Appendix H to the Initial Consultation Report: Consultation - 1 Responses

Public consultations on LDP 2 Candidate Sites

Consultation 1 – on the initial tranche of Candidate Sites, commenced 17/12/2018 and ended 04/02/2019 (run concurrently with the initial consultation on the LDP 2 Preferred Strategy)
Consultation 2 – on the Additional Candidate Sites (those submitted at the same time as the LDP 2 Preferred Strategy consultation), commenced 17/04/2019 and ended 06/06/2019
Consultation 3 – on the Further Candidate Sites (those submitted by persons affected by the LDP 2 database issue), commenced 19/01/2022 and ended 16/03/2022.
References to support or objection on the pages that follow relate to whether the person or organisation making the comment supports the Candidate Site proposal or otherwise, not whether they support the Council’s decision in relation to that site.

Consultation 1 responses

This consultation related to the initial tranche of Candidate Sites, numbers 001 to 467 inclusive

076: Penally

Stakeholder ID: 34863

Object

I believe that the land north of the former night club (candidate site 076) should be removed from Local Development Plan due to concerns over flooding. Please see attached addendum (below).

Addendum from Stakeholder ID: 34863 – removal of candidate site 076 (land to the north of the former night club) to be removed from the local development plan.

Further to my requested amendment of the Candidate Site Register, I am writing to outline my concerns on specific issues and, most importantly, the flood risk to the land and neighbouring properties.

Flooding

I am attaching 3 maps from Natural Resources Wales that show that the land is within the catchment area for the Ritec Valley and designated as a flood plain for when the river breaks it banks. I am a lay person so do not have data on the projected frequency and severity of the Ritec flooding, however, I have seen the land flood regularly on a great number of occasions including the winters of 2012/2013 and 2015/2016 as well as earlier.

My property, at (location redacted), is adjacent to the (site redacted) and I receive flood warnings from Natural Resources Wales; these are, on average, about two calls a year telling me to leave my property and move to higher ground. The last one was on 2^nd November 2018.

I would also like to draw your attention to the future concerns around flood risk and climate change, you yourselves have raised, outlined your Review Report to this development plan, at 4.6.11

Additionally, it has been recognized that the car park (at the southern end of the field), to be used for staff at the nursing home (the former night club), in the event of high waters they will potentially need to be shuttled in. this parcel of land is about a meter higher than the rest of the field. Attached is 00321459.pdf from that planning application.

Any draining of this land would cause water displacement to neighbouring properties and businesses. The council is already aware that the Clickett Lane the other side of the River Ritec becomes impassable at times of heavy rain and high seas. In 2016 some of the caravans in Kiln Park were flooded.

Lack of existing sewerage and surface water drainage facilities

Causeway Cottages and properties in Trefloyne Lane are not connected to mains sewerage and building on the land (candidate site 076) would result in additional stress on the water table. In a recent response to the application to turn the former night club into a nursing home, the village council said, 00330810.pdf

‘Consideration of the existing planning permission to erect over 40 timber lodges will have major detrimental impact on the already struggling water management in this area. This area is prone to surface water flooding and the already established sewerage system has, to the best of the Council’s belief, been reported several times for back flowing and blocking’

Additionally, there is also another candidate site to the south of this field, number 256 Opposite Causeway Cottages. This field is on a very steep hill; if it is developed any water running off that land will add both to the water table and surface drainage risk for this land below, being discussed here.

Access to the land

At the moment, access to and from the land is via an entrance on Trefloyne Lane and then onto the Penally road that is a narrow lane without a pavement. Busy traffic for a catering unit and hotel will make this corner very dangerous.

Urban sprawl buffer from Tenby

The land currently acts as a buffer to Tenby’s urban sprawl and defines Penally as a distinct village. Once that land is built on, Penally will become a suburb of Tenby.

Ground building materials

The field used to be marshland until 1978/1979 when it was brought up to its current levels with hard core from the demolished South Beach Pavilion and other materials, including the World War II field defences pillbox. This is not a sustainable foundation for either a catering unit or a hotel.

(To note: the further documents referred to in this representation are not reproduced in this document)

266: Maddox Moor / Hook

Stakeholder ID: 1485

Object

Candidate site 266 at Maddox Moor/Hook boundary should be a red site and should hopefully remain undeveloped & left as a “green wedge” between Freystrop & Hook CC.

016: Barnlake

Stakeholder ID: 1536

Support

Your department has been very energetic. You will shortly be drafting the Deposit Edition of the New Plan.

Following the examination of LDP1 the Inspector, (name redacted), recommended “criteria based policies (be) amended to ensure coherence across the Plan and that they are consistent with each other and with national policy”. This resulted in adjustments to the wording of the Policy, however no relevant allocations were adjusted at that late stage.

An obvious example being the publicly promoted residential redevelopment of the old Barnlake Engineering Shipbuilding Yard at Westfield Pill, Neyland, which he specifically highlighted in his Report dated 3-2-13.
I have every confidence that you and senior colleagues will ensure that Policy and allocations will flow from looking at matters “in the round”.

043: Pembroke

Stakeholder ID: 1934

Object

My response is in relation to the town of Pembroke. I’d like to make some general points first, and afterwards, specific observations about candidate site 043.

To return to LDP specifics, I have some observations and some concerns about candidate site 043. This is comprised of 8.14 hectares of green fields. In the last LDP, you deemed almost 3.7 hectares of green fields adjacent to it as being suitable for high density residential development. The site delivery timetable for that has not been met. I raised various concerns about that site including why it was considered that Monkton was ideally suited for further high density development with the existing challenges that ward already faces.

I shan’t quote WIMD statistics again here, nor elaborate on my perception that its residents had no strong voice to counter further potential challenges being added. It needs sensitive and imaginative thought.

At the time of submission of candidate sites for the last LDP site 043 was considered “superfluous to requirements” by the LDP team. What is the current status of the 3.7 hectares of green fields in the Monkton ward, (but adjacent to this 8.14 hectares, site 043, in St Marys south ward)?

Is this further 8.14 hectares of green fields more suitable or is it required in addition, potential, to the 3.7 hectares of green fields? If the latter, then I contend that the south side of Pembroke is being asked to forfeit a huge proportion of its green environment.

Concerns that applied to the 3.7 hectares are also applicable to candidate site 043. In particular, there would be problems with the capacity of the road on the west side of 043 to service it. The main concern would be the junction of Merchants Park and South Road with the main Monkton Road, which already is a bottleneck. The local population who drive this route courteously give way to traffic from one direction as the road is too narrow when Merchants Park resident’s cars are parked outside their homes. How would this route cope with an extra (potential) 600 cars from the 8.14 hectares site with households possibly having two cars each?

I shan’t go into great detail about the importance of Norgan’s Hill to the local community except to say that it is used extensively by walkers, runners, cyclists and horse riders. The east side of Norgan’s Hill blooms with a wealth of wildflowers including bluebells and wild orchids.

Maps of the 8.14 hectares will reveal a variety of wells and natural springs with the “watery lane” bisecting it. To cover that large area with “built environment” will surely significantly reduce the capacity of 8.7 hectares of vegetation currently to ameliorate that wetness and the occasional flooding of gardens and land downhill from it e.g. gardens in Lloyd George Lane/ S Meadows.

I appreciate the need for deliverable sites for affordable housing. I would urge careful consideration of the implications of deleting all these green fields which support great biodiversity and should be happy to substantiate this with further detail.

379: Llanddewi Velfrey

Stakeholder ID: 2036, 2249 and 34473

Object

This site is almost 4 hectares and if approved could double the number of houses in the village. It would totally alter the scale of the village.
It is an open, steeply sloping site on high ground and facing open countryside. It would be highly visible from as much as 15km away, especially from the North and the West
Access would have to be on narrow unclassified roads. There are already complaints locally about the volume of traffic. Access from the A40 (T) would not be acceptable to the Trunk Road Agency so the extra traffic would cause serious safety issues.
The site is unspoilt land, supporting a variety of wild flowers and birds such as yellow wagtails and flycatchers besides more common species. The run off of water from the development would affect the small stream at the bottom. Any development would adversely affect all of this.
The LDP takes into consideration issues of sustainability and the environment. Schooling, work and shopping would all mean travel to other places. The size, as mentioned in 1 above, would mean a huge increase in travel, and poor public transport would make cars the only practical method of getting about. Other services such as healthcare, and social activities would also mean travelling out of the village. The environment (4 above) would suffer from the extra traffic from this development.
Other sites have been put forward in the village which in size, position and ease of access would have much less impact and should satisfy the demand in this small village.
Many of those living in the 12 or so houses near the site have come there because of the open countryside, the views and the peace and quiet. Development would spoil this and its amenity value in general, and that enjoyed by nearby properties specifically.
This site was put forward for the present LDP and was refused. Nothing about the site has changed since then to support the inclusion of this site in the Replacement LDP.

379: Llanddewi Velfrey

Stakeholder ID: 2261

Object

This site is almost 4 hectares and if approved could double the number of houses in the village. It would totally alter the scale of the village.
It is an open, steeply sloping site on high ground and facing open countryside. It would be highly visible from as much as 15km away, especially from the North and the West
Access would have to be on narrow unclassified roads. There are already complaints locally about the volume of traffic. Access from the A40 (T) would not be acceptable to the Trunk Road Agency so the extra traffic would cause serious safety issues.
The site is unspoilt land, supporting a variety of wild flowers and birds such as yellow wagtails and flycatchers besides more common species. The run off of water from the development would affect the small stream at the bottom. Any development would adversely affect all of this.
The LDP takes into consideration issues of sustainability and the environment. Schooling, work and shopping would all mean travel to other places. The size, as mentioned in 1 above, would mean a huge increase in travel, and poor public transport would make cars the only practical method of getting about. Other services such as healthcare, and social activities would also mean travelling out of the village. The environment (4 above) would suffer from the extra traffic from this development.
Other sites have been put forward in the village which in size, position and ease of access would have much less impact and should satisfy the demand in this small village.
Many of those living in the 12 or so houses near the site have come there because of the open countryside, the views and the peace and quiet. Development would spoil this and its amenity value in general, and that enjoyed by nearby properties specifically.
This site was put forward for the present LDP and was refused. Nothing about the site has changed since then to support the inclusion of this site in the Replacement LDP.

379: Llanddewi Velfrey

Stakeholder ID: 2276

Object

This site is almost 4 hectares and if approved could double the number of houses in the village. It would totally alter the scale of the village.
It is an open, steeply sloping site on high ground and facing open countryside. It would be highly visible from as much as 15km away, especially from the North and the West
Access would have to be on narrow unclassified roads. There are already complaints locally about the volume of traffic. Access from the A40 (T) would not be acceptable to the Trunk Road Agency so the extra traffic would cause serious safety issues.
The site is unspoilt land, supporting a variety of wild flowers and birds such as yellow wagtails and flycatchers besides more common species. The run off of water from the development would affect the small stream at the bottom. Any development would adversely affect all of this.
The LDP takes into consideration issues of sustainability and the environment. Schooling, work and shopping would all mean travel to other places. The size, as mentioned in 1 above, would mean a huge increase in travel, and poor public transport would make cars the only practical method of getting about. Other services such as healthcare, and social activities would also mean travelling out of the village. The environment (4 above) would suffer from the extra traffic from this development.
Other sites have been put forward in the village which in size, position and ease of access would have much less impact and should satisfy the demand in this small village.
Many of those living in the 12 or so houses near the site have come there because of the open countryside, the views and the peace and quiet. Development would spoil this and its amenity value in general, and that enjoyed by nearby properties specifically.
This site was put forward for the present LDP and was refused. Nothing about the site has changed since then to support the inclusion of this site in the Replacement LDP.

054: Mathry

Stakeholder ID: 2277

Support

Re: LDP2 – Consultation on Candidates Sites

With reference to your letter dated 17/01/19, we wish the land to the north of my property (and that of (property name redacted) next door) to be retained for its existing use. Vehicle access to this site is already difficult and any further development would only enhance the problem.

126, 127, 176, 415: East Williamston

Stakeholder ID: 2395

Object

Disagree with the conclusion that East Williamston should be included as a service village. One way road access, no public transport, no gas from the grid, limited sewage pumping facilities. The proposed sites would yield potentially 50-150 new homes placing an impossible burden on the village from a safety and environmental point of view.

041: Fishguard

Stakeholder ID: 2739

Object

‘St Marys’ memorial field is a war memorial dedicated to the memory of the lost and fallen heroes of world war one. This memorial field was bought by the church in 1919 from the money raised by the local community.

In 1919/20 the church made guarantees to the fund raisers and local community that Saint Mary’s memorial field would be made available to any sect or creed and any sport for as long as Fishguard was still standing. Given the guarantee and promises made by the church, if this field is sold it is my opinion that the church could be open to criminal proceedings and could be charged with obtaining money by deception. The last page of the deeds clearly states that this field is a memorial field.

Saint Mary’s memorial field is roughly half the size of the original field. The other half is owned by Pembrokeshire County Council. This part of the field is now occupied by part of Heol Preseli Road, council houses and bungalows.

With regards to the remaining memorial field, the planning inspectorate decided that it should remain a recreational open space.

The church has recently installed a private land keep out sign on the gate at the entrance to Saint Mary’s memorial field. Given that this field has been declared a recreational open space, this sign is illegal and I require Pembrokeshire County Council to have it removed ASAP.

Given all the evidence I have provided, Saint Mary’s memorial field should remain as it is. A memorial to the lost and fallen heroes of world war one. The church should hang their heads in shame.

130: Milford Haven

Stakeholder ID: 3434

Support

With apologies, please accept this continuation of Q2 Candidate Site Register Comments as I am unable to find the Preferred Strategy Site Submission Form referenced on the questions from anywhere on your website.

I have 2 sites listed in the Candidate Site register. I would like to plead for my site in Milford Haven – site 130 to have its current designation of amber 3 upgraded to Green 1.

I am not sure if this is the correct place or even if I have the right to list my plea as I am just an ordinary Pembrokeshire resident running a family building business for the last 40 years, so I do feel that I am qualified to make observations with regards to my vision for my Site 130.

I cannot object to the current hi-density-low space developments that are being built around the county, indeed I fully recognise the need for quality housing in our county, however it seems that these developments cram as may units into a small space as is allowed with little regard for the community at large and whilst these type of developments meet the current requirement, my 80 years of seeing the changes to our communities has led me to the belief that we need and should be providing opportunities for sustainable communities along the lines of Pembrokeshire Settlements built for returning servicemen after WW1.

Site 130 is approx. 25 acres that could provide for up to twenty-four (24) one (1) acre plots with a small dwelling, barn, shed and hardstanding to deliver a sustainable market garden type community on the borders of Milford Haven.

The site has good access and egress, power & water and if required close access to the sewage pumping station at Lower Priory, however I do propose that the dwellings will have the best low carbon credentials with community shared stand-alone sewage plants, off grid power generation, rainwater harvesting and waste recycling systems to ensure that the community is and will remain a model for sustainable living.

The site is centrally located on Milford Havens west boundary. The schools and shopping facilities in Milford Haven are only a short walk along already existing footpaths.

I believe that site 130 could be a significant planning gain for the county and provide some balance to the current direction that housing development is being driven. It is not a ribbon development, is within the LDPs’ vision and provides an opportunity away from the concept of high-density development.

I hope you are not offended by my request or that it fall on deaf ears, I am old fashioned and firmly believe in the power of the community and that good communities build happier and healthier locals and hope you agree that this is not a vanity project for an old man looking for a Pembrokeshire legacy, but I feel the possibility of a blueprint for future sustainable developments that will allow generations to grow up in the healthy space that my children and grandchildren have.

124: Hook

Stakeholder ID: 3896

Object

The centre of the village, offering the facilities of shop/post office, school, bus services and sports club, not to mention the availability of two places of worship, lies at least ½ mile from this proposed site. There areas of development nearer to the centre of the village, which would benefit from these facilities.

Site 124 would be accessed from Pill road, which, though adequate for two vehicles to pass, with extreme caution, gives way to the proposed site entrance which is literally the side of a former garden and not suitable for the admission of large vehicles. All vehicles entering and exiting from the site would be subject to restricted visibility and access, due to the dimension of the road at this point, being only 16 feet wide. It is difficult to see how the road approaches in this area could be widened. It is also difficult to foresee the construction of necessary footpaths/pavements, as these would further decrease the access road. A further consideration must be given to the safety of heavy plant and machinery operating in an area where there were a number of exploratory shafts, dating back to the historic coal mining in the area.

Has any thought been given to the possibility that a development of this site would adversely affect the wildlife, which exists in the woodland to the rear of plot 124?

From our own points of view, a) We moved to the country (personal details redacted), in areas of extreme vehicular access, b) we have considered, very carefully, the possibility that a site of this size of site 124 could contain the excess of 50 properties.

What proposal would be made to recompense existing householders for the devaluation of their own properties? When we purchased our property in 2018, we were given to understand that conditional planning permission had been granted, for a stable block and facility for a storage of a tractor etc. with no further consideration for development for domestic purposes. Our garden is already subject to water logging. The removal of much of the grassland from the site 124 would only exacerbate the matter.

We are reliably informed that our property lies at the end of the link to mains drainage. All properties further down the hill, of necessity, are connected to their own septic tanks, which raises the concern for the proposed dwellings having access to the main sewer.

046: Fishguard

Stakeholder ID: 34584

Support

There is not enough land at Fishguard to develop housing for local people. People are penalised for having the wrong number of bedrooms under the bedroom tax. My land is suitable for 1-2 bedroom houses for local people.

108, 464, 465 and 466: Neyland

Stakeholder ID: 34618

Support

As the owners of candidate sites 108, 464, 465 & 466 at Neyland we submitted sites for residential allocation and would like them considered as such.

Supplementary Information: JUDP deposit representation from 2003 for site within the same area of Neyland, but with a different site extent.

113: Haverfordwest

Stakeholder ID: 34822

Object

The road infrustracture in Douglas James Way is not suitable for increased traffic, inadequate sewerage / drainage plus the junction at top is already dangerous.

379: Llanddewi Velfrey

Stakeholder ID: 34823

Object

I am retired and recently moved to this area because of the quietness and view from my property.

379: Llanddewi Velfrey

Stakeholder ID: 34824

Object

A very large site that would double the houses in the village. It is an agricultural field and unspoilt. Development would see the destruction of an area supporting much wild life. It is a steep site with a small stream at the bottom. Water running down the slope would spoil this.

It is a steep slope on high ground facing countryside. It would be seen from miles away and access would be from narrow unclassified roads.

Jobs, shopping, schools, health services etc would all require travel to town and with a poor bus service, cars would have to be used. Sustainability and the environment are considered in the LDP and both would be badly affected by this site. The open countryside and the views for miles are amenities which would be completely spoilt. Other sites submitted in the village would have much less impact.

The site was refused in the current LDP and nothing about it has changed to support its acceptance in the replacement LDP.

379: Llanddewi Velfrey

Stakeholder ID: 34825

Object

Access would have to be on narrow unclassified road. There are already complaints locally about the volume of traffic, access from the A40 would not be acceptable to the Trunk Road Agency so the extra traffic would cause serious safety issues.

There would have to be a huge increase in sewerage capacity. Who would pay for this? It would need a pumping station as well and more smells than at present.

It would give the village twice as many houses as at present and bring a lot of difficulty.

It could be seen from miles away and spoil the peace and quiet and views at present.

It is a steep sloping site, what about drainage? Much of it is Marshland at present and extra surface water would affect the small stream on the site.

There would be demand for services such as education and healthcare which would all need extra travel – cars would be the only practical means.

Other site have been put forward which would be more suitable in size and location and would be enough to satisfy demand.

This site was put forward before and turned down, nothing about it has changed since.

114: Haverfordwest

Stakeholder ID: 34826

Object

I wish to object to the inclusion of C/Site 114 being included as a Green site in the LDP2 plan and propose it be reassigned to the ‘Red’ Category.

As I live at the bottom of Douglas James Way, I am concerned that any new homes built on the proposed site 114 would be accessed from the bottom of the current road where it meets the bridal path to Pelcomb Bridge; we already have a concealed entrance at our property; while exiting our property we have to be very aware of the farm traffic to and from Slade Hall, having additional traffic up and down DJW would make the situation more unsafe.

Any additional traffic cannot be supported up and down DJW and that the already unsuitable road junction at the intersection with Hawthorn Rise would become even more unsafe and prone to vehicle/pedestrian accidents. Douglas James Way is already too narrow and cannot be widened to offset the on-road parking, very large farm vehicles and equipment plus any new through traffic.

Significant problems have been experienced historically with overload of utility services in this area, particularly drainage and sewerage systems.

Natural drainage in the lower section of C/site 114 has been inadequate for years.

114: Haverfordwest

Stakeholder ID: 34829

Object

Candidate site No.114 is unsuitable for residential development and should be amended in the plan from green to red category on the following grounds:-

It seems likely that any new homes behind DJW would be accessed from the bottom of the current road. I believe:-

Any additional traffic cannot be supported up/down DJW and that the already unsuitable road junction at the intersection with Hawthorn Rise would become even more unsafe and prone to vehicle/pedestrian accidents. DJW roadway is already too narrow and cannot be widened to offset the on-road parking, farm vehicles plus new through traffic

Significant problems have been experienced historically with overloaded utility services in this area, particularly drainage/sewerage systems.

Natural drainage in the lower section of C/Site 114 has been inadequate for years.

I trust these observations will be taken into account before the Deposit Plan is finally prepared.

114: Haverfordwest

Stakeholder ID: 34831

Object

Access and road layout not suitable for additional traffic. Too narrow also used by large farm machinery. Site should be ‘Red’.

114: Haverfordwest

Stakeholder ID: 34832

Object

Objection to candidate site 114 West of Douglas James Way, Haverfordwest, as a residential development.

As a resident of Douglas James Way I would like to formally object to the above proposed development for the following reasons:

The narrow residential street, Douglas James Way is a shared access to Slade Hall Farm and sees a high volume of very large agricultural equipment on a daily basis.

The junction between Douglas James Way and Hawthorn Rise is not suitable for the likely increase of traffic due to its layout and location on a tight bend. Turning right from Hawthorn Rise into Douglas James Way is a blind corner, crossing oncoming traffic and is particularly hazardous.

Residents of Douglas James Way have seen several issues over the years with poor drainage and sewage problems suggesting the current drainage system is poorly designed and already overloaded.

The section of land identified as C114 and its access to Douglas James Way is a poorly draining area of land and is regularly seen to be flooded during periods of high rainfall, any run off from this development could cause environmental issues to the brook flowing alongside North Court.

The sale and development of this greenfield site for residential development use seems unnecessary due to the current amount of development sites in and around Haverfordwest area that are failing to find buyers or developers prepared to take them on as viable projects.

For these reasons I would like to see an amendment to reassign Candidate Site 114 from a Green site to a Red category.

249: Haverfordwest

Stakeholder ID: 34836

Object

Removal of Candidate Site Ref 249, or re-classification from Green Category to Red Category for the following reasons:–

As residents on the north side of Haven Road, my wife and I strongly oppose any proposed housing development in the fields behind us. Apart from being prime agricultural land, the surrounding wooded hedgerows provide ideal the habitat for a wide variety of wildlife such as Foxes, Badgers, Woodpeckers, Jays, Buzzards to name but a few. We, as do others, enjoy being able to watch and study such wildlife through binoculars/spotter scopes from our windows overlooking these fields. Such a proposed development would destroy their habitat and at the same time decimate the magnificent unspoiled vista that we currently enjoy.

The upper end of Haven Road has long suffered with sewerage and drainage problems due to the small diameter main originally installed. The current system would just not cope with the additional effluent outlet from a development of this size, without major, costly modifications and the possible need for the installation of sewerage pumping stations.

Haven Road is not close enough to Haverfordwest to support such a development i.e. nearest grocery/paper shop – Trafalgar Road, nearest Public House – centre of Haverfordwest. Bus service very limited in this area for schools and commuting. Too far for children to walk to school as new schools situated the far side of Haverfordwest, resulting in more congestion (not to mention pollution) of traffic on our roads and through town.

114: Haverfordwest

Stakeholder ID: 34841

Object

Site 114 is unsuitable for residential development and should be amended in the plan from “green” to “red” category.

249: Haverfordwest

Stakeholder ID: 34842

Object

I am writing to lodge an objection to the above proposed plan and in particular the inclusion of Candidate Site Ref 249 which relates to two fields directly behind my property on the north side of Haven Road.

I have only recently been made aware of these plans by neighbours, who themselves have only just have only just heard! I cannot believe that the PCC did not inform every householder in the vicinity of a plan of this significance.

I (as are all of my neighbours on Haven Road) am totally opposed to such a development and strongly request that Candidate Site Ref 249 should be removed from the Candidates Register for the following reasons:–

The fields are arable farmland – already three have been lost to Solar Panels!

The surrounding hedges and trees are home to many types of wild life – rabbits, foxes, badgers and nesting places for many species of birds – all of which we the residents on the north side of Haven Road enjoy watching in their unspoiled habitat.

It is well known that this end of Haven Road has sewer and drainage problems. I can’t imagine the problems we and any additional housing will have if a development of this size were to go ahead

There is limited Bus services at this end of town – there are no shops within walking distance, so large population increase here would mean a lot more commuting work traffic and take children to school. Note, the secondary schools will soon be situated the other side of town, so more town traffic and more pollution.

I’m sure there are many more good reasons why this proposed plan should not be considered – I hope sincerely this will be the case.

114: Haverfordwest

Stakeholder ID: 34843

Object

Site 114 is unsuitable for residential development and should be amended in the plan from ‘green’ to ‘red’ category.

114: Haverfordwest

Stakeholder ID: 34845

Object

No. 114 Douglas James Way unsuitable for more traffic road narrow, on street parking. Regular heavy farm traffic access Hawthorn Rise / Douglas James Way poor, with restricted visibility.

I am enclosing a response to the consultation on the Local Development Plan.

My wife and I wish to object in the strongest terms to the proposal in respect of number 114.

Our principle objection relates to the fact that Douglas James Way is totally unsuited to take any more traffic. The road is fairly narrow and restricted by on street parking. Also the road is frequently used by wide, large and heavy farm machinery. The Highgrove nursing home also generates significant traffic both during the day and into the evening.

Moreover the access into Douglas James Way from Hawthorn Rise is not safe, even at the moment, particularly when you have come up Hawthorn Rise and wish to turn right into Douglas James Way: there is restricted visibility of traffic coming down from the Haven Road.

114: Haverfordwest

Stakeholder ID: 34846

Object

Has any thought been given to the possibility that a development of this site would adversely affect the wildlife, which exists in the woodland to the rear of plot 124?

From our own points of view, a) We moved to the country (personal details redacted), in areas of extreme vehicular access. B0 we have considered, very carefully, the possibility that a site of this size of site 124 could contain the excess of 50 properties.

What proposal would be made to recompense existing householders for the devaluation of their own properties? When we purchased our property in 2018, we were given to understand that conditional planning permission had been granted, for a stable block and facility for a storage of a tractor etc, with no further consideration for development for domestic purposes. Our garden is already subject to water logging. The removal of much of the grassland from the site 124 would only exacerbate the matter.

We are reliably informed that our property lies at the end of the link to mains drainage. All properties further down the hill, of necessity, are connected to their own septic tanks, which arises the concern for the proposed dwellings having access to the main sewer.

Candidate site is unsuitable for residential development. It seems likely that any residential development to the west of DJW would be accessed from the bottom of the current road.

I firmly conclude that any more traffic cannot be supported up or down DJW and that already poor road junction Hawthorn Rise would become even more unsafe / dangerous.

114: Haverfordwest

Stakeholder ID: 34847

Object

Candidate Site No 114 is unsuitable for residential development – please see enclosed comments.

I wish to object to the possible Housing Development on 1.15 ha of agricultural land west of Douglas James Way.

It seems likely that any new homes west of DJW would be accessed from the bottom of the current road. I firmly believe that any additional traffic cannot be supported up/down DJW and that the already unsuitable road junction at the intersection with Hawthorn Rise would become even more dangerous and prone to vehicle and/or pedestrian accident. There will be more traffic on the brow of the Hill going out of and coming into DJW which could well serve to aggravate the turning into or out of Highgrove Residential Home.

Also, coming out of the DJC/DJW access to DJW will be more dangerous as there would be more traffic coming up/down DJW.

C/site 114 is a wet block of land with water, following heavy rain, both standing and running off to the lower end of the field-on occasions forming a mini lake due to inadequate drainage.

There have been problems with sewerage over the years and continue still at lower end of DJW.

I trust that these facts, when looked at by the relevant utility services will render C/site 114 unsuitable for residential development and that it should be amended in the Plan from Green to Red category.

114: Haverfordwest

Stakeholder ID: 34849

Object

Candidate Site No: 114 is unsuitable for residential development, amend ‘Red’ category. DJW is already too narrow for existing traffic. There are drainage/sewerage problems; and intersection with DJW at Hawthorn Rise is diabolical, and would become worse (with) extra development.

114: Haverfordwest

Stakeholder ID: 34864

Object

Candidate site No: 114 is unsuitable for residential development and should be amended in the plan from ‘Green’ to ‘Red’ category.

249: Haverfordwest

Stakeholder ID: 34866

Object

I am writing in objection to Pembrokeshire County Council’s proposed Local Development Plan which includes the possible use of two fields directly behind my property which is situated on the north side of Haven road. These fields are referred to as Site 249 on the Candidates Register.

I have only just been made aware of these plans by neighbours, who themselves have only just heard! I am an elderly lady and like many of my neighbours, do not have access to the internet, where I believe this plan was published. All residents that stand to be affected by such a development plan, should have at least been informed by letter!

I am totally opposed to such a development, as are all of my neighbours on Haven Road, and strongly request that Candidate Site ref 249 should be removed from the Candidates Register for the following reasons –

The fields are prime agricultural farmland – Note the landscape has already been blighted by the loss of three fields to Solar Panels

The hedges and trees bordering the fields are home to a wide variety of wild life such as foxes, rabbits, badgers and provide nesting places for many species of birds. Such a development would destroy their habitat.

There have been sewer and drainage problems at this end of Haven road. So there is a real concern that the increased housing of such a development would exacerbate the problem.

The Bus service at this end of town is very limited, also there are no shops within walking distance, so a large increase in population would mean a lot more work and school traffic. Shortly all the Secondary schools will be situated on the far side of Haverfordwest, therefore all school traffic would add to congestion – and pollution.

I therefore request that serious consideration is given to the removal of this site (249) from the Candidates register or at the very least re-classify it as inappropriate, to code Red.

249: Haverfordwest

Stakeholder ID: 34867

Object

With reference to the above plan we would like to raise objections to the inclusion of “Candidate site” No. 249 on the following grounds:

Sustainability – the proposed site is a considerable distance from civic amenities viz. shops, schools etc. and does not have a frequent bus service.

Access – inadequate through Cuckoo Lane. It would seem more logical to include sites 113 and 114 in preference to site 249.

Need – currently there are some 50 dwellings being constructed opposite the Belle Vue to the rear of Hawthorn Rise.

Persimmon homes have recently submitted an application for 179 homes on the site formerly known as Glenover Fields.

There was a proposal for some 600 plus homes to be constructed off Thomas Parry way with roundabout access already in place. (Name redacted) is currently building homes, some affordable, on the existing Glenover fields development.

114: Haverfordwest

Stakeholder ID: 34868

Object

Candidate site no 114 is unsuitable for residential development and should be amended in the plan from Green to Red category.

If the proposed houses are to be built to the West of Douglas James Way where would the children of the families moving into the houses go to school? As the schools in Haverfordwest are full.

There is no employment in the area only seasonal.

The Bridle way at the bottom of Douglas James Way is used by horse riders, cyclists and runners. So is not a suitable access for a substantial housing estate.

The houses in Douglas James Way are all individual so the effect on the sale ability after a substantial housing estate is built could affect them.

249: Haverfordwest

Stakeholder ID: 34869

Object

I write in response to a document kindly brought to my house last Saturday (26^th January) by a neighbour who had seen a comment about the PCC Local Development Plan 2 on Facebook. Had it not been for this, I should still be totally unaware of the matter as no other communication seems to have been made to the residents in our area.

Since then, I have spoken to a helpful person in County Hall who told me that I have until 4^th February to comment on the Plan. She also told me that the fact that the land had been selected as a potential area for development did not mean that it would be granted planning permission automatically. However, I would like to make several points at this stage of the Plan and would be grateful to know that my letter has been read and the points considered by the Planning Team.

There are several reasons why I regard the area marked #249 as unsuitable for building development. I know the fields well, (name redacted) having kindly allowed me to keep beehives at the bottom for several years and having walked up and down there many times. I think it might be useful to list the points and then deal with them in turn. I should be grateful for your response to each of the points.

The land is extremely steep and often waterlogged at the bottom.

It is north facing and because it is in the shadow of the crest of the hill is gloomy and exposed to the worst of the weather, especially during the winter months.

It is a very long way from the new Secondary Schools.

It is unspoilt habitat for many wild species (especially the hedgerows which are old.)

The land is extremely steep and often waterlogged at the bottom.

Steepness of roads would make it difficult for less mobile people, baby buggies and mobility scooters. Once roads and paths were paved over there would be likely problems with flooding during rain. Sewerage and drains generally would be difficult/impossible to connect to the existing Haven Road system (which is already overloaded and poor and requires frequent attention.)

It is north facing and because it is in the shadow of the crest of the hill is gloomy and exposed to the worst of the weather, especially during the winter months.

Site #249 is north facing and receives less sunlight than level land. In the six months from September to March it is shadowed by the crest of the hill (Haven Road). Residential dwellings would have little winter sunshine and would likely be depressing places to spend a lot of time. Gardens would be bare and generally unproductive. Living on the gloomy side of the hill would not be conducive to comfort and together with other disadvantages would contribute to social problems that have already been associated with other similarly situated areas of earlier housing development in the town. It would be foolish to repeat previous mistakes.

It is a very long way from the new Secondary Schools

Since the original call for Candidates Sites last March, I understand there has been a verbal agreement for the access road to the second Haverfordwest Secondary School on the site near Prendergast. Had the school been planned for the Scarrowscant Lane site, increased housing in this area would have had logic to it. However, with both Secondary Schools on the Fishguard side of town, planning housing developments on the opposite side seems to be unreasonable. Site #249 would entail a two-mile journey through town for pupils at either school, increasing what is already heavy traffic at critical times. Families without the means of transporting their children would face reliance on school or service buses (and school buses is another vexed subject). Attendance problems would be exacerbated, particularly among underprivileged groups whose need of education is the greatest. Site #249 is also a considerable way from Fenton Community School. A long walk for young children and parents with buggies/prams, particularly miserable in winter.

It is unspoilt habitat for many wild species (especially the hedgerows which are old)

When there are areas within this area of town in urgent need of development (for example, the disused garage site at the corner of Snowdrop Lane/Dale road) the absurdity of developing green fields a mile further out of town must be apparent. I wonder, too, what is happening to the area off Thomas Parry Way which was designed for development several years ago and now appears to be on ‘hold’. Green fields and ancient hedgerows are a part of our Pembrokeshire heritage for which we are responsible. Every day we hear about the damage to the Planet the human species is causing through thoughtlessness and greed. Building on open countryside when other sites are available would be another example of the same. We are probably all aware of the motto think globally, act locally. It is difficult to prevent the felling of rainforest in Brazil but we can at least reconsider building over green fields outside Haverfordwest. My garden, being at the top of the steep, shadowy, north facing hill under discussion, is not the most productive in cabbages or beans. However, every year since 1982 we have had breeding grass snakes, long-eared bats in the garage, newts and toads, the occasional adder and many open country birds. During the second week of May it is possible to hear the cuckoo. These animals are priceless assets that make our county very special. They are under threat and decreasing in numbers and we have an urgent responsibility to protect the habitats that gives them life. The tress and hedges, the boggy bit at the bottom of the fields have value that cannot be calculated simply in terms of money.

It has been calculated that the World’s population (opens in a new tab) has probably stabilised and started to decrease. Falling numbers in schools confirms this locally and I daresay this is taken into consideration by the PCC Planning Dept.

I should like to thank you for taking time to read and consider my letter. Please do not think that I am simply complaining that a lot of houses would ‘spoil my view’. In fact, we have so many trees still standing in our garden that a new housing development would probably not be visible from the house. I worked for PCC as an adult literacy teacher for 33 years and am very aware of the problems and difficulties of underprivileged people living in miserable housing. People need decent housing with a sense of community and access to amenities and schools. I think that #249 is just the wrong place. It should be removed from the Development Plan and somewhere better found.

124: Hook

Stakeholder ID: 34870

Object

I wish to object to the proposed “application” for an area of land numbered 124 on the Local Plan in Hook.

This piece of land is outside the village boundary and is situated on a small road. Development of this area would bring many problems if allowed. The schools in Hook and Llangwm are already near full capacity. Old maps show this land is pockmarked with old Bell Pit coal workings, surely not suitable for house building.

Access into this area is not suitable for large numbers of houses/cars.

There are numerous available plots in the village for building already available for use in the next 10 years that this plan covers.

The road out of Hook in the direction of Freystrop is really inadequate for the volumes of traffic already using it. Further development of this once lovely village can only spoil what people move here to enjoy.

114: Haverfordwest

Stakeholder ID: 34871

Object

I would like to lodge my objection to site 114 on the proposed Local Development Plan. It appears that the only logical road way into the development is through Douglas James Way.

My main objection is on safety grounds:

The poor restrictive access on entering or leaving DJW into Hawthorn Rise. Hawthorn Rise is an extremely busy road nowadays as used for many purposes including a shortcut to a local supermarket.
The narrow existing roadway already restricted by some resident’s necessity for second cars being parked on the road.
The very frequent use by wide and heavy Farm and contractors’ machinery.

114: Haverfordwest

Stakeholder ID: 34872

Object

I would like to lodge my objection to site 114 on the proposed Local Development Plan. It appears that the only logical road way into the development is through Douglas James Way.

My main objection is on safety grounds:

The poor restrictive access on entering or leaving DJW into Hawthorn Rise. Hawthorn Rise is an extremely busy road nowadays as used for many purposes including a shortcut to a local supermarket.
The narrow existing roadway already restricted by some resident’s necessity for second car being parked on the road.
The very frequent use by wide and heavy farm and contractor’s machinery.

114: Haverfordwest

Stakeholder ID: 34873

Object

I would like to lodge my objection to site 114 on the proposed Local Development Plan. It appears that the only logical road way into the development is through Douglas James Way.

My main objection is on safety grounds:

The poor restrictive access on entering or leaving DJW into Hawthorn Rise. Hawthorn Rise is an extremely busy road nowadays as used for many purposes including a shortcut to a local supermarket.
The narrow existing roadway already restricted by some resident’s necessity for second car being parked on the road.
The very frequent use by wide and heavy farm and contractor’s machinery.

394, 395, 396 and 398: Pentlepoir

Stakeholder ID: 34878

Object

Please accept this letter as a formal objection to a number of proposed candidate sites as contained within p76 of the Candidate Site register (please see attached copy and map for reference).

My initial vested interest in one of these proposed candidates sites was one of geographical location to my residence however upon further investigation I am now growing more concerned with the potential approach towards the over development of Pentlepoir village as a whole. Having fully reviewed the Local Development Plan and its associated evidence papers it is clearly apparent that the county as a whole is currently building dwellings at a rate greater than is require in accordance with the current Population projection plans, as published on the Pembrokeshire county council planning website.

Ref: Population, Household and Labour Force Projections Development Plans

September 2008

Prepared by (name redacted) GIS/Information Manager Policy & Corporate Planning Pembrokeshire County Council

“p.35 Dwellings Requirement The following table suggest that for the area of Pembrokeshire outside the National Park will require a total of 5155 new dwelling for the period 2006-2021, which equates to an average build of 345 units per annum, which compares with a current average completions rate of approximately 470 dwellings per annum.”

Pentlepoir village has steadily grown through development year on year with the creation of many new housing estates which have all fed both directly and indirectly into the A478, which is already an extremely busy road servicing the popular holiday resorts of Tenby and Saundersfoot. Surely creating increased traffic attempting to join this already busy road should be considered a dangerous idea.

Upon review of the proposed candidate sites on the map (see attached) I can see that the majority of the sites are outside of the current approved development line for the village and the majority are on the coastal side of the A478 moving towards to National Park boundary line, resulting in my noted concerns as :-

Site 394 is inside the current approved line and appears, along with Site 019, to form “an assumed” continuation of the latest large development of Coppins Park, which would imply that they would not require an additional entry road onto the A478 but would certainly add to the amount of traffic.

Site 395 – if this site were to be approved then it would certainly be in breach of many of the points raised within the current LDP and supporting evidence documents in that due to its geographical locality any development on the site would certainly increase the highest developed point of the village which would definitely have a “Negative/Adverse visual impact of the development – particularly on the landscape and or locality” (ref: LDP2 – Evidence – Defining Settlement Clusters report). Any development on this site would also be in extremely close proximity to the multiple mobile phone towers and emergency radio mast which I am certain must be discouraged within any local development plan due to current mixed evidence regarding effects on health due to prolonged exposure. Site 395 also does not have any suitable direct road access to the A478 which would require both approval of multiple developments sites to gain access as well as a brand new access way onto the A478.

Site 396 – this proposed site also shares many of the issues of site 395 however it does not appear to present the same negative visual aspect of site 395 due to it not increasing the development height of the village. It also would also require a brand new access way onto the already busy A478 trunk road.

Site 398 – what appears to be a “large” proposal combining multiple fields with a small portion of the proposal sharing the same concerns of sites 395 & 396, however the vast majority of this proposal appears to be adjacent to the B4316 and does not border any current dwellings. Although any development here would increase the traffic at the already busy junction between the A478/B4316 (“fountain head”) it can be assumed that a proportion of the potential increased traffic may head east on the B4316 towards the village of Saundersfoot and away from the A478 trunk road.

It is my intention through this objection letter to appeal to the members of the community council to fully review and consider the points of objection that I have raised and for them to take great care and consideration to the long term effects and ultimate needs of the rural village of Pentlepoir. As potential development of this scale would almost double the size of the village and far exceed the current need for housing within the locality. I fully appreciate the councils need to keep the village prosperous and moving forward however I urge them to consider their duties to the current residents of Pentlepoir and the overall look and feel of the village.

249: Haverfordwest

Stakeholder ID: 34881

Object

In Candidate Site 249 (between South Cuckoo Farm and Cuckoo Lane) the proposed access point north of the gardens of 158-168 Haven Road is a single track width constrained by existing houses and existing private residential garden boundary hedges.

Additionally Cuckoo Lane itself is too narrow to sustain the considerable traffic volumes likely to be attempting to flow through it during busy periods.

The result is likely to be environmentally unacceptable traffic behaviour with continuous braking and acceleration of vehicles as two-way flow has to share the single-width carriageway. This will result in a dramatic increase in airborne hydrocarbon combustion residues and NOx over the levels currently experienced, thus degrading air quality with well recognised associated hazards to human respiratory health.

It is therefore proposed that the access point described above should be deleted from the plans for candidate site 249.

Please treat this letter as an objection to an element of the planning of LDP Candidate Sites Register, candidate site 249 (between South Cuckoo Farm and Cuckoo Lane.)

As the owner and resident at 166 Haven road I am seriously concerned by the proposed access lane to candidate site 249 which would appear to be planned to run immediately alongside my northern boundary hedge.

The proposed access channel north of the gardens of 158-168 Haven Road is a tight, single track width constrained by existing houses and existing private residential garden boundary hedges.

Additionally Cuckoo Lane itself is too narrow to sustain the considerable traffic volumes likely to be attempting to flow through it during busy periods, with many existing residents parking their cars on the road in some of the slightly wider sections of Cuckoo Lane.

The result is likely to be environmentally unacceptable traffic behaviour with repeated braking and acceleration of vehicles as two-way flow has to share the single-width carriageway, with the problem starting at the pinch point behind my garden and only clearing within the last few metres before Cuckoo Lane joins the B4341.

This will potentially result in a dramatic increase in airborne hydrocarbon combustion residues and airborne NOx concentrations over the levels currently experienced, thus degrading air quality with well recognised associated hazards to human respiratory health.

So, from both space constraint and environmental health viewpoints this is not a viable element of the plans. It is therefore proposed that the access point described above should be deleted from the plans for candidate site 249.

124: Hook

Stakeholder ID: 34890

Object

Candidate Site 124

It is very difficult to make observations about this site when one is refused the opportunity to read the applicant’s submission.

Planning application was conditionally approved to this land for the erection of a stable and storage block (with 13 conditions attached) in 2018.

There is considerable distance from this site to the village centre and there is enormous desire to see the centre of the village develop, rather than sporadic development. There are still considerable development sites in the village centre, with full planning permission, plus infill plots, to satisfy planned development of the village for the long term future.

Site 124 is next to a small woodland and water course which would have an adverse effect on habitat wildlife in that area. The water course has already been altered by the applicant, although we are unaware of any permission to do so.

The unclassified road from Hook to Freystrop Cross is notorious for its twists and bends and has had no major upgrading since its construction in the 1950s. It must be reaching its full capacity now.

Site 124 is at the bottom end of the sewer system and there has been no upgrading of that system since its construction in the 1950's. It must be reaching its full capacity now.

The size of the proposed site would mean an estate developing at the village extremities, which realistically could contain 60 or more dwellings.

Pill Road in general is quite narrow and two vehicles pass one another with care. The final 200 yards to the proposed site is much narrower and has no pavement. Large vehicles are warned that there is no turning area once they have entered this section of the highway. At the entrance to the proposed site, the road is just 16 foot wide with no pavement.

The size of the proposed development could mean an estimated sixty thousand (60,000) plus vehicle journeys to this site per annum. All entering or egressing onto a 16 foot wide lane, with no pavement.

Due to the proximity of the disused “Commons” and “Winder” collieries, plus the site contained many “bell” pits, every property would have to be rafted. This would lead to an enormous number of very heavy Lorries carrying extra building materials, all entering and egressing onto a lane just 16 foot wide.

We strongly object to persons from Property being involved in the assessment of Site 124 due to “Conflict of Interest” between one member of staff and the applicant.

Hook school is full and as we understand there is no further funding available in the foreseeable future.

124: Hook

Stakeholder ID: 34891

Object

Candidate Site 124

We write with reference to the above, and wish to register our opposition.

Our objections can be briefly outlined as follows:

Access to the site is severely restricted. Pill Road itself is a narrow road and often congested, being in daily use by large delivery vans, oil tankers, residents’ vehicles and, on a Friday morning, waste collection vehicles. Resident’s cars are also parked on Pill Road.

For much of its length, Pill Road does not have a pavement, essential, surely, if an appreciable number of houses were to be built on the proposed site.

The very infrastructure of the village of Hook would be severely compromised were this housing development to be realised. The community is served by one village shop, one primary school – both being more than adequate for needs of the present population but they would be sorely challenged by the substantial number of people who would theoretically be in residence in Pill Road at some future date.

124: Hook

Stakeholder ID: 34892

Object

The proposed development 124 makes little or no sense. It’s outside any natural line of development for this road, the infrastructure eg. road, sewage, water, communications eg. phone / broadband would not be able to support this size of developments they are all running beyond capacity already. Hook School is virtually full and Llangwm School is full.

Some say it’s a money making opportunity for (personal details redacted) and it would be wrong to grant these changes because of their position.

This part of Pill Road is not suitable for more traffic, its single track with passing places with no pavement and poorly lit at night.

If there was a need for more development than the obvious place would be around the centre of the village not where it would be out of place and impacting on the peace and wildlife of the lower part of Pill Road, close to the estuary.

There are undeveloped sites nearby in Haverfordwest with infrastructure already in place, far more suitable.

The roads leading to Hook were not built for the amount of traffic that currently uses it and minor accidents are commonplace, it would be irresponsible to allow any more development to take place in Hook until after the roads and infrastructure issues have been addressed.

I am confident that when a team from PCC make a visit to Hook if they have not already done so they will understand my concerns and that common sense will prevail; in the interest of the village and the safety of its residents.

421: Hill Mountain

Stakeholder ID: 34893

Object

Candidate Site 421 (and also referring to Candidate Sites 422, 423, 425, 426, 419, 420 and 424 in the same village)

We have concerns regarding the issue of additional traffic using the single track private lane to access this site and the availability of services for the proposed development.

There are already existing problems with the increased traffic using this single track private lane to access the Scout Hut car park and issues with parking in this single track private lane from those using the Scout Hut; at times there are considerable numbers of children in the dark lane and there is already the potential for an accident to occur. In addition, coming out of this lane onto the main road there is poor visibility, which is exacerbated by cars from staff and visitors from the neighbouring care home parking on the verge in front of the Scout Hut: there have already been some near misses as cars have tried to access the main road. In addition, agricultural vehicles have been unable to access the lane which will only become more pronounced due to the increased volume which this development will generate. The above may also apply to sites 422/425/423/426 depending on whether it is proposed to access those sites via this single track lane.

The proposed site is not currently serviced and foul drainage will be required to be pumped to the nearest public sewer: any development will hence need a sewage pumping station. If plots are sold off individually, each property will require their own private sewer pumping station and hence require access over third party land not in their ownership.

Sites 424/419/420 would appear to be far more suitable sites with easy access to services and the main road experiencing none of the issues that have been identified above.

421, 422 and 425: Hill Mountain

Stakeholder ID: 34894

Object

Candidate Sites 421/422/425 (and also referring to Candidate Sites 423, 426, 419, 420 and 424 in the same village)

We have concerns regarding the issue of additional traffic using the single track private lane to access this site and the availability of services for the proposed development.

There are already existing problemswith the increased traffic using this single track private lane to access the Scout Hut car park and issues with parking in this single track private lane from those using the Scout Hut; at times there are considerable numbers of children in the dark lane and there is already the potential for an accident to occur. In addition, coming out of this lane onto the main road there is poor visibility, which is exacerbated by cars from staff and visitors from the neighbouring care home parking on the verge in front of the Scout Hut, in addition to people utilising the Scout Hut; there have already been some near misses as cars have tried to access the main road. In addition agricultural vehicles have been unable to access the lane which will only become more pronounced due to the increased volume of traffic which this development will generate. The above may also apply to sites 423/426 depending on whether it is proposed to access those sites via this single track lane.

The proposed sites are not currently serviced and foul drainage will be required to be pumped to the nearest public sewer; any development will hence need a sewage pumping station. If plots are sold off individually, each property will require their own private sewage pumping station and hence may require access over third party land not in their ownership.

Sites 424/419/420 would appear to be far more suitable sites with easy access to services and the main road experiencing none of the issues that have been identified above.

421, 423 and 426: Hill Mountain

Stakeholder ID: 34895

Object

Ref: Sites 426, 423 and 421 (and also referring to Candidate Site 424 in the same village)

We have been made aware and have concerns with the application to future development proposals around the west and south side of Hill Mountain.

We support the need for increased local housing but are opposed to the development on the proposed sites 426, 423 & 421.

We are concerned about the impact this development will have on the local traffic, especially with the more increasingly active Scouts hall and care home. This access currently is a single track private lane used also by farm & agricultural vehicles.

The proposed sites have limited services and facilities for additional properties. This needs to be considered. The local village presently has few facilities for increased housing.

The current built environment benefits from attractive rural views and many home owners purchased their properties to take benefit from this and the privacy this brings.

We were not expecting this land to be developed and it has come as a shock.

If a site were to be approved, we believe that proposed site 424 would have the most positive impact to the hamlet of Hill Mountain.

421, 423 and 426: Hill Mountain

Stakeholder ID: 34896

Object

RE: Application for Future Development in Hill Mountain on Candidate Sites 421, 423 and 426 (and also referring to Candidate Sites 419, 420 and 424 in the same village)

With regard to the above sites we would strongly object to development being carried out on these areas due to the detrimental effect it would have on the privacy of our property and at least 4 other neighbouring properties. The rear of our property from the kitchen, 3 x bedrooms, lounge/living dining area and garden has attractive rural views over these areas and development on this land would seriously compromise our privacy due to the fact that any future developments would be directly overlooking our property to the point of not being able to open our curtains. We bought our property in the belief that no further development would be carried out on this land.

Furthermore, the access out on to the main road with the junction from Ashdale Lane on the opposite side and the bend in the road coming from the Haverfordwest direction would make an already dangerous section of road even more so.

We believe that other areas of proposed development land such as site 419, 420 and 424 would not have such an adverse effect on any neighbouring properties and also vehicle access and connections to utility services would be far more accessible on these other sites.

We trust you find all the above in order and look forward to hearing from you in the near future.

114: Haverfordwest

Stakeholder ID: 34897

Object

We were given to understand that this site is agricultural land and cannot be built on.

249: Haverfordwest

Stakeholder ID: 34898

Object

I wish to register my objection to proposals for the Green Coding of Candidate Site 249 on the north side of Haven road, Haverfordwest.

My objection is as follows:-

Location of Site/Sustainability

This site 249 does not have easy access to shops, public services or the town centre. Public transport is limited and walking distance to those services would be too great for the elderly and for families with young children. Residents would therefore be compelled to use vehicles thus creating additional road and parking congestion within the town.

A further major shortcoming of this site for residential development is the fact that the new schools, including all of the secondary schools, are situated on the other side of the town.

Environmental Impact

At the time when the environmental impact relating to the importation of food is a matter of considerable public concern, this proposed development which would remove good agricultural land from production would be a retrograde step. It should be noted that a considerable acreage of prime agricultural land in close proximity to this proposed site has already been taken out of production with the installation of solar panels.

The development of this farm land site would have considerable negative impact on the native wildlife. Insects, birds and mammals would all be affected by the loss of grassland and hedgerows and by the inevitable interference with wildlife in the adjacent woodlands.

Infrastructure and Services

The infrastructure serving this area of Haverfordwest has not been designed to support large numbers of residential properties, indeed the main drainage system serving the Haven road already suffers from blockages and the escape of waste material. The additional demands of any new development would overload the existing system and therefore require major infrastructure changes.

Safety

Vehicle traffic to and from the site will inevitably create hazard when joining with free flowing traffic on the busy B4341/Haven road. The volume of traffic involved will not only be a risk to those entering and exiting the site and to through traffic on the B4341 but also to pedestrians on the Haven road itself.

In conclusion I feel that the arguments presented above clearly show that Candidate site 249 is totally inappropriate for residential development and this site certainly does not justify a Green coding in the local development plan.

421: Hill Mountain

Stakeholder ID: 34899

Object

Candidate site 421 (and also referring to Candidate Sites 422, 423, 425, 426, 419, 420 and 424 in the same village)

We have concerns regarding the issue of additional traffic using the single track private lane to access this site and the availability of services for the proposed development.

There are already existing problems with the increased trafficusing this single track private lane to access the Scout Hut car park and issues with parking in this single track private lane from those using the Scout Hut; at times there are considerable numbers of children in the dark lane and there is already the potential for an accident to occur. In addition, coming out of this lane onto the main road there is poor visibility, which is exacerbated by cars from staff and visitors from the neighbouring care home parking on the verge in front of the Scout Hut, in addition to people utilising the Scout Hut; there have already been some near misses as cars have tried to access the main road. In addition, agricultural vehicles have been unable to access the lane which will only become more pronounced due to the increased volume of traffic which this development will generate. The above may also apply to sites 422/425/423/426 depending on whether it is proposed to access those sites via this single track lane.

The proposed site is not currently servicedand foul drainage will be required to be pumped to the nearest public sewer; any development will hence need a sewage pumping station. If plots are sold off individually, each property will require their own private sewage pumping station and hence may require access over third party land not in their ownership.

This may not be a planning consideration but we also have concerns that any development on this land will affect privacy by directly overlooking our garden, lounge, kitchen and bedrooms. In addition, it will have a considerable detrimental effect on our property.

Sites 424/419/420 would appear to be far more suitable sites with easy access to services and the main road experiencing none of the issues that have been identified above.

114: Haverfordwest

Stakeholder ID: 34900

Object

Candidate Site 114 is unsuitable for residential development and should be amended in the plan from “green” to “red” category. Details on attached sheet.

Candidate site No 114 is, in my opinion, not suitable for residential development for the reasons mentioned below. It should therefore be amended in the Plan from “green” to “red” category.

The proposed residential development for candidate site 114 would most likely require access from the bottom of Douglas James Way. I believe the additional traffic cannot be supported up and down this road. The intersection of DJW with Hawthorn Rise is already an unsuitable road junction as the entrance as to DJW from Hawthorn Rise is a blind corner. It would make it more unsafe and prone to vehicles frequently go up and down the road.

Apart from the main issue of the access road, there have bene instances of overloading of the sewerage system in our area. I have lived in Douglas James Close for nearly 20 years and have had personal experience of this due to blockage of the drain near DJW several years ago.

The lower section of C/Site 114 has always had poor drainage. Large pools of water are stagnant in the field whenever there is heavy rain.

114: Haverfordwest

Stakeholder ID: 34901

Object

Candidate Site 114 (also making reference to Candidate Sites 113 and 249 in the same town)

I have some concerns about suitability of the above candidate site.

A number of my neighbours have already expressed valid fears about potential problems with sewerage based on past incidents afflicting properties on the North side of Douglas James Close. Having directly experienced the effects of this, I agree with this view.

Concerns have also been expressed about increased traffic flow causing problems navigating between cars parked on-street and regular movement of large vehicles from Slade Hall Farm. The parking issue has become quite a serious problem recently as more properties now appear to be in multiple occupancy.

The lower end of the field where the proposed site entrance would be is notoriously boggy.

My own concern is that the present proposal only appears to cover about one third of the field. Would agricultural activity continue on the remaining two thirds after development? If so, this would be inconvenient for both farmer and occupiers of the new properties. If not, are there any plans to increase size of the developed area at a later date?

After allowance for roadway/footpaths, the area of Plot 114 would appear to support no more than 4 properties if of similar size to those already standing in Douglas James Close. About 10 modest properties could be squeezed in.

The other 2 areas on the supplied map (113/249) have the advantage of either pre-existing access via the Close or, with a few modifications, via Cuckoo Lane from the Haven Road.

126, 127, 176 and 415: East Williamston

Stakeholder ID: 34902

Object

Sites 126, 127, 176, 415:

These 4 sites would double the size of East Williamston to the detriment of all who live here. The current boundary line should not be changed.

249: Haverfordwest

Stakeholder ID: 34903

Object

The allocation of Candidate Site 249 “Between South Cuckoo Farm and Cuckoo Lane”, Haverfordwest for residential development should be removed from the Local Development Plan for the following reasons:

The site is not well related to the existing settlement boundary of Haverfordwest as its allocation would result in the loss of greenfield land. Extending the settlement boundary in a northerly direction along Haven Road encroaches into open countryside and would give rise to the loss of agricultural land.

There are existing housing allocations and proposed Candidate Sites within the current settlement boundary of Haverfordwest which will satisfy housing requirements in forthcoming years.

The allocation of this site for residential development would result in loss of amenity and access to green space as a public footpath (PP23/4), enjoyed by many passes along these fields.

421: Hill Mountain

Stakeholder ID: 2114

Object

Candidate Site 421 (and also referring to Candidate Sites 422, 423, 425, 426, 419, 420 and 424 in the same village):

We have concerns regarding the issue of additional traffic using the single track lane to access this site and the availability of services for the proposed development.

There are already existing problems with the increased traffic using this single track private lane access the Scout Hut car park and issues with parking in this single track private lane from those using the Scout Hut; at times there are considerable numbers of children in the dark lane and there is already the potential for an accident to occur. In addition, coming out of this lane onto the main road there is poor visibility, which is exacerbated by cars from staff and visitors from the neighbouring care home parking on the verge in front of the Scout Hut, in addition to people utilising the Scout Hut; there have been already been some near misses as cars have tried to access the main road. In addition, agricultural vehicles have been unable to access the lane which will only become more pronounced due to the increased volume of traffic which this development will generate. The above may also apply to sites 422/425/423/426 depending on whether it is proposed to access those sites via this single track lane.

The proposed site is not currently serviced and foul drainage will be required to be pumped to the nearest public sewer; any development will hence need a sewage pumping station. If plots are sold off individually, each property will require their own private sewage pumping station and hence may require access over third party land not in their ownership.

This may not be a planning consideration but we also have concerns that any development on this land will effect privacy by directly overlooking our garden lounge, kitchen and bedrooms. In addition, it will have a considerable detrimental effect on our property.

Sites 424/419/420 would appear to far more suitable sites with easy access to services and the main road experiencing none of the issues that have been identified above.

146 and 178: Thornton

Stakeholder ID: 34870

Object

077, 085, 236, 245, 285, 454 and 455: Tiers Cross

Stakeholder ID: 34870

Holding response

146 and 178: There is no need for these sites. There is enough available space without them.

077, 085, 236, 245, 285, 454, 455: Insufficient detail is provided on 236, 283, 077, 245, 085, 454, 455 the sites to allow council to decide if they support the applications or not. We welcome some development but not all listed.

114: Haverfordwest

Stakeholder ID: 34827

Object

Candidate site no. 114 should be transferred to category ‘Red’ it is not suitable site for development.

I write to object to the above proposal to grant permission to build housing on the land as identified as Candidate site No: 114.

The lower part of the proposed site is subject to flooding when there is heavy rain, and poor connections in the drainage system in the area have caused problems in the past.

But my main objection is that the entrance to the site comes off a narrow road which is accessed via a dangerous junction at the top of D.J.Way.

Parked vehicles, and access to a property right on the junction, makes it a difficult toad to enter especially when approaching from along Hawthorn Rise from City Road. Additional traffic would only make the situation worse.

It is also particularly difficult for pedestrians to cross the road at this point.

I understand several thousand new homes are planned for the future. This site is unsuitable for any development, and should not be approved.

114: Haverfordwest

Stakeholder ID: 34830

Object

Candidate site no: 114 is unsuitable for residential development and should be amended in the plan from ‘Green’ to ‘Red’ category.

113 and 114: Haverfordwest

Stakeholder ID: 34839

Object

Site 114 in particular is a worrying with regard to access on and off the estate at the top of Hawthorn Rise on a very sharp bend.

Site 113 – the same applies to that site if access is to be through D.J.Close and out to Hawthorn Rise. If access to 113 is to be off the Haven Road then there will be no impact to the traffic in D.J.W.

As mentioned above. It is access on to D.J.Way that has been of concern to residents for many years. The entrance is on a sharp bend with very little vision of oncoming vehicles, it is a narrow turning with the complication of a residential home on the corner. Traffic (including ambulances turning into the home quite regularly) together with the numerous farm implements going up and down all day makes entry onto the estate quite difficult and dangerous on times. I fear a further development with extra traffic when under construction and subsequent additional residents will only exacerbate the present situation.

114: Haverfordwest

Stakeholder ID: 34840

Object

CS.114 – This site is unsuitable for residential development and should be amended in the plan from ‘Green’ to ‘Red’ category.

114: Haverfordwest

Stakeholder ID: 34844

Object

I own and reside in (location redacted), I hereby wish to lodge my objections to site number 114 on the local development plan/replacement/ preferred strategy.

Residents have not been notified of these proposed changes to the plan therefore many are completely unaware of the impact the changes could have on them and their properties.

My objections are based on the poor access to this site, a bridleway and footpath would be disturbed both of which I use on a regular basis and there is already a distinct lack of Bridleways in our County those that we do have need to be preserved.

The highway is totally unsuitable to an increased volume of traffic and could possibly mean the appearance of double yellow lines on the road and current residents would not be able to park their vehicles outside their own homes as they currently do.

There has been a long standing issue with sewage IN DJW for many years, and an increased amounts of waste would amplify this problem.

House prices would most definitely be affected and residents would see a depreciation in the value of their homes.

I would appreciate confirmation that my objections have been received.

126, 127, 176 and 415: East Williamston

Stakeholder ID: 34848

Object

East Williamston needs to be removed as a service village, it is a small rural community with very little services.

The plan shows the possible sites for more houses, the access road to the village is a single road, (and) by putting more housing around it adds more pressure on our local services and more pressure to the single access road.

Road Access (restricts) overall development (potential) in this rural area.

Remove it from list.

Leaving the village the size it is and not enlarging the boundary of the village (should be the plan).

249 Haverfordwest

Stakeholder ID: 34865

Object

I am writing to register my objection to Pembrokeshire County Council’s proposed Local development Plan which includes two fields directly behind my property which is situated on the north side of Haven Road. These fields feature in the Candidate Register referred to as Site 249.

Like many of my neighbours, I have only just been made aware of these plans, and I’m horrified to learn that the intended access to this proposed site, should it go ahead, would be to demolish the house next door to me, (property name redacted)!

For the proposed development of this size, surely the Council should have at least informed, by letter, all residents likely to be affected!

I am very much opposed to such a development, as are my neighbours on Haven Road, and strongly request that the candidate site ref: 249 should be removed from the candidate sites register for the following reasons:

The fields in question are agricultural farmland on the side of a valley, slopping away from my property and form part of a very pleasing landscape, which has recently been marred by the three fields being covered in solar panels.

The hedges and woodlands bordering these fields are home to a variety of reptiles and wild life, life such as foxes and rabbits etc. and also provides nesting places for many species of birds. A development such as this would destroy their habitat.

We have limited bus service at this end of town. There are no shops within walking distance so a large increase in population would mean a lot more work and school traffic.

Shortly all the secondary schools will be situated on the far side of Haverfordwest, therefore all school traffic would add to congestion and pollution.

Sewerage and drainage is another concern – It appears that the sewer and drainage system at this end of Haven road is struggling to cope with the current population, so there is a serious concern that the increased housing of such a development would create major problems.

I therefore submit that the site 249 be removed from the Candidate register, but if not removed, it should be re-categorised as Red.

Local Development Plan Review