Loading
The decisions as the council's minutes record them. A plain-language summary follows once it has been written.
RESOLVED That the Committee was minded to approve the application, contrary to recommendation. The matter will return to a subsequent Committee for further consideration.
RESOLVED That delegated authority be granted to the Head of Planning to APPROVE the application following the resolution of matters relating to ecology and the effect on the Scheduled Ancient Monument and subject to the conditions outlined in Section 1.1 of the report of the Director of Community Services.
RESOLVED That the application be REFUSED, for the following reason; That the application proposed approximately 720sqm of retail space within a countryside location, with the application failing to provide any justification for the unsustainable location. The proposal fails to comply with policies SP 1, SP 4, SP 5, SP 16 and GN.14 of the Local Development Plan for Pembrokeshire.
RESOLVED That the application be DEFERRED pending further discussions with the District Valuers Office, the applicant and the Planning Authority. The matter will return to a subsequent Committee for further consideration.
RESOLVED That the application be APPROVED, subject to the conditions outlined in Section 1.1 of the report of the Director of Community Services.
In welcoming everyone to the meeting, the Chair made the following announcements: · A change to the Committee membership was noted, with Councillor Rhys Jordan replacing Councillor Andrew Edwards. Thanks were expressed to Councillor Edwards for his time on the Committee and a warm welcome was expressed to Councillor Rhys Jordan. · Agenda Item No. 10, Planning Application No.22/0797/PA - Ffynone Dog Field, Newchapel, SA37 0EH, was advised to have been withdrawn from the Committee agenda but would be considered at a subsequent meeting, with a revised report. The reason for the removal was due to Public Protection wishing to modify its recommendation. · A formatting error was highlighted regarding the site location maps included within the agenda pack for each application. It was stated that due to a technical issue the right hand half of each map included the red hatch but the left hand half of the page did not. For the avoidance of doubt it was clarified that the extent of the application sites was marked by the red edge on the location plans. · An error was noted regarding the section of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 which was quoted during the last Committee meetings Chair’s announcements in respect ofPlanning Application No.21/0857/PA - Cwm Farm, Llawhaden, Narberth. During that update it was stated that the Planning Department issued an enforcement notice under section 215 of the act, when it was in fact section 172 of the act. The minute would be updated to reflect this. A further update was provided in relation to the enforcement notice issued and the Committee was advised that the hearing scheduled for the 19 April 2023 had been adjourned to 18 May 2023. It was noted that the parties agreed to stay proceedings pending the applicants submitting an anticipated appeal of the Council’s decision to refuse planning permission. The High Court will decide whether to issue a stay in May. · During the last Committee meeting, Members approved Planning Application No. 22/0666/PA – Former Garage site, Lower Town, Fishguard, subject to a S106 Agreement. It was stated that it had come to light that whilst a site notice was used to advertise the application, several local residents were unaware of the application, due to the circumstances of the particular site. In order to fully consider the local community’s views on the application a neighbour consultation exercise would now take place and the report would be re-presented to the Planning Committee for consideration, at a future meeting. Members were advised to not engage in any discussion on the application as it would need to be considered, in full, once again. The Chair added that he had found the matter concerning and had raised his concerns with both the Cabinet Member for Planning and the Head of Planning. The Head of Planning outlined the process changes that the department had implemented to prevent this occurrence in the future. · That oral updates would be provided for Agenda Items No. 8 and 9.
Councillor Tim Evans declared a personal and prejudicial interest in Agenda Item No. 7 – Planning Application No.22/0868/PA - Haverfordwest Castle - Demolition, conversion and extension to the former prison to provide new visitor attraction facilities, by virtue of being Chair of Trustees at Haverfordwest Town Museum which is located on the castle site, and also a trustee of the new Haverfordwest Castle CIO development. He advised that he would leave the meeting during that item of business. Councillor Rhys Jordan declared a personal interest in Agenda Item No. 8 - Planning Application No.22/1023/PA - Great Wedlock, Gumfreston, Tenby, Pembrokeshire, SA70 8RB - Proposed partial Change of use of former agricultural barn to in-door farmers/ market traders barn (limited opening days), by virtue of knowing the applicant through being the ward member.
Following the update provided as part of the Chair’s announcements, Minute 84, first bullet point, would be amended to read; ‘It was stated that on 12 February 2021, the Planning Department issued an enforcement notice under ‘section 172’ of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, requiring the structures to be removed within four months’, instead of ‘section 215’. 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 14 March 2023 be approved as a correct record, in both English and Welsh, subject to the above amendment.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED That the Committee was minded to approve the application, contrary to recommendation. The matter will return to a subsequent Committee for further consideration.
This application was presented for Committee consideration as it involved a tourist, leisure or recreational development over 500 sq.m of floorspace or a site over 0.5ha in area (paragraph 1(g) of the scheme of delegation). This application was deferred during the 14 March 2023 committee meeting pending a site visit, which was undertaken on 30 March 2023. 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 David Haward · Local Member - Councillor Delme Harries Following Mr Haward’s address, Councillor Tim Evans made reference to some soil heaps that he witnessed when partaking in the site visit and requested further information as to whether a second entrance to the site was being created. Mr Haward advised that he was aware of the heaps but stated that they were outside of the application site and he was unaware of their purpose. He added that no second entrance was being proposed as part of this application. For clarification, the Head of Planning advised that during the site visit it appeared that there may be a road under construction, so the Authority have now opened an enforcement investigation which was being dealt with separately from the application being considered today. Councillor Mark Carter requested clarification as to whether the site was being advertised as lodges available to use when partaking in the fishing element, or if the lodges would be promoted separate to the fishing element. Mr Haward advised that the two went hand in hand and customers would be able to choose how they wished to utilise the facilities. In response to a question from Councillor Mark Carter, Mr Haward advised that the family stopped farming the land themselves 22 years ago, but stated that they now let out some of the land to adjoining farms. Councillor Delme Harries, Local Member, addressed the Committee to express his support for the application stating that he did not agree that the proposal had an adverse impact on the character and appearance of the countryside, as it was a secluded location. He stated that very similar applications in other areas of the County, which he felt did have an adverse impact on the character and appearance of the countryside, had been granted approval and he felt had been offered more support than the applicant of this proposal had. Thanks were expressed to Committee Members for their attendance at the site visit, and Councillor Harries requested their support of the application on the grounds that it promoted much needed countryside enterprise development and would have a positive economic and social impact on the local area. The Committee proceeded to discuss the application and the key points were noted as follows: · Councillors Mark Carter and Alistair Cameron expressed their support of the officers recommendation to refuse, stating that it was not felt the matter was farm diversification and was a lodge development being proposed in open countryside, some distance from a settlement. The importance of adhering to the Local Development Plan was expressed to ensure preservation of the countryside within the County. · Councillors Brian Hall, Jamie Adams and Tony Wilcox voiced support for approving the application, stating they felt the site was as well related to a settlement as it could be, was adequately screened and would provide economic benefit. Councillor Brian Hall Moved that the application be approved contrary to recommendation; Seconded by Councillor Jamie Adams. The Committee proceeded to the vote, undertaken by way of a roll-call, which was carried. The votes were recorded as follows: For the Motion: Councillors Jamie Adams, Aaron Carey, Tim Evans, Nicola Gwynn, Brian Hall, Rhys Jordan, Jordan Ryan and Tony Wilcox. [8] Against the Motion: Councillors Mark Carter, Alistair Cameron, Michelle Wiggins, Jacob Williams and Michael Williams. [5] There were no abstentions. RESOLVED That the Committee was minded to approve the application, contrary to recommendation. The matter will return to a subsequent Committee for further consideration.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED That delegated authority be granted to the Head of Planning to APPROVE the application following the resolution of matters relating to ecology and the effect on the Scheduled Ancient Monument and subject to the conditions outlined in Section 1.1 of the report of the Director of Community Services.
[Having previously declared a personal and prejudicial interest in this item of business, Councillor Tim Evans withdrew from the meeting]. This application was for Committee consideration as the application was for tourist, leisure or recreational development over 500 sq.m floorspace (paragraph 1(g) of the scheme of delegation). Councillor Jamie Adams highlighted that a number of consultation responses seemed incomplete and requested clarification on a number of points. The Planning Officer, Mike Simmons, advised that a meeting had been arranged with himself, Natural Resources Wales and the Council’s Ecologist to consider the issues with the bats, primarily in relation to access to the basement, and concerns raised by the Council’s Access officer were being dealt with via condition. It was noted that no comment had been received from Haverfordwest Town Council. Councillor Mark Carter made reference to an objection raised by a local resident who requested that ‘if permission was granted that the Authority ensure the area was still dog friendly’ and requested further information. The Planning Officer, advised that due to the increased security of the site it may mean that the area the resident was referring to may not be accessible once the work was complete. Councillor Mark Carter Moved that delegated authority be granted to the Head of Planning to approve the application following the resolution of matters relating to ecology and the effect on the Scheduled Ancient Monument, as recommended; Seconded by Councillor Jamie Adams. 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, Nicola Gwynn, Brian Hall, Rhys Jordan, Jordan Ryan, Michelle Wiggins, Tony Wilcox, Jacob Williams and Michael Williams. [12] There were no votes against the motion or abstentions. RESOLVED That delegated authority be granted to the Head of Planning to APPROVE the application following the resolution of matters relating to ecology and the effect on the Scheduled Ancient Monument and subject to the conditions outlined in Section 1.1 of the report of the Director of Community Services.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED That the application be REFUSED, for the following reason; That the application proposed approximately 720sqm of retail space within a countryside location, with the application failing to provide any justification for the unsustainable location. The proposal fails to comply with policies SP 1, SP 4, SP 5, SP 16 and GN.14 of the Local Development Plan for Pembrokeshire.
This application was for Committee consideration as it was for class A1 retail floorspace over 500 sq.m (paragraph 1(b) of the scheme of delegation). The Planning Officer, Claire Jenkins, provided an oral update stating that since publication of the Committee report additional information had been received from the agent which had resulted in a change of recommendation from Highways and the removal of the Highways reason for refusal. 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 Wayne Reynolds Following Mr Reynolds’ address, Councillor Mark Carter requested clarification on the use of the building during times the market was not open. Mr Reynolds advised that it would revert back to general use. Assurance was sought by Councillor Mark Carter that the market would only be selling local produce to which Mr Reynolds confirmed that the market would be targeted at small craft business run by locals. Councillor Alistair Cameron highlighted the decision by the applicant to not undertake a retail impact assessment and queried why. Mr Reynolds advised that due to the small scale of the proposal they felt the need to conduct an impact assessment was redundant, although added that research had been undertaken regarding businesses in the locality providing similar services. Councillor Rhys Jordan, Local Member, voiced that although it was important to respect local policy, he did not feel this proposal would have a negative economic impact and expressed his support for the application. He felt it was a unique proposal which would benefit a range of local cottage industries and entrepreneurs. The Committee proceeded to discuss the application and the key points were noted as follows: · In response to a question raised by Councillor Michael Williams, the Head of Planning confirmed that it was the owners of the adjoining deer park who were the applicants of the proposal being considered. · Following concerns raised by Councillor Michael Williams, regarding a personal interest declared in relation to the application by Councillor Rhys Jordan at the start of the meeting, the Solicitor confirmed that Councillor Jordan had sought advice prior to the meeting and that he was content a personal interest was sufficient. · In response to clarification sought by Councillor Jamie Adams in relation to the differentiation between the proposal, the longstanding Carew Market and Haverfordwest Farmers market, the Chief Planning Officer provided details of permitted development allowances and the criteria markets were bound by. · Following clarification sought by Councillor Aaron Carey, the Planning Officer confirmed that highways had removed their objection, subject to conditions, and that there would be no change to the external appearance of the building, the only visual impact would be from any additional car parking associated with the market. · Councillor Tony Wilcox requested further information on the 14 day market policy, to which the Head of Planning advised that it was a national permitted development right. · Councillor Michael Williams expressed concerns regarding the impact the parking would have on the landscape and also the negative effect the market could have on the fragility of the existing economic position in Tenby town centre, which was a view shared by Councillors Tim Evans and Brian Hall. · It was queried by Councillor Alistair Cameron if the Authority could give advice on the economic impact the proposal could have on the local area, in the absence of a retail impact assessment being provided by the applicant, to which the Head of Planning advised that the Authority were not able to provide any specific advice but highlighted the local and national policy for ‘town centre first approach’. Councillor Brian Hall Moved that the application be refused as per the updated recommendation outlined within the oral update; Seconded by Councillor Michael Williams. The Committee proceeded to the vote, undertaken by way of a roll-call, which was carried. The votes were recorded as follows: For the Motion: Councillors Jamie Adams, Alistair Cameron, Mark Carter, Tim Evans, Nicola Gwynn, Brian Hall, Jordan Ryan, Michelle Wiggins, Tony Wilcox, Jacob Williams and Michael Williams. [11] Against the Motion: Councillors Aaron Carey and Rhys Jordan. [2] There were no abstentions. RESOLVED That the application be REFUSED, for the following reason; That the application proposed approximately 720sqm of retail space within a countryside location, with the application failing to provide any justification for the unsustainable location. The proposal fails to comply with policies SP 1, SP 4, SP 5, SP 16 and GN.14 of the Local Development Plan for Pembrokeshire.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED That the application be DEFERRED pending further discussions with the District Valuers Office, the applicant and the Planning Authority. The matter will return to a subsequent Committee for further consideration.
This application was for Committee consideration as it was made under Section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended), a consent under Section 73 represents a new planning permission which, in this case, raised issues regarding compliance with the development plan (part (n) of the scheme of delegation). The Planning Officer, Mike Simmons, provided an oral update stating that since publication of the agenda, representation had been received from Narberth Town Council objecting to the application stating ‘due to the need, the Town Council wishes to have affordable housing remain at this development’. The Chief Planning Officer, provided a further oral update stating that within paragraph 6.13 of the report it stated that the end of the publicity period was the 20 April 2023 and any further representations received after publication would be reported orally, but advised that no further representations had been received. 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: · Speaker on behalf of the applicant – Mr Andrew Rees • Objector – Dr Mark Paffard Following Mr Rees’ address, Councillor Tony Wilcox requested further information regarding the library provision which was being provided. Mr Rees advised that the library provision would have a rent-free lease agreement. Following clarification sought by Councillor Jordan Ryan, Mr Rees confirmed that the houses would be sold on the open market. In response to a question raised by Councillor Alistair Cameron, Mr Rees confirmed that the matter had not been discussed with town council and that it had been disappointing to read their objection. Following Dr Paffard’s address, Councillor Alistair Cameron queried if he disagreed with the District Valuation Officer’s (DVO) report, to which Dr Paffard commented that he was not a specialist, but felt the review was a desktop review and the author had not visited the town to gain evidence before publishing the report, therefore many comparisons were incorrect. The Local Member, Councillor Marc Tierney, was unable to be in attendance, but requested that the Chair read out the below statement on his behalf; “Due to work commitments I am unable to attend the meeting today. However, I wish to make the Committee aware that I have received concerns from residents, who share my disappointment that the applicant seeks to remove a previous obligation to deliver affordable homes as part of their original application granted in 2020. I recognise that the present economic situation is difficult. But, I am regularly reminded of the need to provide affordable homes in Narberth where, like many parts of Pembrokeshire, environmental restrictions are curtailing our ambition to meet the desperate need for housing. Whilst three properties does not sound like a lot, it is difficult to see where any further development in Narberth might be possible at present or in the near future and the need for good quality, affordable homes continues to increase. Yours sincerely, Cllr Marc Tierney”. The Committee proceeded to discuss the application and the key points were noted as follows: · In response to a question raised by Councillor Rhys Jordan, the Planning Officer confirmed that there were no existing or proposed conditions linked to usage for residents. Councillor Jordan commented that that was disappointing and queried if a C3 condition could be included at this stage to ensure the homes were resided in all year round. The Head of Planning outlined the C3/C5/C6 permitted development rights and advised inclusion of such condition would require re-submission via a full planning application, as the current application was a section 73 application, to remove one condition. · Councillor Jordan Ryan queried if any profit monitoring would be undertaken on the site if it was agreed for the condition to be removed, to which the Head of Planning responded that no monitoring would be undertaken and the viability assessment undertaken by the DVO had shown there would be no viability, so based on the evidence the Authority have to recommend removing the condition, which was noted to be disappointing. · Councillor Jamie Adams concurred that it was a disappointing position to be in and queried if any alternative contribution could be arranged, off site. The Head of Planning advised that seeking any form of contribution would be subject to the same viability assessment, and based on the evidence provided by the DVO would likely also show no viability. · In response to an advice request, the Head of Planning informed the Committee that if they were minded to refuse the application, it would need to be a minded to decision for the matter to be looked into further, and would need to return to a future Committee meeting for the implications to be outlined. · Councillor Mark Carter recognised that going to appeal against the DVO’s recommendation would pose a risk to the Authority financially, but expressed that the residents of Narberth in need of affordable housing should be the priority and all possible alternatives should be thoroughly considered before agreeing to remove the condition. The Chief Planning Officer advised that whilst the condition did allow for some flexibility regarding what might be agreed in terms of the provision of affordable housing, the DVO had advised that there was no excess profit which would enable any affordable housing to be provided. · In response to a query received from Councillor Tim Evans regarding the possibility of the developer withdrawing from the library agreement if the Committee were minded to refuse the request to remove the affordable housing element, the Planning Officer advised that the library was enforced as part of the planning permission as it was included in the original permission request, but he was unsure of the details of the land deal as that was separate to the granting of planning permission. The Chief Planning Officer informed the Committee that the condition which was linked to the original agreement, requiring the applicant to build the library, did not specify a requirement for the library to operate and such matters would be dealt with by the Council’s legal and property teams, not through planning permission. It was clarified that the library element was considered as part of the DVO assessment. · In response to clarification sought by Councillor Nicola Gwynn regarding the checking of information which was provided to the DVO by the applicant, the Head of Planning advised that the DVO report was an independent analysis, where often differences of opinion on certain aspects on viability were raised. It was added that although within the current report there were differences of opinion on certain aspects, the conclusion was that the scheme was not viable. It was noted that the process between the applicant and the DVO took around eight months of back and forth questioning. · A suggestion was made by Councillor Tony Wilcox, stating that depending on the specific figures linked to the non-viability decision, the Authority could seek to negotiate purchasing unit/s from the developer in order to provide Narberth residents with affordable housing. Members continued discussions regarding options for negotiations and additional information they would like to be provided with regarding the land, the library agreement and possible implications of refusing the application, which led to Councillor Jamie Adams Moving that the application be deferred pending further discussions with the District Valuers Office, the applicant and the Planning Authority; Seconded by Councillor Mark Carter. The Committee proceeded to the vote, undertaken by way of a roll-call, which was carried. The votes were recorded as follows: For the Motion: Councillors Jamie Adams, Alistair Cameron, Aaron Carey, Mark Carter, Tim Evans, Nicola Gwynn, Brian Hall, Rhys Jordan, Jordan Ryan, Michelle Wiggins, Tony Wilcox, Jacob Williams and Michael Williams. [13] There were no votes against the motion or abstentions. RESOLVED That the application be DEFERRED pending further discussions with the District Valuers Office, the applicant and the Planning Authority. The matter will return to a subsequent Committee for further consideration.
This item of business was removed from the Committee agenda due to Public Protection wishing to modify its recommendation. The matter would be considered at a subsequent meeting, with a revised report.
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 has been made by, or on behalf of, a close family member of a Member of the Council (paragraph 1(m) of the scheme of delegation). Councillor Jamie Adams Moved that the application 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, Tim Evans, Nicola Gwynn, Brian Hall, Rhys Jordan, Jordan Ryan, Michelle Wiggins, Tony Wilcox, 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.
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.