory range safeguarding zone.

The MOD welcomes the provisions of policies CCC1 and CCH2 regarding renewable energy, which makes clear that renewable and low carbon projects will not be acceptable where they would have an unacceptable impact on the operations of defence facilities and operations (including aviation and radar) or the Mid Wales Low Flying Tactical Training Area (TTA-7T).
In addition, and where development falls outside designated safeguarding zones, the MOD may also have an interest, particularly where the development is of a type likely to have an impact on operational capability by virtue of scale, height, or physical properties. The MOD should be consulted, through DIO Safeguarding, where development exceeds a height of 50m above ground level to ensure that the potential for these structures to form a physical obstacle to low flying aircraft can be addressed through appropriate lighting and charting. In addition, the MOD requests to be consulted on any proposals, regardless of height, which fall outside of an MOD safeguarding zone but are in the vicinity of military training estate or property.

The MOD Safeguarding team note that the council will prepare Supplementary Planning Guidance for the Pembrey Peninsula and would ask that we are consulted during the preparation of any SPG.
I trust this clearly explains our position on this update. Please do not hesitate to contact me should you wish to consider these points further.