5. What representations has the Counsel General made in relation to the covenant on land in Baglan industrial park? OAQ51327

Well, once again, I'm afraid this question engages the law officers' convention, but I understand that no decision on the future of the site has been made. And should matters proceed to the acquiring of the site, the matter of the covenant would have to be addressed. 

Well, can I join others in welcoming you to your post, Counsel General, and can I also put on record my appreciation to the former Counsel General for the work he did as well?

Counsel General, the answer you gave me is obviously disappointing. I appreciate the legal side of things, but the covenant has a schedule that highlights matters relating to the usage of land, and states, in paragraph 2:

'Not to use the property hereby conveyed or any part thereof other than as an industrial park in accordance with the planning permissions granted'.

And paragraph 3 states:

'not use the (demised premises, property) or permit the same to be used for offensive, noisy or dangerous trade business manufacture or occupation of for any purpose or in the manner which may be a nuisance to the Agency or the owners or occupiers of neighbouring or adjacent premises.'

Now that clearly places a responsibility upon the Welsh Government, as the landowners, to ensure that any development of this land should not impact detrimentally upon occupiers of neighbouring or adjacent properties, many of which are residential properties. Isn't it time that you advised the Welsh Government not to accept the consequences that could follow, and to actually tell the Ministry of Justice that they will undoubtedly create a nuisance through the proposed development, and possibly include scenarios where danger may occur, as we've seen on prison estates across the UK? Otherwise, I think you're preparing the Welsh Government for many, many legal cases, as my constituents will be seeking a recourse. 

Well, the Member has raised this matter several times in this Chamber, and he is tempting me to go outside the boundaries of my authority into a policy area. I'm afraid I'm going to disappoint him in that and resist that. I'm afraid that the question he's asking is squarely within the matter of the covenant, so I'm not able to elaborate further on what I have said, but the relevant Cabinet Secretary will have heard his comments.

Counsel General, plainly the restrictive covenant on the site in terms of industrial use, as highlighted, is reinforced within the local planning context, via the Neath Port Talbot local development plan. So, what is your view, in terms of the legalities around the conflict between a proposed prison development and the land-use allocation within the LDP for economic use? And do you agree that that possibility undermines Welsh Government planning legislation and guidance, particularly with regard to the statutory need to ensure that local development plans are evidence based and sound?

I thank you for that question. As I say, no decision has been taken on the future of the site, and the matter of the covenant will have to be addressed in due course if that were to proceed. But above and beyond that, I can't be drawn on his question any further.