Local Development Plan

Public Meeting 14th October 2009 - Questionnaire Data

 

Blackrock Settlement

No questionnaires returned

Observations

DBR-BR-A Land adjacent to Rose Cottage

WAG compulsory purchase site identified for future development of the A465 and not available for inclusion in settlement plans.

DBR-BR-B Old Crown Land

As for DBR-BR-A

DBR-BR-A Land adjacent to Graig Cottage

As for DBR-BR-A

DBR-BR-A Land adjacent to Old Post Office

As for DBR-BR-A

Llanelly Hill Settlement

1 questionnaire returned

Is the proposed boundary acceptable?

No

Do you agree with the land that the draft report recommends for inclusion?

No

Do you agree with the land that the draft report recommends for exclusion?

Exclude All

Do you have any other comments?

Extend it

Do you think we need more development to allow the community to grow?
No

Observations

DBR-LH-B Land adjacent to Brecon Park Cottages

Not shown on enlarged map – only extension to Miner’s Road

DBR-LH-F Land opposite Ty Clyd

DBR-LH-G Land adjacent to Glenview

Registered common land therefore not available for inclusion in settlement plans. As is excluded DBR-LH-C

Clydach  (North & South) Settlement

3 questionnaires returned

Is the proposed boundary acceptable?

Yes

1

No

2

Do you agree with the land that the draft report recommends for inclusion?

Yes

1

No

2

Do you agree with the land that the draft report recommends for exclusion?

Yes

1

No

2

Do you have any other comments?

  • Would like to see land between Penrheolas and Rock + Fountain included in plan
  • Against any further housing development
  • Access problems to heavy vehicles due to underground tunnels in Llwyn Melin area
  • Development would overlook existing properties at Llwyn Melin

Do you think we need more development to allow the community to grow?

Yes

1

No

2

Settlement preference (1 return)

CS37 Land adjacent to Hillgate, Clydach

5

DBR-CL-C Land adjacent to Llwyn Melin

6

DBR-CL-D Land adjacent to Dan Y Coed

2

DBR-CL-F Land adjacent to Primrose Cottage

7

DBR-CL-G Land adjacent to Penrheolas

1

DBR-CL-H Land adjacent to Brooklyn Houses

4

DBR-CL-I Land adjacent to Rose Cottage

3

Gilwern Settlement

31 questionnaires returned

Is the proposed boundary acceptable?

28 people found boundaries unacceptable, but none of the remaining 3 were entirely without concern, stating:

  • Adequate planning and consultation required
  • Did not want any development
  • National Park status to be reflected in proposals
Comments
  • DBR-GIL-E was shown on the maps but not on any of the literature
  • Development behind school more suited for development than CS102
  • Boundary at lower end of the Common could be rounded off with infill.
  • CS102 encroaches on existing properties
  • CS102 most acceptable because of access and amenities

Do you agree with the land that the draft report recommends for inclusion?

28 of the 31 returns did not agree. Of those agreeing one wanted adequate planning and consultation, one wanted more information and one agreed but did not support any development.

Do you agree with the land that the draft report recommends for exclusion?

15 agreed, but of these 3 wanted all sites excluded from development.

Of the 14 who did not agree 6 thought that some sites excluded would be more suited for development than those selected.

2 wanted more information.

Do you have any other comments?

Comments

Number

Access concerns

11

Excessive traffic flow/increase

10

Excessive development/encroachment

9

Against all development

6

Insufficient facilities

5

Need more information

3

CS35 concerns in 2008 of drainage/access not addressed.

3

Destruction of character of village

2

Environmental/wildlife Impact

2

Pollution of rivers

2

Smaller excluded areas more suitable

2

If more homes must be built develop brown field site in Ty Mawr

1

Affect on property prices

1

Use Council land first and use money raised for community

1

Ruins the view/aspect

1

Do you think we need more development to allow the community to grow?

Yes but proposals are too large

8

Yes – young families not catered for

1

Yes with comparable improvement to facilities

1

Yes but only affordable housing for local people

1

Not with present level of services

2

No

15

No answer provided

3

Settlement Preference

Only 12 of the returns recorded a preference for the sites and not all were complete.  This appeared to be due to the fact that the majority objected to the proposed developments.

Of the 4 placing CS102 as their first preference:

  • 1 wanted a reduction in size
  • 1 wanted Park status to be considered in any development
  • The remaining 2 despite rating it as most suitable did not support more development.

Preference

1

2

3

4

CS32 

6

1

CS102

4

2

1

CS35 

4

5

DBR-GIL-E

1

Maes-Y-Gwartha Settlement.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There are a number of concerns with the draft LDP document.

  • A number of sites identified in red that have already been developed, giving the impression that these sites were to be omitted from the draft LDP. 
  •  A large number of residents felt that there was not sufficient time to consider the draft document in full and the implications on the community in general.

  • A lot of concern over highways, local facilities, road safety and road traffic management, indicating a lack of consultation between the Highways department of Monmouthshire County Council and the strategic planning section in the BBNP, prior to the draft document being published.
  • Besides the above comments residents were also concerned with over development, protecting the history of the area and access problems for emergency and service vehicles

13 questionnaires returned

Yes

No

Not Answered

Is the proposed boundary acceptable?

1

12

0

Do you agree with the land that the draft report recommends for inclusion?

1

8

4

Do you agree with the land that the draft report recommends for exclusion?

9

0

4

Do you have any other comments regarding the settlement development boundary?

9

4

0

Do you think we need more development to allow the community to grow?

0

11

2

Supplementary Comments

Extensive parking in the village even before any new development

8

Extensive traffic flow in the village on peak times and when the Heads of the Valley Road is closed due to accidents

8

There is a need for more off-street parking without more development in the village

6

Due to the amount of traffic using the road and the amount of development taking place over the last number of years there is a growing problem with service vehicles and emergency vehicles

3

There was concern relating to the flora and fauna on the site DRY-MSY-D. This would be removed and the wildlife would also be affected

2

 

Llanelly Hill

LH-G Registered common land therefore not available for inclusion in settlement plans

LH-C Registered common land therefore not available for inclusion in settlement plans

LH-B Area shown on Part 2 documents is not on the large map only the extension to Miner’s Road

Blackrock

4 of the 5 areas identified are compulsory purchase sites identified for future dualling of the A465 and are not available for inclusion in settlement plans