PrC2/GT1

I think that the plan to develop this site on this land should be scrubbed for all the reasons that I have already stated above.

I object to the site proposal because;
1.This is a natural habitat for many different types of wildlife and should be left untouched.
2.It is a green and safe area for local children to play
3. The council does'nt own all the land and would have to purchase it and develop it for use which is a poor use of tax payers money at a time when services have been reduced.
4. Infrastructure ie Trostre Rd is already overloaded and cannot support further development.
5. Area is already densely populated, it would affect wellbeing of residents and devalue property.

A travellers sit is already being built by Sampson Lee, the Scarlet's player who has received permission just off the A4138 coming off the M4. An expansion of this site would be a better and cheaper option.

I object to the proposal of placing a gypsy / traveller site in Penyfan quarry on the following grounds:
1. Trostre Rd is already far too busy, would be too close to existing properties and poses a risk to children who play in the quarry.
2. The site is a natural habitat and should be left undisturbed.
3. The purchase of the land from new dock stars would be prohibitive in these times of tightened budgets and not a good use of council tax money.
4. There is a risk to local properties having this site situated there.

I think the plan should not be implemented on such a large scale as it will take a massive area of green recreational land away from the local community. The vehicular traffic is already at a great capacity in the local area. Any more will increase safety issues for children, walkers and non motorized vehicles. Any funds available for the proposed development should be used to create affordable housing for the local community and people who live in the area who are already struggling to find affordable housing.
I don't think the development will create a healthy, cohesive and economically viable and vibrant communities as is stated as some of the fundamental roles of the LDF , but will divide and diminish the local community.

I object to this development on many grounds. The large portion of the proposed development land is and has been used for leisure of the local and surrounding community for many years with large portions being wildlife havens. The area is already densely populated where an increase in traffic will be a major cause for concern. As part of the land is privately owned and may need to be purchased, then why cant the funds be used for more sustainable local developments/ affordable housing for an already struggling local community trying to find accommodation.

Select more suitable areas. Not in a densely populated area.

I object to there being a gypsy site in Penyfan Quarry as the area is a natural habitat for wildlife.
The land is also a natural soak away as Trostre Road is always flooding especially in the houses opposite Dock Stars.
I also take my grandchildren on walks and to play in the area. I could not do this if there were travellers there.

I do not think that there should be any development of this nature on this site.

I object because the area is highly populated already, the roads are already too busy.
The area is the only safe green area for our children to play.
It would destroy the habitat that is home to many different species of wildlife.
If the land has to be purchased and prepared for this development it would take public money which would be quite an insult to local tax and rate payers who are currently seeing many services reduced or cut.

New location

The suggested Pen y fan site is a natural wildlife habitat.
It is classed as a recreational ground. The council have removed a play ground nearby and never replaced it and will now be taking away this recreational site from its local people.
Proposed site enternance would cause additional traffic in a high usage area already

This site is not suitable, other areas need to be looked at.

The proposed site is a habitat for wildlife.
The site is on an already very busy road, an is an added danger to children playing and residents. This is a densely populated area.
Children have played in the proposed site areas for many years, this would take away more safe playing areas for the local children.
Local schools are already oversubscribed.

Remove site from Plan

Objection to proposed site.

1. It will be alongside a new cycle path joining Llanelli South. Path is used daily by school children. Young cyclists also park to work for Trostre Park. Travellers vehicles would be dangerous.

2. Complete eyesore approach to Llanelli by train.

3. On doorstep of residents of Llwynwhilwg.

4. No public meeting arranged for residents to have a voice in the matter.

5. Purchase of extra land to accommodate could be used for more essential areas of Llanelli.

Remove site from Plan

I’m writing to you today to formally place an Objection to the proposal of a Gypsy site at Penyfan. I am a resident in Llanelli at 40 Trostre Road, Llanelli, SA15 1YJ and I have been provided with your email address to process my objection and feedback. The feeling of local Residents is that we don’t want another Gypsy site in Llanelli under any Circumstances.

Should you wish to contact me regarding this matter, Please reply to my email address

Remove site from Plan

On behalf of my parents living in Pen y Fan, Llanelli, I am submitting this email to OBJECT to the proposed traveller site at the old quarry in Pen y Fan.
My parents and uncle along with their neighbours who have lived in their homes in Pen y Fan for over fifty years feel a traveller or gypsy site on the old quarry would cause all sorts of problems for residents.
Including noise pollution, increased traffic in an already busy area, mess, antisocial behaviour and a general feeling of uncertainty where they have lived all of their lives.
We think your complaints department would be over run if this site had the go ahead, would you like to live next to a gypsy site?

Remove site from Plan

I object to the proposal of placing a gypsy travellers site in penyfan quarry . The site is far to close to already densely populated
Area. The site would devalue the properties and be detrimental to the wellbeing of local residents (this process is already causing anger and anxiety amongst tax paying residents .

Remove site from Plan

Proposed Gypsy Traveller site in Penyfan/Lower Trostre Road

I wisht to strongly object to the proposed Gypsy Traveller site in Penyfan/Lower Trostre Road for the following reasons:

The site is a natural habitat for wild life and should be left undisturbed; in this age of promoting and supporting the planet, why would any council wish to destroy natural habitat and wild life.

The council do not own all of the land and would have to purchase ‘recreational ground; are D on map, from a third party. How can this be a good use of council tax payer’s money. Councillors are voted for by the community and should be responsibly utilising said tax payer’s money to benefit the community and its residents.

The access to the site is totally unsuitable as Trostre Road is already far too busy, an absolute nightmare on occasions. The access road would be far too close to existing properties posing a danger to children who have played in the quarry for years. Children of this era have very few opportunities of any form of freedom to play and now this council wishes to take away the little that is available. Even destroying the little park that council tax payer’s money, no doubt, had paid for in the first place.

The site is far too close to an already densely populated area. The site would devalue properties and be detrimental to the wellbeing of local residents. (This process is already causing anger and anxiety amongst local tax paying residents). There are many older people living in the community who live alone and are terrified of the prospect of such close proximity; why would any councillor support such an act against their tax paying community. They are responsible for causing such upset and anxiety they should be ashamed of such careless and selfish behaviour.

The Trostre shopping centre is very close to the proposed site, this will not have a positive result for the tax paying and rent paying shop keepers. Shoppers will avoid the centre at the first sign of any adverse behaviour. Parents and Grandparents who currently allow their young teenagers to have some independence by going shopping in the centre will, without doubt, feel too great a responsibility for them to either pass by the site to gain access to Trostre Centre or be put off by the fact that it is so close to the proposed site.
I am sure that there are many other prospective sites that are away from communities that could be used, perhaps in Carmarthen area.
I doubt very much that any councillors are living anywhere close to the proposed sites, which in itself speaks volumes.

Remove site from Plan

I am writing to you with regards to the proposed traveller's site at Penyfan. Could i officially object to the location of Penyfan being used as a Traveller's site, now and for the future.
My main objection would be the access from the site of Traveller's vehicles onto what is now a very busy road. It is the only road leading from the west to a usually packed Trostre shopping area. There will be an increase in traffic within the next year and a half due to the new building of Pentre Awel. This will affect the traffic flow and road safety on a very busy road.

There are also plans for a replacement bridge at Morfa. This will increase the number of the public using this area, in order to connect to the new cycle path / walkways in PENYFAN.

There could be social community problems, where there could be community impact on the Traveller's themselves, by existing residents who have opposed the site. Possibly seen as a blight for visitors that visit Trostre Enterprise Park and Pentre Awel. The site is a natural habitat for wildlife. The site is also too close to an already densely populated area. The site would devalue properties and be detrimental to the wellbeing of local 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.

Amend Plan if necessary

Thank you for consulting Cyfoeth Naturiol Cymru/National Resources Wales (NRW) on the above, which was received on 17 February 2023.

We welcome the opportunity to provide comments on your Second Deposit Revised
LDP.

We support the intent of the plan’s policies and proposals to enable the delivery of sustainable development and ensure social, economic, environmental and cultural
well-being goals are all suitably balanced in the decision-making process, so the right development occurs in the right place.

We also acknowledge that you have taken on board advice from our previous correspondence which has enabled positive provisions in the second Deposit Plan
both in policy terms and regarding allocation of sites. However, there are issues with the latest draft which we feel challenge the Soundness of the Plan. These key
issues are highlighted below:
• SAC rivers / Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA)
• Flood risk regarding the following sites allocated for housing under Strategic Policy 4: A Sustainable Approach to Providing New Homes
PrC3/h33 Llys Dolgader
PrC3/h19 Land off Llys y Nant
SeC19/h1 Land at Park View, Whitland
Sec19/h2 Land at Whitland Creamery
• Flood risk regarding allocation - PrC2/GT1 – Land at Penyfan, Trostre, Llanelli, under Strategic Policy SP 10: Gypsy and Traveller provision.
• Biodiversity and ecosystem resilience regarding six allocations (two housing and four employment).
In addition, to matters of soundness we also advise that some refining/clarity be made to the plan in respect of several policies and supporting text to ensure the
robustness of the plan.

Our detailed comments on the plan and supporting documents can be found in the annexes to this letter.

Please note that our comments are without prejudice to any comments we may wish to make when consulted on any subsequent formal planning application submissions
to develop any of the land identified within the plan. At the time of any other consultation there may be new information available which we will need to consider
in providing our formal advice.

Finally, we look forward to continuing to work closely with you to progress the plan and trust these comments are of assistance. If you have any queries, or if you require any further information, please do not hesitate to contact us at the above address.

Community survey with various request on the plan's content

Community Survey relating to Land at Penyfan Quarry PrC2/GT1. Submission includes:

277 objections to development on site PrC2/GT1. Surveys do not include any addresses.

15 objections to development on site PrC2/GT1 which include addresses

6 supports to development on site PrC2/GT1. Surveys do not include any addresses

3 unsure to development on site PrC2/GT1.