Loading
The decisions as the council's minutes record them. A plain-language summary follows once it has been written.
RESOLVED (a) That the Committee was minded to APPROVE the application due to the economic benefit it would bring, contrary to recommendation for refusal. (b) That the application be deferred to a subsequent meeting.
RESOLVED That the application be deferred to allow Members to conduct a SITE VISIT. The matter will return to a subsequent Committee meeting for further consideration.
RESOLVED That the application be APPROVED, subject to the conditions outlined in Section 1.1 of the report of the Head of Planning Service. [Councillor Michael Williams left the meeting at this juncture]
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 Service to APPROVE the application, subject to a Habitats Regulation Assessment finding the proposal acceptable and subject to the conditions outlined in Section 1.1 of the report of the Head of Planning Service. [Councillor Anji Tinley left the meeting at this juncture]
RESOLVED That the application be APPROVED, subject to the conditions outlined in Section 1.1 of the report of the Head of Planning Service [Councillor John Cole left the meeting at this juncture]
RESOLVED That the application be APPROVED, subject to temporary consent until 31st October 2026 and conditions outlined in Section 1.1 of the report of the Head of Planning Service. For the Motion: Councillors Jamie Adams, Alistair Cameron, Aaron Carey, Mark Carter, Nicola Gwynn, Brian Hall, Rhys Jordan, Jordan Ryan, Iwan Ward, Tony Wilcox and Jacob Williams [11] 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.
In welcoming everyone to the meeting, the Chair stated that oral updates would be provided for Agenda Items No. 6, 7 and 12. In respect of item 13 12 [Amended by Minute 42 of Committee – 3 October 2023 and amended by Minute 55 of Committee – 7 November 2023], there would be an update to the officer recommendation for 23/0305/PA – Tegfan, Trefgarn Owen – Two storey side extension and replacement single storey side extension [Amended by Minute 55 of Committee – 7 November 2023].
Councillor Alistair Cameron declared a personal interest in Agenda Item No. 6 – 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). He expressed his wish to address the meeting as the Local Member, however, advised he would leave the Council Chamber for the debate on this item. Councillor Iwan Ward declared a personal and prejudicial interest in Agenda Item No. 7 – Planning Application No.23/0066/PA - Land Adjacent to Pincheston Farm Complex, Sageston, SA70 8SG, by virtue of his brother owning land nearby. Councillor Tim Evans declared a personal and prejudicial interest in Agenda Item No. 12 – Planning Application No.23/0237/PA - 24-25, Riverside Quay, Haverfordwest, SA61 2LJ, by virtue of being the Chair of the Trustees of Haverfordwest Town Museum. He advised that he would leave the meeting during that item of business. Councillor Mark Carter declared a personal and prejudicial interest in Agenda Item No. 13 – Planning Application No. 23/0305/PA - Tegfan, Trefgarn Owen, by virtue of being, with his wife, owner applicants of the property occupied by his son, daughter-in-law and family. Councillor Carter advised he would leave the meeting during that item of business.
RESOLVED That the Minutes of the Meeting held on 25 July 2023 be approved as a correct record, in both English and Welsh. The vote, undertaken by way of a show of hands, was carried.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED (a) That the Committee was minded to APPROVE the application due to the economic benefit it would bring, contrary to recommendation for refusal. (b) That the application be deferred to a subsequent meeting.
[Having previously declared a personal and prejudicial interest in this item of business, Councillor Alistair Cameron withdrew from the debate.] 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). It was deferred at the 25 July 2023 Committee meeting pending a site visit, which was undertaken on 30 August 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: · Town and Community Council Representative – Councillor Tony Baron, Chair, Amroth Community Council · Agent – Ms Helen Ashby-Ridgway · Objector – Dr Trish Cormack · Local Member – Councillor Alistair Cameron Following Councillor Baron’s address, the Chair raised issues with the safety of a proposed new private road, to which Councillor Baron was of the opinion that the road would be a ‘strong incentive’ for people to use it as a shortcut, resulting in increased traffic leaving opposite the northern entrance of the Heritage Park. Following Ms Ashby-Ridgway’s address, Councillor Tony Wilcox requested clarification on the viability of the scheme, to which Ms Ashby-Ridgway replied the applicant was seeking planning permission for the entire proposal and it would not be possible to build the equestrian stables, spa facility and café without the revenue generated by the holiday lodges and pods. In response to a question from Councillor Aaron Carey, Ms Ashby-Ridgway confirmed the number of lodges operated by Heritage Park includes 102 lodges in the older part of the site, with the addition 10 new lodges in the last 18 months and planning permission in place for another 19. Councillor John Cole made reference to the discussion regarding the proposed private road to the new leisure facilities and whether access to it would be controlled. Ms Ashby-Ridgway explained that the applicant intends to install a physical barrier, which would be activated by key fob access and intercom for guests staying in the pods in Area D of the block plan and visitors to the leisure and spa facilities, respectively. She asserted the private road would not be used as a ‘rat run’. Discussion took place about part of Heritage Park being a brownfield site and Councillor Cole referred to the ‘dilapidated and collapsing’ buildings he saw on the site visit being reclaimed by nature. Ms Ashby-Ridgway maintained, while the land is currently not in use, it had been previously developed for the former Stepaside Craft Village. Councillor Mark Carter asked the Agent to quantify the amount of brownfield land included in the overall application, to which Ms Ashby-Ridgway estimated about two-thirds. Following Dr Cormack’s address, Councillor Carter made reference to newspaper reports and social media comments he had read calling for the land to be used for social housing. Dr Cormack stated she was unaware of the mention in relation to the Stepaside and Pleasant Valley Residents’ Group (SPVRG) that she was representing, and that she ‘personally would not be favour of any housing social or otherwise’. Speaking as the Local Member, Councillor Alistair Cameron said he supported the officer’s recommendation for refusal because it went against the Council’s Local Development Plan. He observed the “holiday lodges were outside of a settlement area and apartments were not within or well related to a town, service centre or village”. [Councillor Cameron then withdrew from the meeting at this juncture] The Committee proceeded to discuss the application and the key points were noted as follows: · Councillors Mark Carter and Jamie Adams expressed their support for the application, stating the holiday park was well run and felt such a development by a business seeking to expand into a year-round attraction would benefit the Kilgetty area and wider County. · Councillor Carter also noted no objections had been raised by Natural Resources Wales (NRW), Welsh Water, the Coal Authority, CADW and sections within the Council when consulted as part of the planning application process. · Councillor Carter then Moved that the application be approved contrary to the officer recommendation, due to the economic benefit it would bring; Seconded by Councillor Brian Hall. · The Chair advised that in the instance the Committee was minded to approve the application, contrary to the recommendation, then it would be referred to back to a subsequent Committee and, if approved, to full Council for final determination. The Head of Planning also reminded Members of the Council’s strong policy position against development in the countryside that had been tested numerous times at appeal. · Councillor Cole supported the application being refused as recommended.. A final plea was made by Councillor Michael Williams to the Committee for them to consider refusing the application, in support of the officer’s recommendation. The vote, undertaken by way of a roll-call, was carried. The votes were recorded as follows: For the Motion: Councillors Jamie Adams, Aaron Carey, Mark Carter, Tim Evans, Brian Hall, Rhys Jordan, Anji Tinley, Iwan Ward, Tony Wilcox [9] Against the Motion: Councillors John Cole, Nicola Gwynn, Jordan Ryan, Jacob Williams and Michael Williams [5] There were no abstentions. RESOLVED (a) That the Committee was minded to APPROVE the application due to the economic benefit it would bring, contrary to recommendation for refusal. (b) That the application be deferred to a subsequent meeting.
The meeting adjourned at 11:19am for a short comfort break and reconvened at 11:30am.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED That the application be deferred to allow Members to conduct a SITE VISIT. The matter will return to a subsequent Committee meeting for further consideration.
[Having previously declared a personal and prejudicial interest in this item of business, Councillor Iwan Ward withdrew from the meeting.] This application was presented for Committee consideration as the Assistant Chief Executive agreed to its removal from the Scheme of Delegation following a request from the Local Member. The Planning Officer, Ceri Jones, provided an oral update referring to the Planning Application No. 18/0104/PA in paragraph 5.7 of the Committee report be corrected to 19/0529/PA as stated in paragraph 5.9. 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 Andrew Vaughan-Harries · Local Member – Councillor Vanessa Thomas Following Mr Vaughan-Harries’ address, Councillor Tim Evans queried the size of the hay barn in relation to the size of the plot and the extent of ownership of any adjoining land. Mr Vaughan-Harries believed the applicant owns approximately six acres of land to keep seven horses on. He continued it was the intention of the applicant, who is a member of the Traveller community, to move 12 horses from locations in south Pembrokeshire and ‘centralise’ them at the proposed site. Councillor Evans then made reference to the suitability of the access arrangements in the report and that the Pincheston Farm management company, who own the land, would not allow any improvements to the access to the proposed development. Mr Vaughan-Harries stated the applicant has a right to cross that lane and had done so for 18 years, however, has taken legal advice on what is a civil matter. Councillor Vanessa Thomas, Local Member, addressed the Committee to express her objection to the application. She explained she had been contacted by the residents, who were concerned that another planning application had been submitted to increase the number of pitches at the site and were in support of the officer’s recommendation of refusal. She highlighted the residents’ main areas of concern being that there is “no viable access to the site, issues with flooding and any increase in the amount of development would have a detrimental effect on the peace and tranquillity of the rural community as mentioned by the Planning Inspector” in 2009. Councillor Alistair Cameron sought clarification on the proposed increase in the number of caravan pitches at the site. The Head of Planning confirmed the proposal was for four, however, there was existing planning permission for two units on site. The Planning Officer elaborated that it was usual for a traveller pitch to accommodate two caravans – one static and one mobile. In this case, he advised two pitches already had planning consent and the current proposal for an additional two pitches would bring the total number of pitches on site to eight. The Committee proceeded to deliberate on the application. Councillor Brian Hall Moved that the application be deferred to allow Members to conduct a site visit; Seconded by Councillor Tim Evans, which prompted advice being provided by the Solicitor on the reasons for the visit. Councillors Rhys Jordan, Jamie Adams and Michael Williams expressed their support for the officers’ recommendation of refusal. 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 and Tony Wilcox [8] Against the Motion: Councillors Jamie Adams, Rhys Jordan, Jordan Ryan, Anji Tinley, Jacob Williams and Michael Williams [6] There were no abstentions. RESOLVED That the application be deferred to allow Members to conduct a SITE VISIT. The matter will return to a subsequent Committee meeting for further consideration.
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. [Councillor Michael Williams left the meeting at this juncture]
This application was presented for Committee consideration as the application comprises a tourist, leisure or recreational development on a site of over 0.5ha 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 Andrew Vaughan-Harries · Local Member – Councillor Vanessa Thomas In response to Mr Vaughan-Harries’ address, Councillor Tim Evans requested more detail on the use of Building A referred to in the report and whether the applicant had been granted a licence to hold events in that building. While he had read the venue had hosted some discos, Mr Vaughan-Harries responded that he was unable to confirm whether the applicant had obtained such a licence, however, the building was now offered as a storage facility only. Councillor Alistair Cameron made reference to the issues raised by Jeffreyston Community Council, as well as representations made by local residents, regarding parties, noise pollution and health and safety concerns. Mr Vaughan-Harries conceded noise would always be emitted from children playing and from barbecues in relation to tourist activity, however, the applicant was not seeking to increase their business operations. If any future problems arose, Mr Vaughan-Harries stated the Council could use its powers outside of the planning system to intervene. To his knowledge, the applicant had not been served a noise abatement notice. Councillor Vanessa Thomas, Local Member, addressed the Committee to express her objection to the application and highlighted the main areas of concern being loud music from hen and stag parties, weddings and birthday parties held at the ‘Disco Church’. Not only were local residents experiencing bright lights and fireworks late at night, but Councillor Thomas added they were also concerned about the effects they were having on livestock, wildlife and bats in the area. Councillor Thomas covered drainage and sewerage issues, the overlooking of neighbours, extra pitches in the campsite’s southern field, an increase in the number of units from 15 to 19 and an additional 12 washing-up, shower and WC huts as well. Following Councillor Thomas’ address, Councillor Tony Wilcox asked for information on whether any complaints regarding the Disco Church had been made to Public Protection. Councillor Thomas stated she was not aware of any ongoing complaints, but the matter had been brought to the attention of Officers and the Authority’s Licensing Team. Councillor John Cole, making reference to the third condition in the recommendation to restrict ‘the use of Building A to storage purposes in connection with the use of the site for camping purposes only’, asked Councillor Thomas if this restriction would help to allay fears going forward, to which she admitted it would go a long way towards. Councillor Jamie Adams followed up with a question regarding the converted speedboat accommodation overlooking a neighbouring property. Mark Hyde, Planning Officer, explained there was potential for intervisibility between the speedboat unit and the adjoining property. He advised the speedboat had been placed on top of a septic tank drainage field and, in any event, would need to be removed under Building Regulations within three months of planning approval otherwise the permission would lapse. In the discussion which followed, Councillor Mark Carter enquired whether Building A would have any right to be used for occasional events for 28 days a year. The Planning Officer informed the meeting that a condition removing Permitted Development rights for alternative uses would be attached to the planning consent because of a failure to secure building regulations approval and accessibility issues affecting people with disabilities. The Head of Planning then reiterated a condition would be imposed to limit Building A’s use to storage purposes only and further advised that the 28 Day Rule would not apply in this case because the rule relates to the use of land and not the buildings, therefore, it would not be entitled to any permitted development rights. Councillor Mark Carter Moved the recommendation for approval; Seconded by Councillor Jamie Adams. The vote, undertaken by way of a roll-call, was carried. The votes were recorded as follows: For the Motion: Councillors Jamie Adams, Alistair Cameron, Aaron Carey, Mark Carter, John Cole, Tim Evans, Nicola Gwynn, Brian Hall, Rhys Jordan, Jordan Ryan, Anji Tinley, Iwan Ward, Tony Wilcox, Jacob Williams and Michael Williams [15] 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. [Councillor Michael Williams left the meeting at this juncture]
The meeting adjourned at 1:23pm for a lunch break and reconvened at 1:45pm.
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 application included development contrary to the Local Development Plan but was being recommended for approval (Paragraph 1(n) 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: · Objector – Mr Bevis Musk Following Mr Musk’s address, Councillor Tim Evans sought clarification on the number of objectors Mr Musk was representing, to which he responded he was speaking on behalf of 15 residents and understood that most of them had submitted representations to the Council. In response to further questions from Councillor Evans, Mr Musk accepted the land already had the benefit of planning permission for development, but urged for the Section 106 agreement to be respected. He claimed new houses have been built higher than their surrounding buildings than anticipated and in breach of the S106 Agreement. Rachel Elliott, the Planning Officer, confirmed the proposed dwelling would only be about 0.7 metres higher than the existing ridge height. When questioned by Councillor Evans on what grounds was he objecting to the planning application, Mr Musk was concerned about the effects the proposal would have on local wildlife, particularly Otters, Adders and Curlews. He alleged the Daugleddau estuary from the Cleddau Bridge to Picton Point was being contaminated by multiple pollutants, such as an ionic detergent and sewage outfall from a nearby wastewater treatment plant. Councillor Rhys Jordan, while he stating he respected Mr Musk’s views, noted no objections were raised by Natural Resources Wales (NRW), Welsh Water and the Council’s own Ecologist when consulted as part of the planning application process. He asked the Planning Officer to confirm whether she had received any updated correspondence to the matters raised in Mr Musk’s objection and she replied she had not. Councillor Alistair Cameron explored with Mr Musk the volume and speed of traffic that may be generated by the proposed development and its wider site of seven houses in total. Mr Musk estimated it would result in 100 extra vehicles in the area and well in excess of the nine additional trips per hour reported during the morning peak between 8am and 9am by the Head of Infrastructure (Highways). He also disagreed with the Officer’s report that ‘compliance with the 30 mph speed limit was found to be high, with combined mean speeds being around 28 mph following traffic surveys in Burton Ferry. Councillor Brian Hall Moved the recommendation for approval; Seconded by Councillor Rhys Jordan. The vote, undertaken by way of a roll-call, was carried. The votes were recorded as follows: For the Motion: Councillors Jamie Adams, Alistair Cameron, Aaron Carey, Mark Carter, John Cole, Tim Evans, Nicola Gwynn, Brian Hall, Rhys Jordan, Jordan Ryan, Anji Tinley, Iwan Ward, Tony Wilcox and Jacob Williams [14] 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 Service to APPROVE the application, subject to a Habitats Regulation Assessment finding the proposal acceptable and subject to the conditions outlined in Section 1.1 of the report of the Head of Planning Service. [Councillor Anji Tinley left the meeting at this juncture]
This application was presented for Committee consideration as the application was submitted by a close family member of an Elected Member of the Council (Paragraph 1(m) of the Scheme of Delegation). In the discussion which followed, Councillors Mark Carter and Jamie Adams expressed their support for the application, stating that they felt such a development by an established local business would be a benefit to a large rural area. Councillor Brian Hall Moved the recommendation for approval; Seconded by Councillor Mark Carter. For the Motion: Councillors Jamie Adams, Alistair Cameron, Aaron Carey, Mark Carter, John Cole, Tim Evans, Nicola Gwynn, Brian Hall, Rhys Jordan, Jordan Ryan, Anji Tinley, Iwan Ward, Tony Wilcox and Jacob Williams [14] There were no votes against or abstentions. RESOLVED That delegated power be granted to the Head of Planning Service to APPROVE the application, subject to a Habitats Regulation Assessment finding the proposal acceptable and subject to the conditions outlined in Section 1.1 of the report of the Head of Planning Service. [Councillor Anji Tinley left the meeting at this juncture]
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 [Councillor John Cole left the meeting at this juncture]
This application was presented for Committee consideration as the application included development contrary to the Local Development Plan but was being recommended for approval (Paragraph 1(n) 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 Andrew Vaughan-Harries Following Mr Vaughan-Harries’ address, Councillor Mark Carter expressed his support for the application and 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 Jamie Adams, Alistair Cameron, Aaron Carey, Mark Carter, John Cole, Tim Evans, Nicola Gwynn, Brian Hall, Rhys Jordan, Jordan Ryan, Iwan Ward, Tony Wilcox and Jacob Williams [13] 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 [Councillor John Cole left the meeting at this juncture]
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED That the application be APPROVED, subject to temporary consent until 31st October 2026 and conditions outlined in Section 1.1 of the report of the Head of Planning Service. For the Motion: Councillors Jamie Adams, Alistair Cameron, Aaron Carey, Mark Carter, Nicola Gwynn, Brian Hall, Rhys Jordan, Jordan Ryan, Iwan Ward, Tony Wilcox and Jacob Williams [11] There were no votes against or abstentions.
[Having previously declared a personal and prejudicial interest in this item of business, Councillor Tim Evans withdrew from the meeting.] This application was presented for Committee consideration as the application was submitted by an Elected Member of the Council (Paragraph 1(m) of the Scheme of Delegation). The Planning Officer, Harriet Lavender, provided an oral update stating that since publication of the Committee report, the wording of Condition 3, listed in Paragraph 1.1, be amended to extend the lifespan of the planning consent until 31 October 2026 rather than 31 October 2024. Councillors Rhys Jordan and Mark Carter sought clarification on whether, following the expiry of temporary planning permission, the premises would revert back to its former use or would planning permission be required. The Head of Planning confirmed the building’s change of use would automatically revert back to a Class A1 (shop) once the occupiers vacated the property. In response to a further question from Councillor Jacob Williams, the Head of Planning advised the applicant had indicated the duration of the temporary consent to 31 October 2026 would be sufficient, however, if an extension of time was required, they would need to apply to vary the condition on the original planning permission. Councillor Jacob Williams Moved the recommendation for approval; Seconded by Councillor Brian Hall. RESOLVED That the application be APPROVED, subject to temporary consent until 31st October 2026 and conditions outlined in Section 1.1 of the report of the Head of Planning Service. For the Motion: Councillors Jamie Adams, Alistair Cameron, Aaron Carey, Mark Carter, Nicola Gwynn, Brian Hall, Rhys Jordan, Jordan Ryan, Iwan Ward, Tony Wilcox and Jacob Williams [11] There were no votes against or abstentions.
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.
[Having previously declared a personal and prejudicial interest in this item of business, Councillor Mark Carter withdrew from the meeting.] This application was presented for Committee consideration as the application was submitted by an Elected Member of the Council (Paragraph 1(m) of the Scheme of Delegation). Councillor Brian Hall Moved the recommendation for approval; Seconded by Councillor Jamie Adams. The vote, undertaken by way of a roll-call, was carried. The votes were recorded as follows: For the Motion: Councillors Jamie Adams, Alistair Cameron, Aaron Carey, Tim Evans, Nicola Gwynn, Brian Hall, Rhys Jordan, Jordan Ryan, Iwan Ward, Tony Wilcox and Jacob Williams [11] 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.
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.