ITEM NUMBER: 1 APPLICATION NUMBER: 12/07922/FUL

APPLICANTS NAME(S): Mr Phil Collins

SITE ADDRESS: Former Mid Wales Hospital Hospital Road

Talgarth Powys

LD3 0EF

GRID REF: E: 316190 N:233086

COMMUNITY: Talgarth

DATE VALIDATED: 5 April 2012

DECISION DUE DATE: 26 July 2012

CASE OFFICER: Mr Rhodri Davies

PROPOSAL Mixed use redevelopment of the site for housing, employment and community uses including 76 number residential units (C3), 5 live work units (B1/C3) and 18 number 1-2 bed retirement apartments (C3), Care/health facility (up to 70 bed apartments) (C2/D1), conversion of the front 'Admin Block' into 4 apartments (C3), conversion of retained chapel into multi-use community building (D2) and offices (B1), conversion of retained mortuary into office space (B1), internal roads and paths, new allotments, creation of new cricket pavilion, access road, car park and tennis courts, landscaping and public open space, sustainable drainage systems, de-construction (demolition) of the existing former ward buildings and associated works, services and utilities.

ADDRESS Former Mid Wales Hospital, Hospital Road, Talgarth

BRECON BEACONS NATIONAL PARK AUTHORITY PAROW Date:

23rd October 2012 App Ref:

12/07792/FUL

Covering Note The above application was reported to the 11th September, 2012 PAROW Committee meeting where Members decided to defer consideration of the scheme for a site visit which will be undertaken on the morning of the 23rd October, 2012 PAROW Committee. The original report has been reproduced for the 23rd October, 2012 PAROW Committee agenda. This covering note will include:

1. the late representations that were received between the production of the agenda for the 11th September, 2012 PAROW Committee and the meeting (as verbally reported to Members by the Case Officer).

2. the representations received between the 11th September, 212 PAROW Committee and the agenda deadline for the 23rd October, 2012 PAROW meeting (5th October, 2012).

1. Late Representations verbally reported to Members on the 23rd Sept, 2012 Mr. Niel Bally of Taflod (emails dated 5th September, 8th September and two on the 10th September were received and copied to Members). The following is a summary/reminder of the content of the emails: 5th September, 2012: To Mr. Chris Morgan (Director of Planning) - 8th September, 2012: To Members - The email contends that there are some omissions in the report relating to the full policy context in which the applications should be considered and the reasons for refusal are incomplete. The email was supported by an attachment outlining Mr. Bally’s interpretation of the policy context of this site. Mr. Bally also asked for an additional reason for refusal to be added to the recommendation. He concludes by inviting Members to seek advice on this point from the Monitoring Officer. 10th September, 2012 (1) – To Members - the email included a short message confirming that “2 Aerial views of the hospital and one from a public foot path” are attached. 10th September, 2012 (2) – To Cllr. Evan Morgan – “I have heard that the applicant has been lobbying members. I understand that is acceptable under the codes of conduct provided members inform officers that it has taken place. Therefore, incase any member is not familiar with the codes perhaps it would be wise to raise this matter at the beginning of the meeting.” Members received a letter from the agent acting on behalf of the applicant dated 6th September, 2012 and photographs of the existing buildings on the site were submitted by the applicant and

handed out to each Member before the start of the previous meeting (11th September, 2012). Mr. David Jones of Hyder Consulting submitted a letter of objection on behalf of Mr. Vin Stephens. Of the issues raised in the letter the only one that was not covered in my report related to the negative impact of the development on the retail function, vitality and viability of the town. Mr. Andrew Bevan of AB Planning submitted a letter of objection on behalf of Mr. K. Jones. Of the issues raised in the letter, the only ones that were not covered in my report are the fact that it is too late to revise the scheme as it would need to be a comprehensive and fundamental amendment to the proposals requiring a new application; the negative impact of the development on the already fragile retail vitality and viability of the town and given the significant and obvious failure of the proposals to meet local and national planning policy requirements there is no need to delay the determination of the applications. Mr. John Tushingham of Penbryn, Ms. Rule of Merlin House, Mr. Wynne Morrell of Chancefield House, Mr. John Russell of Wern Frank, Mrs. Virginia Brown, Mr. Kenneth Evans of Beiliau Bach, Mr. John Dunne of Tegfan and Ms. Antonia Spowers of Genffordd Isaf Bach all agreed with the Powys County Council Highways Officer’s latest conclusions that the scheme does not satisfy the highway requirements for the development. Mr. Gwynne of 6, Creigiau Cottages reiterated his concerns about the scheme, Mr. Peter Weavers of Romans reiterated his support for the scheme. Mr. Dylan Jones of Lower Pen y Bryn has commented that it is unlikely that the care home will ever be built and “the whole concept is preposterous and if it goes further I look forward to making as much noise as possible in opposition.” Steve Lucocq, Consultant Tree Officer provided the following comments: Overall the tree report provides a good assessment of the trees on or adjacent to the site but some minor discrepancies were noted within the tree survey data, associated plans and report. The recommended tree protection sets out areas to be excluded from any construction work. These identified construction exclusion zones do provide sufficient protection for the trees outside of the defined developable area on this site. I have no objection to the proposed removal of the trees within the defined developable areas on this site but do have concerns regarding some of the trees recommended for removal within the construction exclusion zones. Further to this many of the trees in these areas no longer have tree identification tags so identifying the exact trees to be removed proved, in some cases, difficult. Therefore it is felt that a further assessment of any trees recommended for removal within the construction exclusion zones shall be carried out by an Arboriculturist and the details submitted to and approved in writing by the BBNPA. Further details should include evidence/findings from of any required decay detection, aerial inspection, and clear justification for the removal of the tree. New identification tags should

also be installed where required. With suitable conditions to ensure the recommended tree protection methods are installed/maintained and to address the above concerns regarding tree loss in construction exclusion zones it can be concluded that no major adverse impact on the significant trees on or adjacent to this site would result from the construction of this proposal. Nichola Davies, Policy and Protection Officer at CADW commented that although the proposed development is located in the vicinity of the scheduled ancient monument known as Talgarth Camp and lies within the historic landscape known as Middle Wye Valley, in CADW’s opinion the development would have no significant impact on the scheduled ancient monument and historic landscape and CADW has no concerns. Nick Tyldesley of the District Valuer was not able to provide a full assessment report of the viability of the project but provided initial comments as follows: I would say that on the information to hand 21 affordable units is not viable but 15 affordable units ARE viable. The writing off of land cost will be tricky for the developer but is in accordance with viability protocol, they may wish to put a case on EUV though. Lastly, the offer of 6 affordable units at 60% of Open Market Value is not the best that your authority can achieve and I would recommend that you explore higher provisions (i.e. 15 units+) with the applicant. 2. Late representations received in the interim period since the last PAROW meeting on the 11th September, 212 Rhiannon Wicks, Deputy Director of SAVE Britain’s Heritage, emailed the following comments on the 13th September, 2012: “As you know SAVE is interested in the future of the Mid-Wales Hospital. We understand that the planning committee of the BBNPA met on 11 September and discussed the application affecting the hospital. We were informed that the case officer recommended refusal, but that the planning committee want to go on a site visit before making a decision. Is this correct? Please may we have a copy of the officer’s report for our reference? We would be very grateful to be kept informed about the date of the site visit.” Mr. Owen Hughes (Consultant Psychologist) emailed the following on the 15th September, 2012: “I understand the plan to redevelop the Mid Wales Hospital site was discussed at a recent meeting of the planning committee and some concerns were raised about the viability of the proposal to include the Talgarth Rehabilitation and Enablement Centre as part of the development. I had hoped to be able to attend the meeting myself but unfortunately my clinical commitments prevented me from doing so and so I thought it might be helpful if I wrote with some further information. I can assure you that the proposal is not only viable but also an important step in meeting the unmet needs of people with chronic pain and disability both in Wales and beyond. You may be aware from the documents already submitted that I am currently Head of the Pain

and Fatigue Management Service for Powys Teaching Health Board and a senior lecturer in Pain Management at Cardiff University. In these roles I have been deeply involved in the development of care pathways and government strategy for pain services in Wales and there is a growing need to develop services which do not fit into the standard health service models and which enable people to understand and deal with their conditions in a non-hospital setting. The current driver is helping people to self-manage and this will be the core purpose of the new Centre at Talgarth. Approximately 10% of the population suffers from a chronic pain problem as a result of injury, illness or the insidious effect of poor posture and badly designed workspaces. We will be looking to service a market that encompasses ex-services personnel, personal injury claimants and people who want to take control of their health. We will be focusing on helping people to use their strengths more effectively rather than focus on deficits. The underlying philosophy and therapeutic approach of the Centre has been tried and tested at the unit I run at Bronllys Hospital over the last 20 years and people travel from far and wide to learn about what we do. The approach TREC will be using is all about people. We won't be using expensive and highly technical pieces of machinery to do things to people, we will have expertly trained therapists and assistants who will work alongside the participants in the programmes. Providing this sort of care takes a lot of people, people who will live and work in the local area. As much as possible we will be using resources already present in the surrounding community so that it won't just be the participants that benefit but also the local economy. I hope that this has given you a flavour of what TREC will be and that it is not just a ruse to enhance a planning application. I am passionate about what the potential of the project and if the opportunity arose I would be glad to come and share my enthusiasm with you and the committee. In the meantime, if you have any questions then please do not hesitate to contact me using the details below.” The Case Officer responded on the same day as follows: “I think the main concern that we have is the deliverability of the TREC if there is no clear agreement in place between yourself and Mr. Phil Collins and the fact that the centre could stay at Bronllys or be relocated elsewhere. This does not form one of the five reasons for refusal though and your attendance at the next PAROW meeting (due for the 23rd October, 2012) is not absolutely necessary but you are more than welcome to come along on the day or view proceedings via the webcasting part of the BBNPA website.” Ms. Rule of Merlin House, Church Street has submitted a letter of objection dated 3rd August, 2012 which was received as part of a letter from Mr. Roger Williams MP dated 17th September, 2012. Mr. Williams’ letter confirms that as well as being opposed to the application Ms. Rule is also concerned about the way in which she was notified of its ‘Reconsultation Due to Amendment,’ she was annoyed that she was addressed as the owner/occupier (and that people who receive letters addressed that way may not open the letter thinking it to be “an unwanted circular”) and the letter was sent out during the School Holidays when many local residents may be away. A letter of response was sent to Roger Williams MP by the Chief Executive advising the

following: “Having discussed the re-consultation letter with the Case Officer, Rhodri Davies (Principal Planning Officer (DC)), I can confirm that the letters notifying neighbours of additional details are automatically generated by the planning application system and are not individually produced. Unfortunately, we cannot avoid sending letters out during school holidays and we cannot control how residents deal with letters that are addressed to the Owner/Occupier. In this instance, the letter merely notified neighouring occupiers of additional details received relating to highway access and parking and the landscaping details for the scheme - there were no material changes to the scheme. I can also confirm that Ms. Rule was listed as a contributor in the report to PAROW Committee.” Talgarth Town Council provided the following additional comments on the 24th September, 2012: “The Reconsultation on the above Planning Application was received at our 12th September meeting and our previous comments remain on this application. The Town Council wished me to state that they acknowledge Powys County Council Highways Dept’s concerns.” Mr. Niel Bally emailed the Authority on the 14th and 17th September and the 5th October, 2012. The email dated 14th September, 2012 (to Mr. John Cook) can be summarised as follows: “The chairman gave officers the chance to comment on the public speakers comments which they declined. The Insector's UDP report defined the kind /type of residential uses that would be acceptable under UDP policy SS5 and this ruled out C3 housing except Live/Work units. On the last paragraph of the Officers report it says :- "Section 54A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) and Section 38(6) of the Town and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 require all development control decisions to be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise." The officers report does not exclude C3 residential use on the site and this is seems cl contrary to policy SS5 and the Inspectors report .In addition to this I cant seem to find any place in the officers' report that justifies or reasons with this departure from policy and the development plan. Neither can I see any material considerations cited in the report that has led to or caused this departure. I would be grateful if your staff could please explain these omissions or if I am mistaken could I then directed to where the reasoned explanations are. I am also unclear as to the possible consequences for the Authority and any future planning application made on a site, if members endorse a fundamentally inaccurate report and make a decision upon it either way. I will await your reply and clarifications within the next week before considering this to be a complaint.” Mr. Niel Bally emailed the following additional comments on the 17th September, 2012: “Furth to may last email below . Here is a further file of emails between your authority Cllr William Powell and Colin Jones of Powys building controls. All evidence to show that the slate striping started around Aug /Sept 2009. I am sure I can fish out more.”

The Director of Planning responded to this email with the following letter on the 18th September, 2012: “In response I would refer you to the relevant section of the comments provided by the Head of Strategy, Policy and Heritage as follows: “Neither the UDP, the 1997 Planning Brief nor the later Talgarth Planning Brief, specify the mix of uses. The Authority, through these documents however is concerned to enable development that benefits and is well related to the local area and should provide some level of employment generating uses particularly given the history and importance of the site to Talgarth in this regard. The Authority recognises that an element of housing will be needed to ensure any scheme is viable and likewise that a wholly employment led scheme is unlikely. The UDP Inspector in her report accepted the mixed use allocation on the site "but a significant amount of residential development, unrelated to the primary commercial uses on the site, would be contrary to the strategy and aims of the UDP" (March 2006). To ensure the delivery of the employment generating uses specifically the Rehabilitation and Enablement Centre (TREC), the proposals for the Chapel and the mortuary building, I would want to see the delivery of those elements of the scheme tied, at appropriate stages, to the delivery of the housing via a S106 agreement.” Whilst the Inspector’s report on the Unitary Development Plan “defined the kind /type of residential uses that would be acceptable under UDP policy SS5” this was not specifically translated across to policy SS5 of the approved UDP and a defined mix of uses for this site was not stipulated. Officers therefore accept that any future scheme for the mixed use redevelopment of the site will include a proportion of residential development. The second reason for refusal attached to the Officer’s recommendation relates to the unacceptable scale of the development and its impact on highway safety. Officers consider that this reason is considerably more robust in terms of the LPA’s ability to defend any future refusal of the scheme as submitted at appeal when compared to your suggestion to exclude all residential development from the site. The Inspector also mentioned rented accommodation for people working on the site which is contrary to your assertion that the Inspector’s report “ruled out C3 housing except Live/Work units.” Finally, I consider that the Officer’s report represents a comprehensive assessment of the application and therefore I do not agree with your view that it is “fundamentally inaccurate”. I trust that the above is of assistance.” Mr. Niel Bally emailed the following additional comments at 9:40am on the 21st September, 2012:

“I am sorry you do not see the definitions/explanations of residential types in the Inspector's UDP Report and 1997 Mid Wales Hospital Planing Brief as relevant and how they link and cross over into Policy SS5. And I am also disappointed that you do not see the obvious flaws in the officers report to committee.

For the moment we will have to beg to differ and I will now proceed with this as a formal complaint and seek further advice through counsel.”

Mr. Niel Bally emailed the following additional comments at 3:57pm on the 21st September, 2012:

“In may reply to your letter of the 18th September 2012 (below) I forgot to ask one question. In the first paragraph you quoted from the Head of Strategy's memorandum of the 17th of August and in bold highlighted this "The Authority recognises that an element of housing will be needed to ensure any scheme is viable and likewise that a wholly employment led scheme is unlikely. " Could you please specify which document or minutes this came from, as it obviously appears to be something the Authority had agreed upon and discussed, I have copied the Head of Strategy into this.” The Director of Planning responded on the 5th October, 2012 as follows: “Thank you for your e-mail dated 21st September 2012 and your follow-up of yesterday. Paragraph 7.73 of the Inspector’s Report into the UDP relating to Policy SS5 includes a reference to the fact that the NPA accepted that residential development could be ancillary to the employment uses, and hence acceptable within the terms of the planning brief. Page 3 of the Inspector’s letter dated 14th March 2006 (Introductory Points) also states that the mixed use allocation would not preclude some residential uses. In the period since the Hospital’s closure in 1999/2000 the site has not been redeveloped as an employment site as promoted in the Local Plan 1999. In discussions on the proposal to change the allocation of the site to mixed use in the UDP at the Inquiry, the NPA and the Inspector recognised that the site had not come forward for employment use as envisaged by the Local Plan and that the comprehensive redevelopment of the site would, in all probability, not be viable without a proportion of residential development. The UDP policy (SS5) does not specify the type or proportion of different uses to be considered on the site nor does it specifically exclude residential development. You will note that sites allocated for a specific use, that is, residential or employment, are found under different policies. I trust the foregoing answers your query.” Mr. Niel Bally emailed the following additional comments on the 5th October, 2012: “Thank you for email dated 5/10/12. You referred to 7.73 of the Inspectors Report and her covering letter. I attach and print these below. May I also suggest that you read 5.1. 5.2.1, 7.1, 7.2 , if you have not done so already. This is the full context by which the Inspector considers the site not " suitable for significant residential development" and this clearly seems to be something you have chosen to undermine and challenge. I trust you have sought legal opinion on this as we have done. But I can't help thinking that if you continue to be economical with your references to the facts, then you could be putting members and the authority at serious risk.” The agent for the scheme emailed the following to the Case Officer on the 17th

September,2012: “Following the Committee meeting on Tuesday, we would like to understand the timetable and process now leading up to the reconsideration of the application by the Planning Committee following their site visit. Can you confirm the date and time please when the site visit will take place and then the likely Committee date. Also to assist on the site visit we can afford access to the grounds. Also the applicant has suggested that with appropriate PPE and guidance (our asbestos advisor and the applicant) that we could afford access to a limited number of Councillors and representatives of the Council to the internals of the building. Please note that one of the biggest arguments against approval is that the conservation officer she still thinks there is a case for preserving the buildings. This is almost impossible to judge unless they see inside it for themselves. We will speak to the asbestos surveyors first and plan the visit accordingly. We are aware that there are concerns about protocol here but he would be very keen to show you around at the time of the visit and highlight some of the many points which form part of this complex application and answer any questions which arise. He is perfectly happy for the sake of fairness if one member of the opposition group is present as well. In terms of matters going forward, as previously identified, the issues raised:

a. Highway concerns regarding details of layout can be readily addressed through discussions with Powys CC Highways and if needs be either provision of additional information or minor alterations to the detailed layout. It is unfortunate that PCC’s last response was only communicated to the applicant late in August so that we did not have time to address this matter. Irrespectively, with the above process we are confident that we can substantially address Reason for Refusal 2.

b. Building condition survey. We can supplement this document with further internal photographs and notes to demonstrate the internal condition of the buildings that they are beyond repair and provide evidence on the cost of refurbishing the old ward buildings to a watertight and potentially habitable standard. This would substantially address Reason for Refusal 3.

c. The level of affordable housing provision, it appears that Nick Tyldesly (The District

Valuer) as reported at the Committee considers that our offer is slightly below what the NPA could accept (15 units) but equally he considers that based on the viability information that the Policy requirement (21 units) is not deliverable/justifiable given the viability issues. Accordingly the applicant is willing to consider options for enhancing the affordable housing offer, and this may involve a trade off in reducing the Code Level of the Homes from Level 4 to level 3 whereby the resulting cost saving could be redistributed to provision of additional affordable homes. This was the very reason why in May I was seeking discussions with the NPA, the DV and your affordable housing officer, as S106 contributions require negotiation and are not fixed in isolation by the applicant from any discussions with the LPA. This would substantially address reason for refusal 1.

d. The issue relating to the 31% of floorspace in the live work unit being for work purposes can be readily addressed through provision of revised housetype drawings showing as desired 51% of the floorspace for work purposes – so work live as opposed to live work. This would address Reason for Refusal 4.

e. With regards to Reason for Refusal 5, relating to prematurity, we would like to discuss this matter further with you and colleagues by reference to the explicit and substantial differences between this application and the Cwrt-y-Gollen site.

We therefore intend to action points A-D above directly and provide this information to the NPA in the coming weeks. Also in order to ensure that these points are addressed constructively and as previously we request a meeting with yourself and relevant Officers in the next week to 10 days so that we can discuss a way forward.” The following response was provided on the same day: “As I understand it, the provisional arrangements for the site visit and consideration of the applications are as follows: Tuesday 23rd October, 2012

- 10am - leave Plas y Ffynnon - 10.30am – arrive at MWH site - 11.30am – leave MWH site - 12pm – start PAROW meeting with the two MWH

applications being determined first. I think access to the grounds should suffice. We cannot split the membership up by just taking some of them into the buildings –it’s all or nothing really. The site visit will not be an opportunity to promote the proposals but Members may wish to ask questions, probably of a technical nature. In terms of matters going forward (using your lettering) I can comments as follows:

a. Highway concerns – the changes that are required to produce an acceptable scheme in highway terms go beyond the “provision of additional information or minor alterations to the detailed layout.” This is supported by the Highway Officer’s statement that “The preliminary highway dimensions drawing is so far removed from what this Authority would consider an adoptable layout that it is difficult to envisage basic common ground upon which to begin discussions.” Therefore, the substantial changes will necessitate a new application.

b. Justification for Demolition – as stated in my report, insufficient information has been provided to justify the demolition of the majority of the buildings. A full structural survey (or as much of one that can be completed) is required. Therefore, it is not a case of supplementing the existing Building Condition Survey. Accurate/factual evidence of the cost of refurbishing the old ward buildings to a suitable standard for re-use would be useful in our consideration of the proposals but this element should be based on a

structural survey of the buildings.

c. Affordable Housing provision – we have not received Nick Tyldesley’s final report yet but it would appear that he is of the opinion, based on the information currently before him, that 15+ affordable units would be more viable than 21 units on this site. This will need to be confirmed before the next meeting. However, the stated offer of “up to” 6 No. affordable units at 60% open market value does not even partially satisfy our policies and you were advised of this at pre-application meetings. The 15 plus affordable dwellings would need to be clearly indicated on the plans and the dwellings would need to be designed to WG DQR standards for transfer to an RSL. This is likely to have a substantial knock on effect on the layout of the scheme (in addition to the highway requirements) and it is considered that an amended layout will be required together with an amended Statement of Intent.

d. Live Work Units - as well as the fundamental changes to the layout of the scheme it is considered that the internal layout of the proposed live work units should be changed. This issue was raised at pre-application meetings and the scheme has been considered on the basis of the submitted plans. You should also have considered an increased proportion of live work units as part of the mixed use designation of the site.

e. Prejudicial Impact on the Local Development Plan – whilst there may be some scope to contemplate the differences and similarities between the two schemes Officers are of the opinion that the MWH proposals are not consistent with the preferred strategy and environmental capacity approach of the LDP.

I will liaise with colleagues regarding your request for a meeting. However, it is likely that we will not be able to discuss the application with yourselves as the recommendation has been made and Members have only deferred consideration of the proposals as submitted until after a site visit.” The agent sent a further email on the 21st September, 2012 as follows: “Thanks for this we note the date and arrangements for the Committee. We have also been reflecting on the points identified in your response. This is somewhat of a lengthy email therefore, first, please can you confirm whether BBNP will be prepared to meet with the applicant? Turning to the matters in your response: Highways In terms of Powys County Council Highways (PPCH), our highway consultants WSP have previously and are again reviewing the layout in light of PPCH’s concerns. WSPs view and work to date including tracking analysis for fire, refuse vehicles and for large cars (using industry standard tracking data) shows that the layout is safe and efficient throughout the site for pedestrians and vehicles. WSP helped create Manual for Streets (MfS), and these proposals reflect MfS. If changes are required to the layout, then WSP anticipate that these will be minor in nature and would therefore not constitute the need for a fresh application by the General Development Procedure Order (GDPO). Also until we see what specific issues PCCH have with the layout i.e. what specific points of the layout are unacceptable and upon what design parameters we only have a blanket generic statement from PPCH to work with. Furthermore the specific layout and approach was discussed in pre-application meetings and at that stage we

were assured by Officers of BBNP that should tensions arise between a MfS approach and that desired by PPCH that BBNP would assist in negotiating and resolving any such difficulties. Unfortunately for whatever reason, BBNP have refused despite requests since April to meet with the applicant to discuss this or any other matter. Building Condition Survey With regards to the justification for the demolition of the buildings, we are being asked to prepare a Structural Survey. However the scope and approach for the Building Condition Survey was set out and we thought agreed at pre-application stage. Setting that matter aside, can you please define clearly and precisely what BBNP expect and require in a “Structural Survey” as the nature of such reports varies considerable, has no fixed definition and is open to interpretation. Failing that, can you refer us to any specific examples that the Authority have previously received. Affordable Housing Provision and S106 It is highly unfortunate that we have not received the DV’s report as he was instructed I recall back in June. However it is evident BBNP have received some information given that a summary was provided to Committee – please can you provide that information. Also from the summary provided to the Committee it is evident that the provision of 21 affordable homes on the basis of existing policy requirements is accepted as being unviable by the DV and therefore the DV has suggested that 15 affordable homes should be a target provision for negotiation. This is below the policy requirements of BBNP but is justifiable on viability grounds, as a relevant material consideration. Turning to the offer of 6 affordable homes by the applicant, this was and is quite clearly an initial offer subject to discuss on the viability appraisal. We stated this from the start and have repeatedly sought (since April 2012) to discuss in the round the S106 with BBNP based on the impartial and independent review by the District Valuer. This is the only way in which open book viability appraisals as was entered into by the applicant can be progressed. However this issue can and is capable of being addressed. In terms of affordable housing, we can readily amend the offer, by for example trading off other project elements which are a cost in order to enhance the S106 offer. This has always been the case as the applicant has always indicated their desire for discussion and negotiation on the S106 package. For example, we could reduce the Code Level of the Homes from Level 4 to Level 3. This would deliver a potentially significant cost saving that could then be redistributed to enhance S106 contributions to deliver more homes and of potentially different tenures or other S106 objectives. Before we this can be undertaken and hence the requests since April, we need to understand the competing priorities and also the justification for any S106s sought by BBNP and Powys County Council against the Circular and CIL Regulations. For example on affordable housing, would BBNP prefer to increase the percentage and nature of affordable housing across the site, and what balance of social rented to Low Cost Home Ownership would be the primary objective – more homes as a percentage or a specific tenure type? Alternatively, would BBNP wish to maximise the percentage of affordable homes by considering different levels of social rented or increasing for example the number of Low Cost Home Ownership or improve the Acceptable Cost Guidance and the market value for LCHO? There are obviously different variables we can consider and adjust and as previously identified we are keen to work with you to establish what is best for this area of the National Park and achievable for this site. Essentially the higher the income that can be generated through %ACG’s, % Market Value or greater Low Cost Home Ownership to social rented then the greater the number of units that can be provided on the site. We have used the initial

figures offered by Wales and West who we contacted at pre-application stage. Also as previously indicated on other S106 issues, we have said that we can discuss:

• Delivery and phasing mechanisms for the S106, regarding the timing of housing development and delivery of key elements of the development e.g. the converted Chapel, Live Work Units, Landscaping, Public Open Space and the TREC building. In relation to the TREC building we have sought to discuss this further with BBNP but the failure to engage with the applicant has precluded this as well;

• Review and uplift mechanisms (e.g. contingent deferred obligations) to cover the lifetime of the build of the development, again relevant in the context of the affordable housing offer and other elements of the S106 package; and

• Other elements of the S106 package regarding Education, Public Transport/Footpath improvements.

We have always wanted to work with BBNP to achieve a mix of affordable housing and other elements of the S106 package on the site. We therefore seek your engagement and a meeting as soon as possible to discuss and agree a way forward. In the course of all applications in all other authorities we have open and constructive dialogue and negotiations on S106 requirements. In terms of the scale of potential changes, whilst different house types in order to provide more affordable homes on the site may be required, this can occur through plot substitution i.e. no or limited changes to the layout. Accordingly a fresh application would not be required by the GDPO. Live Work Units We have identified our willingness to adjust the live work units to provide 51% floorspace for work purposes. This does not affect materially the application such that it would require a fresh application.

Request for Meeting with Officers Whilst Members have deferred for a site meeting, the applicaiton is still lodged with BBNP and issues have been identified in the Committee Report which the applicant is able to seek to address. It is within this context that we request a meeting. Accordingly please can you confirm if BBNP will meet with the applicant. Finally an application for planning permission and the required S106 is not fixed and arrived at submission, it is reached through dialogue, negotiation and engagement between the applicant and the LPA. This is the normal procedure we fully experience with all other authorities in the UK. We therefore remain willing to meet with Officers to discuss the application.” Consequently, the Case Officer emailed the following response on the 28th September, 2012: “With regard to your request for a meeting I can confirm that, as per my initial view, as we are at a stage between committee meetings where the application has been deferred by Members for a site visit only, it would not be possible to arrange a meeting in this period. As an alternative you can submit written material which we could report as a late item to the next PAROW meeting on the 23rd October, 2012 (as is the case with anything else that comes

in to us during this period). However, if you are proposing to withdraw the current application with a view to recommencing negotiations outside of the application process then we could arrange a pre-application meeting with yourselves and Officers of the LPA (as well as potentially Officers of Powys CC) once you have formally withdrawn the current application. Highways I would recommend that you contact the Powys CC Highways Officer to discuss any amendments to the access and layout of the site. However, judging by the last set of comments received from Highways, I do not agree with your view that the necessary amendments to the scheme will be “minor in nature and would therefore not constitute the need for a fresh application”. I can only repeat that “the changes that are required to produce an acceptable scheme in highway terms go beyond the “provision of additional information or minor alterations to the detailed layout” and the Highways Officer advises that “The preliminary highway dimensions drawing is so far removed from what this Authority would consider an adoptable layout that it is difficult to envisage basic common ground upon which to begin discussions.” Building Survey Advice received from our Building Conservation Officer on the 3rd July, 2012 is as follows: “Although the designs of individual buildings proposed have some merit it is the layout and lack of cogent justification for wholesale demolition that lets this applications down. Although it is recognised that the buildings are difficult to assess at the present time the condition survey shows that there is a problem with dry rot within the building. However with the amount of ventilation there is in the building this may be of a localised nature. The stone walls show no signs of movement which one would expect if the timber floors and roof structure had lost their structural integrity due to dry or wet rot. There is no attempt to cost the works required to bring the building back into a good state of repair and to convert it into a suitable new use. The cost of demolition will be significant as well as the removal of the debris from site. This should be factored in when considering the cost of redevelopment. I had expected that the design and access statement would at least give some indication of the process regarding deciding to demolish and not retain the buildings. This argument must be clearly made to justify the wholesale clearance of the site.” Our validation requirements at the time of the submission of this application included the following advice on structural surveys: Structural Survey Required when the structural integrity of a building is in question, including Listed Buildings and demolition of buildings in Conservation Areas.

A Structural Survey may be required in support of an application if the proposal involves demolition, or the structural integrity of the building is in doubt (e.g. barn conversion applications). Such surveys must be carried out by a qualified building surveyor or other suitably qualified person. For barn or other conversions, the survey will need to indicate the structural soundness of the building and the extent of rebuilding, remedial works and alterations which would be necessary in order to carry out the proposed works. In the case of demolition and major alterations the survey will need to identify defects and indicate the extent of rebuilding, remedial works and alterations necessary in order to restore the building. Rosie is off on long term sick leave and is therefore not available to comment further on the requirements of a structural survey. Your building condition survey report states that a “general visual survey” was carried out and the report “constitutes a visual assessment of accessible parts of the exterior of the buildings.” It also states that the survey was “of a general nature” and “would not be suitable to formulate a detailed programme of repairs.” However, your Design and Access Statement suggests that “the Building Condition Surveys confirmed that the majority of the existing hospital buildings as not viable for retention or renovation” and “a Building Conditions Survey of the derelict buildings has confirmed that the majority of these buildings are no longer structurally or financially viable for retention.” It is considered that the condition survey does not provide enough information to support your position that the buildings are no longer structurally or financially viable for retention so I would recommend that the structural survey should at least cover these issues. This will obviously not be possible in the period before the next PAROW meeting on the 23rd October, 2012. Affordable Housing Provision and S106 I will forward you the DV’s emailed interim advice in the absence of the final draft report for consideration. Turning to the offer of 6 affordable homes by the applicant, this was the offer submitted as part of the statement of intent and we can only deal with specifics. You were repeatedly advised of the minimum requirements for affordable housing at the pre-application stage and if anything you should have provided an initial offer of at least the minimum requirement of 20% affordable housing for social rented or shared equity housing. You will appreciate that it is not our problem that the DV’s assessment hasn’t been completed to date and we have to assess proposals against development plan policies. Live Work Units The live work units as submitted are fundamentally at odds with our policy and the advice you received on this issue at pre-application stage. It is simply not enough to now offer to amend the live work units to provide 51% floorspace for work purposes as this is the minimum requirement and, together with an increased provision of live/work units, this should have been a feature of the proposals from the outset.

In summary, I am still of the opinion that the scheme cannot be amended sufficiently within the short period available until the next meeting and without the scheme being comprehensively redesigned. The extent of the amendments that are required will trigger a new application.” The applicant emailed the following comments in support of the application on the 2nd October, 2012: “Thank you for the enclosed copy correspondence which at least shows that Nick is finally working on this important part of the project. Sadly though it gives us no detail whatsoever of how he has qualified our very complex assessment of this difficult development. We have asked and asked for a meeting with yourself and Nick Tyldesley (since April 2012) to discuss the many sections of this viability appraisal yet still no offer. You are using the lack of affordable homes as one of the reasons for recommending refusal and we accept that our offer is well short of policy, but the exceptional costs associated with this site means that it is simply unviable if we are forced to give what you are asking for coupled with the obligations which were mentioned in your report but never agreed by us. Nick has suggested that we may be able to afford 15 units yet there is no back up for that claim. It simply appears to be an optimistic suggestion. When we first explained that the site will not provide anything like an acceptable return to reflect the risks ahead your Authority explained that you would not accept that without proper back-up, which we accepted was reasonable. We employed Cooke and Arkwright to assemble the document and put an extraordinary amount of work into providing figures such as quotes for infrastructure, asbestos removal, deconstruction, recycling of materials, building Code 4 homes, drainage systems, roads and pavements, refurbishment of the Admin block, the Chapel, converting the Morgue to offices, creation of a Pain & Fatigue Management Centre, the security costs, the re-use of on-site materials, the creation of recreation space, contributions to sports facilities, etc. Our VA showed that even if we only give what we offer the profitability is only just over 12% yet industry standard is 20%. Unless we can show a reasonable margin it is unlikely we can get sufficient funds so you must realise these are not just negotiating tactics. To have such a summary response after all this time with no justification for the claim yet suggesting we may wish to consider writing off the cost of the land? - The writing off of land cost will be tricky for the developer but is in accordance with viability protocol. To suggest that the purchase price should be written off is just staggering and shows considerable commercial naivety. Conducting discussions, without us or our representatives in the room, and providing such summary responses via email is just unacceptable and unhelpful. With regards to the site value, the site was marketed for several years following the previous owners going into receivership, the bidding process was protracted because it was being done on behalf of several financial institutions. The value of the site has therefore been assessed on the open market with a willing vendor and willing purchaser which has set the benchmark value for the site. To now pretend we were given it is just extraordinary. We have estimated that we would have to spend well over £3m before we would have our first house for sale. The viability issues are very challenging and unless we can get a planning approval in the near future, the cost of untangling the structure means it is becoming less viable by the day. I visited the site yesterday and there are quite a lot of ceilings which have now

collapsed – just as we predicted in the building condition survey last year. I beg you, in some way, to open up a dialogue with us if you have any interest in trying to resolve this difficult site, either by telephone or preferably, of course, in a proper meeting.” The Case Officer responded on the same day as follows: “I would refer you to our Obligation Strategy (see attached) which clearly states the following:

“3.1.3 For Category 2 applications in the case of all applications for development of 3 or more residential units or 500sq m commercial floor space applicants will be required to submit a Statement in support of their planning application. This statement must detail their intent to contribute towards community infrastructure. This Statement should clearly state that the applicant has read and understood the requirements of this Strategy as relating to the type and scale of the proposed development. This Statement of Intent should be prepared in accordance with the requirements of the National Park Authority as set out in this Strategy and should clearly list the service areas that contributions will be obligated to as well as the levels of contributions to be provided.

3.1.4 Applicants should contact the relevant Unitary Authority prior to the submission of the application to ascertain the extent of any required contributions and use this information to help produce their Statement of Intent (contact details are provided in the relevant chapters for each UA see also map 1). 3.1.6 Applications for 3 or more new dwellings or 500m2 commercial floor space must be accompanied by a planning obligation statement of intent. Failure to do so will render the application invalid and it will be returned without consideration.”

You will recall that we did not register the initial submission of the scheme as valid for precisely this reason (App. No. 12/07677/FUL refers). With regard to the DV’s report I have advised Nick that the deadline for my report is 5th October, 2012 (this Friday). However there is scope to add details up until the 12th October, 2012 but anything received after that will be verbally reported to Members. I would rather include a summary of his draft assessment report within the committee report itself if possible. I appreciate that you and I will need to consider the draft viability assessment from the DV and possibly provide further information before a final report is released. As explained in my emails to Ben, the application was referred to PAROW on the 11th September, 2012 and was only deferred for a site visit on the morning of the next Planning Committee date (23rd October, 2012). As we are at a stage between committee meetings it would not be appropriate to arrange a meeting in this period. We are highlighting the lack of affordable homes as one of the five reasons for refusal as the proposed provision is not in line with our policies both in terms of number (not the minimum of 20%) and tenure (they should be neutral tenure through an RSL not 60% of open market value). I acknowledge that you accept that the offer is “well short of policy.” Additionally, the BBNPA do not set the level of the Planning Obligations - you needed to agree the obligations with the relevant Unitary Authorities to comply with the Planning Obligation

Strategy. In fact, a lot of the obligations are ones that have been suggested by yourselves. For example, whilst we would encourage a Code for Sustainable Homes Level 4 development the minimum standard is Code Level 3 and I would suggest that the provision of affordable housing is more important than achieving code level 4. I accept that there are abnormal costs associated with the asbestos removal but this should have been factored into the purchase value of the site. Drainage systems, the creation of recreation space, roads and pavements are standard elements of any scheme of this type and the inclusion of commercial uses to satisfy the mixed use designation of this site cannot be considered to be an impediment to the profit of the scheme as it would be contrary to policy if the scheme did not include them. As it stands, there is no firm evidence to support the view that 15-20% affordable housing provision cannot be achieved on this site. I cannot comment on the issue of writing off of land cost. I do not consider that the initial summary responses are unacceptable or unhelpful. With regard to the deterioration of the buildings it is regrettable that relatively simple steps have not been taken to weatherproof the buildings. As suggested to Ben, we could arrange a pre-application meeting with yourselves and Officers of the LPA (as well as Officers of Powys CC) once the current application has been formally withdrawn as it would not be appropriate to discuss the current proposals at this stage of the application process.” Any additional comments (particularly an executive summary of the expected Draft Development Viability Assessment of the scheme by Nick Tyldesley, Principal Development Surveyor at the DVS) received between the agenda deadline and the morning of the PAROW Committee on the 23rd October, 2012 will be verbally reported to Members.

CONSULTATIONS/COMMENTS

Consultee Received Comments Powys County Council Executive Cabinet

The Cabinet considered a report on the potential impact on Council services of a large scale development proposal at the site of the former Mid Wales Hospital in Talgarth. The Cabinet was agreed on the need for a co-ordinated response and a constructive dialogue with the Brecon Beacons National Park Authority. Management Team would discuss the issue to ensure that there was a co-ordinated response from services.

The Board resolved that the Leader responds on

behalf of the Council as follows:

Taking all matters into account, the Council is concerned that with the significant residential element proposed, the scheme is out of balance with the stated aims of BBNPA policy, which seeks to maximise and promote the economic reuse of the site for the benefit of Talgarth and wider area.

The concerns that exist in terms of the scale of residential reuse of the site, when taken together with concerns that exist in terms of accessibility, have resulted in the Council wishing to raise an objection to the planning application on the grounds that the proposed development does not represent a sustainable form of development that would benefit the social, environmental and economic wellbeing of Powys’ residents.

In the event, however, that the BBNPA are minded to approve the application, Powys County Council requests that all developer contributions associated with County Council service areas are supported through a ‘Section 106’ planning agreement

Brecon Beacons Park Society

25th May 2012 I am writing on behalf of the Brecon Beacons Park Society to object to the planning application cited above. We feel that the proposed development does not accord with the purposes of the National Park and is contrary to the aims of the Unitary Development Plan and Local Development Plan and the status of the site as part of the Talgarth Conservation area. I. The proposal is contrary to UDP Policy SS1 Housing Land in First Tier Settlements and Policy SS5 Allocation of Previously Developed Land for Mixed Use. In this plan the Mid Wales Hospital Site T8 is allocated for Mixed Use/Commercial (Table 7.6 page 131). Reference is made to Supplementary Planning Guidance, a Development Brief adopted in 1997 (Appendix 7A). This Development Brief rejects residential use except that which is ancillary to other uses. The brief states that conversion of the buildings to housing would be out of scale with the local housing requirements (Paragraph 6.5). In Paragraph 5.3 it states “It is of paramount importance to Talgarth and the local economy that the site of the former Mid Wales Hospital continues to provide employment for local people.” While much has

changed in the years since this brief was adopted (particularly the deterioration of the buildings on the site) it remains true that Talgarth needs more employment not more houses. The development proposal for 104 new dwellings will add to the need for jobs and lead to the ‘unsustainable need for people to travel further afield for work’ (Paragraph 5.3.ii)). As public transport is inadequate this will mean an increase in car use. This proposal includes plans for a care home which would provide some jobs but it is scheduled for development late in the time scale of the scheme (phases 3 – 5) and leaves open the possibility that it might never materialise. 2. The proposed development does not accord with the spatial strategy of the deposit LDP. In the LDP the Mid Wales Hospital site is outside the settlement boundary for Talgarth in open countryside and the land is not allocated for development. Although the LDP has yet to be approved by the Inspector we would suggest that weight can be given to it in judging planning applications following the precedent of the Cwrt y Gollen enquiry. In his report on the Cwrt Y Gollen enquiry (dated 19.07.2011) the Inspector, Mr Alwyn B Nixon, gives considerable weight to the LDP (paragraphs 20 to 23, 241-246 and the conclusion, paragraph 280). He states in paragraph 243 “Notwithstanding that the independent examination of the emerging LDP has not yet occurred, I consider that the clear shift to a more proportionate and sustainable approach to the provision of new housing within the settlements of the locality, based on their respective sizes, characteristics and the services and the facilities that they contain, is a significant material consideration in this case. Moreover, the very different approach now being taken by the emerging LDP reduces the weight that should be placed on the provisions of the NPA-approved UDP in this respect.” The Mid Wales Hospital site is some 900 metres from Talgarth. To site a large scale housing development here in the open countryside would not be sustainable. The road access to Talgarth is narrow, lacking a complete footpath, steep and hazardous for those on foot or bicycle. It is disingenuous to suggest that the majority of the residents (especially the elderly and the young) would access the services of Talgarth by foot or bicycle. This development would be bound to produce a large increase in motor traffic

and besides making the access roads more hazardous would also adversely affect the centre of Talgarth into which both roads lead. 3. The proposed development is contrary to UDP policy G3vii). The proposed development is not compatible with the NP road hierarchy and is not likely to be within the capacity of the existing approach roads (see above). The preservation of the existing character of the road links to the hospital (as a country lane) was a stated objective of the National Park. 4. The proposed development adversely affects the Talgarth Conservation area and is contrary to UDP Policies Q17 and 18, the policies relating to Conservation areas in the deposited LDP and the guidance given in PPW Chapter 6.5.16 – 6.5.23. These policies suggest that new buildings in Conservation Areas should only be permitted where they preserve or enhance the character of the area and that demolition should only be permitted where there is the strongest justification. The developer proposes to demolish the majority of the important buildings on the site. The proposed new buildings would not enhance the buildings to be retained. For instance those proposed to be closest to the Administration building would not give it sufficient prominence and would tend to diminish it, being mainly of three stories. The lay out of the buildings does not reflect the distinctive layout of the original Hospital site. The applicant stresses that the new houses are designed to reflect the local vernacular but has chosen to relate them to houses in Talgarth and not to the historic buildings on the site. 5. The proposal is contrary to UDP Policy G3 i), ii) and iii). A development of a 103 dwellings in open countryside well outside the nearest settlement will detract from the special qualities, natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage of the National Park. The scale and density of this development is not appropriate for this site and does not respect the cultural heritage of the “handsome buildings and their setting in an attractive landscape” (Talgarth Development Brief 2008, 10.8). For the above reasons we consider that the application should be refused. We consider that the

site is only suitable for mixed use/commercial use as originally planned and trust that a more suitable development can be encouraged that better values the historic buildings. P.S. We note that the developer makes great play of the dangers posed by asbestos on the site if the buildings are left to deteriorate further. Since there has not been a proper structural survey one is unable to determine the truth of this suggestion and it leaves the possibility that the suggestion is scaremongering to encourage people to accept the current proposal. We suggest that a proper structural survey by a reputable firm should be insisted on.

CADW Ancient Monuments

16th July 2012 Judith Alfrey, Cadw's Head of Regeneration and Conservation has commented as follows: The buildings at the former Mid-Wales Hospital have been assessed on two occasions, but were felt to fall short of the high standard necessary for listing. They were assessed as part of a thematic survey of NHS hospital buildings which was undertaken to provide certainty about the listability of buildings on the NHS estate, and again when the community of Talgarth was surveyed. As part of the thematic exercise, some 230 structures on 35 sites were assessed for listing, and 42 structures on 11 sites met the listing criteria and were listed. These sites now set the bench-mark for listing. Amongst the mental hospitals which have been listed, the earliest and most architecturally distinguished is the North Wales County Asylum at Denbigh (1846-8 by Thomas Fulljames), which is listed at grade II* in recognition of its importance as a pioneering example of early Victorian asylum architecture. Also, from first generation of asylum buildings, Penyfai Hospital Abergavenny is listed grade II as one of the best C19 hospital buildings in Wales. The surviving original sections of 1851 are also by Fulljames, though with some remodelling by Giles, Gough and Trollope in the 1880’s. By the early twentieth century, new thinking on hospital planning is best reflected in Wales at Whitchurch hospital which is a close contemporary of the Mid Wales hospital, being built between 1902-1908. Like the Mid Wales hospital, Whitchurch uses the principle of echelon planning. It is considered to be the best example in Wales using this plan form, and

is of exceptional architectural quality and character. When built, it was amongst the most modern of its period, offering provision for the latest treatment methods, and including facilities such as a large recreation hall. Listing requires selectivity, particularly for buildings after about 1840, where it is necessary to identify the best example of particular building types, selecting only buildings of definite quality and character. For twentieth century buildings, key examples are identified. As far as hospitals are concerned, Whitchurch Hospital has been selected as defining the standard for early twentieth century buildings. Although the Mid Wales hospital does not meet the exacting standard required for listing, this should not be taken as meaning that it is of no value or interest, and its inclusion within the Talgarth Conservation Area would seem to be an acknowledgement of its local importance. Although when compared with Whitchurch Hospital, the buildings at Talgarth are stylistically conservative, they constitute a near-complete group in a harmonious style with good quality detailing (particularly in the use of materials), and a coherent plan: retention of its original echelon plan-form is probably the principal historic interest of this complex of buildings and although we have judged Whitchurch to be the key exemplar of this significant plan type, the buildings at Talgarth represent a good demonstration of similar principles. The relatively complete survival of the complex at Talgarth also enabling the buildings to demonstrate approaches to mental health care in the early twentieth century.

Campaign For Protection Of Rural Wales

No comments have been received to date.

Clwyd Powys Archaeological Trust

26th Apr 2012 Information held within the Regional Historic Environment Record indicates that the proposed development will result in the demolition of some original buildings incorporated within the 1903 layout of the former Mid Wales Counties Mental Hospital. While these buildings are not listed and have a relatively low archaeological value they do represent early attempts to care for and rehabilitate mental patients in Mid Wales and are part of the local and regional social history of health and

welfare. We are pleased to see that some of the key buildings, including the Admin Building, Chapel and Mortuary, will be retained and sympathetically re-used within the new development layout. The remainder of the wards and ancillary buildings which made up the early layout will be permanently lost during re-development and a record of these buildings, their function, layout and change of use should be made prior to demolition. We would therefore recommend that an English Heritage Level 2 record should be made of the buildings which will be demolished and this should include a detailed photographic survey and written descriptive record along with annotated plans utilizing existing architect’s drawings. I have attached a suitable condition will allow this work to take place.

Council For National Parks

No comments have been received to date.

Countryside Council For Wales

20th Jun 2012 EUROPEAN PROTECTED SPECIES - BATS BRECON BEACONS NATIONAL PARK (BBNP) LANDSCAPE PWLL-Y-WRACH SITE OF SPECIAL SCIENTIFIC INTEREST (SSSI) The Countryside Council for Wales (CCW) objects to application 12/07922/FUL as

(i) It will be detrimental to the character and visual amenity of this part of the National Park;

(ii) It will exacerbate the current difficulties for site management at the Pwll-y-Wrach Nature Reserve;

(iii) There is no justified need for large scale housing development in the open countryside; and

(iv) The proposal is contrary to the principles of sustainable development, and national and local planning policies.

The Countryside Council for Wales objects to application 12/07795/FUL, pending the provision of information on the matters detailed below.

BATS We welcome the submission of “Former Talgarth Hospital, Talgarth, Powys, Ecology Survey & Assessment Including Bats & Other Protected Species” by Ecology Services, dated January 2012. We also welcome the site visit on 22nd May 2012, which provided an opportunity to discuss these applications in more detail. We note from the report that the building on the site provides roosts for a colony of lesser horseshoe bats (exceeding 100 animals), brown long-eared bats, common and soprano pipistrelles, whiskered bats and possible Natterer’s bats. The proposals include a replacement bat roost (application 12/07795/FUL) that could, subject to development of further detail, safeguard in the long term the important lesser horseshoe bat population using the site. Discussions at the site meeting regarding the European Protected Species issues were constructive and the indication is that a satisfactory outcome for the bat species can be achieved. However, a number of matters were identified that require further attention. Hence at this points we register a holding objection seeking the further information outlined below:

• The provision of a precise definition of the point at which the new bat house will be deemed to have been adopted successfully by the lesser horseshoe bat colony.

• Refinement of the phasing of works plans, in particular that part relating to the deconstruction of the underground ducting.

• Technical amendments to the design detail of the bat house. These involve the locations and sizes of bat access points internally and externally to take account of advice provided by CCW to the ecological consultant.

• The provision of a management and maintenance plan for the bat house and the immediate surroundings.

• The provision of a Section 106 agreement, which should address the following:

- Details of the financial measures to secure ongoing maintenance, management and monitoring provisions.

- Details of maintenance, management and monitoring of ecological areas to cover a minimum period of 25 years.

We understand that work to furnish the above detail is underway. We look forward to receiving this in due course and will reconsider our position on application 12/07795/FUL when we are in receipt of these details. Legislation and Policy As you are aware, all species of bats are European Protected Species, protected by The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010. Where a European Protected Species is present, and a development proposal is likely to contravene the protection afforded to it, development may only proceed under a licence issued by the Welsh Government (WG), having satisfied three requirements set out in the legislation. One of these requires that the development authorised will ‘not be detrimental to the maintenance of the population of the species concerned at a favourable conservation status (FCS) in their natural range.’ These requirements are translated into planning policy through Planning Policy Wales (PPW) February 2011, sections 5.5.11 and 5.5.12, and Technical Advice Note (TAN) 5, Nature Conservation and Planning September 2009. The planning authority should take them into account when considering development proposals where a European Protected Species is present. CCW advice on the application On the basis of the information available to date we are not able to determine if the proposal will avoid detriment to the maintenance of the favourable conservation status of the bats. We have indicated above the further details sought.

CCW is extremely concerned about the implications of the rapid deterioration of the buildings since the hospital’s closure in 2000. In particular the removal of most of the roofing slates has rendered most of the roof spaces unsuitable for bats. Conditions within the lesser horseshoe bat maternity roost are unfavourable, and numbers have declined in recent years. This lesser horseshoe bat colony occupies a geographical locality that links the Usk and Wye valley populations. This adds significantly to the importance of maintaining a strong population in this locality. Currently the ongoing dilapidation of the existing buildings threatens both the use of the site as a maternity roost and the size of the population. This species has roosting requirements that are difficult to replace and a purpose built bat roost at the site would be the best option to safeguard the population if the necessary parts of the buildings are beyond repair. Overall this proposal represents a significant improvement in the bat roosting provisions for all species of bat that previously roosted on the site. However, most importantly it could provide a secure future for the lesser horseshoe bat colony. LANDSCAPE AND NATIONAL PARK PURPOSES This is a major development in the National Park and the application needs to be considered in the context of its implications for the character and quality of the BBNP landscape, public visual amenity, and National Park purposes. The applicant has identified an appropriate range of representative viewpoints for consideration within its LVIA. The key public viewpoints for consideration of impacts on the character and visual amenity appear to be within the arc from north-east to south-east to a radius of about 1.5km. The views are partial from all viewpoints here, given that the trees on site screen and obscure parts of the current buildings. The site benefits from a good degree of screening due to the existing mature trees on site. The landscaping and retention of these trees is clearly a key part of any proposal for this site. The proposed buildings appear to be of similar height to

the existing structures and therefore mature trees are essential for screening purposes. Due to the elevated nature of several Public Right of Way viewpoints (viewpoints 8 & 7) within the N-E to S-E arc, it will not be possible to fully screen views, and the scale, lay-out, character and fit of the development is also critical to impact on to the BBNP landscape and the public visual amenity it affords. The existing buildings had ‘matured’ into the landscape, the recessive stone and slate finishes and large institutional scale buildings being obvious within the LVIA’s identified views, but relatively benign to the character of the area. Whilst we welcome the intention to use recessive finishes, the scale, design and lay-out of the development will ‘read’ as a ‘modern’ village sized residential / ‘campus facility’ and will be an adverse element within views, detrimental to the character and visual amenity of this part of the National Park. Following the unfortunate removal of the slates from most of the existing buildings and subsequent rapid dilapidations, re-use of the existing buildings seems unlikely. Whether or not the buildings are beyond repair is key consideration to the future use of this site. If they are not then demolition, re-use of materials and “greening-up” of the site may be a preferable option. PWLL-Y-WRACH SSSI/ NATURE RESERVE A large part of this woodland SSSI is a Brecknock Wildlife Trust nature reserve and provides an important local and public visitor amenity. The current popularity of the site has lead to difficulties in sustaining the degree of resource the Brecknock Wildlife Trust need to keep the footpath system in repair as a key measure in avoiding unacceptable impact to the nature conservation interests. The need to resolve these difficulties is logged as an action on CCW’s Sites Actions Database. A large residential development at the hospital site will exacerbate the current difficulties for site management at the Pwll-y-Wrach Nature Reserve. If the authority is minded to grant permission, a Section 106 agreement should be agreed to address an appropriate contribution to the management costs of the site and its path network.

DEPARTURE FROM THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN The adopted development plan does not include an allocation for housing at this site. The development strategy within the emerging Local Development Plan has provided for housing need at allocations within the Talgarth settlement boundary. Having considered the Mid-Wales Hospital site (CS111) within the LDP process it has not been allocated within the Deposit plan or the Focussed Changes to the Plan. Therefore, although we acknowledge that the residential care facilities component of the proposal would be likely to fall within the existing use class for the site if considered as a separate application, as presented, we consider the application for the proposed development constitutes major development in the open countryside and is contrary to National Park purposes and the adopted Development Plan for the National Park, and the emerging LDP. There is no established need for housing at this site and the proposal raises a number of sustainability issues in addition to those set out above, including likely large travel to work distances with poor public transport links. Further, given the distance of the site from Talgarth and day to day retail facilities and general services, there will be a reliance on the car to access such services. As Planning Policy Wales seeks to promote sustainable patterns of development and minimise the need to travel and increase accessibility by modes other than the private car, in an attempt to minimise and address the causes and consequences of climate change, and to have respect for environmental limits through sustainable resource use, the proposal is clearly contrary to national planning policy. CONCLUSIONS Despite our significant concerns about the future ability to safeguard the lesser horseshoe bat colony, for the reasons set out above we do not consider there is justification for a development of this scale and nature at this location. We therefore recommend that application 12/07922 is refused. In summary:

The Countryside Council for Wales objects to application 12/07922/FUL as

(i) It will be detrimental to the character and visual amenity of this part of the National Park;

(ii) It will exacerbate the current difficulties for site management at the Pwll-y-Wrach Nature Reserve;

(iii) There is no justified need for large scale housing development in the open countryside; and

(iv) The proposal is contrary to the principles of sustainable development, and national and local planning policies.

The CCW also objects to application 12/07795/FUL, pending the provision of information on the matters detailed above. Please note that we have not considered possible effects on all species and habitats listed in section 42 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act 2006, or on the Local Biodiversity Action Plan or other local natural heritage interests. To comply with your authority's duty under section 40 of the NERC Act, to have regard to conserving biodiversity, your decision should take account of possible adverse effects on such interests. We recommend that you seek further advice from your authority's internal ecological adviser and/or nature conservation organisations such as the local Wildlife Trust, RSPB, etc. The Wales Biodiversity Partnership's web site has guidance for assessing proposals that have implications for section 42 habitats and species (www.biodiversitywales.org.uk).

Countryside Council For Wales

13th Aug 2012 I can confirm that we have received the revised bat house plans in "Bat House - Revised Floor Plans & Elevations Bat House - 3rd July 2012", and these are acceptable to CCW. This building, as part of the overall bat mitigation strategy, will maintain and enhance the favourable conservation status of the lesser horseshoe bats at this site. However, as you are aware, there are other aspects of the planning application that CCW sees as unresolved and so our overall position remains unchanged.

District Valuer 8th Aug 2012 As I think I may have already mentioned, I need to use up a lot of unspent annual leave this month so I am not going to be in much now until the Start of September. Our QS is finishing his review and Claire (CC'd in) has progressed much of the other research. Claire is available to conclude the remaining investigations and will push the case forward in my absence, so we should be in a position to review and finalise our report after I return at the start of September. I am not sure when your September committee is but I expect you and the developer will need a few weeks to digest our report, so hopefully you can target October with the Applicant.

Dwr Cymru Welsh Water - Planning

28th May 2012 Sewerage: The proposed development would overload the existing public sewerage system. However, improvements are planned for completion by April 2014. DC/WW offer a condition effectively restricting the beneficial use of the development until after the improvements have been implemented in order to safeguard security of service to customers and the protection of the environment. In relation to the Care/Health facility the developer shall provide a suitable grease trap to prevent entry into the public sewerage system of matter likely to interfere with the free flow of the sewer contents, or which would prejudicially affect the treatment and disposal of such contents. Foul water and surface water discharges shall be drained separately from the site. No surface water shall be allowed to connect, either directly or indirectly, to the public sewerage system unless otherwise approved in writing by the LPA. Land drainage run-off shall not be permitted to discharge, either directly or indirectly, into the public sewerage system. No development shall commence until the developer has prepared a scheme for the comprehensive and integrated drainage of the site showing how foul water, surface water and land drainage will be dealt with and this has been

approved by the LPA. Sewage Treatment: The proposed development would overload the existing Waste Water Treatment Works. However, improvements are planned for completion by April 2014. DC/WW offer a condition effectively restricting the beneficial use of the development until after the upgrading works to the WASTE Water Treatment Works have been implemented in order to safeguard security of service to customers and the protection of the environment.

Dyfed Powys Police, Brecon

26th Jun 2012 In brief I am writing to you regarding the above proposed development as I wish to bring a few points to you attention. I became aware of this proposal in November 2011 and as a member of Powys County Council Development Team I was present at a meeting with the developer's agent, Mr. Ben Stephenson on 16th November 2011. During that meeting Secured by Design was discussed and Mr. Stephenson was advised that he should speak to me as soon as possible regarding the design and layout and preferably before the application was submitted to you. To-date, disappointingly, this has not happened. I am not sure where the affordable housing would be placed within the residential design location. The DAS does include some comments on community safety, but I feel it would be beneficial if the developer/agent would engage directly. There is a nursing home suggested and although not specifically SBD there would very likely be comments and recommendations that I could make which might assist with BREEAM (excellent/very good) if the developer is going down that route? There are a few issues regarding the design of the residential site which include: - Defensible space - Natural surveillance - Car parking - Planting

I would very much appreciate the opportunity to go through the proposed development in details with you and the developer/agent.

Environment Agency Wales

22nd Jun 2012 We have no objections to the proposals as submitted but have the following comments for your consideration: Foul Drainage We note that the proposed method of foul drainage is stated as “mains sewer.” We are aware of existing capacity issues at the Talgarth sewage treatment works. Therefore, we advise that prior to determination of this application you seek confirmation from the sewage undertaker, Dwr Cymru/Welsh Water that a sewer is available and that connection is feasible. Should DCWW advise that there is insufficient capacity within the sewerage system or if an alternative method of foul drainage is proposed, then we would wish to be re-consulted. Groundwater and Land potentially affected by Contamination The proposed development is located on a Secondary Aquifer, with groundwater likely to be in hydraulic continuity with the nearby Afon Ennig. As such we consider the controlled waters at this site to be of high sensitivity, and the historic use of the hospital means there is potential for contamination to be present. Therefore, we consider that planning permission could be granted to the proposed development as submitted if conditions and informative notes are included. Flood Risk The application site lies entirely within Zone A, as defined by the Development Advice Map (DAM) referred to in Technical Advice Note 15: Development and Flood Risk. Our flood map information, which is updated on a quarterly basis, confirms the site to be outside the 0.1% (1 in 1000 year) annual probability fluvial flood outlines. The flood consequences assessment and foul drainage strategy, WSP, June 2011, submitted in support of the application states:

1. The existing site runoff rate is 47.1 l/s, with 33.26 l/s of this from hardstanding and buildings on site.

2. All surface water runoff from the proposed residential, retirement dwellings and care homes will discharge to soakaways. Surface water runoff from highways will also drain to separate soakaway system.

3. Soakaways will be designed to ensure that the development is not at risk of flooding from the storm events up to a 1 in 100 year (30% allowance for climate change). Flood events exceeding the capacity of the surface drainage system are to be contained within the carriageway and directed into the watercourse north of the site and maintaining a route away from the buildings.

4. A bund and infiltration trench on the south-eastern site boundary will be constructed to intercept any runoff from the proposed allotments.

We advise that you consult the council’s Land Drainage Engineer on the suitability of the proposals for disposal of surface water.

Linesearch 14th May 2012 Not in the zone of interest. National Grid UK Transmission

No comments have been received to date.

NP Ecologist 29th July 2012 Application 12/07922/FUL – Mixed Use Redevelopment Comments 1.0 I am satisfied that the concerns about the

apparent conflicts in the site clearance phases, I previously raised following the joint site visit on 22nd May 2012, having addressed by revised phasing outlined in the email forwarded from the agent on 11th June 2012. I appreciate that the destruction of the multiple roost sites identified throughout the complex of buildings will be the subject of an EPS licence which will specifically condition the nature and timing of any disturbing or destructive works associated with the decontamination and site clearance works.

2.0 I acknowledge the findings and proposed

mitigation measures detailed in the report entitled Ecology Survey & Assessment including Bats & Other Protected Species (Ecological Services, January 2012). I

welcome the provisions for roosting bats and nesting birds to be provided in the form of bespoke bat house and hibernaculum (the subject of the second application 12/07795/FUL), a range of bat and bird boxes included in the fabric of the proposed new houses, and the retention of roost spaces in the loft and crypt of those buildings to be retained within the application. I am satisfied in principle that such measures will compensate for the loss of the increasingly dilapidated lesser horseshoe bat roost sites and enhance the value of the site for bats and birds. It is my opinion that by controlling the delivery of the bespoke mitigation measures the National Park Authority can secure compliance with the requirements of the Habitats Directive in line with Regulation 9.1 of the Habitats Regulations 2010.

3.0 I am mindful that CCW have raised an

objection to the proposed redevelopment on the grounds of unacceptable landscape and visual impacts, and in relation to sustainability. I do not wish to comment further on these specific matters which are outside my remit and areas of expertise.

4.0 I also note the view of CCW that the

proposed increase in the residential population will place considerable indirect pressure on the existing weak public access network within the Pwll y Wrach SSSI and local nature reserve. I would support CCW’s request that the provision from the proposed development should be forthcoming to conserve and enhance the existing rights of way through this local attraction.

Recommendations Should the National Park Authority be minded to grant permission for the above application I would recommend that the following matters are subject to appropriate planning condition or obligation drawn from a legal agreement. 1.0 The development is completed in

accordance with the approved drawings to

include the provision of bat roosting and bird nesting boxes as detailed in the Ecology Survey & Assessment including Bats & Other Protected Species report (Ecological Services, January 2012).

2.0 Appropriate provision should be made to

conserve and enhance the rights of way network within the Pwll y Wrach SSSI and local nature reserve.

3.0 The following informative notes should be

included in any decision notice: 3.1 The Ecological Services Ecology Survey &

Assessment including Bats & Other Protected Species report (January 2012) states that a European Protected Species (EPS) licence will be required in support of this development. A copy of a Welsh Government EPS Licence and the finalised Method Statement for the planned conversions should be provided to the National Park Authority for their information and records.

3.2 Work should halt immediately and CCW

contacted for advice in the unexpected event that bats are discovered during the course of the development. To proceed without seeking the advice of CCW may result in an offence being committed. CCW, Cantref Court, Brecon Road, Abergavenny, NP7 7AX. Tel. 01873 737000.

3.3 The timing of development works should be

such as to avoid conflict with the bird nesting season.

NP Head Of Strategy Policy And Heritage

17th Aug 2012 The Adopted Local Plan forms part of the Development Plan for the National Park area, however the Authority has approved the UDP (March 2007) for development control purposes and affords it greater weight than the Local Plan, since it is more recent and relevant. It has been through all the stages necessary for greater weight to be attached to it save for adoption due to the single issue of safeguarding sand and gravel reserves. The Local Plan allocated the site for redevelopment/refurbishment with a policy

indicating the desirability of finding alternative appropriate employment uses for the site. In the UDP the site is allocated for mixed use/commercial. Neither Plan specifies the proportion of different uses that would be expected in terms of the mix of uses on the site. The Mid Wales Hospital Planning Brief produced by Knight Frank in 1997 and adopted as Supplementary Planning Guidance to the Local Plan in 1999 while referencing the Local Plan suggests that a mix of uses would be more appropriate given, in their opinion, the unlikely prospect of one single employment use being found for a site of that scale. It does not specify the type or proportion of mixed uses to be considered on the site. The Planning Brief was carried through to the Authority Approved UDP in March 2007. The Talgarth Planning Brief was approved as guidance to supplement the UDP in December 2008. It sets out broad land use and design principles to act as a framework for future development and investment in Talgarth and the Former Mid Wales Hospital. The brief indicated that, "The Mid-Wales Hospital site has huge potential. The site has the benefit of new owners and is allocated in the UDP as a mixed use site. It is imperative that the potential is realised and any development is linked to and provides benefits for the wider community. - It is an important site for roosting and hibernating lesser horseshoe bats (and some other bat species). - There is also the opportunity in any development proposals to explore the site's capacity to supply combined heat and power to itself and to the town through wood burning boiler systems. - The National Park Authority (NPA) will negotiate with the new owners of the site to produce an updated development brief and these issues can be explored in more detail. " In 2010 the Authority undertook a Conservation Area Appraisal of Talgarth Conservation Area and confirmed an extension of the boundary to include the Former Mid Wales Hospital in 2011. As a result it is considered that the level of detail that will need to be submitted in order for the planning application and conservation area consent to be validated and determined means an updated development brief is

unnecessary. The main (though not exclusive) National policy considerations in determining the application are as follows; The Town and Country Planning Actc1990 Section 54 A specifies that planning applications should be determined in line with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Chapter 4, Planning for Sustainability of Planning Policy Wales (Welsh Government, Edition 4, February 2011) emphasises that planning polices and proposals should, in promoting sustainable development here should be a "preference for the re-use of suitable previously developed land and buildings, wherever possible avoiding development on greenfield sites" (4.4.2). The former Mid Wales hospital site is a ‘previously developed land' and is allocated accordingly for redevelopment for mixed use in the UDP. The current proposal is therefore acceptable in principle. In terms of the details of the proposal I have the following policy observations to make: Neither the UDP, the 1997 Planning Brief nor the later Talgarth Planning Brief, specify the mix of uses. The Authority, through these documents however is concerned to enable development that benefits and is well related to the local area and should provide some level of employment generating uses particularly given the history and importance of the site to Talgarth in this regard. The Authority recognises that an element of housing will be needed to ensure any scheme is viable and likewise that a wholly employment led scheme is unlikely. The UDP Inspector in her report accepted the mixed use allocation on the site "but a significant amount of residential development, unrelated to the primary commercial uses on the site, would be contrary to the strategy and aims of the UDP" (March 2006). To ensure the delivery of the employment generating uses specifically the Rehabilitation and Enablement Centre (TREC), the proposals for the Chapel and the mortuary building, I would want to see the delivery of those elements of the scheme tied, at appropriate stages, to the delivery of the housing via a S106 agreement. In terms of the detail, the main policies that the

application will need to be considered against (amongst others) are Policy G3, Policy ES29, Policy Q17 (which will be considered by the Senior Heritage Officer) and Policy Q5 (which will be considered by the Conservation Officer) In terms of Policy ES29, the UDP requires a minimum of 20% affordable housing where there is an identified need. It is accepted that there is a general need for affordable housing across Powys. The proposal for 6 dwellings out of the 103 to be affordable housing does not accord with this Policy. Furthermore the proposed provision is 6 units offered at 60% market value. Discounted market housing is not considered to be affordable housing for the purposes of the UDP. The proposal therefore is contrary to Policy. I understand the matter is currently with the District Valuer to consider the viability of this element of the scheme. For the purposes of the UDP live/work units are considered to be those units where at least 51% of the floorspace of the property is given over to the ‘work' element. This would then be tied via a S106 Agreement to any permission. The proposal for 5 live/work units where approximately 1/3 of the floorspace of each is for the ‘work' element does not align with this policy position. Despite consistent advice from the Welsh Government that emerging LDP's should be given little if any weight in determining planning applications until such time as the Inspector Report is produced, we need to have due regard to the Inspectors recommendation on the Cwrt Y Gollen appeal. In coming to his view he stated that irrespective of the status of the site in the UDP, "The situation now is very different. The LDP spatial strategy and housing provision proposals which do not carry forward the UDP SS5 allocation at Cwrt y Gollen are based on newer population projections for the National Park over the Plan period, coupled with a settlement assessment process directed at supporting the vitality of communities whilst ensuring that the special qualities of the Park are maintained and enhanced. Whilst the robustness of the LDP strategy has yet to be examined, this is due to take place shortly. I consider that it would be unduly prejudicial to the LDP and the strategy it embodies to permit such a large quantity of housing

in this location in advance of the comprehensive and detailed consideration of the Plan that the forthcoming examination will provide." (PINS Report APP/P9502/A/10/2132455, February 2011). I consider we would have to take a similar view in relation to the proposals for this site. Whilst the proposals here are not for the same number of houses as at Cwrt Y Gollen, there are parallels. Namely that a significant number of dwellings are being proposed on a single site and that the site itself is not being carried forward into the LDP. To permit the proposals could therefore, in my view, be prejudicial to the strategy of the LDP.

NP Senior Heritage Officer Building Conservation

3rd July 2012 This site is of a specific special character within the conservation area made of the former hospital buildings. These buildings are formed into separate courtyards so that control of various types of patients was easier but created a more open feeling than the previous design of asylums. This building shows a distinctive change and development in how people considered to have a mental illness were treated. The whole setting reflects this with the wide open parkland feel, entertainment and rehabilitation facilities for patients came into its own during and after the WWI. The distinctive style of architecture, although somewhat foreboding now, was of a high quality and using superior materials. Much of the layout and architectural qualities survive and provide the main character of this part of the conservation area. The design of the proposal does nothing to preserve or enhance the character of the conservation area in anyway. No attempt has been made to include the layout plan even in the street plan let only recognise the importance of the buildings as they are now. Although the designs of individual buildings proposed have some merit it is the layout and lack of cogent justification for wholesale demolition that lets this applications down. The lack of an historical analysis of the site and the

importance of the buildings to the town and to the character of this part of the conservation area undermines the proposals. Although it is recognised that the buildings are difficult to assess at the present time the condition survey shows that there is a problem with dry rot within the building. However with the amount of ventilation there is in the building this may be of a localised nature. The stone wall show no signs of movement which one would expect if the timber floors and roof structure had lost their structural integrity due to dry or wet rot. There is no attempt to cost the works required to bring the building back into a good state of repair and to convert it into a suitable new use. The cost of demolition will be significant as well as the removal of the debris from site. This should be factored in when considering the cost of redevelopment. It is always more sustainable from an energy perspective to retain buildings and convert them than start again from new. This should also be factored in as a cost implication. I had expected that the design and access statement would at least give some indication of the process regarding deciding to demolish and not retain the buildings. This argument must be clearly made to justify the wholesale clearance of the site. These are not exhaustive comments as it would run to pages but gives reason for the recommendation of refusal on Conservation grounds.

NP Senior Heritage Officer Building Conservation

3rd Jul 2012 This site is of a specific special character within the conservation area made of the former hospital buildings. These buildings are formed into separate courtyards so that control of various types of patients was easier but created a more open feeling than the previous design of asylums. This building shows a distinctive change and development in how people considered to be have a mental illness was treated. The whole setting reflects this with the wide open parkland feel, entertainment and rehabilitation facilities for patients came into its own during and after the WWI.

The distinctive style of architecture, although somewhat foreboding now, was of a high quality and using superior materials. Much of the layout and architectural qualities survive and provide the main character of this part of the conservation area. The design of the proposal does nothing to preserve or enhance the character of the conservation area in anyway. No attempt has been made to include the layout plan even in the street plan let only recognise the importance of the buildings as they are now. Although the designs of individual buildings proposed have some merit it is the layout and lack of cogent justification for wholesale demolition that lets this applications down. The lack of an historical analysis of the site and the importance of the buildings to the town and to the character of this part of the conservation area undermines the proposals. Although it is recognised that the buildings are difficult to assess at the present time the condition survey shows that there is a problem with dry rot within the building. However with the amount of ventilation there is in the building this may be of a localised nature. The stone wall show no signs of movement which one would expect if the timber floors and roof structure had lost their structural integrity due to dry or wet rot. There is no attempt to cost the works required to bring the building back into a good state of repair and to convert it into a suitable new use. The cost of demolition will be significant as well as the removal of the debris from site. This should be factored in when considering the cost of redevelopment. It is always more sustainable from an energy perspective to retain buildings and convert them than start again from new. This should also be factored in as a cost implication. I had expected that the design and access statement would at least give some indication of the process

regarding deciding to demolish and not retain the buildings. This argument must be clearly made to justify the wholesale clearance of the site. These are not exhaustive comments as it would run to pages but gives reason for the recommendation of refusal on Conservation grounds.

NP Tree Consultant 2 Steve Lucocq

No comments have been received to date.

Open Spaces Society No comments have been received to date. Powys County Council Affordable Housing Officer

29th May 2012 I have received notification of the proposals for the above site and am minded to express the housing authority’s concern over the scale of the proposal in terms of housing and specifically elderly accommodation. Our concerns are based in the lack of amenity, difficulty of access, and, above all, impact on the infrastructure of services in the area, specifically in terms of health and Social care, services that are already under pressure. Having said this I will, of course, be available to discuss and if needed negotiate, on the affordable element of proposals as the application progresses.

Powys County Council Building Regulations

No comments have been received to date.

Powys County Council Contaminated Land

27th Apr 2012 It is noted that the proposed development is situated on land indicated as being a former hospital (as identified by historic Ordnance Survey Maps) which has the potential to cause contamination. Based on the former uses, its intended end-use and absence of appropriate supporting information, the application should be refused until such time as the applicant demonstrates that potentially significant liabilities have been assessed and understood. In summary, there are three aspects to this objection. These are that:

- We consider the level of risk posed by this proposal to be unacceptable.

- The application fails to give adequate assurance that the risks of pollution are understood and that measures for dealing with them have been devised.

- Therefore, under Planning Policy Wales (s. 13.7on), the application should not be determined until information is provided to

the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority that the risk to human health and controlled waters has been fully understood and can be addressed through appropriate measures.

Powys County Council Contaminated Land

11th May 2012 It is noted that the proposed development is situated on land indicated as being a former hospital (as identified by historic Ordnance Survey Maps) which has the potential to cause contamination. I have reviewed a submitted Desk Study which allows me to recommend conditions on any future consent so as to ensure that any potential contamination issues are adequately dealt with. (5 separate conditions were recommended along with a note to the applicant). The view of the Environment Agency should be sought and consultation maintained throughout the project.

Powys County Council Education

No comments have been received to date.

Powys County Council Highways

21st May 2012 Whilst redevelopment of this site has never been in question, in principle, the information provided within the submitted drawings leaves many highways questions unanswered and the level of traffic likely to be generated is very close to the previous levels of its days as a hospital. The scale of the development will require an adoptable estate road network and layout details of the roads, private drives, courtyards, parking and all anticipated adoptable areas do need to be provided at this stage to allow us to make useful comment. Cross sections, radii, swept paths, service routes, refuse collection arrangements, turning heads etc. are all features which need to be detailed. The junctions at either end of the current through road and the road itself will require adoption and full drawings of this route are required for consideration. It will undoubtedly be necessary to establish the existing construction of the through road to ensure suitability for adoption by Powys. Drainage, particularly of the adoptable areas, is another very important feature which requires full clarification and has yet to be addressed. The T.A. is obviously written to support the

application but considerable emphasis has been placed on referring to the parking standards as ‘maximum permissible’. This is not the wording used in the guidance. The relatively remote location and the topography around the site are far from conducive to non-motorised traffic and adequate parking facilities will be important. The following paragraphs are further observations relating to the application documents received. I consider it to be misleading to suggest that the 45m height difference between Talgarth Square and the site is spread over the 900m distance. The hill itself covers little more than 600m when approaching via Hospital Road and goes up and down at least once before making the rise to the site via Church Street. I believe this height difference and the lack of continuous footway should also influence the paragraphs written regarding “walking offers the greatest opportunity to replace the car as a mode of transport for short journeys” The level of parking shown on the plan leaves a significant number of spaces unaccounted for and the proposal of on-highway parking is not supported by highway layout details that show that such parking will not result in serious congestion within the site. The larger buildings do not appear to have any localised parking facilities at all but the cricket pitch and tennis court on the plan have ample parking although the T.A. does not refer to any allowance being made for these facilities within the calculations. The bus services available to the locality are far more limited than is suggested by the T.A. The phrase “the services are suitable for…….supporting the daily commute to work of staff working reasonably standard hours” actually refers to just one bus per day in each direction for someone working in Brecon. The reference to a route providing connection to frequent rail services to/from Abergavenny is, in reality, just once a week. Paragraph 4.6.1 states “there are good established vehicular access arrangements to the site via Hospital Road” but by para. 4.6.5 the issue of on-street parking is highlighted along with the suggestion of parking restrictions. Such a measure will clearly antagonise the local residents and move the problem elsewhere as dwellings without off-street parking

seek the nearest un-restricted parking area. The accident data referred to in Chapter 2 in the T.A. is naturally covering the last five years but the trip figures for the site provided by the Highways Authority date back around eighteen years and are not therefore comparable. It should also be noted that the trip figures were provided at the outset as the maximum acceptable over which significant additional measures would be required to ensure that alternative modes were not just on offer but were used. Although a Travel Plan has been outlined and a clear action plan stated, the implementation will be largely down to future residents/employers and there are no suggested penalties if this fails. In conclusion I am concerned at the scale of the development proposed and also that the supporting T.A shows potential trip rates for the scheme so close to the agreed maximum. It is accepted that the site has very limited scope for improvements to the access routes and was previously a thriving and self-sufficient mental hospital but I would have expected to see greater restraint in new traffic generation given the passage of years since this closed and the actual current level of traffic movement. I trust that if the scheme is to proceed the additional information requested above will be forthcoming.

Powys County Council Highways

23rd Aug 2012 I refer to the revised plans received from WSP and Barton Willmore and must advise that I remain opposed to the development as proposed. Overall I would observe that many of the drawings submitted are conceptual and of inappropriate scales to display the information required. In some cases the scale has had to be guessed.

• Whilst the CSS Parking Standards may state that “minimum parking standards are no longer appropriate” the assumption that this indicates the figures are “the maximum permissible” goes too far. The standards are recommended levels with scope to consider compromise if the convenience of local facilities, public transport is tangible. I do not consider that the parking facilities shown are anywhere near an acceptable level, especially as some spaces are unusable due to lack of

manoeuvring space and others fall within the suggested adoptable area. Such space could not be designated to individual properties and would be open to public parking.

• The preliminary highway dimensions drawing is so far removed from what this Authority would consider an adoptable layout that it is difficult to envisage basic common ground upon which to begin discussions. The entire layout relies on endless blind and dangerous reversing manoeuvres and doesn’t show even Manual for Streets levels of visibility. No account is made for pedestrian movements or disabled users.

• The swept path drawings are of inappropriate scales to realistically consider the implications. The refuse lorry size is not specified and the direction of travel unclear. The drawing suggests extremely limited space remaining, if any, if all parking spaces were occupied and no passing opportunities with other traffic. Furthermore, Powys recycling policy requires multiple boxes to be left out for collection. I do not believe the spaces shown for communal bin assembly points reflect the scale of this operation.

The fire appliance also appears to be very tight and certainly seems to have no working space should they have to stop. I think further consultation with the Fire Service will be appropriate. I find the need to provide swept path drawings for private cars in the context of a residential development extremely worrying. A number of the diagram elements suggest multiple manoeuvres to achieve parking within a courtyard and not every space within that area is shown to be accessed.

• The indicative adoption plan is also to a scale which makes details unclear.

There are no realistic turning spaces for certain areas likely to be used by the public and reversing is likely to be excessive.

The main road through the site has been shown as too narrow for vehicles to pass and the junctions at either end, which link to the existing network, are still not detailed.

• My letter of 21st May states “...I am concerned at the scale of the development proposed and also that the supporting T.A. shows potential trip rates for the scheme so close to the agreed maximum”. I do not consider this represents satisfaction of the possible level of traffic generation for the scheme.

• No obvious consideration has been shown for pedestrians within the site layout. Furthermore whilst the geographical region does have a hilly topography, the residential areas in Talgarth are currently on or near level with the town’s facilities.

This is not the case for this site and therefore the continued belief that pedestrian trips to the site are not disadvantaged by the topography has serious shortcomings.

• The distance and topography between the site and the public transport facilities remains an issue likely to have a negative impact on the uptake by residents of this site.

• In view of the total discrepancy between the timing of the accident records of the last five years and the traffic data of eighteen years ago I believe the conclusion made under TAR-Road Safety is inappropriate and unrealistic given the significant increase in traffic from the current levels this development will generate.

For the reasons detailed above I continue to recommend refusal of this application in the interests of highway safety.

Powys County Council Land Drainage Department

No comments have been received to date.

Powys County No comments have been received to date.

Council Leisure And Recreation Powys County Council Public Art

No comments have been received to date.

Powys County Council Public Open Space

No comment shave been received to date.

Powys County Council Transportation

No comments have been received to date.

Powys County Council Waste Management

No comments have been received to date.

Talgarth Town Council

26th Apr 2012 The above Planning Application is dated 18th April 2012 and received by me at 6pm on 24th April 2012. However, we note that the Public Consultation has an advertisement in the Brecon & Radnor Express would set the consultation from today. We would also ask you to note that our next Town Council meeting is not scheduled until Wednesday 9th May and in view of the complexity of this Planning Application it will take a few days beyond the meeting in which to compile a response. Can you please confirm the current Consultation dates and by when you are expecting responses.

Talgarth Town Council

30th Apr 2012 We would be very grateful for a response to our e-mail.

Talgarth Town Council

28th May 2012 Talgarth Town Council broadly welcomes and supports the proposal to redevelop the site of the old Mid Wales Hospital. Currently the site is dangerous, neglected and hardly befitting a conservation area in the national park. The redevelopment of the site is long overdue. The Town council would want the proposal to enhance and be of direct benefit to the Town of Talgarth. The development has to be sympathetic to the surrounding area and blend seamlessly with the current landscape. It has to be of an appropriate scale with appropriate levels of residential properties. It cannot be a satellite village that competes with Talgarth for resources. It has to integrate with the Town as much as its geographic position will allow. The proposal must deliver employment, to go some

way to restore the losses incurred when the MWH closed. We would like to see the opportunities for employment maximised on the site. Buildings that define the character of the site should be retained where ever possible though it acknowledged that may not always be possible. The main administration building is one of only three current building that is going to be retained. To maintain the character of the site it would greatly enhance the site if the building stood more out as prominent architecture. Talgarth Town council fully endorses the WAG Sustainable Development strategy and would like to see many of the initiatives applied to this site. In particular features such as Energy Conservation and generation, rainwater harvesting and solar power would be of great benefit to the site. The National Park has recently applied for Dark Skies status and the development should take care with external lighting to mitigate the problems of light pollution. 1. New Bat roost the subject of a separate Planning Application 12/07795/FUL An exemplary development which will greatly enhance the site. And the Town Council is in full approval of this application. 2. Former Mid Wales Hospital. Planning Application 12/07922/FUL and 12/07680/CAC Deconstruction/ Demolition B1 The Town Council would prefer to retain as many buildings of character as is possible. We do however understand that there are restraints as some building may be damaged beyond repair due to vandalism and neglect. Cricket pavilion, Access Roads Car park, Tennis Courts B1 Talgarth Town Council welcomes the lease that will be granted to the Cricket club securing the ground for a number of years. The provision of the foundations and services for a new Pavilion is also very welcome.

The Council would support the provision of a Local Equipped Area for Play and would want it situated centrally supporting the stance of the Public Open Space Officer for Powys. Internal Roads and Paths New Allotments, Landscape and Public Open Space Sustainable Drainage Systems. B1 All of the informal open space is peripheral to the development but to really enhance the site a central open community space would be better. There will need to be provision for the location of recycling facilities. Conversion of the mortuary into office space B1 Conversion of Chapel to Multi Use Community Building and OfficesD2 and B1 This is supported Apartments in Conversion of Old Admin Block C3 This is supported 70 Bed Care/Health Facility Apartments C2 D1 We support the facility and welcome the provision of 52 opportunities for employment. However we feel that this is essential that this development is moved to a much earlier phase. The development should be tied to a 106 agreement to secure the employment. Retirement Apartments of 1 or 2 bedrooms C3 This supported. Live Work Units B1/C3 We would welcome the provision of live work units. There does appear to be only five and the Town Council would like to see greater employment opportunities. Residential Unit C3 The Town Council feels that there are far too many, 76, residential units. We would like to see a reduction in the overall number and more provision for work opportunities.

Talgarth Town Council

3rd May 2012 The proposal is of great significance to the residents of Talgarth therefore it is essential that the Council give the plans due consideration and allow enough time to discuss all the relevant aspects. Unfortunately this planning submission has arrived at a time where the Council’s normal operation is somewhat disrupted. On the 3rd May the local elections take place and although Talgarth Town Council will not undergo elections four of the twelve current council members will change. The first meeting after the elections, on the 9th May, is the AGM of the council where the new chair and deputy chair are elected together with the formation of the various sub committees, including planning. With an already packed agenda it is felt that insufficient time will be allocated to discuss the application and give it the full deliberation that it deserves. Following this meeting the four new council members would have to understand the plans to be able to deliberate and then the council would have to formulate a response. The Town Council would therefore request a possible extension of the closing date for responses for up to two weeks from the current closing date of 18th May 2012.

Welsh Government Transport Directorate

8th May 2012 No comments to make or objections to this proposal.

NP Tree Consultant 1 Bettina Broadway Mann

No comments have been received to date.

CONTRIBUTORS

Mr Peter Weavers, Romans, Bronllys Road, Talgarth P H Pugh, Cardiff House, Talgarth Mr and Mrs Morris, Ael y Bryn, Church Street, Talgarth D Gwynne Gwynne, 6 Creigiau Cottages, Church Street, Talgarth Roger and Angela Cowlin, Sunnybank, Penbont Road, Talgarth Francis Morris, Grovelly Cottage, Penbont Road, Talgarth Craig Robinson, 166 St Davids Street, Brecon Antonia Spowers, Genffordd Isaf Bach, Talgarth Tracy Sharman And Richard Gillick, Hilton House, Penbont Road, Talgarth Marcus Binney, SAVE Britain's Heritage, 70 Crowcross Street, Talgarth David Walker, 22 Inverleith Row, Edinburgh Jeremy Taylor, 14 Friars Quay, Norwich

Simon Bradley, 47 Bedford Square, London Virginia Brown Ms J M Rule, Merlin House, Church Street, Talgarth Mrs L Lewis, Glan Usk, Llanfrynach Susan Barrett, 18 Kenilworth Close, Belmont Penny Hallas, Glasfryn, Llangattock Mrs K E Tanner, Groverly House, Penpont Road, Talgarth Paul Hanson, Ty Craig, Church Street, Talgarth Michael Haire, May Barn, Upper Brechfa Mr Nicholas Jackson Mr Chris Phillips, 20 Bronant, Talgarth Mr Niel Bally, Taflod, Wernfawr Lydia Kiernan, The Old Court House, Bell Street, Talgarth Dylan Jones, Lower Pen Y Bryn, Hospital Road, Talgarth John Dunne, Tegfan, Wernfawr Christopher Twigg, Church House, Church Street, Talgarth Peter Evans Tim Sowerby, Berth Fedw Farm, Hospital Road, Talgarth Elaine and Peter Starling, The Elms, Bronllys Road, Talgarth Richard Cook Mr P Murphy, 137A Crouch Hill, London Mr A J Morrell, Apartment 9, Ivy House Rachel Murphy, 137A Crouch Hill, London Wyn Morrell, Chance Field House, Talgarth Bob Martin, Sunnybank, Trefecca Mr Niel Bally, Taflod, Wernfawr A J Burnett-Stuart, Lower Way Farm, Lower Hergest D G Parry, Swyn Yr Enfys, Upper Brechfa Vanessa Pugh, 17 Woodlands Avenue, Talgarth Niel Bally, Taflod, Wernfawr John Tushingham, Penbryn, Hospital Road Mrs M Mullan, 2 Hospital Villas, Hospital Road Mrs Susan Morrell, Chance Field House, Hospital Road Helen Dunne, Tegfan, Hospital Road Mr Robert Stephens, Troedyrharn Farm, Llanddew Stefan Fec, Primrose Pharnacy, Garth House Stefan Fec, 25 Orchard Street, Llanfaes Mr. Kenneth Vaughan Evans, Beiliau Bach, Hospital Road, Talgarth The Mid Wales Hospital Adjacent and Adjoining Neighbour Group (via its Secretary, John Tushingham) has commented on the application. SAVE Britain’s Heritage has commented on the proposals. In addition the following elected persons have commented on the application: William Powell, County Councillor for Talgarth/Assembly Member for Mid/West Wales Kirsty Williams AM, Constituency Office, 4 Watergate, Brecon Roger Williams MP, Constituency Office, 4 Watergate, Brecon NEIGHBOUR/THIRD PARTY RESPONSE SUMMARY

In terms of individual Third Party objections to the scheme the following is a summary of the issues raised (grouped into themes): Development Plan/Countryside Location

- The scheme flies in the face of the Park’s statutory purposes. - The site is not within the settlement of Talgarth. - The site is not in keeping with the LDP strategy and it reverts back to countryside in

the Draft LDP. - The scheme represents a departure from the development plan and does not comply

with policies G1, G2, G3, G4, ES38, ES44, ES45, Q5, Q17, Q18, ES1, ES33, ES29 and SS5.

- There are many similarities between this site and the Cwrt y Gollen scheme at Crickhowell which the BBNPA refused and the Inspector and Minister dismissed and the BBNPA are now even closer to adopting the LDP.

- The scheme is not required to meet housing needs in the Park. - The application lays considerable weight on an unsubstantiated claim that the BBNPA

has a park-wide housing deficit. - The application does not accord with the Local Plan (policies Talgarth 4, EM3, CB5

and CB6), the 1997 Mid Wales Hospital Planning Brief or the 2008 Talgarth Development Brief.

- Applications for the site must soon conform to Policy CYD LP1 of the Draft LDP. Highways/Access/Parking

- The local infrastructure and road access are unsuitable for any increase in traffic – the lanes on both approaches are narrow tracks with few passing places

- There are no pavements to Talgarth so threats to pedestrians will increase. - It is difficult to improve the existing access roads as they are too narrow, have

limited passing places, the Asylum Bridge is not wide enough, is unsuitable for long/construction vehicles and has limited waiting space either side and Bell Street is too narrow and has a dangerous junction.

- When the Asylum Bridge was recently closed all traffic had to travel down Church Street.

- The access roads do not get gritted or snow ploughed in adverse weather conditions.

- Parking provision is inadequate. - One objector lives on one of the small access roads with no front garden and is

alarmed at the prospect of additional traffic passing by the front door. - The volume of traffic will cause congestion in Talgarth and will endanger pedestrians,

horses, dogs, cyclists, tourists and locals. - There has been no proper assessment of traffic volumes using the two access roads

to the site. - The bypass around Talgarth breathed new life into the heart of the town but the

proposed development would force traffic through the town again. - The increased levels of traffic will cause further damage to property on the access

roads. - The development fails to comply with PPW as it is not within a settlement or an

extension of a settlement and does not benefit from good public transport. - The developer has overlooked the second access route into the site via Church

Street – perhaps the road through the hospital should not be a through road to leave Church Street to local traffic as is its function.

- The traffic assessment can only be described as a “spot check”. Design/Scale/Density of development/Sustainability

- The application is disproportionate to access routes and to Talgarth which already has a number of undeveloped building plots.

- The development would place a strain on local services and amenities such as the Post Office, medical centre, Policing, schools etc.

- The density of the development is too great and not in keeping with a Conservation Area in the countryside.

- There is no demand for the level of residential development proposed for this site. - The density is greater than the two existing housing estates in Talgarth. - The development lacks a play area. - The new buildings to either side of the Administration building dwarf the original

building and are not sufficiently separated from admin building or set back from front building line of the admin building.

- Residents will not walk to Talgarth due to the distance and gradient. - The site is not served by any Public Transport nodes forcing future residents to rely

on their private cars. - The scheme bears no relation to the town of Talgarth. - No attempt has been made to preserve or enhance the character of the Mid Wales

hospital site – the proposed demolition of most of the buildings and the re-use of materials is not preservation.

- The layout does not relate to the echelon/butterfly layout of the existing complex. - The development references the wider area of Talgarth instead of the existing

complex. - The scheme would end up as a separate housing estate with a detrimental effect on

Talgarth. - The site is not at the edge of the urban area of Talgarth. - The scheme will lead to a new village three times the size of Trefecca. - The development will have a detrimental visual impact on the area and the

Landscape and Visual Assessment is not comprehensive enough as it has left out some key public rights of way vantage points.

Affordable Housing

- There is a requirement for affordable housing for local people which will not be satisfied by the development.

- The provision does not equate to the 20% of the total number of dwellings on the site.

- There is no reference to the allocation of the affordable units to local people. Phasing of development/Employment

- The scheme does not represent a Mixed Use development. - The Care Home facility should be built first to show a commitment to providing

sustainable jobs in the area. - Job creation should be the main feature of development – Talgarth needs more jobs

not more housing and the care centre and other job creating development should be completed first and not last as indicated on the plans.

- The UDP calls for a Mixed Use development. - There is a real risk that the Care Home will not be built at all as it is only planned

for Phase 5 of the scheme and an identical proposal has been advanced for the

Bronllys Hospital site by the Princes Foundation for the Built Environment. - The development timeline is incremental spanning over many years during which

there will be a staged demolition of the buildings – - Inconsistency in the expected number of jobs to be created through the

construction period and once the commercial elements have been built and there is no guarantee that the construction jobs will be for local people.

- The proposed phasing of the development is substantially the same as a piecemeal and incremental approach.

Others

- The level of light pollution in this elevated location will have an impact on the surrounding environment and the application for Dark Sky status.

- The proposed cricket pavilion will block views and is to be constructed in the wrong place in terms of shading.

- Foul and Surface water will be a problem and is there a sufficient water supply for the development?

- The inconsistent advice as to how many trees need to be felled to facilitate the building work – ranges from none to 10 trees and 68 out of the 163 trees as noted in the Arboricultural report.

- The questionable results of ecological survey of the site. - The BBNPA should ensure that Dwr Cymru/Welsh Water has approved the scheme

before any permission is granted. - A proper assessment of the asbestos contamination has not yet been undertaken. - It is unclear how the multi-use community facility would be managed, operated and

sustained. - Surprise that an updated version of the 1997 Development Brief is not necessary. - There is no structural survey and there are missing plans of the existing buildings. - The buildings should be listed. - The application seems to have been made in Outline rather than in Full. - The Hydrologist does not appear to be aware that Flood Defences are being

constructed on the River Ennig. - The plans do not indicate a biomass/district heating system. - The buildings have been deliberately neglected and stripped. - The dates of the slate stripping are contested. - The documents contain misleading information. - The documents call the site a new community rather than a sustainable extension of

Talgarth. - It appears that Officers have encouraged the developer to make this last ditch

attempt for planning permission under the UDP before the LDP comes into force. - There does not seem to be a business plan. - Lack of engagement with the community. - The application is vast and too much for the average person to take on board. - The agents claim that the dereliction of the buildings has arisen from the buildings

being exposed “to the elements for 10 years or more without roof covering, save for the Chapel and Admin Building” but this is not true. Slate stripping started in August 2009.

- The applicant has owned the site since 2010 and has done nothing to protect the roofs and the fabric of the buildings.

William Powell, County Councillor for Talgarth/Assembly Member for Mid and West Wales has commented as follows: “Since my election as County Councillor for Talgarth in 2004, I have been committed to the sustainable, mixed use redevelopment of this site, which has such importance to my home town, its history and its future. As you know, the history of the site since the Mid Wales Hospital closed in 1999 has been one of missed opportunities and dashed hopes. I share the aspirations of most of the residents of Talgarth and want to see the site redeveloped in a proportionate and sustainable way, which balances the needs of employment generation and residential development, and will neither detract from the regeneration activities underway in the Town nor undermine the safety and quality of life of local residents. There are a number of very attractive features about the scheme presented by the applicant- and it is pleasing to see his willingness to work with the grain of local groups, such as the newly resurgent Talgarth Cricket Club. However, I am concerned by the scale of the proposed development- and by the apparent imbalance between the generation of residential units and the regard for employment generation. This appears to be at variance with the latest planning brief for the site. While I am currently involved in considering a live petition on Built Heritage & Conservation on the site, in my role as Chair of the Assembly's Petitions Committee, it would not be appropriate to comment in detail on that aspect. However, in determining this application, I would ask that BBNPA pay due regard to submissions from Save and other authorities on conservation matters. Similarly, the Brecon Beacons Park Society points out the need for a full structural survey, which I assume would be a requirement for extensive demolition in a recently declared Conservation Area. Finally, I would ask that detailed attention be paid to the submission from PCC Highways. Whilst sharing the Highways Officer's view of the desirability of the site's redevelopment, it is clear that a number of issues need to be resolved.” Kirsty Williams AM has commented as follows: “Since the closure of the hospital the site has had a very unhappy history, therefore the prospect of development is to be welcomed. However, I believe any development must be in line with the aspirations of Planning Policy Wales, the stated functions of the National Park and adherence to local planning policy. I note that the Brecon Beacons National Park Authority (BBNP) have previously recognised the constraints of developing on this site when developing the emerging LDP, I believe these constraints are pertinent when considering the detailed application:

• The site is not needed to accommodate predicted housing need in the local area.

• The site does not meet the objectives of the Settlement Strategy.

• The distance to the existing town centre and is not considered to be adjacent to the existing settlement.

• Not all previously developed land is suitable for renewed development and there is a lack of infrastructure such as public sewers and highways.

• Visual impact in an area of outstanding natural landscape. Given the nature of the site, I understand it has not been allocated within the LDP as it would not provide Talgarth with a sustainable development option, however small scale development could be enabled where appropriate in line with policy CYD LP1. I would respectfully ask if consideration could be given as to whether the scale of housing that is proposed is in line with previously stated objectives for the site in the UDP and Policy G3(i) ii) iii) vi)). The application is heavily weighted to what can only be regarded as large scale residential development in what is open countryside and is not contiguous to the existing settlement. There is little balance between housing and employment opportunities in the applications and no justification in terms of housing need. I note that when judged against the emerging LDP, the application would be outside of policy. Whilst I acknowledge that there is discussion about what weight should be given to strategic plans that are not formally adopted, I would argue that the recent decision in the case of Cwrt y Gollen, which is similar, gave clear guidance that the LDP is relevant when determining such large scale applications. I am aware that the local highways authority has grave concerns about the adequacy of the plans with regard to road infrastructure. It is, I believe, questionable that the infrastructure required could be delivered without having a detrimental impact. I share these concerns and it is difficult to see how travel to and from the site could ever be achieved by sustainable or active means. As I understand it, the application must be tested against policy as it relates to conservation areas. Whilst I acknowledge that some existing buildings are to be kept, the plans do represent a significant demolition of existing structures. Again I would question the compatibility of the proposals against BBNP policy and indeed Welsh Government guidance that would I believe place a much stronger emphasis on conserving existing buildings and ensuring that any new development was sympathetic to the vernacular of the site. In conclusion, this site and surrounding area has been subjected to a great deal of consideration over the years including a number of development briefs as well as Park wide plans. I believe that whilst some development on the site would be desirable, the current scale and uses proposed do not coincide with the stated policy of the BBNP. There would need to be compelling and exceptional reasons for departing from these policies on this site and to date those reasons do not seem to have been evidenced.” Roger Williams MP has commented as follows: “I am writing in response to the two recent planning applications for the Mid Wales Hospital Site. The site is important for the community of Talgarth but also for the surrounding area. There is an opportunity to provide housing, employment and care facilities but in doing so it must take into account the effect it will have on the landscape, surrounding communities and regional development. There are a number of general points I would like to make as follows:

1. The proposal for housing is large in comparison to the existing town of Talgarth will increase the population of by around 20% and the number of dwellings is 15% of the total dwellings currently occupied in Talgarth. Such a large development will alter the centre of gravity of the community away from facilities such as the school, health centre and shops. This size of development should be considered as to whether it can be sustainable. It is to be welcomed nevertheless that there will be a mix of housing including social and sheltered housing.

2. The original site provided employment for the people of Talgarth and the surrounding areas. The application at the moment is lacking in opportunities for employment and the proposal would be more acceptable if there were more units for industrial or administrative businesses.

3. It is welcomed that the proposal includes a care/nursing home. These facilities will be needed as the demography of the area will change to include more elderly people. However, I am concerned that the care/nursing home part of the application is not proposed to be constructed until year 7.

4. The site still retains many fine vernacular buildings that are in the conservation area, the proposals to demolish many of these buildings (I am pleased that the mortuary is to be retained) will need much consideration before being agreed to either in part or as a whole. I understand the Petition Committee of the National Assembly for Wales has made comments on this matter.

This application is of critical importance to the National Park and National Park purposes. It needs careful consideration against the National and Local Planning Policies that are in place at the moment. I would like to maintain the opportunity of making further representations before the consultation period closes.” SAVE Britain’s Heritage has provided a letter dated 25th May, 2012 as follows: “We have been carrying out a considerable amount of research on Talgarth Hospital contacting a series of experts in the history of architecture and hospital design. In our view, this has produced new information of a substantial kind which we feel merits a new application for the buildings to be listed. I am attached various letters supporting this case. The first is from Professor David Walker, who for many years was in charge of the compilation of all the lists of listed buildings in Scotland. Subsequently, he was an architectural advisor to the Heritage Lottery Fund and the National Memorial Heritage Fund and he has also been the principal compiler of the remarkable online Dictionary of Scottish Architects which has numerous cross references to buildings and architects elsewhere in the United Kingdom. Professor Walker draws a series of important comparisons with hospitals in Scotland which are listed and concludes that in Scotland a building of Talgarth’s quality would certainly be listed. A second letter comes from Dr Jeremy Taylor who has written the most important history of the architecture of mental hospitals and he again points to important innovative features in the layout of the hospital buildings. Both he and Professor Walker emphasise that the architects, Giles, Gough and Trollope were one of the leading practices designing these hospitals, and therefore their work is of special interest. We have also heard from Simon Bradley, the general editor of Pevnser series of county

volumes covering England and Wales. Rob Scourfield, who is revising the Powys volume has described the hospital as ‘an incredibly complete site’. Simon Bradley has written the Westminster volume of the Buildings of England which covers some of Giles, Gough and Trollope’s most important works. Their work in London, for which substantial budgets were available, is of exceptional quality, both in terms of design and materials and imaginative detailing. Talgarth is equally built to a very high standard with very good use of materials and excellent masonry detail. The letters mentioned are attached. Quite apart from the architectural merits of the design, the buildings we submit also merit listing on group value. Clearly this is a very extensive composition of linked buildings designed and built to harmonise with each other and remaining remarkably complete. Its fine situation on the edge of the National Park looking out over fields and hills allows the whole group of buildings to stand well and be appreciated from many different points of view. In our view, the submissions we have provided make it irrefutably clear that Talgarth Hospital is of both special architectural interest and special historical interest. It would certainly be listed in Scotland. All these submissions underline the fact that your council took the right decision in extending the conservation area to include the Talgarth Hospital buildings. As the hospital buildings comprise the totality of the extension it would clearly make a nonsense if all the buildings which give character to the conservation area (as well set out in your appraisal) to be demolished. In our view it is of the utmost importance that the buildings are retained and the means are found to refurbish them, as this is incontestably the best way of conserving and enhancing the character of this part of the conservation area. The excellent conversion of the formal mental hospital at Abergavenny into residential use is a good local example of what can be achieved.” There were also submissions relating to the site notices (in terms of their location and their content), the classification of objections as “neutral” comments on the public access website, comments relating to the lack of third party correspondence (including submissions from AM’s and MP’s) and on the public access website and comments relating to the proposed fact finding site visit. In terms of individual letters of support for the scheme the following is a summary of the points made:

- The redevelopment of the site scaled to match the existing community and roads would be good for Talgarth and Powys.

- The fact that the applicant is allowing the cricket field and Chapel to be used by the local community is to be commended and the proposal for a care home seems and appropriate use on the site.

- The site is a blot on the landscape and open to abuse. - The traffic movements are comparable to the flows associated with the former

Hospital.

- The employment created is badly needed in the area. - The improved cricketing facilities are much needed. - The new developer has been extremely professional and friendly at all times liaising

with the community from the outset. - The scheme enhances the beauty of the mature woodland already on site with an

impressive amalgamation of new trees and hedges that will create a sensible mixture of beautiful countryside and urban landscape.

- It is unarguable that the site needs to move on from its current sorry state. - The scheme offers socio-economic benefit and removes an eye-sore and danger. - The school, library, shops and pubs and other services have been under constant

threat of closure and the scheme offers a population who will sustain the services essential for a vibrant community.

- The site is derelict with no merit that detracts from the area. - The proposal will not include noisy land uses and enhances biodiversity. - This may be the last opportunity for Talgarth to regenerate this site. - Talgarth is a small rural community that is in desperate need of regeneration and

inward investment. - The scheme puts to use those elements that have historical and architectural value. - Despite exhaustive efforts a suitable alternative site for the cricket club has not been

found in Talgarth. - The proposal will reduce crime and introduce new people to the region. - The scheme will create jobs and cater for local youth through the cricket/tennis

clubs. - A new cricket clubhouse and tennis facilities will attract local youngsters to join the

club (the club is introducing a youth team) and take up sport which is supported by the Welsh Government and Powys’ “Health, Social Care and Wellbeing Strategy.”

- The current cricketing facilities are an eyesore. - The development will bring in new people and custom to the town and make

businesses more viable and fits in well with the NPA Management Plan and the Local Development Plan for Talgarth.

- The scheme will complement the recent regeneration of Talgarth. - The development will bring much needed affordable/social housing to the area.

Objections to the extent of the proposed demolition works are outlined to in the corresponding Conservation Area Consent report (12/07690/CAC) and comments specifically related to the proposed replacement bat house are referred to in the corresponding full application (12/07795/FUL). RELEVANT POLICIES P1P1: “Part 1 Policy 1 Qualities of the Park” (Unitary Development Plan 2007) P1P2: “Part 1 Policy 2 Biodiversity and Earth” (Unitary Development Plan 2007) P1P3: “Part 1 Policy 3 Cultural Heritage” (Unitary Development Plan 2007) P1P4: “Part 1 Policy 4 Access to Opportunities” (Unitary Development Plan 2007) P1P5: “Part 1 Policy 5 Sustainable Use of Land” (Unitary Development Plan 2007) P1P9: “Part 1 Policy 9 Avoiding Wastage” (Unitary Development Plan 2007) P1P11: “Part 1 Policy 11 Access to Employment” (Unitary Development Plan 2007) P1P12: “Part 1 Policy 12 Supply of Housing Land” (Unitary Development Plan 2007) G3: “Development in the National Park” (Unitary Development Plan 2007) G4: “Development Affecting Trees” (Unitary Development Plan 2007)

G6: “Design” (Unitary Development Plan 2007) Q2: “Sites of National Importance” (Unitary Development Plan 2007) Q4: “Protected and Important Wild Species” (Unitary Development Plan 2007) Q5: “Biodiversity and Development” (Unitary Development Plan 2007) Q8: “Historic Landscapes” (Unitary Development Plan 2007) Q12: “Archaeological Evaluation” (Unitary Development Plan 2007) Q17: “Development affecting Conservation Areas” (Unitary Development Plan 2007) Q18: “Demolition in Conservation Areas” (Unitary Development Plan 2007) Q20: “Development relating to the enjoyment of” (Unitary Development Plan 2007) S1: “Sustainable Use of Land” (Unitary Development Plan 2007) S15: “Reuse and Recycling of Building Waste” (Unitary Development Plan 2007) ES1: “Retention of Business & Industrial Sites” (Unitary Development Plan 2007) ES4: “Provision of Small Scale Workshops” (Unitary Development Plan 2007) ES7: “Buildings for Commercial Use Countryside” (Unitary Development Plan 2007) ES8: “Conv/Rehab of Rural Bldgs Commercial Use” (Unitary Development Plan 2007) ES10: “Live-work” (Unitary Development Plan 2007) ES28: “Provision of Open Space in Housing Sites” (Unitary Development Plan 2007) ES29: “Enabling Affordable Housing” (Unitary Development Plan 2007) ES33: “New or Extended Community Facilities” (Unitary Development Plan 2007) ES35: “Design and Maintenance of Roads” (Unitary Development Plan 2007) ES38: “Road Layouts and Open Spaces” (Unitary Development Plan 2007) ES39: “Boundary Features” (Unitary Development Plan 2007) ES47: “Water Sewage Supply New Developments” (Unitary Development Plan 2007) SS5: “Allocation of Previously Developed Land” (Unitary Development Plan 2007) LPG1: “Conformity.” (Local Plan 1999) LPG2: “Allocation of Land for development.” (Local Plan 1999) LPG3: “Development in the National Park.” (Local Plan 1999) LPG4: “Development in the National Park.” (Local Plan 1999) LPG6: “Development in the National Park.” (Local Plan 1999) LPG7: “Design and energy conservation.” (Local Plan 1999) LPG8: “Accessibility and safety.” (Local Plan 1999) LPCL4: “Wildlife and landforms.” (Local Plan 1999) LPCL6: “Wildlife and landforms.” (Local Plan 1999) LPCL7: “Wildlife and landforms.” (Local Plan 1999) LPCL9: “Archaeology and cultural features.” (Local Plan 1999) LPCB5: “Conservation areas.” (Local Plan 1999) LPCB6: “Conservation areas.” (Local Plan 1999) LPH8: “New dwellings in the countryside.” (Local Plan 1999) LPEM2: “Employment strategy.” (Local Plan 1999) LPEM3: “Employment strategy.” (Local Plan 1999) LPEM7: “Buildings for employment use.” (Local Plan 1999) LPC2: “Community facilities and services.” (Local Plan 1999) LPR1: “National Park road hierarchy.” (Local Plan 1999) LPR5: “Estate roads and access to properties.” (Local Plan 1999) PLANNING HISTORY App Ref Description Decision Date 12/07690/ Mixed use redevelopment of the Pending

CAC site for housing, employment and community uses including 76 number residential units (C3), 5 live work units (B1/C3) and 18 number 1-2 bed retirement apartments (C3), Care/health facility (up to 70 bed apartments) (C2/D1), conversion of the front 'Admin Block' into 4 apartments (C3), conversion of retained chapel into multi-use community building (D2) and offices (B1), conversion of retained mortuary into office space (B1), internal roads and paths, new allotments, creation of new cricket pavilion, access road, car park and tennis courts, landscaping and public open space, sustainable drainage systems, de-construction (demolition) of the existing former ward buildings and associated works, services and utilities.

Consideration

12/07795/FUL Development of a purpose built bat house

Pending Consideration

10/05847/PAYPRE

Potential for development of site PREAPP Advice 18th Oct 2010

12/07677/FUL Mixed use redevelopment of the site for housing, employment and community uses including 76 no. Residential units (C3), 5 Live work units (B1/C3 and 18 No, 1-2 bed retirement apartments (C3), Care/Health facility (up to 70 bed apartments) (C2/D1), conversion of the front 'Admin Block' into 4 apartments (C3), Conversion of retained Chapel into Multi-Use community building (D2) and offices (B1), Conversion of retained Mortuary into Office space (B1), Internal roads and paths, new allotments, creation of new cricket pavilion, access road, car park and tennis courts, landscaping and public open space, sustainable drainage system, deconstruction (demolition) of the existing

Invalid Application Returned

former ward buildings and associated works, services and utilities.

OFFICER’S REPORT This application is being reported to Members of the Planning, Access and Rights of Way Committee as it is a major strategic scheme within the National Park and as it has been the subject of a number of objections from neighbours, residents of Talgarth, the Mid Wales Hospital Adjacent and Adjoining Neighbour Group, Talgarth Town Council, the local County Councillor, Assembly Members and Member of Parliament, statutory consultees (including Powys County Council Executive Cabinet, Powys County Council Highway Authority, the Countryside Council for Wales, the NP Head of Strategy, Policy and Heritage and the NP Building Conservation Officer. The scheme is a major development in the National Park, represents a departure from the adopted statutory Development Plan (Brecon Beacons National Park Local Plan 1999) and does not fully accord with the policies of the approved Unitary Development Plan 2007 (as accepted by the agent). It should also be noted that the site is not expected to be allocated for any particular use in the forthcoming Local Development Plan and will revert, in policy terms, to being a part of the countryside outside the Level 2 key settlement of Talgarth under that document. INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND This application seeks full planning permission for a mixed use redevelopment of the site for housing, employment and community uses including 76 number residential dwellings (C3), 5 No. live work units (B1/C3) and 18 number 1-2 bed retirement apartments (C3), Care/health facility (up to 70 bed apartments) (C2/D1), conversion of the front 'Admin Block' into 4 No. apartments (C3), conversion of retained chapel into multi-use community building (D2) and offices (B1), conversion of retained mortuary into office space (B1), internal roads and paths, new allotments, creation of new cricket pavilion, access road, car park and tennis courts, landscaping and public open space, sustainable drainage systems (SuDS), de-construction (demolition) of the existing former ward buildings and associated works, services and utilities. The scheme has been the subject of several pre-application meetings between the developer and the BBNPA during the period April, 2011 - January, 2012. Discussions have been held with the relevant departments within Powys CC and a public consultation exercise has been undertaken by the developer. A pre-submission scheme has also been presented to the Design Commission for Wales (8th February, 2012) who commented on the scheme as follows: “In our view major issues remain to be resolved. In summary:

• Given the lack of connectivity to Talgarth, wider references could have been used to develop the village layout.

• The location of the village core remains problematic and not sufficiently well justified and there is a lack of a clear spatial hierarchy.

• The generous green spaces and rural edge to the development were welcomed.

• The richness and distinctive character of the site and its history, which was verbally presented by the design team, is not evident in the DAS.

• The commitment to Code Level 4 for the dwellings is welcomed and we urged the developer to pursue further site wide strategies for renewable energy generation and distribution.”

The application was registered as valid on 5th April 2012. It has been advertised in the Brecon and Radnor Express and notices were erected at various points within the vicinity of the site. The application has been advertised on the basis that:

1. It is a major development (as defined in article 2 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (Wales) Order 2012), i.e. the development involves the provision of more than nine houses, the provision of a building or buildings where the floor space to be created by the development is more than 1,000 square metres and the application site has an area of more than 1 hectare.

2. It is Environmental Impact Assessment development requiring the submission of an Environmental Statement under Regulation 5 of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999 (as confirmed to the agent acting on behalf of the developer following a screening opinion request in November, 2011) .

3. The scheme represents a departure from the adopted statutory Development Plan (Brecon Beacons National Park Local Plan 1999).

4. It lies wholly within the Talgarth Conservation Area as designated in 2011. As a departure from the statutory Development Plan, should Members be minded to approve the development proposed, the application would need to be referred to the Welsh Government under the Departure Regulations. The Adopted Brecon Beacons National Park Local Plan (May 1999) (“the Local Plan”) allocated the site for redevelopment/refurbishment with a specific policy indicating the desirability of finding alternative appropriate employment uses for the soon to be closed hospital. In the Brecon Beacons National Park Authority Approved Unitary Development Plan (March 2007) the site is allocated for mixed use/commercial. Neither Plan specifies the proportion of different uses that would be expected in terms of the mix of uses on the site. A Mid Wales Hospital Planning Brief produced by Knight Frank in January 1997 was adopted as Supplementary Planning Guidance to the Local Plan in 1999. It was prepared in accordance with Policy EM3 of the Local Plan which states that: “The change of use of large scale institutions to appropriate employment use will be

permitted subject to the other policies in this Local Plan, and to a design brief agreed with the National Park Authority.” The preamble to the policy suggested that “Uses that might be appropriate on sites of this kind (Mid Wales Hospital), subject to other policies, include hotel or leisure facilities and research and development establishments. Any new development should be in sympathy with the historic character of the former institution, reusing as much of the original buildings as possible. In addition, where it can be demonstrated that partial residential use or development could support the realisation of the general objectives of the employment provision in this local plan, such uses may also be acceptable.” The Planning Brief suggests that a mix of uses would be more appropriate given the unlikely prospect of one single employer/use being found for a site of this scale and location. It does not specify the type or proportion of mixed uses to be considered on the site. The Planning Brief was carried through to the Authority Approved UDP in March 2007. The Talgarth Planning Brief was approved to supplement the UDP in December 2008. It sets out broad land use and design principles to act as a framework for future development and investment in Talgarth and, in regard to the Former Mid Wales Hospital, the brief indicated that: "The Mid-Wales Hospital site has huge potential. The site has the benefit of new owners and is allocated in the UDP as a mixed use site. It is imperative that the potential is realised and any development is linked to and provides benefits for the wider community.

• It is an important site for roosting and hibernating lesser horseshoe bats (and some other bat species).

• There is also the opportunity in any development proposals to explore the site's capacity to supply combined heat and power to itself and to the town through wood burning boiler systems.

• The National Park Authority will negotiate with the new owners of the site to produce an updated development brief and these issues can be explored in more detail. "

In 2010 the LPA undertook an appraisal of the Talgarth Conservation Area which recommended an extension of the boundary to include the Former Mid Wales Hospital site. The relevant paragraph in the Talgarth Conservation Area Appraisal (December, 2010) states: “The financial realities of mixed use development, access considerations and the requirements of the planning system will undoubtedly determine the future of the site but there is a need to secure the remaining buildings and to ensure that any development is of the highest standard, respecting the handsome buildings and their setting in an attractive landscape. It is conceivable that some or all of the original hospital buildings should be listed, on the basis of the quality of buildings like the main entrance block and the chapel and as recognition of the historic building use and layout. This kind of mental/isolation hospital complex is a very characteristic late C19-early C20 development, providing a reasonably

humane environment and facilities for sport and rehabilitation. In the last twenty years, many similar sites have been demolished or altered beyond recognition as the NHS has disposed of much of its estate. Whilst listing may be reconsidered, it is desirable to provide some sort of increased protection of the buildings and landscape and to inform future planning decisions. It is recommended that a conservation area is designated around the hospital complex, the ancillary buildings, Chance Field, the Waun Fawr group and a reasonable portion of the grounds.” The recommendations were confirmed in 2011. As the site is now within the Talgarth Conservation Area, full details of any development proposals and a full planning application are required and, therefore, the applicant cannot now apply for Outline planning permission. This is supported by advice contained within paragraph 6.5.23 of PPW which states that “consideration of proposals for development in a conservation area should be made on the basis of a full, rather than an outline, consent.” As a result, there is no requirement for an updated development brief for the site even though the site has been the subject of a Development Brief in the past (January, 1997). RELEVANT HISTORY Although there are a large number of historical planning applications relating to the site and surroundings, only the ones outlined above relate closely to the application proposals for the comprehensive redevelopment of the site that is currently before the BBNPA. The site was acquired in the 1890’s as a County Asylum for Brecon and Radnorshire and opened in 1903. Further additions were made to the complex including a new treatment block in 1965 and an Occupational Therapy Department in 1971. The site operated as a mental healthcare facility for the County of Powys until changes in mental healthcare such as the Government’s “Care in the Community” programme meant that facilities such as these were no longer appropriate. The Secretary of State for Wales announced that the Hospital would close in 1999/2000. Since the closure of the hospital the site has accommodated some small scale business ventures including a pie-making business within the former Mortuary building and other businesses within the Black Mountain Business Park to the north-west of the site. The applicant purchased the hospital site in 2010. In addition to the three applications submitted for the site, the applicant has also made representations as part of the LDP process to retain the allocation for this site. SITE DESCRIPTION The application site is located approximately 800m to the south east of the settlement of Talgarth which is an historic market town at the north western foothills of the Black Mountains with a population of approximately 2000. The site can be accessed via two unclassified county roads – Hospital Road to the south and Church Street to the north. A public highway passes through the site and to the north of the main complex of buildings which links the two unclassified roads.

The application site is located within the Talgarth community but lies outside the settlement development boundary of Talgarth as defined by the UDP and Local Plan. However, the site is defined as ‘Previously Developed Land Allocated for Mixed Use’ in the UDP under Policy SS5 of the UDP. The former Mid Wales Hospital and surrounding parkland comprises 13.62 Ha of land and is located in the Middle Wye Valley Landscape of Outstanding Historic Interest (under Part 2 of the Register of Landscapes, Parks and Gardens) and is in close proximity to the Pwll y Wrach Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) and local nature reserve. The site also sustains a lesser horseshoe bat colony and several maternity roosts. The site does not include any Listed Buildings but is within the recently extended Talgarth Conservation Area and is the subject of a number of Tree Preservation Orders. The application site lies entirely within Zone A, as defined by the Development Advice Map (DAM) referred to in Technical Advice Note 15: Development and Flood Risk and is therefore outside the 0.1% (1 in 1000 year) annual probability fluvial flood outlines. Since the site has become vacant in terms of the former Hospital use and the more recent business park, the buildings have been the subject of criminal damage and theft of materials, particularly widespread slate stripping, which has contributed to the current dilapidated state of the site and the water ingress experienced throughout the buildings. The site is surrounded by clusters of semi-detached and detached residential properties and open countryside/farmland beyond. It includes a number of buildings that were associated with the original hospital use of the site (such as an Administration Block, a Chapel, a Mortuary, Ward Buildings, Boiler Room and Chimney and the Grand Hall), the Victorian parkland setting, a cricket pitch and pavilion and derelict tennis courts. In topographical terms, the site is located on a narrow plateau sloping gently from approximately 189m AOD in the southern corner to approximately 165m AOD in the northern corner of the site. PROPOSAL The planning application relates to the comprehensive mixed use redevelopment of the site with only the existing built footprint of the existing site being proposed for redevelopment which equates to 4.8 Ha of the overall 13.62 Ha site. In support of the application the following documents have been submitted (produced by Barton Willmore unless stated): 1. Design and Access Statement (including Code for Sustainable Homes Pre-

Assessment Report) 2. Planning Statement (including details of the proposed Talgarth Rehabilitation &

Enablement Centre prepared by Owen Hughes, Consultant Psychologist) 3. Non-Technical Summary of the Environmental Statement 4. Planning Obligations and Affordable Housing Statement of Intent 5. Construction Environmental Management Plan (including a Phasing and Schedule of

Works and a Site Waste Management Plan) 6. Statement of Community Involvement 7. Conservation Area Assessment 8. Environmental Statement (including a Transport Assessment, Landscape Visual

Impact Assessment, Site Investigations for Contamination, Flood Consequence Assessment, Lighting Assessment)

9. Arboricultural Impact Assessment (by Mark Chester of Cedarwood Tree Care) 10. Building Condition Survey 11. Ecology Survey & Assessment inc. Bats and Other Protected Species (by Ecology

Services) The majority of the existing buildings on the site are to be demolished apart from the Chapel, Administration Building and the Mortuary. Residential Development The application includes residential development for 103 No. residential units made up of:

• 76 dwellings

• 5 live/work units

• 4 apartments within the former Administration Building • 18 retirement apartments

The dwellings include a mix of two (58 units), two and a half (7) and three (11) storeys buildings; a mix of detached (34 units), semi-detached (31) and mid-link style properties (11) and a combination of 2 bed (12 units), 3 bed (22), 3 bed with study (13), 4 bed (10), 4 bed with study (9), 5 bed (7), 5 bed with study (2), 6 bed with study (1). The five live-work units are two bed dwellings and are located towards the centre and southern end of the site. They are intended to be used by IT based businesses. The four open market apartments within the two storey Administration Block are a combination of 2 bed with study or 3 bed units at apartment 1 and 4 and 2 bed units at apartments 2 and 3. The retirement apartment block increases from 2 storeys next to the Admin Block to 3 storeys on the corner and the 18 apartments are made up of 15 x 2 bed apartments and 3 x 1 bed apartments. The retirement apartment block also includes a lobby, communal seating area and reception at ground floor; a games room and laundry at 1st floor and a common room and fitness room at 2nd floor level together with lifts and staircases for access between levels. Based on the nett residential developable area of the site (3 Ha) the residential density of the scheme equates to an average density of 34 dwellings per hectare and can be considered an efficient use of land. A lower density rural farmstead approach is adopted along the periphery of the site to the south and south-east where the site interfaces with the open space/parkland and the surrounding countryside beyond. A village core/back lane development is proposed for the centre of the site and a high street with a more formal character is proposed to the northern section of the built development fronting the internal access road and the Chapel beyond.

The dwellings include a mixture of agricultural style buildings, rural dwellings, terraced houses and detached town houses. It is proposed to re-use the natural red sandstone from the demolished buildings and incorporate elements of render, stone quoins, brick chimneys for the woodburning stove flues, reconstituted slate roofs, timber frames and timber car ports with stone topped rendered walls for the less prominent boundaries. In terms of affordable housing provision the applicant and agent initially intended to negotiate the precise number, mix and tenure during the course of the application. However, the applicant’s initial offer as submitted with the application is for up to 6 affordable homes at 60% open market value (which equates to 5.8% of the overall residential development or 7% affordable housing provision if the retirement apartments are excluded from the calculation) and cites other planning obligations, abnormal costs and a negative viability assessment as reasons for this offer. The applicant has not indicated which units are to be utilised for affordable housing purposes from the 76 dwellings to be built. It is intended that the residential development will achieve Code for Sustainable Homes Level 4. It is proposed to provide an Electric car as part of a car club initiative for the residents, which will be secured as part of a green travel plan for the site and planning obligation. Commercial Development/Community Buildings It is proposed to convert the existing single storey Mortuary building to B1 office use and convert the existing Chapel to 110 sq. m. of B1 office use floorspace for small scale/start up businesses with the remainder being used as a multi-use community building for community based uses such as a crèche, library, community cinema, indoor/small scale sports, keep fit classes or as an Interpretation Centre for the nearby Pwll-y-Wrach SSSI and Nature Reserve. Ultimately it is to be left to the Community to decide how they wish to use this facility and it will be converted and available for use by the beneficial occupation of the 50th dwelling. To the north-east corner of the site it is proposed to erect a two storey, 70 bed care/health facility (potentially a Talgarth Rehabilitation & Enablement Centre (TREC)) which will provide specialist care for the management of pain for people injured in accidents, armed forces personnel and chronically ill patients and the rehabilitation of patients providing approximately 40 medical and care related employment opportunities. The TREC will comprise a mixture of hotel style accommodation, studio accommodation for longer stay residents and a variety of areas for exercise and teaching/group work areas as well as rooms for private 1 to 1 consultations and therapy. It is expected that this facility will replace an existing facility at Bronllys Hospital. The Chapel and Administration Buildings will also include suitable “bat lofts” and the clock tower will be restored. A new replacement bat roost in the form of a standalone bat house will be provided close to the existing roosts. The bat house is the subject of a separate application (12/07955/FUL). Leisure/Recreational Facilities and Open Space

The existing but disused Cricket pitch and pavilion to the north-western corner of the site will be retained and enhanced through the provision of a new pavilion and an improved pitch and outfield and the facility will be handed over to the community to re-establish Talgarth Cricket Club who have not been able to find an alternative site in the Talgarth area. The dilapidated tennis courts to the east of the cricket pitch will be refurbished and a new court will be added together with an allocated parking area. The cricket and tennis facilities are due to be provided upon the beneficial occupation of the 25th dwelling. A Local Equipped Area of Play has been requested by the Powys County Council Public Open Space Officer. However, the developer is proposing to provide play equipment for young children within the extensive landscaped grounds around the site. The graveyard surrounding the Chapel will be retained and reinstated as a formal Memorial Garden. An area of 0.12 Ha is designated for use as allotments by residents of the scheme with space for further plots if the scheme proves to be successful. A private communal amenity space will be provided to the east and south of plots 29-39 to offer additional communal space which can be used and managed by the relevant residents as an extension of their gardens. The grounds will be retained as informal public open space, a paddock and an arable field and will be enhanced through new landscaping, a pond, hedges, trees and planting of suitable species. Powys County Council does not wish to adopt the public open space areas and leisure facilities so the applicant proposes to set up a management company to oversee the maintenance and management of these areas which would need to be secured by a Section 106 Legal Agreement should the scheme be approved by Members. Access The existing access and existing through road off Hospital Road will be retained and utilised as the main access into the site. Phasing of the Development The development has been broken down into five major elements:

• Deconstruction and remediation

• Renovation and conversion of retained buildings

• Laying of internal access roads

• Provision of Infrastructure/foundations • Construction of the property superstructure

The overall programme of construction of the proposed development will last approximately 8 years. The development will generally proceed in a south-easterly direction with the buildings to the west of the site (excluding the ones that house the bat roosts) being deconstructed and redeveloped first. The Administration Building is due to be converted in the early phases but the TREC building to the east of the site will be among the last buildings to be completed.

APPRAISAL Following statutory adoption of the Local Plan in 1999, work on the UDP commenced in 2000. The UDP was subject to all the statutory consultations and procedures associated with the preparation of development plans, including a local inquiry and an Inspector’s report. The Brecon Beacons National Park as Local Planning Authority (LPA) received a direction from the Welsh Assembly Government (WAG) under Section 17(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) in relation to the safeguarding of sand and gravel in the National Park. The LPA resolved not to comply with the WAG direction to modify the UDP as it was not considered that the quality of the resource had been adequately established or that the environmental constraints relating to the sites had been sufficiently considered. The UDP was subsequently approved by the Authority for development control purposes in March 2007 and sets out the policies and proposals to guide development in this area from 2001 to 2016 and beyond. As a point of clarification, the direction from the WAG related solely to sand and gravel issues and did not relate to any matters raised in this application. Whilst the adopted Local Plan and its associated Structure Plans remain the formal statutory policy framework for the area, the UDP provides a more up-to-date and relevant planning framework in line with current National Planning Policy. The UDP may not have been formally adopted but it has been subject to all the statutory consultation and procedures required for development plans. It is for this reason that the LPA has determined to afford greater weight to the UDP in the determination of planning applications than the Adopted Local Plan of 1999. For these reasons, the LPA has determined to afford greater weight to the UDP in the determination of this planning application than the statutory documents listed above. To clarify the position of the Mid Wales Hospital site in relation to the Local Plan, the site is allocated in the Local Plan for redevelopment/refurbishment with a policy indicating the desirability of finding alternative appropriate employment uses for the site. Therefore, the proposal is technically a departure to the Local Plan and on this basis the LPA has advertised the application as a technical departure to the Local Plan (1999). This application can be considered against policies G3, G4, G6, Q2, Q4, Q5, Q8, Q12, Q17, Q18, Q20, S1, S15, ES1, ES4, ES7, ES8, ES10, ES28, ES29, ES33, ES35 ES38, ES39, ES47 and SS5 of the UDP and policies G1, G3, G4, G6, G7, G8, CL4, CL6, CL7, CL9, CB5, CB6, H8, EM2, EM3 (and Talgarth 4), EM7, C2, R1 and R5 of the Local Plan. Whilst the development proposal will be considered against both the Approved UDP and Adopted Local Plan policies, greater weight shall be given to the more up to date UDP policies unless the Local Plan policies materially differ to warrant a departure from the UDP. The Brecon Beacons National Park Authority Local Development Plan (LDP) has been published in draft and progressed to public deposit state. Legal Advice is that whilst the emerging LDP is now material, little weight can be given to it in planning decision making at this stage. In fact, the Welsh Government has consistently advised that emerging LDP’s should be given little if any weight in determining planning applications until such time as the Inspector’s Report is produced.

However, paragraph 3.1.2 of PPW states that “Applications for planning permission… should be determined in accordance with the approved or adopted development plan for the area, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Material considerations could include current circumstances, policies in an emerging development plan, and planning policies of the Assembly Government and the UK Government. In terms of the Draft LDP, the site is no longer allocated for any specific use and is not included within the settlement development boundary of Talgarth and will therefore revert to the designation of countryside in policy terms. This being the case, and with the scale of the proposed development in mind, Officer’s consider that the LPA should have due regard to the Inspector’s recommendation (and the Minister’s acceptance of the recommendation) to dismiss the appeal in relation to the proposed large mixed-use development at Cwrt y Gollen. In making a recommendation on this application, I have also taken into consideration comments made by the various statutory consultees and other interested parties and the following guidance:

• Guidance for sustainable design in the National Parks of Wales (Spring 2009)

• Planning Policy Wales (PPW, 4th Edition February 2011)

• Technical Advice Note 1 Joint Housing Land Availability Studies (2005) • Technical Advice Note 2 Planning and Affordable Housing (2006)

• Technical Advice Note 5 Nature Conservation and Planning (2009) • Technical Advice Note 8 Renewable Energy (2005)

• Technical Advice Note 10 Tree Preservation Orders (1997)

• Technical Advice Note 11 Noise (1997)

• Technical Advice Note 12 Design (2009)

• Technical Advice Note 16 Sport, Recreation and Open Space (2009) • Technical Advice Note 18 Transport (2007)

• Technical Advice Note 22 Sustainable Buildings (2010) The dual purposes of National Park designation are, as first set out in the National Parks and Access to Countryside Act 1949 (“the 1949 Act”) and updated by the Environment Act 1995 (“the 1995 Act”): • conservation and enhancement of natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage; and, • promotion of opportunities for the understanding and enjoyment of the special

qualities of the National Park by the public Following a review in 1974 of the operation of the 1949 Act, led by Lord Sandford, an important recommendation emerged that became known as the Sandford Principle. This principle was enshrined in the 1995 Act, to the effect that where irreconcilable conflict arises between the two main National Park purposes, then the conservation of natural beauty should prevail over promotion of public enjoyment and understanding. CONSIDERATION Principle of Development

As outlined above the site is defined as ‘Previously Developed Land Allocated for Mixed Use’ in the UDP under Policy SS5. At the public inquiry into the UDP, the Inspector would have considered this site and any objections to the designation of the site put forward at that time. The site is also the subject of an approved planning brief which was adopted as Supplementary Planning Guidance to the Local Plan in 1999 and carried through to the Authority Approved UDP in March 2007. Section 54A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) and Section 38(6) of the Town and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 require all development control decisions to be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Paragraph 3.1.2 of PPW states that “Applications for planning permission… should be determined in accordance with the approved or adopted development plan for the area, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Material considerations could include current circumstances, policies in an emerging development plan, and planning policies of the Assembly Government and the UK Government.” Chapter 4, Planning for Sustainability of Planning Policy Wales (Welsh Government, Edition 4, February 2011) emphasises that, in promoting sustainable development, there should be a "preference for the re-use of suitable previously developed land and buildings, wherever possible avoiding development on greenfield sites" (Para 4.4.2). The former Mid Wales hospital site can be classed as ‘previously developed land' and has been allocated accordingly for redevelopment for mixed uses in the UDP. Policy G3 of the UDP states that all proposals for development or change of use of land or buildings in the National Park must not have an unacceptable impact on, nor detract from or prevent the enjoyment of, the special qualities, natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage of the National Park. The scale, form, design, layout, density, intensity of use and use of materials of proposed developments will be appropriate to the surroundings and will maintain or enhance the quality and character of the Park’s landscape and built environment. Proposed development will be integrated into the landscape to the satisfaction of the LPA through planting and appropriate management of native species or through the construction of appropriate boundary features and proposal should not unacceptable impact the amenity of the area. The policy also states that proposed developments will have no unacceptable impact on traffic circulation or highway safety and means of access and parking can be provided and consideration is given to those with limited mobility. Of the thirteen criteria included under this policy, the most relevant in this instance in terms of the principle of the redevelopment of this site is criteria ii) which allows development outside the “white areas” of settlements that are covered by policies which enable development in the countryside, as is the case in this instance. Therefore, as the site is allocated for mixed use redevelopment under policy SS5 under the UDP, the development can be considered to be acceptable in principle subject to detailed design considerations and other material considerations.

Residential Development/Affordable Housing Provision The Local Plan allocated the site for redevelopment/refurbishment with a policy (Talgarth 4) indicating the general desirability of finding alternative appropriate employment uses for the site. In the UDP the site is allocated for mixed use. The Mid Wales Hospital Planning Brief produced by Knight Frank in 1997 (adopted as Supplementary Planning Guidance to the Local Plan in 1999 and carried through to the Authority Approved UDP in March 2007) does not specify the type or proportion of mixed uses to be considered on the site. None of the documents (the Local Plan, the UDP, the 1997 Planning Brief nor the later Talgarth Planning Brief) specify the mix of uses. Officers (and, it is fair to say, the majority of objectors to the scheme) recognise that an element of housing will be needed to ensure that any future redevelopment proposals for the vacant site are economically viable and accept that a purely employment led scheme is unlikely. The UDP Inspector accepted the mixed use allocation on the site but suggested that “a significant amount of residential development, unrelated to the primary commercial uses on the site, would be contrary to the strategy and aims of the UDP" (March 2006). To ensure the delivery of the commercial/employment uses, specifically the 70 bed TREC and the elements of B1 office floorspace proposed for the Chapel and Mortuary buildings, the Head of Strategy, Policy and Heritage would want to see the delivery of these elements tied, at appropriate stages, to the delivery of the housing via a section 106 agreement. Officers are concerned that there is no guarantee of an occupier for the proposed building to the north-east corner of the site as no evidence has been supplied confirming any conditional agreements between the developer and the company who will run the proposed TREC facility. It has also been suggested that the facility could be set up at an alternative site such as the nearby Bronllys Hospital site and the fact that the building is not due to be constructed until the latter phases of the development gives some cause for concern as to the future deliverability of the facility and the overall mixed use nature of the site. However, whilst the proportion of residential units compared to employment uses seems excessive, the acceptability of the residential element of the scheme can only be assessed against sustainable development, highway impact and design criteria as Policy SS5 does not stipulate the expected split of uses on this site. Policy ES29 of the UDP relates to the provision of affordable housing in residential developments and states that where there is evidence of a proven need, the LPA will seek to negotiate with developers the provision of an element of affordable housing on all housing sites of 3 or more dwellings. It also states that the element of affordable housing will be a minimum of 20% of the total number of dwellings to be provided on the whole site. The application proposes up to 6 affordable homes at 60% open market value and cites other planning obligations, abnormal costs and a negative viability assessment as reasons for this low offer. The Head of Strategy, Policy and Heritage has confirmed that it is accepted that there is a

recognised need for affordable housing across Powys (and indeed the whole of the National Park) and accordingly the applicant’s offer of up to 6 No. affordable units out of the 76 dwellings, 5 live/work units, 4 apartments and 18 retirement apartments proposed for the site (which equates to a maximum of 5.8% of the total number of residential units to be provided) does not accord with this Policy. PPW paragraph 9.3.5 advises that “Applicants for planning permission should therefore demonstrate and justify how they have arrived at a particular mix of housing, having regard to development plan policies. If, having had regard to all material considerations, the local planning authority considers that the proposal for a site does not contribute sufficiently towards the objective of creating mixed communities, then the authority will need to negotiate a revision of the mix of housing or may refuse the application.” The applicant has submitted a viability assessment of the development, including “open book” accounts for the scheme, with a view to justifying the substantial reduction in level of affordable housing provided and the District Valuer (DV) is in the process of appraising the viability and deliverability of the scheme. Officers have discussed the progress of the viability appraisal with the DV and they are awaiting the Quantity Surveyors review of the documents before concluding their research and appraisal by early September. A summary of their conclusions will be verbally reported to members of the PAROW Committee if they are received before the meeting. Notwithstanding the conclusions of the DV’s viability appraisal report, Officers consider that an expected sub “Industry standard” profit from the development caused by “abnormal costs” associated with the redevelopment of the site (i.e. decontamination and de-construction of the ward buildings, reclaiming building materials, the delivery of Code for Sustainable Homes Level 4, converting retained buildings, the provision of 5 live/work units, the replacement bat roost and the cost of landscaping and maintaining the public open space and leisure facilities) does not justify a reduced level of affordable housing. This is particularly the case when you consider that the remediation costs should have been ascertained and factored into the market value of the site, the offer of the community uses and facilities are not strictly required and though it is desirable to achieve code 4, the development only needs to achieve Code for Sustainable Homes Level 3 to satisfy the minimum standards as set out in National Policy. Even if the DV is of the opinion that the scheme is unviable and undeliverable unless a reduced level of provision can be agreed, Officers still consider that discounted market housing is not an acceptable form of affordable housing for the purposes of the UDP and does not ensure affordable housing provision in perpetuity. This view is supported by PPW paragraph 9.2.14 which states “Affordable housing for the purposes of the land use planning system is housing where there are secure mechanisms in place to ensure that it is accessible to those who cannot afford market housing, both on first occupation and for subsequent occupiers.” Therefore, the proposal does not accord with the provisions of Policy ES29 of the Brecon Beacons National Park Unitary Development Plan, the Affordable Housing Guidance Note or National Guidance.

Employment/Community Facilities PPW paragraph 7.2.6 states that: “Mixed use development should be promoted in, and adjoining, existing settlements, where appropriate. Policies and supplementary planning guidance should support mixed use developments, including flexible workplace/dwellings and commercial premises, where these are appropriate.” The commercial elements of the scheme as highlighted above are generally supported as there is a high demand for new employment uses in the rural area around Talgarth. Whilst concerns have been raised about the extent and deliverability of a truly Mixed Use scheme on this site it is accepted that the UDP allocation does not include a specific split between commercial and residential development on the site and it is considered that sufficient control can be exerted over the provision of these units via a suitably worded Section 106 Legal Agreement. In terms of the five 2 bed live-work units that are aimed at IT based small businesses/start ups, Officers consider that the principle of enabling commercial enterprise through live/work proposals is accepted under policy ES10 of the UDP. However, the proposals indicate that only around a third of the floorspace within the units will be devoted to the “work” element. The Head of Strategy, Policy and Heritage has confirmed that “For the purposes of the UDP, live/work units are considered to be those units where at least 51% of the floorspace of the property is given over to the ‘work’ element.” Whilst Officer’s would acknowledge the developer’s aim to attract IT based small businesses, they may perhaps have limited space requirements and the reduced floorspace will reduce the flexibility of such units to other potential businesses as part of the live/work scheme. Therefore, the scheme, insofar as it relates to the five live/work units, does not comply with the provisions of Policy ES10 of the UDP. In terms of the new community facilities and sports facilities, the re-use of the abandoned cricket pitch and tennis courts and the transfer of the Chapel to the community as a multi-use building for community uses are supported in principle. Policy ES33 of the UDP permits community facilities if they are located within or immediately adjacent to settlements or accessible by public transport. Although the application site is not immediately adjacent to the settlement of Talgarth and is not easily accessible by Public Transport, the preamble to the policy accedes that this is not always possible and paragraph 5.126 confirms that the LPA is supportive of proposals for the multiple use of community facilities. Visual Impact /Design and Scale of Development Part 1 Policy 1 ‘The Special Qualities of the National Park’ states that in the consideration of planning proposals, the LPA will give ‘great weight’ to conserving and enhancing the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage of the National Park. Policy G3 (i) aims to ensure that development does not have a detrimental impact on the visual amenity of the area or impact upon the special qualities of the National Park.

Criterion (iii) aims to ensure that the scale, form, design, layout, density, intensity of use and use of materials will be appropriate to the surroundings and will maintain or enhance the quality and character of the Park’s landscape and built environment. Criterion (iv) also requires that the proposed development is integrated successfully into the landscape. Policy G6 refers to design and states that development will be expected to meet the WGs key design objectives and respond to the local context and criteria (ii) in particular requires that developments sustain and enhance character and townscape. Furthermore TAN 12 Design (2009) sets out national policy guidance on how to achieve good design. Paragraph 4.10.9 of PPW states that “The visual appearance of proposed development, its scale and its relationship to its surroundings and context are material planning considerations. Local planning authorities should reject poor building and contextual designs. However, they should not attempt to impose a particular architectural taste or style arbitrarily and should avoid inhibiting opportunities for innovative design solutions.” The impact of the proposal on the character of the surrounding countryside can be considered against the relevant criteria of policies G3 and G6 of the UDP. Although the site lies outside the ‘white areas’ of settlements, the principle of the use of the land for a mixed development is established under the UDP and one of the main considerations in this case is the potential visual impact of the proposal when viewed from surrounding vantage points and when compared to the existing situation on site. The Countryside Council for Wales (CCW) are satisfied with the range of representative viewpoints selected for the Landscape Visual Impact Assessment.. CCW consider that the views from the key public vantage points are partial given that the trees on site screen and obscure parts of the current buildings and that the site benefits from a good degree of screening due to the existing mature trees on site. They support the landscaping proposals and retention of these trees as fundamental part of any proposal for this site. However, due to the elevated nature of several Public Rights of Way, CCW consider that it will not be possible to fully screen views and the scale, lay-out and character and fit of the development is critical to the level of visual impact on the landscape. CCW conclude by stating that the existing buildings have “matured” or “recessed” into the landscape, and are relatively benign to the character of the area and are concerned that the scale, design and lay-out of the development will read as a ‘modern’ village/campus facility and will be detrimental to the character and visual amenity of this part of the National Park. Officers accept that the built area has been deliberately limited to the previously developed central area of the site and the proposed residential scheme could not easily replicate the existing “echelon” layout of the Former Mid Wales Hospital complex. It is also considered that, although the existing buildings have ‘matured’ or ‘recessed’ into the landscape, the scale and massing of the proposed buildings are not likely to result in an overly prominent development in the landscape when compared to the scale, mass and density of the existing buildings. Officers are generally supportive of the design solution in principle should be demolition of existing buildings be justified and more appropriate in such circumstances than replicating the current geometric grain and layout of current buildings. In design terms, it is considered that the proposed layout, the varying densities of development through the site (from a rural edge to a village core) and the range of

housetypes are generally acceptable. The retention of protected and healthy trees together with additional planting (particularly around the parkland edge), the use of traditional materials and working chimneys/flues and the re-use of the Administration block, Chapel and Mortuary buildings are also supported. However, the poor relationship between the retirement apartment block and the Administration building should be resolved to ensure that the admin building provides the central focal point. The layout should also be revised to ensure that every plot includes sufficient private outdoor amenity space and a greater element of private outdoor amenity space should be provided for the future residents of the retirement apartments. As currently proposed, family housing shown in plots 17 to 19, 59-63, 79 and 80 have particularly poor rear amenity space provision and there is potential for overlooking plots 16-19 will be affected by the rear corridor and study windows within the Administration Block. In summary, Officers are of the opinion that the scheme will not have significantly detrimental impact on the visual amenities of the area and, subject to further detailed design amendments. Therefore, it is considered that the proposal is largely appropriate in terms of design, layout, scale and siting and is not likely to cause significant detriment to the surrounding landscape and environment. Officers are satisfied that the development can respond to the features and topography of the site and consider that the proposal complies with relevant policies G3iii), G3iv) and G6iii) of the UDP. Impact on the Talgarth Conservation Area, the Middle Wye Historic Landscape and the Archaeological Resource The site was included within the Talgarth Conservation Area in 2011. None of the buildings within this site are Listed as CADW has confirmed that “the buildings at the former Mid-Wales Hospital have been assessed on two occasions, but were felt to fall short of the high standard necessary for listing.” The substantial demolition of buildings within this site is also the subject of a separate Conservation Area Consent application (12/07690/CAC). Policy Q17 of the UDP advises that new development and alterations to existing buildings within or affecting the setting of a Conservation Area will only be permitted where it will preserve or enhance the character of the area and where the design, all building materials, proportions and detailing are appropriate to the Conservation Area. Policy Q18 of the UDP relates to demolition in Conservation Areas and states that the substantial demolition of any unlisted building or structure within a Conservation Area that is subject to Conservation Area consent will only be permitted where there is the strongest justification. Where such a building is to be replaced, a contract of redevelopment will be required to be finalised and entered into prior to the granting of conservation area consent. The Talgarth Conservation Area Appraisal (2010) recommended that the site be included within the Talgarth Conservation Area on the basis that “there is a need to secure the

remaining buildings and to ensure that any development is of the highest standard, respecting the handsome buildings and their setting in an attractive landscape” and “it is desirable to provide some sort of increased protection of the buildings and landscape and to inform future planning decisions.” The following paragraphs within PPW are relevant to this scheme: 6.1.2 Local planning authorities have an important role in securing the conservation of the historic environment while ensuring that it accommodates and remains responsive to present day needs.

6.3.1 Conservation Area designation is the main instrument available to local planning

authorities to give effect to conservation policies for a particular neighbourhood or area.

They must designate as a conservation area any ‘area of special architectural or historic

interest the character or appearance of which it is desirable to preserve or enhance’. 6.5.17 Should any proposed development conflict with the objective of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of a conservation area, or its setting, there will be a strong presumption against the grant of planning permission. 6.5.18 Conservation area designation introduces control over the total or substantial demolition of unlisted buildings within conservation areas. In exercising controls, account should be taken of the part played in the architectural or historic interest of the area by the building for which demolition is proposed, in particular of the wider effects of demolition on the building’s surroundings and on the conservation area as a whole. Consideration should also be given to replacement structures. The general presumption should be in favour of retaining buildings which make a positive contribution to the character or appearance of a conservation area. 6.5.23 It is generally preferable, for both the applicant and the planning authority, for related applications for planning permission and conservation area consent to be considered concurrently. Consideration of proposals for development in a conservation area should be made on the basis of a full, rather than an outline, consent. Welsh Office Circular 61/96: Planning and the Historic Environment: Historic Buildings and Conservation Areas at paragraph 33 states that: “The general presumption should be in favour of retaining buildings which make a positive contribution to the character or appearance of a conservation area. Proposals to demolish such buildings should be assessed against the same broad criteria as proposals to demolish listed buildings. In cases where a building makes little or no such contribution the authority will normally need to have full information about what is proposed for the site after demolition. Consent for demolition should not be given unless there are acceptable and detailed plans for redevelopment. It has been held that the decision maker is entitled to consider the merits of any proposed development in determining whether consent should be given for the demolition of an unlisted building in a conservation area.” The NP Building Conservation Officer considers that the layout and architectural quality of the buildings provide the main character of this part of the extended conservation area.

The BCO has confirmed that the design of the proposal does nothing to preserve or enhance the character of the conservation area in anyway. With regard to the proposed demolition of the buildings, the BCO considers that insufficient justification for the wholesale demolition of the ward buildings has been provided. To this extent, although it is recognised that the buildings are difficult to assess at the present time, it is noted that the Building Condition Survey is not a full Structural Survey of the buildings (as is generally required with applications of this type) and only “serves to provide an overview of the general condition of the buildings.” The survey report goes on to state that a “general visual survey” was carried out and the report “constitutes a visual assessment of accessible parts of the exterior of the buildings.” It also states that the survey was “of a general nature” and “would not be suitable to formulate a detailed programme of repairs.” This advice is contrary to assertions made within the submitted Design and Access Statement that “the Building Condition Surveys confirmed that the majority of the existing hospital buildings as not viable for retention or renovation” and “a Building Conditions Survey of the derelict buildings has confirmed that the majority of these buildings are no longer structurally or financially viable for retention.” The BCO also notes that no attempt has been made to cost the works required to bring the buildings back into a good state of repair and to convert it into a suitable new use and suggests that the cost of demolition will be just as significant as the refurbishment of the buildings. She expected that the design and access statement would at give some indication of the process regarding the decision to demolish and not retain the buildings and this argument must be clearly made to justify the wholesale clearance of the ward buildings. The Brecon Beacons Park Society also note that PPW suggests that demolition in Conservation Areas should only be permitted where there is the strongest justification. CCW has commented that whether or not the buildings are beyond repair is a key consideration to the future use of this site and if they are not then demolition, re-use of materials and the “greening-up” of the site may be a preferable option. Although a Building Condition Survey was included as part of the application package and the Planning Statement considers alternative proposals for the redevelopment of the site (including a Scenario 2 – Piecemeal and Incremental Development), it is considered that the potential for the re-use of other buildings within the complex has been disregarded on the basis of an insufficient assessment of their structural integrity and the reports accentuate the negative consequences of taking this approach rather than giving full consideration to the opportunities and constraints of refurbishing and converting more of the existing buildings. In summary, Officers consider that the removal of the buildings that form an integral part of the recently extended Talgarth Conservation Area without sufficient justification for their removal (apart from the Administration Block, Chapel and Mortuary) is unacceptable. Consequently, the proposal does not accord with policies ES17 and ES18 of the UDP and guidance contained within PPW and Welsh Office Circular 61/96: Planning and the Historic Environment: Historic Buildings and Conservation Areas.

Policy Q8 of the UDP advises that “Development which directly or indirectly either alone or in combination affects those areas listed within Part 2 of the 'Register of Landscapes, Parks and Gardens of Special Historic Interest in Wales' will only be permitted if the essential integrity and coherence of the area, as defined in the Register, is preserved or enhanced.” The site lies within the Middle Wye Valley Landscape of Outstanding Historic Interest as listed on Part 2 of the register. Whilst we have not received any comments from CADW regarding this specific issue Officers consider that the development should at least preserve the essential integrity and coherence of the area. Policy Q12 of the UDP advises that “Where important archaeological remains are known to exist or may exist within an area for archaeological evaluation, the NPA will require the archaeological implications of development proposals to be evaluated before planning applications are determined.” Although Clwyd Powys Archaeological Trust has confirmed that information held within the Regional Historic Environment Record indicates that the proposed development will result in the demolition of some original buildings incorporated within the 1903 layout of the former Mid Wales Counties Mental Hospital and a record of these buildings, their function, layout and change of use should be made prior to demolition. Such could be dealt with by condition on any planning approval. Biodiversity and Ecology Section 40 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 (“the 2006 Act”) states that “every public authority must, in exercising its function, have regard, so far as is consistent with the proper exercise of those functions, to the purpose of conserving biodiversity”. This involves having regard to the United Nations Environmental Programme Convention on Biological Diversity 1992. Public authority includes, among others, local planning authorities. Section 42 of the 2006 Act requires the National Assembly for Wales, in consultation with CCW, to publish a list of living organisms and types of habitat which are of principal importance for the purpose of conserving biodiversity. Part 1 Policy 2 of the UDP ‘Biodiversity and Earth Heritage’ states that development will only be allowed where there is no unacceptable impact on biodiversity and Earth heritage. Policy G3 (i) (iv) and policies Q2, Q4 and Q5 aim to protect important wild species and habitats through preventing development where relevant or ensuring adequate mitigation is provided which protects and enhances the environment. More specifically, policies Q2 and Q4 advise that proposals on land that supports protected species will be permitted if the need for the development outweighs the nature conservation importance of the site and the criteria for derogation are met; measures are provided to contribute to species and habitat conservation targets and the developer can prove that the disturbance of the species is kept to a minimum or alternative areas are provided to sustain at least the current levels of populations affected by the proposal. The preamble to Policy Q5 states that ‘as a general principle, loss of biodiversity runs

contrary to the aims and objectives of the UDP in terms of achieving sustainable development’. It goes on to affirm that in instances where material planning considerations in favour of development override biodiversity concerns, then it is reasonable for the LPA to secure measures from the developer that minimise or offset any loss of habitat features, either through planning conditions or legal agreements. The site accommodates maternity bat roosts and, as the buildings are proposed to be demolished, a replacement bat house with an integrated hibernation tunnel, further bat boxes, a new pond at the entrance into the site and additional planting are proposed as biodiversity enhancements. The NP Ecologist is now satisfied that the initial concerns relating to the choreography of the site clearance phases with periods of bat activity and hibernation have been addressed. The destruction of the multiple roost sites identified throughout the complex will be the subject of a European Protected Species licence which will specifically condition the nature and timing of any disturbing or destructive works associated with the decontamination and site clearance works. He welcomes the provisions for roosting bats and nesting birds to be provided in the form of a bespoke bat house and hibernaculum, bat and bird boxes included in the fabric of the proposed new houses, and the retention of roost spaces in those buildings to be retained within the application (the Administration Block and Chapel) and is therefore satisfied that such measures will compensate for the loss of the increasingly dilapidated lesser horseshoe bat roost sites and enhance the value of the site for bats and birds. By controlling the delivery of the bespoke mitigation measures, the LPA can secure compliance with the requirements of the Habitats Directive. CCW provisionally objected to the proposals submitted under the replacement bat house application (12/07795/FUL) pending receipt of additional information. On the basis of the information available initially, CCW were not able to determine if the proposal will avoid detriment to the maintenance of the favourable conservation status of the bats. They were concerned about the implications of the rapid deterioration of the buildings since the hospital’s closure in 2000 and the ongoing dilapidation of the existing buildings threatens both the use of the site as a maternity roost and the size of the population. Following the submission of additional details, CCW have confirmed that they accept the revised bat house plans and suggest that the bat house will maintain and enhance the favourable conservation status of the lesser horseshoe bats at this site. With regard to the nearby Pwll-y-Wrach SSSI, the NP Ecologist and CCW both note that the proposed increase in the residential population of this area is likely to place considerable indirect pressure on the existing weak public access network within the SSSI and local nature reserve. In order to reduce the impact of the development on these designations, it has been requested that the developer contribute a financial sum towards the preservation of the existing rights of way through this local attraction which should be secured via a Section 106 Legal Agreement. Having regard to the above, Officers consider that the proposals will not have a significant adverse effect on the ecology and biodiversity of the area and are satisfied with the extent of the proposed enhancements and mitigation measures. As such, the proposal is

considered to comply with policies G3 (i) (iv), Q2, Q4, and Q5 of the UDP. Sustainable Buildings/Design It is intended that the development will reach Code for Sustainable Homes Level 4. This will mainly be achieved through energy efficiency measures (rather than renewable energy generation) using a combination of sustainable building measures such as passive solar gain, the orientation of buildings, increased insulation values, reduced heat loss, the use of energy efficient technology including lighting, the use of environmentally friendly measures such as rainwater harvesting, the installation of wood burning stoves and energy meters, the reuse of materials salvaged from the site and the implementation of sustainable drainage measures such as soakaways and swales. The development will also incorporate cycle storage facilities, a community electric car share scheme, full recycling facilities on site and the provision of allotments. These are all in accordance with advice contained in the Authority’s Guidance for Sustainable Design in the National Parks of Wales, TAN 8 – Planning for Renewable Energy and the draft TAN 22 – Planning for Sustainable Buildings. Part 1 Policy 8 of the UDP ‘Sustainable Energy’ states that in the consideration of renewable energy proposals, the development must be of a scale that is appropriate to its location and it can be accommodated without unacceptable impact on the qualities for which the National Park was designated. Although the Design Commission for Wales suggested that the developer should investigate the possibility of installing a district heating system. However, a Biomass Energy Plant does not form part of the proposals. Contaminated Land Powys County Council’s Environmental Health Department and the Environment Agency have both identified the site as potentially contaminated land and comments received are formulated on the basis of the previous use of the site and the desk top study has highlighted that potential areas of contamination are likely to be very few and isolated with the main risk being associated with the boiler room and ducts which are contaminated with Asbestos. As such, detailed conditions have been suggested to minimise the risks associated with the contamination of the site both in terms of human health and the risk to groundwaters and these are considered to be reasonable in order to limit any ground contamination related problems. Impact on Trees The preamble to policy G4 of the UDP states that trees ‘play an important role in enhancing the Park’s landscape and biodiversity’; they add to the amenity and natural habitat of towns and villages and may need protection from development. Whether trees are protected by

legislation or not the LPA wishes to see trees retained and managed on any development site. PPW at paragraph 6.5.20 states: “Authorities should take into account the visual, historic and amenity contribution of trees in conservation areas. New planting or replanting may be appropriate where consistent with the character and appearance of the area. Special provisions apply for trees in conservation areas which are not the subject of Tree Preservation Orders.” Due to the size of the site and the nature of the development, the removal of some trees is considered unavoidable and a scheme of replacement would be required to comply with Policy G4 of the UDP. This policy aims to ensure that where development is proposed that may affect existing trees that are considered important, the trees and root systems will be retained and adequately protected prior to, during and after development takes place. The Arboricultural Impact Assessment (by Mark Chester of Cedarwood Tree Care) submitted with the application sets out a detailed survey of the trees on site. It identifies TPO trees and trees of landscape value as well as those that are of limited value and has formed the basis for the illustrative layout of the site by retaining the better specimens and mitigating the loss of unhealthy/damaged trees through additional planting, particularly to the edge of the built development and within the public open space. Officers generally accept the proposals in relation to trees but have slight concerns in the vicinity of plots 44 and 50 and the south-western wing of the proposed TREC due to the proximity of trees and root protection zones. The long term maintenance of the trees and open space/parkland will be undertaken by a Management Company and a management plan and maintenance programme could be controlled via condition and through a section 106 legal agreement. Highway Implications In terms of accessibility and transport issues the application can be assessed against policies G3, ES35, ES38 and ES39 of the UDP, PPW and TAN 18 – Transport. The application was accompanied by a Transport Assessment. The development layout has been designed to include shared surfaces and to limit vehicle speeds through design and use of materials in accordance with Manual for Streets. The approach adopted by the developer aims to reflect the character of Talgarth and the surrounding areas. The main objective is to integrate the development with existing highway and footpath networks both within and around the site in such as way that will prioritise pedestrians and cyclist over motorised vehicles. The access routes to existing residential properties will be maintained. It is proposed to include 5 No. live-work units within the residential element of the scheme and it is reasonable to expect that a small percentage of residents will be employed on site within the Commercial B1 elements and potentially the proposed Talgarth Rehabilitation Enablement Centre. The Powys County Council Highway Authority’s initial comments on the submitted scheme

suggested that the level of traffic and vehicular trips generated by the development would be of a similar level to the Hospital when it was fully operational. The Highway Officer also advised that, as an adoptable estate road network (including the junctions at Hospital Road and Church Street) would be required due to the size of the development, full engineering details of the roads, private drives, courtyards, parking areas and all anticipated adoptable areas were required to allow the Highway Authority to provide comprehensive comments to the LPA. The Highway Authority suggested that the lack of a continuous footway to Talgarth, the site’s remote location and the topography around the site do not lend themselves to non-motorised forms of traffic and adequate parking facilities will therefore be an important factor. In terms of public transport provision, the Highway Authority has confirmed that the bus services available to the locality are far more limited than is suggested by the T.A. and the accident data cover the last five years whilst the trip figures for the site provided by the Highways Authority date back around eighteen years and are not therefore comparable. Concerns were raised at the scale of the development proposed and that the supporting T.A. shows potential trip rates for the scheme being so close to the agreed maximum. They note that there is very limited scope for improvements to the access routes expected greater restraint in new traffic generating proposals given the passage of years since the Hospital closed (2000) and the actual current level of traffic movement. Additional plans were submitted including a layout plan providing details of the all on and off-street parking. The scheme proposes 175 parking spaces for the residential development compared to the recognised CSS standard of 251 spaces for the scheme. The agent has also confirmed that it is the developer’s intention to offer the majority of the estate roads for adoption (i.e. all roads and pavements except for those serving cul-de-sacs to a limited number of dwellings). The agent also reiterates that the level of traffic generated will be below the historic threshold levels associated with the working Hospital. In response to the additional details, the Highway Officer has reaffirmed their opposition to the development as proposed on highway safety grounds. With regard to parking, the CSS Parking Standards are recommended levels with scope for relaxation in sustainable locations. It is therefore considered that the level of parking provision is inadequate, especially as some of the identified spaces are unusable due to a lack of manoeuvring space and others fall within areas to be adopted despite the fact that these spaces could not be designated to individual properties. The suggested highway dimensions are not acceptable and the Highway Authority would not consider the scheme to be an adoptable layout. The entire layout will force blind and dangerous reversing manoeuvres and is not even consistent with Manual for Streets levels of visibility. The various swept path and indicative adoption plans are of an inappropriate scale and are too unclear to fully consider the implications of the scheme. In summary, it is considered that larger refuse and fire vehicles will not be able to gain access if all of the parking spaces are occupied. In addition, the main road through the site is too narrow for vehicles to pass

and the junctions at either end onto Hospital Road and Church Street are still not detailed. Finally, the Highway Officer is still concerned at the high levels of vehicular traffic that will be generated by the development, cannot comprehend the developer’s continued belief that pedestrian trips to the site are not disadvantaged by the topography and considers that the distance and gradients between the site and the public transport services in Talgarth are likely to impede uptake by residents of the site and continues to recommend refusal of this application in the interests of highway safety. The Executive Cabinet of Powys County Council has also considered a report on the potential impact on Council services and it was resolved that the Council object to the planning application on the grounds that the development does not represent a sustainable form of development that would benefit the social, environmental and economic wellbeing of Powys’ residents. Therefore, having regard to the advice received from the Highway Authority. Officers consider that the proposal in its current form is detrimental to highway safety within and around the site and does not accord with the provisions of policies G3 vii) and ix) and ES38 of the UDP. Planning Obligations S.122 of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 states that a planning obligation may only constitute a reason for granting planning permission for the development if the obligation is:

(a) necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms; (b) directly related to the development; and (c) fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development.

Circular 13/97 states that planning permission may not be bought or sold and a planning permission will not to be sought to redress existing deficiencies or lack of capacity in existing facilities, services or infrastructure. The overall extent of planning obligations sought will have regard to what is reasonable in terms of the scale of the development and its impact and this will be a matter for negotiation. The circular states that planning obligations can enhance the quality of development and enable proposals to go ahead which might otherwise be refused. The Authority has an approved Planning Obligations Strategy which seeks to assist prospective developers by identifying the likely occurrences where planning obligations will be sought. In doing so it is hoped this strategy will enable developers/applicants to calculate provision levels into initial development costings. For development control purposes this strategy aims to help speed up the time spent on negotiating individual planning applications. This strategy also aims to provide assurance to residents of the National Park that any new development will make a positive contribution to the special qualities of living and working within this exceptional landscape. The strategy takes a dual approach to the seeking of planning obligations: Category 1 Contributions - Contributions specific to the National Park as set out in UDP

policy. These contributions are determined by the specific criteria of our designation and seek to work towards achieving the vision and key aims for the National Park. Category 2 Contributions - Contributions for community benefit that rely on partnership working with the appropriate Unitary Authority and/or Community Service providers. These contributions will channel obligated contributions towards the achieving of socio- economic benefits as outlined in the relative Unitary Authorities Community Strategy and Development Plans. In using planning obligations, the LPA aims to offset the negative consequences of development to help meet local needs or to secure benefits which will make developments more acceptable. As such planning obligations may relate to matters other than those covered by planning permission, provided that there is a direct relationship between the planning obligation and the planning permission. Circular 13/97 places an emphasis on the overall quality of development rather than the number of planning benefits that could be obtained or offered. Planning obligations therefore provide a means of ensuring high quality development for the benefit of the community and the National Park. The circular also states that developers should not be expected to pay for facilities which are needed solely in order to resolve existing deficiencies. In addition to this, attempts should not be made to extract excessive contributions to infrastructure costs from developers. Additionally it makes clear that planning obligations should not be used where the use of planning conditions would suffice. Statement of Intent The original submission for this scheme was invalidated by the LPA due to an incomplete Planning Obligations Statement of Intent. More specifically, the approved validation requirements that were still in place at that time stressed the importance of agreeing the scope and financial limit of any contribution with the relevant authority/stakeholder before submission. The Strategy also states that applicants should contact the relevant Unitary Authority prior to the submission of the application to ascertain the extent of any required contributions and use this information to help produce their Statement of Intent. The following planning obligations are offered by the developer: Affordable Housing – Up to 6 homes at 60% open market value. Education Contribution - £291,359 towards primary education based on £3,380 per dwelling (as there is spare capacity at Gwernyfed High School). Community Facility – the existing chapel will be made available to the local community upon (or before) the beneficial occupation of the 50th dwelling to use as a flexible multi use facility at a cost of £200,000 to convert the building. Public Art - to be incorporated into the fabric of the converted chapel. Cricket Pitch and Pavilion – made available to the public to re-establish Talgarth Cricket Club upon (or before) beneficial occupation of the 25th dwelling. Tennis Courts – refurbishment and provision of additional courts available to the public upon (or before) beneficial occupation of the 25th dwelling. Play Space Provision – children’s play equipment within the extensive landscaped

grounds of an unspecified nature and location. Allotments – 0.12Ha of land available to residents of Talgarth and the scheme to be provided upon (or before) the beneficial occupation of the 50th dwelling. Public Transport - £15,000 towards the provision of a bus shelter at the bus stop outside Talgarth Town Hall upon (or before) the beneficial occupation of the 25th dwelling. Low Emission Car Club – provision of a low C02 emission car (electric or hybrid) for use by residents delivered upon (or before) the beneficial occupation of the 50th dwelling on the site. Provision of new/improved footpaths and cycle routes A management company set up to maintain the site It is not considered that the proposed planning obligations as listed above would be capable of overcoming the negative consequences of the proposed development. It is also considered that the proposed planning obligations are not completely in line with the aspirations/requirements of Powys County Council (particularly with regard to the lack of a Local Equipped Area of Play, the contribution towards public transport improvements and highway improvements. Should Members disagree with the officer’s recommendation and be minded to approve the scheme, a section 106 legal agreement would need to be re-negotiated and drafted to cover the above points. Other Material Considerations The LDP has been published in draft and progressed to public deposit state. Legal Advice is that whilst the emerging LDP is now material, little weight can be given to it in planning decision making at this stage. Welsh Government has consistently advised that emerging LDP’s should be given little if any weight in determining planning applications until such time as the Inspector’s Report is produced. However, paragraph 3.1.2 of PPW states that “Applications for planning permission… should be determined in accordance with the approved or adopted development plan for the area, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Material considerations could include current circumstances, policies in an emerging development plan, and planning policies of the Assembly Government and the UK Government. As advised above the LDP is currently under Examination and has not yet been adopted. In this instance the issue of prematurity can often arise. Here wording found in Section 2.6 of PPW is key:-

2.6.3 ‘…In these circumstances refusing planning permission on grounds of prematurity may be justifiable in respect of development proposals which are individually so substantial, or whose cumulative effect would be so significant, that to grant permission would predetermine decisions about the scale, location or phasing of new development which ought properly to be taken in the LDP context. Refusal will therefore not usually be justified except in cases where a development proposal goes to the heart of a plan. This requires careful judgement. A refusal might be justifiable where a proposal would have a significant impact on an important settlement, or on a substantial area, with an identifiable character, but is rarely justifiable if a development proposal is likely to impact upon only a small area.’

2.6.6 ‘Where planning permission is refused on grounds of prematurity, the local planning authority will need to indicate clearly how the grant of permission for the development concerned would prejudice the outcome of the LDP process’. In terms of the Draft LDP, the site is no longer allocated for any specific use and is not included within the settlement development boundary of Talgarth and will therefore revert to countryside. This being the case, Officers consider that the LPA should have due regard to the Inspector’s recommendation for dismissal in relation to the Cwrt y Gollen appeal. In coming to his view, he stated that, irrespective of the status of the site in the UDP: "The situation now is very different. The LDP spatial strategy and housing provision proposals which do not carry forward the UDP SS5 allocation at Cwrt y Gollen are based on newer population projections for the National Park over the Plan period, coupled with a settlement assessment process directed at supporting the vitality of communities whilst ensuring that the special qualities of the Park are maintained and enhanced. Whilst the robustness of the LDP strategy has yet to be examined, this is due to take place shortly. I consider that it would be unduly prejudicial to the LDP and the strategy it embodies to permit such a large quantity of housing in this location in advance of the comprehensive and detailed consideration of the Plan that the forthcoming examination will provide." (PINS Report APP/P9502/A/10/2132455, 19th July, 2011). Paragraph 11 of the Minister’s decision on the Cwrt y Gollen appeal reiterated the Inspector’s opinion on this subject and stated that: “The Inspector also considers the emerging Local Development Plan (LDP) to be a material consideration. In his view, it would be unduly prejudicial to the LDP and the strategy it embodies to permit such a large quantity of housing in this location in advance of the comprehensive and detailed consideration of the Plan at examination. The Minister can see no reason to disagree with the Inspector’s view in this respect.” There are notable similarities as well as differences between the proposed scheme at the former Mid Wales Hospital and the proposed scheme at Cwrt-y-Gollen. Further, the two sites provide different opportunities and constraints in planning terms. For example both sites are allocated for Mixed Use development in the UDP but not in the Local Plan, both allocations are due to be removed as part of the LDP with each site reverting back to countryside and both sets of proposals are considered to be major developments in the National Park. It should also be noted that whilst the Cwrt y Gollen scheme promoted approximately 200 new dwellings on the site (as well as commercial floorspace) and 103 No. residential units are proposed for the Mid Wales Hospital site, the Cwrt y Gollen site was not within a Conservation Area and is easily accessible in terms of the highway infrastructure (a Trunk Road) and public transport options. The Minister’s decision on the Cwrt y Gollen appeal was made during the course of the pre-application meetings with the developer/agent and they were advised to consider the impact of the decision on the former Mid Wales Hospital site by seeking independent legal advice. They are also fully aware that the site is not allocated for any specific use in the LDP and will revert to being classed as “countryside” upon adoption and they have submitted representations to try to resurrect the allocation on this site. The Pre-Hearing Meeting for

the LDP has been scheduled for the 19th November, 2012 (1pm at the Castle Hotel, Brecon) and the Examination is due to start w/c 14th January 2013. As previously stated, the Head of Strategy, Policy and Heritage has concluded that, in this instance, it is felt that the issue of prematurity is relevant and the application should be considered against the Draft LDP as a highly relevant material consideration. Having regard to the above, Officers consider that this scheme, by reason of its size, location and timing in advance of the comprehensive and detailed consideration of the Plan, would prejudice the preferred environmental capacity/settlement strategy of the LDP and would go to the heart of the plan in line with guidance contained within PPW. Therefore, Officers consider that the application should be refused on this basis. RECOMMENDATION: Refuse Reasons: 1 The affordable housing provision, by reason of the low number of units proposed

and the suggested method of disposal, is contrary to Policy ES29 of the Brecon Beacons National Park Unitary Development Plan (2007) and advice contained within Planning Policy Wales (4th Edition – February 2011).

2 The development, by reason of its size and scale, and location away from easily

accessible and regular public transport services and detailed highway design incorporating a lack of a sufficient number of parking spaces to serve the development, will have a detrimental impact on highway safety both within the site and on the adjoining highway network contrary to policies G3 vii) and ix) and ES38 of the Brecon Beacons National Park Unitary Development Plan (2007) and policies G3 iv) and v) and R5 of the Brecon Beacons National Park Local Plan (1999).

3 Insufficient information has been submitted to justify the proposals to demolish

buildings that are an integral part of the Talgarth Conservation Area, contrary to policies G3 i), ES17 and ES18 of the Brecon Beacons National Park Unitary Development Plan, policies G3 ii), CB5 and CB6 of the Brecon Beacons National Park Local Plan (1999) and guidance contained within Planning Policy Wales (4th Edition – February, 2011) and advice contained within Welsh Office Circular 61/96: Planning and the Historic Environment: Historic Buildings and Conservation Areas.

4 The proposed live/work units, fail to provide 51% or more of the floorspace for the

‘work’ element contrary to the provisions of Policy ES10 of the Brecon Beacons National Park Unitary Development Plan.

5 The proposed development, by reason of its size, scale, location and timing in

relation to the consideration of the Local Development Plan, would prejudice the preferred settlement strategy of the Local Development Plan contrary to advice contained within Planning Policy Wales (4th Edition – February, 2011)