As from Sarn Y Plas, Rhiw Pwllheli Gwynedd LL53 8AA

Telephone: 00 66 55 643 534 Mobile 00 669 158 2355/ 00 666 164 7017
Email rainhammer01@yahoo.com

Ms. Sue Essex
Minister for the Environment
National Assembly for Wales
Cardiff Bay
Cardiff CF99 1NA
United Kingdom

November 25 2002

sue.essex@wales.gov.uk

Dear Ms. Sue Essex

Planning Application by Gwynedd CC: Road at Rhiw REF CO2D/0382/30/R3

Further to correspondence: (a hard copy of this email message has been sent)

I do understand that it is not usual to Call-In planning decisions. But I do think this is NOT a usual decision.

It is now widely and publicly understood that Gwynedd Council itself knows that this application flouts National Assembly policy (indeed at the meeting of the Dwyfor Planning Committee where the application was approved one councillor spoke for approving the application 'never mind the Assembly'),

It would appear that, far from it being appropriate that this matter is left to Gwynedd CC, they themselves are challenging the Assembly to declare whether you are serious in supporting your policies.

It is contradictory, to an Alice in Wonderland extent, to have policies in respect of ancient woodland, the environment, bio-diversity, and cultural and historic heritage, many of which you were instrumental in designing and instituting, and that when a planning decision is made by a Local Authority that totally contradicts both National Assembly Policy and the Planning Authority's own Structure and Local Plans, the Assembly takes the view: (and I quote from Bob Evans's letter) :

"that the development is not likely to be in conflict with national planning policy", when it clearly is!

When, too the Local Authority's own planning manager says that the application is in conflict; and the very fact that the Planning Authority have had to notify you confirms this.

The decision to grant planning permission can additionally be construed as totally contrary to some 20 of the policies of the Gwynedd Structure Plan and the Dwyfor Local Plan.

Indeed the Gwynedd CC application clearly states: "The decision to permit the development is in conflict with national planning policy (re ancient woodland), "

In respect of one of the central issues which is Para 5.2.8 of PPW Gwynedd CC says:

"The loss of broadleaved trees and impact on the semi natural Ancient Woodland are unavoidable as a result of the proposed scheme. However, it should be noted from the consideration of alternatives that on balance the proposed alignment is least environmentally damaging" .

However this is the view of the Gwynedd Engineering and Highways Department. The Dwyfor Planning Manager has established conclusively that quite insufficient information re alternative routes or the replacement of the old road was gathered and provided by the applicant and indeed the Local Authority has sought to mislead the public about both the cost and lifespan of repairing the existing road.

Interestingly at the same meeting of Dwyfor Planning Committee that the Local Authority's Planning Application was approved an application by a private individual to build a new house, as his existing one was being threatened by the same landslip as the road, was declined on the grounds that there was no point in building a new house in the landslip zone; the same area as that one the road would be built in!

You are, of course, thoroughly cognisant of both PPW and what Gwynedd CC has proposed. I have however, for the record, enumerated in an annex to this letter the detail of why I urge you to Call-In the application.

In this case, consonant with PPW, there are two considered and feasible alternatives to the development, which will allow the sustained development of the community and the conservation and preservation of both the natural and the historic environment without the irreparable damage that the proposal will entail:

To repair the existing road on its line, which, in spite of misleading reports from Gwynedd CC in the press, will have a minimum lifespan of 40 years, the same as that of the sections of road to which the proposed road will connect
or
To enhance existing roads, the feasibility of which has also been agreed by Gwynedd CC but they have failed to provide the same level of detail to enable their own councillors to judge the appropriateness of this option

Gwynedd CC is seen to be biased in favour of one alternative; and Dwyfor Planning Committee have been seen to connive with the Planning Authority in rejecting the professional advice given to them; positions which diminish public credibility in the processes of local government

If the application is not Called-In the Local Authority will enter into a protracted wrangle with the National Trust over the release of inalienable land which will be publicly damaging to both parties as well as The National Assembly.

A Call-In decision will enable the issues to be widely and publicly aired so I reiterate the requests that have been made to you to Call-In this planning application and to demonstrate that PPW Wales is being supported in an open and even handed way by The National Assembly


Yours Sincerely


Gwydion Thomas
ANNEX

I understand that The National Assembly's position is that Call-In will be effected where Planning Decisions:

 are in conflict with national planning policies;

Gwynedd CC asserts that the proposed scheme either aids or is neutral to the majority of planning policies contained in the Development Plan, and that "there are a number of policies that it would "hinder", ie be in contravention. Gwynedd lists these as:
D10 (Gwynedd Structure Plan) protected species, D14 (Gwynedd Structure Plan) broadleaved woodland E9 (Dwyfor Local Plan) protected species, E17 (Dwyfor Local Plan) ancient woodland,
E30 (Dwyfor Local Plan) registered park and garden

Such an interpretation of the data is not tenable. In fact the scheme hinders or is contrary to at least 14 of the policies listed below, neutral to perhaps 6 and only favours F3, F5 and F6 which relate to road building and improvement!

Gwynedd Structure Plan (adopted November 1993)

D1 Protection of the environment, D4 Siting and design, D5 Siting and design, D7 Retention of agricultural land, D9 Environmentally sensitive areas, D10 Safeguarding nature conservation interests, D14 Protection of broad-leaved woodlands, D15 Protection of Scheduled Ancient Monuments and archaeological sites, D20 Presumption against development having adverse environmental impacts, D22 Setting of Listed Buildings,
Dwyfor Area Local Plan E9 Sites of Nature Conservation Importance, sites of geological interest and protected species, E13 Protecting agricultural land, E17 Ancient and Semi-Ancient Woodlands E18 Broadleaved trees,E25 Development in close proximity to Listed Buildings or historical buildings, E27 Scheduled Ancient Monuments, E28 Archaeological sites, E30The negative impacts of the proposal will have to be weighed against its benefits F3 New road development , F5 Highway improvements , F6 Improving second and third class roads

PPW also says that Call-In will be applied where planning decisions

 1. could have wide effects beyond their immediate locality;
It has been pointed out that nodding this application through will damage the Assembly's credibility in respect of supporting its policies. The Assembly has nothing to lose by a public hearing, establishing the best way forward, with the conclusions of which everyone would have to be satisfied.

 2. may give rise to substantial controversy beyond the immediate locality;

 This application has already given rise to substantial controversy, in the national press and radio and in the international literary world, beyond the immediate area, by virtue of the association with R S Thomas, one of Wales’ most notable poets of the 20th century

 It has already given rise to substantial controversy as part of the proposed route requires the compulsory purchase of inalienable land owned by the National Trust

 3. are likely significantly to affect sites of scientific, nature conservation or historic interest or areas of landscape importance;

 The Assembly's policy is that inappropriate development in statutorily designated areas such as Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty . A planning application that involves the breaches of policy of which you have been notified can hardly be called appropriate.
 The Assembly's primary objective for designating AONBs is their conservation and enhancement of their natural beauty. UDP policies and development control decisions affecting AONBs should "favour conservation of natural beauty, although it will also be appropriate to have regard to the economic and social well-being of the areas. Local authorities, other public bodies and other relevant authorities have a statutory duty to have regard to AONB purposes." In this case complete disregard for the AONB has been shown.

Listed Buildings
The Assembly requires that applications for listed building consent which Cadw advise would adversely affect the preservation of a building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest it possesses are inappropriate .If Cadw have not advised that the planning application adversely affects the setting of Plas Yn Rhiw and Sarn Y Plas I believe this in itself merits enquiry.

The Assembly's Policy in respect of Listed buildings requires that

 Where a development proposal affects a listed building or its setting, the primary material consideration is the statutory requirement to have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building, or its setting, or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses

No regard has been taken to preserve settings in this case. Indeed the setting of Sarn Y Plas with all its cultural and historic character will be irreparably damaged.

 The Assembly Government has objectives in this field are to preserve and enhance the historic environment, recognising its contribution to economic vitality and culture, civic pride and the quality of life, and its importance as a resource for future generations; and specifically to ensure that the character of historic buildings is safeguarded .

In this case we are faced with the degradation of a field, wood and garden that is central to the cultural and literary heritage of Lleyn. Gwynedd CC appears totally ignorant of the historical significance of both the Grade II listed building that is Sarn Y Plas and its setting by virtue of being the home of R.S.Thomas and M.E.Eldridge, among the foremost artists of 20th Century Wales

The Assembly has prepared a non-statutory ‘Register of Landscapes, Parks and Gardens of Special Historic Interest in Wales’ It requires Local Authorities to

 set out the factors relating to the historic environment to be taken into account in assessing planning applications
I see no evidence of this in the case of Gwynedd CC's application and it is clear that The National Trust Property of Plas Yn Rhiw, which is on the register will be degraded.

Clogwyni Pen Llyn SAC and The Heritage Coast

The Assembly requires that Planning Authorities

 ensure that statutorily designated sites are properly protected
and that
 The Assembly, on the advice of CCW, will normally call in, for its own determination, planning applications which are likely to have a significant effect on sites of more than local importance, for example, SSSIs, SPAs, candidate or designated SACs

While the Clogwyni Pen Llyn Natura 2000 site is not directly affected, the proposed planning application will cause degradation and irreparable damage within 100 metres of the SAC. The EU Publication Managing Natura 2000 Sites makes it quite clear that under such circumstances development should be appraised with regard to its effect on the SAC. As the contingent microclimate and habitats of the SAC and the adjacent land will be degraded if this application is approved this should clearly be reconsidered by CCW let alone the Assembly.

Biodiversity
The Assembly Government’s objectives for the conservation and improvement of the natural heritage are to:
 promote the conservation of landscape and biodiversity, in particular the conservation of native wildlife and habitats;
 The UK Biodiversity Action Plan (UKBAP) includes objectives to conserve, and, where practicable, enhance:
 the quality and range of wildlife habitats and ecosystems;
 the overall populations and natural ranges of native species; ;
 species, habitats and natural and managed ecosystems characteristic of local areas; and
 the biodiversity of natural and semi-natural habitats where this has been diminished over recent decades.

This application is contrary to these objectives

Back to Roads!!

Ms Sue Essex
Environment Minister 26 Tachwedd / November 2002
Welsh Assembly Government
Cardiff Bay
Cardiff CF99 1NA


Annwyl Sue Essex

Llythyr ar y cyd yn annog galw i mewn cais cynllunio CO2D/0382/30/R3 am lôn newydd trwy Goed y Rhiw, Gwynedd, a fuasai’n achosi niwed parhaol i etifeddiaeth naturiol a diwylliannol



Fe fyddwch chi’n gwybod am y niwed a achoswyd i lôn gyhoeddus y Rhiw bron i ddwy flynedd yn ôl am am y gofynion cwbl resymol a wnaed gan y gymuned leol ac am ffordd newydd. Fe fyddwch chi’n gwybod fod Adran Beirianyddol Cyngor Gwynedd wedi argymell NID codi’r ffordd newydd ar hyd y llinell bresennol, ond ei dargyfeirio trwy Goed y Rhiw, sef coedlan hynafol ar dir annieithr yr Ymddiriedolaeth Genedlaethol. Fe fyddwch yn gwybod hefyd y buasai’n ffordd newydd yn pasio o fewn rhai llathenni i Sarn-y-Plas, sef adeilad cofrestredig Gradd ll lle treuliodd y bardd R S Thomas y rhan fwyaf o ddyddiau diweddaraf ei fywyd, ac yn torri trwy’r goedlan lle cerddodd o bron bob dydd a’r ardd y gofalodd o a’i wraig M E Elridge amdani am 30 mlynedd ac a fu’n ysbrydolaeth i lawer o’i waith.

Mae’r unigolion a’r mudiadau sydd wedi llofnodi’r llythyr hwn wedi cael eu synnu a’u hysgwyd gan bleidlais y Cynghorwyr i ddiystyru argymhelliad clir eu Swyddogion Cynllunio nhw eu hunain, a chymeradwyo’r cais cynllunio hwn, a hynny heb ofyn am ragor o wybodaeth am ddichonoldeb ailgodi’r lôn bresennol ar-lein, a gwelliannau i nifer o ffyrdd presennol, fel yr argymhellodd y Swyddogion. Roedd peirianwyr ymgynghorol y Cyngor ei hun wedi cydnabod y buasai’n gwbl ymarferol i ailgodi’r ffordd bresennol trwy ei hangori yn y craigwely. Ar hyn o bryd nid yw’r cofnodion sy’n esbonio’r penderfyniad ar gael.

Rydym yn nodi fod y penderfyniad i roi caniatâd cynllunio yn mynd yn groes nid yn unig i argymhellion y swyddogion, ond hefyd i Bolisi Cynllunio Cymru. Mae’r ddogfen hon yn datgan ym mharagraff 5.2.8: “Mae coetiroedd hynafol a lled-naturiol yn gynefinoedd na ellir eu hadfer sy’n werthfawr iawn am eu bioamrywiaeth a dylid eu diogelu rhag datblygiad a fyddai’n achosi difrod sylweddol.” Y cais hwn yw’r achos prawf cyntaf i ddangos a fydd y polisi yn cael ei ddilyn mewn gwirionedd, neu a fydd pob achos lle mae coedlan o dan fygythiad yn cael ei drin fel “eithriad”, gan danseilio’r polisi newydd yn llwyr.

Felly, rydym yn erfyn arnoch i ddefnyddio’ch pwerau i alw’r cais hwn i mewn, ac i ddiogelu’r goedlan hynafol unigryw hon. Rydym yn nodi fod y cyfrwy benderfyniad yn gyson â pharagraff 4.2 o Bolisi Cynllunio Cymru oherwydd:
 Mae’r penderfyniad i ganiatáu’r datblygiad yn mynd yn groes i bolisi cynllunio cenedlaethol (parthed coetir hynafol)
 Fe fuasai’r penderfyniad yn cael effaith eang y tu hwnt i’w gyffiniau, gan mai hwn yw achosi prawf cyntaf paragraff 5.2.8 o Bolisi Cynllunio Cymru ac
 Mae o wedi arwain at gryn dipyn o ddadlau y tu hwnt i’w gyffiniau oherwydd y cysylltiad ag R S Thomas, un o feirdd mwyaf Cymru yn yr 20fed ganrif.
Mae pawb sydd wedi llofnodi’r llythyr hwn yn datgan yn glir ein cefnogaeth am ofynion cwbl resymol pobl y Rhiw am fynediad derbyniol ar y ffyrdd yn dilyn colli’r hen lôn. Rydym yn cytuno fod rhaid darparu’r mynediad hwn cyn gynted â phosibl, ond rydym yn awgrymu mai parodrwydd Adran Beirianyddol Cyngor Gwynedd i ddargyfeirio’r ffordd trwy ardal mor hynod o sensitif, sef coetir hynafol ar dir annieithr yr Ymddiriedolaeth Genedlaethol sydd mor bwysig yn ddiwylliannol, sydd wedi arafu’r broses gynllunio.

Yn olaf, rydym yn hyderus y bydd hi’n dod yn glir mewn Ymchwiliad Cyhoeddus fod yna ffyrdd eraill i gwrdd ag anghenion trafnidiaeth yr ardal, ac y gellir gwneud hyn heb yr oedi sy’n anochel wrth brynu tir annieithr yr Ymddiriedolaeth Genedlaethol yn orfodol, a heb i’r Cynulliad Cenedlaethol gael ei weld yn eang yn anwybyddu ei bolisi cynllunio ei hyn.



Yr eiddoch yn gywir Dear Sue Essex

A joint letter urging the call in of planning application CO2D/0382/30/R3 for a new road through Coed y Rhiw, Gwynedd, which would cause irreparable damage to Wales’ natural and cultural heritage

You will be aware of the damage to the public road at Rhiw nearly two years ago and of the very understandable demands by the local community for a replacement road. You will know that Gwynedd Council’s Engineering Dept have proposed NOT to built the new road along the existing line, but to divert it through Coed y Rhiw, an ancient woodland on National Trust inalienable land. You will be aware also that the new road would pass within a few yards of Sarn-y-Plas, a Grade ll listed building where the Welsh poet R S Thomas spent most of the later days of his life, and cut through the wood in which he walked almost every day and the garden he and his wife the painter M E Eldridge nurtured for 30 years both of which were the inspiration of much of his work.



The individuals and organisations that have signed this letter were shocked and surprised at the vote by Councillors to disregard the clear recommend-ation of their own Planning Officers and to approve this planning application without requesting further information both on the feasibility of rebuilding the existing road on-line, and improvements to a combination of the many existing alternative routes, as they were advised. The Council’s own consulting engineers had recognised that it was feasible to rebuild the existing road by anchoring it into the bedrock. At the present time the minutes explaining the decision are not available.

We note that the decision to grant planning permission was not only contrary to officers’ advice, but also at complete variance with Planning Policy Wales. This document states in paragraph 5.2.8 that: “Ancient and semi-natural woodlands are irreplaceable habitats of high biodiversity value which should be protected from development that would result in significant damage.” This application is the first test case of whether this protection will be implemented in practice, or whether every case where woodland is under threat will simply be declared an exception, allowing business as usual.

We therefore urge you to use your powers to call in this application, thus allowing this uniquely important ancient woodland to be protected. We note that such a call in would be in line with paragraph 4.2 of Planning Policy Wales in that:
 The decision to permit the development is in conflict with national planning policy (re ancient woodland),
 The decision could have a wide effect beyond its immediate area, as it is the first test case of paragraph 5.2.8 of Planning Policy Wales and
 It has already given rise to substantial controversy beyond the immediate area by virtue of the association with R S Thomas, one of Wales’ most notable poets of the 20th century.
Each of the signatories to this letter makes clear our support for the quite reasonable demands by the people of Rhiw for acceptable road access following the road collapse. We agree that this access needs to be provided as soon as reasonably possible, but suggest that the eagerness of the Council’s Engineering Dept to divert the road through such an extremely sensitive site, ancient woodland on National Trust inalienable land with such huge cultural importance, has served only to delay the planning process.

Finally, we are confident that once these issues have been aired at a Public Inquiry, it will become clear that there are alternative means of meeting the transport needs of the area, and that this can be done without the delays inevitably involved in the compulsory purchase of National Trust inalienable land, and without the National Assembly being widely seen to be disregarding its own planning policy.

Yours sincerely



Graham Bradley
Coed Cadw (the Woodland Trust)
grahambradley@woodland-trust.org.uk Mike Webb
RSPB
mike.webb@rspb.org.uk R N Yale
Chair, Caernarfonshire CPRW
Julian Rosser
Friends of the Earth Cymru
julianr@foe.co.uk Frances Catenach
North Wales Wildlife Trust
nwwt@cix.compulink.co.uk Dr Trevor Dines
Plantlife – the Wild Plant Conservation Society
trevor.dines@plantlife.org.uk
Sue Gittins
The Ramblers’ Association
SueG@ramblers.org.uk Russel Hobson
Buttlerfly Conservation Wales
Russel Hobson rhobson.bcw@btclick.com


Cc: Bob Evans, National Assembly for Wales

In support of M.Bove Something different! No roads involved

The Independent on THE ROAD!!

As you all know life has been completely overtaken by this idiotic planning application from Gwynedd CC to build the road in RS's garden and the National Trust property Plas Yn Rhiw
We have all written letters of opposition
However.....look what we have here......the report of the Dwyfor Planning Director Gruffyfdd Morris..........in which
he makes more serious criticisms of Gwynedd CCs application than most of us have done. His criticisms put the National Trust's weak response into context too. You probably do not want to read it all but in essence it says:
The application breaches a whole raft of local, county and national planning policies
The scheme is unjustifiable and indefensible
The Environmental Impact Assessment is incompetent
He comes within a whisker of accusing Gwynedd CC of lying......misleading info, incorrect info, serious errors of omission, bias in favor a one route!!!
Anyway now we are having fun looking for dormice...which used to be there...which would put real spanner in the works as they are EU protected species..

Planning Aplication – C02D/0382/30/R3
Proposed Road Development at Rhiw


Observations on Policy Matters and on the contents of the
Environmental Statement


1. Background


Rhiw is situated:


Within an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty on the Ll*n
Peninsula
Within the Heritage Coast area;
Within an area that is included on the National Register of
Historic Landscapes, Parks and Gardens;
Within an area that is full of historical building remains,
i.e. archeological remains and listed buidings ;
Within an area that has a number of designations of nature
conservation both statutory and non-statutory.



The site of the proposed road development is extremely
sensitive from both a landscape and nature conservation point
of view


The proposed road has some effect on all of the above, but the
main effect of the road alignment will be on the ancient
woodland below Plas yn Rhiw. This woodland has been included
on the Inventory of Ancient Woodlands produced by the Nature
Conservancy Council (now Countryside Council for Wales). This
means that a woodland has been on the site since at least
1600AD. Ancient Woodlands are vital to nature conservation and
genetic biodiversity in Britain as they contain an unique
community of plants, birds and animals. It is also noted that
the woodland is included on the Council’s register of Wildlife
Sites (also known as Sites of Local Nature Conservation
Interest). The woodland effected by the proposed development
at Rhiw is about 5ha in size, which is substantial and
important to the open landscape of the Ll*n Peninsula. It is
estimated that only 900ha of broadleaf woodland remain on the
Ll*n Peninsula (less than 2% of the area of Ll*n). These
woodlands are confined mainly to the more steep slopes on
estate lands. Woodlands are extremely rare in the west of
Ll*n, where there is intensive farming, and the woodland at
Rhiw is one of the most westerly example of broadleaf woodland
habitat in north Wales.


The woodland at Rhiw is the type of habitat that is quite
uncommon in Gwynedd in that is dominated by ash. It is
estimated that only between 150 – 350 ha of this type of
woodland exists in Gwynedd and very rarely does it grow over
igneous rock. It can be seen therefore, that this woodland
accounts for about 2% of this type of woodland in Gwynedd.


Because of its importance the “Ash Woodlands” habitat has been
listed in the Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) of the United
Kingdom and also the Wales BAP as well as the Local BAP for
Gwynedd (draft version). The BAP habitat and species were
chosen because of their importance at a European level and the
British Government and the National Assembly for Wales have a
duty to protect them. An undertaking to do so was given at the
Rio Summit and more recently through the Countryside and
Rights of Way Act 2000 (“CROW Act”).


Part of the woodland is owned by the National Trust and is
managed carefully by them. A number of semi-formal paths have
been created through the woodland and young trees planted.
Some of these paths would be lost if the road is built through
the woodland.


2. Planning Policy Context


Section 54A of the 1990 Act insists that, where regard must be
given to the development plan in deciding under the Planning
Laws, that the decision be taken in accordance with the plan
“unless relevant considerations note otherwise”. In the
context of this development the ‘development plans’ are:


Gwynedd Structure Plan (GSP)
Dwyfor Local Plan (DLP)


In addition to the above attention must be paid to the
Planning Policy Wales March 2002 document. This document
lays out national guidance on planning matters. Any
appropriate information contained in Planning Policy Wales
therefore should be dealt with as relevant planning
considerations.



In relation to the proposed development the main policy
consideration will be the effect of the proposed road
alignment on:


The Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and Heritage Coast of
the Ll*n Peninsula
Special Historical Landscape
Listed Buildings
Ancient Woodland
Important local nature conservation sites and species
typical of the area.


Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty



It is noted in paragraph 5.3.6 of the Planning Policy Wales
that “National Parks and AONBs are of equal status in terms
of landscape and scenic beauty and both must be afforded the
highest status of protection inappropriate development……UDP
policies and development control desicions should give great
weight to conserving and enhancing the natural beauty,
wildlife and cultural heritage of these areas”.



Planning Policy Wales notes the need to favour natural
beauty conservation by paying attention to the economic and
social benefit of the areas (paragraph 5.3.7). The status of
Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty is stressed i.e. Areas
of Outstanding Natural Beauty have the same status as
National Parks, and planning authorities and others have a
statutory duty to respect the nature of Areas of Outstanding
Natural Beauty (paragraphs 7.6.1 and 7.6.3 of Planning
Policy Wales).



Policy D1 of the Gwynedd Structure Plan reflects the
national aims by noting the need to protect and improve the
environment of the area, paying particular attention to the
exceptional quality of the Ll*n Area of Outstanding Natural
Beauty. The need to “minimise any adverse impact on the
environment” is stressed in Policy D4 of the Gwynedd
Structure Plan.



In addition, Policy E1 of the Dwyfor Local Plan on the Area
of Outstanding Natural Beauty states that “ In the Area of
Outstanding Natural Beauty, as shown on the proposals map,
which is of national importance, conservation of the
landscape will be the primary planning consideration. Any
proposal that will unacceptably adversely affect the
appearance and character of this landscape will not be
approved. Any development permitted will be required to be
of the highest standard of design and use materials
apprporiate to the area”.



Paragraph 8.3.2 of the justification to the policy states:
“AONBs are landscapes of national importance and major
development is generally held to be inconsistent with the
conservation of these landscapes. However, national interest
and the lack of alternative sites might justify an
exception”. The Committee must decide if the proposed
development meets the strict requirements that would justify
an exception.



“Natural beauty” usually corresponds with panoramic beauty
or the character of the landscape. Its statutory definition
also makes it clear that it includes plants, fauna and
geographical features. The proposed line involves cutting
across woodland that is rich in mature broadleaf trees. This
woodland is very exposed in the landscape and as this part
of the coastline can be seen from many directions it is
therefore important to the beauty of the Ll*n Peninsula and
is an important part of the character of the landscape. Its
importance to the character of the landscape was noted in
the LANDMAP study.



The result of the assessment forms the framework to be used
for introducing a Landscape Action and Management Programme
(LAMP). In refering to West Ll*n’s CAA it is noted, amongst
other things, that it is necessary to ensure that the level
and scale of the road is given detailed consideration,
especially in terms of boundary materials, width of verges
and landscape details. The Landscape Action and Management
Programme goes on to note a number of action plans. The LAMP
14 (high priority) and LAMP 15 (medium priority) are
relevant to this area. A copy of the proposals of the LAMP
14 and LAMP 15 are enclosed as an Appendix to this report.



Because of the nature of the landscape in this part of the
Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty it is impossible to avoid
the fact that cutting a new path through the landscape is
bound to have an adverse effect on it. The policy structure
both nationally and locally has no objections in principle
to substantial developments in Areas of Outstanding Natural
Beauty generally (see paragraph 8.3.2 of the Dwyfor Local
Plan) but the developments must comply with strict
conditions if they are to be allowed. The Committee must
consider if the proposed proposals do so.


Any mechanical work to create an new road alignment is sure to
have an adverse visual impact on this part of the Ll*n’s Area
of Outstanding Natural Beauty. However, in accordance with the
policy, there is no basic objection to building a new road so
long as it meets the following criteria:


That the development is of great national importance;
There are no other sites / roads available;
That a thorough environmental investigation has been carried
out and that all measures have been taken to alleviate
effects;



Whilst the argument for providing better road connections for
Rhiw inhabitants has already been accepted it is difficult to
argue that

This is the organisation...The National Trust..that puts out this kind of pap ......and is happy at the same time to consider surrendering parts of its inalienable legacies to Gwynedd County Council to build a road. National Hypocrisy Trust News - News round-up - Countryside news | The National Trust
Compare their response with the Dwyfor Report above and the rspb response
NATIONAL TRUST:
Faxed & posted

The Chief Planning Officer,

Cyngor Gwynedd,

Ffordd y Cob,

Pwllheli.

Gwynedd. LL53 5AA.
Ffôn/Tel
01690 713307

Ffacs/Fax

E-Bost/ E-mail

Eich cyf/ Your ref

Ein cyf/ Our ref
L231002JLM2/SE







30th October 2002



Dear Sirs,



PLAS YN RHIW – LANDSLIP
PLANNING APPLICATION CO2D/0382/30/R3


We would make the following comments regarding the planning application for the new road proposal near Plas yn Rhiw.



The National Trust is a conservation charity and holds land inalienably for the benefit of the nation. The Trust’s purpose is to protect places of historic interest or natural beauty.



The Plas yn Rhiw estate was given to the National Trust by the Keating sisters in the 1960’s. The unspoilt tranquil character of the property giving people the opportunity to explore and discover the hidden secrets of the area is one of its greatest strengths.



We would very much prefer to see an on-line improvement if such a project was feasible and sustainable. A number of alignments have been proposed, many of these would have had a very damaging affect on the nature conservation and the archaeological interest, as well as the landscape.



The present proposal has been developed following extensive consultation. The National Trust still has great concerns regarding this option and is only considering this as the least worst option. The proposal is of concern, as it would disturb an area of deciduous woodland which is rare in this exposed part of the Llyn. There is also a disturbance to the historical context of the area, particularly on the cottage of Sarn y Plas, the home of the poet, R.S. Thomas, which we would very much like to protect.



The Trust would need further reassurance on a number of issues before being in a position to release inalienable land, which is a question that can never be taken lightly:



2.



The Chief Planning Officer,

Cyngor Gwynedd.



30th October 2002





PLAS YN RHIW – LANDSLIP
PLANNING APPLICATION CO2D/0382/30/R3



That the construction of the road as proposed in the preferred option E1A is constructed on ground which is stable enough to ensure that this area is not also subject to slippage in a short period of time.



That the construction of the road on this alignment does not itself destabilise the area, causing further landslips, thus endangering the cottage of Sarn y Plas, the remaining woodland and the land in the Trust’s ownership.



That the Council provide a photo/video sequence to illustrate the visual appearance of the proposed route.



That the carriageway through the woodland is kept to a maximum of 5m width with no grass verges.



That the minimum of woodland is taken and that all felling and extraction is done in a sensitive way to reduce the damage and impact.



That all water supplies are reinstated to Sarn y Plas and Bryn Ffowc.



That provision is made to deal with the site drainage in a satisfactory way.



That there is a minimum of disturbance to natural features and that stones, boulders etc., are carefully removed and placed in other suitable locations.



That there is no indiscriminate tipping of excavated material on National Trust or any other land in the area.



That a 2m wide bridleway/cycleway/footpath be retained and maintained as a public footpath on the alignment of the present road subject to the landslip.



That all retaining walls should be of a dry stone walling character, and should be finished in the style of the area; and that trial sections should be prepared before the actual wall is commenced.



That a “Method Statement” for the way of working is prepared and that there should be a responsible person on site to ensure the minimum of damage from an environmental aspect.





3.



The Chief Planning Officer,

Cyngor Gwynedd.



30th October 2002



PLAS YN RHIW – LANDSLIP
PLANNING APPLICATION CO2D/0382/30/R3







All accommodation works to be agreed in advance.



That all efforts should be made for an environmental gain from these works, with the least possible disturbance.



We would strongly recommend to the Council, that subject to the above mentioned points being satisfied that the alignment be reconsidered bringing the proposed road back to the old road much quicker between Sarn y Plas and Bryn Ffowc, thus reducing the amount of woodland being taken.



We are also very concerned at the substantial cutting required behind the farmhouse and buildings at Treheli. Although this is not land in National Trust ownership we would suggest that there is a need to re-look at this area again. If we were to give approval for the scheme we would suggest continuing to use the road past Treheli before entering the woodland immediately to the west of the farmhouse. This would reduce the area of land required and reduce the cost of the project. Should there be signs of further slippage on the corner to the east of Treheli we consider that there could be scope for improvements in that area which could be carried out in a much more sensitive way.



The loss of woodland and of inalienable Natural Trust land is of considerable concern, which we can not take lightly. We have also been trying to take the local community views and needs into consideration, and taking a balanced approach to see ways of trying to resolve this problem. We would therefore appreciate your committee taking our views and suggestions very seriously into account before coming to a decision. We in turn will have to decide what action to take in view of your deliberations.



We look forward to hearing from you.



Yours faithfully,









J.L. Morgan,

Area Manager North West Wales.

RSPB
13 November 2002





Mr Ian Williams

Highways and Municipal Department

Gwynedd County Council

Council Offices

CAERNARFON

Gwynedd

LL55 1SH





Dear Sir



Re: RHIW HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENTS, APPLICATION NUMBERS CO2D/0382/30/R3



Thank you for the documents I recently received from you in relation to this matter.



I would like to make the following points :-



General : RSPB Cymru sees no material changes in the addendum to the original environmental statement (ES). RSPB Cymru therefore maintains its objection



It is the view of RSPB Cymru that the local planning authority are still collecting data in respect of this application, for example in terms of the issue of whether the development site contains dormouse. As the officer's report has therefore not been prepared, no decision can be taken by the Committee in respect of this application, as the LPA has insufficient data pursuant of the EIA Regulations 1999 to make a decision. The Local Government Act requires 5 clear days' notice of access to agendas and related documentation. In spite of a request in my previous representation, I have yet to receive a copy of the officer's report and recommendation. Under the provisions of the Local Government, (Access to Meetings and Documents) Order 2002, five clear days must be given for access to agendas and associated reports. As the Officer's Report has not yet been received by those who made representations, no decision can be taken.



Dormouse : Dormice are European protected species, protected under the Habitats Regulations, and they and their breeding and resting places are legally protected. A full dormouse survey to an approved methodology should have been carried out as part of the ES. The developer and the LPA are reminded that the grant of planning permission does not override the legal protection afforded to otters by the Habitats Regulations, and that their disturbance is a criminal offence under Regulation 39(1d). Therefore, to damage or destroy their breeding and resting places is a criminal offence even if the destructive act is not deliberate or intentional.



The fact that the developer has produced an addendum to the original environmental statement including replacement pages for the environmental statement and non-technical summary is an indication that there were errors in the original environmental statement.



Key Admissions : The addendum to the environmental statement and the associated documentation makes the following key admission, which strengthen the case for the refusal of this application: -



The site is ancient semi-natural woodland.
Ancient semi-natural woodland is irreplaceable. The development will result in a loss of ancient semi-natural woodland of an unusual type that is a UK BAP priority habitat.
Translocation will not provide complete mitigate for adverse impacts.
The development proposal will result in the fragmentation of the woodland.
The development proposal would result in edge effects.
The online option would last for at least 30 to 40 years.
The online solution is cheaper for the first 40 years than the developers preferred solution.
The developers’ main case against the on-line solution is landscape.
Cost is not a planning matter.
The longevity of the scheme is not the main issue that leads the developer to the conclusion that the online solution should be rejected.
Even more trees will be last than in the original environmental statement.



Consideration Of Consultation Responses: RSPB Cymru makes the following points in relation to the above document. Paragraph numbers refer to paragraph numbers in the document.



Paragraph 1.9
RSPB Cymru was not consulted at the scooping stage of this environmental impact assessment, contrary to established good practice in Welsh Office Circular 11/99.



Paragraph 4.2
Delete ‘northern’, replace with ‘southern’ in line 8. Reason – typographical error?



Paragraph 4.2
The inference of this paragraph appears to be that the only adverse impact on the woodland is the physical footprint of the completed highway. RSPB Cymru is of the view that this is only a small fraction of the total adverse impacts as stated in our original objection. These include inter alia: :-



fragmentation of the woodland



continued erosion of the downslope sector of the woodland



edge effects as a result of fragmentation



the 9 – 12 metre wide construction corridor



the area between the road and the woodland.



The above the means that developers claim that only 9% of the woodland would be adversely impacted by the development proposal is a significant underestimate.



Paragraph 4.4
RSPB Cymru is of the view that it is correct to say that no adequate measures have been proposed to completely mitigate for the loss of ancient semi-natural woodland. Indeed, being irreplaceable no adequate measures could ever be proposed to do so.



Paragraph 4.4
The calculations of loss of ancient woodland are based on a 5.5-m width corridor. However, the construction corridor of 10 – 12 m in width will need to destroy a far greater area than that set out. It is important to remember that much of the value of ancient semi-natural woodland resides in the woodland floor, not just in the trees. Thus, the remaining 4.5 – 6.5 will not be ancient semi-natural woodland.



Paragraph 4.4
Contrary to the view of the developer, the road would be a substantial barrier to wildlife, given that ancient semi-natural woodland is characterised by species with a very poor colonisation strategy e.g. plants which spread via rhizomes, and invertebrates such as molluscs. These species would be unable to cross the new highway.



Paragraph 5.

It is incorrect to state that because ancient semi natural woodland is referred to in Planning Policy Wales, a site holding it cannot be a locally designated Wildlife Site. Wildlife Sites are sites of substantive nature conservation value that are designated by the local planning authority. They are, therefore, a planning tool whereas ancient semi natural woodland is a broad description of a habitat type. Thus, not all ancient semi natural woodland sites must be Wildlife Sites. Therefore, Wildlife Sites cannot be considered of necessity a duplication of the protection already provided by other policies. The environmental statement response refers to “additional local designations”. Ancient semi-natural woodland is not a designation – it is a description of a habitat type in the same way that heather moorlands or sand dunes are descriptions of habitat types. Neither is it a local designation, being a nationally and indeed an internationally recognised broad habitat type. Thus, there is no justification for the environmental statement’s primary focus being on such a statutorily designated site.



Paragraph 7.8
RSPB Cymru disagrees that the online solution is not “long term”. The period of time beyond which possible future works may be required is so long that the developer has failed to (and indeed cannot) take account of the undoubtedly revolutionary advances in technology that will take place in the forthcoming 40 years. The fact that earlier attempts at stabilisation, as recently as 1982, actually exacerbated the situation by the use of heavy gabions, is an example of the ways in which engineering approaches advance over time. If one contrasts engineering techniques in 1962 (i.e. 40 years ago) with those of the present day and then looks forward to 2042 it is likely that technology will have changed out of all recognition. Indeed the nature of private travel itself will undoubtedly change out of all recognition by 2042. Therefore, to permit a development proposal that will significantly adversely impact woodland, which has present on the site since at least 1600 for the sake of possible future engineering, problems would seem to the RSPB to be short sightedness.



Paragraph 7.9
RSPB Cymru finds it difficult to understand why the engineering works required for online strengthening would need to be free of vegetation in order to be inspected. Surely, inspection of such structures is more sophisticated than a mere visual check-over, and that techniques such as ultrasound scanning and checks for vibration/movement would be important. I wish to see documentary evidence that this merely visual check-over is accepted as industry good practice. Notwithstanding the above, I would have thought that the screening of the works by sensitive tree planting would go a long way to screening the works. I similarly find it difficult to understand why the works should be free of vegetation from the point of view of safety. The top of the new embankment would be only 4.5 metres above ground level. Standard tree surgery equipment for example would suffice to enable an examination of the works.



Paragraph 7.12 to 7.14
RSPB Cymru questions the assertion that more landslips would of necessity occur. The National Trusts’ own survey pointed out that the major recent landslips have taken place because of inappropriate attempts at highway strengthening in the recent past.



Paragraph 7.22
RSPB Cymru does not agree that the loss of ancient semi natural woodland needs to be “balanced” against the needs of the community, landscape etc. It is not consistent with modern planning thought to attempt to balance conflicting interests in a ‘winner takes all’ scenario. The challenge of sustainable development is to find solutions which integrate the three elements of environment, society and economy in order to create a ‘win win’ situation. Thus, for example, many would accept that the community needs a new road. The challenge is to re-instate the existing road in an environmentally acceptable fashion.



Paragraph 10.13
EIA Design Detail : It is not acceptable to state that issues relating to drainage would be dealt with at the detailed design stage. There are a number of recent court rulings in the UK which clarify what level of detail is required for an environmental assessment to be carried out. In R. v Rochdale ex parte Tew, it was ruled that an EIA must be based on an adequate description of the development and without it, the impact cannot be assessed and the purpose of the ES therefore frustrated





Conclusion
Having carefully examined the documentation received in respect of this matter RSPB Cymru concludes that they constitute no significant improvement on the original environmental statement. Indeed, they contain a number of key admissions that strengthen the case for refusal of this application. RSPB Cymru therefore maintains its objection to this development proposal.



I would be grateful you if you could keep me informed of developments in relation to this matter





Yours sincerely









Mike Webb

Conservation Officer, Planning

Short Disquisition on the late Twentieth Century Chinese Shophouse
or
The Gentrification of Bangkapi

This is a little Bangkok Adieu number

The original village of these shophouses was built in about 1978. The originals were of three main kinds:
Simple terrace houses, with small balconies, an iron gate the width of the house and a front courtyard
A corner house version of the same
Some double terraced houses

They sell for between 800,000 Baht and 2 million ie $18,500 to $46,500



Original shophouse uses. Restaurants, shops, personal gaols



The first real gentrification is Chinese Gates. Elaborate Wrought Iron Work



The two storey solution

src="http://i.xanga.com/fishfur/t/shophouse4.jpg" width=400 border=0>

A modern version of the Gates solution. In chrome!Note the 1million Baht+ Honda CRV nestling inside



Two country style solutions to the door/gate problem



Glass and other doors



Cornerhouse gentrifications. gates, satellite dishes and BMWs

The fundamentalists are taking over in Turkey. The pictures of the Bali bombers look "unlikely" Phuket is out of bounds....I wont print what I sent to The Guardian after its stupid article on Phuket.....but in France priorities and sensibilities remain constant Death of celebrated baker how reassuring!

Dwyfor Area Committee have cancelled their meeting!! Apparently now they only want a planning committee!
If you felt strongly about any of this you could write to any of the following.....apparently an objection from Oslo carries as much weight as one from Pwllheli!!

Sue Essex AM Minister for the Environment sue.essex@wales.gov.uk
Member for Cardiff North
National Assembly for Wales
Cardiff Bay
CARDIFF
CF99 1NA


John Saunders Planning Department
National Assembly for Wales
Cathays Park
CARDIFF
CF10 3NQ

Jeff Evans Director Planning Services
National Assembly for Wales
Cathays Park
CARDIFF
CF10 3NQ

Martin Evans Transport, Planning and Environment Group MartinL.evans@wales.gsi.gov.uk
National Assembly for Wales
Cathays Park
CARDIFF
CF10 3NQ

Kay Powell Head of Planning Division kay.powell@wales.gsi.gov.uk
Transport, Planning and Environment Group
National Assembly for Wales
Cathays Park
CARDIFF
CF10 3NQ

Tom Cassidy Chief Executive thomas.cassidy@wales.gsi.gov.uk
Richard Avent Chief Inspector Ancient Monuments
and Historic Buildings

CADW
National Assembly for Wales
Cathays Park
CARDIFF
CF10 3NQ

John Roberts Gwynedd Archaeological Trust johnroberts@heneb.co.uk
Craig Beuno
Garth Road
BANGOR
LL57 2RT






Dafydd Wigley AM National Assembly for Wales dafydd.wigley@wales.gov.uk
Cardiff Bay
CARDIFF
CF99 1NA

8 Stryd Castell
Caernarfon
LL55 1SE

David Bellamy President
The Wildlife Trusts
The Kiln
Waterside
Mather Road
NEWARK
NG24 1WT

Mike Webb Rspb mike.webb@rspb.org.uk
Maes Y Ffynnon
Penrhosgarnedd
BANGOR
LL57 2DW

Roger Thomas Chief Executive n.sanpher@ccw.gov.uk
John Lloyd Jones Chairman b.roberts@ccw.gov.uk
Peter Stutthard Head of Site Safety p.stutthard@ccw.gov.uk

Countryside Council for Wales
Maes Y Ffynnon
Ffordd Penrhos
BANGOR
LL57 2DN

Sylvia Crouch Chairwoman Arts Council for Wales S.E.Crouch@swansea.ac.uk
13 Oaklands Terrace
Swansea
SA1 6JJ

Peter Tyndall Chief Executive peter.tyndall@artswales.org.uk
Arts Council for Wales
9 Museum Place
CARDIFF
CF10 3NX

Sian Tomos Director North Wales sian.tomos@artswales.org.uk
Arts Council for Wales
36 Princes Drive
BAE COLWYN BAY
LL29 8LA



Morlaes Owens Chairman
Merfyn Williams Chief Executive merfyn@cprw.org.uk
CPRW
Ty Gwyn
31 High Street
Y TRALLWNG (Welshpool)
SY21 7YD

Elwyn Vaughen Manager post@cymad.org
CYMAD
Canolfan Adnoddau Gwledig
Parc Busnes Porthmadog
LL49 9GB

Professor Walford Davies Kingsheath Street hazel@aber.ac.uk
Professor Hazel Davies Davids Row
Aberystwyth
SY23 1EU

Tony Brown
Jason Walford Davies R S Thomas Study Center
University of Bangor
Bangor
LL

Professor
Meurig Wynn Thomas Director
Centre for Welsh Writing in English
University of Swansea
Singleton Park
SWANSEA
SA

Paul Islwyn Thomas BBC
Llandaff
Cardiff
CF


Fiona Reynolds Director General
Simon Murray Territory Director Wales and West of England

The National Trust
36 Queen Anne's Gate
LONDON
SW1H 9AS

Peter Broomhead Director for Wales GDWCBA@smtp.ntrust.org.uk
John Morgan GNWJLM@grpwse.ntrust.org.uk
Richard Neale GEFRGN@grpwse.ntrust.org.uk
The National Trust
Trinity Square
Llandudno
LL30 2DE


National Trust Committee for Wales

Richard Cuthbertson Chairman
Plas Penymynydd
Llangefni

Dan Clayton-Jones Deputy Chairman
C/o www.saint.lazarus.org

Dr. Naylor Firth Ty Carreg,
Itton
Chepstow
NP16 6BZ

Gerwyn Griffith ?

Roger Jarman former? Member of Lay Chairman's panel for NHS complaints
Glamorgan and Gwent HA
? Coopers Lea
Mill Road
Lisvane
CARDIFF CF14 0XJ

Dame Judy Ling Wong Director judy@ben-network.org.uk
Black Environment Network
60 High Street
LLANBERIS
LL55 4EU

Mark Mainwaring National Library of Wales
3 Antaron Avenue
Southgate
ABERYSTWYTH
SY23 1SF

Ann Markwick ?
Nigel Petrie ?same?Surrey County Council nigel.petrie@surreycc.gov.uk

Dr. Jeremy Rye Brithdir Hall
Berriew
WELSHPOOL
SY21 8AW

Robert Thomas ?

Valerie Thompson ?

Gareth Wardell ex Labour MP Gower

Professor Gareth
Wyn Jones University of Bangor gwj@pioden.net
Bangor
Gwynedd
LL

George Yeomans Oakfield Lodge
Poyston Cross
Haverfordwest
Dyfed
SA62

Came across this to add to my list below...Good indictment of the disgraceful goings-on that accompanied the Newbury ByPass fiasco...together with useful detailUnderlying Causes of Deforestation: United Kingdom