Loading
The decisions as the council's minutes record them. A plain-language summary follows once it has been written.
RESOLVED That the application be APPROVED subject to the conditions outlined in Section 1.1 of the report and an additional condition relating to Gigabit Capable Infrastructure as outlined in the oral update given by the Case Officer.
RESOLVED That the Committee APPROVE delegated Authority be granted to the Head of Planning to approve the planning application subject to the conditions outlined in Section 1.1 of the report and the amendment made by the Committee.
RESOLVED That the application be APPROVED subject to the conditions outlined in Section 1.1 of the report.
RESOLVED That delegated authority be granted to the Head of Planning to APPROVE the application following the ratification of the Habitat Regulations Assessment by National Resources Wales and subject to conditions outlined in Section 1.1 of the report including the imposition of an additional condition requiring agreement of gate/feeder pillar rather than for agreement of these details to be delegated.
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 subject to the deletion of the time limit condition as outlined in the oral update.
RESOLVED That the application be APPROVED subject to the conditions outlined in Section 1.1 of the report.
Councillor Dr Simon Hancock opened the meeting and made the following announcements: · Item 24/0135/PA Great Wedlock, Gumfreston – had been withdrawn and closed on the Planning system at the request of the Agent. · A change in the running order and Item 24/0174/PA London House, Fishguard – was moved to Agenda Item 11. · The Chair welcomed the two new Members of the Planning Committee; Councillors Danny Young and Andrew Edwards. · The Chair also welcomed Mr Keiran Allan, Trainee Planning Officer to his first meeting. · An update to the Chairs Announcements given at the June meeting in respect of the legal challenge made by Stepaside and Pleasant Valley Residents Group (SPVRG) Ltd. Whilst the application for judicial review was refused by the High Court Judge, on 31 May 2024 the Appellants challenged this decision. This matter is listed for a renewal hearing and accordingly, the legal challenge is still in progress.
Item 6: Planning Application No. 24/0063/PA – Plot 4, Kiln Park, Burton Ferry, Milford Haven, Pembrokeshire, SA73 1NY – Erection of two storey dwelling Councillor Danny Young declared a personal and prejudicial interest by virtue of having a personal friendship with the original developer of the site. Item 9: Planning Application No. 24/0036/PA – Inner Ward, Haverfordwest Castle, Haverfordwest – Creation of a multi-purpose entertainment and events venue within the Inner Ward area and associated works Councillor Simon Hancock declared a personal and prejudicial interest in this item by virtue of being a paid Curator of the Haverfordwest Castle Museum. Councillor Tim Evans declared a personal and prejudicial interest by virtue of being the Chair of Trustees and Trustee of the new Castle CIO. Item 10: Planning Application No. 24/0050/PA – Langdon Mill Farm, Jeffreyston, Kilgetty, SA68 0NJ – Erection of a Calf Building and weaned Calf Building and associated yard areas. Councillor Steve Alderman declared a personal and prejudicial interest by virtue of having various dealings with the premises as part of the National Farmers’ Union (NFU). Item 12: Planning Application No. 24/0099/PA – Hangar, Units 4 and 6, Maritime House, Thornton Industrial Estate, SA73 2DE - Change of Use of Business Unit (Class B1, B2, B8) to Weekend Leisure Hall Use (Class D2) with Dedicated Parking, Ecological and Noise Mitigation Enhancements Councillors Tim Evans and Mark Carter declared a personal interest in this item by virtue of having been part of the Licensing Sub-Committee for the recent TENS application for the Hangar. Item 13: Planning Application No. 24/0221/PA – Tedion Farm, Lawrenny, Kilgetty, Pembrokeshire SA68 0QB – Erection of agricultural storage building Rachel Elliott (Planning Officer) declared a personal and prejudicial interest in this item by virtue of the applicant being a close family member. Councillor Steve Alderman declared a personal and prejudicial interest by virtue of having various dealings with the premises as part of the National Farmers’ Union (NFU).
The vote, undertaken by way of a show of hands, was carried. RESOLVED That the Minutes of the Meeting held on 25 June 2024 be approved as a correct record, in both English and Welsh.
The Committee agreed to a change to the order of business as follows to allow Items with Public Speakers to be debated first.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED That the application be APPROVED subject to the conditions outlined in Section 1.1 of the report and an additional condition relating to Gigabit Capable Infrastructure as outlined in the oral update given by the Case Officer.
This application was presented for Committee consideration as it involved a development that was contrary to the development plan (Appendix 1 to Section 14 of the Council’s Constitution). The Planning Officer presented the application to the Committee with the following oral update: Four further representations have been received with regard to the development since publication of the committee report. The representations raise concerns in relation to the following matters: • publicity for the application; • the design of the proposed development and its relationship to neighbouring residential development, • scale and density of the development, • the requirements of existing section 106 legal agreement, • acceptability of the proposed method for foul water disposal • development within a flood zone, • biodiversity requirements, • securing broadband infrastructure, • and the need for a site visit. The planning considerations raised within these further representations have been taken into account by officers in the recommendation before Members today however it is acknowledged that some of the issues have not been explicitly referred to in the Committee Report. Of the issues not explicitly referred to in the Committee Report, officers have considered policy 13 of Future Wales and requirement Planning Policy Wales to have regard to Gigabit Capable Broadband Infrastructure for new housing development, and recommend that an additional condition be imposed to those listed in paragraph 1.1 of the committee report requiring a scheme for the provision of Gigabit capable broadband infrastructure to be submitted for approval. Furthermore, whilst not explicitly referred to in the Committee Report, Officers have taken into account the provision within Planning Policy Wales and applied the stepwise approach to the proposed development to ensure that biodiversity is maintained and enhanced. An Ecological Assessment and Constraints submitted to accompany the application identified that no protected species or habitats were found on the site. Neither NRW nor the Council Ecologist objected to the application. Biodiversity enhancement and planting scheme would be secured by condition. It is considered that the scheme accords with the relevant policies of the local development plan, planning policy wales and the requirements of the Environment (Wales) Act 2016. 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: • Objector – Mr Michael Davies The Chair then invited the Public Speaker to address the Committee. He highlighted the purpose of S106 funding noting that the development was described as a one-storey property when the plans showed a two-storey development. He further highlighted that he had not received any notification of the development and raised concerns on how residents had been informed. In response to a question from Councillor Mark Carter regarding if the Public Speaker had seen the notification, he was advised that he had but was concerned that it could have been removed or blown away. The Committee then proceeded to discuss the application with the main point raised as follows: The Head of Planning clarified that once they were advised that not all residents had received the notification, this was repeated. Additionally, to ensure the process was followed, this item of business had been deferred from the previous meeting of the Planning Committee. She further highlighted that all representations had been received and an oral update had been presented. Additionally, it had been confirmed by the Head of Law and Governance that the lawful process had been followed. Councillor John Cole highlighted that when reviewing the plans, a two-storey dwelling would have the roof start above the second floor, which was not the case. In response to a concern raised by Councillor Tim Evans regarding the height of the development, the Planning Officer advised that it was 6.7m. In response to a question from Councillor Alistair Cameron regarding the sewerage, the Head of Planning confirmed that all statutory consultees had been contacted which included Dwr Cymru Welsh Water and no objections had been received. The Case Officer confirmed that no responses had been received from the local Community Council. In response to a concern raised by Councillor Steve Alderman regarding the level of south elevation, the Planning Officer advised that there was appropriate glazing on the elevation. Moved by Councillor Mark Carter; Seconded by Councillor John Cole For the Motion: Councillors Steve Alderman, Alistair Cameron, Mark Carter, John Cole, Andrew Edwards, Tim Evans, Brian Hall, Simon Hancock, Iwan Ward and Michael Williams [10] Abstentions: Councillors Rhys Jordan and Jordan Ryan [2] There were no votes against. RESOLVED That the application be APPROVED subject to the conditions outlined in Section 1.1 of the report and an additional condition relating to Gigabit Capable Infrastructure as outlined in the oral update given by the Case Officer.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED That the Committee APPROVE delegated Authority be granted to the Head of Planning to approve the planning application subject to the conditions outlined in Section 1.1 of the report and the amendment made by the Committee.
[During consideration of this item, Councillor Steve Alderman declared a personal interest by virtue of his being a member of the liaison committee for RWE and a pre-application for a similar site.] This application was presented for Committee consideration as it had been subject to an Environmental Impact Assessment (Appendix 1 to Section 14 of the Council’s Constitution). The Planning Officer presented the application to the Committee. 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 James Cook The Chair then welcomed the Agent to address the Committee and the Committee raised the following questions: · All electricity produced was being supplied to the grid. · Councillor Steve Alderman highlighted concerns on the noise and safety of the location as this was directly between two large pylons. The Agent advised that the preparation for the application and site selection had been fully consulted and there were no major concerns highlighted in the detailed design of the scheme. Councillor Alderman questioned the cable connection to the grid and the Agent advised that there was no cable route from the onsite sub-station to the point of connection. There was a grid offer from the operator however, there had been some changes to the point of connection. · Councillor Alderman emphasised his concerns regarding the site being full of batteries with no way of charging or discharging them. · In response to a question from Councillor Jordan Ryan regarding the shelf-life of the batteries, the Agent explained that there were many technology upgrades however, this was an application for 40 years and advised that the site would then be cleared. · Councillor Cameron raised concerns regarding the regulator for the sight and safety implications and the Case Officer advised that they were in full discussions with the Mid and West Wales Fire Authority and Health and Safety Executive and no objections had been raised. The Committee then proceeded to discuss the application with the main point raised as follows: Councillor Alderman highlighted concerns on the quantity of real estate being built upon and emphasised his concerns that the site was between two very powerful safety sites with no planned connection to charge or discharge the batteries. The application was then Moved by Councillor Brian Hall; Seconded by Councillor Rhys Jordan. The Chair invited the Case Officer to respond to the concerns raised by Councillors Alderman and Jordan Ryan regarding the number of applications received and expected and the Case Officer advised that there were a number being received. The Head of Planning clarified that each application was considered on its own merits and confirmed that this application was supported by an environmental statement which assessed the cumulative impact. Councillor Steve Alderman proposed an amendment to the Motion that a site visit be undertaken; Seconded by Councillor Mark Carter. The Head of Planning requested clarity on the reason for the site visit confirming that the Health and Safety Executive had been consulted. Councillor Michael Williams advised that they needed to have an overall strategic view of the future plan as the impact on the local area could be catastrophic. The vote, undertaken by way of a roll call was lost. The votes were recorded as follows: For the Motion: Councillors Steve Alderman, Mark Carter, John Cole, Andrew Edwards, Jordan Ryan and Danny Young [6] Against the Motion: Councillors Alistair Cameron, Tim Evans, Brian Hall, Simon Hancock, Rhys Jordan, Iwan Ward and Michael Williams [7] There were no abstentions. In response to a question from Councillor Jordan Ryan regarding the need for a joined up approach, the Head of Planning advised that the application for consideration needed to be determined on its own merits. Councillor Michael Williams emphasised that there was not the need for a site visit however, they would need to be mindful not to compromise future applications. The Head of Planning highlighted that the strategic importance of the area was recognised through the Celtic Freeport delegation. The Case Officer advised that an additional condition to require that the storage facility is not delivered until the cable route is confirmed. The Head of Planning confirmed an amendment to the recommendation to include an additional condition to be acceptable and for delegation to include reviewing health and safety matters in consultation with Councillor Alderman. Moved by Councillor Brian Hall; Seconded by Councillor Rhys Jordan. For the Motion: Councillors Alistair Cameron, Mark Carter, John Cole, Andrew Edwards, Tim Evans, Brian Hall, Simon Hancock, Rhys Jordan, Jordan Ryan, Iwan Ward, Michael Williams and Danny Young [12] Abstentions: Councillors Steve Alderman [1] There were no votes against. RESOLVED That the Committee APPROVE delegated Authority be granted to the Head of Planning to approve the planning application subject to the conditions outlined in Section 1.1 of the report and the amendment made by the Committee.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED That the application be APPROVED subject to the conditions outlined in Section 1.1 of the report.
This application was presented for Committee consideration as it involved a development that was contrary to a policy of the development plan (Appendix 1 to Section 14 of the Council’s Constitution). The Planning Officer presented the application to the Committee. Councillor Mark Carter then Moved the recommendation; Seconded by Councillor Brian Hall. Councillor Carter commented that it was great to see a Solicitor returning to the High Street and the Chair advised Members that the Local Member, Councillor Pat Davies had indicated that she was supportive of the application. For the Motion: Councillors Steve Alderman, Alistair Cameron, Mark Carter, John Cole, Andrew Edwards, Brian Hall, Simon Hancock, Jordan Ryan, Iwan Ward, Michael Williams and Danny Young [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.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED That delegated authority be granted to the Head of Planning to APPROVE the application following the ratification of the Habitat Regulations Assessment by National Resources Wales and subject to conditions outlined in Section 1.1 of the report including the imposition of an additional condition requiring agreement of gate/feeder pillar rather than for agreement of these details to be delegated.
[Having previously declared personal and prejudicial interests, Councillor Dr Simon Hancock and Councillor Tim Evans left the meeting at this juncture and Councillor Rhys Jordan Chaired this item of business.] This application was presented for Committee consideration as it was for an assembly and leisure development over 500 sq.m. (Appendix 1 to Section 14 of the Council’s Constitution). The Planning Officer presented the application to the Committee with the following oral update: Amendment to recommendation at paragraph 1.1 of report. Rather than the “agreement in respect of gate / feeder pillar details” to be delegated to the Head of Planning, such details will now be required by planning condition. 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 Richard Bowen The Committee then proceeded to discuss the application with the main points raised as follows: In response to a concern from Councillor Iwan Ward regarding the noise impact on the castle walls, the Head of Planning advised that the impact of noise on the structural integrity of the Castle walls was a consideration for CADW in the determination of an ancient monument and was outside of the Authority’s remit. Councillor Mark Carter then Moved the recommendation; Seconded by Councillor Andrew Edwards. In response to a question from Councillor Mark Carter regarding the response from the Town Council, the Case Officer confirmed that 37 letters had been distributed together with sign posting and the Project Officer clarified that a business plan had been provided as part of the project. For the Motion: Councillors Steve Alderman, Alistair Cameron, Mark Carter, Andrew Edwards, Brian Hall, Rhys Jordan, Jordan Ryan, Iwan Ward, Michael Williams and Danny Young [10] Abstentions: Councillors John Cole [1] There were no votes against. RESOLVED That delegated authority be granted to the Head of Planning to APPROVE the application following the ratification of the Habitat Regulations Assessment by National Resources Wales and subject to conditions outlined in Section 1.1 of the report including the imposition of an additional condition requiring agreement of gate/feeder pillar rather than for agreement of these details to be delegated.
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.
This application was presented for Committee consideration as it involved a full planning application for agricultural buildings in excess of 1000 sq.m in area and on a site in excess of 1.0 HA (Appendix 1 to Section 14 of the Council’s Constitution). The Planning Officer presented the application to the Committee with the following oral update: The report states that Jeffreyston Community Council raised no objection. Concern was raised about increased noise and odour from a member of the public within the Kilgetty Begelly CC area. No consultation response has been received from Kilgetty and Begelly CC. 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: • Objector – Mr Ian Dennis The Chair then invited the Public Speaker to address the Committee. The Public Speaker advised that the documentation was incorrect and that any new development should safeguard the environment, health and welfare. He advised that the application would use many tributaries that go into the River Cleddau and that cattle were not allowed out to graze. The Case Officer confirmed that Jeffreyston Community Council had raised an objection due to concerns of increased noise and odour. The Head of Planning advised that the oral update noted that responses had been received. The Officer further advised that there was planning permission in place and that the agent had confirmed in writing that work had commenced on site with the land being excavated. In response to concerns from Councillors Mark Carter and Alistair Cameron regarding animal welfare, the Head of Planning advised that this was a matter for the Authority’s Environmental Health Team. Councillor Dr Simon Hancock then Moved that a site visit be undertaken; Seconded by Councillor Rhys Jordan. The Head of Planning agreed that it would be appropriate for a site visit to take place. For the Motion: Councillors Alistair Cameron, Mark Carter, John Cole, Andrew Edwards, Tim Evans, Brian Hall, Simon Hancock, Rhys Jordan, Jordan Ryan, Iwan Ward, Michael Williams and Danny Young [11] There were no votes against or 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.
The above application was withdrawn by the Agent and no further work on this application would be undertaken as the application had been closed down on the Planning system. Adjournment of the Meeting The meeting adjourned at 13:15hrs and reconvened at 14:04hrs.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED That the application be APPROVED subject to the conditions outlined in Section 1.1 of the report subject to the deletion of the time limit condition as outlined in the oral update.
[During consideration of this item, Councillor Andrew Edwards declared a personal and prejudicial interest by virtue of being a close personal friend of the applicant and withdrew from the meeting.] This application was presented for Committee consideration as it was for tourist, leisure or recreation development over 500 sq.m floor space or 0.5 hectares in area (Appendix 1 to Section 14 of the Council’s Constitution). The Planning Officer presented the application to the Committee with the following oral update: To correct an error in the committee report it is recommended that the time limit condition is deleted from the list of conditions specified in paragraph 1.1 of the report as it is not necessary to impose such a condition as the application is retrospective. 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 The Agent then addressed the Committee and highlighted that the Applicant had now engaged with the Local Member, Councillor Alan Dennison and provided a letter of support from the Councillor. The Head of Planning advised that one letter of objection had been received and that the Complainant had been invited to attend the meeting but had declined. In response to a concern from Councillor Alistair Cameron regarding the hours, the Agent advised that the Applicant would be holding 25 events per year with two of those events to run until 02:00hrs. Councillor Hall then moved the recommendation; Seconded by Councillor Mark Carter The Committee then proceeded to discuss the application with the main point raised as follows: · Councillor Carter highlighted that with appropriate measures in place, the application was a good use of the building noting that the parking and soundproofing had been addressed. · Councillor Dr Simon Hancock highlighted the green infrastructure statement that had been included. · In response to a question from Councillor Michael Williams regarding the objection, the Planning Officer advised that there was concerns of negative impact of noise nuisance on neighbouring residents and dissatisfaction that the enterprise had operated without planning and licensing in place. · The Pollution Control Officer highlighted that it was unregulated and they could not condition the operation under the Temporary Event Notices (TENS). He noted that any future complaints would be reviewed with appropriate action. For the Motion: Councillors Steve Alderman, Alistair Cameron, Mark Carter, John Cole, Brian Hall, Simon Hancock, Jordan Ryan, Iwan Ward, Michael Williams and Danny Young [10] 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 subject to the deletion of the time limit condition as outlined in the oral update.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED That the application be APPROVED subject to the conditions outlined in Section 1.1 of the report.
[Having previously declared personal and prejudicial interests, Councillor Steve Alderman and the Planning Officer left the meeting at this juncture] This application was presented for Committee consideration as it had been made by a close family member of an Officer of the Planning Service (Appendix 1 to Section 14 of the Council’s Constitution). The Planning Officer presented the application to the Committee with the following oral update that a consultation response had been received from public protection who have raised no objection. The Chair noted that there were no public speakers for the application. Councillor Alistair Cameron Moved the recommendation; Seconded by Councillor Brian Hall For the Motion: Councillors Alistair Cameron, Mark Carter, John Cole, Brian Hall, Simon Hancock, Jordan Ryan, Iwan Ward, Michael Williams and Danny Young [9] 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.
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.