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 application be APPROVED on the basis of financial reasons and the exceptional nature of the business, noting that a section 106 Agreement would be entered into. (b) That the application be reported to Council for final determination and would be subject to the conditions outlined in Section 5.6 of the report Head of the Planning Service.
RESOLVED That the application be APPROVED subject to the conditions outlined in Section 1.1 of the report.
RESOLVED That the application be REFUSED for the reason outlined in Section 1.1 of the report [The meeting adjourned for a short break at 12:00 and reconvened at 12:15]
RESOLVED That the application be deferred to allow a site visit to be undertaken. [Councillor Nick Neumann left the meeting at this juncture and did not return.]
RESOLVED That delegated power be granted to the Head of Planning to APPROVE the application subject to completion of a section 106 legal agreement preventing the separation of the holiday unit from the agricultural unit and subject to the conditions outlined in Section 1.1 of the report.
[Amended by Minute 74 of Committee – 10 February 2026] The Chair expressed deep sadness at the sudden passing of Councillor Mike Stoddart on 4 January, aged 85. Councillor Stoddart had represented Hakin since 2004 and served on the Planning Committee between 2010 and 2012, later acting as a reserve member of the Planning Delegation Panel and contributing his experience to planning matters in Full Council. He was remembered as a Councillor who stood firmly by his beliefs and in the interests of those he represented. On behalf of Members and officers, the Chair extended condolences to his family, following which Members and officers stood for a short period of silent reflection. The Head of Planning provided an update on the ongoing nutrient neutrality requirements affecting development within the Pembrokeshire Marine Special Area of Conservation catchment. Members were advised that, six months on from implementation, the position remains dynamic and that, despite work continuing at local, regional and national levels, no comprehensive mitigation solution or clear route for enabling development has yet been identified. An update was given on the three work streams being progressed by the Authority: preparation of a developer nutrient mitigation handbook, which remains on track for completion by the end of January; delivery of a strategic mitigation package using County Farms Estate and other Council?owned land, for which no consultant interest was received following a tender exercise and alternative options are now being explored; and investigation of a local nutrient trading system, including engagement with an English local authority and participation in Welsh Government pilot discussions. Members were further advised that dialogue continues with regional partners and national task forces, including exploration of a de minimis or threshold?based approach. The Head of Planning confirmed that affected applications remain paused but that decisions, likely to be refusals, will begin to be issued in coming months, and that a comprehensive update will be reported to Cabinet and Scrutiny Committee in due course.
None were declared at this point in the meeting.
The Chair highlighted a typographical error on page one of the minutes, highlighting that ‘referral’ was used in a discussion regarding Planning Application No.25/0412/PA - Oaklea, Martletwy, Narberth, Pembrokeshire, SA67 8AP, when it should have read ‘deferral’. Moved by Councillor Mark Carter; Seconded by Brian Hall. The vote, undertaken by way of a show of hands, was carried. RESOLVED That the Minutes of the meeting held on 2 December 2025 be approved as a correct record.
None.
Y penderfyniad fel y'i cofnodwyd
RESOLVED (a) That the application be APPROVED on the basis of financial reasons and the exceptional nature of the business, noting that a section 106 Agreement would be entered into. (b) That the application be reported to Council for final determination and would be subject to the conditions outlined in Section 5.6 of the report Head of the Planning Service.
This application was presented for Committee consideration as it was previously reported to the Planning Committee on 2 December 2025, when a decision was deferred as Members were minded to approve the application contrary to the policies of the Local Development Plan. The Planning Officer presented the application to the Committee and provided an oral update advising that, since publication of the report, the Agent had confirmed that the two businesses operating from the site trade under separate names but are run by the same individuals. Additional financial information has been submitted, showing that income from Frio Astrid has, at times since 2015, exceeded or broadly matched that of the farm business. Members were reminded that Application No. 25/0404/PA seeks the relocation and expansion of a farm diversification business into an existing agricultural building and remains before Committee as Members were previously minded to approve the proposal, contrary to the Head of Planning’s recommendation for refusal at the meeting held on 2 December 2025. 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) The Chair then invited questions from Members to the Agent. Councillor Alec Cormack queried whether the officer view that the Applicant had not demonstrated how the business supports the farming enterprise was accepted and, if not, how the Frio Astrid business contributes to farm viability and operating costs. In response, the Agent stated that the co?location of the business and farm enables the Applicant to actively manage both, which would not be possible if the business were located elsewhere. While acknowledging that the two are separate enterprises, he advised that operating them from the same site reduces costs, provides flexibility, and generates sufficient combined income to sustain three family members. He expressed the view that separating the businesses would place unnecessary pressure on both the farm and the business and could undermine their long?term viability. Councillor Alan Dennison queried whether the business and farm, while separate entities, provide mutual financial support and whether relocation of the business would result in a significant loss to the farming operation. The Agent confirmed that income from the Frio Astrid business is used to cross?subsidise the agricultural enterprise and stated that the two operate interdependently. He advised that separation would increase costs, reduce operational efficiency and could compromise the viability of both the business and the farm. Councillor John Cole queried whether the Applicant had demonstrated that the business complements the farm diversification and could not reasonably be located elsewhere. The Agent advised that marketing exercises had identified no suitable alternative premises within an acceptable distance and stated that relocation would increase travel demands and undermine effective farm management, to the detriment of both enterprises. Councillor Tony Wilcox queried whether relocating the business, and the associated additional costs of travel, rent and rates, could threaten the long?term viability of the farming operation. In response, the Agent advised that imposing further costs and time pressures on the diversification business, which currently supports the farm, would pose a risk to farm viability. He stated that the ability to operate both enterprises from the same site has enabled their long?term success and confirmed that, aside from relocating operations without prior consent, the business has operated openly and compliantly. Councillor Alan Dennison asked whether any local objections had been received since the previous meeting. In response, the Agent advised that no local objections had been submitted and stated that recent coverage in the Western Telegraph indicated public support for the application and the legitimacy of the enterprise being operated from the farm. The Chair, as Local Member for Solva, advised that he had received no objections in relation to the application and that representations received questioned why the enterprise should not be permitted to continue operating. He stated that the business is well managed, causes no amenity issues and attracts no complaints. The Chair highlighted that the enterprise supports employment for three people and contributes to wider employment at Wolfscastle, and expressed his strong personal support for the family, while leaving any recommendation to Members of the Committee. The Chief Planning Officer clarified, in response to an earlier question, that at the time the report was prepared officers did not have access to the financial information relating to the farm business and Frio Astrid, which was submitted after publication of the report, and this accounts for references to a lack of information. He further confirmed that, while both businesses are owned by the same individuals, they are separate legal entities, as outlined in Section 5 of the minded to report, which considers the appropriateness of a planning condition versus a Section 106 legal agreement. The Committee proceeded to discuss the application and the key points were noted as follows: · Councillor Alec Cormack sought clarification as to whether, following receipt of additional financial information, officers now had sufficient detail to assess the proposal, while maintaining the view that it does not constitute an acceptable farm diversification scheme. In response, the Chief Planning Officer advised that officers now have substantially more information than was available when the minded?to report was prepared, including income data for both businesses at three?yearly intervals, although some details remain commercially sensitive. He confirmed that, despite this additional information, officers remain of the view that the proposal does not comply with farm diversification policy, as the business is essentially a storage and distribution use without a direct operational link to the farm beyond financial support. · Councillor Alec Cormack asked whether, if the proposal were considered compliant with Policy GN.10, officers would be likely to recommend approval. In response, the Chief Planning Officer advised that a proposal involving the processing or adding value to agricultural products produced on the holding would constitute genuine farm diversification. He stated that, subject to the acceptability of the siting and any heritage considerations, officers would be likely to recommend approval if such criteria were met. · Councillor Alec Cormack queried whether Policy GN.10 expressly requires a farm diversification proposal to be land?based. In response, the Chief Planning Officer advised that the policy examples contained within Planning Policy Wales are not exhaustive and require interpretation in the context of their intent. He explained that officers consider the examples given, such as livestock and crop processing, non?traditional farming and renewable energy, to demonstrate a clear functional link to land or natural resources. Officers have therefore concluded, based on their interpretation of the policy, that the proposal does not fall within the intended scope of farm diversification. · Councillor Alec Cormack referred to paragraph 5.6.13 of Planning Policy Wales, arguing that the policy expressly includes the making and selling of non?agricultural products as a form of farm diversification and noting that no detrimental environmental or amenity impacts had been identified. In response, the Chief Planning Officer advised that officers interpret the policy as requiring both the making and selling of such products to occur on the site to qualify as farm diversification, and that, as the proposal relates solely to the selling and distribution of products manufactured elsewhere, officers consider it falls outside the intended scope of the policy, acknowledging a difference of interpretation between officers and Members. · The Head of Planning reminded Members that planning legislation and policy are drafted with specific wording and that officer interpretation, as set out in the report, is a professional assessment rather than a pedantic exercise. She advised that the same use had previously been considered by an independent Planning Inspector on appeal, who concluded that it did not constitute farm diversification and was not supported by national or local planning policy. Members were reminded that decisions must be made in accordance with the Local Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise, and that departure from policy could have wider implications for the integrity of the plan, which has been independently examined and found sound. She reiterated that the fundamental issue remains whether the proposal constitutes farm diversification and confirmed that officers do not consider it to do so, notwithstanding Members’ differing interpretation. · Councillor Tony Wilcox observed that Policy GN.10 contains a non?exhaustive list of diversification activities and queried, by way of example, whether the storage and distribution of medical products associated with veterinary use might be considered farm?related. In response, the Head of Planning advised that officers would still regard such a use as storage and distribution, with no sufficiently direct or robust link to the farming enterprise to be considered farm diversification. · Councillor Alec Cormack referred to guidance within TAN 6 and Policy GN.10, arguing that the Development Plan permits a broader definition of qualifying rural enterprises where justified and that the proposal supports the ongoing agricultural operation through shared management and flexibility. He questioned why the minded?to decision was considered conflicting with national or local planning policy. In response, the Head of Planning advised that officers remain of the view that insufficient robust evidence has been provided to demonstrate a necessary operational link between the farm and the business, which is considered a separate, standalone enterprise located on the farm for convenience rather than necessity. · Councillor John Davies stated that the Committee’s position had not materially changed since the previous meeting and that the matter remains one of policy interpretation. He noted that the proposed use would have no landscape impact, as the buildings already exist, and considered that the inclusion of a Section 106 agreement would provide an appropriate safeguard. Councillor Davies expressed continued support for the proposal, citing its established economic and sustainable benefits and describing the business as exceptional in nature, with limited risk of precedent. He therefore moved that the Committee remain minded to approve the application, on the basis that the benefits outweigh policy considerations, consistent with reasons previously recorded. · The Head of Planning sought clarification as to whether Councillor John Davies wished the exceptional nature of the business to be explicitly included within the reasons for being minded to approve the application. Councillor Davies confirmed that he did and further requested that the inclusion of a Section 106 agreement be referenced as providing a robust legal mechanism to secure the linkage between the business and the farm. · Councillor Brian Hall stated that he shared the position outlined by Councillor John Davies and confirmed his support for the proposal, subject to the inclusion of a Section 106 agreement. While acknowledging that the proposal does not strictly meet the definition of farm diversification under planning policy, he noted Member sympathy for the Applicant and expressed the view that appropriate safeguards would allow the Committee to move forward. Councillor Hall confirmed his willingness to second the motion to be minded to approve the application. Approval of the application was Moved by Councillor John Davies; Seconded by 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, John Cole, Alec Cormack, John Davies, Alan Dennison, Tim Evans, Brian Hall, Nick Neumann, Iwan Ward, Tony Wilcox and Chris Williams [11] Against the Motion: Councillor Michael Williams [1] There were no abstentions. RESOLVED (a) That the application be APPROVED on the basis of financial reasons and the exceptional nature of the business, noting that a section 106 Agreement would be entered into. (b) That the application be reported to Council for final determination and would be subject to the conditions outlined in Section 5.6 of the report Head of the Planning Service.
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 John Cole declared a personal interest in this item by virtue of owning a property in Roch.] This application was presented for Committee consideration as it involved proposed variation of condition 2 (approved plans) attached to planning permission 23/0568/PA that was approved by Planning Committee contrary to the provisions of the Pembrokeshire Local Development Plan (2013). 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 – Mr Gethin Beynon The Chair then invited questions from Members to the Agent however none were raised. The Chair invited Nick Neumann, Local Member for The Havens, to present his thoughts on the application. Councillor Nick Neumann stated that the relevant Community Council had consistently supported the proposals, including during consultation on the Section 73 application. He noted that Roch is identified as a service village within the planning hierarchy, with existing community facilities and a new shop forthcoming. Councillor Neumann expressed his full support for the scheme, highlighting that the provision of 52 dwellings would contribute positively to the sustainability of the village and help address declining pupil numbers at the local school. The Committee proceeded to discuss the application and the key points were noted as follows: · Councillor Alan Dennison sought clarification as to whether the applicant owned the land extending from Maes y Ffynnon to the boundary of the development. In response, the Head of Planning confirmed that the land in question fell within the red line boundary and was within the applicant’s ownership. The Chief Planning Officer further clarified that a Certificate C had been submitted with the application, indicating that ownership of part of the land was unknown. He advised that a Land Registry search had been undertaken and a public notice placed in the Western Telegraph on 27 September 2023, and confirmed that this approach was acceptable for planning purposes, with any subsequent land ownership matters to be resolved by the developer. · Councillor Alan Dennison expressed concern as to how planning permission could be granted where ownership of all the land had not been fully established. In response, the Chief Planning Officer explained that planning applications are supported by certificates of ownership, noting that Certificate C applies where part of the land is in unknown ownership. He advised that in such circumstances applicants are required to undertake statutory notification and reasonable steps to identify owners and confirmed that this does not prevent the determination of an application for planning purposes. · Councillor Chris Williams questioned the fairness of the proposed affordable housing provision in comparison with other developments, referencing the mix of units proposed and the identified need for family housing within the area. In response, the Head of Planning advised that each application is assessed on its own merits and that a site?specific viability appraisal had been undertaken. She confirmed that the appraisal, independently reviewed, concluded that it would not be reasonable to seek additional affordable housing contributions, and that the reduced provision reflected the financial viability of delivering the development rather than a lack of housing need. Approval of the application was Moved by Councillor Brian Hall; Seconded by Mark Carter. 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, Tim Evans, Brian Hall, Nick Neumann, Iwan Ward, Tony Wilcox, Chris Williams and Michael Williams [11] Against the Motion: Councillor Alan Dennison [1] There were 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 REFUSED for the reason outlined in Section 1.1 of the report [The meeting adjourned for a short break at 12:00 and reconvened at 12:15]
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. 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 – Mr Richard Banks The Chair then invited questions from Members to the Agent. Councillor Alec Cormack sought clarification as to whether the proposal constituted a change of use rather than new development. In response, the Agent explained that the accommodation currently operated as ancillary to the main dwelling, which did not require planning permission. He advised that the application sought to establish the accommodation as an independent planning unit, which necessitated planning permission, and confirmed that, if the application were refused, the accommodation could continue to be used ancillary to the dwelling. Councillor Alan Dennison asked how long the ancillary accommodation had been in place. In response, the Agent advised that it had been there for two years. Councillor Chris Williams asked whether the Agent was able to confirm how many other nearby properties operated as holiday accommodation. In response, the Agent advised that he was unable to provide that information. Councillor Tessa Hodgson, the Local Member for Lamphey, was unable to attend the meeting due to personal matters but had communicated to the Chair prior to the meeting that she was satisfied with report which officers had produced. The Committee proceeded to discuss the application and the key points were noted as follows: · Councillor Alec Cormack expressed sympathy for the Applicant in light of the regulatory constraints affecting the area. However, he considered the matter to be a technical planning issue and confirmed that he would support the Officer’s recommendation of refusal. · Councillor Alan Dennison sought clarification on the anticipated increase in nitrates arising from the proposal. In response, the Head of Planning explained that the application constituted a material change of use which, in accordance with Natural Resources Wales screening criteria, was likely to result in an increase in nutrient loading, particularly nitrogen, within the Milford Haven Inner Water Body of the Pembrokeshire Marine SAC. She advised that, in the absence of any proposed mitigation, a Habitats Regulations Assessment could not be undertaken and the Authority was therefore unable to lawfully grant planning permission. Officers were consequently of the view that the proposal would lead to an increase in nitrates beyond the existing ancillary use. · Councillor Alan Dennison stated that, in his view, the Applicant was disadvantaged by the nutrient neutrality requirements and queried how the proposal would result in an increase in nutrients, given the agent’s reference to lower holiday occupancy rates and the absence of any change to the number of sanitary facilities. In response, the Head of Planning advised that officers had not been provided with detailed nutrient output calculations and that the assessment was based on likely occupancy rather than facilities. She explained that use as independent holiday accommodation would result in a greater nutrient output than ancillary use as part of a single household, and that officers, guided by Natural Resources Wales, remained of the opinion that the proposal would lead to an increase in nutrients. · Councillor Tony Wilcox asked where any additional nutrients arising from the proposal would discharge to, seeking clarification on the receiving waterbody. In response, the Head of Planning advised that the property is connected to the mains sewerage system, with foul drainage conveyed to the treatment works and subsequently discharged via the Pembroke River into the Milford Haven Inner Water Body, which forms part of the Pembrokeshire Marine SAC and is subject to nutrient neutrality requirements. · Councillor John Cole noted that D?r Cymru Welsh Water had recommended approval and asked why this differed from the Officer’s recommendation. In response, the Head of Planning advised that Natural Resources Wales is the statutory consultee in respect of water quality and nutrient neutrality matters, whereas D?r Cymru’s role relates to network capacity and permitting, and does not extend to assessing nutrient impacts on protected sites. Refusal of the application was Moved by Councillor Alec Cormack; Seconded by Chris Williams. 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, John Davies, Alan Dennison, Tim Evans, Brian Hall, Nick Neumann, Iwan Ward, Tony Wilcox, Chris Williams and Michael Williams [11] Against the Motion: Councillor John Cole [1] There were no abstentions. RESOLVED That the application be REFUSED for the reason outlined in Section 1.1 of the report [The meeting adjourned for a short break at 12:00 and reconvened at 12:15]
Y penderfyniad fel y'i cofnodwyd
RESOLVED That the application be deferred to allow a site visit to be undertaken. [Councillor Nick Neumann left the meeting at this juncture and did not return.]
This application was presented for Committee consideration because due to the application being 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 parties who wished to exercise their right to address the Committee: · Objector – Miss Jessica Clarke The Chair then invited questions from Members to the Objector. Councillor Alec Cormack asked whether there was a dispute between the parties regarding the location of the boundary between the two properties. In response, the Objector advised that the boundary was shown on Land Registry documents and confirmed that there was no boundary dispute. The Chair asked the Objector to clarify the outcome she was seeking from the Committee. In response, the Objector explained that, while she supported the redevelopment in principle, she had concerns regarding the siting of the proposal in relation to her mother’s property and requested amendments to the plans to reduce overlooking and overshadowing. When further prompted by the Chair, the Objector confirmed that she was seeking a deferral to allow the plans to be reconsidered. The Committee proceeded to discuss the application and the key points were noted as follows: · Councillor Alan Dennison stated that, although not the Local Member, he supported the application in principle as a Milford Haven Councillor and welcomed the redevelopment of a long?vacant building. However, he expressed some hesitation in approving the proposal without first viewing the site, given concerns regarding potential overlooking and the relationship of the extension to the boundary. He therefore indicated that he would support a site visit prior to determination. · The Planning Officer drew Members’ attention to the submitted site plan, highlighting the “dog?leg” arrangement around part of the building adjoining No. 19. The Chair queried whether this raised an issue of a flying freehold and sought confirmation that all land within the proposed development was under the applicant’s control. In response, the Chief Planning Officer advised that this was not the case, whereupon the Chair indicated that the position in respect of the dog?leg required further clarification. · The Chief Planning Officer therefore clarified that, while there was no dispute between the parties, the application acknowledged that part of the site extended beyond land in the applicant’s ownership and that the appropriate ownership notices had been served. He advised that any uncertainty regarding ownership was a civil matter between the parties and outside the scope of the planning determination. In response to comments regarding a site visit, he noted that such a visit would not assist in resolving land ownership but could enable Members to assess the potential impact of the extension on the neighbouring property, including any overbearing effect, which officers considered to be acceptable. · The Chair summarised that, from a planning perspective, the proposal was acceptable but acknowledged that there may be underlying land ownership or legal matters between the neighbouring parties. In response, the Chief Planning Officer confirmed that appropriate notice had been served to reflect the adjoining interest, however he advised that any ownership dispute was a civil matter to be resolved between the parties and lay outside the remit of the planning process. · Councillor Alec Cormack asked for background on why the “dog?leg” element had been included within the application, noting that its inclusion appeared unusual and could cause concern for the neighbouring property. In response, the Chief Planning Officer explained that the proposal followed an earlier application in which projecting eaves raised concerns about potential boundary encroachment, leading to the service of Certificate B. He advised that the current proposal had removed the overhanging eaves and incorporated flush detailing, added that Land Registry documents showed a straight boundary but that unregistered historic transactions could not be ruled out, and confirmed that the proposal sought to extend above an existing first?floor element already present at the boundary. · Councillor Alec Cormack stated that while he was strongly supportive of the principle of redeveloping the street, he shared concerns regarding the precise relationship of the proposed dog?leg element to the neighbouring dwelling. He noted that he would wish to view the site to fully understand the impact and, considering this uncertainty, expressed discomfort in proceeding to a decision at that time. · Councillor Brian Hall noted that no formal motion had been made therefore he Moved that the Committee attend a site visit to better assess the proposal. While generally supportive of the development, he expressed reservations regarding the design of the proposed dog?leg element and stated that a site visit would allow Members to assess the potential impact on the neighbouring property. · Councillor John Cole stated that he supported a site visit, noting that he had considered seeking a deferral due to the uncertainty arising from an outstanding legal dispute and the potential anxiety this may cause neighbouring residents. However, acknowledging that such matters may not be material planning considerations, he confirmed his support for a site visit to enable Members to better understand the proposal. · Councillor Michael Williams expressed concern regarding the potential impact of the proposal on neighbouring residential amenity, particularly in respect of loss of light, privacy and overbearing effect, and considered this to justify a site visit. In response, the Head of Planning referred Members to paragraph 6.13 of the Committee report, confirming that officers had assessed these impacts and were satisfied the proposal was acceptable, while noting that Members remained entitled to seek a site visit should they so decide. Councillor Brian Hall Moved that a site visit be undertaken to enable the Committee to assess the impact the development would have on the neighbouring property; Seconded by Councillor Alec Cormack. 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, Iwan Ward, Tony Wilcox, Chris Williams and Michael Williams [12] There were no votes against or abstentions. RESOLVED That the application be deferred to allow a site visit to be undertaken. [Councillor Nick Neumann left the meeting at this juncture and did not return.]
Y penderfyniad fel y'i cofnodwyd
RESOLVED That delegated power be granted to the Head of Planning to APPROVE the application subject to completion of a section 106 legal agreement preventing the separation of the holiday unit from the agricultural unit and subject to the conditions outlined in Section 1.1 of the report.
This retrospective application was presented for Committee consideration because it comprises a development where relevant Development Plan policies conflict, is recommended for approval, and is 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 in which she an oral update advising that, since publication of the report, a Green Infrastructure Statement had been submitted and assessed as acceptable. Accordingly, it was confirmed that the recommendation in paragraph 1.1 of the report be amended to remove the requirement for delegated authority in respect of its receipt, with the recommendation now being delegated authority to approve the application subject to completion of a Section 106 legal agreement. 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 – Mrs Fiona Elliot The Chair then invited questions from Members to the Applicant. Councillor Alan Dennison sought clarification on the implications should the application not be approved, noting that he was otherwise minded to support it. In response, the Applicant advised that refusal would adversely affect the viability of the farming operation, explaining that the proposal provides important income during periods of limited cash flow and supports the long?term sustainability of the business. The Committee proceeded to discuss the application and the key points were noted as follows: · Councillor Alec Cormack asked the Head of Planning to clarify the distinction between the current proposal and a previous application affected by nutrient neutrality requirements, particularly in relation to connection to a private treatment system rather than the mains sewer. In response, the Head of Planning explained that development connecting to a wastewater treatment works cannot currently mitigate nitrogen outputs, whereas private treatment systems can incorporate measures to contain and neutralise nutrients before discharge. She noted that while planning policy generally favours connection to the mains where feasible, in this instance no such connection was available and a private system was therefore proposed. Councillor Brian Hall Moved the recommendation for the delegated authority to approve the application subject to completion of a Section 106 legal agreement; Seconded by Councillor Chris Williams. 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, Iwan Ward, Tony Wilcox, Chris Williams and Michael Williams [11] There were no votes against or abstentions. RESOLVED That delegated power be granted to the Head of Planning to APPROVE the application subject to completion of a section 106 legal agreement preventing the separation of the holiday unit from the agricultural unit and 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.