We the undersigned object to the proposed development and building of up to 100 homes in the field opposite Pennard Drive, in Pennard, Gower.

 The reasons for our objection are outlined in the following petition:

 1)    Access to the development can only be made through the Pennard/Linkside Drive estate because the main road (Pennard Road) in not lined with pavements on either side.  The potential of 200 extra cars passing through this small estate where children play will create a bottleneck and a death trap.  The increased traffic will almost certainly result in injury or loss of life.  Road building will also result in the destruction of existing mature hedgrow.

2)    Utilities and facilities in Pennard are not fit for purpose.  Pennard Road, leading in and out of the village, is single lane in places and already overcrowded.   The sewage system is already collapsing under current use.  The school and doctors surgery are already over capacity.

3)    In the past 10 years Gower has seen more development than any other ward of Swansea.  Pennard in particular has seen new developments, and the village has already expanded in size substantially.  Other sites in Swansea have been passed with planning permission but are not being developed.  Brown field sites are because passed up because they are less profitable.

4)    Policy EV17 of the UDP identifies the two communities of Pennard and Southgate as being in the “large village” category where only small infill plots and small scale rounding off will be permitted.  The candidate site in question, being large enough to locate over 100 dwellings, cannot be said to comprise a small infill site or a small scale rounding off, rather it should be classed as ribbon development and would set a precedent towards the coalescence of villages.

5)    Swansea Council states they “aim to negotiate the provision of 25-30% affordable housing on development sites over a certain size thresold.”  In recent developments on Gower the provision of affordable housing and been minimal and that which exists has simply been turned over and resold for profit.  Furthermore, the development would see the destruction of agricultural land.  The loss of agricultural land to development is continuing with about 11,000 hectares developed from 2001 - 2009 (Department for Communities and Local Government, 2011).

6)    Gower was the first Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty in the United Kingdom and one of only four wholly in Wales.  Though this status in under attack, under the current definition “responsibility of care is assumed by local authorities and the rural community.” “AONB status provides a context for low key, long-term action, which relies upon partnership with local people.”  We the undersigned are members of the rural community of Pennard and we object to any futher development of the village.

In more detail:

1. The Candidate Site is No PN0001, a greenfield site lying in the open countryside on the eastern edge of Pennard, on the right hand side as you approach the village. In the current UDP inset map for Pennard/Southgate the site is clearly shown as being outside the village settlement. Policy EV17 of the UDP identifies the two communities as being in the “large village” category where only small infill plots and small scale rounding off will be permitted.

2. Policy EV17 continues:

     “Extensions into the surrounding countryside will not be permitted, except where they contribute to affordable housing needs as defined in policy EV18” (which states inter alia that such circumstances would be exceptional and dependent on proven local need). It continues:

     “Development that involves:

     (i) the “capturing” of surrounding countryside through an extension of the built up area and residential curtilages,

     (ii) the extension of a settlement in the form of ribbon development, or

     (iii) the coalescence of villages, will not be permitted”.

3. Para 1.6.8 of the UDP provides amplification that “small scale rounding off is defined as development that takes the developed area up to a clearly defined boundary which does not then create a precedent for further land releases. A clearly defined boundary is an existing feature that would clearly contain the development”.

4. It is clear from these criteria and from the Inset Map that when the UDP policies were prepared the eastern edge of Pennard was seen to provide a clearly defined boundary beyond which further residential development extension should be classed as ribbon development, and would set a precedent towards the coalescence of villages. Pennard also being within the AONB planners were very aware of Policy EV26 of the UDP stressing the primary objective as the conservation and enhancement of the area’s natural beauty. Today the same situation applies. The candidate site in question, being large enough to locate over 100 dwellings, cannot be said to comprise a small infill site or a small scale rounding off. Equally no local housing need on this scale has been proven. And the objectives of AONB policy remain paramount.

5. The previous UDP gave careful scrutiny to the issue of the possible expansion of Pennard and permitted a number of small releases. Once again, however, development eastwards needs to be resisted for a number of important reasons:

    (i) the site lies within the open countryside and AONB where unnecessary development should be resisted at all costs;

    (ii) the existing estate has a definable boundary on its eastern edge;

    (iii) access would be problematical from either within the estate or from the main road. In the former case too much traffic would be generated for the immediate network to accommodate given the scale of infrastructure; in the latter case vision splays would require the complete removal of the existing mature hedgerow to accommodate road widening;

    (iv) removal of the hedgerow would give rise to the appearance of ribbon development along this essentially country road and further suburbanise the AONB;

     (v) Pennard has already suffered over development of this essentially suburban estate during the postwar years; the candidate site is not unobtrusive but currently provides an attractive backcloth which should be retained, particularly for the many residents who live nearby;

    (vi) further development would place a strain on the capacity of the local primary school, and the local road and drainage systems, leading to the erosion of rural life.

6. To sum up, the same arguments apply to this extension as were considered and rejected for the existing UDP.  Pennard is already large enough and there are plentiful sites on the urban fringe in other parts of Swansea which are much better suited for development.