On 30 March, RTPI Cymru submitted a response to the Welsh Government consultation on the Strategic Planning Guidance for the Gwent Levels National Natural Resource Area Planning Directorate. Read the response below.

We welcome this Strategic Planning Guidance (SPG), which aims to explain how a site, in this case the Gwent Levels, should be taken into account in development plan preparation and decision making, supporting the implementation of Policy 9 of the National Development Framework, Future Wales. This is the first SPG of its kind, linked to Future Wales and therefore an important document in Welsh planning policy landscape.

Q1) Do Sections 1 to 4 provide sufficient information on the context to the Gwent Levels Planning Guidance. If not, how should Sections 1 to 4 be updated?

Inappropriate land management is referred to in Chapter 1 – there could be value in being transparent about what this means. Does this relate to historic industrial uses, housing development, Uskmouth Power Station or steel works, or poor land management through farming practices, etc.? This is open to interpretation and could be taken as meaning more recently proposed developments which could bring benefits in addressing some of these negative impacts on the SSSIs.

Importantly, the SPG (chapter 1) applies to the GL national nature recovery area (GLNNRA), which is identified in a map on page 21. The GLNNRA area covers a far wider area than the SSSIs, for example including the whole of Caldicot town, the whole of Newport's eastern expansion area on the former steelworks site and at Llanwern village, significant parts of eastern Cardiff (Tremorfa, St Mellons) as well as Castleton and Marshfield. These are areas where adopted development plans appropriately allocate sites for development. Care needs to be taken to ensure there is not an unintended consequence of a very restrictive policy approach being extended via FW Policy 9 and this Strategic Planning Guidance to urban areas or allocated sites or future urban extensions outside of the SSSIs.

Chapter 1 recognises the important role that the levels have to play at a national level in climate change adaptation and mitigation, but the context provided is extremely narrow in its focus in this respect. It is surprising that the SPG fails to draw attention to Future Wales Policy 8. This sets out the Welsh Government’s policy on planning and flood risk management, and emphasises the important role of Flood Risk Management Authorities in delivering planning outcomes. It specifically identifies in the supporting map, the whole of the Gwent levels and the river valleys of the Usk, Ebbw and Rhymney as flood risk zones. The SPG could helpfully offer guidance on the implications of this for the development and use of land across the area. As Policy 8 makes clear, “the Welsh Government has a robust planning policy that directs development away from areas at risk of flooding.” Cross references to relevant parts of the new TAN15 and its implications for the levels would add considerably to the value of the guidance.

The very special nature of the landscape of the Gwent levels is heavily dependent on the management of water levels by Natural Resources Wales following the designation of the levels as an Internal Drainage District under the Land Drainage Acts. This is a very important part of the context and merits inclusion in the document.

The SPG could helpfully offer some guidance on the implications of rising sea levels. Given the very low lying land and the presence of tidal estuaries, a key threat to the ecology of the area is the potential for salt water incursion into the current fresh water environment of the levels. While flood defences are in place, their effectiveness is diminishing year on year as sea levels rise, with growing risks from storm surges and overtopping. While, this existential threat to the area would merit some prominence in providing the context for the SPG, the Severn Estuary Shoreline Management Plan does provide some reassurance with its commitment to holding the line of coastal flood defences for the period to 2105 over the vast majority of this coastline.

It is noted that the Welsh Government’s National Strategy for Flood and Coastal Erosion Risk Management includes a proposal (Proposal 18) to prepare guidance on coastal adaptation. The implications of this for the Gwent Levels could be profound, and this clearly merits consideration within the context of the SPG.

Chapter 3 does not address the regional or local planning policy context. If the guidance is to enable the implementation of Future Wales Policy 9, it should acknowledge the role of extant local planning policies, as well as the role that the South East Wales Strategic Development Plan and respective Replacement Local Development Plans will be expected to have when applying national policy and planning for this area. i.e. What gaps in the detail/evidence will regional and local policies need to address?

There is a need to think about the practical application of the guidance as there are allocations for employment and housing, alongside a generally positive renewable energy policy position. Other proposals would also necessitate development within the Levels (and SSSIs), such as the recently re-announced train stations between Monmouthshire and Cardiff. These allocations and known proposals are not identified in Chapters 1-4. Instead the SPG takes a very negative approach to development over a wider area than the SSSIs. More analysis of the relationship between the guidance and strategic policies and site allocations could be provided, particularly as these policies were adopted in the context of development constraints and site designations which remain extant despite the introduction of Policy 9.

Whilst it is accepted that national policy takes precedent, the Local Planning Authorities are likely to be determining most of the planning applications proposed on the Levels, and their adopted and emerging Local Development Plans will contain strategies and priorities that remain relevant to the local area. Through the guidance, it should be clear to officers and Committee Members how to assess applications of all scales within the defined Levels area, particularly when designations are not present.

The use of imagery and maps throughout Chapters 1-4 would be beneficial to the reader. Figure 4.2 could be placed much higher in the document and show local authority boundaries as a part of the background to enable the reader to contextualise the geography and find their place on the map. Alternatively additional links to the interactive map (DataMap Wales) within the final document and alongside the document when finalised would be helpful.

Q2) Does Section 5 provide sufficient information on the current issues and challenges affecting the Gwent Levels? If not, please set out the evidence source and a description of how Section 5 should be updated.

Some challenges and known development pressures could be considered further: examples include flood risks, Gypsy and Traveller encampments (particularly in relation to more remote locations within the Levels), recreation, pressure for new housing development, pressure for new renewables development, brownfield and underutilised land. Food production is addressed in relation to food supplies, but also needs to be considered in relation to intensive farming and the need for sustainable practices.

Careful consideration is needed regarding the use of pre-commencement conditions for mitigation details. Often these require site investigations and initial works that are logically staged in the development process. To try and address this in full at the application stage would be difficult for developers who would be spending high amounts of money at risk of not gaining planning permission. A better approach to wording and applying pre-commencement conditions should be encouraged.

See also comments under Q1 on flood risk management.

Q3) Does Section 6 provide sufficient clarity on how the Resilient Ecological Network (REN) Mapping should be applied alongside The Guidance in planning decision making on the Gwent Levels? If not, how should Section 6 be clarified?

The role of the REN mapping is clear, albeit more detail in relation to how the boundary has been determined could be provided. Again, links to the online mapping and explanation of how the spatial area has been determined could be provided earlier in the document.

Q4) Do you agree with the three Strategic Principles to be applied for the Gwent Levels as set out under Section 7? If not, please specify in turn which Strategic Principles you disagree with and explain why.

Yes, in principle.

Q5) Do you agree with the fourteen Actions to be applied for the Gwent Levels as set out under Section 7? If not, please specify in turn which Actions you disagree with and explain why.

The terminology reads more like an action plan than a planning guidance document.

The following actions are too high level and risk repeating national policy: ACTION 1: Net Benefit for Biodiversity within the NNRA; ACTION 2: Resilient Ecosystems within the NNRA; ACTION 4: Protected Habitats and Species within the NNRA; ACTION 13: Recovery (Opportunity) Zone Protected Species and Habitats.

We agree with the following actions, but have concern that they relate to broad land-use change, specifically new development proposals, driving a reactive planning approach, instead of a proactive approach to identify the types of development which could maximise benefits (is this the role of the emerging development plans?): ACTION 3: NNRA Landscape Approach and Functional linkages; ACTION 5: Cumulative considerations.

We have concerns regarding ACTION 6: Delivery Mechanisms to secure the long-term resilience of the NNRA. Our concern is that the requirement for all data upfront is likely to be very difficult in most cases. The wording for this action should be more positively worded to express a preference for all data up front but allowing for the use of pre-commencement conditions in cases where it can be justified.

We agree with ACTION 9: Core Zone Landscape-scale Integrity and Resilience. However, we are concerned that it is a reactive action to be applied in response to new development proposals and does little to provide a proactive approach e.g. drive investment /funding towards addressing the fragmentation that exists.

Regarding ACTION 10: Water availability and hydrology within the Core Zone. There is a relationship between this action and legal requirements relating to SuDS approval. Clarity is needed regarding who delivers this aspect to avoid duplication of roles between the planning system, the SuDS Approval Body (SAB), or through a separate strategy/process.

Actions 7, 8, 11, 12 and 14 helpfully provide opportunities to maximise the positive impacts from development within boundary of the Levels and they suitably build upon national policy.

Q6) Do you have any examples of good practice you consider The Guidance should signpost that can help to deliver on any of the Strategic Principles and Actions?

RSPB Newport Wetlands

Llanwern Solar Farm

Mayfield Park

Living in the Landscape: A framework for landscape and green infrastructure

North Cave Wetlands

Zetland Park Project

Considering and including biodiversity in development guidance (Orkney Islands Council)

Assessment of Air Quality Impacts on European Sites in Staffordshire, Wolverhampton, Walsall, Sandwell and Dudley

Q7) Do you have any suggestions for implementation or monitoring that you consider should be covered in The Guidance?

NRW undertakes monitoring of the ecological assets, including the reen network to monitor the state of the SSSIs. Additionally, each Council monitors planning permissions within their boundary. For large-scale developments, mitigation measures can be monitored through conditions and discharge of conditions to those projects. It seems sensible that monitoring could be carried out through the collation of data that is already being collected. It would be very difficult to monitor the impacts of the steel works and other heavily industrial sites that are already in operation through the planning system. A more collaborative effort would be needed in this case, with regeneration opportunities being considered an opportunity to enhance the condition of the Levels.

If a new monitoring framework is to be used and implemented by Welsh Government or Natural Resources Wales, this should be subject to a baseline study to enable an understanding of the current state of the indicators which would be measured moving forward. This should be published every October, in a similar way to an LDP Annual Monitoring Report.

Q8) Do you have any other suggestions for improving The Guidance?

There is little acknowledgement of the complex history of development across the Levels over time. There is an existing relationship between the Levels and development which needs to be acknowledged. Opportunities to drive enhancements and recovery through new development needs to be acknowledged. There is a relationship with flood risks, sea level and public protection, as well as energy infrastructure and the historic environment. Additionally, one of the largest regeneration developments in the UK is situated within the Resource Area Boundary. The document is clear that it is not to be used to justify development, but it seems to have a more negative tone which is in conflict with the purposes of planning. It could take the role in supporting development in appropriate locations and providing the detail to help manage development. It is difficult to see how some of the actions build on national policy to provide further guidance for developers and decision makers despite being framed around proposed land uses.

There is a risk that the guidance as drafted could deter developers from exploring appropriate opportunities on the Levels, leading to further decline through lack of investment to address poor management and impacts from existing uses. There are examples of development that, through ecological monitoring and investment in improving the condition of the SSSI and features of interest, have positively contributed to the area, bringing improvements that would not have otherwise happened.

Poor use of conditions on permissions is mentioned in Chapter 5. Model or best practice conditions could be provided through the guidance.

It is slightly confusing that Chapter 6 introduces an action plan. As drafted, it is difficult to understand if the guidance is to sit within the planning framework, taking a role as supplementary planning guidance to Future Wales, or is to have a role as a strategic management plan to drive recovery projects forward. This could be clarified within Chapters 1-4 to explain further how the document should be used within the wider planning framework.

Q9) We would like to know your views on the effects that The Guidance would have on the Welsh language, specifically on opportunities for people to use Welsh and on treating the Welsh language no less favourably than English. What effects do you think there would be? How could positive effects be increased, or negative effects be mitigated?

No comment

Q10) Please also explain how you believe The Guidance could be formulated or changed so as to have positive effects or increased positive effects on opportunities for people to use the Welsh language and on treating the Welsh language no less favourably than the English language, and no adverse effects on opportunities for people to use the Welsh language and on treating the Welsh language no less favourably than the English language?

No comment

Q11) Do you have any comments on the Integrated Sustainability Appraisal; the Draft Environmental Report, accompanying The Guidance? In particular, do you have any monitoring indicators you consider would strengthen the Integrated Sustainability Appraisal?

The ISA goes further into detail to discuss the role of the guidance in relation to decision making and policy formation. It also goes further to discuss the role of new development, particularly appropriate development. It isn’t clear how the ISA is able to go further into assessing this detail using assumptions which are not set out through Future Wales Policy 9 or the Guidance itself. For example, Table 2-3 concludes a positive impact on sustainable economic growth, suggesting that development that does take place across the NNRA will be sustainable, appropriate and avoid negative impacts. However, the guidance takes a broadly negative policy approach and could be a deterrent to development, including on allocated employment sites. The ISA does little to identify or take account of this consequential impact. 

Q12) We have asked a number of specific questions. If you have any related issues which we have not specifically addressed, please use this space to report them:

N/A