SeC16/h1

Any future development adjacent to Parc Pencrug should have separate access.

As a home owner in Parc Pencrug, we object to the development by POBL (Ref SR/080/005 & SR/080/013). The current road is not suitable for either the construction traffic whilst building or consequential increase in population.
As residents we are responsible for ensuring the estate is maintained which includes a children’s play area. If there is an increase in residential property there is no way of ensuring this is maintained. An increase in road vehicles also presents a serious hazard to residents.

POBL have dismissed residents concerns with only one “drop in” consultation.

A new independent access road to any new site is required. Access should not be via the existing Parc Pencrug/Llys Pencrug roads.

The Road infrastructure to the new "Residential Allocation" is insufficient to cope with additional demand.
A Children’s playground adjoins the main road, cars at present drive too fast. Increased road use would be dangerous to children and other users.
A new independent access road to any new site. Access to the new site should not adjoin a children’s play area, children and other users at risk from pollution, and volume of cars.
Access should not be via the exisiting parc pencrug/llys pencrug roads.
The site roads are currently in a poor state and would not improve from additional work from contractors and ultimately residents.

No change but consideration of access to the site

Dear Sir,
I am writing to express my concern about the proposed development on two grounds:-
Firstly the fact that the Developers have shown us plans for a proposal that includes the CCC land and also privately held land - does this that we are open to "incermental development"? (Either now or in the future).

Secondly, access to the site. As I understand it, the only access is via Parc Pencrug. In my opinion, as a resident of Parc Pencrug, this is inadequate. I remember a previous plan (about 2007), where the main access was into Rhosmaen Street. This made much more sense with regard to access to schools,. shops, surgeries etc.

Hoping that these observations make sense to you,

More suitable access required to this allocation.

Dear Sir

I am writing about the 2nd Deposit Revised LDP with reference to the housing site adjacent to Parc Pencrug, Llandeilo.

Sole access via the restricted space of the existing Parc Pencrug estate and its steep hill is inadequate for the construction of the 27 houses shown in the LDP, also for the amount of traffic that would nowadays be subsequently generated by them . And this would be even more the case for the 86 homes currently being proposed for the site by Pobl

For the wellbeing of the residents of the existing Parc Pencrug estate and of the residents of the adjacent site a more suitable main access point is needed. And this suggests that the site of the whole of the original Northern Residential Quarter should be included in the LDP in order to allow for the provision of access for vehicles and pedestrians via Rhosmaen Street as proposed in 2009.

Yours faithfully

Robert Evans

Amend Plan

I refer to the above and in particular the proposals for Llandeilo with regard the area to the north of the town.
In particular I refer to housing allocation SeC16/H1 which is allocated for 27 units plus some affordable.

I am writing to object to the deletion of the strategic development area as was defined in the current adopted LDP as T2/2h1.
This is the most logical place to accommodate growth for the town and requires a strategic long term vision as was envisaged in the :

https://www.sirgar.llyw.cymru/media/1212896/briff-cynllunio-a-datblygu-llandeilo.pdf

The deletion of this strategic vision is a serious failing in the 2018-2033 LDP Revised Deposit.

The “incremental” and I suspect disconnected release of land in this northern area of the town as is apparent by the isolated allocation of SeC16/h1 in the Revised Deposit does not constitute the proper planning of the area and will result in a unsatisfactory form of development out of accord with the Council’s own SPG on Placemaking and Design.

Please acknowledge my submissions on the above and continue to advise me on the evolution of the 2018-2033 Revised Deposit as I would wish to make further representations depending on your responses.

Say that access to new housing development must not be detrimental to current residents. There must be safe walking routes to schools. shops and other local facilities.
Houses must be built to a high standard of insulation and low energy use. Housing estates should have provision of charging points for electric cars.

Development of this land depends on road access for a large number of vehicles, currently planned through one residential street off Carmarthen Road. This is unacceptable - inappropriate, dangerous and harmful to local residents.
New houses must also be built to a high standard with low or net zero energy use - this is perfectly possible and will help to future-proof our environment.

At a minimum follow the principles set out in the original Planning Brief for the site (2009).

Allocation SeC16/h1 refers to a parcel of land of some 3.4 acres off Parc Pencrug Llandeilo and indicates it could accomodate some 27 residential units.The land originally formed part of the comprehesive development of the much larger Llandeilo Northern Residential Quarter allocated in Carmarthenshire County Councils Unitary Development Plan.This was supported by a formally adopted Comprehesive Planning and Development Brief as Supplementary Planning Guidance following an extensive consultation and engagement processwith stakeholders and the public in 2009 .This guidance sets out in detail how the area should be developed to benefit from a comprehesive approach to design ,density,land use, landscaping and open space, drainage ,highways and transport and related issues and remains a material and relevant consideration which predicates against any piecemeal development

The current allocation is a piecemeal approach which will frustrate and adversley affect the benefits of a comprehesive approach and indeed be contrary to many of the policies in the Councils evolving Development Plan .In the worse case scenario if any development is allocated in isolation it should , at a minimum , follow the principles set out in the brief and be strictly limited in terms of its scale and extent and prevent any further incremental developments until they conform to and are part of a comprehensive development delivering the wider benefits set out in the Development Brief.

In the absence of a comprehesive approach the current allocation would be inconsistent with and contrary to a number of policies in this Development Plan including Strategic Policies SP4 SP12 Sand SP17, and also policies PSD1 PSD2 and TRA2

SP4:A Sustainable Approach to Providing New Homes.
This policy states a sustainable approach should be adopted to the provision of new homes to create places “-_reflecting the character and context of that cluster or settlement –“ It is difficult to see how the piecemeal approach now proposed can deliver the benefites of a sustainable comprehesive approach and instead smacks of being opportunistic and short sighted.

SP12:Place Making and Sustainable Places -The policy clearly states that to facilitate sustainable development new development “—must acknowledge local distinctiveness and sense of place—“

The policy goes on to detail how developments should contribute to the creation of attractive attractive cohesive safe places and open spaces with the design layout and orientation of buldings and spaces creating an attractive legible healthy accessible and safe environment. The emphasis is on embracing placemaking as part of the plan making and decision making process and this is in my opinion best served by a comprehesive approach rather than the piecemeal and isolationist approach now proposed through the allocation of Sec16/h1 .The placemaking approach was central to the Llandeilo Northern Residential Quarter Development Brief.

The policy also highlights the key importance of contributing to and creating opportunities for Active Travel and the need for developments to be accessible and integrated allowing permeability and ease of movement which promotes theinterests of pedestrians cyclist and public transport ensuring ease of access for all. The comprehensive approach set out in the Development brief enabled and facilitated this approach by including a direct access to Rhosemean Street and providing direct pedestrian and cycling links to the two local primary schools and a variety of other local health and retail facilities .The current allocation does not include these links and whilst the local school and facilities are located within a few hundered yards of the site the only access will be via the steeply sloping Parc Pencrug and a long circuitious route of approxametly over a mile which will encourage car use and discourage active travel contray to the Plans policies.

SP17:Transport and Accessibility-This policy emphasies that sustainable development requires an integrated accessible ,reliable,safe efficent and sustainable transport network whi reduces the need to travel particularly by private motor car .The allocation in the development pland will be contrary to this requirement and will encourage private motor car use for the reasons set out above.It will not enable or encourage accessibilty to places of employment schools and other facilities and will not comply with active travel aspirations.

TRA2:Active Travel: The allocation will not enable the incorporation or delivery of active travel measures as set out in this policy and will encourage private motor car useage.

PSD1:Effective Design Solutions;Sustainabiltyand Placemaking-This policy seeks to ensure developments deliver quality design solutions appropriate to the specific site ,local area and nature of the development and does not result in significant adverse impacts to the amenity of adjacent land uses , properties, residentsor the community .This aspiration is contrary to incremenatl piecemeal developments and the policy should be strengthened to ensure all developments ,not just those of over 50homes as set out in PSD2 ,subject to masterplanning and placemaking objectives and should require extensive and meaningful engagement with existing residents and communities to achieve sustainable outcomes.

PSD2:Masterplanning Principles-Creaing Sustainable Neighberhoods -This policy relates to developments of over 50 homes and whilst the current allocaton is for some 27 homes if approved it would invariably lead to pressures for further incremental developments on adjacent land and the opportunity for appropriate masterplanning , as envisaged in the original Development brief , would be lost. If the allocation were approved it should preclude any further development off Parc Pencrug and require access from Rhosemaen Street .

Remove site from plan

Housing development: Parc Pencrug, Llandeilo

Although I support the provision of new housing in Llandeilo, I write
to express my concern that the existing proposal, currently under review is not a positive or effective way of achieving this. To the contrary it is poorly designed and unsafely targeted in terms of location.

The site was proposed in outline in 2009, originally scheduled for housing as part of a “Northern Residential Quarter for Llandeilo” with the main access point being at the northern end of Rhosmaen Street close to the junction with the A40. This was to include the provision of convenient pedestrian access routes into the town. For various reasons this site plan was not activated.

It seems now that all the road traffic for construction and all the subsequent vehicle and pedestrian traffic of the new residents of the planned high-density development would be funnelled directly through the restricted and overcrowded road and pavements of Parc Pencrug.

This would mean:

Negotiating a very steep hill which is particularly problematic in winter conditions, especially ice and snow.

Coping with a narrow road congested further by the available roadside space having many residents’ cars parked on it in mornings and evenings as a consequence of inadequate parking space provision at their houses. There has also been a sharp increase in the presence of delivery lorries as shopping habits change.

The existing road is very steep as it goes down the hill and passes in close proximity to a children’s park at one of its steepest and narrowest sections. This increases health and safety concerns for those children playing in the park.

Widening the access road through Parc Pencrug and the creation of more parking spaces by reducing the grassed areas and felling tress would have negative consequences for the appearance of Parc Pencrug, its residents, birds and other wildlife.

The designated field for the development has a steep slope, South to North, down towards the A40. The field is already heavily saturated with water and the risk of higher phosphate levels resulting from the building of the new housing could have serious consequences. There is a possibility that there could be “run offs” from the field permeating down and under the A40, straight into the Gurry Fach – an important tributary of the Towy river - a designated Special Site of Scientific Interest SSTI

Overall therefore this new housing development proposal is inappropriate, mis-directed and untenable.

For the reasons given above I believe that this development with proposed access through the narrow entrance of Parc Pencrug is not in line with the principles and accepted practice of sensitive planning.

Consideration of the site within the Plan

This email is intended to raise my concerns in relation to the proposed development of Parc Pencrug, Llandeilo.
Many questions have arisen that are concerning me and my fellow residents in relation to the negative effect this
development will have on us.
Although we support the provision of a suitable number of affordable housing. No justification has been articulated
for the number of houses proposed. Therefore I shall appreciate if you considered the current requirements of the area and that these are limited to those who need them within our town without surplus houses being assigned to people from outside the area.
The questions raised in relation to this issue include:
Who will be eligible for the affordable housing?
Will the affordable housing only be made available to those eligible within the Llandeilo area?
Please also be aware that the access road through Lon Rhys and Parc Pencrug is inadequate for the volume and size of construction traffic during the development followed by the increased traffic to serve the new development.
Therefore I suggest that suitable access is made from Rhosmaen Street to prioriƟse the safety of current residents but also to make the new developments more conveniently located to schools and the town.
What assessments to ensure the infrastructure of Llandeilo can accommodate the increased number of residents from the development have or will be carried out? The design of the proposed development takes no consideration of the local context and is unsuitable for Llandeilo therefore we ask that it be referred for review by the Design Commission for Wales.
We are located within the Tywi Valley Area therefore how will the phosphates issue be resolved on the site to limit
the effect on the environment and to ensure that the regulations are not broken.

Change to the Plan

The new LPD makes alterations to the land adjacent to the A40 and Parc Pencrug that raises the following concerns.

1. The access to the land for ongoing development is no longer available from Rhosmaen Street but relies on access via Parc Pencrug.

2. The access via Parc Pencrug is totally inadequate.

3. The ongoing development of this land appears to be "adhoc" and requires proper consideration.

4. The need for affordable housing and ongoing management needs to be clearly defined.

5. The scale of any development should take into consideration Llandeilo's existing public services infrastructure.

6. Detailed proposals will need to consider habitat/diversity loses and include mitigation measures. The ongoing problem with phosphates also needs to be addressed.

Change to the Plan

Dear planners

I write about the impact of the new LDP - 2nd Deposit Revised Carmarthenshire Local Development Plan 2018-2033.


Whilst I am aware of the need for more housing in Llandeilo, especially affordable housing, I am concerned that this revised plan does not take the whole of the Northern Residential Quarter area (up to the A40) into consideration, and seems to be a piecemeal approach to planning.


If this plan were to go ahead in it's current form, all development traffic, and residents traffic - once the estate was completed - would have to travel through Parc Pencrug and Lon Rhys to access the town. This would apply to people going shopping, and taking children to school etc.


The need for an access route from Rhosmaen Street, as envisaged in the original plan is overwhelming.


Other issues such as the scale of the development with the resulting impact on phosphate load into an already stressed River Tywi should put a pause on this plan, until this issue can be resolved. The impact on local services, such as the capacity of schools and doctors services to accommodate such an increase in population needs further thought.


I trust my concerns will call for a rethink on the plan in its current form.

Regards

Amend Plan.

Dear Sir/Madam

I am a resident of Lon Rhys and have live here for 36 years. I went to school in Llandeilo and worked in the community for the NHS.

The new local development plan is out for consultation and the deadline is 14th April 2023. However, I understand that only CCC Land is included in this. POBL's proposal for use of the land are assuming the inclusion of privately owned land.

I strongly feel that this has not been dealt with professionally or fairly. I also understand that there is a risk of the whole of the Northern Residential Quarter will not be included and access from Rhosmaen Street will not be possible.

I support provision of affordable housing but do not agree with the number of houses proposed. Also, who will be eligible for these homes and what evidence is there for this?

Access through Park Pencrug is totally unacceptable due to the design of the estate as it stands. The volume of traffic will greatly impact on the environment as a whole and safety of residents.

I feel that such a large number of houses proposed will put great pressure on local services, e.g. health provisions, schools etc.

This proposed development does not suit Llandeilo and it's local context and needs to be reviewed.

Regards
Beverley Jones

More appropriate access to the site is required.

PARC PENCRUG DEVELOPMENT, LLANDEILO

I support the provision of more housing in Llandeilo but am writing to express concern about the site adjacent to Parc Pencrug being used for it without better access.

Having sole access via Parc Pencrug's steep hill and its circuitous narrow access road, which can be further constricted with parked cars and other vehicles, is unsuitable for all the extra traffic that would be generated by the development during its construction and subsequently by the new residents. It would not only be detrimental for the wellbeing of the existing residents of Parc Pencrug but also be far from ideal for the residents of the new houses for whom a more direct access route for vehicles and pedestrians is surely needed..

If the planning application fails to address this concern, there will be a great many objections to any development on the site adjacent to Parc Pencrug even though it is scheduled for housing, since it was to have been part of the Northern Residential Quarter for which there would have been vehicle and pedestrian access via Rhosmaen Street.

Yours sincerely

Robert Evans

No change but the planning application needs to consider a new access

To whom it may concern
I am contacting you regarding the proposed housing development South of Llys and Parc Pencrug in Llandeilo. I am 56 years old and born and bred in Llandeilo. Following our wedding we lived in Ffairfach for 24 years where I served on the community council. Just over 2 years ago we moved into Parc Pencrug. We have settled well in a friendly and warm community. The current infrastructure copes with transport logistics and a local scheme we pay into annually to maintain the gardening requirements of the community. It does really feel like as if everyone cares for each other. Having only recently moved my wife and I do realise the need for plots and housing development in the Llandeilo area. There is a proposed development South of Pencrug. Fantastic news!
The area is shouting for it. Hopefully the Schools and doctors can cope with the extra population. The development people Pobol help a consultation day in Llandeilo. I am sorry to say they were not there to listen. They promised to communicate which us as residents which hasn't evolved. The issue with the application is the proposed access to the development. The answer is quite simple. The development needs to re plan and access from Glynceirch Rhosmaen Street off A483 trunk road. This would not implement any issues on the happy environment we have at Pencrug. The roads are not fit for purpose for construction transport and cope with extra residents. There is one section with quite a steep incline. We are prepared as residents to meet anyone from planning on site? We live at 14 Parc Pencrug. This is an exciting development for Llandeilo so don't get it wrong!

No change to the Plan. This representation is mainly in response to the planning application for 86 dwellings.

I have lived in Lon Rhys Llandeilo for over eight years now and I note with some concern the proposed POBL housing development on land accessed via Parc Pencrug.
I gather this will be a development of approx 86 homes which will be offered for sale, rent and shared ownership.
Whilst I agree in principal with the pressing need for more homes, there are certain questions one must ask regarding in particular, volume and access.
The numbers proposed are wildly out of proportion to the previous rate of growth of the town, and I suggest would create a serious imbalance between the facilities / public services available
and the newly increased population.

The access proposed is in my opinion quite unrealistic. The steep hill down through Parc Pencrug is a bad hill at the best of times and in winter weather can be lethal.
The very idea of heavy construction traffic moving up and down that stretch over an extended period of time,
followed by the permanent comings and goings of the occupants of almost 100 homes severely stretches the imagination.

In summary, I am in agreement with the principal of providing much needed additional homes, but the number proposed is quite unsuitable and given the extremely poor access
I have to conclude that unless an alternative route can by found via Rhosmaen Street or the A40 I must oppose this development in its present form.

Remove site from Plan

I write as a resident of Parc Pencrug, Llandeilo, to indicate my concerns regarding the proposed development of houses using Parc Pencrug as its only access and egress route.

My concerns are as follows:

1. As mentioned above, Parc Pencrug will be the only access an egress route for the development. The road going through Parc Pencrug has been adopted by the Council, but is unsuitable for the amount of construction traffic, and subsequently extra residential vehicles, plus extra commercial vehicles, that would ineveitably occur. There are two pinch points on that road - one at the roundabout, and one by the pink house at the bottom of the hill. The hill itself is steep, and with only one way out, many residents already park in Lon Rhys or the Rugby club when frost and ice are forecast, as it is dangerous, not just for cars, but for pedestrians as well to try and get up the hill in compacted snow or ice.

2. I fear that the current proposal of 27 houses is merely the tip of the iceberg. Whereas the original proposal was for over 200 houses, that proposal included the main access being from Rhosmaen Street. It appears that Pobl actually want to put in planning for 86 houses (from their consultation day in Llandeilo). If planning permission is given piecemeal, then not only will the look of the estate will be affected, but the access to Rhosmaen street, could be compromised.

3. Several of the houses will be "affordable" houses. I agree that Llandeilo needs these - will there be a guarantee that these houses will be available only to residents from Llandeilo?

4. Affordable housing is usually available to either the elderly, or families. The location of the proposed development, with only one access route, is not close to town for shops, doctors, schools etc. Whilst there is a public footpath leading to Rhosmaen street, this is often very muddy, and grazed by cattle, so could not be relied upon as a route into town. It also comes out quite near the roundabout on the A40 so is still a long way round to the amenities.

5. Are there plans in place to ensure that the local infrastructure can cope with the extra people? E.g. sewers etc.? Waiting to get an appointment at the surgery is already quite a long time, and can only be made worse if more people will be added to their lists. Similarly, I understand that the schools are full - can you confirm that this is definitely not the case and that there is plenty of room within the schools for extra pupils?

Remove site from Plan

The proposal is potentially neither "acceptable" nor "deliverable" in terms of its
impacts on neighbouring existing developments and, in particular, local highways.
1) Question 10 in the Site Allocation Assessment for Sec16/h1 asserts that the site
is ”accessible from the existing public highway". This is true, but only in a very
narrow sense that the site can be accessed by an existing road. It says nothing of
the nature and character of that single road access - Parc Pencrug.
Parc Pencrug is a narrow and twisting cul-de-sac that currently serves around 50
homes. It cannot be widened, owing to the proximity of existing buildings and the
topology of the hillside. Access onto Parc Pencrug is via a tight-radius roundabout
on Llys Pencrug; any attempt to re-work that junction would necessitate the loss of
mature trees with significant amenity value, and would be to the detriment of the
existing character of the Pencrug development.
Furthermore, Parc Pencrug is steep with a gradient of around 15% over a 100m
length. There have been several incidents since the existing development was
completed of vehicles skidding and losing control on this gradient, causing
damage to both buildings and parked cars.
The current proposed development site - SeC16/h1 - would add around 50% to the
number of homes served by Parc Pencrug. On this basis, it can be estimated that
there would also be a 50% increase in traffic volumes on the road once any
development is completed. It is far from clear that the road as currently configured
could handle this increase. And given the intrinsic nature of the constraints on the
road - existing buildings and site topology - this factor cannot safely be set aside
now as something to be considered later as part of specific development proposals
at the planning application stage.
The highways impacts of the construction phase of any development need also to
be considered at this stage. Not only would this phase involve the direct
construction of housing, but the Site Assessment also indicates that there would
be a need for significant upgrades to the water and sewerage networks (see
"Additional Comments" under 026). It is clear that Parc Pencrug is not suitable for
any significant volume of construction traffic.
2)These comments address the direct proposal (Sec16/h1) contained in the draft
Second Deposit Plan. But in reality that proposal cannot be meaningfully
considered in isolation from the planning history of the wider area and further
proposals that might (re)emerge in the future.
The current proposal site was subsumed within a much larger site (T2/2/h1) in the
First Deposit Plan, which would have involved nearly ten times the number of new
homes. This earlier plan is still recognised in the Site Assessment for the current
reduced proposal both in terms of its name - "Llandeilo Northern Quarter" - and in
an explicit reference to Supplementa Plannino Guidance for the wider development adopted in 2009. This strongly indicates that the current proposal
cannot be considered in isolation - in effect, as a windfall addition to the existing
Pencrug neighbourhood - but has to treated as a first phase of a much wider plan
(potentially to be brought forward either outside the allocations in the current LDP
or in a future LDP).
These potential future plans may appear to be out with the scope of any
assessment of the 2nd Deposit Plan that is the immediate subject of the current
consultation/examination. But the continued existence of the wider-site SPG gives
the lie to this, not least because any planning application for the "narrow" site
would still have to reflect that wider-site SPG.
Significantly, the 2009 SPG presented as a supposed "benefit" from the
development that it would improve the "legibility and permeability" of the highways
network specifically by removing cul-de-sacs. The indicative site layouts identified
a connection from a new junction at Rhosmaen Street, along the "main street"
grade road through the new development, and then onto Parc Pencrug (and
thence to Carmarthen Road). This would - as a matter of deliberate policy - lead
to a massive increase in traffic flows along Parc Pencrug, both from traffic
generated by the development itself and from wider cut-through access.
For the reasons discussed above in terms of potential impacts from the current
"narrow" development, this much larger increase in traffic would clearly be
inappropriate in terms of its impacts on neighbouring developments.
The 2009 SPG makes passing reference to the role of pinch-points and design
details to reduce the impact of rat-running. But even if these are effective in terms
of reducing vehicle speeds, they would in practice do nothing to reduce traffic
volumes.
Forward-thinking local authorities across the UK are increasingly looking to
remove through-connections in residential areas - at the top-end through Low
Traffic Neighbourhoods and on a simpler scale through the closing off of individual
roads with impermeable gates and barriers. It would be sadly ironic if
Carmarthenshire chose to head in the opposite direction of opening residential
neighbourhoods up to new through-traffic, where they are currently self-contained.
On these bases, the proposal for site SeC16/h1 cannot be considered divorced
from its history, and can be appropriate only if the existing 2009 SPG for the wider
site is formally revoked and rescinded by Carmarthenshire County Council.

Alternative access needed if the allocation is to remain.

I write as a resident of Parc Pencrug to indicate my concerns regarding the proposed housing development at the bottom of the estate.

There have been several different versions of what is actually being planned. Initially, there were going to be over 200 houses there, with the main access and egress point being on Rhosmaen Street, Llandeilo. However, I understand that the land that would allow them access to Rhosmaen Street has now been taken out of the plans, so all access and egress would be through the existing Park Pencrug and Lon Rhys housing estates, coming out on Carmarthen Road. This would be totally unsuitable for the construction traffic and daily deliveries that a working construction site requires, and once completed, the extra traffic caused by the number of houses, including commercial vehicles such as supermarket deliveries and couriers would mean it would become a busy route, and not at all suitable for the existing housing.

Current plans are apparently for 27 houses, although Pobl wants to push through plans for 86 houses. This is all very disjointed, and I fear that planning could be given in a piecemeal fashion, which would affect the aesthetics of the estate, as well as rendering any chance of access on to Rhosmaen street, impossible.

Some of the housing is for "affordable" housing. Who will these be made available to? Will people from outside Llandeilo be offered them? Usually families and elderly people are offered these type of houses, but they are quite a long walk into town, to the shops, schools, surgery etc., all having to go through the main estate, and if driving into town, there is precious little parking. The hill in Park Pencrug gets very icy and is very dangerous for cars and pedestrians alike in winter.

I understand that Phosphates are a problem with the land. How and when will this be resolved?

Are the schools, doctor's surgery, and local infrastructure such as the sewage system, suitable to take all this extra housing?

The design of the estate takes no account of local context, and I would ask that it be referred to the Design Council for Wales.

Remove the site from the Plan

I understand there is a need to make provision for social housing but the proposal for this development in Llandeilo due to access to site is not suitable.

This new LDP proposal will be a 1.5 mile to the Primary Schools uphill through Parc Pencrug. The road is narrow near no 18 and original planning for Parc Pencrug did not take into account to have enough parking places for each household therefore the Council Road is filled with cars parked for all houses.

In winter months cars from Parc Pencrug, park in Lon Rhys as roads get impassable- surely this is not suitable to becoming an access to another development!
I dread to think if there was a need for an ambulance in an emergency in the winter months.

The infrastructure is not in place to accommodate for extra housing with both Primary Schools full to capacity also the GP surgery. The Dental Practices unable to accommodate only for Private patients.

How many Llandeilo residents are on waiting list for Social Housing?

Would this development be a stepping stone to development on fields further along with all this extra traffic accessing via Parc Pencrug?

Amend Plan

I write to respond to the current consultation on the new Local Development Plan. I live in Parc Pencrug, Llandeilo and have concerns regarding the implications for the proposed development of land adjacent to our estate. Unlike the current plan, only the CCC land is included in the proposed new LDP. This risks incremental, piecemeal development because the whole of the Northern Residential Quarter is not included. Also, the essential access from Rhosmaen Street will be rendered impossible, thereby bringing all new traffic through Lon Rhys & Parc Pencrug, which will overwhelm current infrastructure and be to the detriment of current residents.

Amend the site within the Plan

The residential allocation of land for the Northern development of Llandeilo at map reference 51.887955 , -3.995920 should revert back to full area included in the previous LDP.
The reduction in residential allocation has removed the proposed access point from the A483 to any development. Without this point of access, the only route into the development area will be through the existing estate of Parc Pencrug. This would promote piecemeal development of the northern area that would prevent the aims of PSD2: Masterplanning Principles – Creating Sustainable Neighbourhoods to be met.

Include the whole of the Northern Residential Quarter as an allocation, with the main access from Rhosmaen Street.

Re: Proposed Pobl housing development at Parc Pencrug, Llaneilo.

I understand that I need to respond to the LDP consultation before 14th April 2023. However, I seem to be unable to access the online form.

I therefore attach my objections to the proposed housing development in letter before 14th April.

I hope you will consider my objections as well as those of my neighbours in Parc Pencrug, Llys Pencrug, and Lon Rhys in Llandeilo, all of whom will be affected.

I look forward to the outcome of your considerations.
Yours sincerely,
Sian Rees Williams

1. The new local development plan (LDP) includes only the Carmarthenshire County Council land.
2. Pobl's proposals assume the inclusion of privately owned land.
3. There is therefore a risk of incrementally piecemeal development if the whole of the Northern Residential Quarter is not included and the essential access from Rhosmaen Street will be rendered impossible.
4. Residents in Parc Pencrug, Llys Pencrug, and Lon Rhys will be significantly affected by true proposed development.
5. Not only by construction traffic for years while the houses are being built and the subsequent noise involved.
6. 84 new homes as well 5 very big houses is not appropriate for the size.
7. Parc Pencrug estate already has issues with lack of parking spaces.
8. Parc Pencrug is a uniquely designed estate and the Pobl development would not be in keeping with houses in Llandeilo as a whole.
9. The size is not appropriate as there is already issues with traffic with the main road through the estate already being in inadequate to cope with traffic. With nearly 90 new houses proposed the traffic situation would be worse and the road is inadequate and would not cope.
10.Added to this extra cars from the new houses but from home delivery drivers etc. and works traffic.
11. The major issue is that it is the wrong access road as the road through Parc Pencrug is inadequate for home owners already.
12. Also there are issues in the winter with ice and/or snow where vehicles can not get up the main road from Parc Pencrug.
13. This issue would affect homeowners from the new Pobl development also.
14. In the past, it has been discussed that a new access could come from Rhosmaen Street by the roundabout rather than through Parc Pencrug. Can this be investigated further?
15.The development would adversely affect the towns of Llandeilo especially with local amenities i.e. shops and schools, doctors, etc. All of which are already at capacity.
16. The new development proposed by Pobl with affordable housing would affect house prices in Parc Pencrug and Lon Rhys. This would affect homeowners.
17. Pobl needs to justify its mix of housing proposed as Llandeilo does need affordable housing for "locals", but not at the expense of home owners in Parc Pencrug, Llys Pencrug, and Lon Rhys.
18. The road via Parc Pencrug is just not suitable as an access.
19. The developers i.e. Pobl are not responding or listening to the concerns of the residents.
20. What is the demand i.e. waiting list for affordable housing in Llandeilo? We the residents do not believe the numbers would be over 80 people more like 20-30.
21. There is an issue of phosphates on the land proposed which is a source of potential pollution to the local people.
22. The Pobl design is not good in our opinion while Parc Pencrug is a good design and fits in with housing in Llandeilo and is landscaped sympathetically.
23. Can Llandeilo cope with nearly 90 new homes? Public services would be affected doctors, dentists, optician and shops + schools.
24. Issues of parents and children on the school run all via the one road is just not adequate.
25. The proposed development is just not adequate.
26. The design of the proposed development does not suit Landeilo.
27. No justification has been given for the number of houses proposed.
28. How does the number proposed relate to the true numbers on the waiting list for affordable homes in Llandeilo.
29. In fact, who is eligible for the affordable housing in Llandeilo.
30. How will the affordable housing be sustained and maintained in the future.
31. Will this affordable housing be made eligible only within the Llandeilo area?
32. We as residents think that any suitable development needs to reinstate the primary access from Rhosmaen Street.
33.What assessments have been carried out to test if the Llandeilo public service infrastructure can support many kore residents.
34. The design of the proposed development takes no consideration of the local context and is unsuitable for Llandeilo.
35. Residents will be asking for a review by the Design Commission for Wales.
36. How and can the phosphate issue be resolved on site.
37. The development would adversely affect wild life and nature in the area as well as the health + welfare of the existing residents.

No change to the Plan

Thank you for consulting Welsh Water, we welcome the opportunity to continue to engage in the LDP process and we offer the following representation for your consideration:
Issues Identification We note and welcome the inclusion of issue 23 regarding infrastructure capacity to support development. The availability of our infrastructure capacity is a key element – particularly in rural areas - in ensuring sustainable and viable development sites.
Strategic Objectives The availability or capacity of infrastructure is a key aspect in determining the sustainability of a settlement, therefore we support the inclusion of SO6 and SO14.
Strategic Growth and Spatial Options We note that the Council identifies a growth requirement of 8,822 new homes over the revised LDP period 2018-2033.
Preferred Spatial Option Whilst we are supportive of the hybrid option and are pleased to note that it acknowledges the need for development to be supported by a range of appropriate infrastructure, there will inevitably be certain areas – particularly in the more rural locations of the County – where water or sewerage infrastructure is limited in its availability.
Placemaking, Infrastructure and Cohesive Communities We welcome the sentiment of paragraph 9.43. Where there is insufficient infrastructure capacity and development wishes to connect in advance of our AMP capital investment, planning obligations or a commercial agreement are the most appropriate way in ensuring delivery of necessary supporting infrastructure. We also welcome the inclusion of paragraph 9.47 and further commentary can be found in respect of the policy INF4.
Policies
SG1: Regeneration and Mixed-Use Sites Please see appendix 1 for site allocation comments.
SG2: Reserve Sites We note that the reserve sites will only be released for development if the allocations fail to deliver the required growth, and that the decision to utilise the sites will be made as part of a formal plan review. As such we will be happy to provide comments regarding capacity to accommodate sites in due course.
SG3: Pembrey Peninsula Most of the peninsula is unsewered and does not have a water supply with only elements of the southeast of the peninsula currently served by either. As such, any proposals for development may require significant offsite water mains and sewers to connect to existing networks. Further to this, the Pembrey Wastewater Treatment Works (WwTW) that serves the southeast of the peninsula may require additional capacity to accommodate any further development and developers may need to fund reinforcement works at the WwTW.
HOM1: Housing Allocations Please see appendix 1 for site allocation comments.
SP6: Strategic Sites Given that both sites have extant planning permission we have nothing specific to advise.
EME3: Employment Proposals on Allocated Sites The following provisions are applicable to all individual development plots located within allocated employment sites:
• We will work with your authority to support sustainable economic development however your authority and potential developers should be aware that the obligations of a water and sewerage undertaker extends to ‘domestic’ supplies only. Where an employment allocation results in higher demands of water supply and/or trade effluent discharges we recommend and welcome early consultation with Dwr Cymru Welsh Water.
• The individual plots available for development can represent a substantial area of land for which the potential demands upon our assets are unknown at present. It is essential that we understand these demands to allow us to assess the impact on our assets. It may be necessary for water and/or sewerage hydraulic modelling assessments (HMAs) to be undertaken at the developer’s expense to establish where the proposed development could connect to the existing networks, and to identify any required infrastructure improvements.
• Water mains and/or sewerage infrastructure required for any potential development site can be acquired through the requisition provisions of the Water Industry Act 1991 (as amended).
• Welsh Water always has rights of access to its assets. Where there are water mains and/or sewers crossing sites then protection measures in respect of these assets will be required, usually in the form of an easement width or in some instances a diversion of the asset.
• If any development site gives rise to a new discharge (or alters an existing discharge) of trade effluent, directly or indirectly to the public sewerage system, then a Discharge Consent under Section 118 of the Water Industry Act 1991 is required from Welsh Water. Please note that the issuing of a discharge consent is independent of the planning process and a consent may be refused despite planning permission being granted.
SP9: Infrastructure The availability or capacity of infrastructure is key in determining a settlement’s sustainability as such we welcome the provisions of this policy in requiring development to ensure sufficient capacity is available or if not, that suitable arrangements are in place to provide the necessary capacity.
With specific regard to water and sewerage infrastructure, where there is insufficient capacity and where no reinforcement works are programmed within the respective AMP Capital Investment Programme, the requisition provisions can be entered into for water and sewerage network infrastructure. The requisition provisions do not apply to wastewater treatment works (WwTW) and planning obligations, or a commercial agreement, may be necessary.
We welcome the reference in the supporting text to Drainage and Wastewater Management Plans (DWMPs). Welsh Water is embarking on the preparation of developing Drainage and Wastewater Management Plans (DWMP) which Welsh Government may be minded making statutory in due course. Growth information is built into our DWMP and forms an important element of our planning which aims to understand how we will continue to deliver effective sewerage services and manage the proactive development of natural flood management for a growing population in the face of climate change and other challenges.
Critically the DWMP considers the impact of changing population on our assets and the subsequent effect to customers and on the environment. As such we believe that the DWMPs will play a role in delivering a holistic, prioritised approach to the management of our drainage and sewerage network in the years ahead, and will complement other planning documents including LDPs, the NDF, and SDPs. To maximise the potential benefits, we are continuing to work closely with our stakeholders and LPAs in the continued development of our DWMP.
INF1: Planning Obligations Where there is insufficient infrastructure capacity available to accommodate a site and development wishes to connect in advance of any AMP capital investment, planning obligations or a commercial agreement are the most appropriate way in ensuring delivery of necessary supporting infrastructure.
INF4: Llanelli Wastewater Treatment Surface Water Disposal We are supportive of the provisions of this policy and the supporting text; moreover, we are pleased to note that the matter has been given its own specific policy. We have also prepared a consultation response to the Burry Inlet SPG which provides further detail on this matter.
SP10: Gypsy and Traveller Provision - Please see appendix 1 for site allocation comments.

SP12: Placemaking and Sustainable Places We specifically welcome the inclusion of criteria k) in Policy SP12. Disposing of surface water in a sustainable manner ensures that it will not communicate with the public sewerage network, which protects the environment and ensures that there is sufficient capacity in the public sewerage network for foul-only flows from development sites. On the theme of SuDS, we welcome the inclusion of the supporting text at paragraphs 11.273 to 11.275 regarding the recently established SuDS Approval Boards (SABs).
PSD3: Green Infrastructure Network We welcome the provisions of this policy and the supporting text. The integration of SuDS as a Green Infrastructure asset is something that we are particularly supportive of.
SP16: Climate Change We are supportive of the inclusion of SuDS in new development and as such welcome the provisions of criterion b) of this policy.
CCH4: Water Quality and Protection of Water Resources we welcome the requirement in supporting paragraph 11.510 that the necessary infrastructure needs to be in place or will be provided to serve development however we would highlight that in cases where there are no plans in place for infrastructure improvements in our AMP investment programme, developers can pay for the necessary infrastructure themselves through the requisition provisions of the Water Industry Act (WIA) 1991 or via Planning Obligations Agreements under the TCPA 1990. It should be noted that the requisition provision of the WIA 1991 only applies to sewerage network reinforcement works, not to WwTW schemes. Funding to deliver reinforcement works at a WwTW can be delivered via Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
In relation to improving water quality, we are investing an additional £60m specifically to reduce phosphate in the five failing Special Area of Conservation (SAC) rivers in our operating area. This includes schemes at Lampeter and Llanybydder WwTWs that are due for completion by March 2025. In the next investment period 2025 to 2030 (AMP8) we will target investment with the ambition that none of our WwTWs are the cause of ecological failure. Through our phosphorus investment plan, we will have removed 90% of the phosphorus load from our WwTWs discharging to failing SAC rivers, playing our part in allowing these special rivers to meet their water quality targets and to relieve pressure on development restrictions. We expect to complete this programme of work by 2032. Whilst our investment will remove a significant amount of phosphorus from our sewage, in most cases it will not result in SACs complying with the water quality targets on its own. This is not something that Welsh Water can do on its own and it will take the combined efforts of all the contributing sectors to achieve this.

We will be engaging with our regulators and local planning authorities through the Tywi and Teifi Nutrient Management Boards (NMB) which can provide the governance, strategic direction and local intelligence/decision making needed if we are to be successful in relieving the pressure on planning restrictions and restoring river quality.
With regard to supporting text in paragraph 11.516, there are several locations within the County where we abstract water that is treated prior to entering the public water supply network. As such, we fully support the provisions in the supporting text of this policy in preventing the degradation of water resources.

TRA1: Transport and Highways Infrastructure Improvements There may be locations where proposed developments / routes pass over public sewers and water mains. Under the Water Industry Act 1991 we have rights to always access our apparatus and protection measures in respect of these assets will be required either in the form of an easement width or a possible diversion of the asset. We welcome early engagement once further detail is available.
MR1: Minerals Proposals We welcome the inclusion of criterion e) and k) of this policy.
We hope that the above information will assist you as you continue to progress the LDP2 and would encourage the LPA to continue to liaise with Welsh Water at each stage of the process. In the meantime, should you require any further information please do not hesitate to contact us at Forward.Plans@dwrcymru.com or via telephone on 0800 917 2652.