Local Development Plan Review
Appendix H to the initial consultation report consultation 3 Responses
Consultation 3:
The third tranche of Candidate Sites comprised three sites submitted in response to an invitation issued to those who were affected by the LDP 2 database issue. These Further Candidate Sites are numbers 523 to 525.
The consultation responses relating to the Further Candidate Sites (numbers 523 to 525 inclusive) are listed first, followed by those that were submitted in relation to the earlier tranches of sites.
523, 524 and 525: Puncheston, Jeffreyston and Troopers Inn respectively
Stakeholder ID: 2841
General and site-specific commentary
The Coal Authority is a non-departmental public body sponsored by the Department of Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy. As a statutory consultee, The Coal Authority has a duty to respond to planning applications and development plans in order to protect the public and the environment in mining areas.
Within the Pembrokeshire area our records indicate that there are recorded coal mining features present at surface and shallow depth including; mine entries, shallow coal workings and reported surface hazards. These recorded features pose a potential risk to surface stability and public safety.
The Coal Authority’s records also indicate that surface coal resource is present on the site, although this should not be taken to imply that mineral extraction would be economically viable, technically feasible or environmentally acceptable. As you will be aware those authorities with responsibility for minerals planning and safeguarding will have identified where they consider minerals of national importance are present in your area and related policy considerations. As part of the planning process consideration should be given to such advice in respect of the indicated surface coal resource.
You have requested comments on three specific sites 523, 524 and 525. As you will be aware the Coal Authority provide the LPA with downloadable GIS data in respect of Development Risk plans. We would expect you to assess potential sites being considered for future development against this data in order to establish if any coal mining legacy constraints are present. However, due to the small number of sites to which this current enquiry relates I have included comments on the threes sites identified in your email below.
Site ref - 525
Name - Troopers Inn
Development High Risk Area - No
Develoment Low Risk Area - Yes
Site ref - 523
Name - Puncheston
Development High Risk Area - No
Develoment Low Risk Area - No
Site ref - 524
Name - Jeffreyston
Development High Risk Area - Yes*
Develoment Low Risk Area - No
*For Jeffreyston, mine entry and likely unrecorded coal workings at shallow depth.
Where mine entries are present on a site this may impact on the quantum of development that can be accommodated. We would expect the mine entry to be located and adequate separation provided between this feature, its zone of influence and any buildings proposed.
The Coal Authority is of the opinion that building over the top of, or in close proximity to, mine entries should be avoided wherever possible, even after they have been capped, in line with our adopted policy (opens in a new window).
I hope this is helpful but please do not hesitate to contact me should you wish to discuss this further.
523, 524 and 525: Puncheston, Jeffreyston and Troopers Inn respectively
Stakeholder ID: 1543 and 2603
General and site-specific commentary
Site Ref 523, Farmland at Llys y Dryw, Puncheston:
Water supply: No supply issues. Site is crossed by a water main and protection measures in the form of an easement width or a diversion of the pipe would be required, which may impact upon the housing density achievable on site.
Sewerage: No capacity issues
Wastewater Treatment Works (WwTW): Limited capacity at the WwTW
Site Ref 524, Land fronting B4586, Jeffreyston:
Water supply: No supply issues. Site is crossed by a water main and protection measures in the form of an easement width or a diversion of the pipe would be required, which may impact upon the housing density achievable on site.
Sewerage: No public sewerage
Wastewater Treatment Works (WwTW): No public sewerage
Site Ref 525, Site SM 098960, Troopers Inn:
Water supply: Pressure issues in settlement
Sewerage: No public sewerage
Wastewater Treatment Works (WwTW): No public sewerage
523, 524 and 525: Puncheston, Jeffreyston and Troopers Inn respectively
Stakeholder ID: 4284
Site specific commentary
Please find below comments in relation to land contamination on the 3 candidate sites:
523 - Field. No records of potentially contaminative land uses on or adjacent to the site. No further comment on this one.
524 - Former Jeffreyston Colliery bounds the site to the west. This colliery has a series of heaps, shafts etc. Coal pit marked immediately to the west. Further investigation as to whether there would be any impact on the proposed land would be needed prior to development. Recommended consultation with the Coal Authority. At least a desk study would be required to assess the risk posed. Site investigations may then be required.
525 - Predominantly farmland, no records of potentially contaminative land uses on or adjacent to the site. There are some farm buildings in the SE – it would depend on what was proposed in this area but some ground investigation may be required as potential contaminants could be present from accidental leaks and spills of chemicals.
Please let me know if you require further information on any of the above.
523, 524 and 525: Puncheston, Jeffreyston and Troopers Inn respectively
Stakeholder ID: 34481
General and site specific commentary
Candidate Sites Register Addendum Consultation
Pembrokeshire County Council Local Development Plan Review LDP 2
Thank you for consulting Cyfoeth Naturiol Cymru / Natural Resources Wales (NRW) on the above, which we received on 19th January 2022.
We welcome the opportunity to provide comments on the additions to your Candidate Sites Register.
In summary: We have concerns with the allocations where no public sewerage infrastructure is in place and further assessment is required for the sites in relation to protected species.
We welcome your commitment to include us in the preparation process of the full plan. Please note that our comments are without prejudice to any comments we may wish to make when consulted on any subsequent consultations as part of the LDP process or any comments that we wish to make on formal planning application submissions to develop any of the land identified within the register. At the time of any other consultation there may be new information available which we will need to consider in providing our formal advice.
Additional candidate sites
Ecology – applicable to all three sites:
Please note, that these sites have not been surveyed, observations at this stage can only be based on pre-existing records, consideration of habitat on sites and potential connections into the wider landscape.
Therefore we advise that the sites should be comprehensively assessed for their potential to support protected species, with surveys as appropriate to provide a full assessment of the likely impacts of the proposal on such species. Surveys should be undertaken by a qualified, experienced and, where necessary, licensed ecologist, and in accordance with published guidance where this exists, and best practice.
Please note applicants will need to seek to avoid impacts where these species are present. Where impacts are identified, conservation proposals will need to be included with their submission. Depending on the impacts this might require the provision of robust ecological corridors or habitat provision. This provision will need to be considered alongside the objectives of the development and will require accommodation.
We also advise the following applies to all sites:
Any trees or structures with bat roosting potential to be lost or affected will require assessment, and where appropriate, further inspection and activity surveys adhering to best practice guidelines.
As a minimum boundary vegetation such as hedgerows and treelines must be retained and remain unlit by the development.
Where the site borders a watercourse, woodland, potentially important green corridor and / or where a significant habitat feature for protected species has been identified, the development is set back from the feature (buffered) to ensure that the feature and its connections are retained and protected from degradation and light spill.
Foul drainage:
Sites 524 and 525 fall outside the catchment of a public sewerage system. We refer you to WG Circular 008/2018 on the use of private sewerage in new development, specifically paragraphs 2.3-2.5 which stress the first presumption must be to provide a system of foul drainage discharging into a public sewer. Only where having considered the cost and / or practicability it can be shown to the satisfaction of the local planning authority that connection to a public sewer is not feasible, should non-mains foul sewage disposal solutions be considered.
If a connection to the mains sewer is not feasible, it will need to be demonstrated that the proposal would not pose an unacceptable risk to the water environment.
WG Circular 008/2018 advises that a full and detailed consideration be given to the environmental criteria listed under paragraph 2.6 of the Circular, to justify the use of private sewerage.
In addition, if a connection to the mains sewer is not feasible, they will need to apply for an environmental permit or register an exemption with NRW and authorisation may not be granted.
For rural allocations which fall outside the catchment of the public sewerage system we would advise that your Authority consider the allocation in its entirety utilising one private system as proliferation of private plants can cause environmental problems. This is a topic area that needs to be accounted for in the written statement given the dynamics of the county.
Site 523 Tir Fferm yn Llys y Dryw, Puncheston:
Ecology: This site, due to presence of records in the locality, needs to be assessed for its potential to support otter, bats and water vole. The LPA ecologist should be consulted on whether / what level of surveys should be undertaken.
Protected sites: We note the application site is within the catchment of the River Cleddau Special Area of Conservation (SAC). As you are aware, on the 21st January 2021, we published an evidence package outlining phosphorous levels for all river SACs across Wales. As part of this package, we issued a Planning Position Statement, in which we advised that any proposed development that might increase the amount of phosphate (or phosphorous) within a river SAC catchment could lead to damaging effects to the SAC. Therefore, such proposals should be screened through a Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA), to determine whether they are likely to have a significant effect on the SAC. We have also issued Planning Advice (May 2021) which gives specific advice in respect of foul drainage arrangements for new developments.
We advise you to seek further information as identified in the section titled ‘What does this mean for development proposals involving connection to public wastewater treatment works’ of that advice.
Provided this advice is followed and you are able to conclude that the development is not likely to have a significant effect on the SAC, we would have no objection to the proposal. However, should you conclude that the proposed development is likely to have a significant effect on the SAC, please consult us on your Appropriate Assessment under Regulation 63 of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (as amended).
Site 524 Tir o Flaen B4586 Jeffreyston SN0869306409:
Ecology: This site, due to presence of records in the locality and the potential for suitable habitat to occur on site, needs to be assessed for its potential to support Hazel dormouse, bats and water vole. The LPA ecologist should be consulted on whether / what level of surveys should be undertaken. Consideration is required as to whether the watercourse adjacent to the site requires a buffer free from development and disturbance.
Foul drainage: A foul drainage assessment in line with WG Circular 008/2018 would be required.
Pollution prevention: Due to the proximity of the watercourse any application should be supported by a Construction Environment Management Plan detailing the pollution prevention measures to be implemented for the protection of the environment during construction works.
Site 525 Troopers Inn, Sardis, Milford Haven:
Ecology: This site, due to presence of records in the locality and the potential for suitable habitat to occur on site, needs to be assessed for its potential to support bats. The LPA ecologist should be consulted on whether / what level of surveys should be undertaken.
Foul drainage: A foul drainage assessment in line with WG Circular 008/2018 would be required.
Finally, we are keen to work closely with you on your revised LDP and trust these comments are helpful and clear. If you have any queries, or if you require any further information, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Other matters: Our comments above only relate specifically to matters included on our checklist, Development Planning Advisory Service: Consultation Topics (September 2028), which is published on our website. We have not considered potential effects on other matters and do not rule out the potential for the proposed development to affect other interests, including environmental interests of local importance.
523:Puncheston
Stakeholder ID: 1499
Object
The Community Council are concerned that if a development of this scale is included in the next development plan, it would have a detrimental impact on the nature of this rural village which has limited facilities to support extra housing. The access roads to this location consist of ‘B’ roads and are not suitable for the volume of traffic a housing site of this size would create. The community of Puncheston is predominantly Welsh speaking which needs to be protected otherwise the Welsh language could disappear and the character of this village will be lost. There are two sites in the current plan which have not been developed which indicates that the demand for new housing in this locality is limited. The Community Council appreciates the importance of affordable housing to retain the families of local people in the area, however, if this site is included, it would need to be significantly reduced in size and consideration needed to prevent the housing being purchased by outsiders.
523: Puncheston
Stakeholder ID: 4285
Object
LDP site, farmland at Llys y Dryw
To whom it may concern:
I have just read about this in the "Focus" newsletter.
Development of housing on this field would have an unmeasurable impact on our quality of life. The main draw in purchasing and moving to our current address, only a year ago, was the expanse of open countryside in this direction.
Any development on this field would have a severe impact on the residential amenity of ours and our neighbours' properties. It would be inescapably dominant and so utterly diminish the living conditions of our home, from the very reason we chose to live here.
The name of our house is "view of the moor". Had we had the slightest inkling that development on this land was a possibility, there is no way we would have moved here.
I therefore must object, on the strongest terms.
524 (also referencing 375): Jeffreyston
Stakeholder ID: 4286
Object
I would like to register my whole-hearted objection to the above mentioned site.
In the four years since I’ve moved back to Jeffreyston, Pembrokeshire, I have avidly watched and recorded the increase of Buzzards, Red Kites, Sparrow Hawks and Owls hunting in this area! Not to mention all the migratory birds as well as our indigenous bird species AND Bats! The hedgerow that borders the proposed site is imperative for the breeding of our nesting birds. Furthermore, I believe that because of the marshy nature of the land, there would be the possibility that protected and endangered Newts (I say this because I have many in my garden pond) and other wildlife species such as Voles that are inhabiting this area would be disturbed and lost, when I understood the government’s ‘25 Year Plan’ is to protect such habitats and actually create more. Therefore any development permission granted, would be a gross act of hypocrisy and negligence, which would cause devastating disturbance and loss of our ‘protected’ wildlife. A proposed development of this land is not in keeping with the stylistic context or scale of the local area and there would be increased impact on highway safety, (which has been in question in this part of the village for many years) as the B4586 is used as a ‘rat-run’ to Haverfordwest. In addition, there are probably more than a few mine shafts to be considered as there is an old Bell Shaft on the road junction to Jeffreyston, Carew and Haverfordwest.
Indeed, this small but hugely important wildlife habitat, the valley and the hills beyond is to many of us, an area of outstanding natural beauty and is enjoyed by the residents of Jeffreyston Village, visitors and the children of the local school and should remain so for future generations of humans and mammals. There is much global talk about saving our Planet from the devastating effect that we as Humans have and ARE still causing. It is the hope of myself and many others in this village, that the planning officers who are granted the power to avoid further devastation and impact, take this small corner of the Planet in Pembrokeshire, into very serious consideration and put an indefinite halt to this proposed development. It would be yet another statistical tragedy that could NEVER be reversed!
I would very much appreciate acknowledgement of this letter and my objections and would asked to be informed of any meetings I may be able to attend with other residents. I will of course, be sharing my thoughts on Social Media and sending a copy of this Letter to the Welsh Government for their records.
524: Jeffreyston
Stakeholder ID: 4286
Object
I read a (name redacted) post today: ‘Cherish the natural world because you’re a part of it’.
I, like millions, believe we have a moral obligation to this planet and its future generations, to nurture our ecological system not destroy it. Once it’s gone, it’s gone forever! We are more acutely aware of this fact today than ever before. We simply have to do everything we can to protect the earth, no matter how small an area – and even in Jeffreyston!
Pembrokeshire … Jeffreyston in this instance is our part of the planet and this too needs to be protected from unethical construction which will threaten and destroy the land which is being proposed for development. Planning permission has already been granted for 18 houses within the confines of the village. Surely we don’t need more?!
The ancient hedgerow in front of the land is home to a delicate number of indigenous nesting birds. We have an uncounted number of Long Eared Bats and Pipistrelles. I actually rescued a Long Eared Bat from my garden pond last summer. Here in Jeffreyston, we are renowned for our hedgehog population. Although not great, they are increasing in numbers and the fact is substantiated by Pembrokeshire Hogspital in Haverfordwest who have nursed dozens of ailing mammals back to health and released (them) back to the village.
The excavation safety of the land is in question, as (name and property address redacted) is actually built on a mineshaft. Their extension required extensive groundwork to ensure the property would not collapse, but this was within their own garden and didn’t interfere with the village ecology. There is an old bell shaft on the T-junction of Cresselly and the B.4586 and the mines branch off in many directions, including the proposed site. In addition, the mains water pipe from Tenby is laid on the inside of the hedge parallel to the B.4586.
The land itself is a perfect wetland for grass snakes, slow worms, newts, voles and frogs. It is a constant food source for many raptor birds. Since moving back to Pembrokeshire and obviously Jeffreyston, it has become my hobby to watch Buzzards, Sparrow Hawks, Barn Owls, Herons and the slowly increasing numbers of Red Kites who use this area to hunt. In addition, there are huge numbers of Herring Gulls, Crows, Ravens and Magpies who feed on the ground itself and even yesterday, I saw a pair of Grey Herons hunting for invertebrates in the field. I believe all of these animals are protected species and would be at huge risk if the site is developed.
The lower part of the land is very wet with a natural brook. As there is no mains drainage in Jeffreyston, there would be a significant risk of effluent seepage from the new dwellings. This would cause catastrophic damage to the water, the fish and reptiles.
The infrastructure is another problem. We already have a huge issue with pedestrians and farm contractors who think they have a god given right to speed up and down the B.4586 in their 40 ton silage laden tractors and trailers. This happens 5 or 6 times a year, depending on the harvest. This is in addition to the road being used as a short cur to Haverfordwest, by cars, huge articulated lorries and coaches. The residents of this part of Jeffreyston village suffer greatly, as there is no footpath for pedestrians, many of whom are children. Indeed, (name redacted) (personal details redacted), runs the gauntlet of all the above mentioned traffic when she escorts her charges to and from the village school as there is no structured footpath on which to walk safely! My house is built on a really bad bend in the road which she has to negotiate and with the lives of children and adults in mind, I offered 1.5 metres of my garden to be excavated and made into a footpath with sufficient railings in order to help with this safety issue. My (name redacted) (personal details redacted) will not venture onto this road in her wheelchair, for fear of being in a collision with vehicles. I can only push her wheelchair in the road itself, as do all the residents who walk their children and dogs. My offer was refused and I have since planted the steep bank from my garden to the road, to encourage bees and other pollinating insets. Unsurprisingly, it has suffered damage from traffic travelling too fast and having to mount the bank in order to avoid a RTA. More houses = more traffic chaos, sadly with possible fatal consequences. My squashed plants could so easily be human beings. An increase in the village population would put us all at further risk!
I also understand the village school is filled to capacity! They simply cannot facilitate more pupils. I hope that the person/s who have the capacity to do so, will halt this proposal immediately. The proposed development of this land is not in keeping with the stylistic context or scale of the village. Building on this land will fracture the wonderful nature of this village and the very meaning of the word ‘village’. We do not want what has happened to small villages such as Hook and Llangwm, that are now so ‘spread out’ that there is no real depth of community left. My hope is the planning department will set to protect this area of outstanding natural beauty and the ecology of this wildlife haven.
To sum up my reasons for opposing this proposed development, I’m sure it is clear to you all that there is a grave risk to the fragile ecology of this piece of land, to the community and the infrastructure of the village - such that it cannot cope.
524 (also referencing 375): Jeffreyston
Stakeholder ID: 4277 on behalf of 34376
Support (524) and Object (375)
On behalf of ID: 34376 (hereon referred to as ‘the Objector’) ID: 4277 has previously prepared and submitted:-
A Candidate Site application in respect of the above area of land
An objection to the non-inclusion of the same area of land within the LDP limits for Jeffreyston
An objection to the inclusion of the allocated site HSG/047/00018 – ‘North of Sunnyside’ with the Deposit LDP
All of these late submissions were made in respect of the Pembrokeshire Local Development Plan Review / Replacement LDP 2017-2033 (referred hereon as ‘LDP2 ‘).
They were allowed as part of a ‘further targeted opportunity’ for Candidate Site entries belatedly offered by the LPA to overcome the fact that the Objector and others were excluded from both the Candidate Site process and the formal objection period to the Deposit Draft LDP 2.
It is acknowledged that in 2017 the Objector had a legitimate expectation of being notified of future LDP consultations and thus, would have been able to become involved in the LDP process at the important formative stages.
However, due to an ‘unforeseen administrative error in 2017’ (LPA’s letter to the Objector, dated 20 July 2021) the Objector was denied the opportunity to become involved.
It is accepted that public participation and consultation lie at the heart of the statutory planning process. Indeed, a legal requirement for consultation can be found in a number of statutory provisions, across the entire planning regime, including the production of development plans.
The Objector strongly feels that there has been procedural unfairness which materially prejudices his situation in trying to promote the development potential of his land in Jeffreyston.
The concept of natural justice comprises certain legal principles that, taken together, constitute ‘procedural fairness’ in administrative decision-making. It is closely aligned to the notion of public participation, a key element of the UK Town and Country Planning system.
The LPA should have conducted LDP proceedings so that all participants at the Candidate Site submission stage had reasonable opportunity to adduce evidence and make submissions on the material issues affecting their or other third party sites within the respective settlement. All potential Candidate Sites needed to have been identified at the outset or to have emerged prior to formal determination and the publication of a draft LDP.
The LDP preparatory process quite correctly provides a potential source of legitimate expectations of procedural rights. Indeed, the ground breaking Rio UN Earth Summit in 1992 declare that:-
‘…environmental issues are best handled with the participation of all concerned citizens, at the relevant level…’ and that ‘…each individual shall have … the opportunity to participate in decision-making processes …’ (Principle 10)
In R v Brent London Borough Council, Ex p Gunning (1985) 84 LGR 168, it was confirmed that:-
‘… It is common ground that, whether or not consultation of interested parties and the public is a legal requirement, if it is embarked upon it must be carried out properly. To be proper, consultation must be undertaken at a time when proposals are still at a formative stage … ‘(My emphasis)
In Majed v Camden (2010) EWCA Civ 1029, for instance, it was stated:-
‘…Legitimate expectation comes into play when there is a promise or a practice to do more than that which is required by statue. It seems to me that the Statement is a paradigm example of such a promise and a practice … It would be difficult to imagine a more unequivocal statement as to who would, and who would not, be notified … clear breach of the appellant’s legitimate expectation that he would be notified …’.
If there is procedural unfairness which materially prejudices a party in the determination of a planning proposal, that may be a good ground for quashing the decision. LDP preparatory procedural rules have evolved to assist in achieving the objective of procedural fairness / equity, avoiding pitfall and promoting efficiency. Nevertheless, the LDP guidance is not in itself a complete code for achieving procedural fairness and considerable responsibility rests with the LPA, which is under a duty to act fairly.
Indeed, the UK’s Higher Courts have regularly quashed decisions on the basis of procedural unfairness.
In this particular instance, there has been a clear breach of natural justice, as the Objector has had insufficient opportunity to advance and promote the merits of his site within the context of the ‘level playing field’ that existed at the time of Candidate Site submission.
Instead, the Objector has been obliged to enter the process at a relatively late stage, thereby being denied the full opportunity of comprehensive participation.
It is perhaps a truism to state that the strength of the Objector’s case can be determined only upon an understanding of that case, and by testing it with reference to propositions in the opposing case. In other words, the Objector’s site should have been assessed at the formative stages of the LDP, which can be likened to ‘the blank canvas’ stage. Instead, the Objector is now almost facing a fait accompli in the sense that all pertinent decisions have already been made in terms of identifying the precise development limit alignment and housing site allocations for Jeffreyston.
The question of fairness is taken up by LDRA Limited v SSCLG [2016] EWHC 950 (Admin), where the decision maker (in this case an Inspector) dismissed alternative sites on the basis that sites had not been properly identified and thus a breach of natural justice occurred.
Likewise, without being aware of the Objector’s site at the formative ‘blank canvas’ LDP stage, it was not possible for the LPA to exercise proper and robust judgement. Furthermore, the ‘North of Sunnyside’ site was considered solely in the context of it being the only site proposed at that time. A far more appropriate assessment would have involved a standard comparative analysis of the Objector’s site in relation to that of ‘North of Sunnyside’. It is likely that such a comparison would have confirmed that the merits of the Objector’s site would have been allocated within the settlement limits boundary. Appendix A provides such a comparison and demonstrates the more positive attributes of the Objector’s site over the ‘North of Sunnyside’ land.
The Objector clearly has the option to judicially review1 any decision of the LPA on a number of specific grounds, including that the LPA has misdirected itself in law, exercised its power wrongly, etc. In addition, it is regularly argued in such cases, that the LPA has not properly observed principals of natural justice in reaching the decision, allowing that decision to be challenged2. Similarly, if there was a legitimate expectation that the LPA, by its own statements or conduct, would act in a certain way but failed to do so, there can be a legitimate challenge.
(1 Part 54 of the Civil Procedure Rules allow the court to review the lawfulness of an enactment, decision, action or failure to act in relation to the exercise of a public function).
(2 Procedural Impropriety – (also referred to as a breach of natural justice), where, in making a decision, basic rules of natural justice were ignored, or where there was a failure to act with procedural fairness towards a person or to observe procedural rules that are expressly laid down by legislative instrument).
Effectively, the Objector is now facing an element of ‘pre-determination’ – where the decision maker (LPA) determines the merits or otherwise of his land with a ‘closed mind’, having already decided the planning framework for Jeffreyston.
The effective and equitable participation of the public in decision-making processes is related to the provision of ‘natural justice’ or procedural fairness and whilst the exclusion of the Objector from the early stages of the LDP process was perhaps unfortunate, the offer to invite the belated submission of a Candidate Site and submit an objection does not secure full equality of participation.
The LDP presents the proposed development framework for Jeffreyston. There is an inevitable assumption that the LPA have had full knowledge and understanding of the Objector’s land, when this is clearly not the case. It also misleadingly implies that there were no possible alternatives to the allocation of the ‘North of Sunnyside’ site. In reality, therefore, there was no comparative evaluation of the merits of the two sites. Even a simple exercise, in the manner of the attached table (see Appendix A) would have provided the Objector with some comfort that his site had been considered fully in relation to that of ‘North of Sunnyside’.
There is obviously going to be a clear impasse between the Objector and the LPA, and the most pure and righteous means by which to address the anomaly would be to recommence the LDP preparatory process, without any pre-judged views as to site suitability. Such an exercise would however, be costly and would add considerable time delay to the LDP process and is also unlikely to be supported by Welsh Government. By way of an alternative however, the LPA may wish to consider a purposeful revisit of the development framework solely for Jeffreyston, on a ‘blank canvas’ basis and without any pre-conceived views going forward. Your comments on this suggestion are welcomed.
In terms of the Preferred Strategy, the Objector has little comment to make in respect of the spatial allocation of development. The direction of growth towards the larger settlements, with a ‘cascade development approach’ towards the smaller settlements, is a long-established principle of sustainable development plan-making. The Preferred Strategy document, by its very nature, deals with the more abstract development principles, as opposed to site specific considerations, which are more relevant to the Objector’s site.
There is however, one major weakness in the Preferred Strategy, namely that it has been overtaken by national events which are likely to have impacted upon future growth scenarios. In particular, the Covid pandemic has led to a definite increase in migration levels into Wales. You will be aware that the exact level of migration is the most difficult component of population change to accurately determine, bearing in mind that death and birth rates are formally recorded. Information contained within various housing market reports, confirms that demand for property in Wales has rocketed since 2019. The limitations imposed on the economy by Covid has likewise weakened the construction industry’s ability to meet this demand. In addition, the recent concerns for excessive phosphate discharge may lead to greater emphasis on directing growth to those settlements outside the identified river corridors, thus compromising the Preferred Strategy. It is therefore quite realistic to state that the housing figures advocated in the LDP, including those for Jeffreyston, will not satisfy anticipated demand levels for the plan period. It is therefore formally suggested that the Preferred Strategy be re-visited in order to determine more up to date housing growth figures.
In summary therefore, it is evident that the Objector has been prejudiced in trying to promote the development potential of his land in not being involved in the early formative stages of this process. Missing the ‘blank canvas’ stage means the Objector was disadvantaged in not being able to present his case. Instead, his site will now be considered when the LPA has already reached its conclusion in respect of development limits for Jeffreyston. It is felt that the only way to address this anomaly is to undertake a complete re-evaluation of Jeffreyston’s limits, with each potential site being considered afresh and on equal terms.
Although this practice has not been formally instructed by the two other ‘additional Candidate Site submitters’ in Puncheston (site reference 523 – Farmland at Llys Y Dryw) and Trooper’s Inn (site reference 525 – SM 098960), in the interests of natural justice, it is considered that the same opportunity for a fresh evaluation be afforded in these instances also.
I trust the contents of this letter will be given due consideration and I look forward to your response.
Appendix A
Objection to inclusion of allocated site HSG/047/00018 ‘North of Sunnyside’, Jeffreyston (site reference 375), as advanced in the Local Development Plan Review / Replacement (LDP 2) 2017-2033
This objection takes the form of a comparison of critical features of the Candidate Site submission ‘North of Sunnyside’ (site reference 375) and the ‘additional’ Candidate Site submission ‘Adjacent to B.4586’ (site reference 524)
Deliverability:
North of Sunnyside (Candidate Site reference 375):
The land has been presented for development utilising a range of configurations for some 15 years; during that period no development has taken place.
As evidence of the site’s failure to secure development please see attached the historic:
Planning permission documents dated 2007;
Sales particulars dated 2015, in which the site is promoted as ‘designated for residential development in the draft LDP; and
The seemingly-current sales particulars, dated 2020, in which the site is promoted as ‘Proposed LDP 2 Allocation on 0.7ha for minimum of 14 units’.
By any justifiable measure the site has failed to meet any objective of ‘deliverability’. This site’s continued designation as housing in Jeffreyston – indeed, the only site designated as housing in Jeffreyston – is now an obstruction to the service village’s natural development.
Adjacent to B4586 (Candidate Site reference 524):
This land has never before been made available for development. The thorough, costed, Candidate Site submission clearly shows that the owners are committed to helping Pembrokeshire – and particularly Jeffreyston – develop – quickly.
Affordable housing:
North of Sunnyside (Candidate Site reference 375): 1*
(*as noted in currently-available sales particulars)
Adjacent to B.4586 (Candidate Site reference 524): 4
Impact on Council’s ‘highways’ budget:
North of Sunnyside (Candidate Site reference 375):
Significantly increases traffic movement within the village, creating a perpetual and permanent maintenance obligation.
Adjacent to B.4586 (Candidate Site reference 524):
Adjacent to a main through road; no increased maintenance.
Public road access:
North of Sunnyside (Candidate Site reference 375):
Carriageway width – restricted, horizontal alignment – poor, visibility splays without third party landowner agreement – unacceptable, enhanced foot / cycle routes – none
Adjacent to B.4586 (Candidate Site reference 524):
Carriageway width – unrestricted, horizontal alignment – good, visibility splays without third party landowner agreement – good, enhanced foot / cycle routes – extensive
Sustainable development implications:
North of Sunnyside (Candidate Site reference 375):
Mature trees and spinneys – considerable loss, visually important tree specimens – considerable loss, loss of / damage to important habitat – yes, loss of damage to protected species – yes, loss of visual amenity – significant
Adjacent to B.4586 (Candidate Site reference 524):
Mature trees and spinneys – none, visually important tree specimens – none, loss of damage to important habitat – no, loss of / damage to protected species – no, loss of visual amenity – minimal
Future benefit of development:
North of Sunnyside (Candidate Site reference 375):
None. Development sprawls away from the village, without defendable boundaries against further future sprawl deeper into the countryside.
Adjacent to B.4586 (candidate Site reference 524):
Development ‘rounds off’ the village, bounded on two sides – alongside and opposite – by existing housing. The relationship between Jeffreyston’s community and its school is unusual, in that the village and school are a sufficient distance apart for Pembrokeshire County Council, in 2003, to buy land to create a foot / cycle path enabling the two entities to be safely linked together. This Candidate Site submission is a natural development of that visionary County Council initiative. As the village continues to grow, as of course it must and will, it is logical for the village to expand in the area which will increasingly integrate the village and the school. This Candidate Site submission would be consistent with the County’s future development – in successor Local Development Plans – towards such integration.
524 (also referencing 375): Jeffreyston
Stakeholder ID: 34376
Support (524) and Object (375)
Local Development Plan: Jeffreyston, Site name: Land fronting B.4586, Site reference: 524
I am the proposer of the site identified above. I understand (name redacted) is commenting on this site. As the proposer of the site I am listing below the comments that I understand (name redacted) is making, together with my comments on those comments.
I understand that the (name redacted) will be commenting that the highway network capacity is insufficient.
I comment that the (name redacted) does not identify in what way it considers that the highway capacity is insufficient. I respond that this is an undefined, unargued, subjective opinion.
I understand that the (name redacted) will be commenting that the foot links to and from the site are insufficient.
I comment that the submission incorporates a foot / cycle path, running along the entire road-fronting edge of the site, linking to (and thereby extending) the existing foot / cycle path network leading both to the village and to the school. The proposed link far exceeds any notion of ‘sufficiency’ and will measurably enhance foot and cycle safety in the area.
I understand that the (name redacted) will be commenting that the proposal will have a detrimental effect on the village.
I comment that the (name redacted) doesn’t identify what will be the perceived ‘detrimental effect’. I comment that this is an undefined, unargued, subjective opinion. Given the seemingly-hopeless development possibilities of the only submitted alternative – the proposed site at ‘Sunnyside’ (site reference 375) – it would appear the (name redacted) desire is for no development; which of course is in contradiction with Pembrokeshire County Council’s LDP ‘Preferred Strategy’.
I understand that the (name redacted) will be commenting that the proposal would change the nature of the village.
I comment that the (name redacted) doesn’t identify what the perceived ‘change of nature’ will be. I comment that, again, this is an undefined, unargued, subjective opinion. By its comment – and given the seemingly-hopeless development possibilities of the proposed site at ‘Sunnyside’ (site reference 375) – it would appear the (name redacted) desire is for no development; which of course is in contradiction with Pembrokeshire County Council’s LDP ‘Preferred Strategy’.
I understand that the (name redacted) will be commenting on concerns relating to previous mining activity.
I comment that the entirety of the Jeffreyston area, and beyond, has been subject to previous mining activity. This particular issue is addressed in my Candidate Site submission on pages 28 and 29.
I understand that the (name redacted) will be commenting on its concern of over development; that there is a housing site already included in the LDP.
I comment that the circumstances surrounding my Candidate Site submission – submitted as a result of a recently-created ‘Additional’ Candidate Site submission opportunity – are concerning. I have been assured by (name and post title redacted, as the named officer no longer works for Pembrokeshire County Council), that the fact that the site to which the (name redacted) refers is already included in the Deposit Plan will have no impact on the fair consideration of my Candidate Site submission. Evidently, and understandably, the (name redacted) thinks that it should and that it will impact on the fair consideration of my Candidate Site submission – prejudicing my submission.
I have been given no indication that the status of the housing site already included in the LDP will, irrespective of any additional Candidate Site submissions being received, be reviewed. This in itself is unfair in relation to my additional Candidate Site submission.
The fact that the housing site already included in the LDP was available for development for many years before the inception of LDP 1 and has remained available for development under LDP 1 (an overall period of some 15 years to date), yet remains undeveloped should assuage the (name redacted) concern of any over development.
I refer here to a separate submission made at this time on my behalf by my agents, ID: 4277.
I understand that the (name redacted) will be commenting that it has ecological concerns.
I comment that the (name redacted) doesn’t identify what constitutes its ecological concerns. My Candidate Site submission notes the comprehensive extent to which ecological concerns are addressed – indeed and gain assuaging the (name redacted) apparent concern, my submission actually proposes numerous ecological improvements.
I understand that the (name redacted) will be commenting that the site was previously put forward and rejected.
I presume this comment references a submission in relation to the existing Local Development Plan (LDP 1). I comment that I have looked into the submission history of the site in relation to LDP 1 and have discovered how in relation to that plan the site was proposed by (name redacted) – the same (name redacted) that now comments in opposition to the site. Confusingly, it would further appear that after proposing the site the (name redacted) subsequently withdrew it. Should it be in any way material, then I comment that ‘withdrawal’ and ‘rejection’ are two different things.
Prior to the Candidate Site submission currently under consideration (i.e. in relation to LDP 2) the site owners have never been engaged in any way in the site’s submission as a Candidate Site.
524: Jeffreyston
Stakeholder ID: 4287
Object
Local development plans your reference 524 land adjacent to B4586
I write in connection with the above referenced land development appraisal.
I object to any proposed development on the referenced parcel of land for the following reasons.
Access. The site does not lend itself to housing development due to the restricted access from the B4586 there are already issues on this stretch of B 4586 due to spasmodic but heavy farm traffic and time focused local vehicle movements during the daytime for work related activity and school runs to the local primary.
In addition, during summer months holiday traffic can be extensive and congestive at this location and the surrounding hinterland.
Highways. The B4586 to the northeast (Broadmoor) and to the southwest (Haverfordwest) are severely restricted due to multiple S bends, blind spots, and road narrowing. Additional traffic activity would undoubtedly increase the risk of accidents to pedestrians and vehicles. I believe re-modelling of the local road network would be necessary with extensive additional lighting, road widening, and storm drainage being required to allow safe vehicle movement in the event of housing expansion at this location.
Topography and Water table. The land line to the Southwest of this parcel of land has a steep elevation from the water course at the lower end of the field up to the B4586 adjacent to Jeffreyston village.
During the year this lower area is subject to frequent flooding as the stream is only marginally above the water table and can become a flood plain.
This terrain is very difficult to transit at certain times of the year and is unsuitable for housing development without extensive infrastructural input.
Sewage and general drainage. Any development on this site will require sewage treatment facilities and an adequate storm drainage system. Given the former paragraphs on page 1 it is hard the see that this can be achieved without exceptional cost to the rate payer and the environment.
Environment. Any development on this site should be firstly assessed for the bio-diversity aspect of the local flora and fauna. Any alteration to the water table or possible construction and habitation hazards including sewage treatment or the generation of domestically used sulphates into the water course could adversely affect local or downstream flora, birds, mammals, insects, reptilians and invertebrate biology.
Architecture. Jeffreyston village is comprised mainly of bungalows and 1 storey conurbations there are minority of 2 storey properties in the village, The architecture is of mixed design constructed over 4 generations and gives an ascetically appealing look to what is a typical west Wales village.
There is already planned housing to the rear and centre of the village of 5 to 6 dwellings which due to their location will not impact or alter the essence or look of the village other than increase vehicle residency by an estimated 8-10 vehicles.
Construction of estate type architecture will be unacceptable to the residents that live in this village and may give rise to obstructive nuisance if plans to move forward on this development are approved.
Proposed housing development will inevitably change the character of the village to the detriment of local residents. The village does not need more inhabitants or the social problems which may arrive with an influx of people of mixed age groups into the locality.
Local amenities’ The nearest amenities are 3 miles away in Kilgetty there are no local shops, meaning even more traffic movements for inhabitants’ daily needs. The local primary school has no capacity to support additional children now or in the future. Road access to the school is restricted see comments made earlier in my text.
Services. Electricity. I have been told that the electricity supply to the village may be at is optimum level. Additional capacity may require disruption to existing electrical infrastructure, if not actioned this possibly causing outages in times of excessive demand to village residences.
Water. The volume of water to the village is already restricted with lower volumes and pressure at the tap further development will further put demand on the water supply system at the expense of availability to villagers.
Telecommunications. B.T are already at full capacity for telephone and internet in the village.
The comments and observations in this statement of objection made here are valid and represent the serious concerns of myself and fellow villagers regarding the proposed housing development in the village.
524: Jeffreyston
Stakeholder ID: 4288
Object
My name is (name redacted) and I live with my partner (name redacted) at (property name redacted) adjacent to the suggested plan for 8-12 dwelling. I fully appreciate the need for new homes but we know that there has to be careful consideration as to where these new dwelling are situated.
We moved here two years ago for one of several reasons the view being at the top of our wish list and this development will without doubt destroy our outlook.
Though I support the other objections that focus mostly on the beauty and the animals, insect and bird populate the historic hedgerow. I fully support any preservation of the hedgerow and those creatures that depend upon it. I did however wanted to bring to you attention the impact of such a development and the impact of building on brown field and how that will impact on village life and is residents. This must bring to mind the possible poorer air quality due to increased traffic and our access to green spaces. I feel very strongly to protect our village and to highlight the field’s importance to our village. This I felt should be an important consideration in all villages in Pembrokeshire who have been presented with developments on former agricultural areas.
I feel nationally that we should continue to work against brown field development and look to supporting sympathetic smaller in - fill project / developments that lessen the effects on the established villagers. These larger types of developments have shown to lack ecological protection necessary to protect species previously mentioned and has proven to be detrimental to residents’ health and wellbeing.
Another vital consideration is that most of Jeffreyston has no footpath and with the development being in close proximity to the local primary school that is already close to a busy junction this site seems more and more unviable to build on. Bearing in mind the growth in footfall anticipated by such a large development and the area around the school entrance that is already dangerously busy. Also it has been recognised that the school is full. I believe that this would cause danger for walkers and drivers alike, at an extremely busy times of day.
(Names redacted) wish to directly oppose any development on this site listed above.
We must do everything to preserve our villages and those who live in them. Without us protecting our countryside we will lose so much. This might look like any old field to you but this is our outlook, our view and what we get up in the morning for. Please don’t let us all lose such an important view that should be there for other generations to see and benefit from the cleaner air along with the wildlife.
524: Jeffreyston
Stakeholder ID: 4289
Object
Ref. 524 – object – we are wholeheartedly opposed to the above being a Candidate Site for many reasons. Firstly, there is already a site in Jeffreyston that has approved planning, therefore we do not need another one. The village is only small and the proposed site would extend it in a way that is not needed. The proposed plans are aimed at families yet the Council states we will be an ageing society by 2033 so housing for the elderly will be needed. Our house is adjacent to the proposed site and is on top of a coal shaft therefore there are probably many more within the site. The site is also very marshy and supports a varied collection of many forms of wildlife which once disturbed will never return. The proposed plans are not in keeping with the look of the village and the amount of extra traffic it will cause will be detrimental to the whole village. Please don’t let this site be included.
524: Jeffreyston
Stakeholder ID: 2242
Object
Ref. 524 – object. Comments – The residents of Jeffreyston have signed this petition objecting to the site ref. 524, land fronting B.4586/ Tir o Flaen B.4586, being put forward as a Candidate Site for LDP 2. The land is outside of the village boundary and is agricultural land – it is constantly wet all year round.
Development of this site would have a detrimental effect on the nature of the village as well as concerns for the wildlife.
It abuts a narrow road that is used by large farm machinery and heavy vehicles from a nearby haulage company and has blind bends at each end, there are no pavements or footpaths.
There is a lack of infrastructure in the village, no services, public transport or main sewers.
And there is a site in the village already included in the LDP 2 for development of housing – adding another would be over development of a small village.
(Accompanied by a petition signed by 76 persons)
524: Jeffreyston
Stakeholder ID: 1759
Object
(Name redacted) wishes to make the following comments in relation to the land fronting the B4586, submitted as a proposed candidate site.
Detrimental Effect - The nature, location and siting of the proposed site are NOT compatible with the character of the area within which it is located and would have a detrimental impact on the landscape and nature of the village. We feel a sympathetic development within the area would be more in keeping.
Environment – Development of the site would compromise the biodiversity and ecosystem of the area. There have been previous mining activities when the site was formerly used as a colliery.
Transport & Accessibility -Any development would result in a detrimental impact on highway safety and exceed the capacity of the highway network. Residents are already concerned with safety issues during farm harvests and holiday periods. Foot links to and from the site are not sufficient and the public transport system is practically non-existent.
Service Infrastructure - Sewerage / Drainage / Telecommunications would exceed the capacity and an existing mains water pipe runs through the proposed site.
Overdevelopment -The Land Rear of Beggar's Roost and Sunnyside is already included in the Local Development Plan for residential development.
Public Objections - The site was previously put forward but subsequently withdrawn due to public objections against it.
(Name redacted), therefore, objects to the inclusion of the proposed site within the LDP2 settlement boundary for Jeffreyston as there is no capacity to accommodate development.
524: Jeffreyston
Stakeholder ID: 4291
Object
There are no facilities such as doctors’ surgeries or shops in the village of Jeffreyston and in the light of the recent Government directive concerning change of use of green belt for building property this should not be granted.
It would substantially increase road traffic on a road that has no pavement and is already very busy at times with agricultural vehicles as well as other private vehicles taking children to and from school and as a cut through to Haverfordwest and Narberth.
524: Jeffreyston
Stakeholder ID: 4292
Object
Ref. 524 – object. The small village of Jeffreyston does not have the capacity to accommodate the infrastructure required to have any new housing developments – i.e. road / lane size, increased traffic flow in the village.
524: Jeffreyston
Stakeholder ID: 4293
Object
Objections to land being included in Local Development Plan application: Ref. Number 524 – land fronting B.4586
There are no public sewers to this part of (the) village where proposed development land is being identified to be added to land development plan. All properties adjoining this proposed land included in application reference 524 (Jeffreyston) are on private septic tanks and cesspools.
The village currently has land identified for housing development, application HSG/047/LDP/01.
The land is currently used for agriculture by local farmer for grass silage to support his dairy farm. To remove land from agriculture, to change use to add to local development plan seems that this goes against the current local needs by farmer. Farmland for farm use.
There is no local infrastructure in village i.e. shops / regular public transport. There is only a pub that only opens 3-4 days a week. There are no public pavements or pedestrian footpaths in (the) village adjacent to (the) proposed development land application.
524: Jeffreyston
Stakeholder ID: 4294
Object
Ref. 524 – land fronting B.4586:
Traffic generation – increased traffic on an already busy road.
Highway safety – traffic safety with site close to school path and school.
Noise and disturbance resulting from use – proposed site is close to existing residential area in a quiet village.
Visual amenity – proposed site will spoil established landscape and views for existing properties.
524: Jeffreyston
Stakeholder ID: 4295
Object
Ref. 524 – object. Not enough infrastructure. Already have land available for development.
524: Jeffreyston
Stakeholder ID: 4296
Object
Ref. 524 – land fronting B.4586 – object.
Comments:
The proposed site abuts a narrow road with blind bends at both ends, there is no pavement or footpath an (it) is dangerous. It is used by heavy large farm machinery, there is no public transport to the village and would mean even more traffic along this road.
There is concern about mine workings in this area and that this land is constantly running with water.
There are no services in the village, not even main sewers.
Development of this site would change the nature of the village.
There is a site at the centre of the village included in the LDP 2 for housing and (I) believe adding more would be over development.
Although this third public consultation was specific to the Further Candidate Sites (numbers 523 to 525 inclusive), the Council also received a few comments relating to the earlier tranches of Candidate Sites, which are listed below in order to present a complete picture of the public response.
156: Templeton
Stakeholder ID: 34636
Support
I note that the LDP2 is going back to deposit stage and whilst you do not have an agreed timeframe for consultation on this as yet. I would like to take the opportunity to advise that candidate site 156 could come forward as a site for housing within the plan period and is outside of the phosphates catchment zone. The site was previously discounted and was given an Amber 3 rating, however given the existing situation with phosphates it is an opportunity to sustain and expand a thriving rural village with good public transport connections.
I would be grateful if you could let me know how site 156 can be reconsidered for the LDP review.
New site: Begelly (Land West of Barley Park)
Stakeholder ID: 4132
Proposing a new allocation following the issue of a Certificate of Lawful Use or Development (21/0241/CL), which confirmed that on the balance of probabilities engineering operations were carried out for the purpose of carrying out the development approved by planning permission 12/0803/PA (outline) and 16/1295/PA (reserved matters) and that these constitute a lawful commencement of that development.
Please see the attachments for our client’s site to be promoted for the forthcoming stage of your LDP 2, which has been delayed for the reasons you have explained. (Map and decision notice on 21/0241/CL supplied but not reproduced in this document.
(To note: this is not a representation on a LDP 2 Candidate Site, but is a matter that will need to be taken into consideration by Pembrokeshire County Council in taking forward LDP 2).
No specific site
Stakeholder ID: 4005
General commentary
Local Plan Candidate Sites Update Consultation January – March 2022 – Representations on behalf of National Grid.
National Grid has appointed Avison Young to review and respond to local planning authority Development Plan Document consultations on its behalf. We are instructed by our client to submit the following representation with regard to the current consultation on the above document.
About National Grid
National Grid Electricity Transmission plc (NGET) owns and maintains the electricity transmission system in England and Wales. The energy is then distributed to the electricity distribution network operators, so it can reach homes and businesses.
National Grid Gas plc (NGG) owns and operates the high-pressure gas transmission system across the UK. In the UK, gas leaves the transmission system and enters the UK’s four gas distribution networks where pressure is reduced for public use.
National Grid Ventures (NGV) is separate from National Grid’s core regulated businesses. NGV develop, operate and invest in energy projects, technologies and partnerships to help accelerate the development of a clean energy future for consumers across the UK, Europe and the United States.
Proposed development sites crossed or in close proximity to National Grid assets:
An assessment has been carried out with respect to National Grid’s electricity and gas transmission assets which include high voltage electricity assets and high-pressure gas pipelines.
National Grid has identified that it has no record of proposed site allocations conflicting with such assets within the Plan area.
Further Advice
National Grid is happy to provide advice and guidance to the Council concerning their networks. Please see attached information outlining further guidance on development close to National Grid assets.
If we can be of any assistance to you in providing informal comments in confidence during your policy development, please do not hesitate to contact us.
To help ensure the continued safe operation of existing sites and equipment and to facilitate future infrastructure investment, National Grid wishes to be involved in the preparation, alteration and review of plans and strategies which may affect their assets. Please remember to consult National Grid on any Development Plan Document (DPD) or site-specific proposals that could affect National Grid’s assets.
We would be grateful if you could add our details shown below to your consultation database, if they are not already included (contact details provided but not reproduced in this document).