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 REFUSED subject to the reasons outlined in Section 1.1 of the report [Councillor Alan Dennison left the meeting at this juncture. Councillor Chris Williams re-joined following the previous item’s conclusion.]
RESOLVED That the application be DEFERRED to November’s meeting to allow the Applicant time to negotiate on issues raised within the application. [Councillor John Cole left the meeting at this juncture.]
RESOLVED That the Application be APPROVED subject to the reasons outlined in Section 1.1 of the report
In welcoming everyone to the meeting, the Chair made the following announcements: The Chair announced the departure of Councillor Jordan Ryan from the Planning Committee following his group affiliation change from Welsh Labour to Unaffiliated. Councillor Ryan was thanked for his service on the Committee during his time served on it. Following the Council meeting on 9th October 2025 a new Member will be appointed to the Committee to return the number of Members to fifteen. The Chair, on behalf of the Planning Committee, wished Democratic and Scrutiny Services Officer, Jackie Thomas, well during her continued absence due to sickness, with the hope that she will be returning soon. Item 9 Planning Application No.25/0258/PA – The Old Inn, Camrose, Haverfordwest, SA62 6HY – Partial change of use from public house (A3) to gift shop/convenience store (A1) - has been removed from the agenda having been formally withdrawn and closed down on the planning system at the request of the applicant. Officers will not undertake any further work in respect of this application. The Head of Planning then gave the following verbal update regarding marine nutrients: Since the last update was provided to Planning Committee on 2nd September 2025 the following has taken place: A further update has been provided to the joint Pembrokeshire County Council/Pembrokeshire Coast National Park Authority Planning Agents Forum meeting on 15th September 2025. Voluntary pause on affected planning applications continues. Three weekly meetings are taking place with National Resources Wales officers to work through priority planning cases which are paused. The Local Development Plan Team have met with Planning and Environment Decisions Wales to discuss implications on examination of the Council’s replacement Development Plan (LDP2). Welsh Government Ministers met with Leaders of affected local authorities to discuss the impact of marine nitrates in Special Areas of Conservation and agreed to establish a taskforce to address concerns. The first meeting of the National Taskforce took place on 25th September 2025. A Members Seminar was held on 3rd October 2025 which provided a briefing on the Nutrient Neutrality requirements for development in Pembrokeshire. Yesterday, a comprehensive report was presented to Cabinet on the nutrient neutrality issue that set out the background and legal context, identified the implications and risks, provided an update on current planning position, reviewed possible measures to address the issue and which set out a proposed action plan to tackle the issue and enable the delivery of development. Cabinet noted the update and endorsed the implementation of the action plan. The second meeting of the National Taskforce will take place this Thursday. An internal officer taskforce is in the process of being set up and procurement of consultants to deliver the action plan is underway. Councillor Simon Hancock referred to the Notice of Motion submitted by Councillor Jacob Williams for the Full Council meeting taking place 9th October 2025, where Council will be encouraged to discuss the topic and make known how important this issue is to the Council and its Members.
Item 6: 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. Item 7: Planning Application No.24/0906/PA - Land North of Gibbas Way, Pembroke, SA71 5JA Councillor Steve Alderman declared a personal interest by virtue of knowing a Director of the company.
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 2 September 2025 be approved as correct records.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED That the Application be REFUSED subject to the reasons outlined in Section 1.1 of the report [Councillor Alan Dennison left the meeting at this juncture. Councillor Chris Williams re-joined following the previous item’s conclusion.]
[Councillor Chris Williams declared a personal and prejudicial interest and left the meeting for this item of business.] This application was resolved to approve by 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 Constitution, the application was referred to Full Council who approved the application on 10 November 2023. 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 judgment being that the decision was unlawful. The planning application therefore requires redetermination. The application was deferred at planning committee on 2 September 2025 pending a committee site visit to be undertaken on 24 September 2025 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 - Helen Ashby-Ridgway • Objector - Trish Cormack Following Ms Ashby-Ridgway’s address, Councillor Simon Hancock queried as to how many mature trees would be deemed necessary to remove on account of the application. In response, the Case Officer advised that 50 trees, mostly category C type trees, were located at the proposed sites for the 31 bases and the equestrian facilities. Councillor Alistair Cameron sought clarification regarding the basis of the economic assessment, referencing concerns previously raised at the last meeting. It was queried whether the assessment assumed a distinct offering for the proposed site compared to others in the area, and whether site selection factors, such as a preference for Pembrokeshire, had been considered. Further clarification was requested as to whether the assessment accounted for any economic disbenefits to other sites, or whether it represented a net calculation balancing benefits of the proposed site against potential impacts elsewhere. In response, Ms Ashby-Ridgway confirmed that the economic assessment concluded a net benefit would arise from the proposal, primarily due to the distinct quality of the offer compared to other sites. It was further stated that the development aligned with Visit Pembrokeshire’s strategic objective to promote higher quality accommodation within the County, and that the proposal sought to contribute positively to that aim. The Chair queried the intended phasing of the development, asking which element, such as the spa, accommodation bases, visitor centre, or café, would be prioritised should planning permission be granted. In response, Ms Ashby-Ridgway said that the phasing plan was not included within the application and would be subject to agreement with Officers prior to commencement, as required by a condition in the original consent. Following Dr Cormack’s address, Councillor John Cole queried whether a more selective approach to the application, focusing on elements such as the menagerie, completion of Plan 8, and redevelopment of Stepaside, might have been more acceptable to local residents, given mixed views within the Pleasant Valley community. In response, Dr Cormack stated that most residents opposed the development in its entirety. While some elements may appear desirable, concerns were raised about increased traffic and congestion, particularly due to the spa’s impact on narrow local roads, making the overall scheme unacceptable to the community. Councillor Tony Wilcox noted that statutory consultees appeared broadly supportive of the application and emphasised the importance of considering professional officer advice. He expressed concern over public comments suggesting low economic value from spa visitors, describing such views as dismissive and unhelpful, and cautioned against perceptions of elitism in the proposal. Dr Cormack agreed that the comment was offensive and emphasised that all spending contributes to the local economy. She expressed disappointment that Officers had not considered the impact on the unnamed narrow road in Pleasant Valley, which she believed was a key source of traffic issues overlooked in the assessment. Councillor Tim Evans queried how many of the 245 representations were submitted by residents of Pleasant Valley, noting that 231 appeared to be identical copies, and asked whether any had originated from outside the area or abroad. He also added that while traffic issues had been brought up by the Objector, Officers had not suggested that there was any such problem in the area. Dr Cormack advised that the representations were a mix from residents of Pleasant Valley and surrounding areas, with address details provided, though confirmation of any submissions from outside the county would need to be verified by Officers. She further explained that while traffic volume on the unnamed Pleasant Valley road was low, its narrow width and sharp bends frequently caused blockages, with minor incidents often resulting in significant disruption for local residents. The Chair noted the deteriorated condition of the bird and animal enclosure areas, as well as the former Stepaside Inn, describing them as untidy. He queried what alternative vision residents had for the site, should they oppose the proposed development. Dr Cormack stated that the Bird Park and Craft Foundation had long been under the applicant’s ownership and that the deterioration was longstanding. She noted that the land could be responsibly managed without new planning consent and that residents would welcome its improvement. The surrounding woodland was described as mature, offering habitat and potential for footpath development if appropriately designed. She also added that since residential flats already occupy some of the space that she saw no reason why more could not be converted into residential flats. 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 confirmed his support for the Officer’s recommendation to refuse the application. He referenced the High Court judgment, noting the proposal represented a major departure from countryside and sustainability policies in the Local Development Plan. He questioned whether the stated economic benefits justified such a departure and highlighted concerns that approval could set a precedent for similar developments. He emphasised the scale of the scheme and cited strong local opposition, including objections from two Community Councils and the Council for the Protection of Rural Wales. • Councillor Simon Hancock sought clarification from the Head of Planning regarding the extent to which approving the application would constitute a departure from the Local Development Plan (LDP), asking whether it would represent a significant, very significant, or egregious undermining of policy. In response, the Head of Planning referred Members to the Committee report, noting that officers considered the material considerations advanced insufficient to outweigh the clear policy position. It was advised that a decision contrary to officer recommendation would be of such significance as to undermine the development plan strategy and sustainable development policy, requiring referral to Full Council for determination. • The Chair queried whether Pembrokeshire County Council, as freeholder of Heritage Park land, owned the areas proposed for the craft village and birth sanctuary. In response, the Planning Officer confirmed that, with the exception of land near and around the Stepaside Inn, the application site was understood to be within the Council’s freehold ownership, with arrangements in place to release the land for the benefit of the applicant. • The Case Officer outlined the definition of the tree classification with “A” referring to the best tree and with trees classed as “C” considered of poor quality. • Councillor Steve Alderman expressed concern that approving the application against officer advice could lead to a repeat of previous legal challenges. He stated that, in his view, no sufficiently robust justification had been presented to support the proposal and cautioned against proceeding without clear, defensible reasoning. • Councillor Tim Evans queried how the current application compared to a previous scheme [either this or delete the “a” and leave the “s” in – it’s either a scheme or schemes] approved by the Committee, asking whether it was similar in nature. In response, the Head of Planning advised that while Members had previously approved tourist accommodation developments contrary to officer recommendation and the development plan, each case must be considered on its individual merits. It was emphasised that the current proposal was materially different and that the development plan must be afforded primacy unless material considerations indicated otherwise. Members were reminded that net economic benefit could constitute a valid material consideration, but any decision contrary to policy must clearly set out the reasoning and demonstrate a balanced assessment of benefits and disbenefits, in line with the requirements highlighted by the recent High Court judgment. • The Chair queried whether the application would have been simpler to assess if submitted in separate phases, asking specifically whether the redevelopment of the Stepaside Inn, located within the settlement boundary, would have aligned with Local Development Plan policy if brought forward independently. The Head of Planning responded that it is preferable for Applicants to submit the totality of what they wish to propose, rather than smaller pieces of the development. • Councillor Steve Alderman expressed concern that the area was already saturated with holiday accommodation and questioned whether the claimed economic benefits outweighed potential disbenefits from increased competition. He cautioned that overturning the Officer’s previous decision would require strong justification, which he felt was lacking. • Councillor Tony Wilcox expressed the view that competition within the tourism sector was healthy and that market forces would determine the success of individual sites, noting that existing facilities were not always fully utilised. In response, the Planning Officer clarified that the recent High Court judgment related solely to the lawfulness of the previous decision rather than the merits of the application. • The Head of Planning added that competition was generally not a material planning consideration; however, where Members sought to advance economic benefit as a material consideration, they must also weigh any associated economic disbenefits. It was emphasised that any decision to depart from policy must demonstrate a balanced assessment of these factors. • Councillor Michael Williams emphasised that the application must be determined as submitted and not in separate parts. He expressed agreement with Councillors Hancock and Alderman, noting the scale of the proposal and the need for careful consideration. He strongly supported the officer recommendation, stressing the importance of giving due weight to professional advice and warning against being influenced by weak or speculative arguments. While acknowledging potential economic benefits, he considered these insufficient to outweigh the strong policy reasons for refusal. He also highlighted concerns regarding precedent and urged Members to support the recommendation. • Councillor Wilcox queried whether applicants, as well as objectors, had the right to appeal and whether this would incur costs for the Authority. The Head of Planning confirmed that applicants could appeal to Planning and Environment Decisions Wales, where an independent inspector would determine the matter. It was clarified that this process differed from a legal challenge by a third party. In response to a further question, it was advised that while the applicant could seek an award of costs against the Authority through the appeal process, this would only be granted if the Authority were found to have acted unreasonably. Councillor Alistair Cameron Moved the recommendation for refusal; Seconded by Councillor John Cole. 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, Brian Hall, Simon Hancock, Michael Williams and Danny Young [9] Against the Motion: CouncillorsTim Evans and Tony Wilcox [2] There were no abstentions. RESOLVED That the Application be REFUSED subject to the reasons outlined in Section 1.1 of the report [Councillor Alan Dennison left the meeting at this juncture. Councillor Chris Williams re-joined following the previous item’s conclusion.]
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED That the application be DEFERRED to November’s meeting to allow the Applicant time to negotiate on issues raised within the application. [Councillor John Cole left the meeting at this juncture.]
This application is presented for Committee consideration as it involves a full planning application for more than 30 dwellings (Appendix 1 to section 14 of the constitution) 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 - Guy Thomas Mr Thomas advised that the application was currently paused due to unresolved nitrate neutrality issues and the absence of an updated business plan. He requested that the application remain on hold to allow time for appropriate mitigation measures to be developed, noting ongoing engagement with Officers and the potential for the site to serve as a pathfinder for environmental solutions. He emphasised that no approval was being sought at this stage and urged Members not to refuse the application prematurely. Following Mr Thomas’s address, Councillor Alistair Cameron queried why the application was being considered by the Committee, noting that the Applicant appeared to request a pause and that other applications had previously been withdrawn under similar circumstances. The Head of Planning clarified that the application was brought before the Committee due to two unresolved policy issues: the lack of nitrate mitigation proposals and insufficient information to undertake a viability assessment. Unlike other paused applications, this scheme could not be held pending due to non-compliance with key planning policies. It was noted that recent correspondence had not resolved these matters and proposed on-site solutions were unlikely to address the nutrient neutrality requirements under current Welsh Government policy. Councillor Cameron then asked Mr Thomas if he wished to withdraw his application. In response, Mr Thomas confirmed that the application would not be withdrawn, stating that funding and a ready workforce were in place and emphasised the Applicant’s intention to work alongside the Council to develop localised mitigation solutions. He urged Members to allow the Application to remain active to avoid delays and inefficiencies and to support progress toward delivering new homes. The Head of Planning clarified to the Committee that applications cannot remain open indefinitely and must be determined when key policy issues remain unresolved. In this case, refusal was recommended due to the absence of nitrate mitigation measures and insufficient viability information. While Officers aim to work constructively with applicants, no commitment had been received to undertake an independent viability assessment, and recent mitigation proposals had only just been introduced, leaving insufficient time for consideration. The Head of Planning further advised that Members must either move the recommendation for refusal or consider deferral, subject to the Applicant committing to provide viability information and explore nutrient mitigation measures within a set timeframe. She cautioned that approval could not be considered lawful at this stage due to the absence of a Habitat Regulations Assessment. Councillor Brian Hall Moved that the application be deferred to the November meeting of the Planning Committee to allow the Applicant time to negotiate further with the Planning Officers; Seconded by Councillor Simon Hancock. 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, Simon Hancock, Tony Wilcox, Chris Williams, Michael Williams and Danny Young [12] There were no votes against or abstentions. RESOLVED That the application be DEFERRED to November’s meeting to allow the Applicant time to negotiate on issues raised within the application. [Councillor John Cole left the meeting at this juncture.]
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED That the Application be APPROVED subject to the reasons outlined in Section 1.1 of the report
This application is for consideration by the Planning Committee because the application is contrary to a policy of the development plan but is being recommended for approval (appendix 1 to section 14 of the constitution). The Committee was advised that there were no public speakers in attendance at the meeting and the Committee proceeded to the debate. Councillor John Davies expressed strong support for the application, commending the Planning Officer’s balanced and thorough report. He stated that the proposal would benefit Crymych by supporting existing businesses, creating employment opportunities and meeting demand for property in a thriving village with no vacant premises. He confirmed his intention to support 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 Davies, Tim Evans, Brian Hall, Simon Hancock, Tony Wilcox, Chris Williams, Michael Williams and Danny Young [11] There were no votes against or abstentions. RESOLVED That the Application be APPROVED subject to the reasons outlined in Section 1.1 of the report
This application was formally withdrawn from the agenda at the request of the Applicant.
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.