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.
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.
The Chair advised Members that Item 8: Application No. 25/0924/PA Carpenters Arms, Cosheston, Pembroke Dock, Pembrokeshire SA72 4UH had been withdrawn from the meeting and would be presented at a future meeting. The Chair then informed Members of an update on Planning Application No. 25/0418/PA 20 Hamilton Terrace, Milford Haven that was considered at the Planning Committee on 10 February 2026 where the Committee resolved to grant delegated authority to the Head of Planning to approve the application subject to receipt of an amended plan showing the hipped roof. The publicity period ended on 19 March 2026 and, following consideration of any further representations received, planning permission was granted on 17 April 2026. The Chair then invited the Head of Planning to deliver an update on the Council’s Nitrate Action Plan. The Head of Planning advised the Committee that Officers continued to progress on the workstreams of the Plan. Work stream 1: The Consultants continued to make good progress on the delivery of a strategic mitigation package and were on track to produce their final report as scheduled by the end of May 2026. Workstream 2: The Developer Mitigation Handbook had now been published and the Seminar had taken place to disseminate the handbook to planning agents and developers. Workstream 3: Work to scope and develop a framework for the implementation of a local credit trading system utilising the nutrient mitigation opportunities on the County Farm Estate and the work remained ongoing by Officers, The Head of Planning advised that work to pursue preparation of a Strategic Level Habitats Regulations Assessment for existing and future housing supply, following the threshold-based approach remained ongoing. External Consultants had not yet been procured to deliver this area of work and they were reconsidering if this could be delivered internally. The Committee was advised that the Authority continue to hold planning applications for housing where nitrates remained the sole issue and Officers continue to work with Agents and Developers who propose to secure off-site mitigation for their development proposals. The Head of Planning further advised that the Marine Nitrates National Task Force held its tenth meeting on 31 March 2026 where they had delivered the publication of a clarifying letter confirming the Welsh Government caveat approach to be taken by Local Planning Authorities and PEDW during the examination of replacement of Local Development Plans. The Consultant ARUP, on behalf of the Welsh Government had delivered a workshop to the National Nutrient Trading Pilot Working Group on 24 March 2026 where key issues for the trading pilot study were scoped with key stakeholders. In response to a question raised by Councillor Nick Neumann regarding the impact on the County Councils farm estate, the Head of Planning advised that the scope of the commissioned piece of work for the nutrient mitigation package centred on a limited number of land holdings. It was clarified that they were not looking to implement a wholesale change in land use or remove significant land from the County Farm estate but were seeking opportunities within existing land parcels and farms where certain land parcels and the periphery/edges of fields could be utilised to form mitigation opportunities such as by planting hedgerows or buffer strips.
There were no declarations of interest made.
Moved by Councillor Mark Carter; Seconded by Councillor Danny Young. The vote, undertaken by way of a show of hands, was carried. RESOLVED That the Minutes of the Meeting held on 10 March 2026 be approved as a correct record subject to the following amendments: a) Removing the remote attendees that were duplicated on the In Person attendees; and b) That Councillor Mark Carter was not a replacement for Councillor Steve Alderman as noted in the Apologies for Absence. [Councillors Steve Alderman, Simon Hancock and Tony Wilcox abstained from the vote as they were not in attendance.]
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED That the application be APPROVED subject to the conditions outlined in Section 1.1 of the report.
The application was presented for Committee consideration as the application was a waste development over 0.5 hectares in size and is a Section 73 application where the parent application was determined by Committee (Appendix 1 to Section 14 of the Constitution). The Planning Officer presented the application to the Committee. There were no public speakers on this item of business. The Committee proceeded to discuss the application, and the Chair invited Councillor John Davies, as the Local Member to address the Committee. Councillor Davies highlighted that this application had been in place going back to 2008 and that a further 12-month extension should be approved. Councillor John Davies then Moved that the application be approved; Seconded by Councillor Tim Evans. In response to a concern raised by Councillor Alec Cormack regarding the Section 73 variation of the application, the Planning Officer acknowledged that the previous planning application had expired in March 2025 and that the Section 73 application had to be submitted before March 2025 which permitted an extension of 12 months. However, due to the timescales on determination and ill health of the applicant, the extension was for a 12-month extension from the date of determination. The Chief Planning Officer clarified that the application had originally been applied for in 2007 with permission being granted in 2009. The first two renewal permissions had been granted for five years each. Due to the level of consideration between applying for Section 73 and when the permission was issued, they were now approximately 19 years after the first permission was issued. He further advised that, if a time limit was not requested, by default, the application would be for five years. Should the applicant have not applied for the Section 73 prior to the expiration of the permission, they would have had to revert to applying for full planning permission and would incur the associated costs. The Head of Planning further explained that new requirements had been placed on the application where there had been a change in planning policy. The vote, undertaken by way of a roll-call, was carried. The votes were recorded as follows: For the Motion: Councillors Steve Alderman, Mark Carter, John Cole, Alec Cormack, John Davies, Alan Dennison, Tim Evans, Simon Hancock, Nick Neumann, Tony Wilcox, Chris Williams, Michael Williams and Danny Young [13] There were no votes against and no abstentions. RESOLVED That the application be APPROVED subject to the conditions outlined in Section 1.1 of the report.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED That the application be APPROVED subject to the conditions outlined in Section 1.1 of the report.
The application was presented for Committee consideration as 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 Planning Officer presented the application to the Committee. There were no public speakers on this item of business however, the applicant had been unable to attend the meeting and provided a statement which was read out by the Chair. The key points were noted as follows: The property had been purchased in May 2024 but lacked the additional land to grow nature, wildlife and biodiversity. He had approached the Authority in January 2025 requesting to purchase a parcel of land approximately 0.9acres adjacent to the property. The statement advised that the land would be managed using organic methods and a commitment to avoid the use of chemical fertilisers and pesticides and that there were no plans for any hard landscapes such as patios and pathways. The Chair then invited Councillor Steve Alderman as the Local Member, to address the Committee. Councillor Alderman had been concerned at the loss of best and most versatile agricultural land; however, as the applicant’s statement had advised that it would be managed appropriately and would therefore likely have a significant increase in insects, he was supportive and Moved the application for approval; Seconded by Councillor John Cole. Clarification was sought by Councillor John Cole regarding the original application that suggested the removal of the boundary between the curtilage of the dwelling and the field and highlighted concerns that future owners could benefit from permitted development rights. The Chief Planning Officer advised that, an indicative plan submitted by the applicant had suggested they would retain the boundary and confirmed that a condition had been placed on the recommendation to ensure a naturalistic approach. The Committee then proceeded to discuss the application. Councillor Simon Hancock concurred with remarks from the Local Member regarding the importance of balance between loss of best and most versatile agricultural land and biodiversity gains. The vote, undertaken by way of a roll-call, was carried. The votes were recorded as follows: For the Motion: Councillors Steve Alderman, Mark Carter, John Cole, Alec Cormack, John Davies, Tim Evans, Simon Hancock, Nick Neumann, Tony Wilcox, Chris Williams, Michael Williams and Danny Young [12] There were no votes against and no abstentions. RESOLVED That the application be APPROVED subject to the conditions outlined in Section 1.1 of the report.
This item of business was withdrawn from the agenda prior to the meeting.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED That the application be APPROVED subject to the conditions outlined in Section 1.1 of the report.
The application was presented for Committee consideration as the application had been made by a close family member of an Officer within the Planning Service (Appendix 1 to Section 14 of the Constitution). The Planning Officer presented the application to the Committee. There were no public speakers on this item of business and no questions were raised by the Committee. Approval of the application was Moved by Councillor John Cole; seconded by Councillor Alec Cormack. The vote, undertaken by way of a roll-call, was carried. The votes were recorded as follows: For the Motion: Councillors Steve Alderman, Mark Carter, John Cole, Alec Cormack, John Davies, Alan Dennison, Tim Evans, Simon Hancock, Nick Neumann, Tony Wilcox, Chris Williams, Michael Williams and Danny Young [13] There were no votes against and no abstentions. RESOLVED That the application be APPROVED subject to the conditions outlined in Section 1.1 of the report.
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.