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.
RESOLVED That the Application be APPROVED subject to the reasons outlined in Section 1.1 of the report. [The meeting adjourned for a short break at 12:05 and reconvened at 12:21]
RESOLVED That the application be deferred to allow a site visit to be undertaken.
RESOLVED That the Application be APPROVED subject to the reasons outlined in Section 1.1 of the report. [Councillor Tony Wilcox rejoined the meeting following the item’s conclusion.]
RESOLVED That the Application be APPROVED subject to the reasons outlined in Section 1.1 of the report.
RESOLVED That the Application be APPROVED subject to the reasons outlined in Section 1.1 of the report.
RESOLVED That the Application be APPROVED subject to the reasons outlined in Section 1.1 of the report. [Councillor John Davies 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: Changes to the Committee following the meeting of Full Council in October 2025 such as: • Councillor Jordan Ryan rejoined the Planning Committee as an Unaffiliated Member. • Councillor Alistair Cameron stepped down from the Committee and Alec Cormack replaced him as the Welsh Liberal Democrat representative. The Chair thanked Councillor Cameron for his time on the Committee. • Councillor Rhys Jordan has stepped down from the Committee for six months due to work commitments and has been replaced by Councillor Nick Neumann. • Ceri Jones, Senior Planning Officer, was noted to be presenting his last reports to the Planning Committee at the meeting after being with the Authority for 21 years. The Chair expressed thanks for his work in the Planning Department and wished him well in his next position. The Chair provided a verbal update regarding Planning Application 23/0986/PA – for a replacement holiday lodge building and drainage upgrade works at Stoneditch Stables, Providence Hill, Narberth, which was approved at Planning Committee on 3rd December 2024 subject to a section 106 legal agreement for no benefit to be taken from a certificate of existing lawfulness. The legal agreement was completed on 7th October 2025 and the decision was issued on 29th October.
Item 6 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 the applicant. Item 7 Planning Application No. 25/0241/PA - Sarnau Farm, Trelech, SA33 6RP Councillor Steve Alderman declared a personal interest by virtue of knowing the applicant. Item 9 Planning Application No. 25/0382/PA – Awel Deg, Milton Terrace, Pembroke Dock, SA72 6BJ Councillor Tony Wilcox declared a personal and prejudicial interest by virtue of his son being the applicant. Item 13 Planning Application No. 25/0402/PA – Cresselly Cricket Club, Cresselly, Kilgetty, SA68 0SP Councillor Steve Alderman declared a personal interest by virtue of being a lifelong member of Bosherston and Stackpole Cricket Club.
Moved by Councillor Mark Carter; 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 7 October 2025 be approved as a correct record. Councillors Alec Cormack and Nick Neumann abstained from the vote as they did not attend the previous meeting.
• Councillor Iwan Ward for Item 7, Planning Application No. 25/0241/PA (Remote) • Councillor Pat Davies for Item 8, Planning Application No. 25/0351/PA (In person)
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED That the Application be REFUSED subject to the reasons outlined in Section 1.1 of the report.
This application was presented for Committee consideration as it involved a full planning application for more than 30 dwellings (appendix 1 to section 14 of the Constitution). The application had been deferred at the Planning Committee meeting of 7 October 2025 to allow the Applicant time to negotiate on issues raised within the application. The Chief 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: Agent - Guy Thomas. Mr Thomas provided an update on the paused application, explaining that the scheme had been deferred previously to allow the applicant to expand on nitrate neutrality proposals, which had since been circulated following initial discussions with Natural Resources Wales, farming tenants and the Pembrokeshire Coastal Forum. Mr Thomas confirmed that viability work had commenced but could not be finalised until remediation methods, timeframes and costs were agreed, noting that the District Valuer would require a complete study before Section 106 negotiations could proceed. He emphasised that no approval was sought at this stage and reiterated the applicant’s willingness to meet obligations once independent assessments were complete. Mr Thomas also expressed concern that the application appeared to be treated differently from others affected by the nitrate embargo and urged Members to allow the application to remain paused to enable delivery of 50 homes, including affordable units, and to progress environmental improvements. Councillor Alec Cormack asked whether the applicant had complied with the previous deferral conditions by providing viability information and exploring nutrient mitigation within a set timeframe. He suggested a provisional analysis could assist Officers. Mr Thomas confirmed technical data had been submitted but stated a fixed timescale was not possible due to external dependencies. He explained that while a formula had been outlined, producing a time-specific report would be impractical given current uncertainties. Councillor Tony Wilcox queried whether the commitment to provide five affordable bungalows under Section 106 was fixed or subject to future viability review. In response, Mr Thomas stated that the applicant was working towards delivering the units but highlighted significant cost implications, estimating a deficit of approximately £150,000 per property, alongside additional late requests from Education and Highways. He confirmed that while the intention remained to prioritise affordable housing, no categorical assurance could be given until viability assessments were complete. Councillor Wilcox acknowledged the explanation, noting the financial challenges and observing that the Affordable Housing Guarantee would assist but could not be confirmed at this stage. The Committee proceeded to discuss the application and the key points were noted as follows: • Councillor Brian Hall expressed support for the application and concern over delays, noting potential workforce impacts and reiterating his preference for deferral rather than refusal. He suggested approval if possible but acknowledged the applicant sought further time. The Chief Planning Officer clarified that the applicant requested an indefinite pause pending resolution of nitrate mitigation, which could extend for many months, rather than a short deferral. • Councillor Alec Cormack asked whether the application was being treated differently from other cases affected by nutrient neutrality. The Chief Planning Officer confirmed this was not the case, explaining that applications acceptable in all other respects were paused, whereas those with additional unresolved issues, such as viability and Section 106 obligations, were recommended for refusal. He outlined the risks of prolonged pauses, including appeals for non-determination and fee refunds, and noted that refusal allows resubmission within 12 months. Councillor Cormack indicated he was minded to support the recommendation, given the applicant’s inability to confirm Section 106 commitments. • Councillor Alan Dennison expressed concern over the applicant’s non-commitment to Section 106 obligations and the number of unresolved issues. He stated he could not support the application given these uncertainties and noted that approving the scheme would be unlawful, confirming his intention to vote with the officer recommendation. • Councillor Simon Hancock stated that repeatedly deferring the application was not a good use of Committee time and highlighted fundamental issues, including the absence of a planning obligation and unresolved nitrate mitigation. While expressing sympathy for the applicant, he stressed that approval was not possible and confirmed his opposition to further deferral, supporting refusal as recommended. Councillor Simon Hancock Moved the recommendation for refusal; 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 Mark Carter, Alec Cormack, John Davies, Alan Dennison, Tim Evans, Simon Hancock, Nick Neumann, Tony Wilcox, Chris Williams, Michael Williams and Danny Young [11] Against the Motion: Councillor Brian Hall [1] Abstentions: Councillor Steve Alderman [1] RESOLVED That the Application be REFUSED subject to the reasons outlined in Section 1.1 of the report.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED That the Application be APPROVED subject to the reasons outlined in Section 1.1 of the report. [The meeting adjourned for a short break at 12:05 and reconvened at 12:21]
This application was presented for Committee consideration as the application was for a wind turbine over 30 metres in overall height to blade tip (Appendix 1 to section 14 of the 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: • Richard Grist – Agent • Wyn Thomas – Objector • Councillor Iwan Ward – Local Member The Chair then invited questions from Members to the Agent. Councillor Alan Dennison asked what benefits the local community would gain from the proposed increase in turbine size. Mr Grist advised that the primary benefit was contributing to national renewable energy and decarbonisation targets. He explained that small, single-turbine schemes typically do not provide formal community benefits due to their scale, though discussions with the Community Council had offered opportunities for minor sponsorship, which were not taken up. Mr. Grist also confirmed following a query from Councillor Tony Wilcox regarding visibility, that the turbine height had been reduced following an objection from the Met Office, resulting in only a minimal increase compared to the existing structure and reducing wider landscape visibility. Councillor Alec Cormack asked for the projected increase in annual energy output and the expected noise levels at the nearest properties. Mr. Grist advised that noise would comply with ETSU standards and is generally masked by wind at higher speeds, though characteristics differ from the existing turbine. He confirmed that output was anticipated to increase by at least 66%, and likely double, subject to wind conditions and maintenance. Councillor Nick Neumann queried how efficiency gains would arise given the new turbine shares the same 225kW capacity and asked about depreciation cycles. Mr. Grist explained that while maximum export capacity remains unchanged, the new turbine would achieve this output more frequently due to improved technology and larger rotor blades, increasing generation by capturing more wind. He confirmed the lifespan remains similar, with older turbines re-purposed or used for parts rather than scrapped. The Chair then invited questions from Members to the Objector. Councillor Alan Dennison sought clarification on whether any financial assistance had been offered to the Community Council. Mr. Thomas confirmed that no formal assistance had been provided, though a one-off contribution was made by the applicant’s representative in the form of football kit sponsorship for the local team. Councillor Tim Evans asked whether the original turbine installation had affected the water supply and raised concerns about potential contamination from the new turbine’s concrete base. Mr. Thomas confirmed no issues occurred previously but noted that the existing turbine’s foundation hole filled with water during excavation, indicating groundwater presence. He expressed concern that a larger, deeper base could allow concrete leachates to reach a nearby borehole, which supplies properties without mains water. Councillor Evans further inquired whether noise concerns had been reported to Public Protection. Mr. Thomas confirmed that complaints were logged via the Council’s app but noted the case was closed due to time limits, as the original planning consent exceeded ten years. He explained that nuisance noise occurs mainly at night and expressed concern about the impact on future holiday accommodation near the turbine. The Local Member, Councillor Iwan Ward, was asked to provide his representations on the application. Speaking against the proposal, citing concerns over scale, visual and residential amenity impacts, and lack of meaningful local benefit, Councillor Ward highlighted the significant increase in turbine size, potential effects on private water supplies, and cumulative landscape impact. He noted that financial returns would leave Pembrokeshire and warned of setting a precedent for industrialisation of rural areas. While supporting renewable energy in principle, he urged refusal on grounds of disproportionate impact and insufficient community benefit. Councillor Tony Wilcox queried whether turbine operating hours could be restricted overnight to protect residential amenity. Councillor Iwan Ward agreed this could be considered and noted concerns about misinformation regarding complaint processes, adding that local properties are permanent homes and some are being converted for tourism use. Councillor Alan Dennison raised potential negative impacts on tourism and questioned road suitability for construction traffic. Councillor Ward confirmed tourism is vital to the area and expressed concern over rural road conditions, noting they are narrow and unsuitable for heavy vehicles. The Committee proceeded to discuss the application and the key points were noted as follows: • Councillor Tim Evans asked whether a condition could require removal of the existing turbine base when the new turbine is installed, citing concerns over watercourses. The Planning Officer advised that such a condition would likely be considered unreasonable and disproportionate, as foundations are typically retained where removal is impractical. The Chief Planning Officer added that the current turbine permission includes a requirement for removal of the structure if inactive, but not its below-ground base, as this does not create visual impact. • The Chair clarified for the Committee that it was confirmed that the existing turbine has approximately 15 years remaining on its 25-year permission, meaning it could continue operating if the current application is refused. • Councillor Nick Neumann queried the duration of consent for the proposed turbine and whether neighbouring authorities had been consulted. The Planning Officer confirmed the application sought a 25-year operational period from the date of consent and advised that Carmarthenshire County Council was consulted but did not respond. Welsh Government raised no objection regarding highway access for heavy equipment. • Councillor Alec Cormack asked whether an independent noise report submitted by the objector had been published and fully addressed and sought confirmation on compliance with Welsh Government guidance. The Planning Officer confirmed the report was available online, reviewed by Public Protection, and that officers were satisfied there would be no significant adverse impact. He added that the turbine’s distance from dwellings (approximately 430m) met ETSU-based standards, with expected noise levels below 35 decibels. • The Chief Planning Officer clarified that the objector’s independent noise report was not published online at their request but was reviewed by Pollution Control. Despite its findings, officers concluded the proposal complied with ETSU noise standards. • Councillor John Davies sought clarification on landscape value and noted nearby features, including another turbine and a scrapyard. He reiterated support for renewable energy but stressed the need to balance climate goals with local impacts. He also queried whether the proposed turbine would generate business rates for Pembrokeshire. The Planning Officer advised that the site’s landscape aspects are mostly moderate in value, with cultural landscape rated high. Cumulative impact was assessed as limited, and no objections were raised by Natural Resources Wales, the National Park, or the Council’s landscape officer. He also noted that business rates are not a material planning consideration. • Councillor Simon Hancock asked whether individual health impacts raised by the objector could be considered a material planning factor. The Chief Planning Officer advised that planning decisions are made in the public interest, considering impacts on general health rather than private circumstances. Individual concerns fall under civil matters rather than planning policy. • The Chief Planning Officer advised that while community benefit is encouraged by planning guidance, it is not a requirement and should not determine the outcome of an application. Proposals must be assessed on planning merits, with any additional benefit considered only as a supporting factor. Councillor Alec Cormack Moved the recommendation for approval; Seconded by Councillor Mark Carter. The vote, undertaken by way of a roll call, was carried. The votes were recorded as follows: For the Motion: Councillors Mark Carter, Alec Cormack, John Davies, Tim Evans, Brian Hall, Simon Hancock, Nick Neumann, Tony Wilcox, Chris Williams, Michael Williams and Danny Young [11] Against the Motion: Councillor Alan Dennison [1] Abstentions: Councillor Steve Alderman [1] RESOLVED That the Application be APPROVED subject to the reasons outlined in Section 1.1 of the report. [The meeting adjourned for a short break at 12:05 and reconvened at 12:21]
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED That the application be deferred to allow a site visit to be undertaken.
This application was presented for consideration by the Planning Committee as the Director of Place and Assistant Chief Executive had exercised his discretion to remove it from the scheme of delegation following a request by the Local Member. The ground for referral relates 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 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: • Philippa Rees – Applicant • Shirley Devonald – Objector • Councillor Jim Morgan – Fishguard Town Council Member • Councillor Pat Davies – Local Member Following Ms. Rees’ address, Councillor Nick Neumann queried the scale of the proposed battery storage unit, asking how many homes could be powered and the expected operational lifetime. In response, Ms. Rees advised that the unit could supply energy equivalent to powering 200 homes for four hours. The investment was planned over a 30-year period, with battery cells replaced mid-term to maintain performance, while the main infrastructure would remain in place. At the end of the lease, the site would be fully decommissioned. Ms. Rees confirmed that all batteries would be recycled in accordance with supplier agreements. Councillor Tim Evans asked where electricity for the battery unit would be sourced from and why smaller sites were needed. Ms. Rees confirmed power comes from the national grid, storing surplus renewable energy for peak demand. Smaller sites connect to low-voltage networks, boosting local capacity without major infrastructure upgrades. She noted the first Pembrokeshire site began construction in Milford Haven the previous day. Ms. Rees clarified during a later discussion that she meant Withybush Industrial Estate, not Milford Haven. Councillor Tony Wilcox queried the prevalence of similar schemes nationally and locally, asking whether any had been refused in Pembrokeshire and whether sites were located on Pembrokeshire County Council (PCC) land. In response, Ms. Rees confirmed that while six planning consents exist in Pembrokeshire, none have been approved to date, and the current proposal is the only one referred to Committee. She advised that one scheme recently commenced on a private site at Withybush Industrial Estate, with others situated on PCC-owned land. The proposed unit measures approximately 25m² with a height of just over 2 metres. Councillor Alec Cormack asked about fire risk, Ms. Rees confirmed incidents are extremely rare, with 24/7 monitoring and stable lithium iron phosphate batteries. In the unlikely event of a fire, it would be small and managed as a short, controlled burn. Councillor Alan Dennison asked why fire suppression was not included and where the batteries are manufactured. Ms. Rees confirmed each site has an emergency response plan and small-scale suppression due to the limited size of units. Batteries are sourced from China, but the system is managed by a UK company under National Wealth Fund oversight to ensure security. Ms. Rees confirmed that an independent carbon lifecycle assessment by SLR Consulting estimated 160 tonnes of carbon, covering material sourcing, production, shipping, and decommissioning. In response to Councillor Dennison, she noted due diligence formed part of contractual arrangements under National Wealth Fund oversight. The Chair then invited questions to be asked to the Objector. Councillor Alec Cormack asked about proximity to the nearest house. Mrs. Devonald stated the boundary hedge was about eight feet from Bryn Y Mor Lane, which is narrow. The Planning Officer clarified there is approximately a 10-metre gap between the property’s external wall and the proposed site, which had been fully assessed. The Chair then invited the Member of Fishguard Town Council to speak. Councillor Morgan outlined objections based on visual impact and potential noise, requesting clarity on noise levels at nearby properties. Fire risk was also raised, particularly concerning pupil safety at the adjacent school, though reassurances were noted. The Council queried whether any community benefits were proposed given the site’s proximity to the school. The Local Member for Fishguard North West, Councillor Pat Davies, opposed the application, citing strong public interest and safeguarding concerns. She explained the proposal was referred to Committee following significant local objections, including from parents, the school, and the Town Council. While supportive of battery storage in principle, she argued that the unit’s siting on a school car park was inappropriate and should be located in an industrial area. She highlighted proximity to school and leisure facilities, insufficient time for the governing body to consider implications, and referenced a similar application refused in Monkton on design and visual grounds. Councillor Davies urged Members to refuse the application or consider a site visit. Councillor Tony Wilcox confirmed concerns were about location rather than the principle of energy storage. Councillor Davies agreed, citing safety risks near a school, including fire concerns and children accessing the site. Both Members stressed the unit should be sited in an industrial area, not on a school car park. Councillor Chris Williams raised concerns about limited public consultation, asking whether the location was properly considered and if schools and residents were engaged. Councillor Pat Davies confirmed notices were issued and the Town Council discussed and opposed the application, but schools were not directly consulted and learned of it informally. She noted the site was expected to be on industrial land, away from homes and schools. The Committee proceeded to discuss the application and the key points were noted as follows: • Councillor Tony Wilcox stated that, while he acknowledged the merits of a site visit, he was minded to refuse the application based solely on its location. • Councillor Brian Hall proposed a site visit before determining the application, citing concerns about safety and legality if approved without further assessment. He suggested deferring the decision until Members had viewed the site and could reach an informed conclusion. • Councillor Tony Wilcox sought clarification on whether a similar scheme in Monkton had been refused. The Chief Planning Officer confirmed there was no refusal, only a pre-application inquiry. The proposal was discouraged due to its location within a conservation area, where policy requires a neutral or positive impact on character. He also outlined the Planning Delegation Panel process, explaining that the Assistant Chief Executive may bypass the panel under delegated powers if criteria are met. • Councillor Nick Neumann queried whether a condition requiring site clearance after 30 years should be included and asked for clarification on the matter. The Chief Planning Officer advised this was unnecessary as the Council owns the land and the lease requires full decommissioning. Councillor Neumann expressed support for renewables but felt the location was unsuitable given nearby residential amenities and hoped the site visit would clarify concerns. Councillor Brian Hall Moved that a site visit be undertaken to enable the Committee to gain a clear understanding of the site; Seconded by Councillor Danny Young. 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, Alec Cormack, John Davies, Tim Evans, Brian Hall, Simon Hancock, Nick Neumann and Danny Young [9] Against the Motion: Councillor Alan Dennison, Tony Wilcox, Chris Williams and Michael Williams [4] There were no abstentions. RESOLVED That the application be deferred to allow a site visit to be undertaken.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED That the Application be APPROVED subject to the reasons outlined in Section 1.1 of the report. [Councillor Tony Wilcox rejoined the meeting following the item’s conclusion.]
[Councillor Tony Wilcox left the meeting due to his personal and prejudicial interest declared at the start of the meeting.] This application was presented for Committee consideration as it had been made by a close family member of a Local Councillor (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 and the Committee proceeded to the debate. No questions were asked but Councillors Brian Hall, Alan Dennison and Tim Evans vocalised their support for the application. Councillor Brian Hall Moved the recommendation for approval; 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, Mark Carter, Alec Cormack, John Davies, Alan Dennison, Tim Evans, Brian Hall, Simon Hancock, Nick Neumann, Chris Williams, Michael Williams and Danny Young [12] 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. [Councillor Tony Wilcox rejoined the meeting following the item’s conclusion.]
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED That the Application be APPROVED subject to the reasons outlined in Section 1.1 of the report.
This section 73 application was presented for Committee consideration as it involved the proposed variation of condition 2 (approved plans) attached to planning permission 21/0014/PA that was approved contrary to the provisions of the Pembrokeshire Local Development Plan (2013) and against Officer recommendation (Appendix 1 to section 14 of the Constitution). 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: • Lewis Davies – Applicant The Chair then invited questions from Members to the Applicant. Councillor Alan Dennison expressed support for the application, describing Heatherton as a key Pembrokeshire enterprise. He asked what impact refusal would have. Mr. Davies explained that the amendment was a minor design change to previously approved plans, adding a balcony to improve views and upstairs use. Construction began two to three years ago and remains incomplete; the change is needed to allow progress at a sustainable pace for the business. The Local Member for St Florence and St Mary Out Liberty, Councillor Rhys Jordan, expressed support for the application, noting that no objections had been received from residents or the Community Council. It was highlighted that the applicants are a well-known local family who provide a high-quality, year-round tourism offer, which was considered essential to sustaining the visitor economy. Councillor Brian Hall Moved the recommendation for approval; Seconded by Councillor Chris Williams. 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, Alec Cormack, John Davies, Alan Dennison, Tim Evans, Brian Hall, Simon Hancock, Nick Neumann, Tony Wilcox, Chris Williams, Michael Williams and Danny Young [13] 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.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED That the Application be APPROVED subject to the reasons outlined in Section 1.1 of the report.
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 Constitution). 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: • Andrew Vaughan-Harries – Agent The Chair then invited questions from Members to the Agent. Councillor Tim Evans queried the need for a large shed on a 25-acre holding. Mr. Vaughan-Harries explained that the applicant lost a substantial polytunnel in a recent storm, reducing storage capacity. The shed is intended to house essential equipment and provide welfare for livestock and the farmer. Councillor Alec Cormack Moved the recommendation for approval; Seconded by Councillor Brian Hall. The vote, undertaken by way of a roll call, was carried. The votes were recorded as follows: For the Motion: Councillors Mark Carter, Alec Cormack, John Davies, Alan Dennison, Tim Evans, Brian Hall, Simon Hancock, Nick Neumann, Tony Wilcox, Chris Williams, Michael Williams and Danny Young [12] Abstentions: Councillor Steve Alderman [1] There were no votes against. RESOLVED That the Application be APPROVED subject to the reasons outlined in Section 1.1 of the report.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED That the Application be APPROVED subject to the reasons outlined in Section 1.1 of the report. [Councillor John Davies left the meeting at this juncture.]
This application was presented for Committee consideration as it was being recommended for approval contrary to policies of the Local Development Plan (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 and the Committee proceeded to the debate. Councillor Alan Dennison sought clarification on the basis for applying the sui generis classification to the proposal. In response, the Chief Planning Officer explained that sui generis refers to uses with unique characteristics that do not fall within a defined use class. While hairdressers are classified under Class A1 retail and can operate without planning consent in former car showrooms, beauty salons are treated as sui generis due to the broader range of services offered, such as nail treatments and other activities that generate higher customer flows. It was noted that although beauty salons would not normally comply with policy, the similarity to hairdressers, permitted under fallback rights, meant refusal would not be justified, and the change would represent only a minor departure. Councillor Brian Hall Moved the recommendation for approval; 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, Mark Carter, Alec Cormack, John Davies, Alan Dennison, Tim Evans, Brian Hall, Simon Hancock, Nick Neumann, Tony Wilcox, Chris Williams, Michael Williams and Danny Young [13] 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. [Councillor John Davies 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 was presented for Committee consideration as it comprised a leisure development over 0.5 hectares in area (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 and the Committee proceeded to the debate. Councillor Alan Dennison Moved the recommendation for approval; Seconded by Councillor Chris Williams. 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, Alec Cormack, Alan Dennison, Tim Evans, Brian Hall, Simon Hancock, Nick Neumann, Tony Wilcox, Chris Williams, Michael Williams and Danny Young [12] 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.
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.