Find, save and share Public Notices that affect you in the area.
Search the Public Notice Portal What is the Public Notice Portal?What is the Public Notice Portal?
The Public Notice Portal carries statutory public notices published in local newspapers and is the fastest and most effective way of finding out what is happening in YOUR neighbourhood.
Search the Public Notice PortalFamilies at a Garnant eco development say they have spent more than three years fighting to stay in their homes after a development loan charge, receivership and a sewerage dispute left them facing eviction notices and, until recently, the threat of losing essential services.
Residents at Brecon View Eco Village on Dynevor Road claim their “dream” plan purchase turned into a prolonged legal and bureaucratic ordeal that they feared could have left them homeless.
When Carmarthenshire councillors unanimously approved plans for the eco tourism village, the scheme was described in the council chamber as a flagship “zero carbon” project that would support the local golf club, create dozens of jobs and help bring a new tourism industry to a former coal mining area.
The developer, Simon Card, told members at the time: "It is our ambition to be integrated with the area, and become part of the village, and we hope this development will provide a boost to other businesses as well.”
John and Jean Weld, who live in one of the properties, say they agreed to buy their plot in April 2021, later paying for the freehold land and entering into a separate contract with the developer to build the house.
They moved into the property in June 2022 with the developer’s permission, retaining part of the purchase price while outstanding work remained. Since then, they say they have paid council tax and water bills as residents.
However, they claim their ownership was not registered with HM Land Registry at the time, leaving them exposed when the developer later ran into financial difficulty.
The couple stress that it was the builder who went bankrupt, not the residents. Despite having paid for their homes, they say they were told they could either contribute towards a debt linked to the failed development or leave their properties.
According to the Welds, the developer’s lender placed a charge over the entire site as security for a loan, which they allege wrongly included land they had already purchased.
They say they first became aware of the situation when a receiver was appointed and a locksmith arrived to change locks across the site, including homes that were already occupied.
In correspondence from the receiver’s solicitor, residents claim they were told they should either pay a share of a £437,000 debt or vacate the properties so they could be sold.
The Welds describe years of eviction notices, mediation and court proceedings, culminating in a settlement earlier this year and confirmation of their legal title at HM Land Registry.
However, a parallel dispute with Dŵr Cymru Welsh Water over the site’s foul drainage system created further uncertainty.
Correspondence seen by residents referred to an “unlawful foul drainage system” serving the properties and warned the connection could be terminated.
The Welds say the pipework was installed by the developer before they moved in, that Welsh Water invoiced the builder for the connection and visited the site on multiple occasions, and that they themselves have been paying for water and sewerage services since January 2023.
They also say a boundary dispute with neighbouring properties complicated efforts to reach a legal agreement over shared sewer infrastructure, leaving what they described as an “impasse”.
However, residents have now confirmed that disconnection was avoided after they collectively agreed a way forward, meaning water and sewerage services remain in place.
Despite this, the couple say the prolonged situation has taken a serious toll on their mental wellbeing and are continuing to appeal for support from elected representatives and relevant authorities as they work to resolve the remaining issues.
All relevant parties were contacted for comment but had not responded at the time of publication.