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
