Pembroke Dock Infrastructure - Milford Haven Port Authority Answers some Questions Question 1.

Milford Haven Port Authority’s Responses to Questions Posed at the Recent Advisory Committee Meeting – Question 1

 

Billy Gannon, The Pembroke Dock Community Representative on Milford Haven Port Authority’s (MHPA) Advisory Committee, has received the following response to one of the questions put to the MHPA at their last advisory meeting. 

The first question was:

1. Two of the proposed sheds are so large that they will permanently change the appearance of the Dockyard and views of the Haven for residents and visitors. This could have a detrimental effect upon the development of Tourism in Pembroke Dock and local house prices. The scale of the project and the building of the slipway will also impact upon a number of Heritage and Tourism Assets in the Dockyard.

Do the sheds need to be this big? Is there no other way of assembling components that would allow for smaller sheds to be used and the heritage and tourist assets in the Dockyard to be preserved as they are?

Reply from MHPA: The size of the sheds in the application are indicative only. Sheds will not be built speculatively but will be built on demand when there is commercial need. The size will be determined at this point.

AJ’s Comment

A document lately available for the planning application 20/0732/PA shows that the burying of The Timber Pond and the destruction of Slips 1 and 2 will take place in the very first phase of the scheme (Phase 1) proposed by MHPA. See this phasing plan here. This conveniently removes the Timber Pond at the earliest opportunity so that its fate is no longer a factor for discussion.

This burial of a unique monument in Wales also requires the land between slips 1 and 2 to be removed to provide the fill for the Timber Pond (Grade II). The land between Slips 1 and 2 is largely material that was used in a fantastically expensive scheme in the 19th century to level the whole dockyard site.

This assorted debris, (originally destined to be dumped at sea until Natural Resources Wales said “No!”), when it is dumped into the Timber Pond, will sink into and through the puddled clay base of the pond (See TNA ADM 140/486) and then through the buried former silt covered shoreline to some unknown depth. This would make uncovering the Timber Pond, removing the in-fill and returning it to anything like its former self, a horrendously expensive task that could, realistically, never be realised. This important heritage asset should be scheduled as an Ancient Monument and preserved as it is and public access granted. Any future moves to restore the pond to its former functionality would then only require silt to be removed and the conduit to the beach, beneath the dockyard wall on the western side, investigated and cleared/restored.

It is also worth noting that the sheds are to be built according to commercial demand, so the actual construction of them is the very last phase of the development, as indicated in the report here.

By then, of course, the damage to the Timber Pond (Listed Grade II), Slips 1 and 2 and the Graving Dock (Listed Grade II*) will have been done. Where could you then put the 40 metre tall Shed A? Put it on Waterloo Industrial Estate.

Reply from MHPA: We agree that Pembroke Dock has an exciting story to tell and there is an opportunity to increase the number of visitors to the town. As active members of Pembroke Dock Town Team we continue to work collaboratively to achieve this collective aim.

AJ’s Comment

Pembroke Dock Town Council (PDTC ) has expressed unequivocal dislike for the scheme and has recommended that Pembrokeshire County Council refuse the application. See PDTC’s letter here.

Reply from MHPA: We are working on a number of ideas to make areas of the Port which are currently inaccessible available for visitors to appreciate by other means, for example using Augmented Reality. We have also committed to improvements along Carriage Drive which will add value to the tourism offer. (Also see further info under question 5).

AJ’s Comment

The idea that MHPA are investigating to interpret the areas of the port that are currently inaccessible to the public include an online mapping scheme where material is crowd sourced from members of the public. This begs the question that if the public cannot presently get to these heritage sites within the dockyard, how can they produce material for this crowd sourced project? I have heard of no other ideas from MHPA that show any commitment to a serious interpretation of the heritage they propose to destroy.

The above is my take on the answers given by MHPA in response to the question posed. You will notice that some parts of the original question have been studiously avoided by MHPA. They refer to answers being put for Question 5. I will deal with his later.

AJ.25/2/2021