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 due to the economic benefit it would bring, contrary to Officers recommendation of refusal. This application will now be reported to Council for final determination and will be subject to the conditions outlined in Section 4.4 of the report of the Head of the Planning Service, with the removal of the duplicated conditions as updated as part of the oral update to Committee Members.
RESOLVED That the application be REFUSED, for the following reasons; · The proposed development would be visually intrusive when viewed from the A477 trunk road to the south and it would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the countryside. The proposal would therefore be contrary the requirements of policies SP 1, SP 16 and criterion (3) of Policy GN.32 of the Local Development Plan for Pembrokeshire (adopted 28 February 2013). · The proposed development would lead to an increased use of the single lane access track resulting in inconvenience to users from being unable to pass. The subsequent adverse impact on residential amenity would hinder the peaceful and integrated co-existence between the site and the local community. As such, the proposal would be contrary to the requirements of criterion (2) of Policy GN.32 and Welsh Government Circular 005/2018 Planning for Gypsy, Traveller and Showpeople Sites (June 2018). [Councillor Michael Williams left the meeting at this juncture]
RESOLVED That the application be REFUSED, for the following reasons; · The application site was located within close proximity to a residential area and the application proposed the change of use of an agricultural field into a dog exercise field. It was considered that the proposed use of the site as a dog exercise field would not be compatible with the area and would have the potential to result in a significant detrimental impact on residential amenity through noise associated with its use. The proposal therefore fails to comply with criterion 2 of policy GN.1 (General Development Policy) and Policy SP 1 of the Local Development Plan for Pembrokeshire (adopted 28 February 2013). · The height of the proposed fence at 2.4 metres would result in a development that would have a harmful effect on the character of the surrounding rural area due to its incongruous appearance in terms of its visual impact. The proposal was therefore contrary to the requirements of Policies GN.1 (General Development Policy) and Policy GN.2 (Sustainable Development) of the Local Development Plan for Pembrokeshire (adopted 28 February 2013). · The development would gain access from a county road which has a speed limit of 60mph. The Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB) requirements for an access onto a 60mph road are 2.4m by 215m in each direction. The required visibility splays cannot be achieved over the highway verge and no speed survey demonstrating the 85th percentile speed, which may justify a lesser visibility, has been submitted with the application. Furthermore, limited information in respect of traffic generation was submitted and there is concern that the amount of parking space is insufficient to cater for the amount of vehicular traffic that would be generated. As such it has not been demonstrated that the required highway visibility can be achieved and the development is therefore contrary to the requirements of criterion 6 of policy GN.1 of the local Development Plan for Pembrokeshire (adopted 28 February 2013).
RESOLVED That the application be APPROVED, subject to the conditions outlined in Section 1.1 of the report of the Head of the Planning Service. [Councillor John Cole left the meeting at this juncture]
RESOLVED That the Committee was minded to APPROVE the application, contrary to Officers recommendation of refusal due to the economic benefits outweighing the policy conflicts. The matter will return to a subsequent Committee meeting for further consideration. [Councillors Anji Tinley and Iwan Ward left the meeting at this juncture, resulting in an inquorate membership therefore the meeting was adjourned]
In welcoming everyone to the meeting, the Chair made the following announcements: · During the 14 February 2023 Committee meeting, Members resolved to approve Planning Application No. 21/0854/PA - Cresselly Big Wood, Cresselly - One Planet Development (change of use from forestry to residential and forestry), subject to completion of a section 106 agreement. Members were informed that delegated authority was exercised on the 25 August 2023 and planning permission was granted. · During the 24 April 2023 Committee meeting, Members resolved to approve Planning Application No.20/1156/PA - 3 Fields to the North of un-named track, Y Gaer Pencraig, Llangolman, Clunderwen SA66 7QL - A One Planet Development (to include siting of residential unit, yurt, produce shed, solar shed, goat shed, toilet, shower unit, storage containers and polytunnel and the creation of ponds), subject to completion of a section 106 agreement. Members were informed that delegated authority was exercised on the 25 August 2023 and planning permission was granted. · That oral updates would be provided for Agenda Items No. 6 and 8.
Councillor Tim Evans declared a personal interest in Agenda Item No. 9 - Planning Application No.22/1162/PA – Former Haverfordwest Library Building, Dew Street, Haverfordwest, by virtue of residing on the street. Councillor Mark Carter declared a personal interest in Agenda Item No. 13 - Planning Application No.23/0356/PA - Pink Cat Shop, 24, High Street, Haverfordwest, Pembrokeshire, SA61 2DA, by virtue of the applicant being a customer of his. 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 having attended meetings of the Stepaside and Pleasant Valley residents group. He stated that he wished to address the Committee as the Local Member and then withdraw from the debate. 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, Pembrokeshire, SA70 8SG, by virtue of the objector registered to speak being his brother. Councillor Rhys Jordan declared a personal and prejudicial interest in Agenda Item No. 12 - Planning Application No.23/0243/PA - Haverfordwest Footbridge and Western Quayside, by virtue of having publically criticised the cost and design of the application. He stated that he would leave the meeting during consideration of the item. Councillor Aaron Carey declared a personal and prejudicial interest in Agenda Item No. 11 - Planning Application No.23/0257/PA - 7, Northgate Street, Pembroke by virtue of a close family member owning a property on the site. He added that he had obtained dispensation to speak but not vote on the matter but had decided to completely withdraw from the debate on this occasion.
An accuracy correction was requested by Councillor Mark Carter, referring to Minute 27 of the meeting held on 5 September 2022. The officer recommendation was updated for item 13 12, which was planning application No.23/0237/PA - 24-25, Riverside Quay, Haverfordwest and not Agenda Item No. 13 and planning application No.23/0305/PA - Tegfan, Trefgarn Owen, as stated [Amended by Minute 55 of Committee – 7 November 2023]. 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 5 September 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 due to the economic benefit it would bring, contrary to Officers recommendation of refusal. This application will now be reported to Council for final determination and will be subject to the conditions outlined in Section 4.4 of the report of the Head of the Planning Service, with the removal of the duplicated conditions as updated as part of the oral update to Committee Members.
This application was reported to the 5 September 2023 Committee meeting, where a decision was deferred as Members were minded to approve the application, contrary to the policies of the Local Development Plan. The Development Manager for Major Projects & Planning Obligations, Mike Simmons, provided two oral updates as follows; · Within the Committee report, the second paragraph labelled 4.3 should be labelled 4.4. · There have been three conditions duplicated within the condition list on pages 38-39 of the Commitete report (Construction Traffic Management Plan, Construction Environmental Management Plan and Landscape/Ecological Management Plan) these duplications would be removed if Members were minded to approve the application. 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: · Kilgetty/Begelly Community Council – Councillor Jerry Long · Agent – Ms. Helen Ashby-Ridgway · Objector – Dr Trish Cormack Following Councillor Long’s address, Councillor Tim Evans requested further information regarding the frequency of flooding on the valley over recent years. Councillor Long stated that he did not have specific flooding figures but was not aware of any recent flooding. Councillor Tim Evans made reference to the points Councillor Long made regarding concerns linked to horses and dogs and queried if those issues were common. Councillor Long reiterated his point that approval could cause increased danger for those using the bridleway, particularly for those on horseback who may not know the area very well. Clarification was sought by Councillor Rhys Jordan regarding Councillor Long’s reference to increased traffic during sporting event weekends. Councillor Long stated that his concerns were with people parking their cars in the Pleasant Valley area on the approach down to the beach which causes congestion issues but reiterated that his main concern was the increased traffic it would cause all year round and particuarly the size of vehicles which would be transporting horses down the lane. Councillor Rhys Jordan requested clarification as to which Community Council area this propoal sat in, to which Councillor Long advised that the development sat on the boundary of Kilgetty/Begelly Community Council ward. In reponse to a question raised by Councillor Mark Carter regarding Councillor Long’s concerns that the sewerage system was at capacity, which was contrary to the information provided in the report from D?r Cymru Welsh Water, Councillor Long stated that he would only have concerns if the sewerage was feeding into the mains system as sewerage issues had already been reported within the village. Councillor Mark Carterhighlighted that the Coal Authority had provided a reponse stating no objections so queried why Councillor Long had requested that the Coal Authority visit the site. Councillor Long stated that he had viewed map overlays which had outlined a number of shallow tunnels encroaching onto the land and concerns were raised that they could collapse, hence the request for a further inspection to be undertaken by the Coal Authority. Following the agent’s address, Councillor Mark Carter requested further information on the proposed sewage arrangements for the site. Ms. Ashby-Ridgway advised that a private facility would be used which, as far as she was aware, would have no effect on the village. Following Dr Cormack’s address, Councilor Mark Carter requested further information as to where the coal information had been obtained. Dr Cormack stated that she had read the Coal Authority reports and also the supplementary report that was commissioned and felt that a number of factors had not been taken into consideration in relation to location of the proposed development. Dr Cormack stated that even if the conditions of the Coal Authority’s recommendation were followed she was unsure if this would eliminate the concerns. In reponse to a question raised by Councillor Rhys Jordan, Dr Cormack confirmed that the independent building consultant was an individual who was part of the residents group. Councillor Tim Evans queried if concerns relating to coal and the removal of vegetation had been raised in previous years during the time of the wildlife park being on the site to which Dr Cormack stated that she was not aware of issues being raised at that time, but stated that the wildlife park was predominantly on the flatter areas of the land and the land was not re-profiled in the way being proposed for this development. The Chair advised that during the previous meeting, the Chair of Amroth Community Council, Councillor Tony Baron, had addressed the Committee but due to being unable to attend this meeting had sent an email to express that Amroth Community Council had not changed its position since the statement given during the last meeting. Councillor Alistair Cameron, Local Member, reiterated his personal interest in the matter and addressed the Committee to express that he was in agreement of the Officer’s recommendation for refusal as the proposal was outside of the settlement boundary, outside of the service village, was contrary to the Local Development Plan, and would add to the existing matter that caravans consistently exceeded demand so therefore would not bring any benefit to the tourist economy. He outlined reasons for needing to preserve the countryside and reiterated the number of objections received from local residents. Following the Local Member’s address, Councillor Mark Carter enquired as to what the capacity definition was for caravans. Councillor Cameron stated that he did not have the definition but reiterated a statement from the Local Development Plan which read ‘bedspace provision for static caravans consistently exceeds demand’. In response to a further question from Councillor Carter, Councillor Cameron stated that he did not have exact figures for the percentage of current Heritage Park chalets which were owner occupied. Councillor Rhys Jordan made reference to information Councillor Cameron had used which had been drawn from work undertaken in preparation for the Local Development Plan 2 (LDP2) and queried if this information could be used as the LDP2 had not yet been adopted. Councillor Cameron expressed that he felt the evidence used was fair, as it had been collected and published on the Council’s website. [Having previously declared a personal interest in this item of business, Councillor Alistair Cameron withdrew from the meeting at this juncture]. The Committee proceeded to discuss the application and the key points were noted as follows: · Councillors Brian Hall, Mark Carter and Jamie Adams expressed their support for the application. · Following a question raised by Councillor Tim Evans in relation to objector’s traffic concerns, the Group Engineering Manager reiterated highways position that on considering the submitted transport statement the development would sit within the current capacity and that sporting events could not be taken into consideration as they were outside of the control. · Councillors Michael Williams, John Cole and Jordan Ryan concurred with the officers recommendation of refusal as they did not feel the economic benefit the development would bring was enough to approve contrary to officers advice. Councillor Brian Hall Moved that the application be approved contrary to the recommendation, due to the economic benefit it would bring; 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, Aaron Carey, Mark Carter, Tim Evans, Brian Hall, Rhys Jordan, Anji Tinley and Iwan Ward. [8] Against the Motion: Councillors John Cole, Jordan Ryan, Jacob Williams and Michael Williams. [4] There were no abstentions. RESOLVED That the Committee was minded to APPROVE the application due to the economic benefit it would bring, contrary to Officers recommendation of refusal. This application will now be reported to Council for final determination and will be subject to the conditions outlined in Section 4.4 of the report of the Head of the Planning Service, with the removal of the duplicated conditions as updated as part of the oral update to Committee Members.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED That the application be REFUSED, for the following reasons; · The proposed development would be visually intrusive when viewed from the A477 trunk road to the south and it would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the countryside. The proposal would therefore be contrary the requirements of policies SP 1, SP 16 and criterion (3) of Policy GN.32 of the Local Development Plan for Pembrokeshire (adopted 28 February 2013). · The proposed development would lead to an increased use of the single lane access track resulting in inconvenience to users from being unable to pass. The subsequent adverse impact on residential amenity would hinder the peaceful and integrated co-existence between the site and the local community. As such, the proposal would be contrary to the requirements of criterion (2) of Policy GN.32 and Welsh Government Circular 005/2018 Planning for Gypsy, Traveller and Showpeople Sites (June 2018). [Councillor Michael Williams left the meeting at this juncture]
[Having previously declared a personal and prejudicial interest in this item of business, Councillor Iwan Ward withdrew from the meeting]. This application was for Committee consideration as the Assistant Chief Executive agreed to its removal from the scheme of delegation following a request from the Local Member. This application was deferred during the 5 September 2023 Committee meeting pending a Committee site visit to be undertaken on 26 September 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 Andrew Vaughan-Harries · Local Member – Councillor Vanessa Thomas Following Mr Vaughan-Harries’ address, Councillor Tim Evans requested clarification as to whether a buisness would be run from the hay barn, to which Mr Vaughan-Harries confirmed that no business would be operated from there. Further clarification was sought on the access lane matter by Councillor Tim Evans, to which Mr Vaughan-Harries advised that any lane alterations were a civil matter but improvements were agreed as part of the first application which have been started and clarification had been received that the applicant has the right to cross, improve and maintain the lane. Councillor Mark Carter stated that during the site visit, the applicant was slating the roof of a building which had been granted permission nine years ago, and queried why it had taken the applicant this long to progress that application. Mr Vaughan-Harries stated that he also raised the same question and was told the delay was due to economic circumstances but recent family necessity had prompted the completion of them. In response to a question from Councillor Jordan Ryan, Mr Vaughan-Harries stated that it may be possible for caravans to access the site in the lane’s current condition, if they were transported in two pieces, but improvements to the lane would assist. Clarification was sought by Councillor Aaron Carey that the applicant owned the land adjoining the A477 (where the trees are) which Mr Vaughan-Harries confirmed. It was also confirmed that the applicants would be happy to do additonal planting if required, via condition. Councillor John Cole made reference to the flooding matter referenced within the report to which Mr Vaughan-Harries responded to clarify that as per National Resource Wales response, the development site was not subject to flooding, but part of the access way may be. Councillor Tim Evans queried if the applicant had encountered any issues with neighbours about accessing the site, to which Mr Vaughan-Harries advised that he was not aware of any issues and any improvements made would be for the benefit of everyone using the lane. Following a number of points being raised regarding the ownership of the access lane and the potential for additional planting, the Planning Officer, Ceri Jones, re-dispayed the site location plan and the Chief Planning Officer outlined the areas within the ownership of the applicant and provided advice regarding grampian conditions. Councillor Vanessa Thomas, Local Member, addressed the Committee to express that she was in support of the Officer’s recommendation for refusal. She provided some background information regarding the number of properties included in the ‘residents association’ and, as requested by the Pincheston Management Company residents, shared some information on the negative effect this, and previous planning applications have had on them, stemming from 2008. It was noted that although Members were told there had been no hostility from local residents, this was untrue and a number of solicitor letters had been submitted to the applicant’s agent highlighting concerns. It was added that further incorrect information had been relayed to Committee Members during the previous meeting, of which examples were given. Information was provided regarding the lease agreements and insurance policy which the residents contribute to for the lane and the conditions contained within. It was stated that if the application was approved then further legal action would be taken by the neighbouring residents. Following Counillor Thomas’ address, Councillor John Cole queried why the neigbouring residents would not welcome improvements to the lane, to which Councillor Thomas stated that they did not feel there was any issue with the lane as it is and had to adhere to the conditions of the insurance policy and lease agreement. In response to a question raised by Councillor Tim Evans, Councillor Thomas advised that the access track currently served seven properties and clarified that she was representing them all. Councillor Alistair Cameron requsted Councillor Thomas’s views on the effect the proposal would have on the visual amenity, to which she reponded to express that it was not a huge concern in comparison to the other reasons highlighted. The Chair highlighted that whilst the Committee were only tasked with considering planning matters, there clearly was a dispute regarding the ability of the applicant to make improvements to the lane, which, if the Committee was minded to approve the application, contrary to Officer’s recommendation, would need to be taken into consideration in the form of a grampian condition. If such a condition was not able to be carried out it could leave the planning permission unviable. It was noted that such dispute would be a civil matter and should not factor into the decision of the Committee. The Committee proceeded to discuss the application and the key points were noted as follows: · In response to a question raised by Councillor Mark Carter, the Chief Planning Officer stated that with the lane not being a public highway he did not think there would be any restrictions in terms of weight limit of vehicles using the lane but such conditions may be linked to the lease agreement which would be a private matter. · After receiving information from the agent that the applicant may build the caravan structure on the land and not transport it in via the lane, Councillor Mark Carter queried if the structure would still fall into the ‘caravan’ definition. The Chief Planning Officer clarified the legal definition of a caravan and stated that whilst there had been recent debate regarding caravans fabricated on site, if it was capable of being moved from one place to another then the current consensus was that it fell within the caravan definition. · Councillors Jordan Ryan, Brian Hall, Aaron Carey, Tim Evans and John Cole expressed their support for the application and did not agree with the Officers recommendation for refusal. · Further information was sought by Councillor Alistair Cameron as to whether the social benefit of all of the family being able to reside together was a material planning matter to which the Chief Planning Officer responded reiterating the Planning Inspector’s report, which deemed that the detrimental impact the site would cause was not outweighed by the needs of the appellant and his family, was a view the Authority concurred with. Councillor Jamie Adams Moved that the application be refused as recommended; Seconded by Councillor Mark Carter. The Committee proceeded to the vote, undertaken by way of a roll-call, which following a casting vote by the Chair, was carried. The votes were recorded as follows: For the Motion: Councillors Jamie Adams, Mark Carter, Rhys Jordan, Anji Tinley, Jacob Williams and Michael Williams. [6] Against the Motion: Councillors Alistair Cameron, Aaron Carey, John Cole, Tim Evans, Brian Hall and Jordan Ryan. [6] There were no abstentions. The Chair cast the deciding vote and reiterated his vote for the motion. RESOLVED That the application be REFUSED, for the following reasons; · The proposed development would be visually intrusive when viewed from the A477 trunk road to the south and it would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the countryside. The proposal would therefore be contrary the requirements of policies SP 1, SP 16 and criterion (3) of Policy GN.32 of the Local Development Plan for Pembrokeshire (adopted 28 February 2013). · The proposed development would lead to an increased use of the single lane access track resulting in inconvenience to users from being unable to pass. The subsequent adverse impact on residential amenity would hinder the peaceful and integrated co-existence between the site and the local community. As such, the proposal would be contrary to the requirements of criterion (2) of Policy GN.32 and Welsh Government Circular 005/2018 Planning for Gypsy, Traveller and Showpeople Sites (June 2018). [Councillor Michael Williams left the meeting at this juncture]
The meeting adjourned at 12:40am for a short comfort break and reconvened at 1:00pm.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED That the application be REFUSED, for the following reasons; · The application site was located within close proximity to a residential area and the application proposed the change of use of an agricultural field into a dog exercise field. It was considered that the proposed use of the site as a dog exercise field would not be compatible with the area and would have the potential to result in a significant detrimental impact on residential amenity through noise associated with its use. The proposal therefore fails to comply with criterion 2 of policy GN.1 (General Development Policy) and Policy SP 1 of the Local Development Plan for Pembrokeshire (adopted 28 February 2013). · The height of the proposed fence at 2.4 metres would result in a development that would have a harmful effect on the character of the surrounding rural area due to its incongruous appearance in terms of its visual impact. The proposal was therefore contrary to the requirements of Policies GN.1 (General Development Policy) and Policy GN.2 (Sustainable Development) of the Local Development Plan for Pembrokeshire (adopted 28 February 2013). · The development would gain access from a county road which has a speed limit of 60mph. The Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB) requirements for an access onto a 60mph road are 2.4m by 215m in each direction. The required visibility splays cannot be achieved over the highway verge and no speed survey demonstrating the 85th percentile speed, which may justify a lesser visibility, has been submitted with the application. Furthermore, limited information in respect of traffic generation was submitted and there is concern that the amount of parking space is insufficient to cater for the amount of vehicular traffic that would be generated. As such it has not been demonstrated that the required highway visibility can be achieved and the development is therefore contrary to the requirements of criterion 6 of policy GN.1 of the local Development Plan for Pembrokeshire (adopted 28 February 2013).
This application was for Committee consideration as the Director of Community Services exercised discretion to remove the previous application (22/0797/PA) from the scheme of delegation on the basis that it met criterion 2 of the procedure to determine formal requests from Members to refer specific applications to the Planning Committee. The Planning Officer, Sian Husband, provided an oral update stating that the publicity period for the application ended on 25 September 2023 prior to publication of the report. Following report publication three further representations were received. The representations were made by those that had already objected, with some comments being expanded on and already being covered within the report. Additional concern was expressed in light of the amended plan, but this has not been referred to within the report. This comment was ‘The concern about human waste from a proposed portaloo and lack of information about its management’. The amended plan containing the portaloo was subject to consultation and the Pollution Control team have not raised any issues in relation to this matter. 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 Wyn Harries · Objector – Mr Jake Rainsbury Following Mr Harries’ address, Councillor Mark Carter requested clarification on the timescale of the applications being submitted, which Mr Harries provided along with information regarding the changes made to the applications. The Chair queried why the agent was portraying the receipt of noise complaints as a surpise to the applicant, when it was his understadning that the application was submitted retrospectivley on the back of an enforcement investigation. Mr Harries reiterated that the first report which was planned for Committee in April 2023 was recommending approval with no objections being received, at that time, from Public Protection. He stated that they had received no contact from Public Protection and had only dealt with the planning officer who had advised them to submit an planning application, which they then proceeded to do. The Chair reminded the agent that the report he repeatedly made reference to had been superseded by the application being considered by Committee today and was now recommending refusal based on additonal evidence being presented to Pubic Protection, resutling in them now advising objection. In response to a question from Councillor Tim Evans, Mr Harries confirmed that once the applicant had been made aware of the recommendation of refusal, they curtailed the operating hours and dog capacity and provided a supporting noise assesment. Councillor Mark Carter queried whether the applicant would be satisfied with a temporary permission to which Mr Harries advised that the applicant would look favourably at a temporary permission which would give time for community relationships to be improved. Following Mr Rainsbury’s address, the Chair requested clarification as to when the issues began, was it prior to the application being submitted or did the noise only become an issue once the application had been submitted. Mr Rainsbury stated that neighbours first raised concerns once the applicant advertised online the intention of the field but unfortunately they were let down by the Authority and their concerns were not passed on to the Public Protection team, despite their regular contact raising concerns. It was felt that this was the reason for the initial recommendation of approval, as the Public |Protection team, at that time, were not aware of the noise and nuisance that was occurring. Once Public Protection were made aware of the concerns, the noise recording app was recommended which then began the submission of the recordings which have been discussed. Councillor Mark Carter queried if the dog barking was purely from those using the field, or was it also those in the gardens of neighbouring properties. Mr Rainsbury agreed that some of the noise could also be of dogs in the gardens being territorial due to the exposure of other non-familiar dogs 6m from their home. In response to a question raised by Councillor John Cole, Mr Rainsbury stated that local residents would support the proposal in the instance it was located in a field further away from residential properties, which was a suggestion they had already put to the applicant and voiced their support of. Councillor Iwan Ward, Local Member expressed that he agreed with the principle of the application but unfortunatly not with the chosen location. The Committee proceeded to discuss the application and the key points were noted as follows: · Councillor Jamie Adams raised concerns with the idea that public protection were asking members of the public to film the noise nuisance, to which the Pollution Control Officer clarified that members of the public were not being asked to film the noise, they were being asked to submit noise recordings via the recording app, specifically designed for noise matters. It was added that initially members of the public were reluctant to use the app so it was agreed that recordings could be submitted from other devices but instruction was given for recordings not to be aimed at individuals, and to only capture the concerning noise. · In response to a question raised by Councillor Jamie Adams, the Head of Planning suggested that there could be appropriate sites within the County for this type of development, and the Authority would welcome such discussions with applicants via the pre-application process. [Councillors Jamie Adams and Aaron Carey left the meeting at this juncture] Councillor Brian Hall Moved that the application be refused as recommended; Seconded by Councillor Rhys Jordan. 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 Alistair Cameron, Mark Carter, John Cole, Tim Evans, Brian Hall, Rhys Jordan, Jordan Ryan, Anji Tinley, Iwan Ward and Jacob Williams. [10] There were no votes against the motion or abstentions. RESOLVED That the application be REFUSED, for the following reasons; · The application site was located within close proximity to a residential area and the application proposed the change of use of an agricultural field into a dog exercise field. It was considered that the proposed use of the site as a dog exercise field would not be compatible with the area and would have the potential to result in a significant detrimental impact on residential amenity through noise associated with its use. The proposal therefore fails to comply with criterion 2 of policy GN.1 (General Development Policy) and Policy SP 1 of the Local Development Plan for Pembrokeshire (adopted 28 February 2013). · The height of the proposed fence at 2.4 metres would result in a development that would have a harmful effect on the character of the surrounding rural area due to its incongruous appearance in terms of its visual impact. The proposal was therefore contrary to the requirements of Policies GN.1 (General Development Policy) and Policy GN.2 (Sustainable Development) of the Local Development Plan for Pembrokeshire (adopted 28 February 2013). · The development would gain access from a county road which has a speed limit of 60mph. The Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB) requirements for an access onto a 60mph road are 2.4m by 215m in each direction. The required visibility splays cannot be achieved over the highway verge and no speed survey demonstrating the 85th percentile speed, which may justify a lesser visibility, has been submitted with the application. Furthermore, limited information in respect of traffic generation was submitted and there is concern that the amount of parking space is insufficient to cater for the amount of vehicular traffic that would be generated. As such it has not been demonstrated that the required highway visibility can be achieved and the development is therefore contrary to the requirements of criterion 6 of policy GN.1 of the local Development Plan for Pembrokeshire (adopted 28 February 2013).
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 the Planning Service. [Councillor John Cole left the meeting at this juncture]
This application was presented for Committee consideration as it involved the change in use of an existing building greater than 1,000 sq.m in area (paragraph 1 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: · Town Council – Councillor Arthur Brooker · Applicant – Mr Will Lloyd Davies · Objector – Mr Mike Daffern Following Councillor Brooker’s address, Councillor Mark Carter requested information as to what rights residents of Dew Street have had to park on the site and if any of their parking rights would be changing. Councillor Brooker stated that parking on the site had previously been uncontrolled free parking, but once ATEB bought the site, paid parking was introduced. The knock on effect of the new parking arrangements was stated to have caused previous users of the car park to now be seeking free parking in the surrounding streets which was making it difficult for residents of those properties to find parking outside their homes. Following Councillor Brooker’s explanation, Councillor Carter asked for his opinion on a solution to the parking matter, to which he suggested that it would be beneficial for the Council to take back ownership of the old swimming pool car park. Councillor Alistair Cameron highlighted the additional 27 spaces which were being suggested by Highways, in addition to the 5 which had been originally proposed, and queried if Councillor Brooker felt the additional spaces would solve the parking concerns. Councillor Brooker stated that although the proposed spaces would be sufficient to serve the building, it still would not be adequate for the residential area in general. Councillor Tim Evans provided historic information about parking on the site, which had over the years been both a mix of free and paid parking, and requested Councillor Brooker’s thoughts on whether the car park should be free or paid parking. Councillor Brooker stated that although the Town Council would like to see free parking, it understood that a more strategic approach may be necessary, therefore suggested a mixture of paid parking for members of the public with a number of free resident only bays. In reponse to a question raised by Councillor Jordan Ryan, Councillor Brooker advised that the Town Council also had concerns regarding the transport management plan but the main concern was the parking matters. Councillor John Cole requested the Town Council’s views on the proposed design of the building and the replacement of the Tinker Sculpture, to which Councillor Brooker stated that the Town Council had not yet decided or voted on the repositioning of the sculpture, but his personal view was that it should remain in place to respect the heritage. Following Mr Davies’ address, Councillors Tim Evans, John Cole and Jordan Ryan expressed that they would like to see the Tinker sculpture and plaque retained in the current positions and requested an update on the plans for these. Mr Davies stated that the plan would be for the sculpture to be moved to an alternative elevation on the building, still front facing, and the plaque would remain in the same place. In response to concerns raised by Councillor Anji Tinley regarding the proposed public café being distracting to office workers within the building, Mr Davies stated that the thought process behind the inclusion of a café was to encourage cafe culture for meetings. The Committee proceeded to discuss the application and the key points were noted as follows: · In response to further information sought by Councillor Alistair Cameron regarding the proposed number of parking spaces, the Group Engineering Manager informed Members that the allocation had been based on the Authority’s SPG. · Further discussion was had regarding the Tinker sculpture and the Head of Planning reiterated that negotiations had taken place, and due to engineering matters, it was agreed that the proposal would include a new location for the sculpture. The head of Planning provided assurance that the recommended condition required details of the construction methods of the relocation to be submitted, would be completed in conjunction with the Authority’s Conservation Officer’s advice. Assurance was also given that the Authority could take action if the development was not completed in line with the approved permission terms. Councillor Mark Carter Moved that the application be approved as recommended; Seconded by Councillor Tim Evans. 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 Alistair Cameron, Mark Carter, John Cole, Tim Evans, Brian Hall, Jordan Ryan, Anji Tinley, Iwan Ward and Jacob Williams. [9] Councillor Rhys Jordan abstained from voting. 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 Head of the Planning Service. [Councillor John Cole left the meeting at this juncture]
The meeting adjourned at 14:50pm for a short comfort break and reconvened at 15:00pm.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED That the Committee was minded to APPROVE the application, contrary to Officers recommendation of refusal due to the economic benefits outweighing the policy conflicts. The matter will return to a subsequent Committee meeting for further consideration. [Councillors Anji Tinley and Iwan Ward left the meeting at this juncture, resulting in an inquorate membership therefore the meeting was adjourned]
This application was for Committee consideration as it was for class A1 retail floorspace over 500sqm (paragraph 1(b) of the scheme of delegation). 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 Andrew Evans Following Mr Evans’ address, Councillor Tim Evans sought clarification on the access which Mr Evans provided, and outlined the positioning of the planned bus stop. Councillor Alistair Cameron requested clarification on the specific impact figures for Tenby as he did not feel the impact assessment report had specified them. Mr Evans stated that he did not have the figures to hand but was confident they were contained within the impact assessment report. The Planning Officer, Claire Jenkins, stated that the Development Plans team had considered the assesment and had concluded that there may be an impact on local shops. The Chief Planning Officer provided explanation on how the need for additional retail space was linked to the expenditure available within the County and policy teams had to take into consideration how additional retail space would diminish the share in other locations. Councillor Rhys Jordan, Local Member, expressed his support for the application and proceeded to Move that the application be approved contrary to the recommendation, due to the economic benefits outweighing the policy conflicts; Seconded by Councillor Iwan Ward. 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 Mark Carter, Tim Evans, Brian Hall, Rhys Jordan, Jordan Ryan, Anji Tinley, Iwan Ward and Jacob Williams. [8] Against the Motion: Councillor Alistair Cameron. [1] There were no abstentions. RESOLVED That the Committee was minded to APPROVE the application, contrary to Officers recommendation of refusal due to the economic benefits outweighing the policy conflicts. The matter will return to a subsequent Committee meeting for further consideration. [Councillors Anji Tinley and Iwan Ward left the meeting at this juncture, resulting in an inquorate membership therefore the meeting was adjourned]
This item was deferred to a subsequent meeting of the Planning Committee due to the meeting becoming inquorate.
This item was deferred to a subsequent meeting of the Planning Committee due to the meeting becoming inquorate.
This item was deferred to a subsequent meeting of the Planning Committee due to the meeting becoming inquorate.
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.