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.
