Appendix H to the Initial Consultation Report: Consultation 2 Responses - Part A

Consultation 2:

This further consultation was specific to the Additional Candidate Sites, but most of the submissions related to the original tranche of Candidate Sites.

The consultation responses relating to the Additional Candidate Sites (numbers 468 to 522 inclusive) are listed first, followed by those that were submitted in relation to the earlier tranche of sites.

473: Milford Haven

Stakeholder ID: 34433

Object

Gas Transmission – FM 28 – Herbrandston to Felindre – GT 117

Please see enclosed plan referenced GT 117 at Appendix 2. The proposed site (473) is in close proximity to a National Grid underground high-pressure pipeline.

The statutory safety clearances between overhead lines, the ground, and built structures must not be infringed. Where changes are proposed to ground levels beneath an existing line then it is important that changes in ground levels do not result in safety clearances being infringed. National Grid can, on request, provide to developers detailed line profile drawings that detail the height of conductors, above ordnance datum, at a specific site. You can find National Grid’s guidelines for developing near Over Head Lines (opens in a new tab)

496: Llanddewi Velfrey

Stakeholder ID: 2036

Object

The additional sites that applied to Llanddewi Velfrey within the LDP were discussed in the most recent meeting of the Council. They asked me to pass on the following objections to site reference 496:

This site is on a narrow unclassified road and access would increase traffic to unacceptable levels and cause safety issues.
The size of 1.5 hectare would be enough for approximately 45 houses, which would be out of proportion to the present size of the village.
There would be issues of sustainability and the environment, which are to be taken into consideration for the LDP. Development on this site would increase travel by those inhabitants for all services, ranging from schooling, healthcare and any social activities, as well as employment, since there are no jobs in the village.
Any development on the site would adversely affect the lives of the people currently living along the road. They would lose their privacy, and the open countryside setting and aspect would be completely changed. The amenity value of the area would disappear.
The site was included in the site put forward for the present LDP, and was turned down. Nothing has changed since to support this new application.

496: Llanddewi Velfrey

Stakeholder ID: 2432

Object

This site was turned down for the previous LDP for good reasons and nothing has changed in the interim to support a new application.

A development of multiple dwellings on a single site, given the Authority’s policy of maximum occupancy, would be wholly inappropriate for the present size and rural nature of the village.

Once the Llanddewi Velfrey to Penblewin trunk road improvements are completed and the status of the existing A40 is changed to a minor road, there will be alternative opportunities for development along the existing A40 in smaller plots that will be far more appropriate for the locality.

There are no opportunities for employment in the village so new occupants would have to travel to work and for all services such as schools, healthcare and social activities, contrary to the Authority’s policies on issues of sustainability and the environment.

Access from the site is on to a narrow, unclassified road and would increase traffic to unacceptable and unsafe levels.

The amenity value of this rural area would disappear adversely affecting the lives of existing residents.

496: Llanddewi Velfrey

Stakeholder ID: 34825

Object

Access to this site is via a narrow single road with no dedicated passing laybys. The increased volume of traffic by construction work and homeowners would lead to additional noise, pollution and safety concerns.

Our property is a bungalow sharing the boundary with the proposed site. We have major concerns regarding our privacy, reduced sun light and the potential decrease in the property’s value due to a significant change to the surrounding countryside.

The development of 45 houses on this site would increase the need for more / improved services such as transport, healthcare, schooling and amenities and there is very little employment in the village.

No additional / new evidence has been presented since the last time the application was turned down by LDP.

497 and 521: St. Dogmaels

Stakeholder ID: 2724

Support

Please see below for the response from Stakeholder ID: 2724:

Site 497: Adjacent to Trefigin Quary, CC support provided that it does not impact on any housing or PRoW in the proposed area or adjacent to the proposed area.

Site 521: Opposite Dwylan, St Dogmaels, CC support in principle as a boat park would be welcomed. However, such support would be subject to the nature of further and detailed information that might come forward in future.

499: Treffgarne

Stakeholder ID: 34876

Support

I write with regard to the above numbered candidate site submission. I am very disappointed that my application has been placed in the red category. As the site is adjacent to the current village boundaries I feel that some development should be allowed. The current strategy is stifling the development of villages such as ours. We are in a Welsh speaking area and in the catchment area of Wolfscastle County Primary school, a categorised Welsh school.

We have a church and a village hall which has recently refurbished and is used very frequently. Since the early seventies gradual development has occurred and even within the last 10 years pockets of development have been allowed.

There are now forty seven properties within the close village lines and a further nineteen within the Parish boundary. My site is adjacent to a country road and, if you allowed one or two plots, this would only represent a small percentage increase.

The current attitude of PCC to smaller village development would see the gradual demise of smaller villages. A change to allowing such developments as mine would assist in distributing the population instead of concentrating in the larger centres. At an early stage in the JUDP, you asked questions regarding the effect such developments would have on the welsh language. If no development is permitted in villages such as ours, in the Welsh speaking heartland, then the language will decline. The Welsh Government has set a target of a million Welsh speakers by 2050. Pembrokeshire County Council’s policy for development in villages such as ours, does not reflect support for the Governments Welsh language policy.

It seems unfair that rural villages that are known to foster the language are discriminated against, whilst the larger town seem to be protected.

505: Roch

Stakeholder ID: 1999

Object

The following points are put forward in opposition to the Candidate Site (505) (also referencing Candidate Site 328):

Relevance of Existing Allocation: (East of Pilgrims Way: HSG/114/LDP/01). The fact that there is already this existing allocation is highly relevant for the following reasons:

The fact that no apparent steps have been taken to develop this site indicates the disproportionate cost of creating a development in this location and lack of demand, neither of which factors is likely to change in foreseeable future.

The access limitations set out in the DSPG which limit access via Maes Ffynnon to 25% of the total 44 allowable, ie 11 units, and via Pilgrims Way to the remaining 75%.

If developed by construction of the 44 houses, then that would exhaust the capacity of these roads and preclude their serving the Candidate Site also.

If not developed and withdrawn from the LDP allocation, this CS would be limited to the same access figures.

Access: The proposed access to the site via Maes Ffynnon and Pilgrims Way is problematical:

Traffic entering and leaving the service lane leading to the field from Maes Ffynnon is required to carry out an acute 90 degree turn.

There is no splay visibility for traffic emerging onto Maes Ffynnon from the service road because of existing structures.

Equally, there is no prior visibility of such traffic for residents of Maes Ffynnon emerging from their drives adjacent to the service lane.

Comment from PCC Highways: “it would be difficult to create normal radii”; we would say impossible to create such radii.

It would difficult if not be impossible for long vehicles, eg large construction vehicles and deliveries, removal vans, council refuse collection vehicles etc, to navigate the same corner safely, particularly when the lane is further narrowed by pedestrian pavements.

Equally there are problems with creating access to the site via Pilgrims Way which would (per PCC Highways) involve “resolving on street parking problems for local residents and the loss of existing green areas”.

Traffic: There would be a significant traffic impact on the residents of Pilgrims Way, Church Road and, particularly, Maes Ffynnon:

Maes Ffynnon residents, many with young children, invested substantially in purchasing properties on their estate or having them built on the assumption that they would be living on a quiet cul-de-sac (although they have already had to endure up to fourteen years of living on a construction site and an unmade estate road due to the poor property market and consequent delay in selling the last few plots/houses on the estate).

If development of the Candidate Site is permitted they would face further years of construction traffic and thereafter a greatly increased volume of the new residents’ traffic through their estate, with associated safety issues and concerns.

Whilst the above points may not comprise strict planning considerations they impinge upon the points below which are relevant to the proposed development.

Blight: Acceptance of the Candidate Site and particularly the traffic issues referred to above would impose an immediate and permanent blight upon the value and saleability of the houses on Maes Ffynnon, some of which are already on the market (and have been for a considerable time).

Construction of new houses adjacent to the Northern edge of the Maes Ffynnon estate would have this double effect to a dramatic extent, most particularly with regard to the unsold plots and existing houses on that boundary.

Housing Need: There is no obvious evidence that the housing needs of those working, likely to work, or already living in the immediate environs of Roch require a development of the possible size suggested by the area of the Candidate Site.

There are and have been for some time a number of housing units for sale in Roch (many long term) which appears to belie any suggestion that there is an unmet need for private housing.

It seems that any real need is for affordable housing which could be met by a smaller site that does not pose some of the difficulties referred to above and below.

Building Difficulties: There are a number of factors which suggest that it would be very difficult to attract a developer to take on the risks:

It is not clear to what extent a detailed survey of the site has been carried out but the fields are steeply sloping in parts and the site is split by a watercourse in a steep gully.

The substantial cost of acquiring the site to include the cost of potential ransom strips.

The required mix of housing.

Any requirement to pay a substantial levy to the council for the cost of improving the village’s infrastructure, most significantly in funding an essential expansion to school buildings (for which there is no obvious space) and upgrading the village drainage system

The uncertainty as to when access would be available through the existing site allocated under the LDP, the owner of which has, in effect, a ransom strip.

Protected Species: There is at least one protected species inhabiting the area (adders) which would require any developer to obtain a specialist survey and follow survey recommendations as to protection of relevant flora and fauna.

Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty: immediately adjacent to the National Park.

General Points With Regard To Roch: The village is at the extreme edge of the PCC area and 6 miles from the nearest employment centre with limited bus service.

It is outside the “Pembrokeshire Haven Area”, in second lowest category “Total Employees by LSOA” at less than 100, and outside the “hub triangle”

Alternative Candidate Site: Insofar as further development in Roch is deemed necessary, Candidate Site 328 offers clear advantages in terms of:

Access by an existing road (Atlantic Way).

Building cost, given level ground, good access.

Does not directly abut or visually impact the National Park.

These comments were also supported by the following residents:
(19 names redacted)

522: Martletwy

Stakeholder ID: 1564 and 2536

Object

(Location redacted) – The entry is False. We have never asked for our house and grounds to be included as a development site. Please remove it.

The Planning Officers drawing the line round the village of Martletwy for the LDP deliberately removed our home, and only our home, from within the village envelope,(it formed part of the village for the previous Plan the JUDP), claiming that it was peripheral to the village. They assess us as being part of a scattering of homes, which are located the other side of a stream which forms a natural boundary to the Village, or perhaps with those on the opposite side Martletwy Wood (a coniferous forest). We wrote and requested we be re included in the Village but they refused.

But we are very much within the village, adjoining it along three sides of our property.

We note that for some reason the LDP includes a third of our drive plus our entrance within the Village. In the interests of rational planning we will draw this to the attention of the Planning Inspector appointed to consider the Review and request that this is also removed from the village envelope if the house and grounds are not reinstated, as this serves as an entrance solely to our home and land. ((Name redacted) who were previous tenants of the house, rented adjoining fields for a pony and made a temporary entrance from our grounds, but the bank was replaced on their leaving the property, to make sure the Glebe Land boundaries were intact). We are the first owner occupiers of the property. The previous owner being (name redacted).

I note the comment from Cadw and am contacting them to explain the disappointing situation that the Church of St Marcellus, part of the setting of our house, is included in the Village but our home is not.

Generic comment: Not specific to a particular settlement

Stakeholder ID: 1741

Advisory response

This topic was discussed at the last Full Council Meeting, which the following was agreed (apologies for the delay in responding):

Resolved that: the Development Plans and Conservation Manager, Pembrokeshire County Council, be advised that any future developments be looked at not only an individual basis but also at the cumulative impact of the sites and the potential impact on the flood plain.

471, 518, 519 and 520: Narberth

Stakeholder ID: 3994

Support

Land at Redstone, Narberth – Based on a desktop assessment of the site, the land at Redstone, Narberth is a site of potential future interest to Persimmon Homes West Wales if allocated for residential development.

At this preliminary stage of the Local Development Plan review we will continue to monitor the progress of the site through the process and will be in further contact with the land owner in the case that the site is allocated for residential development.

496: Llanddewi Velfrey

Stakeholder ID: 3987

Object

Comments (on Candidate Site 496)

The site is on a narrow unclassified road and access would increase traffic to unacceptable levels and would cause safety issues.

The size (1.5ha) would be large enough for 45 houses which would be out of proportion to the present size of the village.

Issues of sustainability and the environment are taken into consideration in the LDP. Development on this site would increase travel for all services, e.g. schooling, healthcare and social activities as well as employment as there are no jobs in the village.

The site would adversely affect the lives of people living along the road and lane. They would lose their privacy and the open countryside setting would be completely changed. The amenity value of the area would disappear.

The site was applied for in the present LDP and turned down. Nothing has changed since to support this new application.

496: Llanddewi Velfrey

Stakeholder ID: 3993

Object

This development would be on a narrow road which would cause traffic congestion and safety issues.

The development is out of proportion to the rest of the village. It would mean a large percentage rise in the number of households in the village.

Every new household would have to travel for schooling, health care, all amenities (shopping, leisure) and work. The environmental impact would be large, especially considering the other sites which have been suggested as part of the LDP.

The site has previously been applied for, and rejected, there has been no change in circumstance which would warrant a change in the decision.

The village population who live here have chosen a village location for specific reasons, such as its countryside setting, privacy, free space, peace and quiet. There are several towns locally which would be able to accommodate this number of houses without adversely affecting the lives of those in the surrounding area. This would not be the case in the hamlet of Llanddewi Velfrey.

496: Llanddewi Velfrey

Stakeholder ID: 3992

Object

(Candidate) Site (496) contains mature trees, hedges and natural watercourses, the alteration of which would be detrimental to local wildlife and water run-off. Immediate neighbours currently enjoy a largely rural outlook, this would be negatively impacted and disrupt the local community e.g. people moving, and affects property values.

As an owner of adjacent land, should this site be developed I am likely to seek to do the same and move away. I moved to, and want, a rural property.

500, 506 and 507: Letterston

Stakeholder ID: 34762

Object

Please do forgive this reply to the consultation being slightly out of time, but I do hope that it can be taken into account.

The additional sites for the (name redacted) area have been considered by (name redacted) (minute 19/02) who have the following observations:

506: Concerns over the size of the area, with a potential strain upon infrastructure, particularly sewage which is believed to already be at capacity and possibly also the school. Also concerns over access and the potential impact upon the Welsh language.

507: As above except size with access particularly difficult either onto the A40 or directly onto St Davids Road by the traffic calming bollards.

500: Noted to already be within the LDP, but access coming out close to a part of St Davids Road which has already been identified as dangerous.

Although this second public consultation was specific to the Additional Candidate Sites (numbers 468 to 522 inclusive), the Council also received a substantial number of comments relating to the original Candidate Sites (numbers 1 to 467 inclusive), which are listed below in order to present a complete picture of the public response.

013, 024, 045, 074, 075, 122, 150, 151, 152, 280, 303, 306, 307, 321, 322, 323, 324, 325, 326, 327, 337, 342, 362, 377, 444, 445, 446, 447, 448, 449, 510 and 511: Pembroke Dock

Stakeholder ID: 3910

Mixture of support and object responses, as detailed below

013 – support – This field is within the settlement boundary and also in an area of fairly modern development. It is a shame that this plot that could be made into a local amenity area / park should be built upon, particularly if other open sites in the area have already been earmarked for development in earlier incarnations of the LDP. If there are other open areas available for the residents of Pembroke Dock then I reluctantly support this Candidate Site for house building. Having looked at the earlier LDP it seems that areas of public amenity have already been allocated nearby.

024 – support - The use of this site for non-residential view would continue its usage pattern, however it should not be used for industrial purposes. Continued retail use or a tourism facility might be appropriate.

045 – object - Outside the settlement boundary. Present inappropriate use under a description of agriculture should not be used to promote this site as land for housing. Allowing building on this site would make building houses on the fields to south more acceptable in the next round of reviews (LDP 3 et seq), thus removing the “green belt” between Pembroke and Pembroke Dock and impinging on the amenity value of this green space.

074 – object - Outside the settlement boundary. This land, if assigned to building, would severely reduce the amenity value of the land from the end of Sykemoor Road to the Pembroke River. It is important that a buffer zone be maintained between the present settlement boundary and the banks overlooking the river, to maintain the visual appeal and amenity of this attractive and historical river. Previous refusals of planning permission to a site neighbouring this plot would seem to indicate that building on this plot is unacceptable. Building on this site would also significantly erode the amenity value of the view towards Pembroke from the recreation area at the southern end of Treowen Road (Site 444).

075 – object - Outside the settlement boundary. This land, if assigned to building, would severely reduce the amenity value of the land from the end of Sykemoor Road to the Pembroke River. It is important that a buffer zone be maintained between the present settlement boundary and the banks overlooking the river, to maintain the visual appeal and amenity of this attractive and historical river. Previous refusals of planning permission to a site neighbouring this plot would seem to indicate that building on this plot is unacceptable. Building on this site would also significantly erode the amenity value of the view towards Pembroke from the recreation area at the southern end of Treowen Road (Site 444). The Pembrokeshire Coast Path also runs through this plot and building across the path would be inappropriate and against the ethos that the path aims to convey – i.e. access to the countryside.

122 – object - Outside the settlement boundary. This piece of land is hard on the shoreline and would detract severely from the visual amenity of the view of Lower Pennar from the Pembroke River. Building on this site will probably destroy archaeological evidence associated with the old shipyard at Jacobs’s Pill and earlier industrial archaeology. Building works and final buildings may also obstruct access along the foreshore at this point.

150 – object – Outside the settlement boundary. Granting of permission for building on this site will ultimately allow development along the entire length of Military Road to Pennar Point. My main concern is that housing on this site is in a highly visible position, on the crest of a ridge, and cannot be effectively masked by trees due to salt laden wind exposure. It would erode the visual benefits, from the Pembroke River and the Barrack Hill, gained from the removal of the oil tanks along Military Road.

151 – object - Outside the settlement boundary. For house building, this site is too near the Pembroke River, and this detracts from the visual amenity of the setting of this historic waterway.

152 – object in part - The site lies astride the settlement boundary, and whilst I can see no problem with building houses on the portion of the site within the settlement boundary, the portion west of this, outside the boundary detracts from the visual amenity of the setting of the historic Pembroke River.

280 – support - Fits in with usage of neighbouring land.

303 – support - Site has been used for housing before. Should only be single storey buildings to reflect the former housing style on this plot.

306 – support - No comment at present.

307 – support - No comment at this stage.

321 – object - Outside the settlement boundary. Too close to significant foreshore for housing development and it would have an adverse effect on the visual amenity from traffic on the Milford Haven waterway and neighbouring shore lines. Probably highly contaminated with hydrocarbons. Destruction of hanging woodland habitat. Peregrine falcons observed in area.

322 – object - Outside the settlement boundary. Loss of sheltered woodland ecosystem and likely to be heavily contaminated with hydrocarbons. Loss of visual amenity from numerous footpaths that run alongside and through the area.

323 – object - Outside the settlement boundary, but within that of the Pembroke Dock Conservation Area. An inappropriate and precedent setting site for consideration for housing. The Barrack Hill is an amenity of great value to the residents of Pembroke Dock. The property has been neglected and abused by its current tenants and this is a cynical trial application to test the waters for further encroachment on an open space that figures significantly in the history of the town – hence its inclusion within the conservation area.

324 – object - Outside the settlement boundary, but within that of the Pembroke Dock Conservation Area. An inappropriate and precedent setting site for consideration for any development apart from that to enhance the biodiversity of the area. The Barrack Hill is an amenity of great value to the residents of Pembroke Dock. The property has been neglected and abused by its current tenants and this is a cynical trial application to test the waters for further encroachment on an open space that figures significantly in the history of the town – hence its inclusion within the conservation area. The fact that the area has been allowed to become overgrown by the current occupiers is a shame.

325 – object - Outside the settlement boundary and within the conservation area. This site, if developed would drastically erode further the setting of the Grade II* and Scheduled Monument of National Importance, the Defensible Barracks. Not acceptable at all.

326 – object - This site is outside the settlement boundary and within the Pembroke Dock Conservation Area. The same objections apply as for the other sites forwarded as candidate sites that lie within the boundaries of the Barrack Hill. An added objection for this site is that it removes access to open countryside to students at Pennar Junior School. The scrubland and grassland is a good learning environment for pupils. I can see the need for a small, carefully designed carpark, but I believe other solutions should be sought that do NOT include using this designated piece of land.

327 – object - Outside the settlement boundary. Similar arguments apply to this site as for sites 322 to 326, apart from the fact that it lies without the Pembroke Dock Conservation Area. Gross hydrocarbon and chemical contamination.

337 – support - No comment at present. Support, subject to further information.

342 – support - No comment at present. Support, subject to further information.

362 – support – Support subject to more information.

377 – support – Support subject to envisaged use.

444 – support – Wholeheartedly support.

445 – support – Support subject to details of proposed uses.

446 – support – Support, with some reservations about the actual width of area being perhaps too narrow.

447 – support – Support wholeheartedly.

448 – support – Support as long as youth club retained.

449 – support – Support wholeheartedly.

510 – support – Support wholeheartedly.

511 – support – Support.

014, 035, 043, 079, 087, 095, 096, 109, 115, 116, 117, 119, 131, 148, 167, 174, 175, 281, 302, 308, 352, 353, 356, 373, 401, 402, 403, 404, 409, 410, 411, 430 and 431: Pembroke

Stakeholder ID: 3910

Mixture of support and object responses, as detailed below

014 – support – support as is a natural infill of the present settlement pattern. Within Settlement Boundary.

035 – object – outside the Settlement Boundary. Faint indications of buried archaeology in this field. See Google Earth.

043 – object – outside the Settlement Boundary. This erodes the visual amenity from Pembroke Castle and other points in the town, moving buildings nearer to the crest of the hill to the south. A small strip of land, that runs northwards towards Orange Gardens, is within the Settlement Boundary, but would have amenity value for residents of existing houses.

079 – support – outside the Settlement Boundary, but has little visual impact from Lamphey Road.

087 – support – reluctantly support. The land here is relatively out of sight. Traffic from the site onto Well Hill may add extra hazard to vehicles descending Well Hill.

095 – object – the site is outside the Settlement Boundary. It is south of Lower Lamphey Road so sets a further precedent for development south of the aforementioned road.

096 – object – seemingly, as readable from the small scale mapping showing the site, outside the Settlement Boundary, but within the Pembroke Conservation Area. Not acceptable as this would be unnecessary encroachment on the Conservation Area.

109 – object – outside and detached from Settlement Boundary. Any development here would detract from the seemingly remote and rural nature of Jack Scone’s Lane.

115 – object – within Settlement Boundary and within Pembroke Conservation Area. Absolutely unacceptable as this would severely erode – no destroy – the setting of The Priory and adjacent medieval buildings, including Monkton Priory Church and its underlying archaeology. This site also lies within the viewshed of Pembroke Castle. No.

116 – object – within the Settlement Boundary and partially within the Pembroke Conservation Area. It is difficult to understand why this site and site 115 above has been included within the Settlement Boundary given that this is an historic site with much archaeological potential. The entire plot and plot 115 above is within the viewshed (visible form) of Pembroke Castle and as such its present open landscape character should be retained. The Priory Church and buildings, as well as the medieval dovecote (sited at the highest point) are a very important setting for the Castle, hence this area’s inclusion in the Pembroke Conservation Area. I cannot object to the development of this site in strong enough terms. No.

117 – mix of support and object – within the Settlement Boundary, outside the Conservation Area. Within the viewshed from Pembroke Castle. Reluctantly support subject to any forthcoming planning applications observing the critically sensitive nature of this site.

119 – support – within Settlement Boundary, outside Conservation Area. This area covers the sidings and loading dock of Pembroke Station. This area played an important role in transporting tanks and other vehicles to Castlemartin Range in WW1 and after. My support is subject to there being a good archaeological survey and investigation of the site.

131 – support – outside Settlement Boundary, but a sensible infill, although it does destroy the ecological value of a green finger of land into the midst of existing buildings.

148 – object – object until I am able to understand why this rural site has been selected for the role as a site for travellers. Is this not a residential use, so why grey?

167 – object – predominantly outside the Settlement Boundary. I can see that the area within the Settlement Boundary might be appropriate for housing, but to extend housing across the remainder of the proposed site, particularly above the crest of Golden Hill, would have too great a visual impact as viewed from the castle and south of the town, on St. Daniel’s Hill, for example. The site also detracts from the rural and ancient nature of Jack Scone’s Lane.

174 and 175 – object – outside the Settlement Boundary. Mapping not really clear enough to determine the extent of each site, but in combination the two sites would detract from the rural nature of Jack Scone’s Lane and put further traffic pressure on the road, with its dangerous corner, under the nearby railway bridge.

281 – object – With the Settlement Boundary and within the Pembroke Conservation Area. Turning this site over to any usage that would entail the demolition of the Victorian school building would be a travesty and injustice to the heritage of the town. This would compare, as an act of wanton vandalism, to the demolition of Old Pennar School, in Pembroke Dock. Any development that made use of the existing building would be welcomed, but its demolition is unacceptable. A use as some sort of tourist attraction – gallery, TIC, café, etc. would be good as this would spread the footfall of tourists more equably throughout Pembroke.

302 – object – outside the Settlement Boundary. Similar reasons to site 043.

308 – support – within Settlement Boundary and within Conservation Area. This is a special site which is highly archaeologically sensitive, both beneath the ground and within the fabric of standing buildings. Should be subject to a high level of investigation before any final decision on usage (is) made.

352 – support – within Settlement Boundary and within Conservation Area. This is a highly contentious realignment in association with site 353. There will be need for archaeological investigation of the route, but it will make Bridgend Terrace and Awkward Hill more easily accessible to pedestrians, with the possibility of making Bridgend Terrace etc. pedestrian access only.

353 – object – within the Settlement Boundary and within the Conservation Area. Absolutely not acceptable. The route of the road would cut across the last remaining green outlook from the walls of the Castle to the west and north west of the castle. The land, particularly on the south side of the Pembroke River, has a high archaeological value and provides the castle (and the town) with a good visual setting from the west (and Bush House) that approaches what it would have looked like before the nineteenth century. Indeed, the view of the castle from other vantage points, much further away, would be drastically degraded by this proposal. This project infringes many of the tenets of the LDP. It would also drastically degrade the group value of the Castle, the Priory and its buildings (particularly the dovecote) within its greenfield setting.

356 – support – within the Settlement Boundary and within the Conservation Area. Subject to details of works to be carried out.

373 – support – outside the Settlement Boundary. Subject to correct archaeological appraisal of the site, particularly the boundary that runs E/W through the site, which looks to be along the line of an earlier road (pre-arrival of railway?) from Pembroke to Lamphey.

401 – object – outside the Settlement Boundary and within the Conservation Area. Absolutely not. Similar arguments as for site 353, but more so. This land is part of the historical and archaeological setting of Pembroke, Monkton and the Bush Estate as viewed from Bush House. Anything more than very low impact interpretative development of this site would be unacceptable.

402 – object – outside the Settlement Boundary and outside Conservation Area. Same arguments as site 116. Would encroach detrimentally on the setting of the medieval group of buildings at Monkton Priory and the Castle, as well as the setting of Bush House and the view from this historic property (this is an historic site with much archaeological potential). The entire plot and sites 115 and 116 above are within the viewshed of (visible from) Pembroke Castle and as such its present open landscape character should be retained. The Priory Church and buildings, as well as the medieval dovecote (sited at the highest point) are a very important setting for the Castle, hence this area’s inclusion in the Pembroke Conservation Area. I cannot object to the development of this site in strong enough terms. No.

403 – mix of support and object – outside Settlement Boundary and within the Conservation Area. If the proposed usage is careful restoration of the land to pasture with public access for low impact activities that maintain the rural nature of the site than I support this change of use, subject to obtaining more detailed information. If the term ‘leisure’ means any form of building, apart from very low impact seating, barbecue site etc. then I absolutely object to the proposal. This site has been mistreated over recent decades by storage of scrap machinery and as an inappropriate dumping ground for sediment from the Castle Pond.

404 – support – outside the Settlement Boundary, with the Conservation Area. I support this suggestion subject to seeing the details of the proposed works. Any works would have to maintain the overall rural nature of the site.

409 – object – outside the Settlement Boundary. The houses would be silhouetted on top of the crest of Grove Hill and thus degrade the setting of the Castle within the valley of the Pembroke River.

410 – object – outside the Settlement Boundary. The houses would be silhouetted on top of the crest of Grove Hill, more so than site 409 and thus degrade the setting of the Castle within the valley of the Pembroke River.

411 – object – as for sites 043 and 302, above.

430 – object – outside the Settlement Boundary, within the Conservation Area. Absolutely not. This site, if used for housing, would drastically detract from the setting of the group of medieval buildings centred on Monkton Old Hall and the Castle.

431 – support – within the Settlement Boundary. Subject to further details.

030: Penally

Stakeholder ID: 3941

Object

I wish to object to the proposed development of the above site. I believe the large size of any possible development on this land is out of keeping with a rural setting in a village such as Penally.

It would also place the local infrastructure under enormous strain, to say nothing of the local surgery which is hardly coping even now.

When the bypass was built it was stated that no further exits onto it would be allowed, and this has been honoured to date and should remain so.

030: Penally

Stakeholder ID: 4282

Comment

Hello,

As I must remain impartial, I am mindful of what I can put forward (personal details redacted). However I think it is of benefit to point out that the developer who has submitted the candidate site below has an already incomplete development in the same village of Penally. The Paddock estate has several buildings to be complete plus the road at the Paddock needs to be brought up to an adoptable standard. I feel it is in the interest of the residents of the Paddock that this work is completed prior to any other development being considered by the same developer.

030: Penally

Stakeholder ID: 3941

Object

On behalf of the Penally History Group I wish to object to the proposed development of the above site.

Being returned on the 6^th June D-Day – could now mean Don’t Allow Day.

I wish to object because;

The field is part of the area either known as Volunteer, Yeoman, or Poppy Fields where thousands of troops were billeted and trained (together with the camp and trench system on the cliffs)

The fields were used from the late 1890s up to about 1937 with up to 6000 troops here in any one period

The troops on returning from the front after WW1 carried with them on their uniforms thousands of poppy seeds and these fell to the ground, germinated and for many years produced a vast area of red poppies, which many regarded as a memorial to the fallen.

The site was also where the Tenby Cubb airfield was situated, used mostly by the Americans in WW2

I believe the site has a major local and national historical interest to a lot of people (especially locals) and should be retained undeveloped.

030: Penally

Stakeholder ID: 3933

Object

Any developments of the land would be a gross invasion of our space, outlook and dignity, also concerns about wildlife in particular hedgehogs and bats.

030: Penally

Stakeholder ID: 3930

Object

I have only just seen the local development plan for Penally. It was the local newspaper that brought it to my attention and this e-mail is making sure I am within the response time you have set.
I am appalled that parts of north and east Penally could be regarded as ripe for housing developments. Such an event would destroy the very nature of the village I live in, it would destroy the community feel, it would create real access problems for traffic and pedestrians and for a sizeable number it would destroy the views that drew them to come here in the first place. The present infrastructure could not possibly cope with the influx of people, even now the lack of pavements on the approach to Penally would become very much more dangerous. Penally is struggling with transport difficulties now and development to the north and east would make them much worse.

030: Penally

Stakeholder ID: 34662

Object

The potential development of this site and the size of likely development would not be in keeping with the rural setting of the village.

Infrastructure is currently under pressure – water & sewage not adequate.

030: Penally

Stakeholder ID: 3924

Object

Serious Objections:

Part One: Sewers and Drainage:

Sewerage Capacity – this is already an existing problem.

I draw your attention to the recent article (opens in a new tab) regarding the Paddock Inn, north of the candidate site.

Recent sewerage work being carried out in order to connect foul water from the new Penally Grange development into the main sewer, has already put a considerable strain on a main sewer that regularly presents problems to residents of (property name redacted), and neighbouring properties. The main sewer runs through their gardens creating foul smells and other issues. These properties are immediately to the North and West of the proposed development.

Given that the sewer seems to be operating at above capacity already, residents have serious concerns about how their lives and health will be affected.

Part Two: Correspondence and previous planning applications:

A letter (name redacted), (personal details redacted), to the SPDC Planning Department on 24/2/1976, (Received 25/2/1976) and within Council Archives, which states:

The cesspit system is most unsatisfactory and would cause a nuisance in the future.

Whichever sewerage system would be adopted would cause problems to current residents.

We refer you to:

A letter (name redacted), (personal details redacted), to the SPDC Planning Department on 24/2/1976, (Received 25/2/1976) and within Council Archives, which states:

Strong objections raised against any development on this site, including:

Detrimental to the skyline

Difficulties with access to the site and its close location to the schools, and transportation links

Traffic congestion and the impact on villagers – it states that the village cannot take any further traffic

Increased traffic and lack of pavements would prove hazardous to residents within the village, particularly children

A further letter (name redacted), (personal details redacted), to the SPDC on 17/3/1976 states concerns over: Spoiling the countryside

Wasting good agricultural land
Traffic Conditions
Detriment to the area
Failing to protect the rural landscape
Unsuitable in scale and character
Traffic flow
Visual intrusion
Linear Sprawl
The rural landscape

Planning permission was refused in March 1976 on the following grounds:

Because of the prominence and location in the landscape it was decided that the land should remain undisturbed
The site is within 300 yards of the Pembrokeshire Coast National Park and would seriously detract from the overall landscape character of the area
Adequate lands have already been granted for residential development, and that if further additional lands were needed in the future then more suitable lands lie within the village without recourse to this prominent site.
The village road is narrow and tortuous having a sharp bend and no footpaths over its whole length. Increased traffic would result in an undesirable hazard for children and other pedestrians.

These four points are valid today.

Additionally, in August 1977 a letter form Welsh Office stamped (name redacted) for (name redacted) on refusing the application states that:

There are serious environmental objections
That the sewers present unsatisfactory drainage conditions, that the sewers are overloaded (and this over 40 years before the proposed Penally Grange Holiday Development may be added to the same system)
Although proposed, the sewerage system has not been upgraded since then
The land has an agricultural value

Ongoing correspondence in Pembrokeshire County Council’s archives (through 1976 -1989) demonstrate a continued refusal of planning permission on the grounds stated above.

In 1989. A letter (name redacted), (personal details redacted), to SPDC, on 21 April states the objections to the planning permission and points out the decision to refuse planning was supported by two Welsh Office inspectors by a written and a public inquiry. In our opinion nothing has changed.

Part Three: Material considerations that should be taken into account:

Overlooking/loss of privacy and loss of light: for the residents adjoining the planned development, which is to the rear of many properties

Parking may already become a problem as the free car park at the railway station becomes a paid for car park in Spring 2020, putting pressure on the village as people park on the roadside, before this development is even considered

Highway safety: as detailed above, lack of pavements and hazards for pedestrians

Traffic: increased volumes and noise

Effect on listed building and conservation area: see below

Government policy: The Welsh Office has already turned this application down on several grounds previously

Proposals in the Development Plan: we would like this aspect to be more closely scrutinised

Previous planning decisions (including appeal decisions): there are several, dating back to at least the 1970s, ALL REFUSED

Nature conservation: including disturbance of bat flying routes (protected species), hedgehogs (seriously threatened and in extreme decline), insect and beetle deletion, presence of owls

Part Four: Designated Conservation Area

The following extract is taken from Pembrokeshire County Council’s website:

Conservation Areas

What is a conservation area?

A Conservation Area is defined as “an area of special architectural and historic interest, the character or appearance of which it is desirable to preserve or enhance” (Planning (Listed buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990).

Therefore, a Conservation Area is an area designated by the Council as an area of special architectural or historic interest. The designation of a Conservation Area enables the Council to monitor and guide change and to ensure that the character of the area is protected.

Conservation Areas vary greatly in their nature and character and they contain the most historically and architecturally important and interesting parts of towns and villages. The designation of a Conservation Area is a prime means of recognising, protecting and enhancing the identity of places with special character.

There are currently 24 conservation areas designated by Pembrokeshire County Council which cover 0.53% of the County:

Carew, Carew Cheriton, Cosheston, Eglwyswrw, Fishguard, Lower Town (Fishguard), Goodwick, Haverfordwest, Honeyborough, Lamphey, Llangwm, Llawhaden, Mathry, Milford Haven, Narberth, New Moat, Neyland, Pembroke, Pembroke Dock, Penally, Scotsborough House, St. Dogmaels, St. Florence, Wiston.

We should like to be given access to The Conservation Area Appraisal for Penally. Previous refusals have demonstrated the special character and local distinctiveness of Penally. We call on the Council to honour its commitment:

Public consultation will play a big part in the appraisal process. Local contribution is valued to ensure that:

The document is a good reflection of local knowledge and experience

It is as accurate and comprehensive as possible

It increases and shares an understanding of an area's special character

It ensures that everyone has a say in the management of the area

(Further documents relating to planning applications determined by South Pembrokeshire District Council and by the Welsh Office have been supplied)

054: Mathry

Stakeholder ID: 2507

Support

It is in complete agreement with the proposal that this area and site be protected and remains undeveloped, and that it be retained in its existing and current state – as a wildflower meadow.

It has long been the opinion and policy of Pembrokeshire County Council – (and of Preseli Pembrokeshire District Council before that) – that Mathry is a unique hilltop village – and that its distinctive character should be maintained. It was felt that there should be no further development/sprawl down the hillside that would destroy the unique character of the settlement. Stakeholder ID: 2507 strongly supports this viewpoint.

It is hoped – and expected – that this policy will prevail.

369: Portfield Gate

Stakeholder ID: 2732

Object

Thank you for your help in clarifying the current LDP proposal and explaining the procedures involved to complete the stages that are in progress.

The time limit for responses to the latest Plan was some months ago and at the time I had no concerns because there was no snipping away at the Green Wedge on the edge of the hamlet that one would have expected on the drawings on display in Cambrian House, at that time. Neither was there reference to such an application and its planning status. Why was this not made clear at the time of the public consultation?
However, it has been brought to our attention that there has been an application to build inside the Wedge that has been accepted for consideration by your office and is now recorded by your selves on the LDP with an Orange (Amber) rating number 369.
Although the time limit has been exceeded may I please ask that due to the above reasons our objection to this incursion into the Green Wedge be accepted and coded ‘red’ similar to that other incursion into the Green Wedge number 504.

379: Llanddewi Velfrey

Stakeholder ID: 3992

Object

Site contains mature trees, hedge and natural watercourses, the changing of which would adversely affect local run-off and wildlife. Development of this site would adversely affect immediate neighbours and the wider local community by changing the current rural outlook at the edge of the village.

As a neighbour who overlooks this site, if development went ahead I would anticipate moving away and looking to build on my land as well. I moved to, and want, a rural property.

062, 063, 064, 065, 383 and 384: Haverfordwest

Stakeholder ID: 3929

Object

After being informed by a neighbour of the proposed Candidate sites with no prior warning and no signs or leaflets by the council to make the general public aware of this plan which I find extremely unprofessional, I seriously object. My main concern is that of site 383 I also object to 384, 064, 063, 065, 062.

I will focus on 383, I object for many reasons.

Firstly I would like to say that I was under the impression that this area is Green Belt or it was, unless it has now been conveniently changed?

Green Belt – an area of agricultural land around an urban area that is protected from large scale housing.

If this is not the case anymore then I still have serious objections.

There is a main gas line pipe running through that area.

There is a Tetra mast erected in that area (health risks to human).

The sewage in this area is already at full pelt and we all seem to have issues with pipes where the water board is called out on a regular basis to unblock.

This area is a haven for wildlife a breeding ground of many species to build here would destroy their home.

Destroying many many trees with the call for making the planet more Green by the Government it seems rather hypocritical to destroy trees and wildlife in fact building here would be demonstrating quite the opposite to a global achievement.

Increased traffic on already a busy road, and very problematic if there is an accident on the A40 when traffic is re-routed.

There are many natural springs that run through the site 383 and also include an Ancient Well (on private land) which may cause disturbance.

There are also major electricity points running through the field.

I enclose a photo to the entrance of the field marked 383 which you notice there is no signs of proposal set out for the public to see.

Is this actually legal?

062, 063, 064, 065, 141, 383 and 384: Haverfordwest

Stakeholder ID: 3931

Object

There are multiple reasons for my objections to these Additional Candidate Sites – please see attached.

My husband and I have been residents of (address details redacted) since 1^st October 1993 – almost 26 years. We purchased the property as our ‘forever home’ for the following reasons:

The house was originally built as a bungalow but previously had the loft converted giving us additional space during our youthful years. The presence of the downstairs bedroom afforded us the potential for retirement living without having the upheaval of moving in old age.

The garden size was suitable for a growing family, giving us both entertaining space and a peaceful place in which to relax and enjoy our valuable down-time.

The views afforded from the house and garden across the fields to the flood plains of the Western Cleddau and beyond give us the ‘wow’ factor of ‘location, location, location’ on a south-facing aspect of the town.

We are on the edge of town yet still in the country giving us both rural living but with access to the shopping and facilities of the county town.

The location of the house gives us the quiet and calm that we wanted for our home.

We object to the nomination of the above sites for inclusion in the Additional Candidate Sites Register for the revised LDP 2 for the following reasons:

There is already a huge site earmarked for residential use off Thomas Parry Way, Haverfordwest (adjacent to the site of the now-withdrawn application to build Sainsbury’s) which was to accommodate over 800 homes, view the Wales Online article (opens in a new tab) why on earth does the town need further land to be set aside for residential use? One has to ask where all these people are going to come from given that young people leave Pembrokeshire in search of work. There is little enough in the way of well-paid employment in Pembrokeshire since the closure of Murco, Gulf and PetroPlus, so who, exactly, would be moving into houses built in the above locations? The retention of 14 Signals Regiment within Pembrokeshire is still not resolved – should the regiment move elsewhere, as has been mooted, the housing at Cashfields will pass into local use too.

The area provides residents of New Road, Dunsany Park, Addison Road, Clover Park, Style Park, Uzmaston Road and Creamston Road with a quiet, rural setting in keeping with the fact that this area was not incorporated within the town several years ago when the town boundary was reviewed. These residents will have chosen their homes based on the proximity of their houses to exactly those rural features which will disappear if these Additional Candidate Sites are designated as suitable for building.

The inclusion of sites 383/384/141/062/063/064/065 will result in a phenomenal increase in vehicular traffic; this will have a massively detrimental impact on traffic joining Salutation Square roundabout at all times of the day. At peak times, between 8:00-9:00 Monday to Friday, Salutation Square roundabout will simply not be able to cope with the increased traffic flow.

The total acreage of these sites is vast. Sites 383 and 384 alone are almost 3 times the size of Dunsany Park and Addison Road together. Between them those roads accommodate in the region of 50 houses built in the late 1960s / early 1970s when building plots and gardens were much larger than those of today. I would hazard a guess that these two plots would provide land for 200-300 houses with the remaining sites (numbers 141 / 062 / 063 / 064 / 065) providing land for another 100 houses giving a total of 300-400 properties. The pressure on Uzmaston Road and Salutation Square roundabout in terms of traffic alone would be catastrophic.

A high pressure LNG gas main pipe runs through the fields dangerously close to most of these sites and beneath sites 383 and 384. Construction of any kind within the vicinity is extremely risky and, if memory serves me correctly, not advised.

Site 383 specifically, which adjoins our garden boundary, will detrimentally impact our right of ‘peaceful enjoyment’ of our ‘possessions’ (namely our home and garden). Under Article 1 of Protocol 1 ECHR ‘Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions’. Inclusion of this site as an Additional Candidate Site would prevent our peaceful enjoyment as a result of the increased disturbance / noise from the new housing and its associated residents. We accept that these rights are not absolute and that restrictions may be placed on them, however, such restrictions must be ‘lawful, have a legitimate aim and be balanced’. Given the comments in point 1 above, the inclusion of this particular site could hardly be called balanced when there is an unused site ready to accommodate 800+ homes on the other side of town.

The inclusion of sites 383 / 384 / 141 / 062 / 063 / 064 / 065 will massively devalue the homes close to them – our house particularly is unique in its aspect and outlook and the very reason that we purchased the house – see images below. Every property specialist in the country will advise that a large proportion of a property’s value is based on ‘location, location, location’ – how much compensation will Pembrokeshire County Council be giving us for the devaluing of our home?

All of these views would disappear if site numbers 383 and 384 were to become Additional Candidate Sites (7 photographs supplied).

The land at the lower section of area 383 frequently floods in heavy rain – a site visit to the bottom of the field will evidence this. We are all painfully aware of the increasing regularity of extreme weather events – particularly in, what can only be described as, monsoon-like events when rivers and water-courses struggle to cope with rainfall run-off. The lower part of this field forms part of the flood plain of the Western Cleddau and to include it in potential residential land is irresponsible in the extreme.

The land at the top of site 383 is incredibly steep and therefore totally unsuitable for residential land. Any attempted levelling / terracing of the land to improve its suitability for construction would have a detrimental effect on the stability of our garden / boundary.

The area at the top of the field in site 383 contains badger setts because it provides perfect conditions in which badgers live. The site is sloping with trees at the top and overlooks undisturbed fields which make it the perfect location for badger setts.

Badgers are ‘protected by the Protection of Badgers Act 1992’ and as such, the following should be noted:

‘Offences relevant to development works include:- wilfully injuring or killing a badger; disturbing a badger while it is in a sett; intentionally or recklessly damaging or destroying any part of a badger sett, or obstructing access to a sett. This means that if badgers could be affected in these ways by your development, and you take no action to prevent it, you run the risk of committing an offence’.

Wildlife and nature are constantly under threat from urbanisation; the aforementioned Additional Candidate Sites are havens of diverse wildlife and provide habitats for all kinds of birds, insects, mammals, etc’ which rely on the ecosystem of the area for their very existence. Such habitats on the periphery of urban areas should be protected and not demolished through the ever-increasing march of bricks and concrete. The presence of the Gas Works Lane SSSI is evidence that this area should be retained as it is without urbanising it.

Each of the aforementioned sites are populated with a vast range of broad-leaved trees and hedges which not only provide habitats for wildlife, but also assist in the management of CO2; the world is on the brink of a climate catastrophe – any destruction of broadleaf trees (the lungs of the planet) is irresponsible at best and criminal at worst; such destruction is scandalously immoral when these sites are not essential. We all have a responsibility to look after the planet for future generations and that starts with maintaining the ecology and environment around us.

Information from the PCC ‘Defining Settlement Clusters Report 2019’ states the following: ‘Welsh Government priorities for rural areas are to secure … an attractive, ecologically rich and accessible countryside in which the environment and biodiversity are conserved and enhanced’. The sites listed above provide very easy access to such areas for residents of Haverfordwest, who may not be able to access more remote areas of countryside, and they should therefore not be included as Additional Candidate Sites.

I note, from research into the identified sites that the proposers of these sites fall into 4 distinct groups:

(The next two paragraphs contain references to specific individuals and have been redacted).

The reclassification of agricultural land by applicants into building / residential land results in a phenomenal increase in the value of such land; it is frankly abhorrent that such profit should be made on the back of the misery of those worst affected by such actions.

We would urge Pembrokeshire County Council, in the strongest possible terms, to reject the proposals for the Additional Candidate Sites numbered 383 / 384 / 141 / 062 / 063 / 064 / 065.

030 and 376: Penally

Stakeholder ID: 3989

Object

I have only just come across the planning proposals today (hence the rushed form), but object based on the basis that Penally’s identity will be destroyed; not to mention the effect on wildlife, community spirit, the amount of increased traffic and lack of infrastructure to accommodate this. It reflects disproportionate growth for the village and the development plans go against the reasons why I chose Penally to retire to in the first place. Please don’t destroy this wonderful Welsh village.

030: Penally

Stakeholder ID: 3942

Object

Services already severely stretched, doctors, minor injuries, district nurses, dentists, traffic safety on already busy bypass.

030: Penally

Stakeholder ID: 3943

Object

I wish to object to the change of use from agricultural land to any form of structural development. Having lived at (property name redacted) for 30 years I am aware that several attempts have been made to change the use to a residential development, but have been rejected, and I do not think that any of its conditions for that rejection have changed in recent times.

The presence of a large number of bats making their homes in its perimeter is also of some concern.

It would be a great shame to see our lovely village over populated, and whether the infrastructure is capable of supporting extra development is questionable.

030: Penally

Stakeholder ID: 3944

Object

My main reasons for being against the proposed are:

Certain properties are bound to be overlooked and lose their privacy

Traffic access to and from the site

As far as I can remember the site has been refused planning on 3 occasions over the last 30 years.
The reasons are access not being allows on to the bypass, there was a fatal accident by school lane. The builders even wanted to knock down a bungalow on the village road to gain access, this was not allowed.
Sewerage and drainage from the site! There is already a problem with the development at ‘Penally Grange’ because of this.
There is a lack of facilities in the area re. Doctors, healthcare, transport and employment.
The area is not able to provide for more people. We need more ground for farming, not less.

030: Penally

Stakeholder ID: 4283

Object

Volume of traffic speeding through Penally junction to Ridgeway already hazard. Impact on water pressure, drains often smell. Bats fly over the area. Bypass people overtake and already take risks.

030: Penally

Stakeholder ID: 3945

Object

The size of the site indicates that there could be at least 80 houses on this site. This, taken together with the site already scheduled for development off The Paddocks (only a matter of a few hundred feet away), could result in over one hundred new houses and so an extra 250 residents in the village (approximately an extra 25%). This would totally unbalance the village and overload the infrastructure.

I understand that the residential sewage drainage for the area surrounding this site is already close to critical in its capacity.

The only available traffic access to this site is onto the by-pass. Permission for this has been previously repeatedly refused for this and other proposed sites in the area.

The only medical provision for the whole Tenby and district area is the Tenby Surgery at The Nortons. This is already struggling to cope, having a shortage of doctors, is relying on locums and has been put into “special measures” by the Health Authority. I feel that the extra load imposed by a development on this scale could cause a complete collapse of health provision for the area.

030: Penally

Stakeholder ID: 3947

Object

Application for change of use of this site from agriculture to housing has already been refused at least twice in the past by the Welsh Office inspectors on appeal.

The site appears to outside the LDP village settlement map boundary as at Feb 2013.

The site is close to the National Park boundary, so any development would have an adverse effect on the landscape / visual impact of the area.

The only access to the site is on to the busy A4139 50mph village by-pass main road, thus creating potential road safety problems and dangers.

The site has been designated as a buffer zone between the village settlement and the A4139 by-pass.

There are already problems associated with the sewage system running along the back of our houses, causing foul smelling fumes to come back up the drains in to the house. Welsh Water are aware of this, and have dealt with the problem when informed, as and when it arises.

030: Penally

Stakeholder ID: 3948

Object

(No additional text provided)

030: Penally

Stakeholder ID: 3985

Object

As a resident of Penally of approximately 46 years, I wish to strongly object to the proposed Penally candidate site number 030.

This site was previously submitted for planning which was objected to, went to appeal and the owner lost the case for development.

This field is adjoining a busy by-pass which is a curved 50 mile an hour carriageway and any entrance to this field would be extremely dangerous.

The field is prime agricultural land fairly high on the landscape and easily viewed from the surrounding area. It will completely change the view of Penally in the Landscape. We are a small village and it will change completely the dynamics of the Village. We are a historic village and this field is a particularly sensitive site.

The Village is already experiencing problems with parking, speeding etc. Property is already being bought up as holiday homes.

We have already had plenty of development for a small historic village at the other end of the village (Penally Heights) which is ongoing, and a field approved at the Tenby end of the Village being developed with holiday lodges. Enough is enough and it is about time the Community Council and the Villagers of Penally are listened to.

My husband and I beg you to reconsider this site as a candidate site for development.

030: Penally

Stakeholder ID: 3949

Object

What has changed from the previous refusals?

It would impact on the value of our and other properties.

Why weren’t the residents who would be directly affected personally contacted?

We have learnt about this proposal via neighbours.

Please explain what has changed since the last refusal, especially as regards the by-pass approval. (Is safety less important)?

Has (name redacted) got more influence now? He managed to get permission for (property name redacted), overriding all objection.

Please keep us informed.

Presumably there will be a meeting sometime.

(A copy of the letters giving the reason for the last refusal were supplied in paper format, including the decision on D3/1026/75 with comments marked).

030: Penally

Stakeholder ID: 3950

Object

Access onto the Penally bypass, drainage problems for sewerage system. Overloaded, smells constantly. Check with Welsh Water with located complaints. Obstruction of views to Tenby and golf course.

030: Penally

Stakeholder ID: 3951

Object

Objections to Candidate Site 030 Penally:

As the Development Plan clearly points out, the Local Development Plan is presently undergoing a Sustainability Appraisal and Strategic Environmental Assessment. The aim is to ensure that social, environmental and economic elements of sustainable development are fully integrated into the plan from the outset.

The Candidate Site is clearly contrary to any form of sustainable development as currently the site lies outside the settlement boundary in the adopted Local Development Plan for Penally. Any development would clearly have serious physical, social and environmental impact on the village.

In the adopted Local Development Plan, two additional infill sites have been allocated which physically and environmentally rounds off future development for the village.

Any development of the Candidate Site would prove to be an obtrusive extension eastwards from the village, highly visible from the A 4139, one of the main roads through South Pembrokeshire. The landscape would be ruined for walkers, golfers, and visitors to the beautiful Pembrokeshire coast.

In the adopted local plan, General Policy GN.37 Protection and Enhancement of Biodiversity clearly states that all development should demonstrate a positive approach to maintaining and, wherever possible, enhancing biodiversity. Development that would disturb or otherwise harm protected species or their habitats, or the integrity of other habitats, sites or features of importance to wildlife and individual species, will only be permitted in exceptional circumstances.

An enormous diversity and quantity of birds use and feed in the field and adjoining hedges. Bats appear at night in numbers. The field is also a haven for hedgehogs, and one of the local residents has a sanctuary area for the hedgehogs.

In the Councils’ Local Development Plan 2, Planning Pembrokeshire’s Future, Strategic Policy SP 11 Protecting and Enhancing the Environment, the policy clearly states that protecting and enhancing Pembrokeshire’s environment (including species, habitats, landscapes and the systems which underpin them) will be protected from being materially harmed.

Any development of Candidate Site 030 will clearly impact and materially harm the bio-diversity and habitats of the adjoining area.

In addition, the Candidate site is directly adjacent to the Pembrokeshire Coast National Park and any development will adversely impact on the aims of conserving and enhancing the natural features of the National Park landscape.

A green field site such as this would need a full ecological survey.

In terms of the sites environmental importance, the Candidate Site has been classified as 3A in the Agricultural Land Classification Map (Wales).Planning Policy Wales (PPW) paragraph 4.10 outlines national policy towards conserving Wales’ Best and Most Versatile (BMV) agricultural land. Best and most versatile (BMV) agricultural land is defined in Planning Policy Wales as Grades 1, 2 and 3a.

Any development of a site classified as the Best and Most Versatile land is clearly against any policy of sustainable development.

Physically and environmentally, the site provides a physical and environmental green wedge between the A 4139 and the village and provides a natural ‘green lung’ between the village and the road. Development of the Candidate Site would therefore seriously damage the local environmental quality of the village.

The proposal is therefore contrary to Strategic Policy SP 1 Sustainable Development in the Councils’ Local Development Plan 2, Planning Pembrokeshire’s Future whereupon all development proposals must demonstrate how positive economic, social and environmental impacts will be achieved and adverse impacts minimised. Any development of Candidate Site 030 will clearly have serious physical, social and environmental impacts on the village of Penally.

The existing homes in Fourwinds Lane are not connected to mains sewerage, and all have septic tanks. [I think the original developer was also (name redacted).] The existing main sewerage pipes in the area are full to capacity, so I have no idea what would happen if more homes were built.

Access to the site would have to have be via the A4139 which carries considerable fat moving traffic and where highway visibility particularly from Tenby is impaired through a brow of a hill and slight bend. Access will therefore lead to traffic congestion, particularly during the summer months with the potential for serious traffic accidents. There has been at least 1 fatality on the road in recent years.

Planning applications for this site have been rejected before, and I believe they were for problems with access and sewerage.

There is no need for more housing in the village. A good proportion of homes are holiday lets, there is a good supply of council housing, and properties for sale are rarely sold quickly. There is little employment in Penally, so there is unlikely to be a need for more homes in the foreseeable future.

There are many better sites in Pembrokeshire to meet the 5 year housing land requirement. I object strongly to the proposal that the area adjacent to Four Winds Lane and the main road through Penally is being considered as a potential candidate site and would be willing to attend any public inquiry, together with my solicitor.

030: Penally

Stakeholder ID: 3952

Object

I object to this site on six counts:-

Since construction of the Penally by-pass, A4139, I understood that it was council policy not to construct new access roads onto that Road. There are very few new houses that are close to the Penally by-pass, and if this site was to be used for the purpose of building houses, then an access road would be needed to join the A4139. This seems to be going against policy when existing small roads have been made cul-de-sacs to prevent cars from joining this by-pass. Building the houses would not be in keeping with the local area, and would set a precedent that could be exploited by the local site at present used for caravans and campers.

The field at present is used for growing vegetables and fodder for cattle. In the present climate when carbon footprints and excessive transportation should be avoided it does not make sense to remove locally grown vegetables which supply local shops from the market. Food is an important commodity and once agricultural land is lost, it is lost.
Removing this current usage would make the vegetables more expensive for the local consumer.

Green policy should utilise brown field development where ever possible. The field is a haven for wildlife with badgers, foxes, rabbits and hedgehogs using it as a thoroughfare.
The kites and buzzards use it as a hunting ground for food and the smaller birds use the surrounding hedgerows and trees as a safe haven for their chicks. The hedgerow is a natural highway and should not be removed. If houses were to be built here then some of the hedgerow would have to be demolished to make way for an entrance for vehicles thus damaging wildlife. Building on this green field site would affect water absorption and any new infra-structure would affect drainage in this delicate area.

There is no suitable access for a large number of vehicles into this field and the hill would make entering and leaving this area an issue because of the visibility of oncoming cars and traffic. Also building would affect the natural sky line so putting the rural nature of the village at risk.

Tourism is an important part of the local economy, there are many businesses who derive their income from the rural nature of our village. Excessive development will change the nature and character of Penally, thus making it less attractive for tourists who derive benefit from the peace and tranquillity of the area.

Building of new dwellings behind the east of Penally Village Road would affect privacy and security of the existing homes and as such I would formally object to the development of new housing in the proposed area.

030: Penally

Stakeholder ID: 3953

Object

Worried about services such as doctors as can’t get an appointment now! Extra traffic through village narrows roads.

030: Penally

Stakeholder ID: 3954

Object

I have lived in Penally for 79 years and have noted some very bad decisions by various planning departments.

As mentioned previously Penally has been overdeveloped by some previously bad planning decisions.

The village already have a Military Army camp and live firing range in its centre.

Two night clubs have been passed and opened either side of the village.

Two large building development sites have been passed and build on, recently another development has been passed for 47 caravan type lodges this is still under development.

Penally also 6 large caravan sites within its boundaries, now another large development is looming.

Penally is situated on a south facing elevated site and every development is on elevated sites and sticks out like “sore thumbs”.

This additional Candidate Site No. 030 also sits on an elevated site and should never be considered by South Pembrokeshire Council Development planning team.

Firstly, only a few years ago, it was stated “No further development would be considered because the sewerage system is already overloaded”yet I can never remember a new system being installed.

This site is Agricultural land and still being used to produce various food items, vegetables and animal fodder, this agricultural land is in short supply and will be even more so if the country leaves Europe.

Wild life this site is inhabited by hedgehogs I even have a nest for them in a garden adjoining this site and this box is in constant use. Bats continuously fly over this site every night observed by myself.

Birds constantly feed on this site, buzzard’s sparrow hawks and sometimes a kite hawk feeding off the various voles, moles and field mice.

Historic value since the First World War this site has been called the poppy fields because the poppy seeds fell from the exercising military horse’s leg bandages on their return from the French battle fields.

With this objection considered I think additional Candidate site number 030 should never be developed.

030: Penally

Stakeholder ID: 3988

Object

Previous applications for housing development on this field have been rejected by the council, and the inclusion of this site goes against all past decisions.
The Welsh Office decision was that future development should NOT be between Penally village and the by-pass. This field is located between the village and the by-pass road.
This field does not lie within the village boundary, as defined on the planning map.
This field is huge and such a development would markedly change the nature of the small village. It is in a high prominent position, and development here is not appropriate for a 'conservation area' village.

030: Penally

Stakeholder ID: 3955

Object

I strongly object to the changes of use of the field behind Four Winds Lane/Penally Road from agriculture to housing. Housing would block the view completely to the sea and Caldey Island, and access to the field from the busy Penally by-pass and its fast moving traffic would be dangerous. This has been a factor preventing housing development in the past, and is still relevant.

030: Penally

Stakeholder ID: 3956

Object

Too many people as it is, can’t access basic services – doctors, minor injuries.

030: Penally

Stakeholder ID: 3957

Object

The site has been turned down on previous applications as it is deemed to be a green buffer zone between the village and bypass.

The current sewerage system is already overloaded and causes problems to residents. (Welsh Water are aware).

Access would be onto the bypass which has had numerous accidents on it.

We have no infrastructure in Tenby to accommodate more residents i.e. Doctors surgery, schools.

Conservation. This is a Greenfield site and we are regularly visited by foxes, hedgehogs and bats. Disturbing this site would only add to their diminishing habitat.

030: Penally

Stakeholder ID: 3958

Object

We wish to register our objection in the strongest terms to this proposal.

We live adjacent to and overlooking the field in question and chose this location as our final retirement home. The main Penally road has a speed restriction because of the high populated area with many elderly residents and children who currently safely walk the village road. This proposal would turn our safe environment into a dangerous high traffic area.
The fast vehicle by-pass is already heavily used and has seen fatalities in the past so allowing access into this road is inviting serious accidents.

Currently, this lovely green open space enhances and protects our village and affords glorious views seaward. This would all be lost to the detriment of residents, visitors and the rare welcoming environment.

We ask that you reject any proposals that involve area 030.

030: Penally

Stakeholder ID: 3959

Object

There have been, I believe, two previous applications to develop this field both of which were refused. I endorse and repeat the reasons for refusal of these applications.

All current accesses to and from this field are for agricultural use only. For any other purpose access would have to be either:- On to the Penally by-pass which would be dangerous (one person has been killed when using School Lane Penally to gain access on to this by-pass) or:
Across a children’s play area and out on to the village road through the gap between Caldey View and School Lane. This would mean the destruction of the children’s play area and out on to the village road through the gap between Caldey View and School Lane. This would mean the destruction of the children’s play area and entry on to the village road on an acute bend.

Any large housing development on this site would greatly increase vehicular and pedestrian traffic through the Penally village which already has a 20mph speed limit to try to control traffic. Furthermore around 95% of the road through the village has no pavement at all.
Any such development would greatly increase the burden on the village sewerage system which only recently has been increased by the chalet development adjacent to the Night Owl.
Any development of this site would destroy the habitat of a variety of birds and animals (some of which are endangered e.g. hedgehogs).
A development of this magnitude would spoil the rural character of the lovely village of Penally and would repeat the inconveniences that have recently been caused by the chalet development adjacent to the Night Owl.

Local Development Plan Review