Second Deposit LDP

Amendment to Plan

1. Introduction
1.1. Pegasus Group is instructed by the Co-operative Group (the ‘Co-op’) to submit
representations to the Carmarthenshire Second Deposit Revised LDP consultation.
1.2. The Co-op own a Site referred to as ‘Land south of Penygroes Road, Gorslas’ (the ‘Site') and
are promoting the Site for residential development. A copy of the Site Location Plan is
enclosed with a copy of these representations (Appendix 1) and the extent of the land is
shown below:
1.3. The Site comprises an area of c. 6.5ha and is considered to be capable of accommodating
approximately 120 dwellings.1
1.4. A call for sites form was submitted to the Council in August 2019 by Pegasus Group on behalf
of the Co-op. A copy of this submission is also appended to these representations
(Appendix 2).
1.5. Representations were submitted to the Deposit LDP in March 2020 and these are
resubmitted here and amended as necessary. The Site has not been included as a candidate
site in the Second Deposit Revised LDP and we consider that it should be included as a
residential allocation for the reasons given in these representations.
1 Assuming 30dph on 60% of the site.
R002 | CE | April 2023 2
Executive Summary
1.6. These representations respond directly to the following policies and paragraph references,
as set out in the Second Deposit Revised LDP:
 Preferred Spatial Option (Chapter 8);
 Paragraph 8.20;
 A New Strategy (Chapter 9);
 Policy SP1: Strategic Growth;
 Policy SP3: Sustainable Distribution – Settlement Framework;
 Policy SP4 – A sustainable Approach to Providing New Homes; and
 Policy SD1: Sustainable Distribution - Development Limits.
1.7. Our comments on the above policies would support a higher quantum of growth to the Tier
1 settlements in the interests of making the plan more effective in delivering its key aims and
more appropriate in terms of delivering sustainable development and mitigating its impact
on climate change.
1.8. This will, in turn, require the identification of additional sites for housing at these settlements
and we consider that the Site should be allocated for residential development as part of this
process, based on the updated sustainability appraisal we have undertaken using the
Integrated Sustainability Appraisal (ISA) template provided for developers. This
demonstrates that the Site is a sustainable, deliverable and logical location for housing.
R002 | CE | April 2023 3
2. Preferred Spatial Option (Chapter 8)
2.1. Paragraph 8.20 sets out the preferred Spatial Option and is unchanged from the Deposit
Draft LDP. The Option is stated as being a hybrid of a Balanced Community and Sustainable
Growth Strategy. The Spatial Option acknowledges the need to recognise and reflect
investment/economic benefits and opportunities, seeks to be community led, and will aim to
allocate development in a sustainable way.
2.2. Whilst we are broadly supportive of the preferred Spatial Option, we feel that it needs to be
more explicit in stating that the strategy needs to align with the ambitious economic
aspirations of the plan.
2.3. At present, we do not feel that this is reflected in the proposed Spatial Option and, therefore,
it has not been fully justified in the context of the Council's economic growth ambitions.
2.4. We would stress that this does not require wholesale changes to the proposed Spatial Option
as this could still be community led and the delivery of sustainable development should be
at the heart of all Plan strategies. However, we would wish to see it reflect the Council's
ambitious economic growth aspirations and acknowledge that this will influence the spatial
distribution of development.
R002 | CE | April 2023 4
3. A New Strategy (Chapter 9)
3.1. We are broadly supportive of the Plan's ambitions to deliver economic growth and an uplifted
housing requirement to support this. However, the perceived reduced importance of
delivering the Council's ambitious economic growth targets within the Preferred Spatial
Option has manifested in what we consider to be an ineffective Plan Strategy.
3.2. This is because the Second Deposit Revised LDP seeks to take a balanced approach to the
distribution of housing supply (paragraph 9.4), despite the fact that it will be reliant on only
a few key centres to deliver the vast majority of the economic growth it aspires to (namely,
Llanelli, Ammanford/Cross Hands and Carmarthen).
3.3. We accept that growth will need to come forward at all levels of the settlement hierarchy
(including rural areas) to support the vitality and viability of the diverse communities across
the county. However, the Plan's focus on delivering economic growth and a balanced
approach to the distribution of development are unlikely to be an effective combination in
meeting the plan's aspirations.
3.4. The plan acknowledges that the Tier 1 settlements are the strongest economic drivers from
a market demand and delivery perspective and states that they will receive an "appropriate
proportion" of the anticipated growth. However, this should be quantified within the plan
(which it is not at present) alongside the level of housing and other types of development
needed to be delivered in conjunction with it.
3.5. The Plan Strategy needs to be more realistic in acknowledging that it cannot rely on lower
order settlements and rural areas to deliver the economic growth it aspires to and that the
Tier 1 settlements will likely need to play a greater role than is currently identified.
3.6. It also needs to acknowledge that employment sites will only come forward where they have
access to good services, facilities and infrastructure. Furthermore, they will also need to be
accessible for the local/regional labour market.
3.7. It is, therefore, essential that the Plan identifies the supporting development and
infrastructure that needs to be delivered alongside employment sites in order to stimulate
investment and economic growth. The plan currently fails to do this, and this has resulted in
deficient policies which are discussed further below.
R002 | CE | April 2023 5
4. Policy SP1: Strategic Growth and Policy SP4: A
Sustainable Approach to Providing New Homes
4.1. As stated above, we support the Council's decision to deliver a higher quantum of dwellings
over the plan period to align with the Council's economic growth ambitions. We support the
proposed 10% flexibility applied to the housing requirement as this will provide a reasonable
(albeit not optimal) level of flexibility to improve the prospects of meeting the minimum
housing requirement.
4.2. However, we question why this has been reduced from the 15% flexibility applied in the First
Deposit Revised LDP. This is particularly important in the context where one of the reserve
sites under Policy SG2 has been removed.
4.3. In addition, we are not convinced the distribution of housing has been properly justified in
the context of the ambition to deliver higher levels of economic growth. Our principal concern
is that the ambitions to deliver economic growth will be jeopardised by the balanced
approach to distributing growth across the county.
4.4. This has, in turn, resulted in a distribution pattern that does not appear to appreciate the
importance of the spatial relationship between employment growth and housing delivery as
they support the delivery of one another.
4.5. In simple terms, the distribution strategy does not take a realistic view of the capacity of
lower order settlements to deliver economic growth, relative to the Tier 1 settlements and
has, accordingly, failed to allocate a sufficient level of housing in close proximity to key
employment areas.
4.6. It is important for housing to be delivered in close proximity to key employment areas for a
number of reasons. Two particularly pertinent reasons are as follows:
1. It encourages commuting via alternative modes of transport to the private motor
vehicle in the interests of sustainability and mitigating impacts on climate change;
2. Housing delivery creates a critical mass and local workforce which stimulates
investment and job creation.
4.7. Policies SP1 and SP4 (including their supporting text) need to clearly justify the overall
quantum of development to be delivered at each settlement tier and then explain how it will
be distributed to support the economic aspirations of the plan, alongside its sustainability
and community aspirations. Its failure to do so at present is a significant deficiency with the
plan that needs to be addressed.
R002 | CE | April 2023 6
5. Strategic Policy SP3: Sustainable Distribution –
Settlement Framework
5.1. Policy SP3 sets out the settlement hierarchy and settlement clusters. We largely agree with
the structure and support the Ammanford/Cross Hands area being included within the first
tier – Principal Settlements.
5.2. We also agree with the assertion that growth and development will be directed to sustainable
locations in accordance with the spatial framework; however, as mentioned above, we have
some reservations with how this has been implemented.
5.3. Whilst we note that the highest proportion of development is due to be delivered at the Tier
1 settlements (a principle we support), we consider that too great a proportion of growth has
been allocated to lower order settlements. As stated above, the Plan is unrealistic in the way
it proposes to distribute growth to deliver its economic aspirations and the allocation of
housing sites to support this is also unsuitable as a result.
5.4. If the Plan is serious about delivering economic growth, sustainable development and
mitigating its impacts on the environment to combat climate change, then it needs to rethink
its distribution framework and allocate higher levels of development to the Tier 1
settlements.
R002 | CE | April 2023 7
6. Policy SD1: Development Limits
6.1. This policy states that development within the identified development of Tier 1-3 settlements
will be acceptable, provided that they accord with other relevant policies of the LDP.
6.2. Whilst there are exceptions to this rule (for example, Policy HOM6), the policy does not set
out a scenario whereby development for traditional housing can come forward beyond the
development limits. This will be problematic in circumstances where the Council's housing
delivery fails to keep pace with their proposed annual requirement.
6.3. Whilst we support the principle of identifying specific sites to meet the development needs
of the district within the LDP to guard against excessive unplanned development, Local Plans
still need to be sufficiently flexible to ensure that housing and other types of development
can come forward to meet the needs of the population. This is especially important in
situations when delivery does not match up with the plan's target levels of growth. This could
be due to any number of reasons, from deficiencies with the plan, unforeseen technical issues
affecting the delivery of certain sites or broader macro-economic factors.
6.4. We note the identification of Reserve Sites (Policy SG2) and acknowledge that this will go
some way to securing supply in the event allocated sites cannot come forward albeit one of
the reserve sites has been removed from the Second Deposit Revised LDP over the Revised
Deposit version. However, we would question whether this is a sufficiently flexible approach
that will help to guarantee the delivery of the plan's housing requirement. We note that the
delivery of a reserve site will need to be subject to a masterplanning exercise. This
requirement is something that would potentially delay its delivery and prevent it from
addressing a specific need (e.g. housing shortfall) in a timely manner.
6.5. As such, we consider that this policy should incorporate wording to allow for development in
sustainable locations that would otherwise comply with the relevant policies of the LDP in
the event that the supply and delivery of housing failed to keep pace with the Local Plan
Housing Requirement (i.e. the absence of a five-year supply of housing land).
6.6. We would suggest additional wording to the policy to make it clear to prospective applicants
when it would be acceptable to propose development on unallocated sites. This would
provide certainty and allow for windfall sites to come forward in accordance with the LDP to
meet shortfalls when they arise.
6.7. We acknowledge that the plan has attempted to plan positively for housing growth in
particular and sought to incorporate measures to secure this (10% buffer to the housing
requirement (albeit reduced from 15%) and the identification of reserve sites) over the plan
period. However, we consider that policy SD1 should incorporate additional flexibility to allow
development to come forward under certain circumstances (as specified above) in order the
ensure the plan can remain as effective as possible for its duration.
R002 | CE | April 2023 8
7. Land to the south of Penygroes Road, Gorslas,
Llanelli
7.1. As stated in the Introduction, the Co-op controls an area of land to the south of Penygroes
Road, Gorslas comprising a number of fields which cover an area of around 6.5ha and would
be capable of delivering c. 120 dwellings.
7.2. Vehicular access could be taken from the B4556 to the east with an emergency/pedestrian
access being taken from the north via an existing driveway/access.
7.3. The Site is well related to development around the 6-way junction along the A476 which is
home to a number of services and facilities that would meet the day to day needs of future
residents.
7.4. The Site is also well related to existing and future large-scale employment and commercial
development areas at Cross Hands.
7.5. The Site's proximity to these services, facilities and employment opportunities would reduce
the reliance on the private motor vehicle to meet the day to day needs of future residents
and would encourage the use of active modes of travel such as walking and cycling.
7.6. The Site is free from any land use allocation or other designations that would otherwise
constrain development; it could be made available for development in the short-term and
be built out comfortably within a five-year time frame once detailed planning permission is
granted.
R002 | CE | April 2023 9
8. Integrated Sustainability Appraisal
8.1. Our representations to the Deposit LDP in March 2020 included an assessment of the
sustainability of the Site with regard to the guidance available at that time. Since then, the
Council has published an Integrated Sustainability Appraisal (ISA) document for consultation
alongside the Second Deposit LDP.
8.2. Paragraph 1.7 of the ISA states that:
“The Council strongly advises that in responding to the Deposit rLDP, any relevant new,
site(s) proposed should be accompanied by an integrated Sustainability Appraisal
(incorporating Strategic Environmental Assessment). A site not subject to ISA is unlikely
to be considered suitable for allocation in the plan.”
8.3. As a result, we have provided an assessment of the sustainability of the Site against this
updated criteria in the below table.
8.4. As shown by our responses, the Site performs extremely well against the various elements of
the SA with only the fact that the Site is a greenfield site and may contain high carbon soils
being the only constraints affecting the Site's development.
9. Summary Representations
9.1. These representations have been submitted on behalf of the Co-op in respect of its land to
the south of Penygroes Road, Gorslas. The Co-op is promoting the Site for residential
development and consider it to be a sustainably located, deliverable and logical site for the
proposed use. The Co-op has a good track record of promoting sites for development and
working with developers and house builders to ensure that sites are sold on and deliverable.
It does not sit on sites or ‘land bank.’
9.2. Whilst we are broadly supportive of the economic aspirations of the LDP and agree with the
uplift to the housing requirement accordingly, we have reservations with the proposed
strategy to deliver this ambitions targets.
9.3. This is namely down to the following reasons:
 The Preferred Spatial Option and Plan Strategy appear to have diminished the
importance of delivering these said economic aspirations;
 They are unrealistic in their view that lower order settlements will be able to deliver the
currently proposed economic growth and role Tier 1 settlements will need to play has
been underestimated;
 There is a disconnect with the spatial distribution of employment development and
residential development and it is not clear how they will support the delivery of one
another; and
 The proposed flexibility measures notwithstanding, we consider that the plan should
include a policy to facilitate development beyond the defined settlement limits in the
case of severe plan failure.
9.4. We suspect that when the plan is reviewed in light of these issues, a higher proportion of
growth will be identified at the Tier 1 settlements and this will require additional housing
allocations to be included.
9.5. Our client's Site is available, deliverable and sustainably located. We have assessed it against
the Council's ISA template and it has performed very well with few minor issues. We would,
therefore, support a new policy allocating the Site for residential development in the final
version of the LDP.

Change to the Plan

1. Introduction
1.1. Pegasus Group is instructed by the Co-operative Group (the ‘Co-op’) to submit
representations to the Carmarthenshire Second Deposit Revised LDP consultation.
1.2. The Co-op own a Site referred to as ‘Land south of Penygroes Road, Gorslas’ (the ‘Site') and
are promoting the Site for residential development. A copy of the Site Location Plan is
enclosed with a copy of these representations (Appendix 1) and the extent of the land is
shown below:
1.3. The Site comprises an area of c. 6.5ha and is considered to be capable of accommodating
approximately 120 dwellings.1
1.4. A call for sites form was submitted to the Council in August 2019 by Pegasus Group on behalf
of the Co-op. A copy of this submission is also appended to these representations
(Appendix 2).
1.5. Representations were submitted to the Deposit LDP in March 2020 and these are
resubmitted here and amended as necessary. The Site has not been included as a candidate
site in the Second Deposit Revised LDP and we consider that it should be included as a
residential allocation for the reasons given in these representations.
1 Assuming 30dph on 60% of the site.
R002 | CE | April 2023 2
Executive Summary
1.6. These representations respond directly to the following policies and paragraph references,
as set out in the Second Deposit Revised LDP:
 Preferred Spatial Option (Chapter 8);
 Paragraph 8.20;
 A New Strategy (Chapter 9);
 Policy SP1: Strategic Growth;
 Policy SP3: Sustainable Distribution – Settlement Framework;
 Policy SP4 – A sustainable Approach to Providing New Homes; and
 Policy SD1: Sustainable Distribution - Development Limits.
1.7. Our comments on the above policies would support a higher quantum of growth to the Tier
1 settlements in the interests of making the plan more effective in delivering its key aims and
more appropriate in terms of delivering sustainable development and mitigating its impact
on climate change.
1.8. This will, in turn, require the identification of additional sites for housing at these settlements
and we consider that the Site should be allocated for residential development as part of this
process, based on the updated sustainability appraisal we have undertaken using the
Integrated Sustainability Appraisal (ISA) template provided for developers. This
demonstrates that the Site is a sustainable, deliverable and logical location for housing.
R002 | CE | April 2023 3
2. Preferred Spatial Option (Chapter 8)
2.1. Paragraph 8.20 sets out the preferred Spatial Option and is unchanged from the Deposit
Draft LDP. The Option is stated as being a hybrid of a Balanced Community and Sustainable
Growth Strategy. The Spatial Option acknowledges the need to recognise and reflect
investment/economic benefits and opportunities, seeks to be community led, and will aim to
allocate development in a sustainable way.
2.2. Whilst we are broadly supportive of the preferred Spatial Option, we feel that it needs to be
more explicit in stating that the strategy needs to align with the ambitious economic
aspirations of the plan.
2.3. At present, we do not feel that this is reflected in the proposed Spatial Option and, therefore,
it has not been fully justified in the context of the Council's economic growth ambitions.
2.4. We would stress that this does not require wholesale changes to the proposed Spatial Option
as this could still be community led and the delivery of sustainable development should be
at the heart of all Plan strategies. However, we would wish to see it reflect the Council's
ambitious economic growth aspirations and acknowledge that this will influence the spatial
distribution of development.
R002 | CE | April 2023 4
3. A New Strategy (Chapter 9)
3.1. We are broadly supportive of the Plan's ambitions to deliver economic growth and an uplifted
housing requirement to support this. However, the perceived reduced importance of
delivering the Council's ambitious economic growth targets within the Preferred Spatial
Option has manifested in what we consider to be an ineffective Plan Strategy.
3.2. This is because the Second Deposit Revised LDP seeks to take a balanced approach to the
distribution of housing supply (paragraph 9.4), despite the fact that it will be reliant on only
a few key centres to deliver the vast majority of the economic growth it aspires to (namely,
Llanelli, Ammanford/Cross Hands and Carmarthen).
3.3. We accept that growth will need to come forward at all levels of the settlement hierarchy
(including rural areas) to support the vitality and viability of the diverse communities across
the county. However, the Plan's focus on delivering economic growth and a balanced
approach to the distribution of development are unlikely to be an effective combination in
meeting the plan's aspirations.
3.4. The plan acknowledges that the Tier 1 settlements are the strongest economic drivers from
a market demand and delivery perspective and states that they will receive an "appropriate
proportion" of the anticipated growth. However, this should be quantified within the plan
(which it is not at present) alongside the level of housing and other types of development
needed to be delivered in conjunction with it.
3.5. The Plan Strategy needs to be more realistic in acknowledging that it cannot rely on lower
order settlements and rural areas to deliver the economic growth it aspires to and that the
Tier 1 settlements will likely need to play a greater role than is currently identified.
3.6. It also needs to acknowledge that employment sites will only come forward where they have
access to good services, facilities and infrastructure. Furthermore, they will also need to be
accessible for the local/regional labour market.
3.7. It is, therefore, essential that the Plan identifies the supporting development and
infrastructure that needs to be delivered alongside employment sites in order to stimulate
investment and economic growth. The plan currently fails to do this, and this has resulted in
deficient policies which are discussed further below.
R002 | CE | April 2023 5
4. Policy SP1: Strategic Growth and Policy SP4: A
Sustainable Approach to Providing New Homes
4.1. As stated above, we support the Council's decision to deliver a higher quantum of dwellings
over the plan period to align with the Council's economic growth ambitions. We support the
proposed 10% flexibility applied to the housing requirement as this will provide a reasonable
(albeit not optimal) level of flexibility to improve the prospects of meeting the minimum
housing requirement.
4.2. However, we question why this has been reduced from the 15% flexibility applied in the First
Deposit Revised LDP. This is particularly important in the context where one of the reserve
sites under Policy SG2 has been removed.
4.3. In addition, we are not convinced the distribution of housing has been properly justified in
the context of the ambition to deliver higher levels of economic growth. Our principal concern
is that the ambitions to deliver economic growth will be jeopardised by the balanced
approach to distributing growth across the county.
4.4. This has, in turn, resulted in a distribution pattern that does not appear to appreciate the
importance of the spatial relationship between employment growth and housing delivery as
they support the delivery of one another.
4.5. In simple terms, the distribution strategy does not take a realistic view of the capacity of
lower order settlements to deliver economic growth, relative to the Tier 1 settlements and
has, accordingly, failed to allocate a sufficient level of housing in close proximity to key
employment areas.
4.6. It is important for housing to be delivered in close proximity to key employment areas for a
number of reasons. Two particularly pertinent reasons are as follows:
1. It encourages commuting via alternative modes of transport to the private motor
vehicle in the interests of sustainability and mitigating impacts on climate change;
2. Housing delivery creates a critical mass and local workforce which stimulates
investment and job creation.
4.7. Policies SP1 and SP4 (including their supporting text) need to clearly justify the overall
quantum of development to be delivered at each settlement tier and then explain how it will
be distributed to support the economic aspirations of the plan, alongside its sustainability
and community aspirations. Its failure to do so at present is a significant deficiency with the
plan that needs to be addressed.
R002 | CE | April 2023 6
5. Strategic Policy SP3: Sustainable Distribution –
Settlement Framework
5.1. Policy SP3 sets out the settlement hierarchy and settlement clusters. We largely agree with
the structure and support the Ammanford/Cross Hands area being included within the first
tier – Principal Settlements.
5.2. We also agree with the assertion that growth and development will be directed to sustainable
locations in accordance with the spatial framework; however, as mentioned above, we have
some reservations with how this has been implemented.
5.3. Whilst we note that the highest proportion of development is due to be delivered at the Tier
1 settlements (a principle we support), we consider that too great a proportion of growth has
been allocated to lower order settlements. As stated above, the Plan is unrealistic in the way
it proposes to distribute growth to deliver its economic aspirations and the allocation of
housing sites to support this is also unsuitable as a result.
5.4. If the Plan is serious about delivering economic growth, sustainable development and
mitigating its impacts on the environment to combat climate change, then it needs to rethink
its distribution framework and allocate higher levels of development to the Tier 1
settlements.
R002 | CE | April 2023 7
6. Policy SD1: Development Limits
6.1. This policy states that development within the identified development of Tier 1-3 settlements
will be acceptable, provided that they accord with other relevant policies of the LDP.
6.2. Whilst there are exceptions to this rule (for example, Policy HOM6), the policy does not set
out a scenario whereby development for traditional housing can come forward beyond the
development limits. This will be problematic in circumstances where the Council's housing
delivery fails to keep pace with their proposed annual requirement.
6.3. Whilst we support the principle of identifying specific sites to meet the development needs
of the district within the LDP to guard against excessive unplanned development, Local Plans
still need to be sufficiently flexible to ensure that housing and other types of development
can come forward to meet the needs of the population. This is especially important in
situations when delivery does not match up with the plan's target levels of growth. This could
be due to any number of reasons, from deficiencies with the plan, unforeseen technical issues
affecting the delivery of certain sites or broader macro-economic factors.
6.4. We note the identification of Reserve Sites (Policy SG2) and acknowledge that this will go
some way to securing supply in the event allocated sites cannot come forward albeit one of
the reserve sites has been removed from the Second Deposit Revised LDP over the Revised
Deposit version. However, we would question whether this is a sufficiently flexible approach
that will help to guarantee the delivery of the plan's housing requirement. We note that the
delivery of a reserve site will need to be subject to a masterplanning exercise. This
requirement is something that would potentially delay its delivery and prevent it from
addressing a specific need (e.g. housing shortfall) in a timely manner.
6.5. As such, we consider that this policy should incorporate wording to allow for development in
sustainable locations that would otherwise comply with the relevant policies of the LDP in
the event that the supply and delivery of housing failed to keep pace with the Local Plan
Housing Requirement (i.e. the absence of a five-year supply of housing land).
6.6. We would suggest additional wording to the policy to make it clear to prospective applicants
when it would be acceptable to propose development on unallocated sites. This would
provide certainty and allow for windfall sites to come forward in accordance with the LDP to
meet shortfalls when they arise.
6.7. We acknowledge that the plan has attempted to plan positively for housing growth in
particular and sought to incorporate measures to secure this (10% buffer to the housing
requirement (albeit reduced from 15%) and the identification of reserve sites) over the plan
period. However, we consider that policy SD1 should incorporate additional flexibility to allow
development to come forward under certain circumstances (as specified above) in order the
ensure the plan can remain as effective as possible for its duration.
R002 | CE | April 2023 8
7. Land to the south of Penygroes Road, Gorslas,
Llanelli
7.1. As stated in the Introduction, the Co-op controls an area of land to the south of Penygroes
Road, Gorslas comprising a number of fields which cover an area of around 6.5ha and would
be capable of delivering c. 120 dwellings.
7.2. Vehicular access could be taken from the B4556 to the east with an emergency/pedestrian
access being taken from the north via an existing driveway/access.
7.3. The Site is well related to development around the 6-way junction along the A476 which is
home to a number of services and facilities that would meet the day to day needs of future
residents.
7.4. The Site is also well related to existing and future large-scale employment and commercial
development areas at Cross Hands.
7.5. The Site's proximity to these services, facilities and employment opportunities would reduce
the reliance on the private motor vehicle to meet the day to day needs of future residents
and would encourage the use of active modes of travel such as walking and cycling.
7.6. The Site is free from any land use allocation or other designations that would otherwise
constrain development; it could be made available for development in the short-term and
be built out comfortably within a five-year time frame once detailed planning permission is
granted.
R002 | CE | April 2023 9
8. Integrated Sustainability Appraisal
8.1. Our representations to the Deposit LDP in March 2020 included an assessment of the
sustainability of the Site with regard to the guidance available at that time. Since then, the
Council has published an Integrated Sustainability Appraisal (ISA) document for consultation
alongside the Second Deposit LDP.
8.2. Paragraph 1.7 of the ISA states that:
“The Council strongly advises that in responding to the Deposit rLDP, any relevant new,
site(s) proposed should be accompanied by an integrated Sustainability Appraisal
(incorporating Strategic Environmental Assessment). A site not subject to ISA is unlikely
to be considered suitable for allocation in the plan.”
8.3. As a result, we have provided an assessment of the sustainability of the Site against this
updated criteria in the below table.
8.4. As shown by our responses, the Site performs extremely well against the various elements of
the SA with only the fact that the Site is a greenfield site and may contain high carbon soils
being the only constraints affecting the Site's development.
9. Summary Representations
9.1. These representations have been submitted on behalf of the Co-op in respect of its land to
the south of Penygroes Road, Gorslas. The Co-op is promoting the Site for residential
development and consider it to be a sustainably located, deliverable and logical site for the
proposed use. The Co-op has a good track record of promoting sites for development and
working with developers and house builders to ensure that sites are sold on and deliverable.
It does not sit on sites or ‘land bank.’
9.2. Whilst we are broadly supportive of the economic aspirations of the LDP and agree with the
uplift to the housing requirement accordingly, we have reservations with the proposed
strategy to deliver this ambitions targets.
9.3. This is namely down to the following reasons:
 The Preferred Spatial Option and Plan Strategy appear to have diminished the
importance of delivering these said economic aspirations;
 They are unrealistic in their view that lower order settlements will be able to deliver the
currently proposed economic growth and role Tier 1 settlements will need to play has
been underestimated;
 There is a disconnect with the spatial distribution of employment development and
residential development and it is not clear how they will support the delivery of one
another; and
 The proposed flexibility measures notwithstanding, we consider that the plan should
include a policy to facilitate development beyond the defined settlement limits in the
case of severe plan failure.
9.4. We suspect that when the plan is reviewed in light of these issues, a higher proportion of
growth will be identified at the Tier 1 settlements and this will require additional housing
allocations to be included.
9.5. Our client's Site is available, deliverable and sustainably located. We have assessed it against
the Council's ISA template and it has performed very well with few minor issues. We would,
therefore, support a new policy allocating the Site for residential development in the final
version of the LDP.

Amend Plan

1. Introduction
1.1. Pegasus Group is instructed by the Co-operative Group (the ‘Co-op’) to submit
representations to the Carmarthenshire Second Deposit Revised LDP consultation.
1.2. The Co-op own a Site referred to as ‘Land south of Penygroes Road, Gorslas’ (the ‘Site') and
are promoting the Site for residential development. A copy of the Site Location Plan is
enclosed with a copy of these representations (Appendix 1) and the extent of the land is
shown below:
1.3. The Site comprises an area of c. 6.5ha and is considered to be capable of accommodating
approximately 120 dwellings.1
1.4. A call for sites form was submitted to the Council in August 2019 by Pegasus Group on behalf
of the Co-op. A copy of this submission is also appended to these representations
(Appendix 2).
1.5. Representations were submitted to the Deposit LDP in March 2020 and these are
resubmitted here and amended as necessary. The Site has not been included as a candidate
site in the Second Deposit Revised LDP and we consider that it should be included as a
residential allocation for the reasons given in these representations.
1 Assuming 30dph on 60% of the site.
R002 | CE | April 2023 2
Executive Summary
1.6. These representations respond directly to the following policies and paragraph references,
as set out in the Second Deposit Revised LDP:
 Preferred Spatial Option (Chapter 8);
 Paragraph 8.20;
 A New Strategy (Chapter 9);
 Policy SP1: Strategic Growth;
 Policy SP3: Sustainable Distribution – Settlement Framework;
 Policy SP4 – A sustainable Approach to Providing New Homes; and
 Policy SD1: Sustainable Distribution - Development Limits.
1.7. Our comments on the above policies would support a higher quantum of growth to the Tier
1 settlements in the interests of making the plan more effective in delivering its key aims and
more appropriate in terms of delivering sustainable development and mitigating its impact
on climate change.
1.8. This will, in turn, require the identification of additional sites for housing at these settlements
and we consider that the Site should be allocated for residential development as part of this
process, based on the updated sustainability appraisal we have undertaken using the
Integrated Sustainability Appraisal (ISA) template provided for developers. This
demonstrates that the Site is a sustainable, deliverable and logical location for housing.
R002 | CE | April 2023 3
2. Preferred Spatial Option (Chapter 8)
2.1. Paragraph 8.20 sets out the preferred Spatial Option and is unchanged from the Deposit
Draft LDP. The Option is stated as being a hybrid of a Balanced Community and Sustainable
Growth Strategy. The Spatial Option acknowledges the need to recognise and reflect
investment/economic benefits and opportunities, seeks to be community led, and will aim to
allocate development in a sustainable way.
2.2. Whilst we are broadly supportive of the preferred Spatial Option, we feel that it needs to be
more explicit in stating that the strategy needs to align with the ambitious economic
aspirations of the plan.
2.3. At present, we do not feel that this is reflected in the proposed Spatial Option and, therefore,
it has not been fully justified in the context of the Council's economic growth ambitions.
2.4. We would stress that this does not require wholesale changes to the proposed Spatial Option
as this could still be community led and the delivery of sustainable development should be
at the heart of all Plan strategies. However, we would wish to see it reflect the Council's
ambitious economic growth aspirations and acknowledge that this will influence the spatial
distribution of development.
R002 | CE | April 2023 4
3. A New Strategy (Chapter 9)
3.1. We are broadly supportive of the Plan's ambitions to deliver economic growth and an uplifted
housing requirement to support this. However, the perceived reduced importance of
delivering the Council's ambitious economic growth targets within the Preferred Spatial
Option has manifested in what we consider to be an ineffective Plan Strategy.
3.2. This is because the Second Deposit Revised LDP seeks to take a balanced approach to the
distribution of housing supply (paragraph 9.4), despite the fact that it will be reliant on only
a few key centres to deliver the vast majority of the economic growth it aspires to (namely,
Llanelli, Ammanford/Cross Hands and Carmarthen).
3.3. We accept that growth will need to come forward at all levels of the settlement hierarchy
(including rural areas) to support the vitality and viability of the diverse communities across
the county. However, the Plan's focus on delivering economic growth and a balanced
approach to the distribution of development are unlikely to be an effective combination in
meeting the plan's aspirations.
3.4. The plan acknowledges that the Tier 1 settlements are the strongest economic drivers from
a market demand and delivery perspective and states that they will receive an "appropriate
proportion" of the anticipated growth. However, this should be quantified within the plan
(which it is not at present) alongside the level of housing and other types of development
needed to be delivered in conjunction with it.
3.5. The Plan Strategy needs to be more realistic in acknowledging that it cannot rely on lower
order settlements and rural areas to deliver the economic growth it aspires to and that the
Tier 1 settlements will likely need to play a greater role than is currently identified.
3.6. It also needs to acknowledge that employment sites will only come forward where they have
access to good services, facilities and infrastructure. Furthermore, they will also need to be
accessible for the local/regional labour market.
3.7. It is, therefore, essential that the Plan identifies the supporting development and
infrastructure that needs to be delivered alongside employment sites in order to stimulate
investment and economic growth. The plan currently fails to do this, and this has resulted in
deficient policies which are discussed further below.
R002 | CE | April 2023 5
4. Policy SP1: Strategic Growth and Policy SP4: A
Sustainable Approach to Providing New Homes
4.1. As stated above, we support the Council's decision to deliver a higher quantum of dwellings
over the plan period to align with the Council's economic growth ambitions. We support the
proposed 10% flexibility applied to the housing requirement as this will provide a reasonable
(albeit not optimal) level of flexibility to improve the prospects of meeting the minimum
housing requirement.
4.2. However, we question why this has been reduced from the 15% flexibility applied in the First
Deposit Revised LDP. This is particularly important in the context where one of the reserve
sites under Policy SG2 has been removed.
4.3. In addition, we are not convinced the distribution of housing has been properly justified in
the context of the ambition to deliver higher levels of economic growth. Our principal concern
is that the ambitions to deliver economic growth will be jeopardised by the balanced
approach to distributing growth across the county.
4.4. This has, in turn, resulted in a distribution pattern that does not appear to appreciate the
importance of the spatial relationship between employment growth and housing delivery as
they support the delivery of one another.
4.5. In simple terms, the distribution strategy does not take a realistic view of the capacity of
lower order settlements to deliver economic growth, relative to the Tier 1 settlements and
has, accordingly, failed to allocate a sufficient level of housing in close proximity to key
employment areas.
4.6. It is important for housing to be delivered in close proximity to key employment areas for a
number of reasons. Two particularly pertinent reasons are as follows:
1. It encourages commuting via alternative modes of transport to the private motor
vehicle in the interests of sustainability and mitigating impacts on climate change;
2. Housing delivery creates a critical mass and local workforce which stimulates
investment and job creation.
4.7. Policies SP1 and SP4 (including their supporting text) need to clearly justify the overall
quantum of development to be delivered at each settlement tier and then explain how it will
be distributed to support the economic aspirations of the plan, alongside its sustainability
and community aspirations. Its failure to do so at present is a significant deficiency with the
plan that needs to be addressed.
R002 | CE | April 2023 6
5. Strategic Policy SP3: Sustainable Distribution –
Settlement Framework
5.1. Policy SP3 sets out the settlement hierarchy and settlement clusters. We largely agree with
the structure and support the Ammanford/Cross Hands area being included within the first
tier – Principal Settlements.
5.2. We also agree with the assertion that growth and development will be directed to sustainable
locations in accordance with the spatial framework; however, as mentioned above, we have
some reservations with how this has been implemented.
5.3. Whilst we note that the highest proportion of development is due to be delivered at the Tier
1 settlements (a principle we support), we consider that too great a proportion of growth has
been allocated to lower order settlements. As stated above, the Plan is unrealistic in the way
it proposes to distribute growth to deliver its economic aspirations and the allocation of
housing sites to support this is also unsuitable as a result.
5.4. If the Plan is serious about delivering economic growth, sustainable development and
mitigating its impacts on the environment to combat climate change, then it needs to rethink
its distribution framework and allocate higher levels of development to the Tier 1
settlements.
R002 | CE | April 2023 7
6. Policy SD1: Development Limits
6.1. This policy states that development within the identified development of Tier 1-3 settlements
will be acceptable, provided that they accord with other relevant policies of the LDP.
6.2. Whilst there are exceptions to this rule (for example, Policy HOM6), the policy does not set
out a scenario whereby development for traditional housing can come forward beyond the
development limits. This will be problematic in circumstances where the Council's housing
delivery fails to keep pace with their proposed annual requirement.
6.3. Whilst we support the principle of identifying specific sites to meet the development needs
of the district within the LDP to guard against excessive unplanned development, Local Plans
still need to be sufficiently flexible to ensure that housing and other types of development
can come forward to meet the needs of the population. This is especially important in
situations when delivery does not match up with the plan's target levels of growth. This could
be due to any number of reasons, from deficiencies with the plan, unforeseen technical issues
affecting the delivery of certain sites or broader macro-economic factors.
6.4. We note the identification of Reserve Sites (Policy SG2) and acknowledge that this will go
some way to securing supply in the event allocated sites cannot come forward albeit one of
the reserve sites has been removed from the Second Deposit Revised LDP over the Revised
Deposit version. However, we would question whether this is a sufficiently flexible approach
that will help to guarantee the delivery of the plan's housing requirement. We note that the
delivery of a reserve site will need to be subject to a masterplanning exercise. This
requirement is something that would potentially delay its delivery and prevent it from
addressing a specific need (e.g. housing shortfall) in a timely manner.
6.5. As such, we consider that this policy should incorporate wording to allow for development in
sustainable locations that would otherwise comply with the relevant policies of the LDP in
the event that the supply and delivery of housing failed to keep pace with the Local Plan
Housing Requirement (i.e. the absence of a five-year supply of housing land).
6.6. We would suggest additional wording to the policy to make it clear to prospective applicants
when it would be acceptable to propose development on unallocated sites. This would
provide certainty and allow for windfall sites to come forward in accordance with the LDP to
meet shortfalls when they arise.
6.7. We acknowledge that the plan has attempted to plan positively for housing growth in
particular and sought to incorporate measures to secure this (10% buffer to the housing
requirement (albeit reduced from 15%) and the identification of reserve sites) over the plan
period. However, we consider that policy SD1 should incorporate additional flexibility to allow
development to come forward under certain circumstances (as specified above) in order the
ensure the plan can remain as effective as possible for its duration.
R002 | CE | April 2023 8
7. Land to the south of Penygroes Road, Gorslas,
Llanelli
7.1. As stated in the Introduction, the Co-op controls an area of land to the south of Penygroes
Road, Gorslas comprising a number of fields which cover an area of around 6.5ha and would
be capable of delivering c. 120 dwellings.
7.2. Vehicular access could be taken from the B4556 to the east with an emergency/pedestrian
access being taken from the north via an existing driveway/access.
7.3. The Site is well related to development around the 6-way junction along the A476 which is
home to a number of services and facilities that would meet the day to day needs of future
residents.
7.4. The Site is also well related to existing and future large-scale employment and commercial
development areas at Cross Hands.
7.5. The Site's proximity to these services, facilities and employment opportunities would reduce
the reliance on the private motor vehicle to meet the day to day needs of future residents
and would encourage the use of active modes of travel such as walking and cycling.
7.6. The Site is free from any land use allocation or other designations that would otherwise
constrain development; it could be made available for development in the short-term and
be built out comfortably within a five-year time frame once detailed planning permission is
granted.
R002 | CE | April 2023 9
8. Integrated Sustainability Appraisal
8.1. Our representations to the Deposit LDP in March 2020 included an assessment of the
sustainability of the Site with regard to the guidance available at that time. Since then, the
Council has published an Integrated Sustainability Appraisal (ISA) document for consultation
alongside the Second Deposit LDP.
8.2. Paragraph 1.7 of the ISA states that:
“The Council strongly advises that in responding to the Deposit rLDP, any relevant new,
site(s) proposed should be accompanied by an integrated Sustainability Appraisal
(incorporating Strategic Environmental Assessment). A site not subject to ISA is unlikely
to be considered suitable for allocation in the plan.”
8.3. As a result, we have provided an assessment of the sustainability of the Site against this
updated criteria in the below table.
8.4. As shown by our responses, the Site performs extremely well against the various elements of
the SA with only the fact that the Site is a greenfield site and may contain high carbon soils
being the only constraints affecting the Site's development.
9. Summary Representations
9.1. These representations have been submitted on behalf of the Co-op in respect of its land to
the south of Penygroes Road, Gorslas. The Co-op is promoting the Site for residential
development and consider it to be a sustainably located, deliverable and logical site for the
proposed use. The Co-op has a good track record of promoting sites for development and
working with developers and house builders to ensure that sites are sold on and deliverable.
It does not sit on sites or ‘land bank.’
9.2. Whilst we are broadly supportive of the economic aspirations of the LDP and agree with the
uplift to the housing requirement accordingly, we have reservations with the proposed
strategy to deliver this ambitions targets.
9.3. This is namely down to the following reasons:
 The Preferred Spatial Option and Plan Strategy appear to have diminished the
importance of delivering these said economic aspirations;
 They are unrealistic in their view that lower order settlements will be able to deliver the
currently proposed economic growth and role Tier 1 settlements will need to play has
been underestimated;
 There is a disconnect with the spatial distribution of employment development and
residential development and it is not clear how they will support the delivery of one
another; and
 The proposed flexibility measures notwithstanding, we consider that the plan should
include a policy to facilitate development beyond the defined settlement limits in the
case of severe plan failure.
9.4. We suspect that when the plan is reviewed in light of these issues, a higher proportion of
growth will be identified at the Tier 1 settlements and this will require additional housing
allocations to be included.
9.5. Our client's Site is available, deliverable and sustainably located. We have assessed it against
the Council's ISA template and it has performed very well with few minor issues. We would,
therefore, support a new policy allocating the Site for residential development in the final
version of the LDP.

Amend Plan

1. Introduction
1.1. Pegasus Group is instructed by the Co-operative Group (the ‘Co-op’) to submit
representations to the Carmarthenshire Second Deposit Revised LDP consultation.
1.2. The Co-op own a Site referred to as ‘Land south of Penygroes Road, Gorslas’ (the ‘Site') and
are promoting the Site for residential development. A copy of the Site Location Plan is
enclosed with a copy of these representations (Appendix 1) and the extent of the land is
shown below:
1.3. The Site comprises an area of c. 6.5ha and is considered to be capable of accommodating
approximately 120 dwellings.1
1.4. A call for sites form was submitted to the Council in August 2019 by Pegasus Group on behalf
of the Co-op. A copy of this submission is also appended to these representations
(Appendix 2).
1.5. Representations were submitted to the Deposit LDP in March 2020 and these are
resubmitted here and amended as necessary. The Site has not been included as a candidate
site in the Second Deposit Revised LDP and we consider that it should be included as a
residential allocation for the reasons given in these representations.
1 Assuming 30dph on 60% of the site.
R002 | CE | April 2023 2
Executive Summary
1.6. These representations respond directly to the following policies and paragraph references,
as set out in the Second Deposit Revised LDP:
 Preferred Spatial Option (Chapter 8);
 Paragraph 8.20;
 A New Strategy (Chapter 9);
 Policy SP1: Strategic Growth;
 Policy SP3: Sustainable Distribution – Settlement Framework;
 Policy SP4 – A sustainable Approach to Providing New Homes; and
 Policy SD1: Sustainable Distribution - Development Limits.
1.7. Our comments on the above policies would support a higher quantum of growth to the Tier
1 settlements in the interests of making the plan more effective in delivering its key aims and
more appropriate in terms of delivering sustainable development and mitigating its impact
on climate change.
1.8. This will, in turn, require the identification of additional sites for housing at these settlements
and we consider that the Site should be allocated for residential development as part of this
process, based on the updated sustainability appraisal we have undertaken using the
Integrated Sustainability Appraisal (ISA) template provided for developers. This
demonstrates that the Site is a sustainable, deliverable and logical location for housing.
R002 | CE | April 2023 3
2. Preferred Spatial Option (Chapter 8)
2.1. Paragraph 8.20 sets out the preferred Spatial Option and is unchanged from the Deposit
Draft LDP. The Option is stated as being a hybrid of a Balanced Community and Sustainable
Growth Strategy. The Spatial Option acknowledges the need to recognise and reflect
investment/economic benefits and opportunities, seeks to be community led, and will aim to
allocate development in a sustainable way.
2.2. Whilst we are broadly supportive of the preferred Spatial Option, we feel that it needs to be
more explicit in stating that the strategy needs to align with the ambitious economic
aspirations of the plan.
2.3. At present, we do not feel that this is reflected in the proposed Spatial Option and, therefore,
it has not been fully justified in the context of the Council's economic growth ambitions.
2.4. We would stress that this does not require wholesale changes to the proposed Spatial Option
as this could still be community led and the delivery of sustainable development should be
at the heart of all Plan strategies. However, we would wish to see it reflect the Council's
ambitious economic growth aspirations and acknowledge that this will influence the spatial
distribution of development.
R002 | CE | April 2023 4
3. A New Strategy (Chapter 9)
3.1. We are broadly supportive of the Plan's ambitions to deliver economic growth and an uplifted
housing requirement to support this. However, the perceived reduced importance of
delivering the Council's ambitious economic growth targets within the Preferred Spatial
Option has manifested in what we consider to be an ineffective Plan Strategy.
3.2. This is because the Second Deposit Revised LDP seeks to take a balanced approach to the
distribution of housing supply (paragraph 9.4), despite the fact that it will be reliant on only
a few key centres to deliver the vast majority of the economic growth it aspires to (namely,
Llanelli, Ammanford/Cross Hands and Carmarthen).
3.3. We accept that growth will need to come forward at all levels of the settlement hierarchy
(including rural areas) to support the vitality and viability of the diverse communities across
the county. However, the Plan's focus on delivering economic growth and a balanced
approach to the distribution of development are unlikely to be an effective combination in
meeting the plan's aspirations.
3.4. The plan acknowledges that the Tier 1 settlements are the strongest economic drivers from
a market demand and delivery perspective and states that they will receive an "appropriate
proportion" of the anticipated growth. However, this should be quantified within the plan
(which it is not at present) alongside the level of housing and other types of development
needed to be delivered in conjunction with it.
3.5. The Plan Strategy needs to be more realistic in acknowledging that it cannot rely on lower
order settlements and rural areas to deliver the economic growth it aspires to and that the
Tier 1 settlements will likely need to play a greater role than is currently identified.
3.6. It also needs to acknowledge that employment sites will only come forward where they have
access to good services, facilities and infrastructure. Furthermore, they will also need to be
accessible for the local/regional labour market.
3.7. It is, therefore, essential that the Plan identifies the supporting development and
infrastructure that needs to be delivered alongside employment sites in order to stimulate
investment and economic growth. The plan currently fails to do this, and this has resulted in
deficient policies which are discussed further below.
R002 | CE | April 2023 5
4. Policy SP1: Strategic Growth and Policy SP4: A
Sustainable Approach to Providing New Homes
4.1. As stated above, we support the Council's decision to deliver a higher quantum of dwellings
over the plan period to align with the Council's economic growth ambitions. We support the
proposed 10% flexibility applied to the housing requirement as this will provide a reasonable
(albeit not optimal) level of flexibility to improve the prospects of meeting the minimum
housing requirement.
4.2. However, we question why this has been reduced from the 15% flexibility applied in the First
Deposit Revised LDP. This is particularly important in the context where one of the reserve
sites under Policy SG2 has been removed.
4.3. In addition, we are not convinced the distribution of housing has been properly justified in
the context of the ambition to deliver higher levels of economic growth. Our principal concern
is that the ambitions to deliver economic growth will be jeopardised by the balanced
approach to distributing growth across the county.
4.4. This has, in turn, resulted in a distribution pattern that does not appear to appreciate the
importance of the spatial relationship between employment growth and housing delivery as
they support the delivery of one another.
4.5. In simple terms, the distribution strategy does not take a realistic view of the capacity of
lower order settlements to deliver economic growth, relative to the Tier 1 settlements and
has, accordingly, failed to allocate a sufficient level of housing in close proximity to key
employment areas.
4.6. It is important for housing to be delivered in close proximity to key employment areas for a
number of reasons. Two particularly pertinent reasons are as follows:
1. It encourages commuting via alternative modes of transport to the private motor
vehicle in the interests of sustainability and mitigating impacts on climate change;
2. Housing delivery creates a critical mass and local workforce which stimulates
investment and job creation.
4.7. Policies SP1 and SP4 (including their supporting text) need to clearly justify the overall
quantum of development to be delivered at each settlement tier and then explain how it will
be distributed to support the economic aspirations of the plan, alongside its sustainability
and community aspirations. Its failure to do so at present is a significant deficiency with the
plan that needs to be addressed.
R002 | CE | April 2023 6
5. Strategic Policy SP3: Sustainable Distribution –
Settlement Framework
5.1. Policy SP3 sets out the settlement hierarchy and settlement clusters. We largely agree with
the structure and support the Ammanford/Cross Hands area being included within the first
tier – Principal Settlements.
5.2. We also agree with the assertion that growth and development will be directed to sustainable
locations in accordance with the spatial framework; however, as mentioned above, we have
some reservations with how this has been implemented.
5.3. Whilst we note that the highest proportion of development is due to be delivered at the Tier
1 settlements (a principle we support), we consider that too great a proportion of growth has
been allocated to lower order settlements. As stated above, the Plan is unrealistic in the way
it proposes to distribute growth to deliver its economic aspirations and the allocation of
housing sites to support this is also unsuitable as a result.
5.4. If the Plan is serious about delivering economic growth, sustainable development and
mitigating its impacts on the environment to combat climate change, then it needs to rethink
its distribution framework and allocate higher levels of development to the Tier 1
settlements.
R002 | CE | April 2023 7
6. Policy SD1: Development Limits
6.1. This policy states that development within the identified development of Tier 1-3 settlements
will be acceptable, provided that they accord with other relevant policies of the LDP.
6.2. Whilst there are exceptions to this rule (for example, Policy HOM6), the policy does not set
out a scenario whereby development for traditional housing can come forward beyond the
development limits. This will be problematic in circumstances where the Council's housing
delivery fails to keep pace with their proposed annual requirement.
6.3. Whilst we support the principle of identifying specific sites to meet the development needs
of the district within the LDP to guard against excessive unplanned development, Local Plans
still need to be sufficiently flexible to ensure that housing and other types of development
can come forward to meet the needs of the population. This is especially important in
situations when delivery does not match up with the plan's target levels of growth. This could
be due to any number of reasons, from deficiencies with the plan, unforeseen technical issues
affecting the delivery of certain sites or broader macro-economic factors.
6.4. We note the identification of Reserve Sites (Policy SG2) and acknowledge that this will go
some way to securing supply in the event allocated sites cannot come forward albeit one of
the reserve sites has been removed from the Second Deposit Revised LDP over the Revised
Deposit version. However, we would question whether this is a sufficiently flexible approach
that will help to guarantee the delivery of the plan's housing requirement. We note that the
delivery of a reserve site will need to be subject to a masterplanning exercise. This
requirement is something that would potentially delay its delivery and prevent it from
addressing a specific need (e.g. housing shortfall) in a timely manner.
6.5. As such, we consider that this policy should incorporate wording to allow for development in
sustainable locations that would otherwise comply with the relevant policies of the LDP in
the event that the supply and delivery of housing failed to keep pace with the Local Plan
Housing Requirement (i.e. the absence of a five-year supply of housing land).
6.6. We would suggest additional wording to the policy to make it clear to prospective applicants
when it would be acceptable to propose development on unallocated sites. This would
provide certainty and allow for windfall sites to come forward in accordance with the LDP to
meet shortfalls when they arise.
6.7. We acknowledge that the plan has attempted to plan positively for housing growth in
particular and sought to incorporate measures to secure this (10% buffer to the housing
requirement (albeit reduced from 15%) and the identification of reserve sites) over the plan
period. However, we consider that policy SD1 should incorporate additional flexibility to allow
development to come forward under certain circumstances (as specified above) in order the
ensure the plan can remain as effective as possible for its duration.
R002 | CE | April 2023 8
7. Land to the south of Penygroes Road, Gorslas,
Llanelli
7.1. As stated in the Introduction, the Co-op controls an area of land to the south of Penygroes
Road, Gorslas comprising a number of fields which cover an area of around 6.5ha and would
be capable of delivering c. 120 dwellings.
7.2. Vehicular access could be taken from the B4556 to the east with an emergency/pedestrian
access being taken from the north via an existing driveway/access.
7.3. The Site is well related to development around the 6-way junction along the A476 which is
home to a number of services and facilities that would meet the day to day needs of future
residents.
7.4. The Site is also well related to existing and future large-scale employment and commercial
development areas at Cross Hands.
7.5. The Site's proximity to these services, facilities and employment opportunities would reduce
the reliance on the private motor vehicle to meet the day to day needs of future residents
and would encourage the use of active modes of travel such as walking and cycling.
7.6. The Site is free from any land use allocation or other designations that would otherwise
constrain development; it could be made available for development in the short-term and
be built out comfortably within a five-year time frame once detailed planning permission is
granted.
R002 | CE | April 2023 9
8. Integrated Sustainability Appraisal
8.1. Our representations to the Deposit LDP in March 2020 included an assessment of the
sustainability of the Site with regard to the guidance available at that time. Since then, the
Council has published an Integrated Sustainability Appraisal (ISA) document for consultation
alongside the Second Deposit LDP.
8.2. Paragraph 1.7 of the ISA states that:
“The Council strongly advises that in responding to the Deposit rLDP, any relevant new,
site(s) proposed should be accompanied by an integrated Sustainability Appraisal
(incorporating Strategic Environmental Assessment). A site not subject to ISA is unlikely
to be considered suitable for allocation in the plan.”
8.3. As a result, we have provided an assessment of the sustainability of the Site against this
updated criteria in the below table.
8.4. As shown by our responses, the Site performs extremely well against the various elements of
the SA with only the fact that the Site is a greenfield site and may contain high carbon soils
being the only constraints affecting the Site's development.
9. Summary Representations
9.1. These representations have been submitted on behalf of the Co-op in respect of its land to
the south of Penygroes Road, Gorslas. The Co-op is promoting the Site for residential
development and consider it to be a sustainably located, deliverable and logical site for the
proposed use. The Co-op has a good track record of promoting sites for development and
working with developers and house builders to ensure that sites are sold on and deliverable.
It does not sit on sites or ‘land bank.’
9.2. Whilst we are broadly supportive of the economic aspirations of the LDP and agree with the
uplift to the housing requirement accordingly, we have reservations with the proposed
strategy to deliver this ambitions targets.
9.3. This is namely down to the following reasons:
 The Preferred Spatial Option and Plan Strategy appear to have diminished the
importance of delivering these said economic aspirations;
 They are unrealistic in their view that lower order settlements will be able to deliver the
currently proposed economic growth and role Tier 1 settlements will need to play has
been underestimated;
 There is a disconnect with the spatial distribution of employment development and
residential development and it is not clear how they will support the delivery of one
another; and
 The proposed flexibility measures notwithstanding, we consider that the plan should
include a policy to facilitate development beyond the defined settlement limits in the
case of severe plan failure.
9.4. We suspect that when the plan is reviewed in light of these issues, a higher proportion of
growth will be identified at the Tier 1 settlements and this will require additional housing
allocations to be included.
9.5. Our client's Site is available, deliverable and sustainably located. We have assessed it against
the Council's ISA template and it has performed very well with few minor issues. We would,
therefore, support a new policy allocating the Site for residential development in the final
version of the LDP.

Amend Plan

1. Introduction
1.1. Pegasus Group is instructed by the Co-operative Group (the ‘Co-op’) to submit
representations to the Carmarthenshire Second Deposit Revised LDP consultation.
1.2. The Co-op own a Site referred to as ‘Land south of Penygroes Road, Gorslas’ (the ‘Site') and
are promoting the Site for residential development. A copy of the Site Location Plan is
enclosed with a copy of these representations (Appendix 1) and the extent of the land is
shown below:
1.3. The Site comprises an area of c. 6.5ha and is considered to be capable of accommodating
approximately 120 dwellings.1
1.4. A call for sites form was submitted to the Council in August 2019 by Pegasus Group on behalf
of the Co-op. A copy of this submission is also appended to these representations
(Appendix 2).
1.5. Representations were submitted to the Deposit LDP in March 2020 and these are
resubmitted here and amended as necessary. The Site has not been included as a candidate
site in the Second Deposit Revised LDP and we consider that it should be included as a
residential allocation for the reasons given in these representations.
1 Assuming 30dph on 60% of the site.
R002 | CE | April 2023 2
Executive Summary
1.6. These representations respond directly to the following policies and paragraph references,
as set out in the Second Deposit Revised LDP:
 Preferred Spatial Option (Chapter 8);
 Paragraph 8.20;
 A New Strategy (Chapter 9);
 Policy SP1: Strategic Growth;
 Policy SP3: Sustainable Distribution – Settlement Framework;
 Policy SP4 – A sustainable Approach to Providing New Homes; and
 Policy SD1: Sustainable Distribution - Development Limits.
1.7. Our comments on the above policies would support a higher quantum of growth to the Tier
1 settlements in the interests of making the plan more effective in delivering its key aims and
more appropriate in terms of delivering sustainable development and mitigating its impact
on climate change.
1.8. This will, in turn, require the identification of additional sites for housing at these settlements
and we consider that the Site should be allocated for residential development as part of this
process, based on the updated sustainability appraisal we have undertaken using the
Integrated Sustainability Appraisal (ISA) template provided for developers. This
demonstrates that the Site is a sustainable, deliverable and logical location for housing.
R002 | CE | April 2023 3
2. Preferred Spatial Option (Chapter 8)
2.1. Paragraph 8.20 sets out the preferred Spatial Option and is unchanged from the Deposit
Draft LDP. The Option is stated as being a hybrid of a Balanced Community and Sustainable
Growth Strategy. The Spatial Option acknowledges the need to recognise and reflect
investment/economic benefits and opportunities, seeks to be community led, and will aim to
allocate development in a sustainable way.
2.2. Whilst we are broadly supportive of the preferred Spatial Option, we feel that it needs to be
more explicit in stating that the strategy needs to align with the ambitious economic
aspirations of the plan.
2.3. At present, we do not feel that this is reflected in the proposed Spatial Option and, therefore,
it has not been fully justified in the context of the Council's economic growth ambitions.
2.4. We would stress that this does not require wholesale changes to the proposed Spatial Option
as this could still be community led and the delivery of sustainable development should be
at the heart of all Plan strategies. However, we would wish to see it reflect the Council's
ambitious economic growth aspirations and acknowledge that this will influence the spatial
distribution of development.
R002 | CE | April 2023 4
3. A New Strategy (Chapter 9)
3.1. We are broadly supportive of the Plan's ambitions to deliver economic growth and an uplifted
housing requirement to support this. However, the perceived reduced importance of
delivering the Council's ambitious economic growth targets within the Preferred Spatial
Option has manifested in what we consider to be an ineffective Plan Strategy.
3.2. This is because the Second Deposit Revised LDP seeks to take a balanced approach to the
distribution of housing supply (paragraph 9.4), despite the fact that it will be reliant on only
a few key centres to deliver the vast majority of the economic growth it aspires to (namely,
Llanelli, Ammanford/Cross Hands and Carmarthen).
3.3. We accept that growth will need to come forward at all levels of the settlement hierarchy
(including rural areas) to support the vitality and viability of the diverse communities across
the county. However, the Plan's focus on delivering economic growth and a balanced
approach to the distribution of development are unlikely to be an effective combination in
meeting the plan's aspirations.
3.4. The plan acknowledges that the Tier 1 settlements are the strongest economic drivers from
a market demand and delivery perspective and states that they will receive an "appropriate
proportion" of the anticipated growth. However, this should be quantified within the plan
(which it is not at present) alongside the level of housing and other types of development
needed to be delivered in conjunction with it.
3.5. The Plan Strategy needs to be more realistic in acknowledging that it cannot rely on lower
order settlements and rural areas to deliver the economic growth it aspires to and that the
Tier 1 settlements will likely need to play a greater role than is currently identified.
3.6. It also needs to acknowledge that employment sites will only come forward where they have
access to good services, facilities and infrastructure. Furthermore, they will also need to be
accessible for the local/regional labour market.
3.7. It is, therefore, essential that the Plan identifies the supporting development and
infrastructure that needs to be delivered alongside employment sites in order to stimulate
investment and economic growth. The plan currently fails to do this, and this has resulted in
deficient policies which are discussed further below.
R002 | CE | April 2023 5
4. Policy SP1: Strategic Growth and Policy SP4: A
Sustainable Approach to Providing New Homes
4.1. As stated above, we support the Council's decision to deliver a higher quantum of dwellings
over the plan period to align with the Council's economic growth ambitions. We support the
proposed 10% flexibility applied to the housing requirement as this will provide a reasonable
(albeit not optimal) level of flexibility to improve the prospects of meeting the minimum
housing requirement.
4.2. However, we question why this has been reduced from the 15% flexibility applied in the First
Deposit Revised LDP. This is particularly important in the context where one of the reserve
sites under Policy SG2 has been removed.
4.3. In addition, we are not convinced the distribution of housing has been properly justified in
the context of the ambition to deliver higher levels of economic growth. Our principal concern
is that the ambitions to deliver economic growth will be jeopardised by the balanced
approach to distributing growth across the county.
4.4. This has, in turn, resulted in a distribution pattern that does not appear to appreciate the
importance of the spatial relationship between employment growth and housing delivery as
they support the delivery of one another.
4.5. In simple terms, the distribution strategy does not take a realistic view of the capacity of
lower order settlements to deliver economic growth, relative to the Tier 1 settlements and
has, accordingly, failed to allocate a sufficient level of housing in close proximity to key
employment areas.
4.6. It is important for housing to be delivered in close proximity to key employment areas for a
number of reasons. Two particularly pertinent reasons are as follows:
1. It encourages commuting via alternative modes of transport to the private motor
vehicle in the interests of sustainability and mitigating impacts on climate change;
2. Housing delivery creates a critical mass and local workforce which stimulates
investment and job creation.
4.7. Policies SP1 and SP4 (including their supporting text) need to clearly justify the overall
quantum of development to be delivered at each settlement tier and then explain how it will
be distributed to support the economic aspirations of the plan, alongside its sustainability
and community aspirations. Its failure to do so at present is a significant deficiency with the
plan that needs to be addressed.
R002 | CE | April 2023 6
5. Strategic Policy SP3: Sustainable Distribution –
Settlement Framework
5.1. Policy SP3 sets out the settlement hierarchy and settlement clusters. We largely agree with
the structure and support the Ammanford/Cross Hands area being included within the first
tier – Principal Settlements.
5.2. We also agree with the assertion that growth and development will be directed to sustainable
locations in accordance with the spatial framework; however, as mentioned above, we have
some reservations with how this has been implemented.
5.3. Whilst we note that the highest proportion of development is due to be delivered at the Tier
1 settlements (a principle we support), we consider that too great a proportion of growth has
been allocated to lower order settlements. As stated above, the Plan is unrealistic in the way
it proposes to distribute growth to deliver its economic aspirations and the allocation of
housing sites to support this is also unsuitable as a result.
5.4. If the Plan is serious about delivering economic growth, sustainable development and
mitigating its impacts on the environment to combat climate change, then it needs to rethink
its distribution framework and allocate higher levels of development to the Tier 1
settlements.
R002 | CE | April 2023 7
6. Policy SD1: Development Limits
6.1. This policy states that development within the identified development of Tier 1-3 settlements
will be acceptable, provided that they accord with other relevant policies of the LDP.
6.2. Whilst there are exceptions to this rule (for example, Policy HOM6), the policy does not set
out a scenario whereby development for traditional housing can come forward beyond the
development limits. This will be problematic in circumstances where the Council's housing
delivery fails to keep pace with their proposed annual requirement.
6.3. Whilst we support the principle of identifying specific sites to meet the development needs
of the district within the LDP to guard against excessive unplanned development, Local Plans
still need to be sufficiently flexible to ensure that housing and other types of development
can come forward to meet the needs of the population. This is especially important in
situations when delivery does not match up with the plan's target levels of growth. This could
be due to any number of reasons, from deficiencies with the plan, unforeseen technical issues
affecting the delivery of certain sites or broader macro-economic factors.
6.4. We note the identification of Reserve Sites (Policy SG2) and acknowledge that this will go
some way to securing supply in the event allocated sites cannot come forward albeit one of
the reserve sites has been removed from the Second Deposit Revised LDP over the Revised
Deposit version. However, we would question whether this is a sufficiently flexible approach
that will help to guarantee the delivery of the plan's housing requirement. We note that the
delivery of a reserve site will need to be subject to a masterplanning exercise. This
requirement is something that would potentially delay its delivery and prevent it from
addressing a specific need (e.g. housing shortfall) in a timely manner.
6.5. As such, we consider that this policy should incorporate wording to allow for development in
sustainable locations that would otherwise comply with the relevant policies of the LDP in
the event that the supply and delivery of housing failed to keep pace with the Local Plan
Housing Requirement (i.e. the absence of a five-year supply of housing land).
6.6. We would suggest additional wording to the policy to make it clear to prospective applicants
when it would be acceptable to propose development on unallocated sites. This would
provide certainty and allow for windfall sites to come forward in accordance with the LDP to
meet shortfalls when they arise.
6.7. We acknowledge that the plan has attempted to plan positively for housing growth in
particular and sought to incorporate measures to secure this (10% buffer to the housing
requirement (albeit reduced from 15%) and the identification of reserve sites) over the plan
period. However, we consider that policy SD1 should incorporate additional flexibility to allow
development to come forward under certain circumstances (as specified above) in order the
ensure the plan can remain as effective as possible for its duration.
R002 | CE | April 2023 8
7. Land to the south of Penygroes Road, Gorslas,
Llanelli
7.1. As stated in the Introduction, the Co-op controls an area of land to the south of Penygroes
Road, Gorslas comprising a number of fields which cover an area of around 6.5ha and would
be capable of delivering c. 120 dwellings.
7.2. Vehicular access could be taken from the B4556 to the east with an emergency/pedestrian
access being taken from the north via an existing driveway/access.
7.3. The Site is well related to development around the 6-way junction along the A476 which is
home to a number of services and facilities that would meet the day to day needs of future
residents.
7.4. The Site is also well related to existing and future large-scale employment and commercial
development areas at Cross Hands.
7.5. The Site's proximity to these services, facilities and employment opportunities would reduce
the reliance on the private motor vehicle to meet the day to day needs of future residents
and would encourage the use of active modes of travel such as walking and cycling.
7.6. The Site is free from any land use allocation or other designations that would otherwise
constrain development; it could be made available for development in the short-term and
be built out comfortably within a five-year time frame once detailed planning permission is
granted.
R002 | CE | April 2023 9
8. Integrated Sustainability Appraisal
8.1. Our representations to the Deposit LDP in March 2020 included an assessment of the
sustainability of the Site with regard to the guidance available at that time. Since then, the
Council has published an Integrated Sustainability Appraisal (ISA) document for consultation
alongside the Second Deposit LDP.
8.2. Paragraph 1.7 of the ISA states that:
“The Council strongly advises that in responding to the Deposit rLDP, any relevant new,
site(s) proposed should be accompanied by an integrated Sustainability Appraisal
(incorporating Strategic Environmental Assessment). A site not subject to ISA is unlikely
to be considered suitable for allocation in the plan.”
8.3. As a result, we have provided an assessment of the sustainability of the Site against this
updated criteria in the below table.
8.4. As shown by our responses, the Site performs extremely well against the various elements of
the SA with only the fact that the Site is a greenfield site and may contain high carbon soils
being the only constraints affecting the Site's development.
9. Summary Representations
9.1. These representations have been submitted on behalf of the Co-op in respect of its land to
the south of Penygroes Road, Gorslas. The Co-op is promoting the Site for residential
development and consider it to be a sustainably located, deliverable and logical site for the
proposed use. The Co-op has a good track record of promoting sites for development and
working with developers and house builders to ensure that sites are sold on and deliverable.
It does not sit on sites or ‘land bank.’
9.2. Whilst we are broadly supportive of the economic aspirations of the LDP and agree with the
uplift to the housing requirement accordingly, we have reservations with the proposed
strategy to deliver this ambitions targets.
9.3. This is namely down to the following reasons:
 The Preferred Spatial Option and Plan Strategy appear to have diminished the
importance of delivering these said economic aspirations;
 They are unrealistic in their view that lower order settlements will be able to deliver the
currently proposed economic growth and role Tier 1 settlements will need to play has
been underestimated;
 There is a disconnect with the spatial distribution of employment development and
residential development and it is not clear how they will support the delivery of one
another; and
 The proposed flexibility measures notwithstanding, we consider that the plan should
include a policy to facilitate development beyond the defined settlement limits in the
case of severe plan failure.
9.4. We suspect that when the plan is reviewed in light of these issues, a higher proportion of
growth will be identified at the Tier 1 settlements and this will require additional housing
allocations to be included.
9.5. Our client's Site is available, deliverable and sustainably located. We have assessed it against
the Council's ISA template and it has performed very well with few minor issues. We would,
therefore, support a new policy allocating the Site for residential development in the final
version of the LDP.

Amend policy within the Plan

1. Introduction
1.1. Pegasus Group is instructed by the Co-operative Group (the ‘Co-op’) to submit
representations to the Carmarthenshire Second Deposit Revised LDP consultation.
1.2. The Co-op own a Site referred to as ‘Land south of Penygroes Road, Gorslas’ (the ‘Site') and
are promoting the Site for residential development. A copy of the Site Location Plan is
enclosed with a copy of these representations (Appendix 1) and the extent of the land is
shown below:
1.3. The Site comprises an area of c. 6.5ha and is considered to be capable of accommodating
approximately 120 dwellings.1
1.4. A call for sites form was submitted to the Council in August 2019 by Pegasus Group on behalf
of the Co-op. A copy of this submission is also appended to these representations
(Appendix 2).
1.5. Representations were submitted to the Deposit LDP in March 2020 and these are
resubmitted here and amended as necessary. The Site has not been included as a candidate
site in the Second Deposit Revised LDP and we consider that it should be included as a
residential allocation for the reasons given in these representations.
1 Assuming 30dph on 60% of the site.
R002 | CE | April 2023 2
Executive Summary
1.6. These representations respond directly to the following policies and paragraph references,
as set out in the Second Deposit Revised LDP:
 Preferred Spatial Option (Chapter 8);
 Paragraph 8.20;
 A New Strategy (Chapter 9);
 Policy SP1: Strategic Growth;
 Policy SP3: Sustainable Distribution – Settlement Framework;
 Policy SP4 – A sustainable Approach to Providing New Homes; and
 Policy SD1: Sustainable Distribution - Development Limits.
1.7. Our comments on the above policies would support a higher quantum of growth to the Tier
1 settlements in the interests of making the plan more effective in delivering its key aims and
more appropriate in terms of delivering sustainable development and mitigating its impact
on climate change.
1.8. This will, in turn, require the identification of additional sites for housing at these settlements
and we consider that the Site should be allocated for residential development as part of this
process, based on the updated sustainability appraisal we have undertaken using the
Integrated Sustainability Appraisal (ISA) template provided for developers. This
demonstrates that the Site is a sustainable, deliverable and logical location for housing.
R002 | CE | April 2023 3
2. Preferred Spatial Option (Chapter 8)
2.1. Paragraph 8.20 sets out the preferred Spatial Option and is unchanged from the Deposit
Draft LDP. The Option is stated as being a hybrid of a Balanced Community and Sustainable
Growth Strategy. The Spatial Option acknowledges the need to recognise and reflect
investment/economic benefits and opportunities, seeks to be community led, and will aim to
allocate development in a sustainable way.
2.2. Whilst we are broadly supportive of the preferred Spatial Option, we feel that it needs to be
more explicit in stating that the strategy needs to align with the ambitious economic
aspirations of the plan.
2.3. At present, we do not feel that this is reflected in the proposed Spatial Option and, therefore,
it has not been fully justified in the context of the Council's economic growth ambitions.
2.4. We would stress that this does not require wholesale changes to the proposed Spatial Option
as this could still be community led and the delivery of sustainable development should be
at the heart of all Plan strategies. However, we would wish to see it reflect the Council's
ambitious economic growth aspirations and acknowledge that this will influence the spatial
distribution of development.
R002 | CE | April 2023 4
3. A New Strategy (Chapter 9)
3.1. We are broadly supportive of the Plan's ambitions to deliver economic growth and an uplifted
housing requirement to support this. However, the perceived reduced importance of
delivering the Council's ambitious economic growth targets within the Preferred Spatial
Option has manifested in what we consider to be an ineffective Plan Strategy.
3.2. This is because the Second Deposit Revised LDP seeks to take a balanced approach to the
distribution of housing supply (paragraph 9.4), despite the fact that it will be reliant on only
a few key centres to deliver the vast majority of the economic growth it aspires to (namely,
Llanelli, Ammanford/Cross Hands and Carmarthen).
3.3. We accept that growth will need to come forward at all levels of the settlement hierarchy
(including rural areas) to support the vitality and viability of the diverse communities across
the county. However, the Plan's focus on delivering economic growth and a balanced
approach to the distribution of development are unlikely to be an effective combination in
meeting the plan's aspirations.
3.4. The plan acknowledges that the Tier 1 settlements are the strongest economic drivers from
a market demand and delivery perspective and states that they will receive an "appropriate
proportion" of the anticipated growth. However, this should be quantified within the plan
(which it is not at present) alongside the level of housing and other types of development
needed to be delivered in conjunction with it.
3.5. The Plan Strategy needs to be more realistic in acknowledging that it cannot rely on lower
order settlements and rural areas to deliver the economic growth it aspires to and that the
Tier 1 settlements will likely need to play a greater role than is currently identified.
3.6. It also needs to acknowledge that employment sites will only come forward where they have
access to good services, facilities and infrastructure. Furthermore, they will also need to be
accessible for the local/regional labour market.
3.7. It is, therefore, essential that the Plan identifies the supporting development and
infrastructure that needs to be delivered alongside employment sites in order to stimulate
investment and economic growth. The plan currently fails to do this, and this has resulted in
deficient policies which are discussed further below.
R002 | CE | April 2023 5
4. Policy SP1: Strategic Growth and Policy SP4: A
Sustainable Approach to Providing New Homes
4.1. As stated above, we support the Council's decision to deliver a higher quantum of dwellings
over the plan period to align with the Council's economic growth ambitions. We support the
proposed 10% flexibility applied to the housing requirement as this will provide a reasonable
(albeit not optimal) level of flexibility to improve the prospects of meeting the minimum
housing requirement.
4.2. However, we question why this has been reduced from the 15% flexibility applied in the First
Deposit Revised LDP. This is particularly important in the context where one of the reserve
sites under Policy SG2 has been removed.
4.3. In addition, we are not convinced the distribution of housing has been properly justified in
the context of the ambition to deliver higher levels of economic growth. Our principal concern
is that the ambitions to deliver economic growth will be jeopardised by the balanced
approach to distributing growth across the county.
4.4. This has, in turn, resulted in a distribution pattern that does not appear to appreciate the
importance of the spatial relationship between employment growth and housing delivery as
they support the delivery of one another.
4.5. In simple terms, the distribution strategy does not take a realistic view of the capacity of
lower order settlements to deliver economic growth, relative to the Tier 1 settlements and
has, accordingly, failed to allocate a sufficient level of housing in close proximity to key
employment areas.
4.6. It is important for housing to be delivered in close proximity to key employment areas for a
number of reasons. Two particularly pertinent reasons are as follows:
1. It encourages commuting via alternative modes of transport to the private motor
vehicle in the interests of sustainability and mitigating impacts on climate change;
2. Housing delivery creates a critical mass and local workforce which stimulates
investment and job creation.
4.7. Policies SP1 and SP4 (including their supporting text) need to clearly justify the overall
quantum of development to be delivered at each settlement tier and then explain how it will
be distributed to support the economic aspirations of the plan, alongside its sustainability
and community aspirations. Its failure to do so at present is a significant deficiency with the
plan that needs to be addressed.
R002 | CE | April 2023 6
5. Strategic Policy SP3: Sustainable Distribution –
Settlement Framework
5.1. Policy SP3 sets out the settlement hierarchy and settlement clusters. We largely agree with
the structure and support the Ammanford/Cross Hands area being included within the first
tier – Principal Settlements.
5.2. We also agree with the assertion that growth and development will be directed to sustainable
locations in accordance with the spatial framework; however, as mentioned above, we have
some reservations with how this has been implemented.
5.3. Whilst we note that the highest proportion of development is due to be delivered at the Tier
1 settlements (a principle we support), we consider that too great a proportion of growth has
been allocated to lower order settlements. As stated above, the Plan is unrealistic in the way
it proposes to distribute growth to deliver its economic aspirations and the allocation of
housing sites to support this is also unsuitable as a result.
5.4. If the Plan is serious about delivering economic growth, sustainable development and
mitigating its impacts on the environment to combat climate change, then it needs to rethink
its distribution framework and allocate higher levels of development to the Tier 1
settlements.
R002 | CE | April 2023 7
6. Policy SD1: Development Limits
6.1. This policy states that development within the identified development of Tier 1-3 settlements
will be acceptable, provided that they accord with other relevant policies of the LDP.
6.2. Whilst there are exceptions to this rule (for example, Policy HOM6), the policy does not set
out a scenario whereby development for traditional housing can come forward beyond the
development limits. This will be problematic in circumstances where the Council's housing
delivery fails to keep pace with their proposed annual requirement.
6.3. Whilst we support the principle of identifying specific sites to meet the development needs
of the district within the LDP to guard against excessive unplanned development, Local Plans
still need to be sufficiently flexible to ensure that housing and other types of development
can come forward to meet the needs of the population. This is especially important in
situations when delivery does not match up with the plan's target levels of growth. This could
be due to any number of reasons, from deficiencies with the plan, unforeseen technical issues
affecting the delivery of certain sites or broader macro-economic factors.
6.4. We note the identification of Reserve Sites (Policy SG2) and acknowledge that this will go
some way to securing supply in the event allocated sites cannot come forward albeit one of
the reserve sites has been removed from the Second Deposit Revised LDP over the Revised
Deposit version. However, we would question whether this is a sufficiently flexible approach
that will help to guarantee the delivery of the plan's housing requirement. We note that the
delivery of a reserve site will need to be subject to a masterplanning exercise. This
requirement is something that would potentially delay its delivery and prevent it from
addressing a specific need (e.g. housing shortfall) in a timely manner.
6.5. As such, we consider that this policy should incorporate wording to allow for development in
sustainable locations that would otherwise comply with the relevant policies of the LDP in
the event that the supply and delivery of housing failed to keep pace with the Local Plan
Housing Requirement (i.e. the absence of a five-year supply of housing land).
6.6. We would suggest additional wording to the policy to make it clear to prospective applicants
when it would be acceptable to propose development on unallocated sites. This would
provide certainty and allow for windfall sites to come forward in accordance with the LDP to
meet shortfalls when they arise.
6.7. We acknowledge that the plan has attempted to plan positively for housing growth in
particular and sought to incorporate measures to secure this (10% buffer to the housing
requirement (albeit reduced from 15%) and the identification of reserve sites) over the plan
period. However, we consider that policy SD1 should incorporate additional flexibility to allow
development to come forward under certain circumstances (as specified above) in order the
ensure the plan can remain as effective as possible for its duration.
R002 | CE | April 2023 8
7. Land to the south of Penygroes Road, Gorslas,
Llanelli
7.1. As stated in the Introduction, the Co-op controls an area of land to the south of Penygroes
Road, Gorslas comprising a number of fields which cover an area of around 6.5ha and would
be capable of delivering c. 120 dwellings.
7.2. Vehicular access could be taken from the B4556 to the east with an emergency/pedestrian
access being taken from the north via an existing driveway/access.
7.3. The Site is well related to development around the 6-way junction along the A476 which is
home to a number of services and facilities that would meet the day to day needs of future
residents.
7.4. The Site is also well related to existing and future large-scale employment and commercial
development areas at Cross Hands.
7.5. The Site's proximity to these services, facilities and employment opportunities would reduce
the reliance on the private motor vehicle to meet the day to day needs of future residents
and would encourage the use of active modes of travel such as walking and cycling.
7.6. The Site is free from any land use allocation or other designations that would otherwise
constrain development; it could be made available for development in the short-term and
be built out comfortably within a five-year time frame once detailed planning permission is
granted.
R002 | CE | April 2023 9
8. Integrated Sustainability Appraisal
8.1. Our representations to the Deposit LDP in March 2020 included an assessment of the
sustainability of the Site with regard to the guidance available at that time. Since then, the
Council has published an Integrated Sustainability Appraisal (ISA) document for consultation
alongside the Second Deposit LDP.
8.2. Paragraph 1.7 of the ISA states that:
“The Council strongly advises that in responding to the Deposit rLDP, any relevant new,
site(s) proposed should be accompanied by an integrated Sustainability Appraisal
(incorporating Strategic Environmental Assessment). A site not subject to ISA is unlikely
to be considered suitable for allocation in the plan.”
8.3. As a result, we have provided an assessment of the sustainability of the Site against this
updated criteria in the below table.
8.4. As shown by our responses, the Site performs extremely well against the various elements of
the SA with only the fact that the Site is a greenfield site and may contain high carbon soils
being the only constraints affecting the Site's development.
9. Summary Representations
9.1. These representations have been submitted on behalf of the Co-op in respect of its land to
the south of Penygroes Road, Gorslas. The Co-op is promoting the Site for residential
development and consider it to be a sustainably located, deliverable and logical site for the
proposed use. The Co-op has a good track record of promoting sites for development and
working with developers and house builders to ensure that sites are sold on and deliverable.
It does not sit on sites or ‘land bank.’
9.2. Whilst we are broadly supportive of the economic aspirations of the LDP and agree with the
uplift to the housing requirement accordingly, we have reservations with the proposed
strategy to deliver this ambitions targets.
9.3. This is namely down to the following reasons:
 The Preferred Spatial Option and Plan Strategy appear to have diminished the
importance of delivering these said economic aspirations;
 They are unrealistic in their view that lower order settlements will be able to deliver the
currently proposed economic growth and role Tier 1 settlements will need to play has
been underestimated;
 There is a disconnect with the spatial distribution of employment development and
residential development and it is not clear how they will support the delivery of one
another; and
 The proposed flexibility measures notwithstanding, we consider that the plan should
include a policy to facilitate development beyond the defined settlement limits in the
case of severe plan failure.
9.4. We suspect that when the plan is reviewed in light of these issues, a higher proportion of
growth will be identified at the Tier 1 settlements and this will require additional housing
allocations to be included.
9.5. Our client's Site is available, deliverable and sustainably located. We have assessed it against
the Council's ISA template and it has performed very well with few minor issues. We would,
therefore, support a new policy allocating the Site for residential development in the final
version of the LDP.

Include new site within the Plan

1. Introduction
1.1. Pegasus Group is instructed by the Co-operative Group (the ‘Co-op’) to submit
representations to the Carmarthenshire Second Deposit Revised LDP consultation.
1.2. The Co-op own a Site referred to as ‘Land south of Penygroes Road, Gorslas’ (the ‘Site') and
are promoting the Site for residential development. A copy of the Site Location Plan is
enclosed with a copy of these representations (Appendix 1) and the extent of the land is
shown below:
1.3. The Site comprises an area of c. 6.5ha and is considered to be capable of accommodating
approximately 120 dwellings.1
1.4. A call for sites form was submitted to the Council in August 2019 by Pegasus Group on behalf
of the Co-op. A copy of this submission is also appended to these representations
(Appendix 2).
1.5. Representations were submitted to the Deposit LDP in March 2020 and these are
resubmitted here and amended as necessary. The Site has not been included as a candidate
site in the Second Deposit Revised LDP and we consider that it should be included as a
residential allocation for the reasons given in these representations.
1 Assuming 30dph on 60% of the site.
R002 | CE | April 2023 2
Executive Summary
1.6. These representations respond directly to the following policies and paragraph references,
as set out in the Second Deposit Revised LDP:
 Preferred Spatial Option (Chapter 8);
 Paragraph 8.20;
 A New Strategy (Chapter 9);
 Policy SP1: Strategic Growth;
 Policy SP3: Sustainable Distribution – Settlement Framework;
 Policy SP4 – A sustainable Approach to Providing New Homes; and
 Policy SD1: Sustainable Distribution - Development Limits.
1.7. Our comments on the above policies would support a higher quantum of growth to the Tier
1 settlements in the interests of making the plan more effective in delivering its key aims and
more appropriate in terms of delivering sustainable development and mitigating its impact
on climate change.
1.8. This will, in turn, require the identification of additional sites for housing at these settlements
and we consider that the Site should be allocated for residential development as part of this
process, based on the updated sustainability appraisal we have undertaken using the
Integrated Sustainability Appraisal (ISA) template provided for developers. This
demonstrates that the Site is a sustainable, deliverable and logical location for housing.
R002 | CE | April 2023 3
2. Preferred Spatial Option (Chapter 8)
2.1. Paragraph 8.20 sets out the preferred Spatial Option and is unchanged from the Deposit
Draft LDP. The Option is stated as being a hybrid of a Balanced Community and Sustainable
Growth Strategy. The Spatial Option acknowledges the need to recognise and reflect
investment/economic benefits and opportunities, seeks to be community led, and will aim to
allocate development in a sustainable way.
2.2. Whilst we are broadly supportive of the preferred Spatial Option, we feel that it needs to be
more explicit in stating that the strategy needs to align with the ambitious economic
aspirations of the plan.
2.3. At present, we do not feel that this is reflected in the proposed Spatial Option and, therefore,
it has not been fully justified in the context of the Council's economic growth ambitions.
2.4. We would stress that this does not require wholesale changes to the proposed Spatial Option
as this could still be community led and the delivery of sustainable development should be
at the heart of all Plan strategies. However, we would wish to see it reflect the Council's
ambitious economic growth aspirations and acknowledge that this will influence the spatial
distribution of development.
R002 | CE | April 2023 4
3. A New Strategy (Chapter 9)
3.1. We are broadly supportive of the Plan's ambitions to deliver economic growth and an uplifted
housing requirement to support this. However, the perceived reduced importance of
delivering the Council's ambitious economic growth targets within the Preferred Spatial
Option has manifested in what we consider to be an ineffective Plan Strategy.
3.2. This is because the Second Deposit Revised LDP seeks to take a balanced approach to the
distribution of housing supply (paragraph 9.4), despite the fact that it will be reliant on only
a few key centres to deliver the vast majority of the economic growth it aspires to (namely,
Llanelli, Ammanford/Cross Hands and Carmarthen).
3.3. We accept that growth will need to come forward at all levels of the settlement hierarchy
(including rural areas) to support the vitality and viability of the diverse communities across
the county. However, the Plan's focus on delivering economic growth and a balanced
approach to the distribution of development are unlikely to be an effective combination in
meeting the plan's aspirations.
3.4. The plan acknowledges that the Tier 1 settlements are the strongest economic drivers from
a market demand and delivery perspective and states that they will receive an "appropriate
proportion" of the anticipated growth. However, this should be quantified within the plan
(which it is not at present) alongside the level of housing and other types of development
needed to be delivered in conjunction with it.
3.5. The Plan Strategy needs to be more realistic in acknowledging that it cannot rely on lower
order settlements and rural areas to deliver the economic growth it aspires to and that the
Tier 1 settlements will likely need to play a greater role than is currently identified.
3.6. It also needs to acknowledge that employment sites will only come forward where they have
access to good services, facilities and infrastructure. Furthermore, they will also need to be
accessible for the local/regional labour market.
3.7. It is, therefore, essential that the Plan identifies the supporting development and
infrastructure that needs to be delivered alongside employment sites in order to stimulate
investment and economic growth. The plan currently fails to do this, and this has resulted in
deficient policies which are discussed further below.
R002 | CE | April 2023 5
4. Policy SP1: Strategic Growth and Policy SP4: A
Sustainable Approach to Providing New Homes
4.1. As stated above, we support the Council's decision to deliver a higher quantum of dwellings
over the plan period to align with the Council's economic growth ambitions. We support the
proposed 10% flexibility applied to the housing requirement as this will provide a reasonable
(albeit not optimal) level of flexibility to improve the prospects of meeting the minimum
housing requirement.
4.2. However, we question why this has been reduced from the 15% flexibility applied in the First
Deposit Revised LDP. This is particularly important in the context where one of the reserve
sites under Policy SG2 has been removed.
4.3. In addition, we are not convinced the distribution of housing has been properly justified in
the context of the ambition to deliver higher levels of economic growth. Our principal concern
is that the ambitions to deliver economic growth will be jeopardised by the balanced
approach to distributing growth across the county.
4.4. This has, in turn, resulted in a distribution pattern that does not appear to appreciate the
importance of the spatial relationship between employment growth and housing delivery as
they support the delivery of one another.
4.5. In simple terms, the distribution strategy does not take a realistic view of the capacity of
lower order settlements to deliver economic growth, relative to the Tier 1 settlements and
has, accordingly, failed to allocate a sufficient level of housing in close proximity to key
employment areas.
4.6. It is important for housing to be delivered in close proximity to key employment areas for a
number of reasons. Two particularly pertinent reasons are as follows:
1. It encourages commuting via alternative modes of transport to the private motor
vehicle in the interests of sustainability and mitigating impacts on climate change;
2. Housing delivery creates a critical mass and local workforce which stimulates
investment and job creation.
4.7. Policies SP1 and SP4 (including their supporting text) need to clearly justify the overall
quantum of development to be delivered at each settlement tier and then explain how it will
be distributed to support the economic aspirations of the plan, alongside its sustainability
and community aspirations. Its failure to do so at present is a significant deficiency with the
plan that needs to be addressed.
R002 | CE | April 2023 6
5. Strategic Policy SP3: Sustainable Distribution –
Settlement Framework
5.1. Policy SP3 sets out the settlement hierarchy and settlement clusters. We largely agree with
the structure and support the Ammanford/Cross Hands area being included within the first
tier – Principal Settlements.
5.2. We also agree with the assertion that growth and development will be directed to sustainable
locations in accordance with the spatial framework; however, as mentioned above, we have
some reservations with how this has been implemented.
5.3. Whilst we note that the highest proportion of development is due to be delivered at the Tier
1 settlements (a principle we support), we consider that too great a proportion of growth has
been allocated to lower order settlements. As stated above, the Plan is unrealistic in the way
it proposes to distribute growth to deliver its economic aspirations and the allocation of
housing sites to support this is also unsuitable as a result.
5.4. If the Plan is serious about delivering economic growth, sustainable development and
mitigating its impacts on the environment to combat climate change, then it needs to rethink
its distribution framework and allocate higher levels of development to the Tier 1
settlements.
R002 | CE | April 2023 7
6. Policy SD1: Development Limits
6.1. This policy states that development within the identified development of Tier 1-3 settlements
will be acceptable, provided that they accord with other relevant policies of the LDP.
6.2. Whilst there are exceptions to this rule (for example, Policy HOM6), the policy does not set
out a scenario whereby development for traditional housing can come forward beyond the
development limits. This will be problematic in circumstances where the Council's housing
delivery fails to keep pace with their proposed annual requirement.
6.3. Whilst we support the principle of identifying specific sites to meet the development needs
of the district within the LDP to guard against excessive unplanned development, Local Plans
still need to be sufficiently flexible to ensure that housing and other types of development
can come forward to meet the needs of the population. This is especially important in
situations when delivery does not match up with the plan's target levels of growth. This could
be due to any number of reasons, from deficiencies with the plan, unforeseen technical issues
affecting the delivery of certain sites or broader macro-economic factors.
6.4. We note the identification of Reserve Sites (Policy SG2) and acknowledge that this will go
some way to securing supply in the event allocated sites cannot come forward albeit one of
the reserve sites has been removed from the Second Deposit Revised LDP over the Revised
Deposit version. However, we would question whether this is a sufficiently flexible approach
that will help to guarantee the delivery of the plan's housing requirement. We note that the
delivery of a reserve site will need to be subject to a masterplanning exercise. This
requirement is something that would potentially delay its delivery and prevent it from
addressing a specific need (e.g. housing shortfall) in a timely manner.
6.5. As such, we consider that this policy should incorporate wording to allow for development in
sustainable locations that would otherwise comply with the relevant policies of the LDP in
the event that the supply and delivery of housing failed to keep pace with the Local Plan
Housing Requirement (i.e. the absence of a five-year supply of housing land).
6.6. We would suggest additional wording to the policy to make it clear to prospective applicants
when it would be acceptable to propose development on unallocated sites. This would
provide certainty and allow for windfall sites to come forward in accordance with the LDP to
meet shortfalls when they arise.
6.7. We acknowledge that the plan has attempted to plan positively for housing growth in
particular and sought to incorporate measures to secure this (10% buffer to the housing
requirement (albeit reduced from 15%) and the identification of reserve sites) over the plan
period. However, we consider that policy SD1 should incorporate additional flexibility to allow
development to come forward under certain circumstances (as specified above) in order the
ensure the plan can remain as effective as possible for its duration.
R002 | CE | April 2023 8
7. Land to the south of Penygroes Road, Gorslas,
Llanelli
7.1. As stated in the Introduction, the Co-op controls an area of land to the south of Penygroes
Road, Gorslas comprising a number of fields which cover an area of around 6.5ha and would
be capable of delivering c. 120 dwellings.
7.2. Vehicular access could be taken from the B4556 to the east with an emergency/pedestrian
access being taken from the north via an existing driveway/access.
7.3. The Site is well related to development around the 6-way junction along the A476 which is
home to a number of services and facilities that would meet the day to day needs of future
residents.
7.4. The Site is also well related to existing and future large-scale employment and commercial
development areas at Cross Hands.
7.5. The Site's proximity to these services, facilities and employment opportunities would reduce
the reliance on the private motor vehicle to meet the day to day needs of future residents
and would encourage the use of active modes of travel such as walking and cycling.
7.6. The Site is free from any land use allocation or other designations that would otherwise
constrain development; it could be made available for development in the short-term and
be built out comfortably within a five-year time frame once detailed planning permission is
granted.
R002 | CE | April 2023 9
8. Integrated Sustainability Appraisal
8.1. Our representations to the Deposit LDP in March 2020 included an assessment of the
sustainability of the Site with regard to the guidance available at that time. Since then, the
Council has published an Integrated Sustainability Appraisal (ISA) document for consultation
alongside the Second Deposit LDP.
8.2. Paragraph 1.7 of the ISA states that:
“The Council strongly advises that in responding to the Deposit rLDP, any relevant new,
site(s) proposed should be accompanied by an integrated Sustainability Appraisal
(incorporating Strategic Environmental Assessment). A site not subject to ISA is unlikely
to be considered suitable for allocation in the plan.”
8.3. As a result, we have provided an assessment of the sustainability of the Site against this
updated criteria in the below table.
8.4. As shown by our responses, the Site performs extremely well against the various elements of
the SA with only the fact that the Site is a greenfield site and may contain high carbon soils
being the only constraints affecting the Site's development.
9. Summary Representations
9.1. These representations have been submitted on behalf of the Co-op in respect of its land to
the south of Penygroes Road, Gorslas. The Co-op is promoting the Site for residential
development and consider it to be a sustainably located, deliverable and logical site for the
proposed use. The Co-op has a good track record of promoting sites for development and
working with developers and house builders to ensure that sites are sold on and deliverable.
It does not sit on sites or ‘land bank.’
9.2. Whilst we are broadly supportive of the economic aspirations of the LDP and agree with the
uplift to the housing requirement accordingly, we have reservations with the proposed
strategy to deliver this ambitions targets.
9.3. This is namely down to the following reasons:
 The Preferred Spatial Option and Plan Strategy appear to have diminished the
importance of delivering these said economic aspirations;
 They are unrealistic in their view that lower order settlements will be able to deliver the
currently proposed economic growth and role Tier 1 settlements will need to play has
been underestimated;
 There is a disconnect with the spatial distribution of employment development and
residential development and it is not clear how they will support the delivery of one
another; and
 The proposed flexibility measures notwithstanding, we consider that the plan should
include a policy to facilitate development beyond the defined settlement limits in the
case of severe plan failure.
9.4. We suspect that when the plan is reviewed in light of these issues, a higher proportion of
growth will be identified at the Tier 1 settlements and this will require additional housing
allocations to be included.
9.5. Our client's Site is available, deliverable and sustainably located. We have assessed it against
the Council's ISA template and it has performed very well with few minor issues. We would,
therefore, support a new policy allocating the Site for residential development in the final
version of the LDP.