Coed Bach

Briefing note  to Councillors No. 1

Job Creation

 

The Planning Application S/16781 states that up to 90 jobs will be created by the proposal.

 

However, when we compare this proposal with five other broadly equivalent Biomass Power Station proposals that have been applied for elsewhere in the UK, we have found a large disparity between the Coedbach proposal and the other schemes.

 

Biomass Power Station Location

Power Output MW

Direct Jobs Created

Sheffield

25

20

Thetford

38

31

Ely

38

28

Lockerbie

44

40

Wilton

30

15

 

As our elected representatives on the council, we encourage you to find out the real numbers for Coedbach.

 

A Power Station is a highly capital intensive, highly automated operation.  The proposed investment of £70 - £85 million will only create a very limited number of new local jobs eg approximately one job per £1 million invested and this is before the real job creation numbers are validated.

 

The site currently has Outline Planning Permission for B2 – Industry and B8 – Storage and Distribution. 

 

This type of planning zoning, together with B1 Light Industry, creates a much higher level of jobs created for every £ invested.  In Carmarthenshire entrepreneurs and employers are crying out for more availability of small and light industrial units.  For example:

 

            Carmarthenshire County Council Estates Department manage +350 industrial units.  These are oversubscribed with a waiting list for prospective tenants.

 

The newly developed Dafatty Park Site in Burry Port is fully subscribed for phase one, again with a waiting list.

 

            The flagship development at Llanelli Gate is also fully subscribed.

 

The Coedbach Action Group representing 100’s of Objectors’ to Planning Application S/16781 Power Station objects to siting a Power Station at Coedbach.  The return on investment for jobs created is very low and we think that this is an inappropriate use of the site.

 

We do support the Outline Planning Permission for the site B2/B8 and in addition B1 Light Industry zoning.

 

This will encourage entrepreneurs and small employers to invest in the county and also meet the current high unmet demand for this type of industrial site, it has a high employment to investment ratio.

 

We ask you to say NO to Planning Application S/16781 Power Station.

 

We ask you to say YES to B1/B2/B8 Light Industry, Storage and Distribution, which will create 100s of jobs.


Briefing note  to Councillors No.2

Transport and Access

 

As part of the Planning Application S/16781 for a Power Station at the Coedbach Site, Kidwelly, the applicant was requested to produce an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA).

 

One key element of this EIA is Transport and Access. 

 

We have reviewed the data presented in the EIA and find the results to be alarming; we would like to share these with you.

 

For those of you who know the area, the B4308 is a relatively lightly used rural link road running between Kidwelly and Trimsaran.  In a traffic survey conducted by consultants on behalf of the applicant, they found that existing HGV traffic on the road was light.  They reported a total 25 HGV traffic movements per day for the survey period

 

When looking at planning applications we understand that the normal threshold for being seriously concerned about the impact of traffic increases is a 30% increase. 

 

The EIA for Coedbach Power Station states that there will be an expected NEW 390 HGV traffic movements per week (350 wood and 40 waste).  This is based on delivering 125,000 tonnes pa of wood to the site which represents 25% of the proposed 500,000 tonnes pa.

 

This is an additional 78 HGV movements per day, or 10 per hour or one every 6 minutes. 

 

This represents a 280% increase in current HGV movements.  This figure is a cause for major concern.  We would like you to stop and think for a moment about just how big an impact this will have locally on the environment, population, amenity, and pollution. 

 

There are two other factors that we need to bring to your attention.

 

Firstly:  The traffic impact of this proposal affects a much larger area of Carmarthenshire than just the B4308 at Kidwelly.  There are only 3 natural routes to the site which could be used for transportation of the proposed 125,000 tonnes pa of locally sourced wood and the 15,000 tonnes of waste ash (classified as a haz mat – hazardous material).

 

If you live in, or represent communities and constituents along these routes, and if you approve this application, you are going to see an alarming rise in HGV movements and the accompanying disruption and pollution which is way above the threshold for concern. 

 

Route 1:  The coast road from Swansea impacting Pemberton, Machynys, Stradey, Sandy, Pwll, Burry Port, and Pembrey

 

Route 2:  Over the Hill from Llanelli, impacting Pemberton, Llanelli, Furnace, Cwmbach, Pen y Mynydd, Trimsaran

 

Route 3:  The Cross country route from Cross Hands impacting Cross Hands, Tumble, Pontyberem, Pontyhenri, Pontyates, Carway, Trimsaran

 

On this basis, we would like you to consider requesting a Movement Impact Assessment to undertake a County–wide Traffic Survey of HGV Movements.

  

Secondly:  The applicant is proposing to use a rail link from Swansea via Kidwelly to transport 375,000 TPA of wood to the site.

 

Our understanding is that the rail spur from Kidwelly to Coedbach lies in a C2 flood zone that is highly vulnerable to flooding.  From conversations with local residents, this section of the line does flood on a regular basis.  If this is so, then the only means of delivering wood to the site is

by road.  We also understand that historically use of rail as a means of transport was never economical and that all site deliveries came in by road.

 

The clear implication here is that we are potentially looking at the developer moving all materials to site by road. This would result in an astronomical new 1400 HGV movements per week along the above routes, which is 280 per day or 35 per hour. 

 

We do not believe that the Carmarthenshire Road and community infrastructure can sustain this level of HGV traffic.  The impact of pollution, the potential public health risk and damage to amenity and the environment, all lead us to SAY NO TO COEDBACH.

 

We ask you also to SAY NO TO COEDBACH. 

 

Follow up:  The information in this briefing note has already been shared with officers of the council, ie Head of Transport, and Head of Planning; we would encourage you to talk to them.

 

If you would like more information from the Coedbach Action Group, please check with the Head of Planning for the appropriate protocol before contacting us.