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 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. [The meeting was adjourned for a short break at this juncture and Councillor Jordan Ryan left the meeting.]
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.
RESOLVED That the application be APPROVED subject to the conditions outlined in Section 1.1 of the report.
The following announcements were made: Planning Application No.24/1092/PA - Oakland Caravan Park, Summerhill, Narberth, Pembrokeshire, SA67 8NS - Change of use of land for the relocation of static caravans, associated infrastructure and landscaping enhancements (partly in retrospect) has been removed from the agenda having been formally withdrawn and closed down on the planning system at the request of the agent. Officers will not undertake any further work on this application. Planning Application No.24/0660/PA – Land at New Road, Begelly, Kilgetty, Pembrokeshire, SA68 0YF - Creation of touring caravan/tent site with new toilet block together with ecological enhancements has been withdrawn from today’s Planning Committee Meeting Agenda to allow additional time for the agent to seek to address the surface water drainage issue. It is anticipated that the application will be presented to the Planning Committee in June 2025. Planning Application No. 24/0120/PA - Land off The Kilns, Llangwm, Haverfordwest, SA62 4HG - Construction of 67 no. Dwellinghouses with Access, Estate Roads and Associated Infrastructure Delegated authority was granted to the Head of Planning to approve the application subject to the completion of a Section 106 planning obligation. A completed Section 106 Agreement has been received and planning permission was granted on 31 March 2025.
The following declarations of interest were made: Planning Application no. 24/0798/PA – Public Information Centre, Argyle Street, Pembroke Dock, Sa72 6HL Councillor Simon Hancock declared a personal and prejudicial interest by virtue of being a member of the Dyfed Powys Police and Crime Panel. Councillor Rhys Jordan declared a personal interest by virtue of a family member being employed at the Police Station. Councillor Chris Williams declared a personal interest by virtue of having a close family member employed by Dyfed Powys Police. Councillor John Davies declared a personal interest by virtue of a family member being employed as a Police Officer.
Moved by Councillor Simon Hancock; Seconded by Councillor Brian Hall. The vote, undertaken by way of a show of hands, was carried. RESOLVED That the Minutes of the meeting held on 18 March 2025 be approved as a correct record, in both English and Welsh
Y penderfyniad fel y'i cofnodwyd
RESOLVED That the application be APPROVED subject to the conditions outlined in Section 1.1 of the report.
The application was presented for Committee consideration as it involves an Environmental Impact Assessment Development (Appendix 1 to Section 14 of the Constitution). The Planning Officer presented the application to the Committee. 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 – Charlotte Peacock (Remote) - County Councillor: Councillor Tessa Hodgson (Remote) The Chair invited the Agent to address the Committee and then invited questions from Members to the Agent. The key points were highlighted as follows: Councillor John Cole raised concerns regarding the refusal of the previous application due to the significant damage and loss of Best and Most Versatile (BMV) land. The Agent advised that the area of land was 7.6 hectares which included Grade 2 and 3a land. She advised that Grade 3a land was not farmed to its potential as it was of lower quality. Councillor Cole highlighted that BMV land is its own eco system feeding animals and emphasised the damage caused by removing it from agricultural production. [Councillor Jordan Ryan joined the meeting at this juncture.] In response to a question from Councillor Alistair Cameron regarding the use of the land following the 40 year tenure, the Agent advised that all fields would be returned to their current state and usage and reassured Councillors that they would not be removing any land from permanent use. The Agent further advised that agricultural land was not solely about food production but also animals. In response to concerns from Councillors Cole and Alan Dennison regarding the length of term, the Agent advised that the application was for a 40 year time limited lease and not in perpetuity. She highlighted that originally, leases were for 25 years and that this had gradually increased due to the efficiency of solar panels, advancements in technology and increasingly expensive grid connections. The Chair then invited the Local Member to address the Committee with the key points highlighted as follows: The Local Member thanked Members of the Committee for attending the recent site visit. She highlighted that in 2021 there had been an application for a larger solar park which had been refused citing the BMV land being a precious resource. The Local Member emphasised that the benefits of the proposal did not outweigh the loss of and damage to BMV land which would be permanent highlighting that there were other areas that could be utilised. The Chair then invited questions from the Committee to the Local Member. In response to a concern raised by Councillor Cole regarding the impact of the application on residents, the Local Member advised that there was already a large solar park to the west with permission to extend. Approval of the application was then Moved by Councillor Brian Hall; Seconded by Councillor Alistair Cameron. The Committee then debated the application with the key points highlighted as follows: In response to a concern raised by Councillor Cole regarding the Inspector’s report and recommendation, the Head of Planning highlighted that the Inspector’s noting of the condition of the land was taken into consideration and that this application was significantly reduced in area. In response to a further question from Councillor Cole regarding the comments made by the Local Member concerning the area, number of buildings affected and that brown-field sites could be utilised instead of BMV land, the Head of Planning advised that whilst the concerns raised by the Local Member were valid and had been considered against Planning Policy Wales, this was balanced against the Development Plan which was supportive of renewable energy. The Chair emphasised the necessity to weigh up the planning considerations against the need for renewable energy as land was a finite resource. He highlighted that whilst small scale applications may be below the threshold, when considered en masse, they create a huge cumulative effect and loss to agricultural production. Councillor Tony Wilcox emphasised the difficulty with the decision as Pembrokeshire was a large County with a lot of empty spaces and the importance to protect as much BMV land as possible. In response to a concern raised by Councillor Wilcox regarding proliferation, the Head of Planning advised that there was a cumulative assessment and consideration of the overall impact of the application as an element of the environmental statement. She then referred to the Inspectors decision that there was no visual impact. In response to a concern from Councillor Alan Dennison regarding the transportation of the panels and location of manufacture impacting on the carbon footprint, the Head of Planning advised that manufacture was not a planning issue; however, highlighted the Highways Officer’s recommended condition when dealing with construction and traffic management which would require approval by the Committee. Councillor Cole emphasised the damage that the population was causing to the ecosystem as the land absorbs carbon and highlighted the concerns of destroying one ecosystem in order to supply green energy. In response to a concern raised by Councillor Steve Alderman regarding the connection of the solar panels, the Head of Planning advised that there was an undertaking by the Applicant to do the required works and that there would be no requirement for Committee approval and that it was not included in the application. The vote, undertaken by way of a roll-call was carried. The votes were recorded as follows: For the Motion: Councillors Alistair Cameron, Mark Carter, John Davies, Alan Dennison, Tim Evans, Brian Hall, Michael Williams and Danny Young [8] Against the Motion: Councillors John Cole, Simon Hancock, Rhys Jordan, Tony Wilcox and Chris Williams [5] Abstain: Councillor Steve Alderman [1] 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. [The meeting was adjourned for a short break at this juncture and Councillor Jordan Ryan left the meeting.]
[Having previously declared a personal and prejudicial interest in this application, Councillor Simon Hancock left the meeting. The Vice-Chair, Councillor Rhys Jordan chaired the meeting for this item of business.] The application was presented for Committee consideration as the Assistant Chief Executive has exercised discretion to remove it from the scheme of delegation following a request by the local Member. The grounds for referral related to Criterion 2 – The decision on a proposed development’s impact within the local Community is finely balanced between competing interests or is complex and sensitive and would benefit from a public examination of its merits. The application had previously been heard on 18 March 2025 and was deferred for a site visit to be undertaken. The Planning Officer presented the application to the Committee. 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: - Objector: Lucy Cawley (In person) The Chair invited the Objector to address the Committee and then invited questions from Members to the Objector; the key points were highlighted as follows: In response to a question from Councillor Mark Carter regarding the vehicles currently parking at the site, the Objector advised that it was not a private car park and that there were no restrictions to stop residents using the spaces. She further highlighted that during the site visit, members of staff from the Pharmacy also expressed their concerns regarding the parking. In response to a further question from Councillor Carter regarding the issue of traffic flow and potential noise disturbance, highlighting that any business that located there would cause the same issues, the Objector clarified that the residents main concern was the safety of the access point with emergency vehicles egressing the site at speed. She further noted that there had not been any issues when the building was previously occupied. In response to a question from Councillor Alan Dennison regarding the lack of traffic survey on the location, the Head of Planning advised that the Development Plan and the National Policy Guidance was clear that an assessment is only required when the application was likely to increase traffic by a significant amount. The Transport Strategy and Highways Development Officer clarified that the level of development would remain at a similar level and that both a judgement and Officer assessment had been undertaken and the anticipated journeys would remain similar to the existing lawful use. In response to a further comment from Councillor Dennison, that the journeys would not be the same as they would be under emergency protocol, the Head of Planning advised that the journeys would be spread across the day and would therefore not represent a significant increase. In response to a question from Councillors Tony Wilcox and John Cole regarding the potential congestion and access, the Objector advised that their main objection was the access points and emphasised that the only way to use the site safely was by provision of a second access point directly onto Bush Street. The Objector clarified that some low level concerns would remain but the danger to pedestrians would be mitigated. She further noted that all other Police Stations that she was aware of had separate access points to other users. The Chair thanked the Objector for their comments and the Committee then debated the application. Councillor Brian Hall then addressed the Committee as Local Member highlighting that many other sites had been reviewed, and that Argyle Street was the only suitable location. Approval of the application was then Moved by Councillor Brian Hall; Seconded by Councillor Mark Carter. In response to a concern raised by Councillor Wilcox regarding the original highways consultation response and the Tree Preservation Order (TPO) that was in place, the Transport Strategy and Highways Development Officer advised that there were no safety implications with the single access point and therefore this suggested amendment was not progressed. Councillor John Cole highlighted his disappointment that the Agent or a representative of the Applicant was not in attendance as there were a number of concerns that he wished to highlight including the work that needed to be undertaken at the site and a radio mast being required. The Vice-Chair acknowledged that the Agent had been in attendance at the first debate. In response to a concern raised by Councillor Alistair Cameron regarding the parking and vegetation at the site, the Transport Strategy and Highways Development Officer advised that the vegetation had been allowed to grow due to unoccupancy of the building. She further highlighted that the removal of one of the parking bays, removal of the vegetation and maintenance of the site would improve the highway visibility. The Head of Planning clarified that Approval of the Application was subject to a number of conditions, one of which confirmed that ‘There shall be no growth or obstruction to visibility beyond the line of the existing fence fronting Argyle Street for as long as the development exists’. Councillor Tony Wilcox highlighted that the surgery was currently operating with a reduced number of General Practitioners whilst seeking to recruit a further seven or eight General Practitioners which would increase the need for parking spaces. In response to a question from Councillor Wilcox regarding the potential to negotiate the price to include a second access point, the Head of Planning advised that Members were to debate the Application as it stood. Councillor Tim Evans highlighted the highways consultation response referred to in the original Committee report in March which had recommended a second, dedicated access on Bush Street and questioned whether a TPO on trees held a precedent over residents. The Vice-Chair reminded Members that a second access point was not for consideration and that the Highways Department were content with the Application. The Head of Planning highlighted that the proposal was entirely Policy compliant. In response to a question from Councillor John Cole regarding the addition of a condition for a second access point to be considered, the Solicitor advised that this could not be included. The Head of Planning advised that the Planning Agent for the Applicant had advised that the Applicant did not intend to provide a second access. In response to a question from Councillor Michael Williams regarding comments from Pembroke Dock Town Council, the Head of Planning advised that the report stated no response had been received however, this was incorrect and that the Town Council was in support of the proposal. In response to a comment from Councillor Jordan Ryan that the Committee should be able to impose an additional condition for a second access point, the Vice-Chair clarified that Councillor Ryan could propose an amendment contrary to Officer recommendation and would need to fully explain the reasons for the amendment. The vote, undertaken by way of a roll-call was carried. The votes were recorded as follows: For the Motion: Councillors Steve Alderman, Alistair Cameron, Mark Carter, John Davies, Brian Hall, Rhys Jordan, Chris Williams, and Danny Young [8] Against the Motion: Councillors John Cole, Alan Dennison, Tim Evans, Jordan Ryan, Tony Wilcox and Michael Williams [6] There were no abstentions. RESOLVED That the application be APPROVED subject to the conditions outlined in Section 1.1 of the report. [The meeting was adjourned for a short break at this juncture and Councillor Jordan Ryan left the meeting.]
Y penderfyniad fel y'i cofnodwyd
RESOLVED That the application be APPROVED subject to the conditions outlined in Section 1.1 of the report.
The application was presented for Committee consideration as it comprises a development where development plan policies conflict and which is being recommended for approval (Appendix 1 to Section 14 of the Constitution). The Planning Officer presented the application to the Committee. 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: Geraint John (In Person) The Chair invited the Agent to address the Committee and then invited questions from Members to the Agent. The key points were highlighted as follows: In response to a question from Councillor Mark Carter regarding the application being retrospective, the Agent advised that, following an outbreak of Bovine Tuberculosis (TB), the building had been erected quickly to house the restricted herd. Following the herd being cleared, the Applicant had recognised the need for premises for local workers due to the highspeed broadband in place and the demand for units for working space. In response to a concern from Councillor John Cole regarding the conditions noted in the report, the Agent advised that there were two access points, and that the hedgerow was in a relatively short section. In response to a question from Councillor Alan Dennison regarding the length of time taken to submit the application as the area had been in use for the last 2-3 years, the Agent advised that they had been in dialogue for some time with the Officers due to the application being retrospective. Councillor Carter highlighted the diversification that the farmer had recognised and the provision for the local and business communities. Approval of the application was then Moved by Councillor Mark Carter; Seconded by Councillor Tim Evans. The vote, undertaken by way of a roll-call was carried. The votes were recorded as follows: For the Motion: Councillors Steve Alderman, Alistair Cameron, Mark Carter, John Cole, John Davies, Alan Dennison, Tim Evans, Brian Hall, Simon Hancock, Rhys Jordan, Tony Wilcox, Chris Williams, Michael Williams and Danny Young [14] There were no votes against and no abstentions. RESOLVED That the application be APPROVED subject to the conditions outlined in Section 1.1 of the report.
This application was formally withdrawn and closed down on the planning system at the request of the agent.
This application was withdrawn from the agenda to allow the applicant further time to seek to address the surface water drainage concerns raised.
Y penderfyniad fel y'i cofnodwyd
RESOLVED That the application be APPROVED subject to the conditions outlined in Section 1.1 of the report.
The application was presented for Committee consideration as it is made under Section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (As amended) – A consent under Section 73 represents a new planning permission which, in this case, raises issues regarding conflict with the Development Plan (Appendix 1 to Section 14 of the Constitution). The Planning Officer presented the application to the Committee. The Committee was advised that there were no public speakers in attendance at the meeting Approval of the application was then Moved by Councillor Tony Wilcox; Seconded by Councillor Brian Hall The Committee then debated the application. In response to a concern raised by Councillor Alan Dennison regarding alterations to the internal aspect of the property, the Planning Officer advised that the plans did not include any internal alterations. The vote, undertaken by way of a roll-call was carried. The votes were recorded as follows: For the Motion: Councillors Steve Alderman, Alistair Cameron, Mark Carter, John Cole, John Davies, Alan Dennison, Tim Evans, Brian Hall, Simon Hancock, Rhys Jordan, Tony Wilcox, Chris Williams, Michael Williams and Danny Young [14] There were no votes against and no 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.
The application was presented for Committee consideration as the application is contrary to a policy of the Development Plan but is being recommended for approval (Appendix 1 to Section 14 of the Constitution). The Planning Officer presented the application to the Committee. The Committee was advised that due notification had been received from the following interested party, who wished to exercise their right to address the Committee: - Applicant: Courtney Curtis-Jones The Committee then debated the application with the key points highlighted as follows: In response to a question from Councillor Rhys Jordan regarding the application being ‘part annex/part accommodation’, the Head of Planning advised that the application was for a mixed-use of ancillary and holiday accommodation. The Application indicated a 40:40 split with the remaining time being vacant. She reassured Members that the implications of Council Tax were not within the remit of the Planning Committee and clarified that the application was for mixed use. Councillor Jordan suggested that future applications or longer letting terms be reviewed by the Committee. Approval of the application was then Moved by Councillor Rhys Jordan; Seconded by Councillor John Cole In response to a concern from Councillor Cole regarding the restriction on occupancy, the Head of Planning advised that the wording had not been specified but would be a condition. In response to a further concern from Councillor Cole regarding the construction of the garage, the Head of Planning noted that the applicant would need to ensure those requirements are addressed. In response to a concern from Councillor Mark Carter regarding the use for family and friends, the Applicant had noted that there would be a financial benefit from the application, the Head of Planning advised that the description of the application stated a holiday let and that the application had been considered on a friends, family and commercial let basis. In response to a concern raised by Councillor Alan Dennison regarding any clauses in the property deeds, the Head of Planning advised that this was for the Applicant and was not a Planning consideration. In response to a question from Councillor Michael Williams regarding the enforcement of the conditions, the Head of Planning advised that the service undertook enforcement very seriously and reassured Members that they were sufficiently resourced. She highlighted that the onus was on the applicant and landowners to obtain the necessary permissions and, when brought to the attention of the Planning Team, would be investigated and enforced as necessary. The vote, undertaken by way of a roll-call was carried. The votes were recorded as follows: For the Motion: Councillors Steve Alderman, Alistair Cameron, Mark Carter, John Cole, John Davies, Alan Dennison, Tim Evans, Brian Hall, Simon Hancock, Rhys Jordan, Tony Wilcox, Chris Williams, and Danny Young [13] Against the Motion: Councillor Michael Williams [1] There were no abstentions. RESOLVED That the application be APPROVED subject to the conditions outlined in Section 1.1 of the report.
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.