Wrthi'n llwytho
Y penderfyniadau fel y mae cofnodion y cyngor yn eu cofnodi. Bydd crynodeb mewn iaith glir yn dilyn pan fydd wedi'i ysgrifennu.
RESOLVED That the application be REFUSED, for the reasons outlined in Section 1.1 of the report of the Director of Community Services, with delegated power being granted to the Head of Planning to determine whether the impact on the Special Area of Conservation and biodiversity should be a reason for refusal and with the omission of highway impact being a reason for refusal due to the updated consultation response confirming no objection as traffic levels were considered acceptable.
RESOLVED That the application be APPROVED, subject to the conditions outlined in Section 1.1 of the report of the Director of Community Services.
RESOLVED (a) That the application be APPROVED, subject to a Section 106 agreement and the conditions outlined in Section 1.1 of the report of the Director of Community Services. (b) If the section 106 legal agreement is not completed within 3 months of the foregoing resolution then delegated power be granted to the Head of Planning to exercise discretion to refuse the application on the grounds of non-compliance with Planning Policy Wales and TAN 6.
RESOLVED That the application be APPROVED, subject to the conditions outlined in Section 1.1 of the report of the Director of Community Services.
RESOLVED That the application be APPROVED, subject to the conditions outlined in Section 1.1 of the report of the Director of Community Services.
In welcoming everyone to the meeting, the Chairman made the following announcements: · That Agenda Item No. 7 - Planning Application No. 22/0174/PA - Brynteg, Tegryn, Llanfyrnach, Pembrokeshire, SA35 0BD was formally withdrawn as an application by the agent so would not be considered as part of the agenda. It was stated that no further work would be undertaken on the application and any future proposals would need to be submitted under a new planning reference number. · Reference was made to Agenda Item No. 6 - Planning Application No. 21/0857/PA - Cwm Farm, Llawhaden, Narberth, Pembrokeshire, SA67 8HP and the following information was provided in relation to it’s reappearance on the agenda: It was brought to the planning department’s attention that when the Planning Committee considered this planning application at September’s Committee meeting, neither the applicant nor agent had been given the opportunity to address the committee, due to the invitation being sent to the wrong email address. Legal advice was sought and circulated to Members in advance of the meeting, and read as follows: Members must disregard everything that was said and done at the September meeting, and must come into this meeting with an open mind on the way they will treat this planning application. Any committee decision must be based solely on the consideration of relevant facts presented to the October (and not the September) meeting. These relevant facts might come from the written report, case officer's presentation, public speakers' representations, and any advice or updates tendered by officers. The Chairman then invited Members to consider whether, having received the above advice, they believed they had an open mind regarding considering the application. No member indicated that they wished to withdraw from considering the item of business. · That oral updates would be provided for Agenda Items No. 6 and 11.
Councillor Mark Carter declared a personal interest in Agenda Item No. 8 – Planning Application No.22/0096/PA - Former Green Bower Garages Ltd, Slebech, Haverfordwest, SA62 4PD, by virtue of having dealt with the applicant in a business capacity in the past, albeit not for two years.
Moved by Councillor Jacob Williams; Seconded by Councillor Brian Hall. AGREED That the Minutes of the meeting held on 6 September 2022 be approved as a correct record in both English and Welsh.
Y penderfyniad fel y'i cofnodwyd
RESOLVED That the application be REFUSED, for the reasons outlined in Section 1.1 of the report of the Director of Community Services, with delegated power being granted to the Head of Planning to determine whether the impact on the Special Area of Conservation and biodiversity should be a reason for refusal and with the omission of highway impact being a reason for refusal due to the updated consultation response confirming no objection as traffic levels were considered acceptable.
This application was for Committee consideration as it was for an agricultural building over 1000sqm floorspace or with a site area over 1ha (paragraph 1 (i) of the scheme of delegation). It was re-presented for Committee consideration as the applicant and agent were not given the opportunity, in accordance with the public speaking protocol, to address the September Planning Committee meeting. It was stated that Members must disregard everything that was said and done at the September meeting and consider the application with an open mind on the way they will determine the application. The Planning Officer, Claire Jenkins, provided a number of oral updates as follows: · Paragraph 4.1 of the Committee report stated that a floor plan was awaited, this has now been received. · Paragraph 6.11 of the Committee report referred to allegations made in a representation received. For the avoidance of doubt, it was stated that this was not a material planning consideration. · A representation was received alleging the introduction of pipes near the northern boundary of the application site. This allegation does not relate to development forming part of this application and will be investigated separately. · Additional information was received in respect of a Traffic Statement, Manure Management Plan and a revised surface water drainage scheme and additional consultation responses were received from: (a) Highways, confirming no objection as traffic levels were considered acceptable (b) Council Ecologist, stating that further consideration was needed in relation to the additional information (c) Drainage, raising concern in relation to lack of information to justify the proposed drainage arrangements · An updated recommendation was provided requesting that Delegated Authority be granted to the Head of Planning to determine whether the impact on the Special Area of Conservation and biodiversity should be a reason for refusal and for the omission of highway impact being a reason for refusal due to the updated consultation response. The Committee was advised that due notification had been received from the following interested parties who wished to exercise their right to address the Committee: · Community Council – Miss Tracy Watkins · Agent – Mr Tony Kernon · Objector – Mr Alun Boore · Local Member – Councillor Di Clements Following Mr Kernon’s address, Councillor Mark Carter queried if Mr Kernon considered the separation distance between the shed and closest neighbouring property to be reasonable, to which Mr Kernon advised that he did. Clarification was sought by Councillor Mark Carter as to the status of the neighbouring property, to which Mr Kernon stated that it was currently used as a holiday let. Councillor Mark Carter requested further details regarding the manure management plan, which Mr Kernon provided, stating that a FACTS assessor report was provided to the Planning Authority last week and proceeded to expand on specific details of the plan. Following a question from Councillor John Cole regarding the removal of bedding, Mr Kernon advised that a tractor collected the bedding and took it offsite; therefore, it was not stored outside on the application site. Reference was made to the applicant’s misinterpretation of the planning process in the early stages, and Councillor John Cole queried why they did not seek professional advice at that time. Mr Kernon stated that they had received advice at the time, which was different to advice he would have provided, but due to time limitations of them having to depart from their previous site and the length of time the planning process was taking they built the current structure. Councillor Tim Evans queried the total number of cattle on the site, to which Mr Kernon advised that the building could hold up to 80 suckler cows plus calves, although the current figure was around 35. Following Mr Boore’s address, Councillor Mark Carter requested clarification as to the status of his property. Mr Boore confirmed that he was currently letting the property for holiday let purposes. Councillor Mark Carter requested that Mr Boore repeat the distances from the shed to his property, which he did. Councillor Tony Wilcox made reference to the run off that Mr Boore stated within his address to the Committee and queried if he felt the water was contaminated. Mr Boore advised that he was unsure if the water was contaminated but expressed that it had been having a negative impact on his land and stated that he had requested that Natural Resources Wales visit the property to investigate, which had not yet been arranged. Following a question from Councillor Tim Evans regarding the traffic levels on the access track, Mr Boore advised that the only traffic that passes his house through to meet the highway would be from farmland to the north but he confirmed that those farms did not access their fields from the track. Councillor Di Clements, Local Member, addressed the Committee to express her disapproval of the application. A plethora of concerns were raised which included conflicting figures being provided regarding the number of cattle which raised a range of questions about the manure management plan, concerns regarding how the proposed drainage system would cope with such high levels of water, the proximity to the neighbouring property, impact caused by heavy levels of traffic movement to and from the site and the legality of the access over the bridleway. In summing up Councillor Di Clements urged Members to support the officers recommendation for refusal and added that although she would usually applaud the desire to run a business, this building had been erected in an inappropriate place with no duty shown for the negative impact it has caused. Following Councillor Di Clements address, Councillor John Cole queried when she had first been made aware of the application site, to which she advised it was around Christmas 2017 and she notified the Planning department in January 2018 as the structure was erected over the Christmas period. Councillor Jamie Adams requested further information as to why a water pump would be required if there would be no increase to the amount of rain/surface water. Councillor Di Clements advised that although she was no drainage expert, significant excavation was undertaken on the site, right down to the rock which causes run off. The Committee proceeded to discuss the application and the key points were noted as follows: · The Chief Planning Officer for Development Management, provided answers to a number of points which were raised during the public speaker questioning which included advising the distances between the nearest residential property to the application site/structure and confirming that he had attended the site, albeit around 18 months ago. Information was also provided regarding two interrelated drainage matters and he advised that there was a need for a water pump as the surface water run-off had increased in comparison to when the site was a green field. He reiterated Councillor Di Clements point regarding the significant excavation which had taken place on the site which had changed the land drainage regime. Further information was then provided regarding the ongoing drainage dialogue. Following a number of points raised regarding conflicting cattle figures, reference was made to the manure management plan and the figures contained within were conversed. · Councillor Mark Carter requested information as to what separation distance would be classed as a suitable distance between the agricultural building and nearest residential dwelling. The Chief Planning Officer for Development Management advised that a precise figure was not able to be given but stated that the permitted development allowance for agricultural buildings does not extend to any livestock building that is within 400 metres of a protected building due to the potential of impact on the property. Additional background information and examples were also provided on the matter. Councillor Mark Carter Moved that the application be refused as per the updated recommendation provided as part of the Officer’s oral update; Seconded by Councillor Tim Evans. · Councillor Tim Evans requested clarification as to whether the applicant was the owner of the land outlined in blue as part of the map contained within the Committee report. The Chief Planning Officer for Development Management confirmed that the red line demonstrated the application site with the blue line signifying other land under control of the applicant and advised that the current application could be dealt with up to the edge of the blue line if required. · Following clarification sought from Councillor Alistair Cameron, the Chief Planning Officer for Development Management reiterated Highways updated consultation response stating that following receipt of the traffic statement Highways confirmed no objection as traffic levels were considered acceptable. · The Chairman and Councillor Alistair Cameron raised concerns regarding the bridleway to which the Chief Planning Officer for Development Management advised that the bridleway matter was separate to issues raised previously regarding highway safety and was being considered under ‘impact of the development on the bridleway’ which was deemed to be significant and maintained as a reason for refusal. The Committee then proceeded to the vote, undertaken by way of a roll-call, which was carried. The votes were recorded as follows: For the Motion: Councillors Jamie Adams, Alistair Cameron, Aaron Carey, Mark Carter, John Cole, Andrew Edwards, Tim Evans, Brian Hall, Jordan Ryan, Michelle Wiggins, Jacob Williams and Michael Williams. [12] Councillor Tony Wilcox abstained from voting. RESOLVED That the application be REFUSED, for the reasons outlined in Section 1.1 of the report of the Director of Community Services, with delegated power being granted to the Head of Planning to determine whether the impact on the Special Area of Conservation and biodiversity should be a reason for refusal and with the omission of highway impact being a reason for refusal due to the updated consultation response confirming no objection as traffic levels were considered acceptable.
This application was formally withdrawn by the agent prior to the Committee meeting, but after publication of the agenda. No further work will be undertaken on the application and any future proposal would need to be submitted as a new application.
Y penderfyniad fel y'i cofnodwyd
RESOLVED That the application be APPROVED, subject to the conditions outlined in Section 1.1 of the report of the Director of Community Services.
This application was for Committee consideration as it was for offices and light industry (b1 use class) over 1000 square metres in floorspace (paragraph 1(c) of the scheme of delegation). The Committee was advised that due notification had been received from the following interested party who wished to exercise his right to address the Committee: · Agent – Mr Andrew Vaughan-Harries Following Mr Vaughan-Harries address, Councillor Alistair Cameron made reference to the objections made, and queried if this site would produce a higher noise impact than the previous occupier of the site. Mr Vaughan-Harries informed the Committee that the applicant had advised that no noise complaints had been received from neighbouring residents at their current site in Clarbeston Road so noise impact was not envisaged to be an issue at the proposed new site. Following a question from Councillor Tim Evans, Mr Vaughan-Harries advised that the access to the site would remain the same with some minor improvements. Councillor Brian Hall Moved that the application be approved as recommended; Seconded by Councillor Tim Evans. The Committee then proceeded to the vote, undertaken by way of a roll-call, which was carried. The votes were recorded as follows: For the Motion: Councillors Jamie Adams, Alistair Cameron, Aaron Carey, Mark Carter, John Cole, Andrew Edwards, Tim Evans, Brian Hall, Jordan Ryan, Michelle Wiggins, Tony Wilcox, Jacob Williams and Michael Williams. [13] There were no votes against the motion or abstentions. RESOLVED That the application be APPROVED, subject to the conditions outlined in Section 1.1 of the report of the Director of Community Services.
The Meeting adjourned at 11:55am for a short comfort break and reconvened at 12:10pm.
Y penderfyniad fel y'i cofnodwyd
RESOLVED (a) That the application be APPROVED, subject to a Section 106 agreement and the conditions outlined in Section 1.1 of the report of the Director of Community Services. (b) If the section 106 legal agreement is not completed within 3 months of the foregoing resolution then delegated power be granted to the Head of Planning to exercise discretion to refuse the application on the grounds of non-compliance with Planning Policy Wales and TAN 6.
This application was for Committee consideration as it involved a development that was contrary to the development plan but which was being recommended for approval (paragraph 1(n) of the scheme of delegation). The Committee was advised that due notification had been received from the following interested party who wished to exercise his right to address the Committee: · Applicant – Mr Stephen De-Waine Following Mr De-Waine’s address, Councillor Mark Carter requested clarification as to which elements required retrospective consent, to which Mr De-Waine advised that he believed it was for the access he created onto the land. Councillor Tim Evans referred to the objections received and requested further information. Mr De-Waine provided information as to who they were from and advised that he felt he had a good reputation with the local community. Following a question from Councillor Jordan Ryan, Mr De-Waine confirmed that the wind and solar power sources would generate enough electricity to charge an electric vehicle. The Committee proceeded to discuss the application and the key points were noted as follows: · Councillor Jamie Adams raised concerns, based on an ineffective monitoring systems used for such developments in the past, and queried whether the Planning department had capacity to ensure the business plan was monitored sufficiently to ensure it progresses within the five years. The Head of Planning outlined the monitoring requirements of One Planet Developments, and agreed that such monitoring was resource intensive. It was advised that work would be undertaken to ascertain how many current One Planet Developments the Authority were monitoring to ensure that adequate resource was in place to provide effective monitoring. Councillor John Cole Moved that the application be approved as recommended; Seconded by Councillor Brian Hall. · Councillor Alistair Cameron made reference to a concern raised within an objection regarding the use of the land being unsightly and queried if anything would be put in place to mitigate that. The Area Team Leader for the North Development Management Team advised that the site was in it’s infancy and as the years progress and the development grows into fruition the visual impact would be significantly ameliorated. · Councillor Tim Evans made reference to the requirement for the installation of a drainage system and queried whether the applicant was aware of such requirement. The Area Team Leader for the North Development Management Team confirmed that the matter was one that the applicant would need to address in due course and had been addressed in the management plan. The Committee then proceeded to the vote, undertaken by way of a roll-call, which was carried. The votes were recorded as follows: For the Motion: Councillors Alistair Cameron, Mark Carter, John Cole, Andrew Edwards, Tim Evans, Nicola Gwynn, Brian Hall, Jordan Ryan, Michelle Wiggins, Tony Wilcox and Jacob Williams. [11] Against the Motion: Councillors Jamie Adams, Aaron Carey and Michael Williams. [3] There were no abstentions. RESOLVED (a) That the application be APPROVED, subject to a Section 106 agreement and the conditions outlined in Section 1.1 of the report of the Director of Community Services. (b) If the section 106 legal agreement is not completed within 3 months of the foregoing resolution then delegated power be granted to the Head of Planning to exercise discretion to refuse the application on the grounds of non-compliance with Planning Policy Wales and TAN 6.
Y penderfyniad fel y'i cofnodwyd
RESOLVED That the application be APPROVED, subject to the conditions outlined in Section 1.1 of the report of the Director of Community Services.
This application was for Committee consideration as it involved a development that was contrary to the development plan but which was being recommended for approval (paragraph 1(n) of the scheme of delegation). The Committee was advised that due notification had been received from the following interested party who wished to exercise his right to address the Committee: · Applicant – Mr James Lynch Mr Lynch sent his apologies for not being able to join the meeting due to being unwell but had however, prior to the meeting, provided a written copy of his representation which the Chairman read out on his behalf. The Committee proceeded to discuss the application and the key points were noted as follows: · Councillor Tim Evans queried whether there would be any parking for the accommodation to which the Planning Officer, Sian husband, advised that the site was already served by a 54-space car park with accessible spaces being proposed adjacent to the building, with no objections being raised by highways for the proposed levels of parking. Councillor Mark Carter Moved that the application be approved as recommended; Seconded by Councillor Brian Hall. · Following points raised by Councillors Michael Williams and Alistair Cameron regarding the appearance of the building, the Planning Officer outlined the recommended scheme of landscaping which would be linked to the application as a condition to soften the visual impact. The Committee then proceeded to the vote, undertaken by way of a roll-call, which was carried. The votes were recorded as follows: For the Motion: Councillors Jamie Adams, Alistair Cameron, Aaron Carey, Mark Carter, John Cole, Andrew Edwards, Tim Evans, Nicola Gwynn, Brian Hall, Jordan Ryan, Michelle Wiggins, Tony Wilcox, Jacob Williams and Michael Williams. [14] There were no votes against the motion or abstentions. RESOLVED That the application be APPROVED, subject to the conditions outlined in Section 1.1 of the report of the Director of Community Services.
Y penderfyniad fel y'i cofnodwyd
RESOLVED That the application be APPROVED, subject to the conditions outlined in Section 1.1 of the report of the Director of Community Services.
This application was for Committee consideration as the Director of Community Services had exercised his discretion to remove the application from the scheme of delegation, without referring the application to the Planning Delegation Panel, due to the complex and sensitive nature of the proposal warranting Committee consideration (criterion 2 of the guidance for referral to the planning committee). The Area Team Leader for the North Development Management Team provided an oral update stating that since publication of the Committee agenda an update was required in relation to paragraph 6.20 to state that a soakaway had not been installed as the site was already hardstanding with surface water drainage in place, therefore, as there was no change to the area being drained, the D?rCymru Welsh Water surface water drainage condition was unnecessary. The Committee was advised that due notification had been received from the following interested party who wished to exercise his right to address the Committee: · Local Member – Councillor Mike Stoddart Councillor Mike Stoddart provided some background information about the application site and raised a number of concerns which included the unjustified reasons for using temporary permitted development rights and concerns regarding anti-social behaviour on the site. It was stated that he has been assured by the housing department that the site would be supervised and commented that he felt the Committee had been put in a position where they would need to approve the application to avoid costing tax payers a large amount of money. Following Councillor Mike Stoddart’s address, Councillor Mark Carter queried if there was any evidence to show that appointing a homeless person to one of the shipping containers would bring with it any more issues than if they had been appointed a flat. Councillor Mike Stoddart reiterated the assurance he had been given by the housing department but stated that constituent concerns had arisen from articles in local newspapers reporting on other temporary accommodation sites. Councillor John Cole requested clarification as to whether the containers would now be used to which Councillor Mike Stoddart stated that did not know for sure. Following a question from the Chairman, Councillor Mike Stoddart advised that he was aware of the water and electric connection issues and was of the understanding that such issues had been resolved. Councillor Brian Hall queried if the containers were now ready to accept persons in need, to which Councillor Mike Stoddart stated that he believed they were. In response to a question from Councillor Michael Williams, Councillor Mike Stoddart advised that he had not been consulted about the containers and the first knowledge he had of them was following a constituent’s query regarding the site. Councillor Alistair Cameron queried if any support would be put in place for the occupiers of the containers to which Councillor Mike Stoddart stated that he had been informed that a social worker would be overseeing the residents of the site to offer the required support. Councillor Alistair Cameron highlighted that although there was no need for landscaping as it was a temporary development, anything that could be done to improve the visual impact of the vicinity would be helpful. Councillor Tim Evans Moved that the application be approved as recommended; Seconded by Councillor Brian Hall. The Committee then proceeded to the vote, undertaken by way of a roll-call, which was carried. The votes were recorded as follows: For the Motion: Councillors Alistair Cameron, Aaron Carey, Mark Carter, John Cole, Andrew Edwards, Tim Evans, Nicola Gwynn, Brian Hall, Jordan Ryan, Michelle Wiggins, Tony Wilcox, Jacob Williams and Michael Williams. [13] There were no votes against the motion or abstentions. RESOLVED That the application be APPROVED, subject to the conditions outlined in Section 1.1 of the report of the Director of Community Services.
Rhaid i gynghorwyr ddweud pan fydd ganddyn nhw gysylltiad personol â rhywbeth sy'n cael ei drafod, fel swydd, eiddo neu aelod o'r teulu. Mae buddiant sy'n rhagfarnu yn ddigon cryf i'r cynghorydd adael yr ystafell fel arfer a pheidio â chymryd rhan.
Caiff datganiadau eu darllen o'r cofnodion unwaith y byddan nhw wedi'u cyhoeddi.
Yn rhestru cynghorwyr presennol y cyngor yn unig. Nid yw aelodau cyfetholedig, swyddogion a chyn-gynghorwyr yn cael eu dangos.