BDOG 07

PEMBROKESHIRE COAST NATIONAL PARK LOCAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN 122 (emphasis added)

PEMBROKESHIRE COAST NATIONAL PARK LOCAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN 122 (emphasis added)

Summary of current Legal Advice as to why Planning Application NP/15/0194/FUL – ought to be refused by the PCNPA

• The two respective provisions of the PCNPA-Local Development Plan (2010), setting out the number of “units” associated with the residential development on Housing Allocation “HA825” – “Land north of Feidr Eglwys” in Newport, Pembrokeshire are completely internally inconsistent and irreconcilable.
• Whereas, the mere numerical data appearing in Table 7 “Allocations of Housing Sites” (p.76), as against the entry for this Allocation, states it to be for “20 units”: the following sentence appears in the full expository reasoned justification, at the equivalent entry, in the table at Appendix 2 “Allocations” (p.122) namely “The density of development will need to ..[be].. limited to 12 dwellings to ensure that it does not harm the character of the area and to meet access constraints”
• This conflict has come about as the result of a grave oversight and serious lapse by the Planning Inspector concerned, (albeit compounded by the PCNPA staff) who simply failed to make adequate Recommendations, when he found that the original site, as proposed in the 2009 Deposit Plan, could in his view be “expanded” to the north, so as to include two further proposed additional so-called “alternative” sites.
• Notwithstanding this, the said Plan as approved by the Welsh Assembly Government and adopted by the PCNPA in 2010, now sets out a simple unconditional factual statement with respect to the limit of “12 dwellings” acceptable for inclusion within the Allocation site so identified. As a matter of law the general public is now entitled to rely upon that statement and to expect it to be honoured and implemented by the NPA, whatever the earlier failings of the Planning inspector, or indeed its own staff.
• The fact of the internal inconsistency, and the history of the Planning inspector’s oversight, are not legitimate further “material planning considerations” which the Development Management Committee of the NPA may take into consideration in their determination of the present planning application for 35 units on the site instead.
• Such is the gravity and substantive significance of the oversight or lapse here involved, that the PCNPA is most certainly not at liberty to treat it as if it were a mere minor administrative error instead (i.e. equivalent of a typo); and attempt a quick fix solution by the simple expedient of adding it to its existing “erratum” document, which in any event is without stated authority.
• The established lawful statutory mechanism for making any such rectification, as it may be deemed in future it is appropriate to make, lies instead under the LDP “review and revision” procedure, per ss.69 & 70 of the 2004 Act.
• Any person who can show that, in the course of the past 5 yrs since its adoption, theyhave indeed enquired of this Plan and so became aware of this “12 dwellings” limitation, has thereby gained a substantive “legitimate expectation” that the NPA will honour and respect this commitment, when considering a planning application, such as the present, to develop on the site. They may thus have grounds to launch a subsequent challenge on a judicial review, were the Authority to simply ignore it instead.
• The figure of only a 40% proportional commitment to “affordable housing” associated with this allocation, as now appears in the 2014 “supplementary planning guidance” document ; is not consistent with, but rather clearly and deliberately intended to be in conflict with, the previous commitment to a 70% proportion instead, as stated at Policy 45 in the LDP. Such inconsistency is expressly contrary to 2005 WAG planning guidance. Furthermore, it seeks to “delegate the criteria for decisions on planning applications” to supplementary planning guidance ,which again is contrary to WAG guidance.
• Finally, whilst the current contemporary advice of PCC Highways regarding the changed proposal for principal vehicle access off Feidr Bentinck rather than Feidr Eglwys instead, must naturally bear greatest weight, as a material planning consideration. Nonetheless, their former advice, at the time of the Planning Inspector’s public examination of the Deposit Plan, and his professional views upon it as an integral aspect of his approval for the “expansion” of this Housing allocation site, are nonetheless also a further such material planning consideration.

Here is a Report by Vicky Moller, Vice-Chair of the Group, and one of our leading Members on Renewable Energy (Sustainable Power) issues. She has been invited to attend a discussion in the near future with the U.K. Environment Agency in London, on the topic of the Regulation and Assessment of how much so-called micro scale hydro-power generating installation can contribute in future to our sustainable ‘energy’ needs. Her she discusses the topic of the history and pro and cons of EA regulation of this technology to date.

Hydro for Wales – will the environment agency stop it?

I am convinced not. However there have been hold-ups and frustration with the regulations imposed by the agency. Hold-ups have been up to 3 years, 2 to provide all the information to the agency, eg counting fish over the year, and wait for their response, and one to order the generating equipment.

This is galling when there is the risk of feed in tariffs disappearing on the chariot of fire on which they descended from govt.

The exciting bit, for me, is that it is easy to influence events, I am finding. Our environment group responded to the EA consultation on making it simpler to get hydro, or I responded on their behalf and am invited to London Westminster this month to hear and discuss their proposals. The group wanted this reported, as they are paying my fare. We welcome views and suggestions from anyone in Wales, especially transition organisations.

Back to the wonderful complexities of the issue.

Make no mistake, hydro is the Cinderella of renewables, least regarded, least invested in but the real princess of the bunch. The reasons are all obvious: Water is most energy dense, water flows steadily, is easy to access for repairs and installation. Hydro generators last 100 years, or used to! The life of PV and wind kit is calculated at 20 years.

We need two kinds of power, bread and butter constant for eg lights, water-pumps and computers (bread and butter to me anyway) and special purpose manufacturing, power tools which can be used intermittently when there is the power. Hydro brings home the bread and butter, is the full time worker, getting time off during droughts when her fancy sister pv generally stands in.

But hydro has and can cause problems more serious than lack of power! In the middle ages the rivers and streams of Britain teemed with fish, then watermills were installed everywhere without regard for the fish that fed the peasants. Weirs blocked their spawning grounds, streams suddenly dried up when sluices opened, fish were killed in water wheels, their numbers dropped and sea fishing took off.

In addition to risks for fish there are risks of floods upstream when water is impounded, and depriving people downstream of flows, or their chance of hydro. So hydro cannot be installed willy nilly, regulation is reasonable. Which is more important fish-rich rivers or lit up houses? There is only one right answer, even if people haven’t got it.

The EA didn’t mean to stop hydro by taking 2 years to give an answer, they were just unprepared for the surge of applications. Hence the consultation on getting it simpler. The Welsh Environment Agency has decided to do it differently to England and make it simpler still. However we don’t know how soon their simple plan will leave the table and be on the streets, or the waterways.

One reason people don’t rate hydro is that very few people live at the bottom of waterfalls. Low flat rich land and cities go together. Rocky mountains, hydro potential and sparse habitation go together. What few have noticed is that people have legs, mountains, tides, winds don’t. I was in North Wales slate country and so jealous, they had it all, land for food, slate and forests to build, towering waterfalls for oodles of power. The residents of all backgrounds seemed blind to their enormous luck, there wasn’t a transition movement in sight!

Feed in Tariffs and their solidity. They arrived dripping gold, and some leapt to the opportunity, Now they may waver or shrivel in the October spending review, they could disappear or shrink at any time, and are predicted to in less than 3 years when their review is scheduled. Hydro feed in tariffs have been swathed in uncertainty from the start. Which equipment is certified? None certainly, which installers certified? one or two for Wales, a few more for Scotland. Arguments are ongoing. The trade don’t want certification required for equipment, as old kit works and lasts better than new. Again I was arguing this point with the woman in charge of writing the regulations at Ecobuild 2009. She accepted I had valid points and said it was useful to her deliberations. It would be gratifyng that one can have an influence on policy by arguing at a stand in a show, but it really demonstrates how arbitrary and incompetent the process is.

www.ecocymru.org
www.pembrokeshire.econews.org.uk

Vicky Moller
01239 820971

Hapus i gyfathrebu’n Gymraeg neu yn Saesneg.
Happy to communicate in Welsh or English

The Group is fully committed to the promotion of, and the ethos underpining the inspiration for, the transition towns movement, both here in the UK and internationally. In particular, we are gravely concerned to intiate and foster the kind of life-style and community changes, with respect to such issues as local food growing, local waste re-use and re-cycling and local food wastes composting, which we perceive as forming an essential need – if we are to sucessfully meet the future demands upon our society, due to the combined effects and synergies of global climate change, post peak oil economics and macro-economic system reform.

In this regard we are gravely concerned about the lack of policy provision appearing in the Deposit Draft version of the LDP, as that bears on the opportunity to promote land uses for environmentally friendly uses which will be needed in future in order to contribute to the sustainability of our society and our communities. The following three matters are the ones which we picked out as of particular importance, but are by no menas intended to be a comprehensive list. Click on the link to view our formal submission on the topic concerned :

No provision specifically locally based community composting

Provision for land used for waste recycling is geared to large scale district facilities only.

No provision for pro-active promotion of land for allotments

Two further documents are referred to in this submission as follows :

Letter from M. Dunne to Group in 2005

Article in The Independent about need for allotments 2008

The following documents were also used as a part of our oral submissions

Newport Allotments submission to NAW Sustainability Committee Inquiry (2010)

Pembs County Council submissions to NAW Sustainability Committee Inquiry (2010)

A Place to Grow (School of Social Sciences King’s College London UNiversity)

Yveline Armstrong’s Experience in Narbeth

Under this heading we have identified three areas which concern us most of all. But this is not to say that there are not further areas which we very much agree need radical re-thinking by the NPA. In particular, having attended at the General Housing Policy Issues day at the Enquiry Centre (the E-Commerce Building on Cleddau Reach in Llanion East, Pembroke Dock) we whole-heartedly endorse the concerns of many other groups that the very ambitious percentage of affordable housing requirements set out by the NPA in the plan, always at least 50%, often 70% as in here in Newport, and sometimes even higher, have not be subjected to any form of external or independent ‘viability’ analysis. In particular this would involve the NPA getting together with Pembrokeshire house builders, Social Sector Landlords (e.g. Housing Associations etc.) and landowners of the sites proposed by them for housing, to “crunch the numbers”, in order to establish at the least the financial viability of their proposals. This has not been done.

In addition the following three main areas concern the Group with respect to generally the lack of policy based provision, especially as compared to the existing planning situation under the current local development plan the JUDP (Joint Unitary Development Plan 2006).

See our written submissions on each topic  here (a brief outline summary appears beneath the link).

No policy provision for replacement housing development.

Given our recent experience here in Newport with respect to the notorious replacement dwelling house at Bettws Newydd, on the Parrog, it should be obvious to all why the Group was horrified to discern that the LDP, which will replace the JUDP, proposes to set out no equivalent Policy provision on this topic to replace the existing Policy 56. Without that policy provision in the current local plan, the campaign to oppose the massively over-sized replacement dwelling at Bettws Newydd, representing the overwhelming majority view of the community, would surely have had no chance whatever of succeeding.

No policy provision for in-fill and rounding-off within settlement centres

It is simply irrational that whilst the NPA proposes to make some, albeit inadequate, re-iteration of the current JUDP policies on the development of so-called ‘in-fill’ and ’rounding-off’ sites in countryside settlments, where the settlement character or size does not warrant a so called boundary ‘centre-line’; it proposes no such re-iteration in relation to similar such developments proposed within settlements with centre-lines, where as a matter of common sense such proposals are bound to be much more frequent.

No or inadequate policy provision on buildings conversions.

The proposed re-iteration of the policy provisions, in the current JUDP, on the vexed subject of the appropriate criterion for permitting building conversions, most especially conversion of non-domestic (typically work related and business use buildings) in the countryside to residential use instead, which are volumious, is proposed for only a bare sentence or two in the new plan. In particular, the very strong requirement in the current plan, for a proposal for conversion to a residential use to come forward only after a business or employment use has been proven to be unavailable, will now be dropped in favour of a preference for residential use favouring affordable housing instead. Whilst, of course, we strongly favour a large proportion of new housing being for affordable needs, a policy of promoting affordable housing conversion in the countryside with no associate viability analysis, or related employment criterion is clearly woefully inadequate.

Naturally in addition to engaging with the LDP public consultation process as it directly affects us here in Newport, the Group has also sought to make its views known, so far as concerns the General Policy provisions of the NPA as are set out in the current statutory Deposit Draft Version of the LDP.

These submissions divide broadly into two areas : those concerned with housing policies, and those concerned with environmental and sustainability issues. Below you will find links to two articles setting out our formal submissions in both of these areas.

Housing Policy Provisions

Environmental Policy Provisions