Loading
The decisions as the council's minutes record them. A plain-language summary follows once it has been written.
RESOLVED That the contents of the Local Impact Report sent to Planning and Environment Decisions Wales (PEDW) on 28 July 2025 be noted.
RESOLVED That the application be deferred to allow a site visit to be undertaken.
RESOLVED (a)That the existing affordable housing Section 106 agreement be discharged due to the site being developed for 100% affordable housing on behalf of a Registered Social Landlord (RSL). (b)That the financial contributions Section 106 agreement be modified to remove the requirement for the provision of financial contributions to education infrastructure, community learning and youth centre facilities and that the highways financial contribution be replaced by a requirement for necessary infrastructure to be provided prior to occupation of the final 20% of the housing.
There were no apologies for absence.
In welcoming everyone to the meeting, the Chair made the following announcements: Agenda Item No.9 Planning Application No.25/0053/PA – Oaklea, Martletwy, Narberth, Pembrokeshire, SA67 8AP – Agricultural Building – was stated to have been withdrawn from the Agenda to allow additional time for consideration of amended plans which had been submitted since publication of the Committee agenda. It was stated that the amended plans sought to reduce the size of the proposed building and provide further justification in respect of the need for the proposed building. It was anticipated that the application would be presented to the next Planning Committee in October 2025. The Chair then invited the Head of Planning to provide a position update, by way of presentation, regarding advice provided by Natural Resources Wales on the Pembrokeshire Marine Special Areas of Conservation nutrients issue. The presentation provided a deeper understanding of the severe implications of the advice for development within Pembrokeshire County Council’s planning area and the possible mitigation action and action plans which may be deemed necessary. It was stated that Welsh Government was assisting the Authority with the issue and had identified two test cases within the County, being affected by the matter, which would be used to navigate guidance and process advice to progress the matter as a whole. Assurance was given that Members and Planning Agents would be kept updated. In response to a question raised by Councillor Alan Dennison, the Head of Planning advised that the matter was not able to be solved by Welsh Water, as there was no ability to implement any improvements or upgrades to treatment works. It was stated that the issue required tackling through nature-based solutions. Following clarification sought by Councillor Alan Dennison, it was advised that the applications affected by the matter had been paused in agreement with the applicants/agents and further information was provided as to how applications could be determined if applicants/agents were not in agreement for the extensions of time; however, it was highlighted that applications could not be determined favourably at this time. Clarification was sought by Councillor Alan Dennison as to why affordable housing developments would be more at risk, to which the Head of Planning clarified that that would not be the case, and that the risk level would be the same for all housing development applications. Councillor John Davies made reference to communities in the North East of the County, which fall under the Teifi catchment area, and queried if a Nutrient Neutrality Assessment would be required for development in such areas. In response, the Head of Planning confirmed that a Nutrient Neutrality Assessment would not apply to developments within the Teifi catchment area however, the need to assess the phosphate impact remained. Following a question raised by Councillor John Davies, the Head of Planning stated that she would seek further information as to where the data regarding source apportionment of nitrogen and nitrates into the watercourses had been collected from. Councillor Michael Williams raised concerns as to the financial implications such matters would bring to the Authority. The Head of Planning concurred with the concerns and advised that the legal advice taken to date regarding the matter had cost £2,000 and stated that further costs would be incurred as the matter progressed. In response to a question raised by Councillor Michael Williams, the Head of Planning confirmed that areas of Carmarthen Bay would be affected.
Item 7: Planning Application No.20/0462/PA – Heritage Park, Pleasant Valley, Narberth Councillor Chris Williams declared a personal and prejudicial interest by virtue of having previously dealt with the applicant in relation to sponsorship of events and due to a close personal friend being a Heritage Park manager and also sitting on the events Committee. Councillor Alistair Cameron declared a personal interest by virtue of living within the locality of the site and having previously attended meetings of the Stepaside and Pleasant Valley Residents Group.
The Chair highlighted a typographical error on page one of the minutes, highlighting that ‘Mark Owen’ should be spelt ‘Marc Owen’. Moved by Councillor Mark Carter; Seconded by Councillor Steve Alderman The vote, undertaken by way of a show of hands, was carried. RESOLVED That the English and Welsh Minutes of the meeting held on 29 July 2025 be approved as correct records, subject to the above amendment.
There were no requests received from any non-Committee Members to speak.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED That the contents of the Local Impact Report sent to Planning and Environment Decisions Wales (PEDW) on 28 July 2025 be noted.
This application was for Committee information to provide notification of the Local Planning Authority’s adopted Local Impact Report submitted to Planning and Environment Decisions Wales (PEDW), acting on behalf of Welsh Ministers, Development of National Significance. The Chair welcomed questions from Members and the key points were noted as follows: · Councillor Simon Hancock raised concerns about the negative impact on the historic environment and landscape character and sought further information on the extent of the impact which would be caused to the best and most versatile land (BMV). In response, the Development Manager confirmed that a substantial portion of that land would be affected, though less so in terms of solar panel coverage. The Welsh Government’s Soil Unit objection was highlighted and Members were advised that a specific Hearing would be held to address the issue. · Councillor Tony Wilcox expressed concern over continued loss of BMV land and stated that in his opinion the current proposal was unacceptable and urged reconsideration. · In response to concerns being raised by Councillor Steve Alderman in relation to the narrow access routes to the site, with a suggestion being made for a condition to be implemented prohibiting access from the west (East End Square) and emphasis being placed on maintaining local footpaths, the Development Manager provided the following response. It was stated that a Hearing was being arranged to address the issues and Members were advised that local concerns would be raised as part of the Local Impact Report. Further information was provided in relation to the proposed conditions which would allow the Authority to address the concerns regarding access to the site. · Following a question raised by Councillor Steve Alderman regarding the fair compensation to the Authority for time spent on Local Impact Reports, the Development Manager provided details of the standard fees received and plans for full cost recovery as part of a new regime being implemented later in the year. · Councillors Alan Dennison and Mark Carter sought further information regarding the footpath, to which the Development Manager advised that the applicant was responsible for lawful footpath diversion and stated that the timing of the footpath diversion was determined by PEDW on behalf of the Welsh Government. · Following further information being sought by Councillor Alan Dennison querying if the application was partially rejected, would the remaining parts return to the Planning Committee for determination, the Development Manager advised that applications under 10MW would fall under Local Authority jurisdiction. · Councillor John Cole queried whether the local community would have the opportunity to comment on the application, to which Members were advised by the Development Manager that the five-week window for the Local Impact Report also served as the public consultation period and the relevant Community Council/s had been consulted. · Following general points being raised, about the conducting of Hearings, by Councillor Steve Alderman, the Development Manager advised that the Hearing in relation to this matter would likely be informal and held remotely. · Councillors Mark Carter and Simon Hancock drew attention to the apparent clustering of solar farms in the Lamphey/Cosheston area which was leading to the unfortunate loss of high-quality farmland. In response, the Development Manager outlined a range of factors which contributed to site selection for solar farms and confirmed that cumulative effects were considered under Environmental Impact Assessment regulations. Councillor Simon Hancock Moved that the update be noted as recommended; Seconded by Councillor Brian Hall. The vote, undertaken by way of a show of hands, was carried. RESOLVED That the contents of the Local Impact Report sent to Planning and Environment Decisions Wales (PEDW) on 28 July 2025 be noted.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED That the application be deferred to allow a site visit to be undertaken.
[Councillor Chris Williams declared a personal and prejudicial interest and left the meeting for this item of business. Councillor Jordan Ryan joined the meeting at this juncture.] This application was approved by the Planning Committee on 3 October 2023, following a Committee site visit on 30 August 2023, against the Head of Planning’s recommendation to refuse planning permission. In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, the application was referred to Full Council where the application was approved on 10 November 2023 and the planning permission was issued on 4 January 2024. The decision was subsequently challenged by Stepaside and Pleasant Valley Residents Group Limited, and on 7 February 2025 the planning permission was quashed by the High Court; the judgement being that the decision was unlawful and therefore the planning application required re-determination. 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 – Helen Ashby-Ridgway • Objector – Dr Trish Cormack [Councillor Rhys Jordan left the meeting at this juncture.] Following Ms Ashby-Ridgway’s address Councillor John Cole queried why the application had been submitted as one application and not split into two, i.e. one for the area inside the settlement boundary, which would likely have been straightforward, and another for the portion of the site outside of the settlement boundary. In response, Ms Ashby-Ridgway stated that the design was intentionally developed as a comprehensive, unified project from the beginning to maximise overall benefits. That approach enabled the inclusion of extensive woodland and scrubland creation, improved access, and new community facilities. It was stated that it felt better to deliver everything together transparently, rather than in a piecemeal or covert manner. Following Dr Cormack’s address Councillor Tony Wilcox queried if she was a Member of Amroth Community Council, which she advised she was not. The Committee proceeded to discuss the application and the key points were noted as follows: · Councillor Alistair Cameron, Local Member, reiterated his personal interest in the application and expressed that after reading the independent report commissioned by the Council regarding the economic impact of the site, it was not clear whether a thorough assessment of the potential negative economic impact on existing caravan and tourist sites in the area had been concluded. In response, the Development Manager stated that the independent report was intended to assess whether the applicant’s economic claims were reasonable, including potential impacts on the tourist sector more generally. It was stated that the report concluded the applicant’s case was generally sound, but that did not automatically justify the development or outweigh policy concerns. Councillor Simon Hancock Moved that a site visit be undertaken to enable the updated membership of the Committee to gain a clear understanding of the site; Seconded by Councillor Tim Evans 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, Dr Simon Hancock, Jordan Ryan, Tony Wilcox, Michael Williams and Danny Young [13] There were no votes against or abstentions. RESOLVED That the application be deferred to allow a site visit to be undertaken.
The meeting was paused at 11:45am for a break and resumed at 11:58am. [Councillor Chirs Williams returned to the meeting at this juncture.]
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED (a)That the existing affordable housing Section 106 agreement be discharged due to the site being developed for 100% affordable housing on behalf of a Registered Social Landlord (RSL). (b)That the financial contributions Section 106 agreement be modified to remove the requirement for the provision of financial contributions to education infrastructure, community learning and youth centre facilities and that the highways financial contribution be replaced by a requirement for necessary infrastructure to be provided prior to occupation of the final 20% of the housing.
This application was presented for Committee consideration as the application sought to discharge Section 106 agreements that were required in respect of application 12/0405/PA. Councillor Jordan Ryan queried whether the viability assessment used for social housing developments by registered social landlords was the same as that used for private developers, given their differing objectives. In response, the Head of Planning confirmed that the same standard viability appraisal was used for both private developers and registered social landlords, undertaken by an independent assessor, of which further information was provided regarding profit variations. Following a request made by Councillor John Cole for the public path connectivity element to be retained, the Head of Planning confirmed that physical infrastructure for the pedestrian crossing was still required and had been agreed with the developer, hence it being stipulated in the recommendation as a reason for seeking to modify the legal agreement in respect of financial contributions. To expand on the point further, the Chief Planning Officer added that the legal agreement would include a clause preventing occupation of the final 20% of homes until the pedestrian crossing infrastructure was completed. In response to points raised by Councillor Steve Alderman, the Head of Planning confirmed that an education contribution was still required for the development, albeit a reduced amount to that originally suggested to reflect current viability findings. It was added that while Officers consider the social housing benefits to outweigh the reduced education contribution, it remained a factor for Members to weigh up in their decision-making. Councillor Brian Hall Moved the recommendations; Seconded by Councillor Tony Wilcox. 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, Tim Evans, Brian Hall, Dr Simon Hancock, Tony Wilcox, Chris Williams, Michael Williams and Danny Young [12] Against the Motion: CouncillorsAlan Dennison and Jordan Ryan [2] There were no abstentions. RESOLVED (a)That the existing affordable housing Section 106 agreement be discharged due to the site being developed for 100% affordable housing on behalf of a Registered Social Landlord (RSL). (b)That the financial contributions Section 106 agreement be modified to remove the requirement for the provision of financial contributions to education infrastructure, community learning and youth centre facilities and that the highways financial contribution be replaced by a requirement for necessary infrastructure to be provided prior to occupation of the final 20% of the housing.
This application was withdrawn from the agenda to allow additional time for consideration of amended plans which had been submitted following publication of the Committee 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.