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 REFUSED, for the following reasons: · Adverse impact on amenity, due to the overlooking of the rear garden area of No. 17 Summerhill at close quarters and as a result of passing of pedestrians and vehicles between Nos. 17 and 18 Summerhill directly looking into the garden of No. 17 and the ground floor windows within the principal elevation of No. 18. Also the adverse appearance of the back-land development as a result of the detached dwelling, access and parking. · Lack of information to establish whether soakaways will work on the site due to the interaction with historical coal mining. [Councillor Anji Tinley left the meeting at this juncture]
RESOLVED That the application be deferred to allow Members to conduct a SITE VISIT due to take place on 30 August 2023. The matter will return to a subsequent Committee meeting for further consideration. Adjournment of Meeting The Meeting adjourned at 11:55am for a short break and reconvened at 12:13pm.
RESOLVED That the application be APPROVED, subject to the conditions outlined in Section 1.1 of the report of the Head of Planning Service.
RESOLVED That delegated power be granted to the Head of Planning to APPROVE the application subject to the resolution of issues raised by the Coal Authority, the submission of a Section 106 Unilateral Undertaking based on the lesser figure to secure a contribution toward Local Needs Affordable Housing and the following conditions set out in the report.
In welcoming everyone to the meeting, the Chair made the following announcements: · Agenda Item 8 – Planning Application No.23/0027/PA Social Club, Station Road, Kilgetty, Residential Development - had been withdrawn by the agent and no further work would be carried out in connection with it. The matter may be considered at a future meeting, with the resubmission of a new application. · Notification of an appeal decision had been received from Planning and Environment Decisions Wales (PEDW) regarding Planning Application No.20/1045/PA - Criterion Way, Pembroke Dock Pembrokeshire, SA72 6UL - Proposed Construction of a HGV tanker park, welfare facility (use class B1) and associated infrastructure. At the meeting, it was reported PEDW had dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the Council’s failure to determine the application within the statutory period and upheld the Committee’s decision to refuse planning permission at its March 2022 meeting. However the Inspector concluded that the proposal did not make suitable provision for foul water drainage. The Chair stated the Council was informed of the appeal outcome, which was dated 1 March 2023, earlier this month, with an apology from PEDW for the delay in communicating its decision. · That oral updates would be provided for Agenda Items No. 6, 7 and 10. In respect of item 10, there would be an amendment to the officer recommendation for 23/0224/PA – Laubobange, Hill Lane, Kilgetty, Pembrokeshire SA68 0QT – New four bed dwelling.
Councillor Alistair Cameron declared a personal interest in Agenda Item No. 7 – Planning Application No.20/0462/PA - Heritage Park, Pleasant Valley, by virtue of being a member of the Stepaside and Pleasant Valley Residents’ Group (SPVRG).
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 27 June 2023 be approved as a correct record, in both English and Welsh.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED That the application be REFUSED, for the following reasons: · Adverse impact on amenity, due to the overlooking of the rear garden area of No. 17 Summerhill at close quarters and as a result of passing of pedestrians and vehicles between Nos. 17 and 18 Summerhill directly looking into the garden of No. 17 and the ground floor windows within the principal elevation of No. 18. Also the adverse appearance of the back-land development as a result of the detached dwelling, access and parking. · Lack of information to establish whether soakaways will work on the site due to the interaction with historical coal mining. [Councillor Anji Tinley left the meeting at this juncture]
This application was presented for Committee consideration as the Director of Community Services removed the application from the scheme of delegation, due to the impact on the local community being complex and sensitive and would benefit from a public examination of the merits. It was deferred at the 27 June 2023 Committee meeting pending a site visit, which was undertaken on 19 July 2023. The Planning Officer, Leon Elms, provided an oral update stating that since publication of the Committee report, the Agent had submitted new drawings of the rainwater capture system and separation distances between the proposed dwelling and the proposed boundary with No.17 Summerhill. However, the officer’s view was the recommendation of refusal remained unchanged. The Committee was advised that due notification had been received from the following interested parties, who wished to exercise their right to address the Committee: · Applicant – Mr William Brookes · Objector – Mr Kelvin Thomas Following Mr Brookes’ address, Councillor Alistair Cameron sought clarification on the increased size of the proposed dwelling from a two bedroom dwelling that was previously refused to a three bedroom dwelling. Referring to the ‘prominent and over-bearing' features of the proposal in paragraph 6.7 of the officer’s report, Councillor Cameron asked what impact the development would have on adjoining properties. Mr Brookes explained the proposed dwelling had been designed to be in keeping with the neighbouring properties in the terrace. He added the façade of the main elevation was approximately 2 metres wider to incorporate a landing, wider hallway and side. In a similar vein, the Chair sought Mr Brookes’ views on what was different in this scheme compared to two previous applications that were refused in March and October 2021. Mr Brookes stated the area of the plot had been significantly increased to widen the driveway to overcome previous reasons for refusal. The Chair invited Mr Kelvin Thomas to address the Committee, who raised a number of planning concerns related to access, parking, highway safety, loss of privacy and overlooking. The Committee proceeded to discuss the application and the key points were noted as follows: · Councillor Mark Carter queried whether, if the application was approved, a condition restricting permitted development rights to convert the roof space to provide two more bedrooms couldbe imposed. The Chief Planning Officer advised that conversion of the roof space to provide additional accommodation would be largely internal and would not require a planning application. He went on to say if Members wished to retain the house as a three bedroom dwelling they would need to consider the introduction of a condition removing permitted development rights. However, he cautioned any new application to accommodate additional rooms, with the installation of roof lights, would likely be considered acceptable because the level of overlooking would be less than overlooking from first floor windows. · In response to a further question from Councillor Mark Carter, the Chief Planning Officer advised consideration could be given to a condition restricting the occupancy of the dwelling to sole or main residence. However there would not appear to be sufficient evidence to justify such a condition. · Councillor Brian Hall requested confirmation of the required distance from a soakaway to a building. The Chief Planning Officer clarified that soakaways must be sited at least 5m from a proposed or existing building under the Building Regulations. In this case, he stated the Coal Authority had raised concerns regarding the potential interaction of surface water disposal with past coal mining. · Councillor Alistair Cameron requested further information about the Council’s rationale for considering surface water disposal. The Chief Planning Officer referred to the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 where new developments are required to make provision for rainfall runoff due to climate change and, in some circumstances, applicants would be asked for more detail on how a soakaway would work. · Following on from discussions relating to the intention of the applicant to purchase from the Council a portion of the garden of No. 17, the Chair reminded Members the sale of land was not for consideration and that it was the acceptability of the development that should be considered. Councillor Brian Hall Moved the recommendation for refusal; Seconded by Councillor Michael Williams. The vote, undertaken by way of a roll-call, was carried. The votes were recorded as follows: For the Motion: Councillors Alistair Cameron, Aaron Carey, Brian Hall, Jordan Ryan, Iwan Ward, Jacob Williams and Michael Williams [7] Against the Motion: Councillors Mark Carter, John Cole, Tim Evans, Nicola Gwynn, Rhys Jordan and Anji Tinley [6] Abstain: Councillor Tony Wilcox [1] RESOLVED That the application be REFUSED, for the following reasons: · Adverse impact on amenity, due to the overlooking of the rear garden area of No. 17 Summerhill at close quarters and as a result of passing of pedestrians and vehicles between Nos. 17 and 18 Summerhill directly looking into the garden of No. 17 and the ground floor windows within the principal elevation of No. 18. Also the adverse appearance of the back-land development as a result of the detached dwelling, access and parking. · Lack of information to establish whether soakaways will work on the site due to the interaction with historical coal mining. [Councillor Anji Tinley left the meeting at this juncture]
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED That the application be deferred to allow Members to conduct a SITE VISIT due to take place on 30 August 2023. The matter will return to a subsequent Committee meeting for further consideration. Adjournment of Meeting The Meeting adjourned at 11:55am for a short break and reconvened at 12:13pm.
This application was presented for Committee consideration as the application included tourist development over 0.5Ha in area (Paragraph 1(g) of the Scheme of Delegation). The Planning Officer, Mike Simmons, provided an oral update stating that since publication of the Committee report, three emails of representation had been received from Dr Trish Cormack, of the Stepaside and Pleasant Valley Residents’ Group (SPVRG) regarding the following: · Two emails referred to concerns that some amendments submitted by the applicant to the planning application had not been publicised. The officer informed the meeting that a further email requesting publicity was withdrawn after publication of the Committee report. The third email was a rebuttal of the applicant’s Transport Statement and Head of Infrastructure’s Transportation Analysis of the application. · Two further representations were received, however, no additional issues were highlighted within these representations that had not been already summarised in the Committee report. · A minor typographical error for the Sustainable Development policy in the Local Development Plan (LDP) was identified in paragraph 6.13 within the report. The wording was corrected to clarify that the policy referred to was SP 1 and not SP 3 (Employment Land Requirements) as stated. The Chair, making reference to a matter that had been raised at a previous Committee meeting, stressed the need for officers to be more concise in delivering presentations as lengthy reports were “not conducive to the best decision-making”. As Members were familiar with report contents prior to the meeting, the Chair advised officers not share information that was already known. Councillor Alistair Cameron reiterated his personal interest as a member of SPVRG but had come to the meeting as one of the Local Members and would listen to the debate of Committee colleagues before making a decision. Further clarification was sought by Councillor Mark Carter on the difference between SPVRG and SPVRG Ltd. The Chair reiterated the Solicitor’s advice of the distinction between the two, noting that they are not linked. 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 – Ms Helen Ashby-Ridgway · Objector – Dr Trish Cormack Following Ms Ashby-Ridgway’s address, Councillor Mark Carter queried whether the spa facilities would be open to holiday park and non-resident guests, to which Ms Ashby-Ridgway advised that they would, along with a visitor centre, café, bike hire and upgraded footpaths whereas the lodge accommodation and equestrian facilities would be for holidaymakers. Following Dr Cormack’s address, Councillor Mark Carter made reference to the 245 representations of objections, which included 231 separately signed copies of the same correspondence. Dr Cormack elaborated on the creation of an email signup form that objectors could complete and automatically submit their representations to the Council’s email address. Councillor Carter then drew attention to the grounds for objection, such as the proposal being contrary to policy in the LDP and tourists would be of “low spend “fish and chip” people who [would] not visit local shops/restaurants”. Where individual opinions were expressed, Dr Cormack acknowledged they were not necessarily the views of SPVRG, which collated the responses from the community. In a response to a question from Councillor Rhys Jordan, Dr Cormack agreed she had used the word “tacky” when describing the proposal’s visual impact on Pleasant Valley and the historic industrial site of Stepaside Ironworks to express her own personal opinion. Councillor Mark Carter Moved that the application be deferred to allow Members to conduct a site visit; Seconded by Councillor Brian Hall, who then withdrew his earlier motion for refusal, which was not seconded. The vote, undertaken by way of a roll-call, was carried. The votes were recorded as follows: For the Motion: Councillors Aaron Carey, Mark Carter, John Cole, Tim Evans, Nicola Gwynn, Brian Hall, Rhys Jordan, Jordan Ryan, Iwan Ward, Tony Wilcox and Jacob Williams [11] Against the Motion: Councillor Michael Williams [1] Abstain: Councillor Alistair Cameron [1] RESOLVED That the application be deferred to allow Members to conduct a SITE VISIT due to take place on 30 August 2023. The matter will return to a subsequent Committee meeting for further consideration. Adjournment of Meeting The Meeting adjourned at 11:55am for a short break and reconvened at 12:13pm.
The Committee noted that the item had been WITHDRAWN by the agent and no further work would be carried out in connection with it. The matter may be considered at a future meeting, with the resubmission of a new application.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED That the application be APPROVED, subject to the conditions outlined in Section 1.1 of the report of the Head of Planning Service.
This application was presented for Committee consideration as the submitted application originally comprised a mixed retail and leisure development of over 500 sq.m of floorspace on a site over 0.5Ha in area (Paragraph 1(g) of the Scheme of Delegation). The Committee was advised that due notification had been received from an interested party who wished to exercise his right to address the Committee: · Agent – Mr Matthew Jones In response to Mr Jones’ address and referring to comments made by Llanstadwell Community Council, Councillor Alistair Cameron requested more information regarding the safety of the access arrangements to the retail development from the A477. Mr Jones explained he and the applicant had worked with the Council’s Highways Department and traffic consultants. He stated the ‘ghosted’ right turn lane into the site would be considered ‘an improvement on the current access’ and would welcome the reduction of the speed limit in future. The Committee proceeded to discuss the application and the key points were noted as follows: · Councillors Mark Carter, Brian Hall and Tony Wilcox expressed their support for the application, stating that they felt such development would be a benefit to the Neyland area, with the transformation of the existing vacant garage, improvements to the road infrastructure and the installation of more electric vehicle charge points. Councillor Mark Carter Moved the recommendation for approval; 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 Alistair Cameron, Aaron Carey, Mark Carter, John Cole, Tim Evans, Nicola Gwynn, Brian Hall, Jordan Ryan, Iwan Ward, Tony Wilcox, Jacob Williams and Michael Williams [12] There were no votes against or abstentions. RESOLVED That the application be APPROVED, subject to the conditions outlined in Section 1.1 of the report of the Head of Planning Service.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED That delegated power be granted to the Head of Planning to APPROVE the application subject to the resolution of issues raised by the Coal Authority, the submission of a Section 106 Unilateral Undertaking based on the lesser figure to secure a contribution toward Local Needs Affordable Housing and the following conditions set out in the report.
This application was presented for Committee consideration as it was contrary to a policy of the Local Development Plan, but was being recommended for approval, (Paragraph 1(n) of the Scheme of Delegation). The Planning Officer, Claire Jenkins, provided an oral update stating that since publication of the Committee report, the recommendation relating to the submission of the Section 106 Unilateral Undertaking to secure a contribution toward Local Needs Affordable Housing had been amended to 25% (£12,718) and not 20% (£10,175). This was to reflect the development site extending beyond the settlement boundary of Pentlepoir rather than Kilgetty. The Chair, as the Local Member, expressed his support for the application and moved the recommendation for approval based on the lesser figure as contained within the report; Seconded by Councillor Tony Wilcox. Councillor Jordan Ryan then proposed an amendment based on the higher value given in the oral update. The amendment was not seconded by another Member, therefore, the original motion was put to the vote. The vote, undertaken by way of a roll-call, was carried. The votes were recorded as follows: For the Motion: Councillors Alistair Cameron, Aaron Carey, Mark Carter, John Cole, Nicola Gwynn, Brian Hall, Rhys Jordan, Iwan Ward, Tony Wilcox, Jacob Williams and Michael Williams [11] Against the Motion: Councillor Jordan Ryan [1] There were no abstentions. RESOLVED That delegated power be granted to the Head of Planning to APPROVE the application subject to the resolution of issues raised by the Coal Authority, the submission of a Section 106 Unilateral Undertaking based on the lesser figure to secure a contribution toward Local Needs Affordable Housing and the following conditions set out in the report.
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.