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.

Annex A - Information Sent to Members of Pembrokeshire County Council's Planning Committee for the Meeting on 20 April 2021

Annex A 

The Setting of Application 20/0732/PA 

within 

Pembrokeshire’s Historic Environment 

Note: The Pembroke Dock Conservation Area shown on the maps below is the area as it was before 2017. The changes in the boundary brought about in c2017 have no relevance to the application area under consideration here.

Royal Dockyard Pembroke - The Reason that Pembroke Dock Exists - 3

  Heritage Under Threat - 3

Figure 1

The rather tatty photograph at Figure 1, taken in c.1900  from Lanion to the north-east of Pembroke Dockyard , shows the building slips in The Yard that still had sheds covering them.

Slips 1 and 2, the most westerly, have different roof lines to the other sheds. These two slips, although long denuded of their coverings, are due to be altered in a major way as part of Milford Haven Port Authority's plans, known as the Pembroke Dock Infrastructure. The listed monuments due to be majorly affected by this project are:

• The Timber Pond (Listed Grade II)
• The Graving Dock (Listed Grade II*)
• Slip 1 (Listed Grade II)
• Slip 2 (Listed Grade II)
• Foreman’s Office or former guard house (Listed Grade II)

This post is mainly about Slips 1 and 2.

Slips 1 and 2 (Listed Grade II)

These two slips are survivors of the 13 building slips that Pembroke Dockyard had at its disposal over the course of its naval working life. Two other slips remain in some degree - slips 3 and 4. Both are now used by Mainstay Marine Solutions in their marine fabrication work. I am told, but cannot confirm this, that Slip 4 is the least altered.

The other slips were adapted by the RAF when Pembroke Dock became a flying boat base in the 1930s, until they were finally buried or destroyed to build the infrequently used Quay 1 in the eastern part of the dockyard.

Figure 2

Figure2  shows the interior of either slip 1 or 2 with a warship in the early stages of construction. The date is c1902.

Figure 3 shows HMS Defence entering the water from Slip 1 in 1907.

Figure 3

Figure 4 shows another slip in the dockyard, now buried under the deep water berth or the ferry terminal. It looks rather neglected, but the facility that such a structure offers to the small boat owner is obvious. At the same time it preserves the monument in a recognisable state....or this one DID.

It is worth noting that the public hard on Front Street, just outside the eastern wall of the dockyard was badly damaged when the deep water berth was dredged and as far as I am aware it has never been returned to it former condition.

Figure 4 (Copyright Unknown)

Milford Haven Port Authority proposes to combine both Slips 1 and 2 (Listed Grade II) into a "Super Slip". This will be achieved by removing the bar of land between the two slips whilst retaining the eastern wall of Slip 2 and the western wall of Slip 1. The stone and soil from the removed piece of land will be used as fill for the Timber Pond (Listed Grade II) and The Graving Dock (Listed Grade II*), both of which will be capped with concrete.

Further more, the construction of the slip, which will involve digging up to four metres into bed rock, could potentially cause problems for the foundations of the wonderful Carr Jetty (Listed Grade II), which is sited immediately to the west of Slips 1 and 2.

The Super Slip is supposedly required for the launching of large marine energy devices that might be built within the fabrication sheds. Have a look on Youtube. One you might start with is:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JWNGhWyLqIw

Remember, this project is a speculative venture and I will comment about this (perhaps) in future posts. Listed heritage structures may be destroyed for a project that may never find a use that will justify the cost and loss.

Figure 5

Figure 5 is a LIDAR scan of the dockyard area.

• Red denotes buildings that existed in c1860 that still stand;
• Pale blue indicates the approximate footprint of the proposed two huge  sheds;
• Pink denotes the extent of the proposed super slip;
• Blue stars indicate the location of listed buildings and structures;

Figure 6 is a view of the foreshore in front of the two slips

Figure 6

Figures 7 and 8 show the Carr Jetty (Listed Grade II), which lies a few metres west of the proposed super slip and could be damaged by works. The Carr Jetty was built c1899 to enable ships launched at Pembroke Dockyard to be fitted out. Previously this was done at Hobbs Point. It is named after the Carr Rocks, which it partially sits on/

Figure 7

Figure 8

Please also see:

Royal Dockyard Pembroke - The Reason that Pembroke Dock Exists - 1

Royal Dockyard Pembroke - The Reason that Pembroke Dock Exists - 2

Royal Dockyard Pembroke - The Reason that Pembroke Dock Exists - 4

The usual plea to finish off....

Please do get involved and contact Pembrokeshire County Council with your views. Comments about the planning application can be made by following the instructions at the link below:

https://www.pembrokeshire.gov.uk/planning-applications/commenting-on-applications

The planning application has the reference: 20/0732/PA

The official deadline for comments is: 29 January 2021

However, there is a very strong case for extending this, as despite Milford Haven Port Authority's efforts to subvert the planning process by submitting the application at the start of the Christmas break, when everyone else has other things on their mind, there are several extenuating circumstances that should be taken into account.

• The application is for an outline consent, but contains so much detail that there is very little left for future consideration should the application be passed;
• There are over 120 documents submitted as part of the application. These could possibly be read on the PCC planning website, but are so mixed up, inappropriately labelled when downloaded that they make for very difficult and disjointed reading;
• Important information is missing from the application that would describe the overall impact of the scheme in a transparent way - for example the set of montage views from various viewpoints that show waht the sheds would look like when built - the view from Llanreath would be an interesting one!;
• The scheme is VERY speculative and there is little eidence of actual need for what is proposed;
• There are alternative sites that MHPA part own, some of which would directly support and utilise  local employers, that have not been given adequate consideration;
• If  alternative sites are used then this would open up the western dockyard as a wonderful tourism, heritage, boating and watersports venue - a truly all year stopover attraction on the way to Ireland;
• Working in partnership with another organisation (apart from PCC who are strategic partners , I believe) has not, as far as I am aware, been explored in any great depth. Remember, PCC is the planning authority who will decide on the outcome of this scheme;

More to follow.....so until next time......

Thanks - Keep safe and keep well!

Royal Dockyard Pembroke - The Reason that Pembroke Dock Exists - 1

Heritage Under Threat - 1

Pembroke Dock or Pater - (pronounced "Patter") was a place of rural idyll in the first decade of the nineteenth century. This changed when Pater Yard was established by the Navy Board to meet the demand for warships to defend the burgeoning empire from the threat of Napolean.  In about 1814 the area was transformed from relative tranquility into a small town of urban industrial bustle. The story of the beginnings of Pembroke Dock can be read in "Pembroke Dockyard and the Old Navy" by Lt. Commander Lawrie Phillips. Indeed, the whole story of the place can be read, from the beginning until when the Admiralty left.

The dockyard has often been, since the Admiralty left, a place of mystery. Hidden behind huge limestone walls of wonderful craftsmanship it has often seemed off limits to any, and all, visitors. However, in later years the advent of the Irish Ferry Terminal and the ill thought out  "Route 9" into the yard, breaching the tall wall, has allowed things to become more visible. It has allowed places to be explored once again.

Sadly, much of what has still to be discovered by many of the people of Pembrokeshire and beyond is under the threat of obliteration - or worse.

The remaining threatened group of historical and unique industrial monuments are in the western Dockyard, and include:

• The Timber Pond (Listed Grade II)
• The Graving Dock (Listed Grade II*)
• Slip 1 (Listed Grade II)
• Slip 2 (Listed Grade II)
• Foreman’s Office or former guard house (Listed Grade II)

This blog post is about the proposed fate of the probably UNIQUE Timber Pond. (Grade II).

The Timber Pond (Listed Grade 2) see More information.

If you work for Svitzer (a towage and salvage company) you will have the privelege of  passing through a gate in the dockyard wall and seeing this unique feature - a survival from the early days of the dockyard. I cannot find another in the UK. It is finely built and despite the neglect it has endured, it is largely sound. What a fantastic piece of calm sea water in which youngsters and adults could train in sea borne skills - canoes, kayaks, dinghies - behind the shelter of the grey limestone wall, shielding the novices from the westerly wind. Indeed this is what the place was used for in the past by the sea cadets. Now - nothing. Its fate? To be buried and covered in concrete with a 40 metre (appx 140 ft) high shed built on top.

This, the only remaining historical feature of this type in the entire UK, willbe buried.

What would this look like? Milford Haven Port Authority have commissioned some illustrations that can be obtained from Pembrokeshire County Council's planning website (Application 20/0732/PA). Use this link and scroll to the end of the document (97 pages!). (I have used very small amounts of some documents under the terms of "fair use".)

The huge shed that will be built over the site of the Timber Pond will have a dramatic impact on both the views of Pembroke Dock and the views from Pembroke Dock. The illustrations in the document above are limited to views that are, due to the perspective and viewing positions and angles chosen, less disturbing than they actually are.

This example, is a portion of the view of the proposed shed over the timber pond, as seen from Neyland. The full image can be seen at the end of this link. (Page 88)

This view, taken from Hazelbeach, is from Page 87 of the above document. It gives a far better impression of the size of the shed over the Timber Pond.

Another problem with the shed over the Timber Pond, apart from the burial of a very rare, if not unique, example of a masonary Timber Pond in the UK, is the way in which the historical view from the oldest building in Pembroke Dock is dramatically compromised.

This building is Paterchurch, now in private hands and sometimes open for public access. You can follow the link below for more information about Paterchurch. 

Link: https://pdboyinsuffolk.blogspot.com/2014/03/paterchurch-tower-pembroke-docks-last.html

The fourth post in the series of articles that you can access via the above link, describes the views that were, and indeed still are, available from the top of Paterchurch. 

The tower was probably part of a medieval fortified house. Its position allowed it to have a clear view of the whole length of the haven, so vessels entering between St. Annes's Head and Angle could, in clear weather, be spotted as soon as they rounded Thorne Island at the entrance to the harbour.

The map below (Figure 3) shows the extent of the field of observation from the top of the tower at Paterchurch. The red area shows the region of visibility from the top of Paterchurch tower. This area is known as the viewshed of the tower. The narrow slot of apparently no view in the middle of the haven is due to the modern mapping used to calculate the view shed. The view nowadays is obstructed by the jetties, but in medieval times the view would not be blocked by such obstacles...they did not exist!

Figure 3

Paterchurch in medival times probably had a role as a watch tower for Pembroke Castle, just 3 kilometres to the south-east. Movement by sea was far slower at the time and there would have been ample time to send warning to the Castle if an invasion fleet should appear below St. Anne's Head.

Figure 4 - The view west from Paterchurch tower in 2014

The shed built over the buried Timber Pond, at a height of 40 metres, would effectively obliterate this historical view that probable gave an important purpose to Paterchurch.

Equally, if we analyse the viewshed of this shed, by calculating where the shed would be visible from in the surrounding countryside, we become aware of the impact this building would have on the visual amenity of the surrounding countryside. Much of this countryside is part of the Pembroke Dock Conservation Area. It is also within a Landscape of Outstanding Historic Interest and it is very visible from parts of the Pembrokeshire Coast National Park.

The results of this viewshed analysis are shown below. The height of the shed is taken to be just under 40 metres above ground level. This height is taken to be at a point directly above the centre of the Timber Pond. A point on any extreme spot of the building's apex would give different results. The results shown can be considered indicative of the likely visual impact of this huge building.

Viewshed of the Building over the Timber Pond - Shows full area of visibility

Viewshed of Building over Timber Pond - Closer View

Viewshed of Building over Timber Pond - East of Pembroke Dock

Viewshed of Building over Timber Pond - West of Pembroke Dock

The destruction of a unique assemblage of historical shipbuilding monuments is but the thin end of a very thick wedge that would have a massive visual impact on both the town of Pembroke Dock and the wider area.

Milford Haven Port Authority claim that the Timber Pond will be buried in such a way that it could be "unburied and restored" at a later date. This is a ridiculous notion as the cost of recovering this rare monument could be easily be up to 25 times or more than the cost of burying it. The idea is a deliberate attempt to mask the destruction of a structure that is part of the story and industry that gave birth to, and named, Pembroke Dock. 

Some will say that the scheme will create much needed jobs. It might, but evidence of this is very thin on the ground. Any future boost to the local economy, that might come about through promoting and exploiting Pembroke Dock's heritage, will be dealt a savage blow. This would sacrifice any possible long-term, sustainable economic benefit to one of the - and don't be shocked - most individual and graceful towns in Wales.

Please also see:

Royal Dockyard Pembroke - The Reason that Pembroke Dock Exists - 2

Royal Dockyard Pembroke - The Reason that Pembroke Dock Exists - 3

Royal Dockyard Pembroke - The Reason that Pembroke Dock Exists - 4

Please do get involved and contact Pembrokeshire County Council with your views. Comments about the planning application can be made by following the instructions at the link below:

https://www.pembrokeshire.gov.uk/planning-applications/commenting-on-applications

The planning application has the reference: 20/0732/PA

The official deadline for comments is: 22 January 2021 29 January 2021

However, there is a very strong case for extending this, as despite Milford Haven Port Authority's efforts to subvert the planning process by submitting the application at the start of the Christmas break, when everyone else has other things on their mind, there are several extenuating circumstances that should be taken into account.

• The application is for an outline consent, but contains so much detail that there is very little left for future consideration should the application be passed;
• There are over 120 documents submitted as part of the application. These could possibly be read on the PCC planning website, but are so mixed up, inappropriately labelled when downloaded that they make for very difficult and disjointed reading;
• Important information is missing from the application that would describe the overall impact of the scheme in a transparent way - for example the set of montage views from various viewpoints that show waht the sheds would look like when built - the view from Llanreath would be an interesting one!;
• The scheme is VERY speculative and there is little eidence of actual need for what is proposed;
• There are alternative sites that MHPA part own, some of which would directly support and utilise  local employers, that have not been given adequate consideration;
• If  alternative sites are used then this would open up the western dockyard as a wonderful tourism, heritage, boating and watersports venue - a truly all year stopover attraction on the way to Ireland;
• Working in partnership with another organisation (apart from PCC who are strategic partners , I believe) has not, as far as I am aware, been explored in any great depth. Remember, PCC is the planning authority who will decide on the outcome of this scheme;

I will write more about the other monuments in this scheme in future posts. 

Thanks - Keep safe and keep well!