THE Carmarthenshire County UNISON Branch Committee has issued a stern open letter to the councillors of Carmarthenshire County Council, expressing strong opposition to the council’s proposed Waste Strategy Blueprint implementation plan. The plan, which was presented to the council cabinet on 29th July 2024, has drawn significant concern from UNISON, particularly regarding its impact on refuse workers.

In their letter, the UNISON Branch Committee, led by Branch Secretary Debbie Gough, acknowledges the importance of recycling and supports the goal of achieving 100% recycling rates. However, the committee emphasises that this target is only realistic if the Welsh Labour Government provides adequate funding. The letter criticises the Plaid Cymru-led Carmarthenshire County Council for choosing to implement what the union views as detrimental cuts, rather than fighting against the financial constraints imposed by both the current UK government and the likely future Labour government under Keir Starmer.

The Waste Strategy Blueprint, as outlined in the council’s documentation, is an ambitious plan aimed at aligning with the Welsh Government’s environmental goals, particularly the “Beyond Recycling” strategy. This strategy sets forth a vision for a zero-waste Wales by 2050, with a focus on increasing recycling rates, reducing carbon emissions, and improving resource efficiency. The Blueprint proposes significant changes to Carmarthenshire’s waste management infrastructure, including the development of a centralised waste depot.

A central point of contention is the council’s decision to pursue the development of this centralised depot, known as Option 2. According to the union, this decision was made without genuine consultation with the workforce, despite management’s claims to the contrary. The letter alleges that the decision to centralise operations was predetermined, rendering the consultation process a “shambolic” exercise that falsely suggested that employees’ views were being considered.

The Blueprint’s proposal for the centralised depot is rooted in the need to modernise the county’s waste management system, which the council argues will increase efficiency and help meet the stringent recycling targets set by the Welsh Government. The council’s summary document highlights that the centralised depot is seen as essential for reducing the carbon footprint of waste collection operations and optimising the use of resources. However, UNISON argues that this efficiency will come at the cost of refuse workers, who will bear the brunt of increased travel times and potential additional costs.

UNISON’s letter also questions the thoroughness of the council’s analysis, suggesting that alternative options, such as extending or relocating existing depots, were not seriously considered. The union highlights that the Welsh Government’s funding for the waste strategy was contingent on the establishment of a centralised depot, raising concerns that the council did not genuinely explore other viable options.

The union warns that the centralised depot, if implemented, will have a negative financial impact on many refuse workers. The additional travel costs and time, combined with a proposed four-day working week, are expected to exacerbate existing grievances within the workforce. UNISON also highlights the lack of communication regarding so-called “mitigation strategies” for staff affected by these changes.

In the letter, Gough criticises the council’s approach to staff welfare, arguing that the real motivation behind the centralised depot is to extract more work from an already aggrieved workforce. The union expresses a deep mistrust of refuse management, based on what they describe as a history of poor treatment of workers and a lack of transparency.

Furthermore, the union raises serious concerns about the safety of the proposed depot location at Nant Y Caws, particularly regarding the entrance on the A48, which they describe as dangerous for both vehicles and the public. They advocate for the implementation of slip roads as the only safe solution.

UNISON also opposes other elements of the waste strategy, including the proposed four-weekly residual waste collection frequency and the reduction of bring sites. These measures, the union argues, represent further cuts to public services disguised as strategic improvements.

The council, in its Blueprint, argues that these changes, including the reduction in the frequency of waste collection, are necessary steps to align with broader environmental goals. The strategy outlines that reducing residual waste collection is intended to encourage residents to recycle more and reduce waste production, aligning with the national move towards a circular economy. However, UNISON contends that these changes are effectively service cuts that place an undue burden on both workers and the public.

In conclusion, the UNISON Branch Committee reaffirms its opposition to the centralised depot, warning that imposing such changes will be met with resistance from the union and its members. The letter calls on the council to recognise the value of its workforce and to reconsider the strategy in a way that genuinely supports both the environment and the employees tasked with achieving these goals.

The letter, signed by Debbie Gough on behalf of the Carmarthenshire County UNISON Branch Committee, reflects a growing tension between the council and its workforce, signalling potential industrial action if the concerns raised are not addressed.

UPDATED plans for a controversial housing Tenby development, which will see less homes built than originally proposed, are expected to be approved by the national park despite wide-ranging concerns.

In 2018, Pembrokeshire County Council, which already owned the 15-acre Brynhir site on the edge of Tenby, ‘bought’ the land for £4million using its Housing Revenue Account.

Campaigners fought a two-year battle against the use of the land for housing, calling for protection for ‘Tenby’s last green space’ and fearing it would become a ‘concrete jungle’.

The county council was granted outline planning permission by the Pembrokeshire Coast National Park Authority for the development of 144 properties – including up to 102 affordable residential units, eight shared ownership residential units and 34 open market shared units – in 2020.

Last July, national park planners heard less homes than originally hoped for will be built at the development, but nearly three-quarters will remain affordable.

It is now proposed that only 125 houses will be built, 93 of them affordable, and, of the 32 Open market dwellings, 16 are shared ownership properties.

In July 2023, the national park backed a Pembrokeshire County Council Housing request to modify the Section 106 legal agreement ahead of an official updated application, including a condition that the percentage of affordable housing does not drop below 71 per cent.

Amendments also included the removal of a Multi-Use Games Area (MUGA), one of two Local Equipped Area for Play Spaces (LEAPS) instead providing a multi-use space for ball games.

The county council, through agent The Urbanists, later submitted updated outline plans for 125 homes on the site.

The application stated: “The proposed development is a key development for the town of Tenby and the wider county; it shall make a significant contribution to the delivery of much-needed affordable housing as well as helping much overall local housing targets.”

The reserved matters application, backed in principle by Tenby Town Council, is now recommended for conditional approval at the Pembrokeshire Coast National Park development management committee meeting of September 4, despite being contrary to the provisions of the Development Plan.

A report for committee members says Tenby Civic Society “has raised a number of concerns relating to highway safety issues, lack of sustainable transport facilities, landscaping and skyline development, surface water discharge, low water pressure, retention of stone styles within the scheme, footpath routes and impact on existing amenity space to south of the site”.

20 objections to the scheme have also been received, raising concerns including loss of green space, traffic issues, privacy, design, visual impacts and the scale of the development, sewage capacity, the site being no longer allocated for housing, potential antisocial behaviour within the play area, and a limitation on second homes/holiday lets being required.

The report for planners adds: “It is considered that the proposed appearance, landscaping, layout, access and scale of the proposed scheme would be in accordance with the parameters set out at outline stage.

“Following consideration of the policies contained within the statutory Development Plan (Future Wales and Local Development Plan 2) and National Planning Policy in the form of Planning Policy Wales (Edition 12) and having regard to all material considerations it is considered that the development will be in keeping with the aims of the LDP2 and Future Wales in that the development is considered to provide a new residential estate of 125 dwellings to meet the requirements set out in the outline consent whilst sustaining the local character.”

A SCHEME for three houses behind a listed Georgian house in a Pembrokeshire town, which had raised the concerns of the local town council and 15 members of the public, has been refused by county planners.

Sarah Voaden, through agent Robert Davies John West Ltd, sought permission for three three-bed houses on land to the rear of Llwynon, 61 St James Street, Narberth.

A supporting statement said: “The detail and content of the proposal has been well considered and pays good regard to physical constraints/opportunities presented by the site, the character of the area, respects the scale, form, height and appearance of the neighbouring buildings and its wider sensitive heritage setting.”

It says it is not practical to provide affordable housing on the site but a financial contribution of £38,156.25 would be appropriate, adding: “There is no objection to this in principle and a Unilateral Agreement and Certificate of Title will be completed during the application process.”

It concludes: “There are utility connections available within the locality and appropriate sustainable drainage arrangements can be incorporated into the scheme. However, it is recognised there is a current issue with the potential impact of new development on phosphate levels in certain rivers which could be addressed by a future upgrading of the local wastewater treatment works. A Grampian-style condition could be imposed by the council.”

Narberth Town Council’s planning committee has objected to the planning application “as they are extremely concerned over the access for ingress and egress of the neighbouring properties, particularly at the entrance to Tabernacle Lane”.

In its objection, the town council adds: “The council believe that this is an unadopted road and that the entrance into the development is insufficient. The town council notes that there is a children’s nursery in the vicinity, which is heavily used, and the additional properties will increase the amount of traffic which could potentially cause a serious incident. The town council fear that the underground infrastructure may not be able to cope with the demand of three extra properties and feel that the plans do not clearly outline the collection of waste sewage which is a major concern in Narberth.

“The town council believe that this development is overcrowding of the area and is not in keeping with the character of the town.”

15 letters of objection were also received, raising concerns including highway safety and the potential impact on the local nursery, drainage issues, noise and pollution, with one letter of support, saying it would be a good use of the land.

An officer report recommending refusal said the financial commitment to an affordable housing contribution had been offered in principle, but added: “Whilst it is considered that the applicant shows a commitment to making the financial contribution the original signed copies have not been provided to date and as such the application is contrary [to policy].”

It also said the application failed to comply with foul and surface water discharge policies.