Butterfly scuppers bungalow development plans

Richard Youle, Local Democracy Reporter

A bungalow development will not go ahead partly because of its potential impact on a butterfly called the dingy skipper.

The dingy skipper’s presence on land off Heol Llanelli, Trimsaran, was identified in an ecological appraisal report submitted on behalf of developers Acorn (3000) Ltd.

Carmarthenshire Council turned down two Acorn (3000) Ltd applications – one an outline application for 19 bungalows and the other a detailed one for six bungalows and an estate road – and a Welsh Government-appointed planning inspector has now upheld the decisions following appeals.

The inspector said the boundaries of the two applications on the Heol Llanelli land overlapped, that the issues were very similar, and that the site had previously been allocated for residential development by the county council, meaning they could be dealt with in one decision report.

The main issues were the effect of the proposals on biodiversity and whether suitable provision was made for affordable housing and public open space and education contributions.

The inspector’s report said all new development in Wales had to result in an overall benefit for biodiversity. It said the Trimsaran site had species rich marshy grassland which, while not officially designated should be safeguarded, and that the presence of dingy skipper butterfly had also been identified.

The report said the outline plans for 19 bungalows would result in a significant loss of this grassland, notwithstanding a proposed ecological buffer zone, and that the extent of the effects on the dingy skipper – a species of principal importance under Welsh legislation – were unclear.

The report acknowledged the developers also proposed using an off-site area to compensate for the impacts on the grassland and butterfly, but it said there were “deficiencies” about this obligation.

It also questioned whether the off-site area “would effectively compensate for any direct effects on dingy skipper specifically”, and went on to conclude that on the evidence submitted “it has not been demonstrated that the proposal would provide effective mitigation or compensation, or that it would result in an overall net benefit for biodiversity”.

Turning to affordable housing, the decision report said Acorn (3000) Ltd and the council agreed that 20% of the bungalows should be classed as affordable housing and that public open space and education contributions were also required.

The inspector said he shared council concerns about the timing of triggers for the education and open space contributions and said it wasn’t clear how they would be secured. The inspector also said there were deficiencies relating to the affordable housing undertaking.

The decision report made similar conclusions on biodiversity and affordable housing, open space and education contributions for the appeal about the six bungalows, although the dingy skipper butterfly was not mentioned.

The inspector said the two applications for the bungalows would help boost the local housing supply. This benefit was ascribed “significant weight” for the outline application for 19 bungalows. But both appeals were dismissed.