Local Development Plan
Public Meeting 14th October 2009
Llanelly Community Council Comments
A public meeting, facilitated by Llanelly Community Council on the 14th October 2009 in the Old School Community Centre, Gilwern at 7pm, was held to seek feedback to the Local Development Plan [Draft] submitted by the Brecon Beacons National Park (BBNP). Around one hundred twenty five residents attended the meeting with Councillors and provided feedback through questionnaires and verbal comments. Members from BBNP and Monmouthshire County Council (MCC) Officers were in attendance and listened to observations.
After considering the comments residents have made and reviewing the draft proposals, Llanelly Community Council would like to make the following observations on the specific sites within the settlements. Where no comment is made the Council is indicating that those of BBNP cover the issues.
DBR-BR-B Old Crown Land –The Council believes that the Site was acquired by WAG as compulsory purchase for future road dualling
DBR-BR-C Land adjacent to Graig Cottage – The Council believes that the land is still in private ownership
DBR-BR-D Land adjacent to Old Post Office – Possible conflict as proposed access to the site may be from an existing highway lay-by.
Community Council’s main concerns are that areas of development are within the area identified for future dualling of the A465 and the observations made in the Compulsory Purchase Orders of the late 1990s
Settlement boundary line needs lowering to run along Old Rectory Close
The BBNP Planning Authority and the Local Authority will need to consider creating better services and road network, as the access into and out of this community is unique. The access road is a former tram road, which has only a tarmacadam topping and a substandard base to cope with the existing traffic load and the increase in the proposed loading. Furthermore any development in this area would need to incorporate parking facilities.
If this proposal goes into the 2011 to 2021 Local Development Plan the financial impact will be extensive on the local council. The road maintenance program is already over-stretched without having to complete a major infrastructure program, and these improvements would need to be funded by Monmouthshire Council.
The Community Council must conclude that after considering all the comments and the submissions made to them that the development DBR-MSY-D in the community of Maesygwartha would lead to undue stress and over development in such a small area. The Community Council is not against small-scale development such as infill or back land development, incorporating similar styles of development to match and compliment existing properties.
CLYDACH (North & South)
CS37 Land adjacent to Hillgate – Concern with access from Rhonas road to main road and, given the raised nature of the site, access to the proposed development
DBR-CL-D Land adjacent to Dan Y Coed - Concern with future dualling of the A465 and close proximity of development to Heads of the Valley Road as well as with access problems. The area is shown as an area within the flood plane. The Council has concern over the river Clydach water level compared to the elevated site level. The site has never been flooded.
DBR-CL-F Land adjacent to Primrose Cottage – has already been developed
DBR-CL-H Land adjacent to Brooklyn Houses – Access problems
OLD SCHOOL SITE
The Council would like to have clarification on the Old School site which has not been identified in the proposed Development plan.
CS-1 Land adjacent to 4 Llewellyns Row – subject to access, no problem with one dwelling
LH-B Land adjacent to Brecon Park Cottages – good site for development but need to clarify area covered by development site. Parks state possibility for small extension but map indicates whole field for possible development. Site has previously been refused planning permission for development.
LH-C Land adjacent to Maes-yr-Awel – Believed to be Common land and too many people have rights on this land to make development viable
LH-F Land opposite Ty Clyd – Believed to be Common land – the size of the identified site would seem not to be consistent with the plans provided by BBNP, not correct size on maps
LH-G Land adjacent to Glenview – Believed to be Common land
Llanelly Hill lends itself only to small sites and sporadic development. Brecon Cottages, Old School and infill is sufficient development for this area
Development should be considered in outlying areas where thriving communities have died such as Gelli-Y-Felin.
OLD SCHOOL SITE
The Council would like to have clarification on the Old School site which as not been identified in the proposed Development plan.
CS102 Land at Lancaster Drive (formerly known as GW2 and extension to GW2)
Highways have already identified problem with access because of steepness of site.
Overloaded foul drainage services in this area. Residents are already subject to foul drainage overflow
Clarification of comments by BBNP is needed. The Local Housing Needs Survey in 2005 identified that residents did not want development in this area and asked for it to be removed from the UDP and excluded from the LDP, and yet BBNP state that “Community indicated a desire for development”.
There is a conflict of preferred strategy between BBNP and MCC.
The Community Council supports MCC strategy for site and urges BBNP to follow this line. To address this issue, LCC would like to facilitate a meeting between Parks, MCC and POWYS.
CS35 Land adjacent to Marpela – This site has drainage and access problems and is considered a backland development.
Land adjacent to Abergavenny Road added to complete development area but Parks comments would seem to include it only if other sites not viable. This site was taken out of UDP by Inspector
The Council would like clarification on the extraction of minerals. Are they staying in the LDP?
Development plan within Gwent as a whole states that developments should be near work, transport links etc. Welsh spatial plan is in conflict with this and identifies unsuitable rural areas thus creating commuter villages
The Community Council endorses the views expressed in the public questionnaires and concludes that while it does not support any major building works it is not against some small-scale development, but this should be of sympathetic design so as to maintain the village character. Furthermore any development should only be considered alongside improvements to the infrastructure, transport links, facilities and access.