Loading
The decisions as the council's minutes record them. A plain-language summary follows once it has been written.
RESOLVED That the application be APPROVED, subject to the conditions outlined in Section 1.1 of the report of the Director of Community Services.
RESOLVED (a) That delegated power be granted to the Head of Planning to APPROVE the application following the appropriate notification of the application to all landowners being undertaken and subject to a Section 106 agreement and subject to the conditions outlined in Section 1.1 of the report of the Director of Community Services. (b) If the section 106 legal agreement is not completed within 3 months of the foregoing resolution then delegated power be granted to the Head of Planning to exercise discretion to refuse the application on the grounds of non-compliance with Planning Policy Wales and TAN 6.
RESOLVED That the application be APPROVED, subject to the conditions outlined in Section 1.1 of the report of the Director of Community Services, with an additional condition requiring implementation of the mitigation measures identified within the bat survey report.
RESOLVED (a) That the application be APPROVED subject to a Section 106 legal agreement and the conditions outlined in Section 1.1 of the report of the Director of Community Services. (b) If the Section 106 legal agreement was not completed within 3 months of the foregoing resolution, then delegated power be granted to the Head of Planning to exercise discretion to refuse the application on the grounds of non-compliance with policy GN.18 of the Local Development Plan.
RESOLVED (a) That the application be APPROVED subject to a Deed of Variation in respect of the S106 agreement and the conditions outlined in Section 1.1 of the report of the Director of Community Services. (b) In the event the Deed of Variation was not completed within three months of the foregoing resolution then delegated power be granted to the Head of Planning to exercise discretion to issue the permission in the absence of the Deed of Variation.
RESOLVED That the application be APPROVED, subject to the conditions outlined in Section 1.1 of the report of the Director of Community Services but with the removal of the condition requiring surface water drainage details to be submitted for approval.
RESOLVED That the application be APPROVED, subject to the conditions outlined in Section 1.1 of the report of the Director of Community Services.
RESOLVED That the existing Section 52 agreement be discharged without modification, to allow more than one dwelling within the area subject to the covenant.
In welcoming everyone to the meeting, the Chair made the following announcements: · During the January Committee meeting an oral update was provided in respect of the recommendation for Planning Application No.22/0623/PA - Former Narberth School, which indicated that the recommendation to approve was subject to the receipt of an amended plan to correct a minor inconsistency. The amended plan was received on 16 January 2023 and the decision was issued on 23 January 2023. · On 16 January 2023 notification was received of the Welsh Minister’s decision in respect of a Development of National Significance (DNS) application by Rhoscrowther Wind Farm Limited for the construction and operation of three wind turbines: Turbine 1 with a maximum tip height of 126.5 metres and turbines 2 and 3 with maximum tip height of 135 metres together with ancillary development. The Welsh Minister’s decision was to refuse planning permission on the basis that the renewable energy benefits that would accrue from the development would not outweigh the substantial harm identified to the landscape and visual amenity of an area that included Pembrokeshire Coast National Park and a significant section of the Wales Coast Path and the substantial harm to the historic environment. · During the March 2022 Committee meeting, Members refused Planning Application No.20/1045/PA - Criterion Way, Pembroke Dock Pembrokeshire, SA6 - Proposed Construction of a HGV tanker park, welfare facility (use class B1) and associated infrastructure. At the meeting it was reported that an appeal had been lodged on the grounds of the Council’s failure to determine the application within the statutory time period. Notification was received that the appeal start date was 1 August 2022 and that an Inspector would make an unaccompanied site visit on 1November 2022. A decision was awaited. · That oral updates would be provided for Agenda Items No. 7, 8, 9, 11 and 12.
Councillor Alistair Cameron declared a personal interest in Agenda Item No. 6, Planning Application No.22/0348/PA - Oakland Caravan Park, Summerhill, Narberth, Pembrokeshire, SA67 8NS, by virtue of being a Member of the National Trust, of whom were mentioned within the report.
Moved by Councillor Jacob Williams; Seconded by Councillor Brian Hall The vote, by way of show of hands, was carried. RESOLVED That the Minutes of the meeting held on 10 January 2023 be approved as a correct record, in both English and Welsh.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED That the application be APPROVED, subject to the conditions outlined in Section 1.1 of the report of the Director of Community Services.
This application was for Committee consideration as it was for tourism development on a site exceeding 0.5 hectare in area (paragraph 1(g) of the scheme of delegation). 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 Oliver Cooper • Objector – Mr Dorian Evans In response to a question raised by Councillor John Cole, Mr Cooper confirmed that there would be no increase in units as part of the proposals, the units will just be spread out to allow for greater landscaping, biodiversity and increased privacy. The Committee proceeded to discuss the application and the key points were noted as follows: · Following a request from Councillor Mark Carter, the Planning Officer, Rachel Elliott, presented a range of pictures which had been provided to the Planning Department as part of a third party representation. · The Chief Planning Officer reiterated that the proposal was not to increase the number of caravans, it was to increase the size of the caravan park to increase the separation distance between the caravans. It was added that some caravans would be moved further away from the neighbouring residential property to land which was higher, and confirmed that whilst there would be some overlooking from a distance, it would be a significant distance and those caravans would be further away from the boundaries of the site. The proposed layout was outlined. · In response to a question from Councillor Tim Evans regarding the owner of the hedge, the Planning Officer advised that it appeared to be located within the residential property boundary. Councillor Brian Hall Moved that the application be approved as recommended; Seconded by Councillor Mark Carter. The Committee then proceeded to the vote, undertaken by way of a roll-call, which was carried. The votes were recorded as follows: For the Motion: Councillors Jamie Adams, Aaron Carey, Mark Carter, John Cole, Andrew Edwards, Tim Evans, Nicola Gwynn, Brian Hall, Jordan Ryan, Michelle Wiggins, Tony Wilcox, Jacob Williams and Michael Williams. [13] Councillor Alistair Cameron abstained from voting due to his personal interest declared in relation to the application. There were no votes against the motion. RESOLVED That the application be APPROVED, subject to the conditions outlined in Section 1.1 of the report of the Director of Community Services.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED (a) That delegated power be granted to the Head of Planning to APPROVE the application following the appropriate notification of the application to all landowners being undertaken and subject to a Section 106 agreement and subject to the conditions outlined in Section 1.1 of the report of the Director of Community Services. (b) If the section 106 legal agreement is not completed within 3 months of the foregoing resolution then delegated power be granted to the Head of Planning to exercise discretion to refuse the application on the grounds of non-compliance with Planning Policy Wales and TAN 6.
This application was reported for Committee consideration as the proposal was contrary to the Development Plan which was being recommended for approval (paragraph 1(n) of the scheme of delegation). The Development Manager for Area Teams & Enforcement, Harriet Lavender, provided the Committee with an oral update stating that the Council’s Public Rights of Way Officer had provided a consultation response confirming no objection to the proposal. The Committee was advised that due notification had been received from the following interested party who wished to exercise her right to address the Committee: • Applicant - Mrs Abigail Beck In response to Mrs Beck’s address, Councillor Alistair Cameron requested more information regarding the distance between the public footway and the property. Mrs Beck advised that the public footway ran through the woodland, but adjoined the western boundary edge of the application site which was some distance away from the development dwelling. The Committee proceeded to discuss the application and the key points were noted as follows: · In response to concerns raised by Councillors Michael Williams and Jamie Adams regarding the enforcement and monitoring of the Technical Advice Note 6 (TAN 6) legislation, the Head of Planning outlined the monitoring requirements of One Planet Development conditions and stated that regarding capacity, the service currently employed four full time equivalent enforcement officers so she was confident that the Authority could appropriately monitor all of the OPD’s and other enforcement investigations going forward. · Councillor Mark Carter queried whether there was an obligation for the applicants to demonstrate a need to live on site, to which the Head of Planning advised that there was no requirement for that, but they would need to demonstrate that they could become self-sufficient from the site. Councillor Brian Hall Moved that delegated power be granted to the Head of Planning to approve the application as recommended; Seconded by Councillor Alistair Cameron. The Committee then proceeded to the vote, undertaken by way of a roll-call, which was carried. The votes were recorded as follows: For the Motion: Councillors Alistair Cameron, John Cole, Tim Evans, Nicola Gwynn, Brian Hall, Jordan Ryan, Michelle Wiggins, Tony Wilcox and Jacob Williams [9] Against the Motion: Councillors Jamie Adams, Aaron Carey, Mark Carter, Andrew Edwards and Michael Williams [5] There were no abstentions. RESOLVED (a) That delegated power be granted to the Head of Planning to APPROVE the application following the appropriate notification of the application to all landowners being undertaken and subject to a Section 106 agreement and subject to the conditions outlined in Section 1.1 of the report of the Director of Community Services. (b) If the section 106 legal agreement is not completed within 3 months of the foregoing resolution then delegated power be granted to the Head of Planning to exercise discretion to refuse the application on the grounds of non-compliance with Planning Policy Wales and TAN 6.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED That the application be APPROVED, subject to the conditions outlined in Section 1.1 of the report of the Director of Community Services, with an additional condition requiring implementation of the mitigation measures identified within the bat survey report.
This application was for Committee consideration as it was for aresidential institution (c2 use class) over 500 square metres in floorspace (paragraph 1(f) of the scheme of delegation). The Planning Officer, Rachel Elliott, provided the Committee with an oral update stating that for clarification, the Council Ecologist had recommended four conditions and whilst three of these were mentioned within paragraph 1.1 of the Committee report the fourth condition, which required implementation of the mitigation measures identified in section 5 of the bat survey report, was not. The report dealt with the issue of mitigation in the section of the report covering biodiversity enhancement, however biodiversity mitigation was a separate issue to biodiversity enhancement. The recommendation was updated to refer to the additional condition. The Committee proceeded to discuss the application and the key points were noted as follows: · In response to a question raised by Councillor Tony Wilcox, the Chief Planning Officer advised that specific parking arrangements would be considered as part of the reserved matters application, which would follow, but stated that a transport statement had been submitted as part of the current application. · Following discussion regarding the reserved matters application which would follow the current application, if it was approved, Members concluded that they did not wish to propose that the reserved matters be considered by the Committee, and were content with it being dealt with by officers due to reserved matters applications being outside of the scope of Committee determination. · Councillor Alistair Cameron made reference to the conditions in respect of contamination and requested further information. The Chief Planning Officer advised that the contamination risk had arisen from the large area dedicated to car parking during the land’s previous use, which may have seen contamination of hydrocarbons seeping into the ground, through the tarmac, from oil spills or fuel leaks from cars parked. Therefore, environmental health considerations had to be taken into account for any of the land which could in future be used as gardens to grow flowers or produce. It was noted that the history of military activity in the area also contributed to the condition. · In response to questions raised by Councillor John Cole, the Planning Officer advised that the care home would have an indicative capacity of 55-70 beds and the linked bungalows would assist elderly residents who required support but not necessarily specific care. Councillor Brian Hall Moved that the application be approved as per the updated recommendation outlined within the oral update; Seconded by Councillor Tony Wilcox. The Committee then proceeded to the vote, undertaken by way of a roll-call, which was carried. The votes were recorded as follows: For the Motion: Councillors Jamie Adams, Alistair Cameron, Aaron Carey, Mark Carter, John Cole, Andrew Edwards, Tim Evans, Nicola Gwynn, Brian Hall, Jordan Ryan, Michelle Wiggins, Tony Wilcox, Jacob Williams and Michael Williams. [14] There were no votes against the motion or abstentions. RESOLVED That the application be APPROVED, subject to the conditions outlined in Section 1.1 of the report of the Director of Community Services, with an additional condition requiring implementation of the mitigation measures identified within the bat survey report.
The Meeting adjourned at 11:35am for a short comfort break and reconvened at 11:50am.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED (a) That the application be APPROVED subject to a Section 106 legal agreement and the conditions outlined in Section 1.1 of the report of the Director of Community Services. (b) If the Section 106 legal agreement was not completed within 3 months of the foregoing resolution, then delegated power be granted to the Head of Planning to exercise discretion to refuse the application on the grounds of non-compliance with policy GN.18 of the Local Development Plan.
This application was for Committee consideration as it was for tourist, leisure or recreational development over 0.5 hectares in area (paragraph 1(g) of the scheme of delegation). The Planning Officer, Amy Lack-Croft, provided the Committee with the following oral updates: · Since publication of the Committee report, a consultation response had been received from the Head of Infrastructure (Highways) confirming that there were no objections, subject to the widening of the access gateway, which would be secured through a condition and which was included within the report. • The Havens Community Council advised that there were no objections to the proposal and that the application was supported. • That an amended plan had been received which confirmed that the touring caravan pitches would not be an engineered surface and would remain as grass. The approved plans condition would refer to this amended plan. The Committee was advised that due notification had been received from the following interested party who wished to exercise his right to address the Committee: · Agent – Mr Andrew Vaughan-Harris Councillor Brian Hall Moved that the application be approved as recommended; Seconded by Councillor Mark Carter. The Committee then proceeded to the vote, undertaken by way of a roll-call, which was carried. The votes were recorded as follows: For the Motion: Councillors Jamie Adams, Alistair Cameron, Aaron Carey, Mark Carter, John Cole, Andrew Edwards, Tim Evans, Nicola Gwynn, Brian Hall, Jordan Ryan, Michelle Wiggins, Tony Wilcox, Jacob Williams and Michael Williams. [14] There were no votes against the motion or abstentions. RESOLVED (a) That the application be APPROVED subject to a Section 106 legal agreement and the conditions outlined in Section 1.1 of the report of the Director of Community Services. (b) If the Section 106 legal agreement was not completed within 3 months of the foregoing resolution, then delegated power be granted to the Head of Planning to exercise discretion to refuse the application on the grounds of non-compliance with policy GN.18 of the Local Development Plan.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED (a) That the application be APPROVED subject to a Deed of Variation in respect of the S106 agreement and the conditions outlined in Section 1.1 of the report of the Director of Community Services. (b) In the event the Deed of Variation was not completed within three months of the foregoing resolution then delegated power be granted to the Head of Planning to exercise discretion to issue the permission in the absence of the Deed of Variation.
This application to vary conditions to allow for an extension of time was presented for Committee consideration as it involved a material variation of an extant s106 planning obligation that was entered into as a result of a resolution of the Planning and Rights of Way Committee. Councillor Brian Hall Moved that the application be approved as recommended; Seconded by Councillor Andrew Edwards. The Committee then proceeded to the vote, undertaken by way of a roll-call, which was carried. The votes were recorded as follows: For the Motion: Councillors Jamie Adams, Alistair Cameron, Aaron Carey, Mark Carter, John Cole, Andrew Edwards, Tim Evans, Nicola Gwynn, Brian Hall, Jordan Ryan, Michelle Wiggins, Tony Wilcox, Jacob Williams and Michael Williams. [14] There were no votes against the motion or abstentions. RESOLVED (a) That the application be APPROVED subject to a Deed of Variation in respect of the S106 agreement and the conditions outlined in Section 1.1 of the report of the Director of Community Services. (b) In the event the Deed of Variation was not completed within three months of the foregoing resolution then delegated power be granted to the Head of Planning to exercise discretion to issue the permission in the absence of the Deed of Variation.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED That the application be APPROVED, subject to the conditions outlined in Section 1.1 of the report of the Director of Community Services but with the removal of the condition requiring surface water drainage details to be submitted for approval.
[Councillor Tony Wilcox declared a personal and prejudicial interest in this item of business, by virtue of having two immediate family members employed full time at Bluestone, and advised that he would leave the meeting immediately]. This application was for Committee consideration as it was for a solar array park in excess of 5 hectares (paragraph 1(k) of the scheme of delegation). The Development Manager for Major Projects & Planning Obligations provided the Committee with the following oral update: with reference to paragraph 6.34 (Drainage) of the Committee report, SAB approval had now been issued and therefore was no longer a need for the recommended condition in respect of submission of “surface water drainage details” for approval. The implementation of the approved surface water drainage details would be secured through the approved plans condition. The proposed recommendation was updated accordingly. The Committee was advised that due notification had been received from the following interested party who wished to exercise his right to address the Committee: • Applicant – Mr Marten Lewis Councillor Brian Hall Moved that the application be approved as recommended, with the removal of the drainage condition as outlined within the oral update; Seconded by Councillor Andrew Edwards. The Committee then proceeded to the vote, undertaken by way of a roll-call, which was carried. The votes were recorded as follows: For the Motion: Councillors Jamie Adams, Alistair Cameron, Aaron Carey, Mark Carter, John Cole, Andrew Edwards, Tim Evans, Nicola Gwynn, Brian Hall, Jordan Ryan, Michelle Wiggins, Jacob Williams and Michael Williams. [13] There were no votes against the motion or abstentions. RESOLVED That the application be APPROVED, subject to the conditions outlined in Section 1.1 of the report of the Director of Community Services but with the removal of the condition requiring surface water drainage details to be submitted for approval.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED That the application be APPROVED, subject to the conditions outlined in Section 1.1 of the report of the Director of Community Services.
This application was for Committee consideration as the application was for a development contrary to the Development Plan but which was being recommended for approval (paragraph 1(n) of the scheme of delegation). The Planning Officer, Rachel Elliott, provided the Committee with an oral update stating that paragraph 6.12 of the Committee report referred to the environmental benefit of the change of use to a café being a further reason in support of the development as it had contributed to the viability and vitality of the town centre. For clarification purposes, the environmental benefit was a reference to the introduction of activity where there was previously a vacant premises rather than a reference to ecological benefit. Biodiversity enhancement was secured by a condition on the previous permission (reference 19/1193/PA). The Committee was advised that due notification had been received from the following interested party who wished to exercise his right to address the Committee: · Agent – Mr Gavin Curwen In response to a number of questions raised by Councillor Tim Evans, Mr Curwen advised that the café spanned 3 retail units and that no alteration would be made to the frontage of the building. Councillor Aaron Carey, Local Member, provided background information regarding the premises, expressed his support for the application and Moved that it be approved as recommended; Seconded by Councillor Brian Hall. The Committee then proceeded to the vote, undertaken by way of a roll-call, which was carried. The votes were recorded as follows: For the Motion: Councillors Jamie Adams, Alistair Cameron, Aaron Carey, Mark Carter, John Cole, Andrew Edwards, Tim Evans, Nicola Gwynn, Brian Hall, Jordan Ryan, Michelle Wiggins, Tony Wilcox, Jacob Williams and Michael Williams. [14] There were no votes against the motion or abstentions. RESOLVED That the application be APPROVED, subject to the conditions outlined in Section 1.1 of the report of the Director of Community Services.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED That the existing Section 52 agreement be discharged without modification, to allow more than one dwelling within the area subject to the covenant.
This application was for Committee consideration as it sought to discharge a Section 52 agreement that was required in respect of application reference D2/82/456, which was granted planning permission by Planning Committee. Councillor Brian Hall Moved that the existing Section 52 agreement be discharged without modification, as recommended; Seconded by Councillor John Cole. The Committee then proceeded to the vote, undertaken by way of a roll-call, which was carried. The votes were recorded as follows: For the Motion: Councillors Jamie Adams, Alistair Cameron, Aaron Carey, Mark Carter, John Cole, Andrew Edwards, Tim Evans, Nicola Gwynn, Brian Hall, Jordan Ryan, Michelle Wiggins, Tony Wilcox, Jacob Williams and Michael Williams. [14] There were no votes against the motion or abstentions. RESOLVED That the existing Section 52 agreement be discharged without modification, to allow more than one dwelling within the area subject to the covenant.
Councillors must say when they have a personal link to something being discussed, such as a job, a property or a family member. A prejudicial interest is one strong enough that the councillor usually leaves the room and takes no part.
Declarations are read from the minutes once they are published.
Lists the council's current councillors only. Co-opted members, officers and former councillors aren't shown.