Matters Arising Changes 2026

Object

Representation ID: 6073

Received: 25/06/2026

Respondent ID: 5251

Respondent: Dyfodol i'r Iaith Cyf

Sound? Not specified

Polisi Strategol – SP1: Twf Strategol
“Bydd y CDLl yn darparu ar gyfer twf economi gynaliadwy a gofynion tai yn y dyfodol drwy ddarparu 9,814 o dai newydd i fodloni'r gofyniad tai a nodwyd o 8,822.”

Rydym yn gwrthwynebu adeiladu 9,814 o dai newydd yn y sir ac yn grediniol bod angen adeiladu tai ar gyfer y galw presennol yn y sir a thwf rhag dybiedig yn y boblogaeth sirol yn unig.

Strategic Policy – SP1: Strategic Growth
“The LDP will provide for the future growth of a sustainable economy and housing requirement through the provision of 9,814 new homes to meet the identified housing requirement of 8,822.”

We oppose the construction of 9,814 new homes in the county and believe that housing needs to be built for the current demand in the county and solely for the anticipated growth in the county's population.

Mae'r strategaeth twf ac angen tai y Sir wedi eu hystyried a'r ffigur tai wedi ei nodi yn y Cynllun wedi ei danseilio gan dystiolaeth.

The Plan's growth strategy and the County's housing need has been considered and the housing figure identified in the Plan is underpinned by evidence.

Object

Representation ID: 6074

Received: 25/06/2026

Respondent ID: 5251

Respondent: Dyfodol i'r Iaith Cyf

Sound? Not specified

Dylid ymrwymo o’r cychwyn cyntaf i glustnodi pob ysgol newydd yn y sir fel rhai cyfrwng Cymraeg er mwyn cyfrannu at wireddu strategaeth Cymraeg 2050 Llywodraeth Cymru ac yn sgil y dirywiad ieithyddol enbyd a welwyd yn y sir dros yr ugain mlynedd olaf.

A commitment should be made from the outset to identify all new schools in the county as Welsh-medium in order to contribute to making the Welsh Government's Cymraeg 2050 strategy a reality and in light of the severe linguistic decline seen in the county over the last twenty years.

Byddai'n dod y tu allan i gylch gwaith y Cynllun.

It would fall outside the Plan's remit

Object

Representation ID: 6075

Received: 25/06/2026

Respondent ID: 5251

Respondent: Dyfodol i'r Iaith Cyf

Sound? Not specified

Dyma enghreifftiau isod ond mae’n pwynt yn un cyffredinol ar gyfer pob clwstwr yn y CDU cyfan.
 PrC1/h4 Tir oddi ar Barc y Delyn 17 1.7 Blwyddyn 11-15
 PrC1/h5 I'r dwyrain o Lôn Devereaux 10 1 Blwyddyn 6-10
 PrC1/h10 Brynhyfryd 20 2.4 Blwyddyn 6-10
 PrC1/h12 Heol Castell Pigyn, Abergwili  35 4.2 Blwyddyn 6-10 Blwyddyn 11-15
 PrC1/MU1 Gorllewin Caerfyrddin  222 26.64 Blwyddyn 1-5 Blwyddyn 6-10
 PrC1/MU2 Pibwr-lwyd 247 61.75 Blwyddyn 11-15
 PrC1/(iv) Tir oddi ar Heol Trefechan 30 3.6 Blwyddyn 11-16
Pam fod cyfradd yr unedau fforddiadwy yn amrywio o ddatblygiad i ddatblygiad? Onid oes angen yr un canran drwyddi draw? Credwn fod y canrannau presennol uchod yn annigonol ac yn methu a chyfrannu at lefydd yr argyfwng tai sy’n bodoli yn y sir ac yn genedlaethol. Rydym yn argymell canran o 50% fel isafswm. Datblygiadau tai ar lefel fasnachol i ddatblygwyr yw’r rhelyw a fydd ar werth ar y farchnad agored ac yn denu mwy o brynwyr ariannog sydd ar gyfraddau cyflog y tu hwnt i fwyafrif trigolion y sir.

Here are examples below but it's a general point for all clusters in the entire LDP.

• PrC1/h4 – Land off Parc y Delyn 17 1.7 Years 11-15
• PrC1/h5 - East of Devereaux Drive 10 1 Years 6-10
• PrC1/h10 Brynhyfryd 20 2.4 Years 6-10
• PrC1/h12 Castell Pigyn Road, Abergwili  35 4.2 Years 6-10 Years 11-15
• PrC1/MU1 West Carmarthen  222 26.64 Years 1-5 Years 6-10
• PrC1/MU2 Pibwrlwyd 247 61.75 Years 11-15
• PrC1/(iv) – Land off Trevaughan Road 30 3.6 Years 11-16

Why does the rate of affordable units vary from development to development? Isn't the same percentage needed throughout? We believe that the current percentages above are insufficient and fail to contribute to the places with a housing crisis that exist in the county and nationally. We recommend a percentage of 50% as a minimum. Housing developments on a commercial level for developers are the remainder that will be for sale on the open market and attract more wealthy buyers who are on wage rates that are beyond the majority of the county's residents.

Mae Polisi AHOM1 yn nodi'r canrannau gofynnol. Mae'r gofynion yma wedi eu tanseilio gan dystiolaeth gadarn sydd wedi bod yn destun archwiliad.

Policy AHOM1 notes the required percentages. These requirements are underpinned by robust evidence which has been subject to examination.

Object

Representation ID: 6076

Received: 25/06/2026

Respondent ID: 5251

Respondent: Dyfodol i'r Iaith Cyf

Sound? Not specified

Polisi Strategol – SP 5: Strategaeth Tai Fforddiadwy Bydd y Cynllun yn sicrhau bod cymaint o dai fforddiadwy ag sy'n bosibl yn cael eu darparu hyd at 2033 drwy ddarparu targed isafswm o 2,111 1,900 o dai fforddiadwy. Bydd hyn o gymorth i ddatblygu a gwella cymunedau cynaliadwy a chytbwys.
Tra bo ni’n cefnogi cynllunio cynyddu yn y nifer o dai fforddiadwy o 1,900 i 2,111 nid yw hyn yn fawr o newid mewn gwirionedd. Credwn hefyd bod angen cyfradd sylweddol uwch o dai fforddiadwy a hynny ar sail methodoleg o niferoedd unigolion sydd ar restr aros y sir, stoc tai presennol sydd ar gael i’w rhentu a rhagdybiaeth o dwf yn y boblogaeth sirol dros y 15-20 mlynedd nesaf. Does dim amheuaeth na fydd y nifer presennol yn llwyddo o ran bod “...o gymorth i ddatblygu a gwella cymunedau cynaliadwy a chytbwys.”

“Rhif paragraff newydd: Wrth gyfuno'r holl ddulliau o ran cyfraniadau tai fforddiadwy drwy'r system gynllunio, y targed a nodwyd ym Mholisi SP5 yw'r man cychwyn ar gyfer darparu Tai Fforddiadwy yn y sir, ac mae'r Cynllun yn ceisio sicrhau'r ddarpariaeth fwyaf posibl lle bo hynny'n berthnasol.”

Strategic Policy – SP 5: Affordable Homes Strategy. The Plan will maximise the delivery of affordable homes up to 2033 through the provision of a minimum target of 2,111 1,900 affordable homes. This will support the development and enhancement of sustainable, balanced communities.
While we support planning to increase the number of affordable homes from 1,900 to 2,111, this is not really much of a change. We also believe that there is a need for a significantly higher rate of affordable housing based on a methodology of the county's waiting list numbers, the current housing stock available for rent and an assumption of growth in the county's population over the next 15-20 years. There's no doubt that the current number will not succeed "...to help develop and improve sustainable and balanced communities."

“New paragraph number: In combining all methods of affordable housing contributions through the planning system the target set out in Policy SP5 is the starting point for the provision of Affordable Housing within the county, with the Plan seeking to maximise the provision where applicable.”

Mae'r nifer o dai fforddiadwy sydd wedi ei nodi ym mholisi SP5 wedi ei hysbysu a thanseilio gan dystiolaeth gadarn ynghylch anghenion tai y sir ac eisoes wedi bod yn destun archwiliad.

The number of affordable homes identified in Policy SP5 is informed and underpinned by robust evidence relating to the county's housing need and has already been subject to examination.

Object

Representation ID: 6077

Received: 25/06/2026

Respondent ID: 5251

Respondent: Dyfodol i'r Iaith Cyf

Sound? Not specified

Credwn fod y canrannau presennol uchod yn annigonol ac yn methu â chyfrannu at leddfu yr argyfwng tai sy’n bodoli yn y sir ac yn genedlaethol. Rydym yn argymell canran o 50% fel isafswm.

Datblygiadau tai ar lefel fasnachol i ddatblygwyr yw’r rhelyw a fydd ar werth ar y farchnad agored ac yn denu mwy o brynwyr ariannog sydd ar gyfraddau cyflog y tu hwnt i fwyafrif trigolion y sir.

Mewnlifiad o bobl di-Gymraeg fydd y rhelyw, yn ôl patrymau symudedd I’r sir. Bydd hyn yn cyfrannu at ddirywiad pellach y Gymraeg yn y sir sydd eisoes wedi gostwng i 39% lle roedd dros 50% ugain mlynedd ynghynt. Rhaid wrth fesurau mwy cadarn i atal dirywiad pellach, ceisio sefydlogi os nad atgyfodi’r canran o siaradwyr Cymraeg yn y sir yn unol a Cymraeg 2050. Meddai gwefan Atlas yr iaith Gymraeg wrth drafod cyfrifiad 2021 yn Sir Gaerfyrddin:

“Collwyd 5,200 o siaradwyr Cymraeg yn y sir rhwng 2011 a 2021, ar ôl colled debyg o 5,800 rhwng 2001 a 2011, sy’n golygu lleihad o 11,000 mewn 20 mlynedd.

Mae pob grwp oedran, ac eithrio pobl ifanc rhwng 25 a 34 yn dangos lleihad, gyda’r colledion mwyaf i’w gweld ymysg pobl rhwng 35 a 64 oed. Ymysg y grwpiau oedran hyn mae’r canrannau lleiaf yn y sir bellach, gydag ond tua thraean ohonynt yn gallu siarad Cymraeg. Mae’r gyfran sy’n gallu’r iaith yn codi ymysg y to hŷn, i 36.0 y cant o bobl rhwng 65 a 74 oed a 45.0 y cant ymhlith pobl dros 75.”

We believe that the current percentages above are insufficient and fail to contribute to alleviating the housing crisis that exists in the county and nationally. We recommend a percentage of 50% as a minimum.

Housing developments on a commercial level for developers are the remainder that will be for sale on the open market and attract more wealthy buyers who are at wage rates that are beyond the majority of the county's residents.

An influx of non-Welsh speakers will be the remainder, according to the patterns of moving to the county. This will contribute to a further decline in the Welsh language in the county which has already fallen to 39% where it was over 50% twenty years earlier. More robust measures must be in place to prevent further decline and seek to stabilise and revive the percentage of Welsh speakers in the county in line with Cymraeg 2050. When discussing the 2021 census in Carmarthenshire, the website Atlas y Gymraeg said:

"5,200 Welsh speakers were lost in the county between 2011 and 2021, after a similar loss of 5,800 between 2001 and 2011, which represents a reduction of 11,000 in 20 years.
All age groups, with the exception of young people aged 25 to 34 are showing a reduction, with the biggest losses being seen among those aged 35 to 64. These age groups now have the smallest percentages in the county, with only about a third of them able to speak Welsh. The proportion of people who are able to speak the language is rising among the elderly, to 36.0 per cent of people aged 65 to 74 and 45.0 per cent among those over 75."

Mae'r canrannau presennol ym mholisi AHOM1 wedi ei seilio ar dystiolaeth gadarn.

The current percentages in Policy AHOM1 are based on robust evidence.

Object

Representation ID: 6078

Received: 25/06/2026

Respondent ID: 5251

Respondent: Dyfodol i'r Iaith Cyf

Sound? Not specified

Rydym yn cefnogi’r paragraff newydd ond hefyd yn tynnu eich sylw at y sefyllfa ganlynol a nodir gan Jayne Bryant, cyn-Ysgrifennydd y Cabinet dros Lywodraeth Leol a Thai mewn gohebiaeth â ni dyddiedig 17eg Tachwedd 2025.

“yn ofynnol i awdurdodau lleol o dan adran 167 o Ddeddf Tai 1996 fod â chynllun dyrannu tai cymdeithasol ar gyfer pennu blaenoriaethau wrth ddyrannu tai cymdeithasol. Mae'r ddeddfwriaeth yn nodi'n glir bod 5 categori y dylid rhoi blaenoriaeth neu flaenoriaeth resymol iddynt wrth ddyrannu tai cymdeithasol, o fewn eu cynlluniau dyrannu tai cymdeithasol, er ei fod yn ôl disgresiwn a dyluniad yr awdurdod lleol o ran sut mae'r grwpiau dewisol hynny'n cael eu trefnu neu eu blaenoriaethu o fewn eu cynlluniau unigol. Wrth benderfynu ar eu cynlluniau penodol, rhaid i bob awdurdod lleol yng Nghymru roi sylw i Gòd Canllawiau Llywodraeth Cymru ar gyfer Awdurdodau
Lleol: Dyrannu Llety a Digartrefedd ynghyd â'u rhwymedigaethau statudol.

Fodd bynnag, ochr yn ochr â'u cynlluniau dyrannu ac mewn ymateb i anghenion lleol eu hardaloedd, gall awdurdodau lleol ystyried disgrifiadau penodol eraill o bobl y dylid dyrannu llety iddynt fel rhan o bolisi gosod lleol y gellir ei gynllunio i ddyrannu llety o fewn ardal benodol o'u hawdurdod lleol. Mae adran 167(2E) o Ddeddf 1996 yn caniatáu i awdurdodau lleol ddyrannu llety i bobl o ddisgrifiad penodol, a allai gynnwys gofynion iaith, p'un a ydynt yn dod o fewn y categorïau dewis rhesymol ai peidio, ar yr amod bod yr awdurdod lleol yn gallu sicrhau nad yw hyn yn dominyddu eu cynllun dyrannu, ac y dylid blaenoriaethu pobl gyffredinol sydd â ffafriaeth
resymol y mae gan yr awdurdod lleol ddyletswydd statudol drostynt dros y rhai nad oes ganddynt ddyletswydd drostynt.

Dylai'r polisïau gydymffurfio â gofynion adran 167 o Ddeddf Tai 1996 ac unrhyw ddyletswyddau statudol eraill, megis y rhai o dan y Ddeddf Cydraddoldeb. Rhaid i bolisïau o'r fath hefyd fod yn seiliedig ar dystiolaeth, asesu a monitro effaith cydraddoldeb i sicrhau eu bod yn cyflawni'r cynaliadwyedd cymunedol y bwriedir iddynt ei gyflawni.”

Byddai mabwysiadu polisi ymarferol fel hyn yn gyfle euraidd i’r Cyngor Sir ddangos ymrwymiad clir a phendant o blaid ceisio diogelu ac atgyfnerthu’r iaith mewn sir sydd wedi gweld y dirywiad mwyaf mewn 20 mlynedd.

We support the new paragraph but also draw your attention to the following position set out by Jayne Bryant, former Cabinet Secretary for Local Government and Housing in correspondence with us dated the 17th of November 2025.

"local authorities under section 167 of the Housing Act 1996 are required to have a social housing allocation plan for setting priorities in the allocation of social housing. The legislation clearly sets out that there are 5 categories that should be given priority or reasonable priority while allocating social housing, within their social housing allocation plans, although it is at the discretion and design of the local authority as to how those discretionary groups are organised or prioritised within their individual plans. When deciding on their specific schemes, all local authorities in Wales must have regard to the Welsh Government's Code of Guidance for Local Authorities: Allocation of Accommodation and Homelessness along with their statutory obligations. However, alongside their allocation plans and in response to the local needs of their areas, local authorities may consider other specific descriptions of people to whom accommodation should be allocated as part of a local lettings policy that can be designed to allocate accommodation within a particular area of their local authority.

Section 167(2E) of the 1996 Act allows local authorities to allocate accommodation to people of a particular description, which may include language requirements, whether or not they fall within the reasonable preference categories, provided that the local authority is able to ensure that this does not dominate their allocation plan, and that preference should be given to ordinary people with a reasonable preference for whom the local authority has a statutory duty over those for whom they have no duty.

The policies should comply with the requirements of section 167 of the Housing Act 1996 and any other statutory duties, such as those under the Equality Act. Such policies must also be evidence-based, as well as assess and monitor the impact of equality to ensure they achieve the community sustainability they are intended to achieve."

Adopting a practical policy such as this would be a golden opportunity for the County Council to demonstrate a clear and firm commitment to seeking to protect and reinforce the language in a county that has seen the greatest decline in 20 years.

Nodwyd. Mae hyn y tu hwnt i gylch gwaith y Cynllun.

Ni fyddai'n bosib cyflwyno'r newidiadu yma yn y Cynllun mewn modd sy'n cydymffurfio â pharagraff 3.28 o Bolisi Cynllunio Cymru sy'n nodi, 'Ni ddylai polisïau a phenderfyniadau gyflwyno unrhyw elfen o wahaniaethu rhwng unigolion yn seiliedig ar eu gallu ieithyddol, ac ni ddylent geisio rheoli deiliadaeth tai ar sail ieithyddol

Noted. This is beyond the remit of the Plan

It would not be possible to introduce these changes to the Plan in a manner that conforms with paragraph 3.28 of Planning Policy Wales, which notes 'Policies and decisions must not introduce any element of discrimination between individuals on the basis of their linguistic ability, and should not seek to control housing occupancy on linguistic grounds.

Object

Representation ID: 6079

Received: 25/06/2026

Respondent ID: 5251

Respondent: Dyfodol i'r Iaith Cyf

Sound? Not specified

Rydym yn croesawu’r polisi a’r paragraff newydd canlynol
“Ystyrir Sir Gaerfyrddin yn ei chyfanrwydd yn ardal o sensitifrwydd ieithyddol. Mae Cyfrifiad 2021 yn dynodi bod 17.8% o'r boblogaeth yn gallu siarad Cymraeg, tra bod y ffigur cyfatebol ar gyfer Sir Gaerfyrddin yn 39.9%. O ran dadansoddiad daearyddol o gyfran y siaradwyr ledled y Sir, mae ar ei hisaf yn ward Tyisha lle mae 18.9% yn siarad Cymraeg, ac ar ei huchaf ym Mhontyberem lle mae 60.7% yn siarad Cymraeg. Mae cyfran y siaradwyr Cymraeg yn uwch na’r cyfartaledd cenedlaethol ar draws pob ward yn y Sir, ac am y rheswm hwn yn bennaf y mae Sir Gaerfyrddin yn ei chyfanrwydd yn cael ei hystyried yn sensitif yn ieithyddol. Hefyd, mae data’r Cyfrifiad diwethaf wedi dangos gostyngiad sylweddol yn nifer y siaradwyr Cymraeg ledled y Sir sy’n dangos natur fregus yr iaith yn Sir Gaerfyrddin.”
Ond mae angen esbonio ar gychwyn y frawddeg gyntaf mai 17.8% yw’r canran cenedlaethol sy’n gallu siarad Cymraeg gan nad yw hynny’n eglur. Mae’r frawddeg olaf yn cadarnhau ein sylwadau blaenorol a’r unig ffordd i daclo ‘gostyngiad sylweddol’ yw trwy gyfres o fesurau radical a phell
gyrhaeddgar. Heb hynny, parhau i golli tir fydd hynt y Gymraeg yn sir Gâr.

Hefyd, mae’n debygol iawn y bydd Llywodraeth Cymru yn cefnogi a mabwysiadu argymhellion adroddiad Comisiwn Cymunedau Cymraeg (“Grymuso cymunedau, cryfhau’r Gymraeg”) yn fuan sy’n cynnwys dynodi o arwyddocâd ieithyddol dwysedd uwch. Bydd hyn felly yn berthnasol iawn o fewn eich sir a adnabyddir fel un ardal ieithyddol sensitif yn barod. Hefyd mae angen cyfeirio at argymhelliad 33: Dylai awdurdodau lleol ac awdurdodau cynllunio ystyried a ellir datblygu modelau, o ran gosod tai cymdeithasol neu wrth lunio Cytundebau Adran 106, lle gallai’r Gymraeg fod yn un ystyriaeth gadarnhaol, ochr-yn-ochr ag ystyriaethau eraill. Dylid craffu ar unrhyw fodelau a ddatblygir er mwyn sicrhau nad oes anfantais annerbyniol i’r boblogaeth ddi-Gymraeg, ac i sicrhau
cydymffurfiaeth â deddfwriaeth gydraddoldeb berthnasol.

We welcome the policy and the following new paragraph
“Carmarthenshire in its entirety is considered an area of linguistic sensitivity. The 2021 Census indicates that 17.8% of the population can speak Welsh, whilst the correlating figure for Carmarthenshire stands at 39.9%. In terms of the geographical breakdown of the proportion of speakers across the County, this is lowest in the Tyisha Ward where 18.9% speak Welsh, and highest in Pontyberem where 60.7% speak Welsh. The proportion of Welsh speakers is higher than the national average across each ward in the County, and it is largely for this reason Carmarthenshire in its entirety is considered to be linguistically sensitive. Additionally, the most recent Census data has shown a substantial decrease in the number of Welsh speakers across the County illustrating the language’s vulnerability in Carmarthenshire.”

But it needs to be explained at the beginning of the first sentence that the national percentage who can speak Welsh is 17.8% as that is not clear. The last sentence confirms our previous comments and the only way to tackle a 'significant decline' is through a series of radical and far-reaching measures. Without that, the future of the Welsh language in Carmarthenshire will continue to lose ground.

It is also very likely that the Welsh Government will soon support and adopt the recommendations of the Commission for Welsh-speaking Communities' report ("Empowering communities, strengthening the Welsh language") which includes designating areas of higher density linguistic significance. This will therefore be very relevant within your county which is already known as one linguistically sensitive area. Reference should also be made to recommendation 33: Local authorities and planning authorities should consider whether models can be developed, in terms of letting social housing or in compiling Section 106 Agreements, where the Welsh language could be one positive consideration, alongside other considerations. Any models developed should be scrutinised to ensure that there is no unacceptable disadvantage to the non-Welsh speaking population, and to ensure compliance with relevant equality legislation.

Byddai nodi mai canran cenedlaethol yw 17.8% yn gwella eglurder y Cynllun.

Byddai ymgorffori gallu ieithyddol fel ystyriaeth mewn polisi gosod tai cymdeithasol yn anghydnaws â pharagraff 3.28 o Bolisi Cynllunio Cymru, sy'n nodi 'Ni ddylai polisïau a phenderfyniadau gyflwyno unrhyw elfen o wahaniaethu rhwng unigolion yn seiliedig ar eu gallu ieithyddol, ac ni ddylent geisio rheoli deiliadaeth tai ar sail ieithyddol.'


Noting that the national percentage is 17.8% would improve the clarity of the Plan.

Incorporating linguistic ability as a consideration into social housing lettings policy would be incompatible with paragraph 3.28 of Planning Policy Wales, which notes 'Policies and decisions must not introduce any element of discrimination between individuals on the basis of their linguistic ability, and should not seek to control housing occupancy on linguistic grounds.'

Object

Representation ID: 6080

Received: 25/06/2026

Respondent ID: 5251

Respondent: Dyfodol i'r Iaith Cyf

Sound? Not specified

Rydym yn gwrthwynebu’r paragraff newydd canlynol:
“Bydd yn ofynnol i gynigion ar gyfer datblygiadau tai ar raddfa fawr ar hap-safleoedd mawr, a fydd yn unigol neu gyda'i gilydd yn fwy na'r lwfans hap-safleoedd blynyddol o fewn y Cynllun, gyflwyno Asesiad o'r Effaith ar y Gymraeg a fydd yn nodi sut y bydd y datblygiad arfaethedig yn diogelu, yn hyrwyddo ac yn gwella'r Gymraeg.”
Credwn bod nifer o ddatblygiadau tai ar raddfa fechan o’u cwmpasu gyda’i gilydd ar draws y sir yn creu clwstwr sy’n debygol iawn o gael effaith ar iaith cymunedau’r sir, yn arbennig mewn cymunedau bychain gwledig lle mae dyfodiad 5 tŷ a 5 teulu newydd yn newid natur a gwead y gymuned honno. O gofio’r “gostyngiad sylweddol o ran yn nifer y siaradwyr Cymraeg ledled y Sir sy’n dangos natur fregus yr iaith yn Sir Gaerfyrddin” mae gwir angen cynnal asesiad o’r effaith ar y Gymraeg ar pob datblygiad tŷ newydd o 5 uned neu fwy.

Rydym yn gwrthwynebu dileu’r paragraff canlynol…
“11.181 Mae Strategaeth y Cynllun yn darparu ar gyfer twf organig ar raddfa fach o fewn y Pentrefi Gwledig ac mae polisïau HOM1 a HOM3 yn adeiladu ar hyn gan ganiatáu datblygu ar raddfa briodol ac mewn lleoliadau priodol. Ystyrir bod datblygiad bob yn dipyn ar y raddfa hon yn gallu gwneud cyfraniad cadarnhaol tuag at dwf cynaliadwy’r Gymraeg mewn cymunedau gwledig, a bod unrhyw effeithiau negyddol yn debygol o gael eu hamsugno gan y gymuned. Efallai nad yw datblygiad nas rhagwelwyd ar raddfa sylweddol nas caniateir ym mholisïau'r Cynllun yn gydnaws â Strategaeth y Cynllun, ac felly mae ei effeithiau heb eu hasesu ac yn anhysbys. Os caiff cynigion o’r fath eu cyflwyno i gael eu hystyried, bydd angen cyflwyno asesiad llawn gyda hwy sy’n nodi eu heffeithiau tebygol ar y Gymraeg.”
Mae hepgor y gofyniad yma yn gwanhau ymhellach y cyfres o fesurau i ddiogelu’r Gymraeg fel iaith fyw gymunedol ac ni chynigir unrhyw esboniad dros ei ddileu. Ond mae angen herio’r gosodiad yn y geiriad gan fod datblygiadau bob yn dipyn ar y raddfa hon hefyd yn gallu bod yn negyddol a does dim gwarant bod modd eu hamsugno gan y gymuned. Mae tystiolaeth y 3 cyfrifiad olaf yn cadarnhau hynny sy’n tanlinellu’r angen am gadw’r gofyniad yma yn y CDU. Fel arall mae’r gosodiad yn haeriad goddrychol, dadlennol, di-sail ac anghywir.

Fel ag y saif ar hyn o bryd felly, nid yw Polisi Strategol – SP 8: Y Gymraeg a Diwylliant Cymru yn ddigonol na digon cadarn i wrthsefyll effaith datblygiadau tai fydd yn cyfrannu at greu effaith negyddol ac andwyol pellach ar y Gymraeg mewn sir lle mae bregustra ieithyddol yn endemig. O ganlyniad, NID yw’r brawddegau “Ni fydd cynigion datblygu sy’n cael effaith andwyol ar fywiogrwydd a hyfywedd y Gymraeg a diwylliant Cymru’n cael eu caniatáu oni bai y gellir lliniaru’r effaith. Bydd disgwyl i’r holl gynigion datblygu y mae WL1 yn berthnasol iddynt nodi mesurau sy’n gwella buddiannau’r Gymraeg a diwylliant Cymru.” yn ffeithiol gywir.

We object to the following new paragraph:
“Proposals for large scale housing development on large windfall sites which will individually or cumulatively exceed the annual windfall allowance within the Plan will be required to submit a Welsh Language Impact Assessment which will set out how the proposed development will protect, promote and enhance the Welsh language.”

We believe that a number of small scale housing developments when considered together across the county create a cluster that is very likely to have an impact on the language of the county's communities, particularly in small rural communities where the arrival of 5 new houses and 5 families changes the nature of that community. Given the "significant reduction in the number of Welsh speakers across the County which shows the fragile nature of the language in Carmarthenshire" there is a real need to carry out an assessment of the impact on the Welsh language on all new housing developments of 5 or more units.

We oppose the deletion of the following paragraph...
“11.181 The Plan's Strategy provides for organic growth on a small scale within the Rural Villages and policies HOM1 and HOM3 build upon this allowing development of appropriate scale and in appropriate locations. It is considered that incremental development on this scale can make a positive contribution towards the sustainable growth of the Welsh language in rural communities, and any negative impacts are likely to be absorbed by the community. Unforeseen development of significant scale which is not allowed for in the Plan’s policies may not be compatible with the Plan’s Strategy, and their impacts are therefore unassessed and unknown. In the event that such proposals are presented for consideration, they will need to be accompanied by a full assessment of their likely effects upon the Welsh language.”

The omission of this requirement further weakens the series of measures to protect Welsh as a community living language and no explanation is offered for its deletion. But the wording needs to be challenged as developments of this scale can also be negative and there is no guarantee that they can be absorbed by the community. The evidence of the last 3 censuses confirms that, and this underlines the need for this requirement to be retained in the LDP. Otherwise the statement is a subjective, illuminating, baseless and incorrect assertion.

As it currently stands, Strategic Policy – SP 8: Welsh Language and Culture is not sufficient or robust enough to withstand the impact of housing developments which will contribute to creating a further negative and adverse impact on the Welsh language in a county where linguistic vulnerability is endemic. As a result, the sentences "Development proposals which have a detrimental impact on the vitality and viability of the Welsh language and culture will not be permitted unless the impact can be mitigated. All development proposals subject to WL1, will be expected to identify measures which enhance the interests of the Welsh language and culture." are NOT factually correct.

Mae'r Polisi wedi bod yn destun y broses archwiliad. Mae'r gwelliannau hyn sydd wedi eu gosod trwy'r Newdidadau yn Sgil Materion a Godwyd yn sicrhau cadernid y Cynllun.

The Policy has been the subject to consideration through the examination process. The amendments set out through the MACs consequently ensure the Plan's soundness.

Object

Representation ID: 6081

Received: 25/06/2026

Respondent ID: 5251

Respondent: Dyfodol i'r Iaith Cyf

Sound? Not specified

VE3: Carafanau Teithiol, Gwersylla a Llety Gwersylla Amgen nad yw'n Barhaol
“Dylid ychwanegu'r canlynol fel paragraff newydd rhwng paragraff 11.254 a pharagraff 11.255

Mae'r term "gor-grynodiad" yng nghyd-destun y Polisi hwn yn cyfeirio at amlhau safleoedd carafannau teithiol, safleoedd gwersylla, a safleoedd gwersylla amgen nad ydynt yn barhaol sy'n arwain at effeithiau andwyol ar gymeriad, swyddogaeth ac amwynder yr ardal. Dylid ystyried nifer a dwysedd cyfleusterau tebyg yn yr ardal yn ogystal â'u patrwm dosbarthiad ac a yw'r effeithiau
gweledol neu amgylcheddol cronnol yn tynnu sylw oddi wrth gymeriad y dirwedd, y forwedd neu'r drefwedd.”

Caiff hyn hefyd effaith negyddol ar y Gymraeg mewn cymunedau ac mae angen cydnabod ac ychwanegu hynny yn y geiriad newydd.

VE3: Touring Caravan, Camping and Non-Permanent Alternative Camping Accommodation
“The following is to be added as a new paragraph between paragraph 11.254 and paragraph 11.255

The term "over concentration" in the context of this Policy refers to the proliferation of touring caravans, camping, and alternative non-permanent camping sites leading to adverse impacts on the character, function, and amenity of the locality. The number and density of similar facilities in the area should be considered as well as their pattern of distribution and whether the cumulative visual or environmental impacts detracts from the landscape, seascape or townscape character.”


This will also have a negative impact on the Welsh language in communities and this needs to be recognised and added in the new wording.

Mae'r Polisi wedi bod yn destun archwiliad ac o ganlyniad cynigiwyd y gwelliannau hyn i sicrhau cadernid y Cynllun. Byddai angen i welliannau pellach gael eu cefnogi gan dystiolaeth gadarn a bod yn weithredadwy yn ystod y cam cais cynllunio. Nid oes digon o wybodaeth wedi'i darparu i sicrhau bod hyn yn wir.

The Policy has been the subject of examination with these amendments consequently proposed to ensure the Plan's soundness. Further amendments would need to be supported by robust evidence and be implementable at the planning application stage. There is insufficient information provided to demonstrate that this is the case.

Object

Representation ID: 6082

Received: 25/06/2026

Respondent ID: 5251

Respondent: Dyfodol i'r Iaith Cyf

Sound? Not specified

VE3: Carafanau Teithiol, Gwersylla a Llety Gwersylla Amgen nad yw'n Barhaol “Dylid ychwanegu'r canlynol fel paragraff newydd rhwng paragraff 11.254 a pharagraff 11.255

Mae'r term "gor-grynodiad" yng nghyd-destun y Polisi hwn yn cyfeirio at amlhau safleoedd carafannau teithiol, safleoedd gwersylla, a safleoedd gwersylla amgen nad ydynt yn barhaol sy'n arwain at effeithiau andwyol ar gymeriad, swyddogaeth ac amwynder yr ardal. Dylid ystyried nifer a dwysedd cyfleusterau tebyg yn yr ardal yn ogystal â'u patrwm dosbarthiad ac a yw'r effeithiau
gweledol neu amgylcheddol cronnol yn tynnu sylw oddi wrth gymeriad y dirwedd, y forwedd neu'r drefwedd.”

Caiff hyn hefyd effaith negyddol ar y Gymraeg mewn cymunedau ac mae angen cydnabod ac ychwanegu hynny yn y geiriad newydd. Mae hyn hefyd yn wir wrth drafod “PSD7: Diogelu Cyfleusterau Cymunedol” sydd ond yn cyfeirio at “niweidio gwead cymdeithasol.”

VE3: Touring Caravan, Camping and Non-Permanent Alternative Camping Accommodation
“The following is to be added as a new paragraph between paragraph 11.254 and paragraph 11.255

The term "over concentration" in the context of this Policy refers to the proliferation of touring caravans, camping, and alternative non-permanent camping sites leading to adverse impacts on the character, function, and amenity of the locality. The number and density of similar facilities in the area should be considered as well as their pattern of distribution and whether the cumulative visual or environmental impacts detracts from the landscape, seascape or townscape character.”


This will also have a negative impact on the Welsh language in communities and this needs to be recognised and added in the new wording. This is also true when discussing "PSD7: Protection of Community Facilities.” which only refers to "damaging social texture."

Cyflwynwyd y Polisi fel pwynt gweithredu yn ystod yr archwiliad i sicrhau cadernid y Cynllun. Byddai angen i unrhyw welliannau pellach i'r testun sicrhau bod y polisi arfaethedig a'i weithrediad yn seiliedig ar dystiolaeth gadarn sydd ar gael. Byddai absenoldeb tystiolaeth o'r fath, yn enwedig yng nghyfnod y cais cynllunio, yn tanseilio gweithrediad effeithiol y polisi. Nid oes unrhyw dystiolaeth ar gael nac wedi'i chyflwyno a fyddai'n cefnogi gweithrediad effeithiol y polisi hwn.

The Policy was introduced as an action point during the examination to ensure the Plan's soundness. Any further amendments to the text would need to ensure that the proposed policy and its implementation is founded on robust available evidence. The absence of such evidence particularly at planning application stage would undermine the effective implementation of the policy. No evidence is available or has been presented which would support the effective implementation of this policy.