Loading
The decisions as the council's minutes record them. A plain-language summary follows once it has been written.
RESOLVED That the application be APPROVED subject to the conditions outlined in Section 1.1 of the report. [Councillor Jordan Ryan joined the meeting at this juncture.]
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. [At 11:41am the meeting adjourned and recommenced at 11:55 am.]
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 application be APPROVED subject to the conditions outlined in Section 1.1 of the report. [Councillor John Cole 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 Chair made the following announcements: (a) Democratic and Scrutiny Services Officer – the Chair advised that Jackie Thomas was indisposed and sent her best wishes for a speedy recovery and took the opportunity to thank Kate Matthews for the hard work she had done in covering for Jackie. (b) Planning Application 20/0117/PA for a proposed detached dwelling with vehicular access and two detached dwellings with all matters reserved except vehicular access and scale at land East of Ty Gwyn (Y Bwthyn), Hayscastle Cross which was reported to the Planning Committee of 3 June 2025 had been conditionally approved on 4 June 2025. (c) Planning Application 24/1085/PA for a proposed four-bedroom dwelling at Vilja Lodge, Llandissilio which was reported to the Planning Committee of 3 June 2025 had been conditionally approved on 3 June 2025. (d) Planning Application 25/0119/PA for the variation of Condition 2 (approved plans) of planning permission 22/0978/PA to change garage / golf practice area to garden room) which was reported to the Planning Committee of 1 July 2025 had been conditionally approved on 3 July 2025. The Chair then invited the Head of Planning to provide an update on the position relating to applications in marine protected sites and she read out the following statement: “At the previous Planning Committee Meeting of 1 July 2025, the Committee was advised of the publication of information in respect of marine protected sites by NRW which found them to be in an unfavourable condition due to excess levels of nutrients affecting water quality. The Committee was advised that two applications had been removed from the meeting agenda as the Local Planning Authority (LPA) did not have sufficient or robust information at that time to be able to undertake or update the required assessment under the Habitats Regulations to conclude that the proposed developments would have no adverse effect on site integrity. In response to the NRW publication and following legal advice, the Local Planning Authority has since taken the difficult decision to pause on determining applications for development which would result in an increase in nutrient levels discharging into those marine protected areas pending further information and guidance from NRW, an approach which is consistent with other affected local authorities. Assurance was given to LPA’s that lessons had been learnt from the introduction by NRW of phosphate guidance for riverine protected areas which at the time had the effect of stalling development in West Wales. It is extremely disappointing that NRW have released the baseline condition information without associated planning guidance and that this information was released in a piecemeal way. This marine issue is a far more challenging position for LPAs to grapple with. Pembrokeshire County Council recognises the potential impact that this will have on development within their planning area and the wider economic and social impacts to taking this approach. I wish to assure Committee Members and the public that officers are committed to finding a way forward for the delivery of development within the County and in this vein we are in the process of seeking further legal advice and are working collectively with other affected authorities and relevant organisations to address the issue. Officers continue to raise awareness of this issue with Welsh Government officials and our Cabinet Member, along with other Cabinet leads for affected authorities, has sent a letter to the Welsh Ministers, with the matter recently raised within the Senedd. Most recently, NRW have released more detailed information and guidance to Local Planning Authorities on this matter which is welcomed. Officers are currently digesting the content of this information and guidance and will hope to be able to provide a more definitive position on the processing and determination of affected planning applications within its planning area within the next couple of weeks and further information would follow in due course.” On a point of clarification, the Head of Planning advised that a supplementary screening document taking into account the Habitat Regulations Assessment has been provided for those applications which have been brought before the Committee today. She advised that those applications were being brought forward for determination as the development does not lead to a net increase in foul discharge and the current issues affecting the NRW marine protected areas do not apply in those applications. In response to a question from Councillor John Davies on whether a consistent approach was being applied across neighbouring authorities, the Head of Planning confirmed that the Authority’s process for dealing with applications was consistent with neighbouring Authorities who are also affected, such as the National Park Authority and Carmarthenshire County Council. However, in terms of Ceredigion County Council, she advised that it was less impacted. She confirmed that Officers were meeting regularly with neighbouring authorities that were affected to ensure awareness of each other’s positions and in order to maintain consistency across the region. It was noted that those affected applications were being paused in other areas where they would have the potential to increase foul flows into marine protected areas pending further information. By way of an update to her statement, the Head of Planning advised that further information had been received from NRW explaining that there is potentially a way forward in terms of identifying which are the critical areas and whether there is an opportunity to release and free up development in areas where flows were not failing.
The following declarations were made: Item 9: Planning Application No.18/0181/PA - Land east of Llandigwynett, Sageston, Tenby, Pembrokeshire, SA70 8SD Councillor Steve Alderman declared a personal and prejudicial interest by virtue of being involved in business dealings over the last 20 years.
Moved by Councillor Alistair Cameron; Seconded by Councillor Dr Simon Hancock The vote, undertaken by way of a show of hands, was carried. RESOLVED That the Minutes of the meeting held on 1 July 2025 be approved as a correct record, in both English and Welsh.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED That the application be APPROVED subject to the conditions outlined in Section 1.1 of the report. [Councillor Jordan Ryan joined the meeting at this juncture.]
This application was presented for Committee consideration as it had been submitted by a close family member of a Member of the Council (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. Approval of the application was then Moved by Councillor Brian Hall; Seconded by Councillor Alistair Cameron. The Committee then debated the application. Councillor Steve Alderman advised that he considered the amendments to be more visually acceptable to the street scene. 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, 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 conditions outlined in Section 1.1 of the report. [Councillor Jordan Ryan joined 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.
This application was presented for Committee consideration as it involved a development contrary to a policy of the Development Plan but which is being recommended for approval (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. Approval of the application was then Moved by Councillor Brian Hall; Seconded by Councillor Dr Simon Hancock. On a point of clarification from Councillor Dr Simon Hancock on the construction of the other four units, the Planning Officer confirmed that they would require a further planning application to amend their use. Councillor Chris Williams sought clarification on the maximum number of days the dwellings could be occupied. In response, the Planning Officer advised that the units would be subject to a standard occupancy condition for holiday accommodation restricting the amount of time they could be occupied and that they could not be used as a main dwelling. The Chief Planning Officer then explained that Welsh Government had changed the use classification for short-term lets and this application was for a short-term let under the new classification order which permitted a maximum stay of 31 days. 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, 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 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. [At 11:41am the meeting adjourned and recommenced at 11:55 am.]
[During the debate on this item of business, Councillors Alan Dennison and John Cole declared a personal interest by virtue of owning motorhomes.] This application was presented for Committee consideration as it involved a development contrary to a policy of the Development Plan but which is being recommended for approval (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. Approval of the application was then Moved by Councillor John Cole; Seconded by Councillor Brian Hall. Councillor John Cole stated that he supported the trial, noting the prevalence of motorhomes parking in lay-bys due to the lack of suitable sites. He believed the trial would address the needs of one-night stays and reduce illegal camping. ? Councillor Alan Dennison raised concerns about the lack of clarity in the Management Plan around caravans. ? However, he stated that he supported the trial, acknowledging that motorhomes would park regardless, and this proposal provided a way to regulate and charge for it. ? In response, the Chief Planning Officer stated that the green area displayed in the presentation highlighted the grass space for the wildflower meadow. He confirmed that the application would cover any motorised van, not including static caravans. Councillor Chris Williams asked about the impact of the proposal on local sports clubs using the car park. ? He expressed general agreement with the trial. ?In response, the Chief Planning Officer pointed out that the application was for a temporary period. Councillor Tim Evans stated that he supported the trial, emphasizing its benefits for the local economy and the need for overnight stops similar to those in Europe. ? He also asked about enforcement for motorhomes parked but not slept in. ? Councillor Steve Alderman raised concerns about enforcement, signage, and potential issues such as fires and abuse of officers during enforcement. Councillor Alistair Cameron asked for clarification on flood risks and how users would be informed. ? He stated that he supported the trial, noting its potential economic benefits and the ability to make adjustments if issues arise. The Head of Planning advised that the application was in a flood zone but the application had been assessed accordingly. Councillor Jordan Ryan questioned how community events in the car park would be managed. ? He also expressed concerns about future flooding risks. ? Councillor Tony Wilcox asked about enforcement of illegal camping in lay-bys and other areas. ? He also raised concerns about spacing between motorhomes and whether regulations would apply. ? Councillor Simon Hancock asked about the provision of bins and lighting on the site. ? He also questioned the impact on the Port’s operations if the car park is needed for freight overflow. ? Councillor Brian Hall stated that he supported the trial, noting the long-standing use of the car park by motorhomes waiting for the ferry. Councillor Mark Carter expressed concern with the application due to the lack of clarity on the Management Plan and the absence of a specified number of motorhomes allowed. He also raised concerns about noise enforcement and the inability of Pollution Control to act. ? The Public Realm Manager clarified the operational details, including existing bins, enforcement, and the lack of designated bays. ? He emphasized that the trial’s purpose was to gather data and address current demand. The Chief Planning Officer explained the flood risk assessment and clarified that the site does not require a caravan site licence. He also addressed concerns about noise enforcement and the role of the parking team in managing complaints. ? The Head of Planning confirmed that the Management Plan was publicly available online but acknowledged that Members may not have reviewed it. ? She also clarified the distinction between the car park use and a caravan site licence. The vote, undertaken by way of a roll-call, was carried. The votes were recorded as follows: For the Motion: Councillors Alistair Cameron, John Cole, John Davies, Alan Dennison, Tim Evans, Brian Hall, Dr Simon Hancock, Tony Wilcox, Chris Williams, Michael Williams and Danny Young [11] Abstentions: Councillors Steve Alderman, Mark Carter and Jordan Ryan [3] There were no votes against. RESOLVED That the application be APPROVED subject to the conditions outlined in Section 1.1 of the report. [At 11:41am the meeting adjourned and recommenced at 11:55 am.]
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED That the application be APPROVED subject to the conditions outlined in Section 1.1 of the report.
[Having previously declared a personal and prejudicial interest in this item of business, Councillor Steve Alderman withdrew from the meeting.] This application was presented for Committee consideration as a previous application had been approved following Committee consideration in March 2017 (Planning ref 13/1079/PA) for the construction of an earth bank nutrient storage lagoon. The current proposal is a Section 73 application to vary conditions 2 (liner) and 3 (structural stability) of the original permission (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. Approval of the application was then Moved by Councillor Brian Hall; Seconded by Councillor Danny Young. Councillor Cameron sought clarification on the advice from NRW and queried whether NRW found the current situation acceptable despite their initial advice. ? The Planning Officer mentioned that the lagoon had been in place since 2018, and there have been no reports of discharge, making it unreasonable to enforce compliance with newer regulations. ? He summarized that the lagoon is working now, and requiring a 1 metre deep lining would be unreasonable. ? The Chair referred to the development having a long history. ?In response, the Chief Planning Officer stated that the site was initially a retrospective application covered by SAFFO regulations. ? NRW did not inspect the development before or after the slurry lagoon was installed. ? The Planning Authority imposed a condition requiring a membrane installation, but the developer delayed compliance. ? New regulations have since increased standards, but he stated it would be wrong to impose current standards on a development from that time. ? He further stated that the lagoon eventually secured the required half-metre clay lining, and NRW has the authority to act if pollution concerns arise. 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, Dr Simon Hancock, Jordan Ryan, 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 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.
This application was presented for Committee consideration as it involved a development contrary to a policy of the Development Plan but which is being recommended for approval (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. Approval of the application was then Moved by Councillor Brian Hall; Seconded by Councillor Alistair Cameron 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, Chris Williams, Michael Williams and Danny Young [14] There were no votes against or abstentions. RESOLVED That the application be APPROVED subject to the conditions outlined in Section 1.1 of the report.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED That the application be APPROVED subject to the conditions outlined in Section 1.1 of the report. [Councillor John Cole left the meeting at this juncture.]
This application was presented for Committee consideration as it involved a development contrary to a policy of the Development Plan but which is being recommended for approval (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. Approval of the application was then Moved by Councillor Brian Hall; Seconded by Councillor Steve Alderman. 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, Chris Williams, Michael Williams and Danny Young [14] There were no votes against or abstentions. RESOLVED That the application be APPROVED subject to the conditions outlined in Section 1.1 of the report. [Councillor John Cole 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.
This application was presented for Committee consideration as it involved a development contrary to a policy of the Development Plan but which is being recommended for approval (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. Approval of the application was then Moved by Councillor Brian Hall; Seconded by Councillor Alan Dennison. Councillor Jordan Ryan questioned why a house was demolished and rebuilt without prior permission. He suggested there should be penalties for proceeding without approval and implied that allowing retrospective applications undermined the process. In response, the Chair confirmed that retrospective applications were treated the same as standard ones. The Chief Planning Officer pointed out that retrospective applications carry risk for the applicant; and if refused, they must undo the work. In this case, he stated that the original plan involved major alterations, which led to structural issues and Building Control had deemed the property unsafe, prompting demolition. The rebuild matched the approved design, so the risk of refusal was minimal. Councillor Tony Wilcox highlighted issues with building regulations, especially in retrospective builds and questioned how compliance is ensured if buildings are already constructed. He noted that agricultural buildings often bypass full regulation checks. Councillor Alistair Cameron questioned why the affordable housing contribution was waived and requested clarification on the extenuating circumstances. In response, the Chief Planning Officer clarified that normally, replacement dwellings do not trigger affordable housing contributions. In this case, the original dwelling was lost due to structural failure, not voluntary demolition and he stated that it would be unjust to require a contribution under such circumstances. 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, Alan Dennison, Tim Evans, Brian Hall, Dr Simon Hancock, Jordan Ryan, 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 conditions outlined in Section 1.1 of the report.
Councillors must say when they have a personal link to something being discussed, such as a job, a property or a family member. A prejudicial interest is one strong enough that the councillor usually leaves the room and takes no part.
Declarations are read from the minutes once they are published.
Lists the council's current councillors only. Co-opted members, officers and former councillors aren't shown.