Loading
The decisions as the council's minutes record them. A plain-language summary follows once it has been written.
AGREED, by way of a show of hands, that the contents of the appended correspondence (with its appendices) be sent to Planning and Environment Decisions Wales (PEDW).
RESOLVED That the application be APPROVED for the reason that it supports environmentally acceptable sustainable and renewable energy and meets the targets of the climate emergency. Additionally, the benefits significantly outweigh the minimal visual concerns. [The meeting adjourned for a short break at this juncture.]
RESOLVED That the application be deferred until April to allow a site visit to be undertaken. [Councillor Rhys Jordan left the meeting at this juncture.]
RESOLVED That the application be APPROVED subject to the conditions outlined in Section 1.1 of the report. [The meeting adjourned for lunch at 1:15pm and returned at 1:45pm Councillors John Cole and Chris Williams left the meeting at this juncture.]
RESOLVED That the existing Section 106 agreement be discharged to remove the requirement for the provision of two affordable housing units.
RESOLVED That the application be APPROVED subject to the conditions outlined in Section 1.1 of the report.
RESOLVED That the application be APPROVED subject to the conditions outlined in Section 1.1 of the report.
RESOLVED That the existing Section 106 agreement be discharged to remove the requirement for the dwelling to not be occupied other than by persons engaged in the farming of the land described in the second schedule thereto.
The Chair advised that there had been no exercise of delegated authority since the last Committee meeting. Planning Application 23/1022/PA Nash Farm Solar Park This application had been withdrawn from the agenda due to an issue with the publicity of the Environmental Statement. This should return to the April meeting. Notification of local Planning Authority consultation response This item is a consultation response which is for Member’s information only not for decision.
Planning Application no. 24/0798/PA – Public Information Centre, Argyle Street, Pembroke Dock, Sa72 6HL Councillor Simon Hancock declared a personal and prejudicial interest by virtue of being a member of the Dyfed Powys Police and Crime Panel. Councillor Chris Williams declared a personal interest by virtue of having a close family member employed by Dyfed Powys Police. Planning Application nos. 24/0941/PA and 24/0942/PA – Tedion Farm, Lawrenny, Kilgetty, Pembrokeshire SA68 0QB Councillor Steve Alderman declared a personal and prejudicial interest by virtue of having many dealings with the farm.
Moved by Councillor Simon Hancock; Seconded by Councillor Brian Hall The vote, undertaken by way of a show of hands, was carried. RESOLVED That the Minutes of the meeting held on 18 February 2025 be approved as a correct record, in both English and Welsh.
Decision as recorded
AGREED, by way of a show of hands, that the contents of the appended correspondence (with its appendices) be sent to Planning and Environment Decisions Wales (PEDW).
This notification of Local Planning Authority consultation response to be submitted to Planning and Environment Decisions Wales (PEDW) (Acting on behalf of Welsh Ministers) in relation to an application made under Section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989 was presented for the Committee to note. The Development Manager presented the notification to the Committee. In response to concerns raised by Councillor Steve Alderman regarding the residents of two cottages to the North of the site, the Development Manager clarified that the height of the development would be a maximum of 15 metres and that conditions regarding the Construction Environment Management Plan (CEMP) and Landscaping Ecological Management Plan (LEMP) had been recommended. It was AGREED, by way of a show of hands, that the contents of the appended correspondence (with its appendices) be sent to Planning and Environment Decisions Wales (PEDW).
This item of business was withdrawn from the agenda due to an issue with the publicity of the Environmental Statement.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED That the application be APPROVED for the reason that it supports environmentally acceptable sustainable and renewable energy and meets the targets of the climate emergency. Additionally, the benefits significantly outweigh the minimal visual concerns. [The meeting adjourned for a short break at this juncture.]
The application was reported to the Committee meeting on 14 January 2025 when a decision was deferred as Members were minded to approve the application contrary to policies of the Local Development Plan (LDP). 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: - Community Council Representative: Andy Anderson (Remote) - Applicant: Paul Cowley (In Person) - Objector: Neil Morris (In person) The Chair invited the Community Council Representative to address the Committee and then invited questions from Members to the Community Council Representative. The key points were highlighted as follows: In response to a question from Councillor John Cole regarding benefits to the Community, the Representative advised that residents could apply for grants from a community fund that was funded by the turbine. In response to a concern from Councillor Alistair Cameron regarding the impact on the area, the Representative advised that they were not aware of any negative impact and did not feel that the impact would be significantly different to the existing turbine. The Chair then invited the Applicant to address the Committee and then invited questions from Members to the Applicant. In response to a concern from Councillor Alistair Cameron regarding the biodiversity implications of the application, particularly regarding the analysis and assessment of bat activity, the Applicant advised that the monitoring period for bats commences late Spring and continues until the Autumn. He emphasised that the turbine needs to be replaced due to concerns of potential failure of the existing turbine and that they were committed to undertake the assessment. In response to a question from Councillor John Cole regarding the annual output of energy from the current turbine and the proposed turbine, the Applicant advised that it would be an increase from 500,000kwh per annum to 3.6-4 times the amount. The Chair then invited the Objector to address the Committee and then invited questions from members to the Objector. In response to a question from the Chair regarding no objections being brought to the attention of the Community Council, the Objector advised that he lived 500m from the existing turbine and had spoken with neighbouring properties who also had concerns. He advised that he could not see the turbine but he could hear it. In response to a concern raised by Councillor Alistair Cameron regarding mitigation, the Objector advised that he had only met and spoken with the Applicant that morning and would fully engage with further discussions. The Chair highlighted the conditions contained within the report if Members were Minded to approve the application. In response to a concern from Councillor Mark Carter regarding the previous application for the existing turbine, the Planning Officer advised that the original application had been initially refused due to the impact on the National Park and the Fishguard and Lower Town conservation areas. This had then been approved on appeal. The Officer highlighted that this application was different as the turbine would be sited 20 metres away from the site of the existing turbine and was 22 metres higher to blade tip noting the reasons for the recommendation to refuse were different to the previous application. The Officer further advised that if it had been an application to replace with the same specification then the previous Inspector’s report stating that there would be no significant impact on the area would have remained. Councillor Carter emphasised the concerns that if the application would be approved on appeal, he did not want to refuse again. In response to concerns raised by Councillor Cole and the Chair regarding the differences to the existing turbine, the Planning Officer advised that it was 50% bigger and a ‘chunkier’ design with larger blades. Councillor John Davies clarified that it was quite significant that the Pembrokeshire Coast National Park had withdrawn their objections. He further advised that he lived within 500m of two turbines and reassured the objector that the noise was actually less in a larger turbine due to the difference in circumference. Approval of the application was then Moved by Councillor John Davies; Seconded by Councillor John Cole. The Chief Planning Officer then clarified that they had received three items of correspondence objecting to the application. The Chair reminded Members that, if the decision was for approval, the application would not be presented to Full Council; and the Chief Planning Officer advised of the reasons for refusal that had been presented with the planning application from Officers. In response to concerns raised by Councillor Cameron regarding a potential precedent being set, the Solicitor reminded Members that all decisions were made on their own merits and that no precedent could be set as full reasons were required for any decision made, particularly if going against Officer recommendation. In response to concerns raised by Councillor Alan Dennison regarding the potential of laying the turbine on the ground prior to installation, the Chief Planning Officer advised that if elements of the turbine were stored on the land, a change of use of the land could be triggered. In response to a question from Councillor Carter regarding the existing turbine, the Planning Officer advised that any applications for turbines were usually granted for 25 years. If the turbine needed to be replaced within this time, it would need to be exactly the same or it would require planning permission. The Planning Officer further clarified that the new application was for a different configuration and would be visibly different. The Chair then clarified that the vote was to approve the application. The vote, undertaken by way of a roll-call, was carried. The votes were recorded as follows: For the Motion: Councillors Steve Alderman, Alistair Cameron, Mark Carter, John Cole, John Davies, Alan Dennison, Tim Evans, Tony Wilcox, Chris Williams, and Danny Young [10] Against the Motion: Councillors Brian Hall, Simon Hancock and Michael Williams [3] Abstain: Councillor Rhys Jordan [1] There were no votes against and no abstentions. RESOLVED That the application be APPROVED for the reason that it supports environmentally acceptable sustainable and renewable energy and meets the targets of the climate emergency. Additionally, the benefits significantly outweigh the minimal visual concerns. [The meeting adjourned for a short break at this juncture.]
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED That the application be deferred until April to allow a site visit to be undertaken. [Councillor Rhys Jordan left the meeting at this juncture.]
[Having previously declared a personal and prejudicial interest in this application, Councillor Simon Hancock left the meeting. The Vice-Chair, Councillor Rhys Jordan chaired the meeting for this item of business. Councillor Rhys Jordan declared a personal interest in this application by virtue of a family member being employed at the Police Station. Councillor John Davies declared a personal interest in this application by virtue of a family member being employed as a Police Officer.] The application was presented for Committee consideration as the Assistant Chief Executive has exercised discretion to remove it from the scheme of delegation following a request by the local Member. The grounds for referral related to Criterion 2 – The decision on a proposed development’s impact within the local Community is finely balanced between competing interests or is complex and sensitive and would benefit from a public examination of its merits. 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: Barrie Davies (Remote) - Objector: Lucy Cawley (In person) The Chair invited the Agent to address the Committee and then invited questions from Members to the Agent. The key points were highlighted as follows: In response to a question from Councillor Alan Dennison regarding members of the public visiting the station, the Agent advised that he did not have this information available and would anticipate the ability to ‘drop in’ at the station by appointment. In response to a question from Councillor Tim Evans regarding parking spaces, the Agent confirmed that 40 parking spaces were for sole use by the station. It was recognised by Councillor Alistair Cameron that the report stated that the Head of Infrastructure (Highways) had requested amended plans with an alternative access point. The Agent advised that they had felt the existing access off Argyle Street to be more than adequate for the proposed use. He further noted that the Head of Highways (Infrastructure) had concluded that the existing access would not adversely impact the existing parking arrangements, access or local highway network. In response to concerns from Councillors Cameron and Dennison regarding facilities at the proposed site, the Agent advised that the parking spaces available were double the current amount at Water Street and that the custody facilities were already in place in Haverfordwest and that he did not believe there to be custody facilities in the current station at Pembroke Dock. In response to a question from Councillor Chris Williams regarding opening hours and restrictions on lights and sirens, the Agent advised that the proposed station would be open 24 hours a day, seven days a week and staffed during the day with reduced staffing at night. He further advised that lights and sirens were only used if other road users or pedestrians were in the vicinity. The Chair then invited the Objector to address the Committee who highlighted that the proposal was for a fully operational police station which would increase traffic substantially. The Chair then invited questions from Members to the Objector, with the key points highlighted as follows: In response to a comment from Councillor John Cole regarding the number of incidents being available online from November 2023 to November 2024, the Objector advised that following a Freedom of Information Act request, it had been stated that there were 5000 Grade 1 Emergencies which required a two vehicle response. Councillor Tony Wilcox emphasised that Argyle Street Surgery was one of the largest in Wales advertising for 7-8 more GPs and questioned why the additional access point was included to mitigate against potential hazards. Councillor Tim Evans concurred that the surgery car park was currently at capacity with 130 staff employed at the surgery. The Agent clarified that members of the public could visit the station by appointment and it was anticipated to be a ‘like for like’ relocation. He highlighted that it was considered that a maximum of 20 staff would be on site at any one time. There were no further questions from Members to the Objector. Councillor Brian Hall highlighted that the majority of residents in the town do not want to lose the Police Station and noted that visibility could be improved by cutting back vegetation at the exit and by double yellow lines along the street. Approval of the application was then Moved by Councillor Brian Hall. As the Motion was not seconded it fell. Councillor Mark Carter noted that some Members were not familiar with the location and Moved that a site visit be undertaken; Seconded by Councillor Tim Evans. Councillor Wilcox agreed that a site visit would be of benefit and highlighted that a second entrance should be considered. In response to a question from Councillor Cameron regarding the merits of a second entrance, the Transport Strategy and Highways Development Control Manager advised that exploratory investigations had been undertaken and it was not deemed to be required and that there were Tree Preservation Orders on the trees which would be affected by a new entrance. She highlighted that they had undertaken a site visit and had seen the vehicles parked on both sides of the street. The Police shifts start outside of peak hours so was distributed through the day and highlighted the potential to remove some of the vegetation to increase visibility and double yellow lines to modify the parking regime if required. Councillor Hall highlighted that every empty building in Pembroke and Pembroke Dock had been reviewed with no other premises being identified as suitable. The Vice-Chair invited Councillor Carter to state the reasons for the site visit and Councillor Carter advised that this was to fully understand the traffic layouts and the problems in the area including the layout of the parking at the station and to review the proposal for a second access point. The Chief Planning Officer advised that the traffic and parking were acceptable reasons; however, the suggestion of an alternative access was not for consideration. The vote, undertaken by way of a roll-call, was carried. The votes were recorded as follows: For the Motion: Councillors Steve Alderman, Alistair Cameron, Mark Carter, John Cole, John Davies, Alan Dennison, Tim Evans, Simon Hancock, Rhys Jordan, Tony Wilcox, Chris Williams, Michael Williams and Danny Young [12] Against the Motion: Councillor Brian Hall [1] There were no abstentions. RESOLVED That the application be deferred until April to allow a site visit to be undertaken. [Councillor Rhys Jordan 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. [The meeting adjourned for lunch at 1:15pm and returned at 1:45pm Councillors John Cole and Chris Williams left the meeting at this juncture.]
The application was presented for Committee consideration as the application was for a leisure development of over 500 square metres floorspace (Appendix 1 to Section 14 of the Constitution). The Planning Officer advised of the following oral update: That local concerns regarding the impact on the town centre viability had been received but the proposal was compliant with retail policy with the 24/7 operation proposal to be conditioned. The Planning Officer presented the application to the Committee. The Committee was advised that due notification had been received from the following interested party, who wished to exercise their right to address the Committee: - Applicant: Darren Winn (In Person) The Chair invited the Applicant to address the Committee and then invited questions from Members to the Applicant. The key points were highlighted as follows: In response to a question from Councillor Mark Carter regarding the retail element, the Applicant advised that they would have fitness apparel, accessories and equipment available to purchase. In response to a question from Councillor Alan Dennison regarding alterations to the front of the premises, the Applicant advised that there were no alterations to the building, only maintenance and internal cosmetic work. There were no further questions from Members to the Applicant. Approval of the application was then Moved by Councillor Simon Hancock; Seconded by Councillor Alan Dennison. The vote, undertaken by way of a roll-call, was carried. The votes were recorded as follows: For the Motion: Councillors Steve Alderman, Alistair Cameron, Mark Carter, John Cole, John Davies, Alan Dennison, Tim Evans, Brian Hall, Simon Hancock, Rhys Jordan, Tony Wilcox, Chris Williams, Michael Williams and Danny Young [13] There were no votes against and no abstentions. RESOLVED That the application be APPROVED subject to the conditions outlined in Section 1.1 of the report. [The meeting adjourned for lunch at 1:15pm and returned at 1:45pm Councillors John Cole and Chris Williams left the meeting at this juncture.]
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED That the existing Section 106 agreement be discharged to remove the requirement for the provision of two affordable housing units.
[Councillor John Cole then rejoined the meeting remotely at this juncture.] The application was presented for Committee consideration as it seeks to discharge a Section 106 agreement that was required in respect of application reference 16/0394/PA. The Planning Officer presented the application to the Committee. The Committee was advised that there were no public speakers in attendance at the meeting. Approval of the application was then Moved by Councillor Brian Hall; Seconded by Councillor Mark Carter. In response to a question from Councillor Alistair Cameron regarding the number of houses built and sold, the Chief Planning Officer advised that the permission was for eight houses which had been built with seven now sold. The Chief Planning Officer highlighted that more had been paid for the site than the developer could accrue through carrying out the development and selling the property. He further noted that the developer had brought the road to an adoptable standard. In response to a question from Councillor Cameron regarding who appointed an Independent Assessor and Viability Assessor, the Chief Planning Officer advised that the Authority appointed the Assessors using information provided by the Developer. In response to a question from Councillor Tony Wilcox on the Section 106 payment being based on the seven homes that had been sold or the eight, the Chief Planning Officer advised that the first viability assessment takes into account the likely sale value of all eight dwellings. The Chief Planning Officer further clarified that the Committee could either discharge the Section 106 agreement or seek to alter the level of the Section 106 contribution. In response to a concern raised by the Chair regarding previous requests of this nature, the Chief Planning Officer advised that they had received one request previously from a national building company and highlighted that this was a smaller scheme with no opportunity to make a profit elsewhere. Councillor Carter emphasised that the business should be providing affordable housing however, he did not want to put a small business into financial difficulty and sought to allow them to continue. In response to a concern raised by Councillor Alan Dennison regarding the builders, the Chief Planning Officer advised that they do not have the information regarding the number of developments carried out and all figures were provided by the developer which were assessed against the national building service costs. In response to concerns from Councillor Michael Williams regarding the size and viability of the business and whether the Authority undertake discussions with Pembrokeshire Coast National Park Authority (PCNPA), the Chief Planning Officer advised that the application was for this development only and did not take other developments into consideration. The Chief Planning Officer emphasised the recommendation under consideration. Councillors Wilcox and Cameron then debated the level of Section 106 payment that should be considered. Councillor Tony Wilcox then Moved an Amendment to the effect that 10% of the final value of the eighth property be considered; Seconded by Councillor Alistair Cameron. Councillor Carter then highlighted that, even selling the eighth dwelling, they would be forcing the business into a greater loss. In response to concerns from Councillor Dennison regarding the name of the developer and that there had been a previous refusal to modify the Section 106 agreement in August 2023, the Planning Officer advised that it was Coastal Developments of Tenby and that the previous application was similar where a viability assessment had been undertaken which showed it remained viable at that time. Councillor Dennison highlighted concerns that following the refusal, a further dwelling had been sold and the Chief Planning Officer advised that the previous application was based on predicted figures and this application was on actual figures. The Chair then clarified that the Committee would vote on the amendment to delegate Authority to the Head of Planning to impose a 10% charge on developer. The vote on the Amendment, undertaken by way of a roll-call, was lost. The votes were recorded as follows: For the Motion: Councillors Alistair Cameron and Tony Wilcox [2] Against the Motion: Councillors Steve Alderman, Mark Carter, John Cole, John Davies, Alan Dennison, Tim Evans, Brian Hall, Simon Hancock, Rhys Jordan, Michael Williams and Danny Young [11] There were no Abstentions. The Chair then advised of the Original Motion to approve the application. The vote, undertaken by way of a roll-call, was carried. The votes were recorded as follows: For the Motion: Councillors Steve Alderman, Mark Carter, John Davies, Tim Evans, Brian Hall, Simon Hancock, Rhys Jordan, Michael Williams and Danny Young [9] Against the Motion: Councillors Alistair Cameron, Alan Dennison and Tony Wilcox [3] Abstain: Councillor John Cole [1] RESOLVED That the existing Section 106 agreement be discharged to remove the requirement for the provision of two affordable housing units.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED That the application be APPROVED subject to the conditions outlined in Section 1.1 of the report.
[Having declared a personal and prejudicial interest in this application, Councillor Steve Alderman left the meeting at this juncture.] The 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 Constitution). The Planning Officer presented the application to the Committee. The Committee was advised that there were no public speakers in attendance at the meeting. Approval of the application was Moved by Councillor Alan Dennison; Seconded by Councillor John Davies. In response to a question from Councillor Dennison regarding the five-year time scale, the Chief Planning Officer advised that this was a standard implementation time and if it was not included, the condition would follow as a matter of law. The biodiversity and enhancement measures were set in Planning Policy Wales where all development proposals must contain an element of green infrastructure development. The vote, undertaken by way of a roll-call, was carried. The votes were recorded as follows: For the Motion: Councillors Alistair Cameron, Mark Carter, John Cole, John Davies, Alan Dennison, Tim Evans, Brian Hall, Simon Hancock, Tony Wilcox and Michael Williams [10] Abstain: Councillor Danny Young [1] There were no votes against. RESOLVED That the application be APPROVED subject to the conditions outlined in Section 1.1 of the report.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED That the application be APPROVED subject to the conditions outlined in Section 1.1 of the report.
[Having declared a personal and prejudicial interest in this application, Councillor Steve Alderman left the meeting at this juncture.] The 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 Constitution). The Planning Officer presented the application to the Committee. The Committee was advised that there were no public speakers in attendance at the meeting. Approval of the application was Moved by Councillor Brian Hall; Seconded by Councillor John Davies. The vote, undertaken by way of a roll-call, was carried. The votes were recorded as follows: For the Motion: Councillors Alistair Cameron, Mark Carter, John Cole, John Davies, Alan Dennison, Tim Evans, Brian Hall, Simon Hancock, Tony Wilcox, Michael Williams and Danny Young [11] There were no votes against and no abstentions. RESOLVED That the application be APPROVED subject to the conditions outlined in Section 1.1 of the report.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED That the existing Section 106 agreement be discharged to remove the requirement for the dwelling to not be occupied other than by persons engaged in the farming of the land described in the second schedule thereto.
The application was presented for Committee consideration as it seeks to discharge a Section 106 agreement that was required in respect of application reference D3/0599/91. The Planning Officer presented the application to the Committee. The Committee was advised that there were no public speakers in attendance at the meeting. Approval of the application was then Moved by Councillor Alan Dennison; Seconded by Councillor Mark Carter. In response to a concern from Councillor Alan Dennison regarding the building regulations, the Chief Planning Officer advised that the permission was granted in 1991 and those records only go back to 1996. He advised that the Building Regulations Officer role was to check Building Regulations and not Planning matters and highlighted that this was for a preceding Authority. The Chief Planning Officer advised that this would be for the Enforcement Officers who monitor developments. The vote, undertaken by way of a roll-call, was carried. The votes were recorded as follows: For the Motion: Councillors Alistair Cameron, Mark Carter, John Cole, John Davies, Alan Dennison, Tim Evans, Brian Hall, Simon Hancock, Tony Wilcox, Michael Williams and Danny Young [11] There were no votes against and no abstentions. RESOLVED That the existing Section 106 agreement be discharged to remove the requirement for the dwelling to not be occupied other than by persons engaged in the farming of the land described in the second schedule thereto.
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.