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 on the grounds that it poses a detriment to visual amenity, contrary to Officers recommendation of approval.
RESOLVED That delegated power be given to the Head of Planning to APPROVE the application following final approval of a Habitats Regulations Assessment and 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. [Councillor Chris Williams left the meeting temporarily at this juncture.]
RESOLVED That the Committee was minded to APPROVE the application due to the economic benefit it would bring and the support it would provide to the existing business as a form of farm diversification, contrary to the Officer’s recommendation of refusal. The meeting was paused at 13:48 for a break and resumed at 14:40. [Councillors John Cole and John Davies left the meeting at this juncture and did not return. Councillor Chris Williams returned to the meeting.]
RESOLVED That the application be DEFERRED to the February 2026 meeting to enable sufficient time for the agent to provide additional information in relation to the farm diversification element and in relation to nutrient neutrality. [Councillor Alan Dennison left the meeting at this juncture and did not return.]
RESOLVED That delegated authority be given to the Head of Planning to APPROVE the application subject to the completion of a Section 106 Planning Obligation to tie the development to the Vaynor Farm and the imposition of conditions to deal with the matters listed in Section 1.1 of the report. If the section 106 agreement is not completed within three months of the foregoing resolution, then delegated authority be given to the Head of Planning to exercise discretion to refuse the application on the grounds of non-compliance with Policies SP 1, SP 16, GN.10, GN.17 and GN.19 of the LDP.
RESOLVED That the application be APPROVED subject to the condition outlined in Section 1.1 of the report.
RESOLVED That the application be APPROVED subject to the condition outlined in Section 1.1 of the report.
In welcoming everyone to the meeting, the Chair made the following announcements: · The Chair expressed sadness at the recent passing of Councillor Jordan Ryan at the age of 34. Elected in May 2022 to represent Fishguard North East, Councillor Ryan initially served as a member of the Labour Group before becoming unaffiliated. He was a longstanding member of the Planning Committee and served as Vice-Chair for one year. Despite significant health challenges, he remained committed to his role, often attending meetings online and contributing passionately to discussions. The Chair noted that Councillor Ryan made a meaningful impact during his time in office and should be remembered for his dedication to those he represented. Members were invited to stand for a short period of reflection. · The Chair advised that Mr Mark Hyde, Principal Planning Officer, would be retiring next month after 40 years in planning, including four years with the Authority. His expertise had been invaluable, and he will be greatly missed. The Committee thanked Mr Hyde and wished him a happy and healthy retirement. · Planning Application No. 25/0118/PA – Summerton Farm, Sageston, Tenby, SA70 8NS was withdrawn from the agenda to allow the agent to address an updated consultation response from the Council’s Ecologist. · The Chair welcomed the new Democratic and Services Assistant Kyran Woods to the meeting. The Head of Planning provided an update on nutrient neutrality requirements affecting development within the Milford Haven catchment. Applications resulting in increased nitrogen discharge remain paused while mitigation measures are explored. Initial actions include legal advice, mapping affected areas, preparing screening documents, and publishing a position paper for the replacement Local Development Plan. A local action plan endorsed by Cabinet focuses on three work streams: a developer mitigation handbook (due January 2026), strategic mitigation using Council land, and a nutrient credit trading system. Collaborative work continues with regional and national partners, supported by Welsh Government funding of £406,000. A national taskforce meets fortnightly to progress solutions. Members were advised that enabling development is likely to take three to six months. Councillor Tony Wilcox expressed concern about the significant impact of nutrient neutrality requirements on the construction sector, noting potential financial hardship for workers and developers. In response, the Head of Planning acknowledged these challenges and confirmed that Welsh Government is aware of the implications. Support and advice are available for affected businesses, and officers are acting as a point of contact. Longer-term viability issues remain under review, with costs yet to be determined. Councillor Alan Dennison queried the allocation of the £406,000 funding. The Head of Planning confirmed that the majority will be allocated to Pembrokeshire County Council to deliver the strategic mitigation package, with funding allocated to additional staff resource and developer mitigation handbook shared with Pembrokeshire Coast National Park. The funding will support the recruitment of two temporary specialist officers, whose expertise will assist both authorities under an existing service level agreement. The Chair also notified the Committee of an oral update in respect of agenda item 6 Planning Application No. 25/0351/PA – Verge at Fishguard Leisure Centre Car Park, Heol Dyfed, Fishguard. The Case Officer had advised that the consultation response from Pollution Control should read “no objection subject to a noise mitigation scheme secured by condition.” The recommendation would therefore include an additional condition requiring submission and approval of a noise mitigation scheme.
Item 11 - Planning Application No.25/0412/PA – Cart House, Vaynor Farm, Bethesda, Narberth, Pembrokeshire, SA67 8HW Councillor Nick Neumann declared a personal interest as the agent also provides professional services to him.
Moved by Councillor Simon Hancock; Seconded by Councillor Tim Evans. The vote, undertaken by way of a show of hands, was carried. RESOLVED That the Minutes of the meeting held on 4 November 2025 be approved as a correct record.
Councillor Pat Davies for Agenda Item 6 Planning Application No. 25/0351/PA (In person)
Y penderfyniad fel y'i cofnodwyd
RESOLVED That the application be REFUSED on the grounds that it poses a detriment to visual amenity, contrary to Officers recommendation of approval.
This application was presented for Committee consideration as the Assistant Chief Executive/Director of Place exercised discretion to remove it from the scheme of delegation following a request by the Local Member. The ground for referral relates 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 was deferred at the Planning Committee meeting of 5 November 2025 for a site visit to take place on 26 November 2025. The Planning Officer presented the application to the Committee. He reiterated that, while the Head of Housing and Public Protection raised no objection, the consultation response recommended a condition requiring acoustic screening, consistent with other approved battery box schemes. Accordingly, the recommendation would include an additional condition requiring submission and approval of a noise mitigation scheme. 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: · Mr Ben Wallace – Applicant · Ms Shirley Devonald – Objector · Councillor Jim Morgan – Fishguard Town Council Member · Councillor Pat Davies – Local Member The Chair then invited questions from Members to the Applicant. The Applicant, Mr Ben Wallace, Development Director at AMP Clean Energy, outlined the benefits of battery energy storage, noting strong policy support at local, Welsh and UK levels. He addressed concerns regarding noise, fire safety and visual impact. The technology selected is among the quietest available, with noise levels comparable to a domestic fridge, and conditions recommended by Environmental Health Officers are welcomed. Fire safety measures include onboard sensors, automatic shutdown systems and steel containment cabinets, with local fire services consulted and no objections raised. Mr Wallace emphasised the proven safety of lithium-ion technology and the difficulty of unauthorised access to units. On visual impact, he stated the scale is proportionate to existing utilities and similar to shipping containers already on site. Site selection was explained as highly rigorous, reducing thousands of potential sites to a small number meeting technical requirements. He concluded by highlighting the scheme’s carbon reduction benefits and contribution to energy security, urging Members to support the application. Councillor John Cole raised concerns regarding proximity to residential properties and a nearby school, referencing guideline distances and potential risks from fire and toxic emissions. He queried evacuation procedures and long-term fire control. The Applicant advised that the 100-metre guideline cited does not apply to this scale of development, noting the proposed unit is 200kW and significantly smaller than utility-scale batteries. Security measures include fencing and locked enclosures, with additional health and safety protocols. Fire risk was described as extremely low, with automatic shutdown systems and fire service engagement in place. The Applicant emphasised that similar risks exist with electric vehicles and that evacuation decisions would rest with emergency services. The Applicant added that the scheme supports carbon reduction targets and provides network flexibility, contributing to lower energy costs. Councillor Brian Hall sought clarification regarding a proposed meeting with Mid and West Wales Fire Service, assuming it related to a site in Pembroke Dock. The Applicant confirmed that a virtual meeting had already taken place and that an on-site meeting at Honeyborough Industrial Estate, currently under construction, had been deferred until the New Year. The Applicant added that the Fire Service recommended including Pembroke and Milford Haven stations in future discussions due to the number of similar projects. Councillor Alan Dennison queried why a fire suppression system could not guarantee full extinguishment rather than containment for two hours, suggesting the current approach appeared insufficient. The Applicant explained that the hierarchy of control prioritises design to eliminate risk, with systems engineered to prevent fire and include automatic shutdown and suppression. In the unlikely event suppression fails, containers are designed to contain fire for two hours to allow fire service intervention. The Applicant confirmed compliance with UK health and safety standards and insurance requirements, acknowledging concerns but emphasising confidence in the technology. Councillor Tim Evans expressed concern about the visual impact of the proposed development and queried why the site was chosen over alternative locations. The Applicant explained that proximity to the existing substation (within 50 metres) is essential for technical and viability reasons, including voltage rise constraints, and confirmed that screening measures have been proposed. The Applicant acknowledged the visual impact but noted that site selection is limited by infrastructure requirements. Councillor Tony Wilcox queried whether the units were airtight and raised concerns about their location in a high-traffic area, including potential issues with footballs entering the compound. The Applicant confirmed the units are not airtight, as airflow is required for cooling, and stated the total footprint is approximately 24.5sqm. The Applicant added that netting could be installed above the compound to prevent objects entering and indicated willingness to include this measure if required. The Chair then invited the Objector, Fishguard Town Council Member and the Local Member to give their views on the Application. Councillor Alec Cormack asked whether alternative sites in Fishguard or North Pembrokeshire had been considered. Local Member Councillor Pat Davies confirmed that no alternative sites had been explored. She noted that while the principle of energy storage is supported, concerns relate to the visual impact of the proposed location. Councillor Davies reported significant public interest and opposition, citing frequent approaches from residents, and expressed the view that the site selection appeared arbitrary. Councillor Michael Williams raised concerns about safety, proximity to the school, and public footpath access, suggesting consultation with the Health and Safety Executive. Councillor Pat Davies confirmed that no further consultation had taken place beyond engagement with the Fire Service and Environmental Health, who expressed satisfaction with the proposal. [Councillor Simon Hancock left the meeting at this juncture and did not return.] Before beginning the debate, the Chair invited the Planning Officer to revisit a concern previously raised by a Committee Member. The Planning Officer displayed an aerial image showing the red line boundary and confirmed the distance from the nearest dwelling to the proposed development as approximately 17 metres. It was noted that while a location plan and block plan exist, scale limitations prevent both the equipment and surrounding properties from being shown together. The Committee proceeded to discuss the application and the key points were noted as follows: · Councillor Alec Cormack queried the accuracy of distance measurements and noise assessment references in the report, noting paragraph 6.10 referred to 25 metres despite properties being closer. The Chief Planning Officer confirmed the nearest dwelling is approximately 12 metres from the compound at an oblique angle and explained that noise levels below 40 decibels were assessed at 25 metres, with attenuation measures recommended by Public Protection. The Planning Officer added that the report relied on professional advice, and the oral update clarified the need for a condition requiring noise mitigation. · Councillor Alec Cormack expressed concern that Public Protection may have misinterpreted site details, noting the absence of a drawing showing both the battery location and nearby properties, and referencing noise levels above 40 decibels within 10 metres in the submitted report. The Chief Planning Officer confirmed that a 1:500 location plan and 1:50 block plan was available and used in the assessment. The Head of Planning added that Public Protection’s consultation response included an image showing the battery box in relation to neighbouring properties, confirming they were aware of the site context. · Councillor Tim Evans reiterated concerns about the visual impact of the proposal, noting that the site visit highlighted the scale of the structure compared to impressions from submitted photographs and plans. He queried whether the 3D image provided was produced by the Council or the Applicant. The Head of Planning confirmed it was submitted by the Applicant for illustrative purposes only and not used for officer assessment. Councillor Evans emphasised that no visual representation from the residents’ perspective had been provided and stated that, given the level of intrusion and local objections, he was unlikely to support the application. · Councillor Tony Wilcox stated that, having reviewed aerial photographs, the proposed development appears intrusive within a green space adjacent to the leisure centre. He expressed concern about the loss of amenity and questioned whether alternative sites in Fishguard had been considered, noting the Applicant’s reference to numerous successful applications elsewhere. Councillor Wilcox indicated he was unlikely to support the proposal in its current location. · Councillor Alan Dennison queried whether Public Protection assessed noise based on set distances or the nearest property, noting the difference between 25 metres and 12 metres. The Pollution Control Officer confirmed that guidance was taken from similar developments and, given the closer proximity in this case, recommended an acoustic barrier to achieve suitable noise attenuation and prevent nuisance. · Councillor John Davies stated that the site visit was invaluable in highlighting the challenges of the proposal, particularly its visual and amenity impact on neighbouring properties. While reassured by the inclusion of acoustic fencing, he confirmed he would vote against the application, citing its intrusive nature and adverse effect on local amenity. · The Chair indicated that he would propose refusal of the application on the grounds of detriment to visual amenity. Refusal of the Application was Moved by Councillor Mark Carter; Seconded by Councillor John Cole. The vote, undertaken by way of a roll call, was carried. The votes were recorded as follows: For the Motion: Councillors Mark Carter, John Cole, Alec Cormack, John Davies, Alan Dennison, Tim Evans, Brian Hall, Nick Neumann, Tony Wilcox, Chris Williams, Michael Williams and Danny Young [12] There were no votes against or abstentions. RESOLVED That the application be REFUSED on the grounds that it poses a detriment to visual amenity, contrary to Officers recommendation of approval.
Y penderfyniad fel y'i cofnodwyd
RESOLVED That delegated power be given to the Head of Planning to APPROVE the application following final approval of a Habitats Regulations Assessment and subject to the conditions outlined in Section 1.1 of the report.
This application was presented for Committee consideration as it involved a full planning application for agricultural buildings in excess of 1,000 sq.m in area and on a site in excess of 1.0 HA (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: · Mr Hugh James – Applicant The Chair then invited questions from Members to the Applicant. Councillor Tim Evans asked whether keeping all operations on one farm would reduce vehicle movements in the area. The Applicant confirmed that it would. The Committee proceeded to discuss the application and the key points were noted as follows: · Councillor John Davies expressed strong support for the application, noting that the site visit confirmed its necessity and benefits for biodiversity and animal welfare. He highlighted the economic pressures on the dairy industry and stated he had no hesitation in supporting the proposal. · The Chair added that it was a pleasure to support the farming sector and welcomed the opportunity to do so. Approval of the application was Moved by Councillor Brian Hall; Seconded by Councillor Danny Young. The vote, undertaken by way of a roll call, was carried. The votes were recorded as follows: For the Motion: Councillors Mark Carter, John Cole, Alec Cormack, John Davies, Alan Dennison, Tim Evans, Brian Hall, Nick Neumann, Tony Wilcox, Chris Williams, Michael Williams and Danny Young [12] There were no votes against or abstentions. RESOLVED That delegated power be given to the Head of Planning to APPROVE the application following final approval of a Habitats Regulations Assessment and 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. [Councillor Chris Williams left the meeting temporarily at this juncture.]
This application was presented for Committee consideration as it involved a full planning application for an agricultural building in excess of 1,000 sq.m in area on a site in excess of 1.0 HA (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: · Mr Wyn Harries – Agent · Dr Andrew Williams - Objector The Chair then invited questions from Members to the Applicant. Councillor Alan Dennison confirmed his support for the application but queried the proposed diversion of the public right of way. The Applicant explained that the existing route runs through the farmyard and is rarely used. The proposal would reroute the path along the edge of the farm complex, providing a safer and more accessible link between highways. Councillor Tony Wilcox queried the retrospective nature of the application and the current status of the public right of way. The Applicant confirmed that the right of way remained unobstructed and explained that the retrospective element arose from the Applicant’s enthusiasm to redevelop a yard of old concrete buildings prior to formal submission. A fully worked scheme now addresses noise and surface water issues and includes measures to enhance public access. Councillor Wilcox expressed concern regarding the scale of the building and queried compliance with building regulations. The Applicant advised that agricultural buildings are not subject to building regulations but must comply with British Standards for steel frame construction. Councillor Nick Neumann queried the slurry handling system, asking whether it operated via a slatted floor with an underlying pit and how slurry was currently managed. The Applicant confirmed that automatic scrapers collect slurry into a slatted section of the floor, which drains into an existing pit adjacent to the building. It was explained that the proposal includes raising the pit level to increase storage capacity, with calculations confirming sufficient overall farm storage for six months. Once the pit reaches capacity, slurry would be pumped to other storage facilities on site. Councillor Neumann noted that this arrangement appeared compliant with current regulations, and the Applicant confirmed that sufficient capacity would be maintained. The Chair then invited questions from Members to the Objector. Councillor Wilcox queried light pollution and noted no reference in the documentation. The Objector stated lights were initially on overnight, impacting wildlife, though usage had since reduced. Councillor Wilcox also queried the stated figure of 630 cattle; the Objector confirmed this was taken from the application. Councillor Alan Dennison asked whether the acoustic engineer assessing noise levels was appointed by the Council or independently. The Objector confirmed that both the Council and the Applicant engaged acoustic engineers; none were appointed by the Objector. Councillor John Cole queried whether previous sheds acted as a barrier and about their construction. The Objector confirmed they were mixed-material buildings close to the road, now removed, with the new shed set back about 15 metres. Land excavation for the new building has led to surface water running onto the road; previously, the barrier was provided solely by the old sheds. Councillor Cole also asked whether the noise assessments by the farmer and the Council aligned and the Objector confirmed they were very similar. The Chair questioned whether the existing nutrient store, previously used for 150 cattle over five months, could accommodate 630 cattle year-round and whether the proposed extension addressed this concern. The Objector stated the extension was not for increased capacity but to prevent splashing and therefore did not alleviate his concerns. The Chair then invited the views of the Pollution Control Officer who advised that noise from the slurry scraper system was significant, leading to a noise abatement notice. He noted that, had the application not been retrospective, mitigation could have been addressed earlier. Acoustic consultants confirmed the nuisance through measurements, and mitigation will be attached to any future consent. The abatement notice remains in effect due to insufficient compliance time and the extended planning process. The Committee proceeded to discuss the application and the key points were noted as follows: · Councillor Tony Wilcox queried whether contaminated water run-off could be mitigated through diversion or drainage measures. The Pollution Control Officer advised that drainage falls under the sustainable drainage systems team and pollution issues are primarily managed by Natural Resources Wales, noting their own remit relates to public health and amenity. · Councillor Tim Evans asked when the Authority first became aware of the building and whether this followed a noise complaint. The Head of Planning could not confirm but undertook to provide details later. Councillor Evans further queried whether builders are required to check planning consent before commencing work; the Head of Planning advised there is no such requirement; however, due diligence is expected from applicants and contractors. · Councillor Nick Neumann asked how agricultural proposals relate to Marine Special Area of Conservation (SAC) requirements. The Head of Planning confirmed the site lies within the affected catchment draining into the Milford Haven water body, part of the Pembrokeshire Marine SAC. As no increase in livestock numbers is proposed there would be no net rise in nitrogen discharge and therefore no additional nutrient impact. · Councillor Neumann further queried a possible disparity between livestock numbers and whether increased slurry storage implied more stock. The Head of Planning clarified that figures relate to the whole farm holding, with no net increase in cattle. Works to the slurry store are not for added capacity but to prevent splashing. · The Pollution Control Officer explained that recent Natural Resources Wales (NRW) Regulations require farms to maintain sufficient storage to reduce spreading frequency, prompting many applications to improve existing facilities. · Councillor Neumann asked whether NRW, as a statutory consultee, raised concerns about slurry storage. The Chief Planning Officer confirmed NRW’s only concern was the method of extending the store, noting their understanding that this was a rationalisation of livestock units rather than an increase. Had it involved more stock, it could have triggered a significant effect test under the Habitats Regulations. · Councillor Michael Williams sought clarification on outstanding noise issues and mitigation for the new building. The Pollution Control Officer confirmed the abatement notice relates to the slurry scraper system, with mitigation measures including enclosing motors and improving acoustic performance by sealing voids. While effectiveness will only be confirmed post-installation, consultant reports indicate the measures should resolve the nuisance. · Councillor Tim Evans asked whether the application limits the farm to 660 cattle or allows future increases. The Head of Planning confirmed any increase requiring new development would need separate planning permission, while livestock numbers on the holding are regulated by Natural Resources Wales. · Councillor John Davies highlighted that the application seeks to improve animal welfare and farm operations. He noted that raising the slurry store height aligns with new Welsh regulations requiring a 750mm freeboard and better practice. Livestock numbers are regulated separately, and NRW scrutinises emissions and environmental impacts. He expressed strong support for approval, stating refusal would likely fail on appeal and emphasising that farm buildings belong on farms, not industrial estates. · Councillor Tony Wilcox asked whether compliance would be monitored post-installation. The Pollution Control Officer confirmed follow-up visits would be undertaken, noting good cooperation with the Applicant and that conditions require completion within a set timeframe. Approval of the application was Moved by Councillor John Davies; 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 Mark Carter, John Cole, Alec Cormack, John Davies, Alan Dennison, Tim Evans, Brian Hall, Nick Neumann, Chris Williams, Michael Williams and Danny Young [11] Abstentions: Councillor Tony Wilcox [1] There were no votes against. RESOLVED That the application be APPROVED subject to the conditions outlined in Section 1.1 of the report. [Councillor Chris Williams left the meeting temporarily at this juncture.]
Y penderfyniad fel y'i cofnodwyd
RESOLVED That the Committee was minded to APPROVE the application due to the economic benefit it would bring and the support it would provide to the existing business as a form of farm diversification, contrary to the Officer’s recommendation of refusal. The meeting was paused at 13:48 for a break and resumed at 14:40. [Councillors John Cole and John Davies left the meeting at this juncture and did not return. Councillor Chris Williams returned to the meeting.]
This application was presented for Committee consideration as the Planning Delegation Panel on 21 October 2025 determined that it met the requirements of criterion 2 where the 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; and criterion 3 where conflicting planning policy issues have been identified. 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: · Mr Wyn Harries – Agent The Chair then invited questions from Members to the Agent. Councillor Alan Dennison queried the significance of a letter referenced by the agent in relation to the application. The Applicant was advised that the letter could not be read aloud but he summarised its content, stating that FRIO UK’s Managing Director expressed full support for the proposal, identifying the Applicant as a key partner whose success was closely linked to FRIO UK’s operations. It was noted that employment at Wolfscastle was dependent on jobs at Hayscastle. Councillor Dennison queried the implications should the application be refused, noting his support for the enterprise. The Applicant advised that refusal would risk FRIO UK losing market share in several European countries, which could be difficult to recover. It was stated that this could result in redundancies at Wolfscastle and Castle Villa. The Agent further highlighted that relocating operations to Withybush would be impractical, citing increased carbon emissions from commuting and adverse impacts on the business. Councillor Dennison observed that refusal could also lead to higher costs for individuals reliant on the products. Councillor John Cole questioned what constituted the best form of farm diversification and whether this was defined in law. He expressed difficulty reconciling refusal of the application, noting the farm remained active and referenced Castle Hot Tubs as an example of a nearby business operating from a former farm site. The Agent explained that the business began on a small scale before moving to an outbuilding on the farm, where it operated for years without issue and paid business rates. Following the Covid-19 pandemic, operations relocated to the current shed which brought the matter to the attention of the Planning Department. The Agent noted that an enforcement notice to close the business was pending if the application was refused. Councillor Alec Cormack asked the Agent to outline similarities between the proposal and Castle Hot Tubs. The Agent explained that both businesses evolved from small family enterprises into larger operations requiring additional space. He noted that planning consent had previously been granted for a steel-framed storage building for Castle Hot Tubs, which now supports sales across South Wales while retaining jobs in Hayscastle. The Agent stated that the current proposal represents a similar progression and expressed concern that planning policy does not adequately support such farm diversification. Following a further question from Councillor Cormack regarding the original purpose of the shed, the Agent explained that it was used to store insulated envelopes manufactured by FRIO UK. He noted that an earlier steel-framed building had been replaced and retrospective planning consent obtained for the current structure. The Agent stated that while the building could house livestock, his client wished to continue using it for the business, as had been done on the farm for 25 years. Councillor Tim Evans asked whether the three employees mentioned were family members or additional staff. The Agent confirmed that all European trading was undertaken by the family. Councillor Evans further noted that a significant number of consultees had raised no objections and highlighted in particular the support of Brawdy Community Council. Councillor Nick Neumann asked about the scale of the business and its contribution to the local economy. The Agent advised that while detailed figures were commercially sensitive, the company was profitable, fully documented, and provided a good living for the family. He described the enterprise as a successful farm diversification scheme and emphasised the Applicant’s commitment to farming alongside the business. Councillor Neumann commended the enterprise and noted its association with FRIO UK as a positive success story. The Chair, as the Local Member for Solva, thanked the Planning Delegation Panel and expressed support for the application. He noted that the business had operated for over 20 years and previously occupied unsuitable stone outbuildings before relocating to the current modern building, which was constructed without prior consent but subsequently regularised. The Chair stated that refusal would leave the Applicant with the choice of returning to cramped premises or closing the business, despite its role in farm diversification and contribution to FRIO UK’s operations. He also highlighted that relocation to Withybush would increase travel and carbon emissions, whereas the current site caused no local issues. The Chair re-affirmed the strong support from Brawdy Community Council and local residents. At this juncture, the Head of Planning reminded Members that the planning system operates in the wider public interest rather than for individual convenience. She outlined the planning and enforcement history, noting that permission was originally granted for agricultural use. A similar application for business use was refused and dismissed on appeal in 2023, with the Planning Inspector concluding there was no substantive evidence of farm diversification under local and national policy. An enforcement notice was subsequently upheld, and no further appeal was entertained. The Head of Planning advised that any decision contrary to officer recommendation would raise significant planning issues, requiring a cooling-off period, and emphasised that employment uses should be located in sustainable settlements in accordance with policy. The Committee proceeded to discuss the application and the key points were noted as follows: · Councillor Alan Dennison asked for clarification on what constitutes farm diversification beyond traditional farming and queried who proposed the alternative building at Withybush and its ownership. In response, the Head of Planning advised that Local Development Plan Policy GN.10 and national planning policy set out examples of farm diversification, including agricultural and non-agricultural activities, though the lists are not exhaustive. She reiterated the Planning Inspector’s view that no substantive evidence had been provided to demonstrate the proposal operated as a farm diversification scheme rather than a standalone business, and that existing buildings were not shown to be unsuitable. She confirmed that alternative sites would typically be directed to settlements or industrial estates but had no details on the specific building mentioned. · Councillor Nick Neumann observed that a 130-acre farm with 300 sheep was unlikely to be viable without diversification and expressed strong support for the application, considering it a clear example of farm diversification. He indicated his intention to move approval on that basis. In response, the Head of Planning advised that evidence would be required to demonstrate that the business supports the continued agricultural operation of the farm to comply with policy and suggested further information would be needed before a decision could be made. · Councillor John Cole questioned why the use was considered unsuitable for a countryside location, noting that other rural enterprises such as Castle Hot Tubs operate successfully. He argued that relocating the business would prevent the family from managing their 130-acre farm and suggested the farm’s viability depended on the income from diversification. · Councillor Michael Williams cautioned Members against approving the application without strong planning reasons, noting the risk of legal challenge and costs. He emphasised that planning decisions must focus on land use rather than individual circumstances and urged Members to give due weight to officer recommendations and previous Planning Inspector decisions. · Councillor Alec Cormack asked whether the business had been trading unlawfully for 25 years, whether the objection related to the building or the business itself, and sought clarification on differences between the current proposal and Castle Hot Tubs, as well as how other farm-based enterprises might be treated under similar scrutiny. In response the Head of Planning advised that each application is determined on its merits and explained that Castle Hot Tubs was considered an extension of an existing lawful employment use and not farm diversification. The Chief Planning Officer added that the original home-based business did not require permission, but subsequent moves and the erection of the current building without proper consent resulted in the present enforcement position. · Councillor Cormack suggested the Applicant might have retained lawful use rights by continuing in the old building. The Chief Planning Officer clarified that no certificate of lawfulness exists for the business and that moving to the larger shed constitutes a new breach of planning control, unlike the Castle Hot Tubs case where lawful use was established. · Councillor Tony Wilcox sought clarification on whether the old stone building retained any business use. The Head of Planning advised Members to focus on the application before them, noting that policy directs business uses to sustainable locations and that officers consider there is no justification for the current proposal as farm diversification. · Councillor Tim Evans asked whether refusal would prevent the Applicant from returning to the previous building and whether this would lead to the business closing. The Head of Planning advised that the old building lacks permission for business use and, due to the scale of growth, is unlikely to be suitable. She confirmed that alternative sites in sustainable locations would be recommended, in line with policy, and emphasised that the current proposal does not comply with national or local planning policy. · Councillor Evans further queried whether the business was expected to grow beyond its current three family members and asked about the possibility of a minded-to decision. The Head of Planning noted that the move to a larger building indicated growth and confirmed that a minded-to route was available, requiring a cooling-off period before referral to Full Council. · Councillor John Davies acknowledged the tension between planning policy and economic considerations, noting the established nature of the business and sustainability benefits of its current location. He expressed support for the application on those grounds and asked whether, if approved by Full Council, the proposal would constitute a major departure requiring referral to Welsh Government. · The Head of Planning confirmed that approval would require advertising as a departure from the Development Plan but would not trigger referral to Welsh Government. Councillor John Davies indicated his support for the application, stating that established economic and sustainable benefits outweighed policy considerations and that he was hopeful to have his additional comments incorporated into the proposal. · Councillor Neumann remarked that greater clarity is needed on the definition of farm diversification, noting that it extends beyond typical examples such as cottage conversions or glamping sites and that similar scenarios are likely to arise in future. · Councillor Cormack referred to paragraph 6.13 of the report, stating it was unclear why the proposal did not qualify as farm diversification given its role in supporting the farm and being operated by the same family. He requested clearer reasoning in the next report and expressed interest in whether the move to a larger building indicated significant business expansion, noting that diversification takes many forms · Councillor Dennison suggested citing public interest as a planning consideration. The Head of Planning advised against this, recommending the previously suggested economic benefits and farm diversification. The Chief Planning Officer noted the business served the European market but considered wider public interest arguments did not therefore apply. · The Chair acknowledged that, while generally expected to support officer recommendations, he considered the application unique and noted strong local support, including no adverse comments and backing from the Community Council. He stated that his position reflected the views of his ward and confirmed his intention to support the proposal, going against the officer’s recommendation for refusal. Approval of the application was Moved by Councillor Nick Neumann; Seconded by Councillor John Cole. The vote, undertaken by way of a roll call, was carried. The votes were recorded as follows: For the Motion: Councillors Mark Carter, John Cole, Alec Cormack, John Davies, Alan Dennison, Tim Evans, Brian Hall, Nick Neumann, Tony Wilcox and Danny Young [10] Against the Motion: Councillor Michael Williams [1] There were no abstentions. RESOLVED That the Committee was minded to APPROVE the application due to the economic benefit it would bring and the support it would provide to the existing business as a form of farm diversification, contrary to the Officer’s recommendation of refusal. The meeting was paused at 13:48 for a break and resumed at 14:40. [Councillors John Cole and John Davies left the meeting at this juncture and did not return. Councillor Chris Williams returned to the meeting.]
This item was removed from the agenda to allow the agent time to address an updated consultation response from the Council’s Ecologist. The application will return to a future Planning Committee.
Y penderfyniad fel y'i cofnodwyd
RESOLVED That the application be DEFERRED to the February 2026 meeting to enable sufficient time for the agent to provide additional information in relation to the farm diversification element and in relation to nutrient neutrality. [Councillor Alan Dennison left the meeting at this juncture and did not return.]
This application was presented for Committee consideration as it had been made by a close family member of an officer of the Planning Service (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: · Mr Andrew Vaughan-Harries - Agent The Chair then invited questions from Members to the Agent. Councillor Alan Dennison asked the Agent where holiday accommodation would be considered sustainable, noting the site’s countryside location. The Agent responded that reusing a redundant building was inherently sustainable, citing existing infrastructure, proximity to attractions and the contribution to tourism and employment. Councillor Tim Evans queried whether further details on site use and farming operations had been provided. The Agent advised that no additional feedback had been received from officers, emphasising the importance of the three units to the viability of the 26-acre holding and its role in sustaining income through tourism. The Chair queried alternative uses for the former restaurant building. The Agent advised that while it had been designed for various purposes, the Applicant intended to convert it to holiday accommodation, citing existing infrastructure and the success of the current tourism business. The Committee proceeded to discuss the application and the key points were noted as follows: · The Chief Planning Officer advised that policy requires new holiday accommodation to be well-related to a Town, Service Centre or Service Village with visitor facilities, which Martletwy lacks. It was further noted that limited agricultural activity and the absence of a long-term farm business plan meant insufficient evidence had been submitted to justify the proposal as farm diversification. In response to queries, the Officer clarified that the existing caravan use operates under permitted development rights granted by exempted organisations, which the Authority cannot control. · Councillor Dennison queried the need for nutrient assessment given minimal building changes and reduced occupancy compared to the former restaurant use. The Head of Planning explained that, as a new application, it triggers a Habitats Regulations Assessment due to potential nitrogen impacts on the Pembroke Marine SAC. In the absence of evidence comparing outputs from the proposed and existing uses, a favourable conclusion cannot be reached. · Councillor Nick Neumann queried whether policy would differ if the building was of a traditional construction. The Chief Planning Officer explained that conversion of traditional buildings is treated more flexibly to preserve countryside character, balancing heritage with sustainability. He added that static caravan sites are subject to stricter siting requirements than new-build holiday units which must comply with building regulations. · The Chief Planning Officer explained that policy for self-catering accommodation allows extensions to existing uses of the same type, which does not apply here as the current holiday business operates under exempted caravan and camping licences. He noted that appeal cases cited by the agent were not directly comparable, as they involved farm diversification with clear business plans or proximity to settlements. He added that while the building is redundant, its original purpose was linked to a vineyard that no longer exists, raising questions about its viability for alternative uses. · Councillor Neumann suggested that nutrient neutrality concerns could be addressed and queried whether, with appropriate evidence and a farm diversification case, the application might be viewed more favourably. · The Head of Planning acknowledged Member’s concerns regarding farm diversification but stressed that recommendations must align with local and national policy. She explained that proposals should be small-scale and provide supplementary income to sustain farm viability. In the absence of clear evidence on existing agricultural income or how tourism would support the enterprise, the application could not be considered policy compliant. · Councillor Michael Williams emphasised that the application must be determined as submitted, noting it was clearly outside policy and not related to any settlement, which he considered the critical issue, before going on to Move the Officer’s recommendation for refusal; Councillor Alec Cormack Seconded the recommendation. · The Chair asked whether deferral would be advantageous to allow further information to be provided. The Head of Planning advised that while deferral could enable the Applicant to submit additional details, her preference was for the Committee to determine the application as presented. · Following a query raised by Councillor Michael Williams as to which vote should be taken first, refusal or deferral [Amended by Minute 65 of Committee – 13 January 2026], the Solicitor clarified that the motion to defer was a procedural motion which superseded the substantive motion to refuse, and therefore required a vote before any determination on the original motion. · The Head of Planning confirmed that the proposed deferral for two months would allow time for the agent to provide additional information on farm diversification and nutrient neutrality. Deferral of the Application Moved by Councillor Tony Wilcox; Seconded by Councillor Brian Hall. The vote, undertaken by way of a roll call, was carried. The votes were recorded as follows: For the Motion: Councillors Mark Carter, Alan Dennison, Tim Evans, Brian Hall, Nick Neumann, Tony Wilcox and Danny Young [7] Against the Motion: Councillors Alec Cormack, Chris Williams and Michael Williams [3] There were no abstentions. RESOLVED That the application be DEFERRED to the February 2026 meeting to enable sufficient time for the agent to provide additional information in relation to the farm diversification element and in relation to nutrient neutrality. [Councillor Alan Dennison left the meeting at this juncture and did not return.]
Y penderfyniad fel y'i cofnodwyd
RESOLVED That delegated authority be given to the Head of Planning to APPROVE the application subject to the completion of a Section 106 Planning Obligation to tie the development to the Vaynor Farm and the imposition of conditions to deal with the matters listed in Section 1.1 of the report. If the section 106 agreement is not completed within three months of the foregoing resolution, then delegated authority be given to the Head of Planning to exercise discretion to refuse the application on the grounds of non-compliance with Policies SP 1, SP 16, GN.10, GN.17 and GN.19 of the LDP.
This application was presented for Committee consideration as it involved the development of a site where relevant 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 there were no public speakers in attendance at the meeting and the Committee proceeded to the debate and the key points were noted as follows: · Councillor Tony Wilcox noted his general opposition to retrospective applications but indicated conditional support subject to completion of the Section 106 agreement. · The Head of Planning emphasised that officers aim to support development and rural communities where policy allows. She confirmed the application met farm diversification policy requirements, supported by a robust business plan, and highlighted its scale compared to previous proposals. · Councillor Alec Cormack queried why a Habitat Regulations Assessment was not required. The Planning Officer advised that the application had been screened out as the private treatment system would not impact the SAC. The Head of Planning confirmed this was consistent with NRW guidance, noting the low foul flow from two units rendered any effect insignificant. · Councillor Nick Neumann queried whether the pods formed part of the farm business. The Planning Officer confirmed they were operated by family members and supported by accounts showing income integrated with the farm business, with a Section 106 agreement to secure this link. Approval of the application was Moved by Councillor Brian Hall; Seconded by Councillor Nick Neumann. The vote, undertaken by way of a roll call, was carried. The votes were recorded as follows: For the Motion: Councillors Mark Carter, Alec Cormack, Tim Evans, Brian Hall, Nick Neumann, Tony Wilcox, Chris Williams, Michael Williams and Danny Young [9] There were no votes against or abstentions. RESOLVED That delegated authority be given to the Head of Planning to APPROVE the application subject to the completion of a Section 106 Planning Obligation to tie the development to the Vaynor Farm and the imposition of conditions to deal with the matters listed in Section 1.1 of the report. If the section 106 agreement is not completed within three months of the foregoing resolution, then delegated authority be given to the Head of Planning to exercise discretion to refuse the application on the grounds of non-compliance with Policies SP 1, SP 16, GN.10, GN.17 and GN.19 of the LDP.
Y penderfyniad fel y'i cofnodwyd
RESOLVED That the application be APPROVED subject to the condition outlined in Section 1.1 of the report.
This application was presented for Committee consideration as it is for development contrary to the Development Plan 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 there were no public speakers in attendance at the meeting. As there were no questions from Members, they proceeded to the vote without a debate. Approval of the application was Moved by Councillor Brian Hall; 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 Mark Carter, Alec Cormack, Tim Evans, Brian Hall, Nick Neumann, Tony Wilcox, Chris Williams, Michael Williams and Danny Young [9] There were no votes against or abstentions. RESOLVED That the application be APPROVED subject to the condition outlined in Section 1.1 of the report.
Y penderfyniad fel y'i cofnodwyd
RESOLVED That the application be APPROVED subject to the condition outlined in Section 1.1 of the report.
This application was presented for Committee consideration as it is for development contrary to the Development Plan 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 party who wished to exercise their right to address the Committee: · Mr Andrew Vaughan-Harries – Agent As there were no questions from Members, they proceeded to the vote without a debate. Approval of the application was Moved by Councillor Brian Hall; 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 Mark Carter, Alec Cormack, Tim Evans, Brian Hall, Nick Neumann, Tony Wilcox, Chris Williams, Michael Williams and Danny Young [9] There were no votes against or abstentions. RESOLVED That the application be APPROVED subject to the condition 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.