Address to Pembrokeshire Planning Committee on 18 May 2021 re: Planning Application 20/0732/PA.

 

18/05/2021 09:45:00

Address to Planning Committee 18 May 2021 re: Application

20/0732/PA – Gate 4 Pembroke Dockyard

 

Mr Chairman, Councillors, ladies and gentlemen, my name is Adrian James and I am speaking to you today to update you on objections to the proposals put forward by Milford Haven Port Authority in their planning application 20/0732/PA,  at Gate 4, Pembroke Dockyard.

 

You have now had the benefit of the site visit/s undertaken on 12 May 2021. This will have involved going over the site in the dockyard and many of you will have thought “What a mess!”.

 

Many of you will have made your minds up about your decision already. I just ask that you temporarily set that aside for a few minutes and listen fairly to what I have to say today.

 

I will not revisit what I spoke about at the last meeting as you will all have received information from me by email and what was said at the meeting is an item of record on the Planning Committee Webcast.

 

I managed to get down to Pembroke Dock last week and I took the opportunity to look over the dockyard and Llanion. It was good to be home. I also took the opportunity to speak to a few of the people who would be affected by this application.

 

I will not discuss objections, as these have been presented in great detail and you will have read them. Today I will talk about the comments of support for the scheme.

 

This will be quite a difficult thing to do as I have no wish to betray confidences in such a public forum, so I will not mention names.

 

I asked the planning support team if I could see the comments, (both in support and objections), submitted regarding the application. Normally I would go to the county offices to read the file, however the present Covid situation has prevented this.

 

I am grateful for the help that the planning support team have provided in supplying redacted copies of most of the submissions made. There may be one or two that I have not seen, but this may well be due to the redaction process removing identifying features from the correspondence.

 

The officer’s report, as included in the papers presented to the committee imply that there were several individual representations of support submitted by members of the public. I can only find one – a brief submission made via an iPhone.

 

The submissions made by companies or bodies are more easily identified. All of these submissions are from sources that have a close association with the applicant – whether tenants of the applicant or bodies upon which the applicant has influence via membership. There was one exception to this pattern.

 

The letters of support were, in many ways quite similar. Some went into more detail than others. A majority contained identical phrases.

 

As I mentioned earlier, I have also spoken to several people in and around Pembroke Dock about the plan for the dockyard submitted by the applicant. The most interesting of these discussions was with the directors of a successful company that undertakes work akin to that imagined for the western dockyard,  locally, across the UK and abroad.

 

The discussion went on for well over an hour. Whilst the company supports the need for greater employment opportunities in the area – of the sort that the scheme might bring to Pembrokeshire, they were also dismayed that this might be at the cost of destroying the last monuments to shipbuilding in The Yard. They made the point that, as we are all aware, this unique collection of  monuments is an illustration of the reason that Pembroke Dock came into existence.

 

They doubted that 1800 jobs was a realistic expectation as the plans were way behind what is going on elsewhere in the UK and Ireland in this area of marine energy. They seemed to have little faith in the ability of the applicant to carry through the project to a successful conclusion as the scheme was well outside the applicant’s area of corporate expertise.

 

When asked as to why they had written in support of the project I was told that the applicant had had contacted them and asked that they wrote to PCC to express their support for the project. They felt that there was commercial pressure to express the desire for more employment in the area. They were advised about what to say and were offered a template letter to adapt.

 

I am not that naïve to NOT expect that such methods are employed. Personally, I would not do this as I believe that if anyone feels strongly about an application they should put forward their point of view in their own way. I have been approached to supply template letters and I have always refused to supply such as a matter of principle.

 

I was surprised by the response of these directors who clearly had affection for Pembroke Dock and its heritage.

 

You must now decide on whether this application is allowed. The application seems to have little intention of achieving a compromise, which is a shame. Pembroke Dock Town Council is opposed to the scheme and yet they fully appreciate the need for jobs in South Pembrokeshire.

 

It is in your power to save this unique last remaining assemblage of monuments to the birth of Pembroke Dock. I ask that you do not listen to the ridiculous notion that deliberately burying monuments is a way of preserving them. It is not. It will put them permanently beyond reach. I ask that you do not listen to trivial mitigation strategies that the applicant proposes for they are but crumbs of justification.

 

The present deplorable state of the western dockyard is down to the conscious decision of the applicant to neglect its duty of care owed to the listed monuments and the surrounding site. You will all be remembered for the decision that you make today. That is the result of the responsibility you have taken on. I ask that you please give Pembroke Dock the opportunity to forge a different, more sustainable and friendly route towards economic well-being. I, like many others, will rise to the challenge. There are alternatives to this proposal and the applicant needs to think again.

 

I wish you well. Thank you.