CONSULTATION RESPONSE FROM LIAM DAVIES OF

THE BYRE, MEDELFYW ROAD, PORTHDAFEN, FELINFOEL, , SA14 8NX

1. I live to the south of the proposed development and Area C is clearly visible from my property, The Byre. I objected to the proposal during the consultation in September 2019. I remain an objector to the project. The work carried out by the developer since September has not addressed my concerns and a number have been aggravated. I wish to preface my representations by emphasising that I accept the need for and support renewable energy generation as an essential element of the strategy for combating and mitigating climate change. I also want to emphasise that, when promoted appropriately, solar energy can bring in its wake significant socio-economic benefits and that existing and emerging local and national policy requires developers to ensure that the socio-economic benefits are experienced locally and that adverse effects are identified and mitigated. This development lamentably fails to address the socio- economic policy requirements; requirements, moreover, which demand more than lip service being paid to the Welsh language.

2. As well as addressing the substantive proposals I wish to make representations about the fairness and adequacy of the latest round of consultation. My concerns are as follows:

i. The text of the main Environmental Statement (ES) is not available on the Developments of National Significance (DNS) website, save in respect of chapter 3. While I have been able to find it on the project website there is a real risk that others will not have found the document; ii. In common with many other objectors one of my main concerns relates to the absence of local socio-economic benefit. The developer’s Consultation Report (page 28, para 4.25) refers to a separate Benefits Note. That does not appear on the DNS website or on the developer’s website. It is a crucial element and objectors cannot make meaningful representations without it.

iii. In short, these omissions from the websites ought to be remedied and objectors given a reasonable time, say 2-3 weeks, to consider the complete suite of documents before closing the representation period.

3. As for substantive matters I wish to make the following points

i. The LPA stated that it required the developer to undertake a Residential Visual Amenity Assessment. Whilst that has been undertaken it is flawed and the developer has not carried out the assessment which it says it has carried out. This failure to assess means that the developer cannot consider appropriate mitigation and/or whether further changes to design are warranted.

ii. The previous round of consultation was fundamentally defective when the developer claimed orally and in its infographics that it was investing £80 million when the accurate figure is £30 million. The Economic Benefits report is also misleading and exaggerates the benefits. It is largely based on a Cebr report of 2014 but fails to draw the distinction between local/national benefits on the one hand and global multiplier effects on the other hand which underpins that report. In the absence of any commitment to employing regional labour or engaging with the regional supply chain the economic benefits insofar as the local regional and even national economy are massively and misleadingly overstated.

iii. PPW 10 and the draft NDF make plain the policy commitment to an element of local ownership for new renewable energy projects from 2020. There appears to be no attempt to address this requirement and, subject to sight of the Community Benefit Note, the developer has even resiled from the commitments made in 2015 to a community fund. The development is therefore contrary to up to date and emerging national policy and there is no explanation or justification as to that non-compliance with national policy.

iv. The response to concerns expressed about the impact of the development on the Welsh language is disappointing. It amounts to saying that TAN 20 does not require a Welsh Language Impact Assessment in a plan led system, that the draft NDF has been subject to sustainability appraisal which includes an assessment of the Welsh language and that, as the development would be unmanned it would not create any new permanent population justifying a WLIA. The last point wholly misses the point that a working farm, an industry which has long sustained the Welsh language and Welsh language communities, would be lost. There is no acknowledgment of the national strategy of Cymraeg 2050 or the provisions in the emerging County Council LDP which would require, at the very least, a Language Action Plan.

v. The development is located on or adjacent to a landscape whose visual and sensory qualities have been objectively assessed as being of high quality under Landmap and the adverse impact on landscape is unacceptable.

vi. The scale of the development is massive and aggravates the impact on landscape.

vii. The development is located in an area just to the north of Llanelli, the town with the largest population in Carmarthenshire, and the adverse impact on landscape is aggravated by its close proximity to a town whose populace enjoy and value the landscape.

RVAA

4. The RVAA is set out at Appendix 6.4 of the Environmental Statement (ES). The reasons for its preparation are set out at para 1.3 of Appendix 6.4 as follows:

“This Residential Visual Amenity Assessment (RVAA) has been undertaken in response to these requests from both the Planning Inspectorate and Carmarthenshire [County] Council (sic) as a statutory consultee.”

5. Insofar as the scope of the RVAA is concerned it is said, at para 2.4, that the scope was informed by the findings of the LVIA and the ZTV mapping amongst other things. But at 2.5 it is also stated:

“However, if a particular concern was raised by a local resident through public consultation, this was further investigated”.

6. In my representation I stated that Area C was clearly visible from my property and made representations as to the positive quality and value of the landscape. Nevertheless, no assessment was made of the visual amenity from my property. This is puzzling given (i) that I made a representation about visual amenity and landscape and (ii) that there was an assessment from neighbouring properties including those either side of The Byre - Medelfyw Farm and Waunadlais.

7. There are clear views of Blaenhiraeth Farm and Area C from the garden to my property which constitutes the main outdoor amenity space. This ought to have been assessed. That my property was left out of the assessment raises questions as to the robustness of the rest of the RVAA.

Economic benefit or lack thereof

8. The Economic Benefits Report relies heavily on the report of the Centre for Economic & Business Research (Cebr) of 2014. The Cebr report was commissioned by the Solar Trade Association and is a document designed to advocate for the industry. Putting that aside and taking the contents of the report at face value it has been misapplied in the Economic Benefits Report so that the benefits in terms of local investment, local employment and the boost to the local and regional economy are grossly overstated.

9. The direct investment claimed by the Report is £30 million. The basis for this is set out at paragraph 3.1: it is an extrapolation from the average capital cost per MW posited in the Cebr report of £800,000 per MW. The report was written in 2014. It follows that the cost per MW can only be a forecast. It is odd, to say the least, that the consultants authoring the report are relying on a prediction of average industry costs made in 2014 for a project which is likely to be built no sooner than 2021. Voltalia must have a budget for the project and therefore this should be the basis of any report on economic benefits. The report is fundamentally defective because of this failure to present information about the actual investment for this project. It is likely, for reasons set out below, that the true costs and hence investment are considerably less than the figure posited in the Report.

10. In 2014 Cebr were making an educated guess as to the extent to which costs in the solar farm industry would drop with innovation, economies of scale and other factors which typically lead to lower costs as industries mature. Since 2014 it is apparent that costs have fallen more quickly than had been predicted in the Cebr report. For example, the report of the Committee on Climate Change ‘Net Zero: The UK’s contribution to stopping global warming’ May 2019 suggests that the cost of solar energy is lower than all other forms of energy generation in 2025 and 2050 – see Table 7.2 at page 223 of the report. In short, the Report seems to assume a level of investment which is higher than it might well be. But the fundamental point is that the authors of the Report need not guess because Voltalia should know the budget for the project and that should be provided, especially given that the level of expenditure is claimed by Voltalia to be a benefit of the project.

11. In terms of employment from the project at paragraph 3.3 of the Economic Benefits Report it is said that “there will be up to 30 construction workers on-site during peak times of the construction period, which is expected to be up to 11 months”. That sentence contains a number of unhelpful ambiguities. While the construction period is said to be up to 11 months there is no information as to whether the peak times will last 4 weeks, 4 months or some other period. It is not possible, therefore, to ascertain the level of direct employment in a commonly understood unit such as an average of x number of full time equivalent (FTE) for 11 months.

12. As well as the direct jobs the report relies on the indirect/induced multiplier set out in the Cebr report stating:

“Cebr give an employment multiplier for large-scale solar PV investments of 2.33 – i.e. for every job supported on site, 1.33 indirect/inducted jobs are supported in the wider economy. Applying this multiplier to the 30 on-site jobs, the Proposed Development could support 40 additional temporary jobs in the wider economy during the 11 months build phase”.

13. Indirect employment effects relate to additional employment in the supply chain. If the developer’s supply chain is in France then those effects will be experienced in France. Induced employment effects relate to expenditure of additional income by those directly and indirectly employed on goods and services in the general economy. Again, where those employed directly and indirectly as a result of the project spend their money is a product of where they live, whether they spend money on goods and services and so on. None of this complexity is identified in the Economic Benefits Report and from the calculation of gross value added at paragraphs 3.5 to 3.7 the implication is that the wider economy employment effects are all experienced in . That implication is wrong and misleading. Moreover, the relevance of the UK content and the leakage of investment income abroad is expressly addressed in the Cebr report, it being stated in the executive summary:

“These potential contributions indicate that, rather than inexorably flowing abroad, investments in large-scale solar PV are a substantial stimulus to domestic businesses and industries, and so yield substantial benefits for the UK economy. Taking into account both capital and operational expenditures over a 25 year project lifetime, the average UK content for large-sale solar PV investments stands at an estimated 62% in 2014, a ratio which is expected to rise to 71% by 2030”.

14. The multiplier effects set out in the Cebr report are based on the average UK content for large-scale solar PV investments. Again, in the context of this project, there is no need to look at industry averages for the local, regional and UK content of the investment. That information is within the possession of Voltalia and it should set out the regional, Wales and UK content of its investment. That would then enable interested parties to properly judge the extent of regional economic benefit associated with the development. Given that Voltalia is not an UK company and that the team who will construct the solar farm are from Portugal the suspicion is that the UK content of the investment may well be much lower than the averages set out in the Cebr report.

15. At paragraphs 3.5 to 3.7 the Economic Benefits Report sets out the Gross Value Added of the project. In addition to replicating and relying upon the weaknesses and deficiencies already identified above the calculations are wrong and overstated. They are based on a direct workforce of 30 being employed for the full 11 month period. Yet paragraph 3.3 posits 30 as being the number of employees ‘during peak times’ i.e. not for the 11 month construction period. The indirect and induced employment is also based on 30 people being employed directly for the full 11 months and the implication is that all of these will be employed in Wales (which is different to the Cebr multiplier which appears to be based on UK wide effects).

16. In conclusion, the Economic Benefits Report seems calculated to overstate the economic benefits of the project, whether expressed in financial terms or in employment terms. The developer should provide information within its knowledge relating to the size of the investment and the local, Wales and UK components of the investment. That the developer continues to provide misleading and overstated information as to economic benefit is particularly disappointing given that they have already misled the public as to the size of the investment during the pre-application consultation period (claiming £80 million of investment as noted in the minutes of the Council (Voltalia’s presentation to the Planning and Liaison Committee on 16 September 2019)

"Minute 169 (Penderi Solar Farm Llangennech Project) 5th paragraph. “In response to a question about local community benefits to be derived from the scheme, Mr Holt explained this was a subsidy free project and caution had to be exercised in promising anything to the community as budgets were tight. However, the applicants wanted to be good neighbours to the community and could possibly work to install solar panels on the roofs of local community halls and were open to discuss as to what else could be done for the community. He went on to add there was a growth in the renewables market and the project was worth £80,000,000 to Voltalia (which is a French based multi-faceted organisation). There was no funding expected from the Welsh Government.”

Local ownership

17. Planning Policy Wales (PPW) 10 states at 5.7.16 that:

“The Welsh Government has set targets for the generation of renewable energy:

…. • For new renewable energy projects to have at least an element of local ownership by 2020”

18. The other targets identified in PPW 5.7.16 are macro targets beyond the control of any individual developer or the gift of the decision maker in respect of any particular planning consent application. This target is, however, the exception. It is within the gift of every developer to explain what regard has been had to local ownership and how an element of local ownership has been incorporated into the application. The phrase ‘an element of local ownership’ is broad and allows scope for different mechanisms for achieving an element of local ownership. The developer, however, has not provided any explanation as to how it has sought to achieve an element of local ownership. While the provision of PPW is referenced in the applicant’s Planning Statement there is no indication as to what it has done in response to that policy requirement. The inference must be that there is no element of local ownership and that no effort to comply with the policy has been made or explored. The application as it stands does not comply with PPW 10.

Socio-economic benefits at local level or lack thereof

19. Closely related to the points about the inadequate and overstated Economic Benefit Report and the lack of any local ownership relates to the longstanding policy that developments having significant local adverse impact ought to have local benefits. The latest articulation of that policy is in the draft National Development Framework (NDF). While the NDF is still in draft form the fact that the land is within Priority Area 13 is something which Voltalia rely upon heavily. It is important, therefore, to note what the draft policy relied upon by the developer requires in terms of local benefit.

20. Policy 10 of the draft NDF relating to Wind and Solar Energy in Priority Areas provides, inter alia, that:

“Planning applications must demonstrate how local social, economic and environmental benefits have been maximised and the following adverse impacts have been minimised”

21. Voltalia is an international company headquartered in Paris. I understand that the infrastructure would be installed by a team based in Portugal. None of that, however, precludes compliance with the requirement for local benefit. Moreover, it cannot mean that the developer is excused from complying with the policy simply because it is based abroad and it might be easier for a local developer to comply with the requirement. Developers will often commit to encouraging local supply chains, employing and training members of the local working population and so on. There does not appear to be any such commitment in respect of this development and the likelihood is that the jobs and investment will not benefit local people.

22. Similarly, developers can undertake to benefit the local community in terms of a share of the profits or revenue generated or in terms of the supply of electricity on favourable terms or by contributing to a local community fund - measures which may or may not, depending on the detail, amount to an element of local ownership. There is no such commitment here even though there was talk of establishing a community fund at an early stage of the project in 2015 _- please refer to the non-statutory Community Leaflet January 2015 which currently appears at Appendix 1 of the Consultation Report and copy extract below.

"COMMUNITY BENEFITS It is important to Martifer and Electronomy that the communities closest to the solar park gain a lasting benefit from the development. In line with government guidance, we are offering a community fund for investment in local projects which bring economic, social and/or environmental benefits to the area."

23. The policy requirement is not simply to make efforts to demonstrate some local social, economic and environmental benefit. The benefits have to be maximised. The only clear commitment in terms of local benefit is a permissive path. While that may be useful it is inadequate as a demonstration of local social, economic and environmental benefit. Given that those benefits have to be maximised the developer wholly fails to meet an essential component of the policy in the draft NDF on which it relies. In short, it is clear that the application falls foul of Policy 10 in the draft NDF.

Welsh language

24. There has been no Welsh Language Impact Assessment nor any commitment to do anything to assist the Welsh language. The developer relies on TAN 20 and the fact that the draft NDF has been subject to a Sustainability Appraisal to argue that it need not undertake any assessment of the impact of the project on the Welsh language let alone make any commitment to protecting or fostering the Welsh language.

25. The reliance on TAN 20 is misplaced. The development site has not been assessed or allocated within any plan making process for a solar farm. The Welsh language implications of the development have not therefore been assessed at the plan making stage. It is effectively windfall development.

26. Any WLIA should not simply focus on identifying and thereafter avoiding or mitigating harm to the Welsh language. That is because of WG’s overarching Welsh language policy of Cymraeg 2050 which aims for 1 million Welsh speakers by 2050. That would constitute a very significant increase on the number of Welsh speakers. Accordingly, there is a policy imperative to foster and grow the Welsh language and not simply a requirement to avoid or mitigate harm.

27. The change in national policy on the Welsh language is reflected in the emerging LDP. Given the very significant change in national policy which post- dates the adopted LDP more weight should be placed on the Welsh language policies of the emerging LDP rather than those of the adopted LDP. The developer has paid no heed to these important emerging policies. There are two relevant policies which are set out below:

“Strategic Policy – SP 7: Welsh Language and Culture

The Plan supports development proposals which safeguard, promote and enhance the interests of the Welsh language and culture in the County. Development proposals which have a detrimental impact on the vitality and viability of the Welsh language and culture will not be permitted unless the impact can be mitigated. All development proposals subject to WL1, will be expected to identify measures which enhance the interests of the Welsh language and culture.

WL1: Welsh Language and New Developments

All development proposals throughout Carmarthenshire will be required to safeguard and promote the Welsh language.

Allocated Sites

The following development proposals will be required to submit a Language Action Plan, setting out the measures to be taken to safeguard, promote and enhance the Welsh language:

a. Residential developments of 10 or more homes in the Principal Centres and Service Centres;

b. Residential developments of 5 or more homes in the Sustainable Villages; and

c. Retail, commercial or industrial developments with total floorspace of 1,000 sqm or more.

Windfall Sites

The following proposals on windfall sites will be required to submit a Welsh Language Impact Assessment in support of a planning application as well as a Language Action Plan setting out the measures to be taken to safeguard, promote and enhance the Welsh language:

d. Developments of 10 or more homes in the Principal Centres and Service Centres;

e. Developments of 5 or more homes in the Sustainable Villages; and f. Retail, commercial or industrial developments with a total floorspace of 1,000 sq m or more

Proposals which do not accord with the Plan’s housing trajectory (Appendix 7) will be required to provide a phasing plan outlining the timescales for delivering the homes proposed on the site, and demonstrate that they would not have a negative impact upon the Welsh language which cannot be mitigated.

Residential developments for 10 or more homes on both allocated and windfall sites will be required to positively contribute towards the vitality and viability of Welsh language community groups and Welsh language learning opportunities.”

28. This is windfall development for industrial development spreading over many hectares. Therefore, the emerging LDP requires a WLIA as well as a Language Action Plan. While I do not have any experience of Language Action Plans I imagine that more than bilingual signage would be required.

29. The broader point is that, consistent with Cymraeg 2050, the emerging LDP requires significant developments to take measures to enhance the Welsh language and culture. Blaenhiraeth Farm is an established dairy farm which will be largely displaced by the development. Farming in this area provides employment for a large number of local people - those occupied as farmers, those in the agricultural supply chain i.e. contractors, veterinarians, suppliers of feed, fodder and equipment and such like and those providing general goods and services. The majority of those employed as farmers and in the wider agricultural industry speak Welsh (as opposed to the 43% or so of the general population of the county) The displacement of dairy farming is therefore a blow to the Welsh language. The extent of the impact has to be assessed and steps identified to mitigate the harm and, moreover, to positively contribute to the Welsh language.

30. The developer has not done any assessment and offers no mitigation or contribution. It is therefore contrary to emerging local policy and to established national policy in the form of Cymraeg 2050 and legislation in the form of the Well-being of Future Generations Act 2015.

Diversification & BMV

31. Blaenhiraeth has been a successful organic farm for a large number of years. The land on which this development is to take place is amongst the best quality land in Carmarthenshire which is itself renowned for the standard of its agricultural land and output. On a proper assessment involving the exercise of judgment, as opposed to a desk top analysis, this land should be regarded as amongst the best and most versatile land. It should therefore be preserved for agricultural use.

32. The ALC system is a high-level analysis and in certain circumstances a bespoke and detailed analysis is justified. When local farmers describe the land as some of the finest agricultural land in Carmarthenshire and Blaenhiraeth is listed on the Government list of Organic Producers, surely the community deserves a field survey when the loss of some 17 pristine fields is at stake to test whether the land may be graded in the next sub-category 3(a) (Best and Most Versatile)? The difference between 3(a) and 3(b) seems too marginal to take such a monumental risk and lose a resource that could more than adequately provide the food and non-food crops of the future? PPPW 3.54 states that Land of Grade 1,2, and 3a “should be conserved as a finite resource for the future”. I would urge the Welsh Government to carry out a detailed ALC field survey – with reference to the Welsh Government’s publication “Agricultural Land Classification (ALC) Frequently Asked Questions December 2017” which appears in the developer’s Agricultural Assessment (in particular page 18-19). Surveys at the detailed level (soil pits etc.) allow a more accurate assessment of soil resources. The 3b grading is only “predictive” – the Welsh Government publication Guidance Note November 2017 states in the Introduction that its aim is to “target survey work to the most appropriate locations”. The ALC Map is only the “first step” in gathering evidence (para 2). The predictive classification map is “not intended to replace the need for Agricultural Land Classification survey work. It remains the case that the only way to determine the grade of land is by commissioning an agricultural land classification survey”. This is an important enough DNS to require such a survey. The disclaimer on page 26 suggests that grades can be upgraded. “Should it be felt that the predicted grade for an area does not fairly reflect agricultural land quality, the Welsh Government will only accept an ALC survey as evidence the Grade should be changed”. In light of the views expressed by local farms I would strongly urge such a field survey to be undertaken by the applicant in the event that WG do not undertake a detailed survey. Such a survey would also enable the developer to correct the misleading impression that was given to the Llanelli Rural Council at the presentation on 16 September 2019 when, in response to a query about the standard of agricultural land being used, Voltalia confirmed that the same had been subjected to soil sampling within each of the enclosures (there are 17 in total). I understand the position was not true and would have misled the Planning and Liaison Committee and other observers present.

.

33. It is also the case that a well-run farm can improve the quality of land. Similarly, neglect for a period of 35 years is likely to lead to a reduction in land quality which may take many years to reverse. In short, though the loss of the land is not permanent it is for a very long time while it would be naïve to assume that the land’s quality will be the same at the end of the 35 year development period.

34. Furthermore, this is not a diversification scheme in any meaningful sense. Though the owner of Blaenhiraeth has other land that is located in the Brecon area: while both parcels have the same owner they are not part of a single farming entity in any meaningful sense. The development therefore should be assessed on the basis that it destroys an existing farming entity as opposed to allowing the same to diversify.

Landscape

35. As someone who has lived in the area for the whole of my life I value it highly. I appreciate that my views may be coloured by my connection with and affection for the area. I was therefore advised to look at the Landmap designation which is an objective assessment and resource concerning landscape in Wales. The impact of the solar farm on landscape will primarily be on the Visual and Sensory aspects. The development is on or adjacent to Aspect Area “Swiss Valley and Morlais Valley”.

36. The Evaluation of the Area reads as follows:

“High (High on account of the scenic qualities of Swiss valley and the tranquil views it provides over the reservoirs. Scores high against 3 criteria and moderate for rarity)”.

37. Under Additional Comments it is stated:

“Very attractive landscape that are accessible to many people. As a result they score as high, although they may be rightly considered to be of local rather than county importance”.

38. Solar farms will have adverse landscape impact. The greater the size of the farm the more industrial the impact. Solar farms should be located on brownfield post-industrial areas in the first instance and thereafter on rural land which is assessed as having low or moderate value. Land which is assessed as having a high value or which forms part of or has impacts on AONBs or National Parks should be a last resort. There is no evidence that the developer has followed this hierarchy and there are areas in Carmarthenshire which are brownfield sites or rural land of lower visual and sensory landscape quality.

39. The adverse impact of the development on landscape is aggravated by its proximity to urban areas and the fact, as stated in Landmap, that the landscape is accessible to and enjoyed by those living in urban areas. This point applies with even greater force to those parts of the development which are closest to Llanelli and the other urban centres and which are visible to travellers to popular destinations e.g. the Cilddewi Bridge which is a popular destination for fishermen and recreational users.

40. While Policy 10 of the draft NDF states that there is an acceptance of landscape change that does not mean that landscape and visual impacts are irrelevant. Rather Policy 10 requires adverse “landscape and visual impacts” to be minimised. The sheer scale of the development is problematic from a landscape and visual amenity perspective and that scale ought to be reduced. The scale is exacerbated by the fact that there are gaps between the three areas. The overall scale would be reduced if the arrays in Zone C were moved to the unused areas immediately surrounding Blaenhiraeth Farm. The removal of the arrays from Area C would mean that the solar farm was no longer visible to those travelling to and from the Cilddewi Bridge.

Conclusion

41. There is an acknowledged climate change emergency which is the reason for the strong policy report. But that does not mean that any application for renewable energy ought to be granted. If one assumes, in favour of the applicant, that the final NDF will have a policy identical to the present Policy 10 then even in the Priority Areas “applications must demonstrate how local social, economic and environmental benefits have been maximised”. The developer has lamentably failed this test – the Economic Benefit Report is riddled with errors and grossly overstates local economic benefit and the Welsh language is ignored. As well as maximising these local benefits there is an obligation to minimise a raft of potential adverse impacts, including landscape and visual impacts. Questions of landscape and visual impact are therefore still in issue in Priority Areas especially in terms of the design and scale of what is appropriate development. The scale here is massive and the gaps between the three Areas aggravate the scale.

42. It may be that an appropriately designed and scaled solar farm promoted by a developer having proper regard to local economic, social and environmental benefits and making commitments to maximising those benefits would pass the policy tests. But this application fails to comply with many aspects of adopted and emerging local and national policy and ought to be rejected. I would ask the inspectorate to hold a public inquiry in respect of the application on the basis that the issues identified in this representation are such that they could only be appropriately resolved with the benefit of cross examination.

Prepared with advice from Emyr Jones of Counsel, Francis Taylor Buildings Chambers, Inner Temple.

Liam Davies

The Byre, Medelfyw Road,

Porthdafen, Felinfoel,

Llanelli, Carmarthenshire,

SA14 8NX

Dated 1 June 2020