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 (a) That the Committee was minded to APPROVE the application due to its positive social and economic benefits and environmental benefits from the production of renewable energy. (b) That these material considerations outweighed the identified Local Development Plan (LDP) policy conflict. (c) That the application be reported to Council for final determination and would be subject to the conditions outlined in Section 4.5 of the report Head of the Planning Service, with the addition of a condition limiting the lifetime of the consent to 25 years lifespan as put forward in an oral update to Committee Members.
RESOLVED (a) That delegated power be granted to the Head of Planning to APPROVE the application subject to the completion of a Section 106 Planning Obligation to secure the following: · Secure the provision of affordable housing in perpetuity and the implementation of a local lettings policy; · Provision and ongoing maintenance of public open space; · Contribution towards secondary education; · Contribution towards highway improvements. (b) And the imposition of other conditions outlined in Section 1.1 of the report.
RESOLVED That the application be REFUSED, for the following reasons: (a) The application is in retrospect for a wedding venue Tipi in a countryside location which is not adjoining any defined settlement boundary. The proposal is an unjustified form of development having a harmful visual impact on the countryside. It is contrary to policies SP 1 (Sustainable Development), SP 16 (The Countryside), GN.1 (General Development Policy and GN.16 Visitor Attractions and Leisure Facilities) of the Local Development Plan for Pembrokeshire. (b) The application fails to provide a robust noise management plan and to demonstrate that it would not have a significant detrimental impact on local amenity. The proposal is contrary to criterion 2 of policy GN.1 (General Development Policy) of the Local Development Plan for Pembrokeshire. (c) The application fails to provide any details of surface water disposal. As such the application fails to demonstrate that it can provide the necessary and adequate service infrastructure for the development contrary to criterion 6 of policy GN.1 (General Development Policy) of the Local Development Plan for Pembrokeshire. (d) The application fails to provide sufficient information to demonstrate that the proposed development would protect and enhance biodiversity and that there would no detrimental impact on the adjoining Site of Scientific Interest (SSSI) contrary to policy GN.37 (Protection and Enhancement of 84 Biodiversity) and the Environment (Wales) Act 2016. [Councillor Aaron Carey left the meeting at this juncture.]
RESOLVED That the existing Section 106 agreement be modified to allow two final payments after which the agreement will have served its purpose.
RESOLVED That the application be REFUSED, for the following reasons: (a) The proposal is for the retention of touring caravan pitches at a site in the countryside. The site is not within or well-related to a Town, Service Centre or Service Village. Nor does the application propose any community facility and it is not well-related to any Local Village where such a facility is not present. As such the proposal is contrary to policy GN.18 of the Local Development Plan for Pembrokeshire. (b) The application is not supported by a Green Infrastructure Statement and the submitted plans do not provide any biodiversity enhancement features throughout the site. The proposal is contrary to criterion 4 of Policy GN.1 (General Development Policy) and Policy GN.37 (Protection and Enhancement of Biodiversity) of the Local Development Plan for Pembrokeshire (adopted 28 February 2013) and the Environment (Wales) Act 2016. (c) The application site is accessed off a narrow rural C-class road which is a single track lane with no passing places. The application also fails to demonstrate that the required visibility splays could be achieved at the access to the site. It is considered that there is insufficient capacity in the rural road network to accommodate additional traffic movements associated with the proposal and that the lack of acceptable visibility splays would be detrimental to highway safety contrary to the requirements of criterion 5 of policy GN.1 (General Development Policy) of the Local Development Plan for Pembrokeshire (adopted 28 February 2013). (d) The application form stated that foul waste would be directed to a new septic 105 tank and provides no detail of how surface water is/would be disposed of. The proposal failed to demonstrate that necessary and appropriate infrastructure can be provided and is contrary to policy GN.1 and the advice set out in Welsh Office Circular 008/2018 Planning requirement in respect of the use of private sewerage in new development, incorporating septic tanks and small sewage treatment plants [Councillor Jordan Ryan left the meeting at this juncture.]
RESOLVED That the application be APPROVED subject to the conditions outlined in Section 1.1 of the report.
RESOLVED That the application be APPROVED subject to the conditions outlined in Section 1.1 of the report. [Councillors Rhys Jordan and Tony Wilcox left the meeting at this juncture.]
RESOLVED That the application be APPROVED.
The Chair opened the last Committee meeting of the municipal year by congratulating the Interim Head of Planning Service on her appointment to the role on a substantive basis. The Chair then made the following announcements: · Agenda Item 6 – Planning Application No.20/1061/PA – Brookside and Castlewood Holiday Park, The Bridge, Narberth – 12 New Self Catering Holiday Lodges and Associated Decking area, Engineering Works and Landscaping – had been withdrawn by the agent and no further work would be carried out in connection with it. The matter may be considered at a future meeting, with the resubmission of a new application. · During the Committee meeting held on 12 March 2024, delegated authority was granted to the Interim Head of Planning to approve Planning Application No22/0868/PA – Former County Archive facility adjacent to Haverfordwest Castle, Haverfordwest– subject to the resolution of ecological matters and to the conditions outlined in the report. The decision notice granting permission was issued on 23 March 2024. The Chair added that oral updates would be provided for Agenda Items No. 6, 7. 9 and 14.
Councillor Alistair Cameron declared a personal interest in Agenda Item No. 11 – Planning Application No.23/0790/PA – Penrath Farm, Ryelands Lane, Kilgetty, SA68 0UY, by virtue of owning two fields in the vicinity. Councillor John Cole declared a personal and prejudicial interest in Agenda Item No. 7 – Planning Application No.23/0568/PA – Land East of Pilgrims Way, Roch, SA62 6BQ, by virtue of owning a property in the vicinity of the development area. The Head of Planning Service declared a personal interest in Agenda Item No. 10 – Planning Application No.23/0514/MD – The Grange, Canaston Bridge, Narberth, SA67 8DE, by virtue of being close family friends with the Directors of Bluestone Resorts Limited. She advised that she would leave the meeting during that item of business.
Moved by Councillor Jacob Williams; Seconded by Councillor Brian Hall. The vote, by way of show of hands, was carried. RESOLVED That the Minutes of the Meeting held on 12 March 2024 be approved as a correct record, in both English and Welsh subject to the above amendment.
Y penderfyniad fel y'i cofnodwyd
RESOLVED (a) That the Committee was minded to APPROVE the application due to its positive social and economic benefits and environmental benefits from the production of renewable energy. (b) That these material considerations outweighed the identified Local Development Plan (LDP) policy conflict. (c) That the application be reported to Council for final determination and would be subject to the conditions outlined in Section 4.5 of the report Head of the Planning Service, with the addition of a condition limiting the lifetime of the consent to 25 years lifespan as put forward in an oral update to Committee Members.
This application was reported to the 12 March 2024 Committee meeting, where a decision was deferred as Members were minded to approve the application, contrary to the policies of the Local Development Plan. The Senior Planning Officer provided an oral update stating that since publication of the Committee report, no further representations had been received to the re-advertisement of the application. A number of conditions had also been drafted in paragraph 4.5 of the April report, which would now include the addition of a condition limiting the lifetime of the consent to 25 years lifespan. 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: · Applicant – Mr Glen Peters · Objector – Mr Paul Robertson-Marriott Following Mr Peters’ address, Councillor Tony Wilcox requested clarification on why a photo montage visualisation of the turbine was not provided to support his application. The Applicant confirmed he had submitted a drawing that was far more accurate than a montage through his Agent and had been told by the Senior Planning Officer that a montage would be unnecessary. The Senior Planning Officer clarified that a wireframe/photomontage was requested but that a map was provided by the applicant’s agent. No wireframe or photomontage was provided. In response to a question from Councillor Alistair Cameron, the Applicant responded that no issues had been identified with biodiversity measurements over the last 12 months. Following Mr Robertson-Marriott’s address, Councillor Cameron asked for the Objector’s thoughts on the measurement of wind turbine noise, to which Mr Robertson-Marriott suggested the approach taken was desk-based modelling that had a margin of error and did not include Laundry Cottage in the mapping and individual assessment. The Committee proceeded to discuss the application and the key points were noted as follows: · Speaking as the Local Member, Councillor John Davies reiterated his support for the proposal that the application be approved due to the environmental, economic and social benefits it would bring, as well as meeting the targets of the Welsh Government’s Net Zero Wales Plan, which would significantly outweigh the marginal impact to a Grade II Listed Building. · Councillor Wilcox endorsed the officer’s recommendation of refusal, stating the idea that the 200-foot-high turbine would not be seen from within the grounds of Rhosygilwen Mansion was inconceivable to him. · Councillor Cameron again raised the issue of noise being generated from the turbine, to which the Senior Planning Officer confirmed the Agent had submitted a decibel report that was in accordance with technical guidance and that noise levels were acceptable. · Both Councillors Davies and Tim Evans enquired about the number of representations submitted, to which the Head of Planning Service directed Members to paragraph A.2.11 in the March Committee report and read out that three pieces of correspondence in support of the application and two letters of objection were received. Councillor John Davies Moved that the application be approved contrary to the officer recommendation for the reasons stated above; Seconded by Councillor Brian Hall. The Committee 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, John Davies, Tim Evans, Nicola Gwynn, Brian Hall, Rhys Jordan, Jordan Ryan, Anji Tinley, Jacob Williams and Michael Williams [13] Against the Motion: Councillor Tony Wilcox [1] There were no abstentions. RESOLVED (a) That the Committee was minded to APPROVE the application due to its positive social and economic benefits and environmental benefits from the production of renewable energy. (b) That these material considerations outweighed the identified Local Development Plan (LDP) policy conflict. (c) That the application be reported to Council for final determination and would be subject to the conditions outlined in Section 4.5 of the report Head of the Planning Service, with the addition of a condition limiting the lifetime of the consent to 25 years lifespan as put forward in an oral update to Committee Members.
Y penderfyniad fel y'i cofnodwyd
RESOLVED (a) That delegated power be granted to the Head of Planning to APPROVE the application subject to the completion of a Section 106 Planning Obligation to secure the following: · Secure the provision of affordable housing in perpetuity and the implementation of a local lettings policy; · Provision and ongoing maintenance of public open space; · Contribution towards secondary education; · Contribution towards highway improvements. (b) And the imposition of other conditions outlined in Section 1.1 of the report.
[Having previously declared a personal and prejudicial interest in this item of business, Councillor John Cole withdrew from the meeting]. This application was presented for Committee consideration as it involved a full planning application for over 30 dwellings (Appendix 1 to Section 14 of the Council’s Constitution). The Principal Planning Officer provided an oral update stating that the Applicant had requested their name within the Committee report be corrected to Wakefield Developments Pembrokeshire Ltd. from Wakefield Developments Ltd. 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: · Agent – Mr Gethin Beynon · Objector – Mr Dave Smith, Chair of Nolton and Roch Community Land Trust (CLT) Following Mr Beynon’s address, Councillor Mark Carter requested clarification of the 48 new build homes, to which the Agent confirmed these properties would be going on the open market and could potentially be bought as second homes unless a condition restricting their use could be imposed on a grant of planning permission. In answering a further question from Councillor Carter, Mr Beynon indicated that the Applicant was making a significant contribution towards education, however, reorienting the affordable housing options to comprise two and three-bedroom units would be financially unviable based on two viability assessments carried out by an independent surveyor and funded by the Applicant. Councillor Alistair Cameron, making reference to the four affordable units, elicited the views of the Agent about whether he was disappointed that the proposal would not meet the Council’s target of 20% of new homes in residential developments would be for affordable housing. While he believed that the 48 dwellings were just as needed as the affordable homes, the Agent pointed to the cost of materials and labour for construction that had changed significantly post-COVID. Councillor John Davies asked to clarify the Applicant’s contributions of £207,000 for education and £60,000 for Highways, to which the Agent stated the latter figure had been adjusted to £30,000 in total. In reply to a further question, the Agent understood that the Applicant was involved in negotiation with the Council’s Highways Department to secure adoption of the road at Maes y Ffynnon, which bounds the site. On the issue of second homes, Councillor Jordan Ryan disclosed he had been sent emails by residents concerned that out of 46 properties in developments in Broad Haven and St Davids, 30 were said to be holiday or second homes. In response to his question whether priority could be given to local residents to buy one of the new-builds, the Head of Planning Service advised that the imposition of such a condition to restrict occupancy would need to be justified and supported by sufficient evidence and, at the present time, the Authority did not have that evidence. She continued it was an issue that was being discussed and developed with the review of the Local Development Plan. Following Mr Smith’s address, Councillor Rhys Jordan sought clarification on the typical cost to build a house, to which the Chair of Nolton and Roch CLT outlined the advice given to the organisation by the Ateb social housing provider to be £3,000 per square metre, not including land. Referring to the local assessment of housing need carried out by Nolton and Roch CLT, Councillor Cameron identified that the need was for two to three-bedroom properties and not one-bedroom units as suggested by the Council’s Housing Department. Mr Smith clarified that the proportions were obtained from survey data undertaken locally. He added that historically that the identified need for one-bedroom dwellings had largely come from the requirement in towns, such as Haverfordwest, Milford Haven and Pembroke and been extrapolated across Pembrokeshire. Rural villages, on the other hand, would have a different requirement. The Head of Planning Service agreed with this statement and went onto say that in terms of the most up-to-date Local Market Housing Assessment, there was generally a need for smaller three-bedroom properties, while there was an overwhelming need for affordable one-bedroom units. The Committee proceeded to discuss the application and the key points were noted as follows: • Councillors Carter, Jordan and Davies supported the officer’s recommendation for approval with reservations that the proposal could have been improved upon for the community with more social three-bedroom housing as the village did not have the pupil numbers to support the school. • Councillor Brian Hall also demonstrated his support for the application on behalf of the Local Member, Councillor Peter Morgan. • Councillor Jordan Ryan reiterated that the number of affordable homes was disappointing, which was accepted by the Head of Planning Service who acknowledged that the reality of the current economic situation meant that it was simply not viable to provide additional affordable housing and Applicant had justified this with viability assessments. • In response to a suggestion made by Councillor Cameron for the matter to be deferred for further viability assessment, the Head of Planning Service affirmed that she would not be able to insist on the Applicant to do this. Councillor Alistair Cameron was inclined to refuse the application as planning laws were very clear for sites outside of settlement areas. • Councillor Michael Williams held that the Council had failed to address any of the arguments put forward by the Nolton and Roch CLT through the use of further viability assessments and policies on usage and restrictions that Pembrokeshire Coast National Park Authority already had in place, as highlighted by Councillor Rhys Jordan. Councillor Mark Carter Moved the recommendation for approval; Seconded by Councillor Brian Hall. The Committee proceeded to the vote, undertaken by way of a roll-call, which was carried. The votes were recorded as follows: For the Motion: Councillors Aaron Carey, Mark Carter, John Davies, Tim Evans, Brian Hall, Rhys Jordan, Anji Tinley, Jacob Williams and Michael Williams [9] Against the Motion: Councillor Alistair Cameron, Nicola Gwynn, Jordan Ryan and Tony Wilcox [4] There were no abstentions. RESOLVED (a) That delegated power be granted to the Head of Planning to APPROVE the application subject to the completion of a Section 106 Planning Obligation to secure the following: · Secure the provision of affordable housing in perpetuity and the implementation of a local lettings policy; · Provision and ongoing maintenance of public open space; · Contribution towards secondary education; · Contribution towards highway improvements. (b) And the imposition of other conditions outlined in Section 1.1 of the report.
The Committee noted that the item had been WITHDRAWN by the Agent and no further work would be carried out in connection with it. The matter may be considered at a future meeting, with the resubmission of a new application.
Y penderfyniad fel y'i cofnodwyd
RESOLVED That the application be REFUSED, for the following reasons: (a) The application is in retrospect for a wedding venue Tipi in a countryside location which is not adjoining any defined settlement boundary. The proposal is an unjustified form of development having a harmful visual impact on the countryside. It is contrary to policies SP 1 (Sustainable Development), SP 16 (The Countryside), GN.1 (General Development Policy and GN.16 Visitor Attractions and Leisure Facilities) of the Local Development Plan for Pembrokeshire. (b) The application fails to provide a robust noise management plan and to demonstrate that it would not have a significant detrimental impact on local amenity. The proposal is contrary to criterion 2 of policy GN.1 (General Development Policy) of the Local Development Plan for Pembrokeshire. (c) The application fails to provide any details of surface water disposal. As such the application fails to demonstrate that it can provide the necessary and adequate service infrastructure for the development contrary to criterion 6 of policy GN.1 (General Development Policy) of the Local Development Plan for Pembrokeshire. (d) The application fails to provide sufficient information to demonstrate that the proposed development would protect and enhance biodiversity and that there would no detrimental impact on the adjoining Site of Scientific Interest (SSSI) contrary to policy GN.37 (Protection and Enhancement of 84 Biodiversity) and the Environment (Wales) Act 2016. [Councillor Aaron Carey left the meeting at this juncture.]
This application was presented for Committee consideration as it involved leisure development on a site of over 0.5 hectares in area (Appendix 1 to Section 14 of the Council’s Constitution). The Case Officer provided an oral update stating that the map contained within the Committee report was incorrect and that the correct location plan would be displayed within her presentation. 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: · Agent – Mr Richard Banks · Objector – Mr Matt Sutton Following Mr Banks’ address, Councillor Alistair Cameron made reference to officers’ concerns regarding the proposal, such as the method of surface water disposal and the impact on biodiversity. Firstly, the Agent cited comments made by the Council’s Head of Infrastructure (Drainage) in the Committee report that the development was not liable to be eligible for consent by a Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) Approving Body (SAB). He then established that the entire development was within the ownership of the Applicants, who did not own any part of the adjoining woodland which is designated as a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) and asserted no trees had been felled as part of the development. The Agent went on to say the tipi would be erected on the only adjoining field to the holiday complex and that conditions could be imposed on any planning permission to control noise and light emissions. In his answer to a further question from Councillor Cameron, Mr Banks stated information relating to the surface water disposal and the protection and enhancement of biodiversity would have been provided had it had been requested. He continued that the application had been before the Council since November and he only became aware that there was an issue with it when the Agenda was published a week before the meeting. Councillor Rhys Jordan drew attention to the retrospective nature of the application, to which the Agent admitted the Applicants’ interpretation of permitted development rights had been incorrect, but had now been corrected with this proposal. Planning law allows for temporary structures for up to 14 days in any calendar year, nonetheless, the Agent revealed that the intention here was to hold 14 weddings a year, which would require planning permission. Following Mr Sutton’s address, which he used to allege that areas of important wildlife habitats had been cleared from the site before the application was presented to the Committee, the Chair maintained that the Applicants did not have to justify their decision if the land was not afforded a level of protection for nature conservation. Mr Sutton claimed that edition 12 of Planning Policy Wales stipulates that where clearance has taken place, and the value of the previous habitat cannot be ascertained, it must be ‘assumed that it was of high quality’. On the potential of issues related to noise, Councillor Cameron questioned the proximity of neighbouring properties, to which Mr Sutton replied that leaseholders own properties immediately adjoining the area to the north, which was formerly known as Redberth Lodge. He was concerned that the hosting of events would bring traffic to and from the site and in several metres closer to these houses. Under the terms of their covenant with the landlord, who was also said to be the Applicant, Mr Sutton added that the leaseholders and paying guests had a right to the quiet enjoyment of these properties. Furthermore, the impact of noise could result in the displacement of breeding birds in the adjoining woodland. In connection with noise from past events, Mr Sutton responded to Councillor Tim Evans that he was unaware of any events that had taken place, however, understood bookings had been taken from May 2024 onwards and for up to the next two years. The Committee proceeded to discuss the application and the key points were noted as follows: • Councillors Rhys Jordan, Jordan Ryan, Mark Carter, Brian Hall and Michael Williams supported the officer’s recommendation for refusal because the proposal would be inappropriate development of the open countryside. • In response to a suggestion made by Councillor Tony Wilcox that the application be deferred to allow Members to conduct a site visit, which was not endorsed, the Head of Planning Service advised at this point that three out of four reasons for refusal could be overcome if further information was provided and considered acceptable to the Council. She reiterated the primary reason for refusal was based on the principle of the proposal development not being in a sustainable location and not being in accordance with policies set locally and in Future Wales and Planning Policy Wales documents. • Councillor John Davies enquired as to why Natural Resources Wales (NRW) had suggested that the Committee delays its decision pending the outcome of an investigation, to which the Case Officer responded that NRW had confirmed they were carrying out their own on-site investigation but gave no further details. Councillor Rhys Jordan Moved the recommendation for refusal; Seconded by Councillor Brian Hall. The Committee 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, John Davies, Tim Evans, Nicola Gwynn,Brian Hall, Rhys Jordan, Jordan Ryan, Anji Tinley, Jacob Williams and Michael Williams [13] Abstain: Councillor Tony Wilcox [1] There were no votes against. RESOLVED That the application be REFUSED, for the following reasons: (a) The application is in retrospect for a wedding venue Tipi in a countryside location which is not adjoining any defined settlement boundary. The proposal is an unjustified form of development having a harmful visual impact on the countryside. It is contrary to policies SP 1 (Sustainable Development), SP 16 (The Countryside), GN.1 (General Development Policy and GN.16 Visitor Attractions and Leisure Facilities) of the Local Development Plan for Pembrokeshire. (b) The application fails to provide a robust noise management plan and to demonstrate that it would not have a significant detrimental impact on local amenity. The proposal is contrary to criterion 2 of policy GN.1 (General Development Policy) of the Local Development Plan for Pembrokeshire. (c) The application fails to provide any details of surface water disposal. As such the application fails to demonstrate that it can provide the necessary and adequate service infrastructure for the development contrary to criterion 6 of policy GN.1 (General Development Policy) of the Local Development Plan for Pembrokeshire. (d) The application fails to provide sufficient information to demonstrate that the proposed development would protect and enhance biodiversity and that there would no detrimental impact on the adjoining Site of Scientific Interest (SSSI) contrary to policy GN.37 (Protection and Enhancement of 84 Biodiversity) and the Environment (Wales) Act 2016. [Councillor Aaron Carey left the meeting at this juncture.]
Y penderfyniad fel y'i cofnodwyd
RESOLVED That the existing Section 106 agreement be modified to allow two final payments after which the agreement will have served its purpose.
[Having previously declared a personal interest in this item of business, the Head of Planning Service withdrew from the meeting.] This application was presented for Committee consideration as it sought to modify a Section 106 (S106) Agreement that was required in respect of Application Reference 02/0900/PA, which was granted planning permission by the Planning and Rights of Way Committee in 2004. The Committee proceeded to deliberate on the application and the following key points were raised: · In response to a question raised by Councillor Brian Hall, the Development Manager - Major Projects and Planning Obligations confirmed that three final payments of £38,000 were due under the Agreement, however, the Applicant had already made one of those payments. As a result, modification of the S106 Agreement would only require two payments of £38,000. · Councillor Alistair Cameron, along with the Chair, attempted to understand how long the S106 Agreement would remain in place for, to which the Development Manager - Major Projects and Planning Obligations explained that the wording of such Agreements in 2004 would not have been as rigorously enforced as they were currently. He acknowledged that if this obligation provided for perpetuity, it would not comply with stringent legal tests set out in the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations (2010). These tests were firstly necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms; secondly, must be directly related to the development and thirdly, fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development. In considering this S106 Agreement would fail to meet today’s statutory tests, the Development Manager - Major Projects and Planning Obligations advised if the Council had then raised concerns or the application was refused, the Applicant would have had a right to appeal against the decision. CouncillorBrian Hall Moved the recommendation for refusal; Seconded by Councillor Mark Carter. The Committee 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 Davies, Tim Evans, Nicola Gwynn, Brian Hall, Rhys Jordan, Anji Tinley, Tony Wilcox, Jacob Williams and Michael Williams [11] Against the Motion: Councillors John Cole and Jordan Ryan [2] There were no abstentions. RESOLVED That the existing Section 106 agreement be modified to allow two final payments after which the agreement will have served its purpose.
Y penderfyniad fel y'i cofnodwyd
RESOLVED That the application be REFUSED, for the following reasons: (a) The proposal is for the retention of touring caravan pitches at a site in the countryside. The site is not within or well-related to a Town, Service Centre or Service Village. Nor does the application propose any community facility and it is not well-related to any Local Village where such a facility is not present. As such the proposal is contrary to policy GN.18 of the Local Development Plan for Pembrokeshire. (b) The application is not supported by a Green Infrastructure Statement and the submitted plans do not provide any biodiversity enhancement features throughout the site. The proposal is contrary to criterion 4 of Policy GN.1 (General Development Policy) and Policy GN.37 (Protection and Enhancement of Biodiversity) of the Local Development Plan for Pembrokeshire (adopted 28 February 2013) and the Environment (Wales) Act 2016. (c) The application site is accessed off a narrow rural C-class road which is a single track lane with no passing places. The application also fails to demonstrate that the required visibility splays could be achieved at the access to the site. It is considered that there is insufficient capacity in the rural road network to accommodate additional traffic movements associated with the proposal and that the lack of acceptable visibility splays would be detrimental to highway safety contrary to the requirements of criterion 5 of policy GN.1 (General Development Policy) of the Local Development Plan for Pembrokeshire (adopted 28 February 2013). (d) The application form stated that foul waste would be directed to a new septic 105 tank and provides no detail of how surface water is/would be disposed of. The proposal failed to demonstrate that necessary and appropriate infrastructure can be provided and is contrary to policy GN.1 and the advice set out in Welsh Office Circular 008/2018 Planning requirement in respect of the use of private sewerage in new development, incorporating septic tanks and small sewage treatment plants [Councillor Jordan Ryan left the meeting at this juncture.]
[Councillor Alistair Cameron reiterated a personal interest in this item of business.] This application was presented for Committee consideration as it involved tourist, leisure or recreational development on a site of over 0.5 hectares in area (Appendix 1 to Section 14 of the Council’s Constitution). 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: · Applicant – Mr Nick Kinahan · On behalf of an Objector – Mr Andrew Vaughan-Harries Following Mr Kinahan’s address, Councillor Rhys Jordan wanted to gain a better understanding of the material planning considerations the Committee needed to take into account when deciding on the application, to which the Applicant disclosed that making a living on a small farm had been difficult and the siting of caravans on the land had provided his family with extra income. In reply to a question from Councillor Mark Carter, Mr Kinahan admitted he had never applied for planning permission until now, to which Councillor Carter expressed that he admired the Applicant’s honesty. The Committee proceeded to discuss the application and the key points were noted as follows: · Councillor Carter reiterated his appreciation for Mr Kinahan’s honesty and believed his intentions were good, nevertheless, agreed with the points made by Mr Vaughan-Harries that planning requirements were now far greater than they were in the past. He added that planning decisions were made in accordance with the law and policy and that the Authority was obliged to be fair to current and potential caravan site owners. · In response to a suggestion made by Councillor Brian Hall whether Mr Kinahan could apply to the Council for a Certificate of Lawfulness, the Head of Planning Service advised the application was submitted as a result of an enforcement investigation. She confirmed that as part of that investigation Officers had looked at whether the land’s use had gained immunity from enforcement action over a 10-year period, however, no such evidence had been found nor provided. · Councillor Alistair Cameron, speaking as one of the Local Members, was inclined to refuse the application as planning laws were very clear for sites outside of settlement areas. · The Chair, making reference to the discussions relating to the 10-year rules for a Certificate of Lawfulness, wished to know what other steps the Applicant could take to remedy a possible breach of planning control. The Head of Planning Service explained there were potentially three options open to him, namely to appeal the Committee’s decision, apply to the Authority for a Certificate of Lawfulness or operate as a Certificated Site with approval from an exempted organisation through permitted development rights. · Councillor Jordan was of the opinion that Mr Kinahan had not tried to ride roughshod over the planning system, but had been naïve. Despite valuing the Applicant’s honesty, Councillor Jordan stated he could not support the application given the lack of material considerations. · In answer to a question raised by Councillor Tony Wilcox, the Head of Planning Service affirmed that date-stamped aerial photography could provide evidence of land use. Councillor Mark Carter Moved the recommendation for refusal; Seconded by Councillor Michael Williams. The Committee 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, John Davies, Tim Evans, Nicola Gwynn, Brian Hall, Rhys Jordan, Jordan Ryan, Anji Tinley, Tony Wilcox, Jacob Williams and Michael Williams [13] There were no votes against or abstentions. RESOLVED That the application be REFUSED, for the following reasons: (a) The proposal is for the retention of touring caravan pitches at a site in the countryside. The site is not within or well-related to a Town, Service Centre or Service Village. Nor does the application propose any community facility and it is not well-related to any Local Village where such a facility is not present. As such the proposal is contrary to policy GN.18 of the Local Development Plan for Pembrokeshire. (b) The application is not supported by a Green Infrastructure Statement and the submitted plans do not provide any biodiversity enhancement features throughout the site. The proposal is contrary to criterion 4 of Policy GN.1 (General Development Policy) and Policy GN.37 (Protection and Enhancement of Biodiversity) of the Local Development Plan for Pembrokeshire (adopted 28 February 2013) and the Environment (Wales) Act 2016. (c) The application site is accessed off a narrow rural C-class road which is a single track lane with no passing places. The application also fails to demonstrate that the required visibility splays could be achieved at the access to the site. It is considered that there is insufficient capacity in the rural road network to accommodate additional traffic movements associated with the proposal and that the lack of acceptable visibility splays would be detrimental to highway safety contrary to the requirements of criterion 5 of policy GN.1 (General Development Policy) of the Local Development Plan for Pembrokeshire (adopted 28 February 2013). (d) The application form stated that foul waste would be directed to a new septic 105 tank and provides no detail of how surface water is/would be disposed of. The proposal failed to demonstrate that necessary and appropriate infrastructure can be provided and is contrary to policy GN.1 and the advice set out in Welsh Office Circular 008/2018 Planning requirement in respect of the use of private sewerage in new development, incorporating septic tanks and small sewage treatment plants [Councillor Jordan Ryan left the meeting at this juncture.]
Y penderfyniad fel y'i cofnodwyd
RESOLVED That the application be APPROVED subject to the conditions outlined in Section 1.1 of the report.
This application was for Committee consideration as it involved a development that was contrary to a policy of the Local Development Plan (LDP), but was being recommended for approval (Appendix 1 to Section 14 of the Council’s Constitution). Moved by Councillor Brian Hall; Seconded by Councillor Tony Wilcox. The Committee 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, John Davies, Tim Evans, Nicola Gwynn, Brian Hall, Rhys Jordan, Anji Tinley, Tony Wilcox, Jacob Williams and Michael Williams [12] There were no votes against or abstentions. RESOLVED That the application be APPROVED subject to the conditions outlined in Section 1.1 of the report.
Y penderfyniad fel y'i cofnodwyd
RESOLVED That the application be APPROVED subject to the conditions outlined in Section 1.1 of the report. [Councillors Rhys Jordan and Tony Wilcox left the meeting at this juncture.]
This application was for Committee consideration as it was for development contrary to the Local Development Plan (LDP). As there were material considerations which were considered to outweigh the conflict with planning policy, the application was being recommended for approval (Appendix 1 to Section 14 of the Council’s Constitution). 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: · Agent – Mr John Dyas Following Mr Dyas’ address, the Chair sought clarification about the rebuilding of the damaged boundary wall, to which the Agent, speaking as a professional engineer, stated that the Council’s suggestion of limiting the wall’s height to 600mm was too dangerous and would create a trip and fall hazard of about 3m. He had pointed out that Protection From Falling Regulations require at least a 1.1m barrier of to be erected on the boundary with the highway. In reply to a further question from the Chair, the Agent confirmed that rebuilding the wall like-for-like would be acceptable to him. While admitting she had not been party to previous discussions, the Head of Planning Service advised that the Agent could submit a scheme through the discharge of that condition and the Planning Authority would happily consider it. She also offered to discuss the matter further with Highways officers. Moved by Councillor Tim Evans; Seconded by Councillor Brian Hall. The Committee 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, John Davies, Tim Evans, Nicola Gwynn, Brian Hall, Rhys Jordan, Anji Tinley, Tony Wilcox, Jacob Williams and Michael Williams [12] There were no votes against or abstentions. RESOLVED That the application be APPROVED subject to the conditions outlined in Section 1.1 of the report. [Councillors Rhys Jordan and Tony Wilcox left the meeting at this juncture.]
Y penderfyniad fel y'i cofnodwyd
RESOLVED That the application be APPROVED.
This application was for Committee consideration as it was for development contrary to the Local Development Plan (LDP), which was being recommended for approval (Appendix 1 to Section 14 of the Council’s Constitution). The Case Officer provided an oral update stating that since publication of the Committee report, consultation responses had been received from Martletwy Community Council and the Council’s Ecologist and neither had made any comments on the application. The Head of Planning Service requested that the Planning Application No. in the report be corrected to No.23/1000/PAfrom No.22/1000/PA and recorded in the Minutes. Moved by Councillor Mark Carter; Seconded by Councillor Brian Hall. The Committee 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, John Davies, Tim Evans, Nicola Gwynn, Brian Hall, Anji Tinley, Jacob Williams and Michael Williams [10] There were no votes against or abstentions. RESOLVED That the application be APPROVED.
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.