SG1: Regeneration and Mixed-Use Sites

Include site within Plan

Further to the publication of the above document, we have been asked by our Client to
review its contents, policies and proposals and advise them of any aspects we believe would
unreasonably affect their aspirations and interests. In doing so, we consider that the
proposed provisions of Policy HOM1 and Policy SG1 are of particular interest to our Client.
As a result, we offer the following for the Authority’s consideration, and Inspector’s in due
course.

Our clients made a formal Strategic Candidate Site Submission in August 2018, which was
referenced SR/082/012, seeking the allocation of their land (edged red on Plan A) for a mix
of residential development, areas of formal and informal amenity space, together with an
area preserved for ecological interests, as part of the Replacement Local Development Plan.

Plan A

The site would serve the settlement of Llandybie and the surrounding area of the associated
Principal Centre (Cluster 3). The Strategic Candidate Site comprised of a series of existing
enclosures, with vehicular access gained directly off Blaneau Road, which runs along its
northern boundary. From a locational perspective, the site is also within close proximity to
the range of community facilities and local services the adjoining settlement and surrounding
area has to offer, as well as being in close proximity to a number of well served bus stops
that provide access to those services and facilities found in the wider region.
Following its due consideration, the Council then excluded the Site from the proposed
development limits for Llandybie in its 1st Deposit LDP, published in January 2020 (Plan B).

Plan B

In explaining its decision to exclude the site and not allocate it for residential purposes, the
Council advised in its ‘Site Assessment Table’ (January 2020) as follows:

“The site has been identified as being at high risk of flooding in the Revised Carmarthenshire
LDP SFCA. There are other more suitable sites available which can meet the housing needs
of the village.”

The above decision was somewhat puzzling and in our view erroneous, as (a) the SFCA
was wrong to exclude the whole of the site from consideration (the area of the Site within the
flood zone was minimal) and that (b) alternative allocations within the settlement and wider
growth area were clearly neither appropriate nor deliverable.

As part of the current consultation process into the 2nd Deposit LDP, the Council have again
published a “Site Assessment Table” (2023), which provides details of the Council’s analysis
of each received Candidate Site submission. We note that our Client’s land was considered
as part of this process and as a result the Council concluded as follows:
“The site has been identified as being at high risk of flooding in the Revised Carmarthenshire
LDP SFCA (2019). There are other more suitable sites available which can met the housing
needs of the village.”

As can be seen, the rationale presented by the Council replicates that at the 1st Deposit LDP
stage (flood risk and housing land supply), although when examined fully, they appear both
illogical and erroneous.
Plan C and Plan D below provide an indication under the provisions of Technical Note 15:
Development and Flood Risk of the considered current and emerging risk of flooding in
relation to the Site.

Plan C Plan D

(Development Advice Maps) Flood Maps for Planning)
As can be seen, less than 5% of the total area of the Site is considered to be at risk of
flooding. Furthermore, as illustrated on the submitted Indicative Layout Plan, none of this
area is required to deliver the mix of development put forward for the Site and so the Council
have undertaken an incomplete and clearly erroneous assessment of the Alternative
Strategic Site. As a result of this and the reasons below, we consider the sites exclusion to
be an illogical and erroneous decision by the Council and consider therefore that the LDP as
it stands is “unsound” and fails to meet the required Tests of Soundness.

Specifically, we consider that alternative allocations within the settlement and wider Principal
Centre are neither appropriate nor deliverable (see below). We consider therefore that the
land edged red in Plan A, should be allocated for residential development under the
provision of Policy HOM1 and Policy SG1 of the Carmarthenshire Local Development Plan.

This formal representation letter supplements the following documents which comprise a
complete submission to the 2nd Deposit LDP Consultation stage:

- Completed Deposit LDP Representation Form
- Completed Integrated Sustainability Appraisal form
- Copy of Candidate Site Submission Report (August 2018)
- Ecological Appraisal
- Transport Statement
- Indicative Master Plan

Response to Council’s Reasons for Non-Allocation of Site
Sufficient Residential Land Allocated Within Settlement
Part of the Council’s rationale for the non-allocation of the site for residential development is
on the basis that it considers that alternative allocations within Llandybie and the wider
Principal Centre it forms part of will deliver sufficient housing for the town during the Plan
period.

Under the current provision of the Deposit LDP, the Principal Centre has a range of
proposed residential allocations. Having undertaken a comprehensive review of the
proposed allocations put forward by the 2nd Deposit LDP for the Principal Centre in question,
it has been identified that a number have significant questions over their ability to be
delivered within the Plan period, including the following:

Ref. No. Site Name Units
PrC3/h4 Tirychen Farm 150
PrC3/h36 Betws Colliery 60
PrC3/h14 Nantydderwen, Tumble 33
PrC3/h22 Adj. to Pant y Blodau, Penygroes 79
PrC3/h2 Heol Gelynen, Brynamman 8

Table 1

As a result of the above – all of which have been allocated in previous development plans -
separate objections to their inclusion with the LDP have been made. This is due to the fact
that to continue to allocate such sites for residential development results in the Plan being
unsound. Alternative sites, such as that put forward by our Client, must therefore be
considered and brought forward in order to address this deficiency and ensure that the Plan
is sound in all respects.

In conclusion, this Representation to the 2nd Deposit Draft of the Revised LDP has sought to
examine the Council’s reasons for non-allocation of a Candidate Site. It has successfully
addressed the reasons put forward by the Authority for its exclusion and has highlighted that
currently proposed allocations are undeliverable and that the Council’s assessment of the
Alternative Strategic Site was flawed.

We therefore respectfully request that this Representation be given careful examination, and
consequently the land in question be allocated for mixed use development as part of the
Carmarthenshire Local Development Plan to ensure that the document passes all the
relevant tests of soundness.

Allocate the site for regeneration & mixed use (inc housing) within the Revised LDP.

Further to the publication of the above document, we have been asked by our Client to
review its contents, policies and proposals and advise them of any aspects we believe would
unreasonably affect their aspirations and interests. In doing so, we consider that the
proposed provisions of Policy HOM1 and Policy SG1 are of particular interest to our Client.
As a result, we offer the following for the Authority’s consideration, and Inspector’s in due
course.

Our clients made a formal Strategic Candidate Site Submission in August 2018, which was
referenced SR/159/007, seeking the allocation of their land (edged red on Plan A) for a mix
of residential development, areas of formal and informal amenity space, habitat
enhancement areas, as well as improvements to local pedestrian and cycle link provision
and linkages, as part of the Replacement Local Development Plan.

Plan A

The Site would serve the settlement of Tycroes and the surrounding area of the associated
Principal Centre (Cluster 3). The Strategic Candidate Site comprised of a series of existing
enclosures, with vehicular access gained off the access estate road shared with a recently
constructed residential development to its north east, although multiple pedestrian and cycle
linkages would also be available along all boundaries of the site. Locationally, the site is also
within close proximity to the range of community facilities and local services the settlement
and surrounding area has to offer.

Following its due consideration, the Council then excluded undeveloped element of the Site
from the proposed development limits for Tycroes in its 1st Deposit LDP, published in
January 2020 (Plan B).

Plan B

In explaining its decision to exclude the site and not allocate it for residential purposes, the
Council advised in its ‘Site Assessment Table’ (January 2020) as follows:

““Inclusion of the site in its entirety would have a detrimental impact upon the character and
setting of the settlement and would exceed identified housing need. In considering smaller
areas of the site for inclusion it is concluded that there is sufficient and more suitable land
available elsewhere in Tycroes to meet its housing needs.”

The above decision was somewhat puzzling and in our view erroneous, particularly as
alternative allocations within the settlement and wider growth area were clearly neither
appropriate nor deliverable. In addition, the assessment also clearly failed to take into
account the mix of proposed uses, that reflected the immediate and wider landscape setting.
As part of the current consultation process into the 2nd Deposit LDP, the Council have again
published a “Site Assessment Table” (2023), which provides details of the Council’s analysis
of each received Candidate Site submission. We note that our Client’s land was considered
as part of this process and as a result the Council concluded as follows:

“Inclusion of the site in its entirety would have a detrimental impact upon the character and
setting of the settlement and would exceed identified housing need. In considering smaller
areas of the site for inclusion it is concluded that there is sufficient and more suitable land
available elsewhere in Tycroes to meet its housing needs.”

As can be seen, the rationale presented by the Council replicates that at the 1st Deposit LDP
stage (impact on character and housing land supply), although when examined fully (see
below), they appear both illogical and erroneous. Specifically, we consider that alternative
allocations within the settlement and wider Principal Centre are neither appropriate nor
deliverable (see below). We consider therefore that the land edged red in Plan A, should be
allocated for residential development under the provision of Policy HOM1 and Policy SG1
of the Carmarthenshire Local Development Plan.
This formal representation letter supplements the following documents which comprise a
complete submission to the 2nd Deposit LDP Consultation stage:

- Completed Deposit LDP Representation Form
- Completed Integrated Sustainability Appraisal form
- Copy of Candidate Site Submission Report (August 2018)
- Ecological Appraisals
- Transport Statement
- Indicative Master Plan

Response to Council’s Reasons for Non-Allocation of Site
Detrimental impact upon the character and setting of the Settlement

The first part of the Council’s rationale for the Site’s exclusion relates to the Council’s
perception that its development for the proposed mix of uses would lead to a “… detrimental
impact upon the character and setting of the settlement.”. However, beyond this statement,
the Council has provided no further explanation of what ‘detriment’ would occur and to which
elements of the settlements “… character and setting…”.

As the originally submitted supporting information (copy enclosed) illustrates, the Strategic
Alternative Site does not form part of nor does it adjoin any designated Conservation Area.
In fact, the nearest (Llandeilo) is located a considerable distance to the north. Furthermore,
the Site does not contain nor is it within sight of any Listed Building or Ancient Monument. In
summary therefore, the allocation of the Site for the proposed mix of uses, would not have
any detrimental impact on the character or setting of any nearby historic interest.

From a landscape designation perspective, the Alternative Strategic Site does not form part
of a National Park or Area of Outstanding Beauty. On a more local level, the current LDP
has not defined any part of the Site or surrounding area as part of a Special Landscape
Area. The allocation of the Site for the proposed mix of uses, would not therefore have any
detrimental impact on the character or setting of any national or local landscape designation.

In terms then of the physical form of the adjoining settlement of Tycroes, its historic evolution
has followed the principal access routes to, through and within it, with later more recent
development then taking place in a more ‘in-depth’ manner of these routes. To suggest then
that the development of the relevant elements of the Strategic Alternative Site would be
counter – and so detrimental – to this existing setting and character is illogical. The proposed
pattern would in fact mirror and compliment the existing pattern of the adjoining settlement
and the erroneous inconsistent decision to exclude the Site by the Council is in itself grounds
to highlight that the 2nd Deposit LDP is unsound.

Sufficient Residential Land Allocated Within Settlement
The second part of the Council’s rationale for the non-allocation of the site for residential
development is on the basis that it considers that alternative allocations within Tycroes and
the wider Principal Centre it forms part of will deliver sufficient housing for the town during
the Plan period.

Under the current provision of the Deposit LDP, the Principal Centre has a range of
proposed residential allocations. Having undertaken a comprehensive review of the
proposed allocations put forward by the 2nd Deposit LDP for the Principal Centre in question,
it has been identified that a number have significant questions over their ability to be
delivered within the Plan period, including the following:

Ref. No. Site Name Units
PrC3/h4 Tirychen Farm 150
PrC3/h36 Betws Colliery 60
PrC3/h14 Nantydderwen, Tumble 33
PrC3/h22 Adj. to Pant y Blodau, Penygroes 79
PrC3/h2 Heol Gelynen, Brynamman 8

Table 1

As a result of the above – all of which have been allocated in previous development plans -
separate objections to their inclusion with the LDP have been made. This is due to the fact
that to continue to allocate such sites for residential development results in the Plan being
unsound. Alternative sites, such as that put forward by our Client, must therefore be
considered and brought forward in order to address this deficiency and ensure that the Plan
is sound in all respects.

In conclusion, this Representation to the 2nd Deposit Draft of the Revised LDP has sought to
examine the Council’s reasons for non-allocation of a Candidate Site. It has successfully
addressed the reasons put forward by the Authority for its exclusion and has highlighted that
currently proposed allocations are undeliverable and that the Council’s assessment of the
Alternative Strategic Site was flawed.

We therefore respectfully request that this Representation be given careful examination, and
consequently the land in question be allocated for mixed use development as part of the
Carmarthenshire Local Development Plan to ensure that the document passes all the
relevant tests of soundness.

Amend Plan to include the site as a mixed use site instead of a reserve site.

Further to the publication of the above document, we have been asked by our Client to
review its contents, policies and proposals and advise them of any aspects we believe would
unreasonably affect their aspirations and interests. In doing so, we consider that the
proposed provisions of Policy SG2 are of particular interest to our Client. As a result, we
offer the following for the Authority’s consideration, and Inspector’s in due course.

Our clients made a formal Strategic Candidate Site Submission in August 2018, which was
referenced SR/086/077, seeking the allocation of their land for future mixed development
within the defined settlement limits of Llangennech as part of the Replacement Local
Development Plan, with the area and mix of uses put forward illustrated in the plan below.

Plan A

The Strategic Candidate Site comprised of a range of enclosures, both greenfield and
brownfield in nature, with it having a number of access points off the A4318 running along its
northern boundary and Pontardulais Road running along its north western boundary. The
site is also within close proximity of Junction 48 of the M4 motorway. The site therefore
represents an extremely sustainable location for a strategic form of development, as well as
a location for a park and ride facility to assist with the Councils strategic sustainable
transport objectives.

Following its due consideration, the Council then excluded the Site from the proposed
development limits for Llangennech in its 1st Deposit LDP, published in January 2020 (Plan
B).

Plan B

In explaining its decision to exclude the site and not allocate it for residential purposes, the
Council advised in its ‘Site Assessment Table’ (January 2020) as follows:

“There is sufficient land available for development within the settlement to accommodate its
growth requirements. However, the site may be considered at the revised LDP policy review
subject to the performance of the Plan. The site will remain outside of the development
limits.”

At the time of publication of the 1st Deposit LDP therefore, the principle of development at
the location in question was considered acceptable by the Council, but unnecessary at the
point of the Plan’s adoption. However, as regular review of the Plan may identify shortfalls,
the Council advised that the Site would be allocated under the provisions of Policy SG2
(Allocation SG2/1) as a reserve site, stating that:

“The site’s potential strategic contribution incorporating employment and residential based
proposals is within the context of Swansea Bay and Llanelli’s position within the emerging
National Development Framework.”.

As part of the current consultation process into the 2nd Deposit LDP, the Council have again
published a “Site Assessment Table” (2023), which provides details of the Council’s analysis
of each received Candidate Site submission. We note that our Client’s land was considered
as part of this process and as a result the Council concluded as follows:

“There is sufficient land available for development within the settlement to accommodate its
growth requirements. However, the site may be considered at the revised LDP policy review
subject to the performance of the Plan. The site will remain outside of the development
limits.”

As can be seen, the rationale of the Council for the exclusion of the Site as an allocation in
the LDP has remained the same and so in turn the Site continues to be allocated under the
provisions of Policy SG2 as a ‘reserve site’
The Policy sets out that such Reserve Sites will be released for development should other
allocations (identified under Policies HOM1, EME1 and SG1) fail to contribute as expected to
the delivery of the Plan’s strategy. In our view, as detailed in separate submissions made in
relation to such current allocations, we consider that a number of these sites will not be
delivered and so we would fully support the allocation of our Clients land as a Reserve Site
under the provisions of Policy SG2, but would respectfully suggest in view of the evidence
submitted that it perhaps should in fact be allocated under the provisions of Policy SG1.

We therefore welcome the decision of the Authority to concur with the representations
previously made in relation to our Clients land. We can also confirm that the land continues
to not face any ecological, flood risk related, highway, infrastructure or land ownership
constraints that would restrict its ability to be delivered during the Plan period as a Reserve
Site. In fact, our Clients have already been approached by a number of parties expressing a
keen interest in developing the site should it be made available. We therefore fully support
the decision of the Authority to include the land as a Reserve Site as part of the Deposit
LDP.

Amend Plan to include the site

This representation comprises an objection to the exclusion of this site from
the development limits for Llanelli. This area of land is proposed for a mixed
use, including an education/research/employment opportunity for this Tier 1
Principal Centre. Other similar and appropriate uses can be accommodated at
this strategic gateway site. Community focussed development is desirable,
with sustainability an important element.
Placemaking will be a prime consideration with green and blue infrastructure
being factored into any final scheme. Part of the site is subject of a previous
permission for a solar park, which would deliver the desired low carbon energy
for the development.
A key deliverability factor is the adjacent B4304 Llanelli Relief Road with the
necessary access readily available from the existing roundabout. Furthermore,
this established infrastructure link would facilitate ties between the proposed
education/research/employment mixed use and the nearby Pentre Awel
Wellness and Life Science Village.
The site’s development would not lead to additional environmental pressure,
but instead will foster sustainable growth and allow for a low carbon integrated
development.
Its development would be in keeping and in character with other key sites in
this emerging part of Llanelli and a high quality scheme will engender
significant visual and amenity improvements at this gateway to the Llanelli
coastal zone.
In addition, the proposed scheme at this location:-would not be detrimental to the amenity of adjacent properties;
· would satisfy recognised sustainability objectives;
· would not have a detrimental impact on the landscape or nature
conservation interests.
Furthermore, the site’s delivery is assured. It is not impeded by any access,
ground condition, flood risk, hydrological, ecological, archaeological or land
ownership related constraints, in similar fashion to other developments in this
area.
The inclusion of this land within revised development limits would be fully
supported.

Amend Plan to include the site

The allocation of all of this site, as shown on the accompanying schematic
layout drawing, as a strategic employment area, will provide considerable
economic development potential at this key strategic gateway to Llanelli, a
Tier 1 Principal Centre.
The proposal also makes provision for much-needed additional car parking
facilities for Llanelli Crematorium, as well as significant investment opportunity
to facilitate job creation.
In terms of access, the objection site is already directly served from the main
Llanelli Relief Road transport route via the Penprys roundabout and is readily
accessible to both Llanelli and the nearby M4.
The objection site represents an excellent commercial development opportunity
at one of the main gateways into Llanelli and enjoys the following advantages:-
• excellent road access
• all mains services available
• level and regular shaped site (approx. 35 acres)
• low carbon energy supply
• suitable for a range of commercial uses
The proposed scheme is associated with the use of renewable energy to secure
commercial development and a reduced dependence on the grid. It will result
in:-
• compact development, with a strong centre
• multiple uses, clustered close together
• strong community identity and sense of place

well-designed buildings with open spaces
The overall development concept itself will:-
• be policy compliant
• capitalise on a strategically located site
• retain important trees and areas of open space
• provide resilient and diverse commercial opportunities
• enhance areas of ecological interest
• provide for a range of commercial development types
• enable access improvements to Llanelli Crematorium, including muchneeded car parking
• promote the use of low carbon energy supply
The full development of the objection site will include the following commercial
uses:-
• B1 and B8 Commercial/Storage
• A1, A2 and A3 Retail
• C1 Hotel
Its designation would not lead to additional environmental pressure, but
instead could lead to the fostering of sustainable growth and allow for wider
economic activity. Its development would be in keeping and in character with
the local area and will ensure a readily deliverable source of future economic
growth.
In addition, economic development at this location:-
· would not be detrimental to the amenity of adjacent properties;
· would satisfy recognised sustainability objectives;
· would not have a detrimental impact on the landscape or nature
conservation interests.
Furthermore, the site is not impeded by any access, ground condition, flood
risk, hydrological, ecological, archaeological or land ownership related
constraints and its short term delivery is assured.
Whilst the allocation of the adjacent area of land immediately to the south is
supported and indeed welcomed (PrC2/E2(viii), it is considered that the
inclusion of the additional northern and south-eastern portions will facilitate
the full and efficient development of this gateway site and will engender a
more sustainable and indeed deliverable site for economic development and
growth.
The inclusion of this land within revised development limits would be fully supported.

Carmarthenshire Local Development Plan 2018-2033 – Deposit Draft
Representation on Behalf of Low Carbon Construction Ltd
Former Emlyn Brickworks Site, Penygroes
Further to the publication of the above document, we have been asked by our Client to
review its contents, policies and proposals and advise them of any aspects we believe would
unreasonably affect their aspirations and interests. In doing so, we consider that the
proposed provisions of Policy HOM1 and Policy SG 1 are of particular interest to our Client.
As a result, we offer the following for the Authority’s consideration, and Inspector’s in due
course.
Our clients made a formal Strategic Candidate Site Submission in August 2018, which was
referenced SR/132/009, seeking the allocation of their land (edged red on Plan A) for a mix
of residential development, areas of formal and informal amenity space, together with an
area preserved for ecological interests, as part of the Replacement Local Development Plan.

The site would serve the settlement of Penygroes and the surrounding area of the
associated Principal Centre. The Strategic Candidate Site comprised largely of a single
enclosure of brownfield land, with vehicular access gained off the newly constructed A4076
spur leading to Norton Road to the north, Waterloo Road to the east and Gorsddu Road to
the south. Several pedestrian and cycle points of access are also located on each of these
boundaries. Locationally, the Site is also within close proximity to the range of community
facilities and local services the settlement and surrounding area has to offer.
In explaining its decision to exclude the site and not allocate it for residential purposes, the
Council advised in its ‘Site Assessment Table’ (January 2020) as follows:
“There are concerns regarding the deliverability of the whole site, and so it is considered
appropriate to allocate part of the site for mixed use. The site reference is PrC3/MU1.”
As a result of the above, only an element of the Alternative Strategic Site was
proposed for allocation, as illustrated by Plan B below.

At the time of publication of the 1st Deposit LDP therefore, the only reason presented by the
Council for not allocating the whole of the Site, was on the basis of concerns with regards to
its delivery in totality. It should be noted, that there has been a strong desire by the land
owners and developers for some time to see the Parc Emlyn site developed out, but this has
been hampered and significantly delayed due to the lengthy process of the construction of
the new A4076 (broken red line on Plan B). With its recent completion, progress on the
development of the Parc Emlyn site can continue and there are in fact two planning
applications currently being prepared for elements of it.
Notwithstanding the above decision, and for reasons well known, the Council then revisited
its 1st Deposit LDP in preparation of a second version. As part of the preparation process for
the 2nd Deposit LDP, the Council have published a “Site Assessment Table” (2023), which
provides details of the Council’s analysis of each received Candidate Site submission,
including that subject of this objection. We note that our Clients Site was considered as part
of this process and as a result the Council concluded as follows:
“There are concerns regarding the deliverability of the whole site, and so it is considered appropriate to allocate part of the site for mixed use. The site reference is PrC3/MU1.”

Accordingly, the 2nd Deposit LDP Proposals Maps replicate the position shown by those of
the 1st Deposit (Plan B), with the rationale given by the Council for doing so also remaining
unchanged.

For the reasons given above, this is not only an illogical and ill informed decision, but also
appears to be a dangerous and erroneous decision to make, particularly in light of the level
of under provision of deliverable housing sites within the Plan. As a result of this decision we
therefore consider that the LDP as it stands is “unsound” and fails to meet the required Tests
of Soundness. As detailed, this is particularly worrying, in view of the lack of deliverable
allocations within the Principal Tier of which the Alternative Strategic Site forms part of
(please see below).
We consider therefore that all the land edged red in Plan A, should be allocated for mixed
use development under the provision of Policy HOM1 and SPG1 of the Carmarthenshire
Local Development Plan.
This formal representation letter supplements the following documents which comprise a
complete submission to the 2
nd Deposit LDP Consultation stage:
- Completed Deposit LDP Representation Form
- Completed Integrated Sustainability Appraisal form
- Copy of Candidate Site Submission Report and associated Plans
Response to Council’s Reasons for Non-Allocation of Site
Sufficient Residential Land Allocated Within Settlement
As detailed above, we are deeply concerned with the Council’s decision to reduce the
proposed housing allocation in question, and understand that this may be because the
Council holds the view that alternative allocations within Penygroes and the wider Principal
Centre it forms part of will deliver sufficient housing for the area during the Plan period. This
is in our view wholly incorrect.
Under the current provision of the Deposit LDP, the Principal Centre has a range of
proposed residential allocations. Having undertaken a comprehensive review of the
proposed allocations put forward by the 2nd Deposit LDP for the Principal Centre in question,
it has been identified that a number have significant questions over their ability to be
delivered within the Plan period, including the following:

Ref. No. Site Name Units
PrC3/h4 Tirychen Farm 150
PrC3/h36 Betws Colliery 60
PrC3/h14 Nantydderwen, Tumble 33
PrC3/h22 Adj. to Pant y Blodau, Penygroes 79
PrC3/h2 Heol Gelynen, Brynamman 8

As a result of the above – all of which have been allocated in previous development plans -
separate objections to their inclusion with the LDP have been made. This is due to the fact
that to continue to allocate such sites for residential development results in the Plan being
unsound. Alternative sites, such as that put forward by our Client, must therefore be
considered and brought forward in order to address this deficiency and ensure that the Plan
is sound in all respects.
In conclusion, this Representation to the 2nd Deposit Draft of the Revised LDP has sought to
examine the Council’s reasons for non-allocation of the whole of the Candidate Site. It has
successfully addressed the reasons put forward by the Authority for its exclusion and has
highlighted that the reason given are illogical and erroneous. In addition, it has been
highlighted in conjunction with our submissions made by this Practice, that the currently
proposed allocations put forward by the 2nd Deposit LDP are undeliverable.
We therefore respectfully request that this Representation be given careful examination, and
consequently the land in question be allocated for residential development in its entirety as
part of the Carmarthenshire Local Development Plan to ensure that the document passes all
the relevant tests of soundness.

The extent of the site allocation as shown on the Deposit Plan Proposals map should be amended as stated in the summary above.

Consultation on Second Deposit Revised Local Plan - PrC3/MU1 - Emlyn Brickworks

I have just submitted representations via the online portal, which have been acknowledged and given ID: 4930.

The online portal did not permit me to upload all the documents I wished to submit, so I therefore submit these now. In anticipation there will be a limit on the size of attachments your email system will accept, I am submitting these documents across 7 separate emails.

In total, the documents you received should include the following

1. PED - PrC3-MU1 - 2023-04-13 [0] - Representation-form
2. PED - PrC3-MU1 - 2023-04-13 [1] - Reps 2nd Deposit Plan
3. PED - PrC3-MU1 - 2023-04-13 [2] - Parc Emlyn Initial Masterplan
4. PED - PrC3-MU1 - 2023-04-13 [3] - Tetra Tech Site Review pgs 1-9
5. PED - PrC3-MU1 - 2023-04-13 [4] - Tetra Tech Site Review pgs 10-23
6. PED - PrC3-MU1 - 2023-04-13 [5] - Tetra Tech Site Review pgs 24-39
7. PED - PrC3-MU1 - 2023-04-13 [6] - Tetra Tech Site Review pgs 40-55
8. PED - PrC3-MU1 - 2023-04-13 [7] - Tetra Tech Site Review Fig 1 Site location plan
9. PED - PrC3-MU1 - 2023-04-13 [8] - Tetra Tech Site Review Fig 2 Phasing plan (previous reports)
10. PED - PrC3-MU1 - 2023-04-13 [9] - Tetra Tech Site Review Fig 3 Site constraints plan
11. PED - PrC3-MU1 - 2023-04-13 [10] - Tetra Tech Site Review Appendix B page 78 map of peat deposits.

The first complements the details submitted online.
The second and third are as per the documents uploaded online.

If you have any questions regarding the above then please do not hesitate to contact me.


Planning statement:

1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 These representations are submitted in response to the consultation by
Carmarthenshire County Council (‘the Council’) on the Second Deposit Plan
version of the emerging Carmarthenshire Revised Local Development Plan
(2018 - 2033) (‘the Deposit Plan’).
1.2 These representations are made in respect of the proposed allocation of land
at the former Emlyn Brickworks for the delivery of community focused
development along with 177 new homes, site reference PrC3/MU1.
1.3 The relevant draft site allocation policy is SG1 (Regeneration and Mixed-Use
Sites).
1.4 The site is shown on the Proposals Map.
1.5 Other relevant draft policies are SD1 (Development Limits) and SP4 (A
Sustainable Approach to Providing New Homes).
1.6 These representations are made on behalf of Parc Emlyn Developments
Limited (‘Parc Emlyn’). Parc Emlyn own the majority of the land which the
Council propose be included in the site allocation, and all of the additional
land which Parc Emlyn propose be included.
1.7 In summary, the allocation of land at Emlyn Brickworks for a residential led
mixed-use development is supported and the timing and number of new
homes forecast to be delivered within the plan period is also supported.
However, the arbitrary exclusion of a large portion of the existing allocated
area from the proposed allocated area, and its exclusion from within the
defined settlement boundary, is not sound.
1.8 Parc Emlyn seek an amendment of the allocation boundary. An Initial
Masterplan drawing is submitted with these representations, the coloured
areas of which depict the extent of the land which should be allocated.
1.9 These representations are also accompanied by a technical report, the Desk
Top Study Review and Coal Mining Assessment (May 2022) by Tetra Tech
(the Tetra Tech Site Review). The information submitted includes the main
report and the three figures, but not the appendices, with the exception of an
extract from Appendix B.
2. SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
2.1 The site lies within the village of Penygroes and is in Cluster 3 (Ammanford /
Crosshands) of Tier 1 (Principal Centres); see Deposit Plan draft Strategic
Policy SP3: Sustainable Distribution Settlement Framework and Appendix 7
(Housing Trajectory Allocations).
PED – Site PrC3/MU1 – Emlyn Brickworks
PED – Representations on Second Deposit Plan 3
2.2 The site (both that proposed for allocation by the Council and the additional
land proposed for inclusion by Parc Emlyn) formed the larger part of the
Emlyn Colliery. The colliery operated from around 1880 until 19391. Part of
the site was used as a brickworks (the Parc Emlyn Brickworks), starting
before the closure of the colliery and operating until the mid 1990s.
2.3 The existing village wraps around the north, east and part of the south side of
the site. To the west and along part of the south side, the site is bounded by
open fields. The roads to the north, east and south are, respectively, Norton
Road, Bridge Street / Waterloo Road and Gors Ddu Road. The neighbouring
development is primarily residential, and on the east side includes the vacant
former rugby club building. In the south west corner, just outside the site, is a
small commercial site and beyond that further housing in the village of Morfa.
2.4 A newly constructed road (the Cross Hands Economic Link Road) lies a little
further west of the site and a spur link road from that now crosses the site to
link with Norton Road. The spur link road includes a roundabout, which has
been designed so a third arm, serving the southern part of the Emlyn
Brickworks site, may be connected to it at a later date.
2.5 The site is otherwise undeveloped. Most of it is covered by a layer of colliery
spoil. Adventitious plant growth has developed across the site. The western
side is bordered by a mature hedgerow. Along the eastern part of the northern
boundary, there is an established line of tree and plant growth, which lies just
outside the site.
3. PLANNING HISTORY
3.1 Following the closure of the site as a brickworks, applications for outline
planning permission across different parts of the site were approved in 2000,
with approval of reserved matters following in 2004. These permissions were
extended in 2007. By this time all existing buildings across the majority of the
former colliery / brickworks area had been demolished, the colliery spoil heap
had been removed, and the entire site subjected to major earthworks whereby
colliery spoil was redistributed across it. This was a major undertaking and a
fundamental step necessary to prepare the site for new development. These
works were the subject of a series of verification reports in 2007 (see the
Tetra Tech Site Review, sections 4.17 to 4.20), to confirm ground
contamination remediation had taken place.
3.2 Parc Emlyn Developments Limited (Parc Emlyn) took ownership of the site in
early 2010. The existing permissions across the site were due to expire, so a
series of new applications were made to extend them, which were approved
in October 2010. The latter extended the permissions for schemes first put
together ten years earlier. In July 2012 Parc Emlyn brought forward the first
application for full planning permission, based on an updated assessment of
1 ‘Penygroes, Caerbryn a Blaenau – History of the area in pictures’ by L Davies, D Thomas
and A Davies (2011) Penygroes History Society
PED – Site PrC3/MU1 – Emlyn Brickworks
PED – Representations on Second Deposit Plan 4
how best to develop the site. This opening application for nine units was
approved in March 2013. A subsequent application for a minor amendment
was submitted in January 2014 and approved in April 2014. This development
was subsequently built out. It is referred to as Phase I.
3.3 The current Local Plan for the period 2006 to 2021 was adopted by the
Council on 10 December 2014. It confirmed the allocation of the entire Emlyn
Brickworks site for a mix of uses consisting of residential (250 units),
community facilities and amenity (site reference GA3/MU2).
3.4 In July 2015 an application was submitted by Carmarthenshire Council for the
construction of the Cross Hands Economic Link Road. This included a spur
link to Norton Road, across land owned by Parc Emlyn. On 1 September 2015
an application was submitted by Parc Emlyn for full planning permission for 70
homes (referred to as Phase II). There was an overlap between the two
application areas, such that they could not both be implemented. Planning
permission for the Link Road was granted in October 2017. Subsequently, a
new application for the spur link only was submitted in December 2019, which
avoided any overlap with the scheme for 70 homes on Phase II. The revised
spur link road application was granted by notice dated 10 September 2020.
3.5 During the course of site investigations to inform the application for the Link
Road, ecologists acting for the Council (as applicant) found evidence of the
presence of dormice, a protected species, on sections of the main link road.
The location of this evidence was in sufficient proximity to the Phase II area
that the potential for dormice to be present on Phase II had to be taken into
consideration. Following investigation and assessment, a way forward in
principle on the planning application (subject to conditions) was agreed by
Natural Resources Wales in August 2022. Subsequently, Parc Emlyn and the
Council have been working together to enter into a planning obligation in
respect of some of the matters arising from the application for Phase II. The
issue of the formal decision is imminent.
3.6 The time taken to bring the application on Phase II to a conclusion has held
back work on the remainder of the site. The grant of permission for Phase II
will re-establish the confidence necessary to resource the preparation and
submission of further planning applications. In addition, the Link Road,
including the spur link, has been completed and opened, which affords new
suitable means of vehicular access to the remainder of the site. This is
another major step forward, supporting the delivery of development on the
site.
3.7 In January 2018 the Council resolved to prepare a revised local plan.
Between February and August 2018, the Council invited submissions from
developers and others for sites to be allocated for development (candidate
sites). A candidate site assessment questionnaire was completed and
submitted to the Council for Emlyn Brickworks. The Candidate Site reference
is SR/132/009.
PED – Site PrC3/MU1 – Emlyn Brickworks
PED – Representations on Second Deposit Plan 5
3.8 At that time a development partner (Low Carbon Construction Ltd) was
leading on all planning matters, on behalf of Parc Emlyn. The candidate site
questionnaire for Emlyn Brickworks was submitted by representatives acting
on behalf of Low Carbon. The questionnaire was accompanied by a Location
Plan (dwg 09.99.T/JE July 2018 by JCR Planning), an Indicative Masterplan
Layout (dwg 09.99.a/JE July 2018, by JCR Planning) and a Candidate Site
Supporting Statement (Aug 2018, by JCR Planning).
3.9 The Candidate Site Supporting Statement made clear, at paragraph 3.0.1,
that the Indicative Masterplan Layout was for illustrative purposes and other
design solutions for the site could also be reached. The Statement went on to
propose, in paragraph 3.2.1, that the Candidate Site be allocated for a mixed
use development, including up to 350 residential units. It is clear from this
paragraph that the allocation of the entire area, within the red line as shown
on the Location Plan, was proposed.
3.10 During the time which has elapsed since the submission of the candidate site
questionnaire there have been a number of changes which should be noted
• The arrangement between Low Carbon and Parc Emlyn has ended.
• The site area (questionnaire question 2) is now reduced slightly. Parc
Emlyn held options on two areas of land: a site containing a collection of
existing buildings in the south west corner, off Gors Ddu Road, and; the
land coloured light blue on the Initial Masterplan (accompanying this
representation) and labelled ‘Community Use’. Parc Emlyn no longer
holds options on these areas.
• Parc Emlyn supports the timing and rate of delivery of residential units as
set out in the Deposit Plan, and withdraws the answer given in response
to question 16 on the candidate site questionnaire.
4. SOUNDNESS TEST 2 – IS THE PLAN APPROPRIATE
4.1 The Welsh Government Development Plans Manual (Edition 3, March 2020)
sets out at paragraph 6.26
Section 64(2) of the 2004 Act specifically provides that an LPA must not
submit an LDP unless it considers the plan is ready for examination. This
means that ‘unsound’ plans should not be submitted for examination. The
LPA will need to demonstrate that the plan meets the three tests of
soundness set out in Table 27.
4.2 Parc Emlyn submit that the Deposit Plan as currently set out does not meet
the second test of soundness. The Deposit Plan is not appropriate because
• the rationale behind the plan’s policy has not been demonstrated
• real alternatives have not been properly considered
PED – Site PrC3/MU1 – Emlyn Brickworks
PED – Representations on Second Deposit Plan 6
• it is not logical and reasonable.
This is explained in more detail below.
4.3 The rationale behind the plan’s policy has not been demonstrated,
specifically, the Council has not demonstrated why only part of the area
should be allocated.
4.4 The Site Assessment Table 2023 presents in summary format the results of
the candidate site assessment process. Emlyn Brickworks appears on page
44, where under the comments column it says, ‘There are concerns regarding
the deliverability of the whole site, and so it is considered appropriate to
allocate part of the site for mixed use.’
4.5 More detail is to be found in the Site Allocation Assessments (Cluster 3)
document (Feb 2023). The pages are not numbered. The assessment of
Emlyn Brickworks starts on the 191st page. At the end of the 195th page there
is an ‘Additional Comments’ section at the end of Stage 2b of the assessment.
In these comments it says, ‘Given that the site has been previously allocated
with only a small portion of the previous allocation being developed, it is
considered more realistic that a smaller area of the site is carried forward into
the revised LDP which would be more manageable to develop.’ During the
Stage 2b assessment, at questions 28 and 29, the Council has scored the site
negatively in response to the questions on deliverability, viability and timing.
4.6 Although not explicitly mentioned in the Assessment, by proposing to allocate
only part of the site the Council also reduce the number of homes it expects
the allocation to deliver during the plan period, and it presumes they will be
delivered in the final third of the period. It is not unreasonable to see how this
approach is more robust within the overall housing delivery strategy the
Council must set out. Many other parties will seek, for various reasons, to
argue the Council strategy is unsound because it has been unrealistic in the
rate of delivery it has set out for various sites. Seen from this perspective and
with little information to support an expectation of a higher or earlier rate of
housing delivery, the approach of the Council is not unreasonable. Indeed,
Parc Emlyn support the position the Council has set out in respect of the rate
and timing of housing delivery for the site (PrC3MU1), in draft policy HOM1:
Housing Allocations, and consider it to be sound.
4.7 The above offers the only apparent explanation behind the decision by the
Council to propose the allocation of just part of the site. However, it is not an
adequate explanation, in that it is not necessary to reduce the amount of land
allocated in order to arrive at the rate and timing of delivery set down in draft
policy HOM1. The comments set out in the Site Assessment explain and
justify the approach taken to the rate and timing of delivery but not the
reduction in the area to be allocated. Furthermore, nor does it explain why the
policy defined settlement boundary line should also be changed, from that
shown in the current Local Plan, to the much reduced area shown in the
Deposit Plan.
PED – Site PrC3/MU1 – Emlyn Brickworks
PED – Representations on Second Deposit Plan 7
4.8 The Council has not properly considered real alternatives, specifically, the
Council did not properly consider allocating the whole site. The Site
Assessment does not report there having been any consideration of the
option to maintain the extent of the site allocation area (as per the current
Local Plan) but with the rate and timing of delivery as given in draft policy
HOM1.
4.9 The Council approach has not been logical and reasonable, specifically, the
choice about which part of Emlyn Brickworks to include in the allocation is
flawed. The extent of the area put forward by the Council is based largely on
the Indicative Master Plan submitted with the candidate site questionnaire in
2018, and partly on the final alignment of the spur link road. However, the
Candidate Site Supporting Statement emphasised, at paragraph 3.0.1, that
the Indicative Master Plan was submitted for illustrative purposes only and
other design solutions for the site could also be reached. Its’ use by the
Council to identify a smaller area of land to allocate for development is
therefore directly contrary to the purpose for which the Plan was produced.
4.10 Neither the Indicative Master Plan nor the Candidate Site Supporting
Statement suggest the area shown in greater detail on the Indicative Master
Plan would be or should be the first area to be brought forward for
development. Part of the site was shown in greater detail only for the purpose
of providing an indication of the proposed density of the scheme.
4.11 The Indicative Master Plan should not have been used by the Council to
identify a smaller area of land for allocation. The Indicative Master Plan does
not provide either a logical or reasonable basis for identifying the location and
extent of the area of land proposed for allocation in the Deposit Plan.
4.12 The Council therefore has not demonstrated that there is a rationale behind
allocating only part of the site put forward in the candidate site submission, it
has not shown it properly considered real alternatives and there is no logical
or reasonable basis for the location and extent of the area is has proposed to
allocate.
5. HOW THE PLAN CAN BE MADE SOUND
5.1 It is submitted that the Deposit Plan can be made sound with only a minor
modification to the details of the Plan. Within the structure of the Examination
process, this is formally to propose a site allocation but in practice all that is
proposed is that the remainder of the land under the ownership and control of
Parc Emlyn be included. This would be given effect by amending the Proposal
Map so the extent of the allocation and or the policy defined settlement
boundary line match the extent of the coloured areas on the accompanying
Initial Masterplan.
5.2 The rationale for making this change rests primarily on the principle that the
best judge of which part of the site (south of the spur link road) to first bring
PED – Site PrC3/MU1 – Emlyn Brickworks
PED – Representations on Second Deposit Plan 8
forward for development, is the developer, with that judgement mediated
through the development management process (including pre-application
consultation and engagement). This will allow for the proper planning of the
area as a whole to be considered, so that a comprehensive approach can be
taken that is not constrained by an arbitrary sub-division of the site.
5.3 This point is illustrated by the Tetra Tech Site Review, into the contamination
and stability of the ground across the site. Figure 3 from the Review, the Site
Constraints Plan, shows for example those parts of the site not suitable for
development until residual risks are further managed by investigation or
treatment. This information needs to be reviewed in the context of further
studies into, for example, ecology, public open space requirements and how
to create a sustainable urban drainage solution. As a result, the costs of
developing this area might marry with objectives for creating new green
infrastructure across the site, and suggest some or all of that area be
provided as green and public open space. At this stage, it is too early to say.
Allocating the whole site will allow for such issues to be investigated, debated
and decided in a comprehensive way. This is far more likely to be conducive
to the proper planning of the site.
The planning merits of allocating the whole site
5.4 The Site Assessment Table 2023 provides a summary of the analysis by the
Council of each candidate site submitted to them for consideration. Full detail
of the site assessment for Emlyn Brickworks is provided in the Site Allocation
Assessments (Cluster 3) document (Feb 2023) (‘the site assessment’). The
approach take by the Council to the assessments is explained in the Site
Assessment Methodology (Sep 2022) (‘the SAM’).
5.5 The assessment considered all the land Parc Emlyn seeks to have included,
against stages 1, 2a and 2b. At the end of stage 2b the Council decided to
take forward only part of the site for assessment against stage 3.
5.6 In passing stage 1, the whole of the candidate site as submitted was found to
be compatible against the location of future growth presented in the Preferred
Strategy (highlighted green: see site assessment question 1 and section 3 of
the SAM).
5.7 In passing stage 2a, the whole of the candidate site as submitted was found
to have no site based major constraints, that is
• it could accommodate five or more dwellings (see site assessment
question 2 and paragraphs 4.7 and 4.8 of the SAM)
• it is, in this case, directly related to an identified settlement in Tiers 1-3 of
the LDP Preferred Strategy, meaning, it is physically, functionally, and
visually linked to the settlement (see site assessment question 3 and
paragraphs 4.9 and 4.10 of the SAM)
PED – Site PrC3/MU1 – Emlyn Brickworks
PED – Representations on Second Deposit Plan 9
• it is not located within a flood risk zone (see site assessment question 4
and paragraphs 4.13 and 4.14 of the SAM)
• it is not located within or immediately adjacent to any sites for importance
to nature conservation (see site assessment question 5 and paragraph
4.15 of the SAM), and
• it is not located within or immediately adjacent to any Scheduled
Monuments (see site assessment question 3 and paragraph 4.17 of the
SAM).
5.8 In passing most of stage 2b, the whole of the candidate site as submitted was
found to have no other site constraints, that is
• development will be in accordance with general planning principles (see
site assessment question 7 and paragraphs 19 and 20 of the SAM)
• development will not have a detrimental impact on the character and
setting of the settlement or its features (see site assessment question 8
and paragraph 4.21 of the SAM)
• development will involve the re-use of suitable previously developed land
(see site assessment question 9 and paragraph 4.22 of the SAM)
• development will be accessible from the existing public highway, from an
available access point with adequate visibility, with no significant highway
issues having been identified (see site assessment questions 10, 11 and
12 and paragraphs 4.23 to 4.26 of the SAM)
• development will have suitable access to public transport and active travel
routes (see site assessment question 13 and paragraph 4.27 of the SAM)
• development will have access to green space, leisure and recreational
facilities within a reasonable distance (see site assessment question 14
and paragraph 4.28 of the SAM)
• development will be in close proximity to employment and retail provision
and to other services and facilities (see site assessment question 15 and
paragraph 4.29 of the SAM)
• development will be within a reasonable distance to education facilities
(see site assessment question 16 and paragraph 4.30 of the SAM)
• development will not be within or adjacent to a mineral buffer zone (see
site assessment question 17 and paragraph 4.31 of the SAM)
• development will be within a Mineral Safeguarding Zone, for sandstone,
but the mineral resource is largely sterilised because it is within 200m of
sensitive development (housing) (see site assessment question 17,
PED – Site PrC3/MU1 – Emlyn Brickworks
PED – Representations on Second Deposit Plan 10
paragraph 4.32 of the SAM and the top of the 194th page of the site
assessment)
• development will not be within or immediately adjacent to an Air Quality
Management Area (see site assessment question 19 and paragraphs
4.33 and 4.34 of the SAM)
• development will be within an area which geologically contains high
carbon soil but it does not contain boglands and mitigative policies set out
within the Deposit Plan are expected to address the potentially negative
effects (see site assessment question 20, paragraph 4.35 of the SAM and
the 196th page of the site assessment)
• development will not include any high quality agricultural land (see site
assessment question 21 and paragraph 4.36 of the SAM)
• development will not be located within or immediately adjacent to any
Regionally Important Geological and Geomorphological Sites (see site
assessment question 22 and paragraph 4.37 of the SAM
• delivery of the development is not impacted by an elevated risk of flooding
(see site assessment question 23 and paragraphs 4.39 to 4.40 of the
SAM)
• development will have access to an available water connection (see site
assessment question Q24 and paragraph 4.41 of the SAM)
• development will not be within or adjacent to a phosphate sensitive (SAC)
catchment (see site assessment question 25 and paragraphs 4.42 to 4.45
of the SAM)
• development has connections to other infrastructure (see site assessment
question 26 and paragraph 4.47 of the SAM), and
• development will not have a detrimental impact on Welsh Language (see
site assessment question 27 and paragraphs 4.47 and 4.48 of the SAM).
5.9 Further to the reference above to peat deposits, the Tetra Tech Site Review
confirmed the British Geological Survey shows peat deposits are expected
within and adjacent to the site area. Ground investigations have confirmed
peat deposits underly part of the site (see geology section of Executive
Summary to the Tetra Tech Site Review). The survey mapping indicates peat
deposits lie across the northern and western areas of the site (see section
3.1.1 on page 9 of the Review, and the map on appendix page 78 to Appendix
B (Groundsure Report), of the Review). This deposit straddles both the areas
allocated and not allocated for development by the Council. It can therefore
be concluded that neither the presence or absence of peat deposits has been
or should be a factor in the inclusion or exclusion of land when deciding the
extent of the allocation at Emlyn Brickworks.
PED – Site PrC3/MU1 – Emlyn Brickworks
PED – Representations on Second Deposit Plan 11
5.10 In conclusion therefore, the stage 2b assessment found no site constraints
which would make its development undeliverable and it is a reasonable site
both for inclusion with the development limits of the settlement and for
allocation for development (see paragraphs 4.2 and 2.1 of the SAM). This is
also consistent with the allocation of the whole site for development in the
current Local Plan.
5.11 The Council explain in the comments at the end of stage 2b why the whole
site did not go forward to stage 3. In summary, it was because of what they
felt to be a lack of progress. However, this explanation does not give due
weight to the planning history of the site
• substantial earthworks have taken place to ready the site for development
• Phase I, while only a modest scheme, was built out
• the responsibility for the time taken to reach a conclusion on the
application on Phase II, for 70 units, does not rest solely with the
landowner, and
• the spur link road has been completed and opened, providing new means
of access to the majority of the site.
5.12 Investor confidence to move forward with proposals for the remainder of the
site will be boosted when the planning permission is issued for Phase II.
5.13 Council comments at the end of the stage 2b assessment also refer to
potential remediation costs. Remediation work was undertaken as part of the
earthworks operation. While some further work will be needed to demonstrate
compliance with current standards, there are no grounds to suggest this
merits the special mention given in the Council comments. The Tetra Tech
Site Review provides a comprehensive assessment of work undertaken to
date and sets out conclusions and recommendations for further work (in
section 11, starting on page 52). The scope of that work is not unusual and is
no impediment to the delivery of a comprehensive scheme of development
across the site.
5.14 The Welsh Government Development Plans Manual (Edition 3, March 2020)
sets out at paragraph 5.20 (page 99) that the use of settlement boundaries on
the Proposals Map should make a clear distinction for plan users as to where
development is acceptable or not. The land Parc Emlyn wish to see ‘added’ to
the draft allocation is presently allocated for development in the current Local
Plan. This in itself speaks to the site being judged acceptable, on its planning
merits, for development. The assessment of the planning merits of the site
against the issues set out in stages 1, 2a and 2b of the site assessment
methodology shows that it continues to be an appropriate and acceptable
location for development. The assessment undertaken by the Council did not
identify any site constraints which would suggest otherwise and nor has the
Council otherwise identified any grounds for seeking to constrain growth at
this location (see paragraph 5.21 of the Manual). Independent of any matters
PED – Site PrC3/MU1 – Emlyn Brickworks
PED – Representations on Second Deposit Plan 12
relating the extent of the land to be allocated for development, there are no
grounds to justify a more tightly drawn settlement boundary at this location, as
the Council has proposed, and instead the boundary should remain as shown
in the current Local Plan.
6. SUSTAINABILITY APPRAISAL
6.1 Only that part of the site the Council proposed to allocate was subject to
Stage 3, the integrated sustainability appraisal. The following therefore looks
at the remainder of the area Parc Emlyn wish to see included in the allocation,
and considers it against the criteria in stage 3 of the site assessment
(integrated sustainability appraisal and habitat regulation assessment).
6.2 The Council produced an ‘Integrated Sustainability Appraisal – guide for
promoters of sites for development (Feb 2023) (‘the ISA Guide’). This asks
those promoting sites for allocation to complete a site assessment proforma
(at section 3). This proforma sets out exactly the same questions asked in
stages 1, 2a and 2b of the candidate site assessment. The whole of the
candidate site at Emlyn Brickworks, including the part Parc Emlyn want added
to the allocation, has already been assessed, by the Council, against those
questions in the Site Allocation Assessments (Cluster 3) document (Feb
2023). The latter provides the answers to the questions the proforma asks,
and therefore there is no need to repeat the exercise.
6.3 The proforma in the ISA Guide shows which of the questions, in the site
assessment, cross-reference to the Integrated Sustainability Appraisal
Objectives (‘ISA Objectives’). The Council gave a ‘score’ (‘the ISA score’)
against each ISA Objective, based on the response to the site assessment
question. On the basis the answers to the questions in site assessment
stages 1, 2a and 2b are the same for the whole site as they are for the part
the Council went on to assess against the ISA Objectives, the ISA scores for
the whole site will be the same as for the part the Council has already scored.
Again, therefore, there is no need to repeat the exercise. The findings will be
as set out in the Site Allocation Assessments (Cluster 3) document (Feb
2023).
7. CONCLUSIONS
7.1 The Deposit Plan as currently set out does not meet the second test of
soundness. This is because
• the rationale behind the decision to allocate only part of the candidate site
has not been demonstrated
• real alternatives, namely allocating the whole site, with the same rate and
timing of delivery, has not been properly considered, and
PED – Site PrC3/MU1 – Emlyn Brickworks
PED – Representations on Second Deposit Plan 13
• the way in which the candidate site has been divided, so only part is
advanced for allocation, is not logical or reasonable because it is based
on information which was not produced with the intention of informing
such a decision.
7.2 The Plan can be made sound by including all of the land owned by Parc
Emlyn, as shown on the Initial Masterplan, within the site allocation. This will
allow for a comprehensive approach to the proper planning of the area to be
dealt with through the development management process, without undue
constraint. In addition, or alternatively, the settlement boundary line should be
retained as shown in the current Local Plan.
7.3 The whole of the candidate site has been assessed as deliverable and the
part of the site not included in the proposed allocation has the same ISA
Score as the part that is. There is no reason not to allocate the whole site, and
indeed, given its planning merits, there is good reason to do so.
7.4 Parc Emlyn support the position of the Council with regard to the number and
timing of the delivery of new homes during the Plan period. Parc Emlyn are
not seeking to suggest the site will deliver more homes than the Council have
forecast during the plan period. Notwithstanding that, given the planning
merits of the whole site, no harm would arise if the site were to prove capable
of delivering more homes than is forecast during the plan period, or if it started
delivering homes sooner than anticipated. If it did not, it is not unreasonable to
expect the undeveloped portion would come forward during the following plan
period.
7.5 The Candidate Site Assessment concluded that, ‘The site presents an
opportunity to regenerate or redevelop a previously developed site’. That
opportunity remains and should continue to be made available.
7.6 The Examination Inspector is therefore respectfully requested to find the
Deposit Plan is not sound as currently presented and to invite the Council to
seek to make a minor modification by amending, as described above, the site
allocation and settlement boundary line on the Proposals Map.

New Policy requested, as per summary above.

Thank you for the consultation received on the 2nd Deposit Revised Carmarthenshire Local Development Plan 2018 – 2033. The matter was considered by the members of Llanelli Town Council at their meeting last evening where it was agreed to provide the following response:

The Town Council is concerned to have received multiple reports from residents that they have not been made aware of the consultation or have been unable to access the documentation either online or at designated centres in Llanelli. The Town Council would therefore request that the consultation period is extended, and further publicity provided to ensure all residents are aware of the process being undertaken and therefore provided with an opportunity to consider the content of the proposals made.

The Town Council wished to make the following representations:
• Where a large housing development is proposed, can a policy be introduced for the provision of mixed use / commercial unit provision as part of the development
• Can consideration be given to updating the categories included for S106 requirements for a Social Care contribution to be levied as part of agreement consideration
• Where churches/chapels are converted to domestic use, can the affordable housing contributions be waivered where the developer can demonstrate that they will be retaining the heritage/historic character of the building
We trust that these comments can be taken into account as part of your consideration of the matter.

No change to the Plan

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.