Loading
The decisions as the council's minutes record them. A plain-language summary follows once it has been written.
RESOLVED That Councillor Vanessa Thomas be elected as Chair for the ensuing Municipal Year.
RESOLVED That the application be REMOVED from the scheme of delegation and be considered by the Planning Committee as Criteria 2 and 3 had been met.
RESOLVED That the application be REMOVED from the scheme of delegation and be considered by the Planning Committee as Criterion 2 had been met.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED That Councillor Vanessa Thomas be elected as Chair for the ensuing Municipal Year.
The Chief Planning Officer sought nominations for the election of Chair for the ensuing Municipal Year. Councillor Huw Murphy nominated Councillor Vanessa Thomas; Seconded by Councillor Phil Kidney. The vote, undertaken by way of a show of hands, was carried. RESOLVED That Councillor Vanessa Thomas be elected as Chair for the ensuing Municipal Year.
The Chair sought nominations for the election of Vice-Chair for the ensuing Municipal Year. Councillor Phil Kidney nominated Councillor Huw Murphy; Seconded by Councillor Steve Yelland. The vote, undertaken by way of a show of hands, was carried RESOLVED That Councillor Huw Murphy be elected as Vice-Chair for the ensuing Municipal Year.
Apologies for absence received from Councillors Viv Stoddart and Guy Woodham. Councillor Tessa Hodgson was present to speak only for Item 6 and was replaced by Councillor Pat Davies as Reserve Member for the meeting. Councillor David Simpson attended as a Reserve Member in place of Councillor Viv Stoddart for the meeting.
There were no declarations of interest received.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED That the application be REMOVED from the scheme of delegation and be considered by the Planning Committee as Criteria 2 and 3 had been met.
The Chair welcomed the Planning Officer to the meeting to give a presentation on the item, who went on to outline the assessment against the three Criteria for removing the application from the scheme of delegation. It was confirmed that the proposal would not impact beyond immediate neighbours, was neither complex nor sensitive, and did not present conflicting planning policies. Accordingly, the request did not meet any of the required criteria, and it was recommended that the application remain within the scheme of delegation. The Local Member for Solva, Councillor Mark Carter, was then invited to present reasons for the application to be removed from the scheme of delegation and referred to the Planning Committee. Councillor Carter summarised the background to the application, noting that the business previously operated from a traditional stone outbuilding before relocating in 2019 to an agricultural building on the same holding. He requested that the matter be considered by the Planning Committee under Criterion 3, citing potential policy conflicts. He argued that the proposal represented farm diversification, supported by evidence of no suitable alternative premises, and referenced Policy GN.6 allowing employment use in the countryside where justified. He highlighted the economic link to a neighbouring business and warned of job losses if the application was refused. Councillor Phil Kidney sought clarification on the Community Council’s position on the application, to which Councillor Carter responded that the Community Council was surprised by opposition to the application, stating that the site appeared tidy and well-landscaped despite the lack of prior planning consent. It was highlighted that no complaints had been received from residents or the Community Council during its operation. Councillor Huw Murphy supported referring the application to the Planning Committee, stating that it aligned with Policy GN.6 and the Well-being of Future Generations Act by reducing travel and sustaining rural employment. He described the proposal as a strong example of farm diversification, essential for viability in modern agriculture and emphasised the need to encourage rural economic development. Councillor David Simpson referred to the report, noting that the building had originally been constructed without planning permission and appeared to include residential features. He sought clarification on the Council’s position regarding its future use, including whether it would remain, be subject to enforcement action, or potentially be converted into a dwelling. In response, the Chief Planning Officer outlined the planning history explaining that the first application (ref. 22/0476/PA) was refused and an appeal dismissed. A subsequent application (ref. 24/0747/PA) approved the building for agricultural use only. An enforcement notice was served last year and, following an appeal, the compliance period was extended to nine months. The building may remain provided it is used solely for agricultural purposes, and the enforcement notice prohibits business use. The Chief Planning Officer advised that the building did not contain residential features but that residential features were within the building the business relocated from. The current application seeks to retain the building for employment purposes. Members were advised that, should the matter proceed to Planning Committee, the relevant Criterion under which it qualifies must be identified. The Chief Planning Officer further explained that the current use of the building is not agricultural. He advised that Policy GN.6 allows consideration of employment use in countryside locations only where no suitable alternative sites exist and where the enterprise requires such a location. It was noted that the proposal does not appear to meet the farm diversification policy, as it is not a land-based enterprise. Reference was made by Councillor Carter to a possible link with another business in Wolfscastle and to claims that 20% of produce would come from another rural business; however, the Chief Planning Officer confirmed that these details had not been clearly evidenced in the application and had not been specifically highlighted to officers as part of the latest submission. Councillor Carter clarified that the reference to two bedrooms and a bathroom related to a separate stone outbuilding, previously used by the business before 2019, which had been converted to domestic accommodation without altering its external appearance. He explained that the current building subject to the application is a single-storey rectangular structure, built to the same size and scale as the former barn it replaced, and contains only a toilet. He noted that while the previous building could theoretically be reused for business purposes, this would be impractical due to health and safety considerations and its limited size. Councillor Carter added that both buildings are part of the same farm holding but are several hundred metres apart. Councillor Pat Davies asked about the construction of the new building, querying whether it replicated the design of the original stone barn or was of a different type. In response, Councillor Carter explained that the former premises had been located within a traditional farmyard of stone buildings, accessed by granary-style steps. The current building is situated approximately 200 metres away within a group of agricultural structures and is constructed with a steel frame and insulated box-profile sheeting, similar to modern agricultural buildings but of higher quality than the older structures. The Chair then invited Councillor Michelle Bateman, Local Member for Wolfscastle, to give her presentation. She acknowledged the interdependency between the applicant’s business and an established enterprise within her ward, which she described as a successful and well-known company. Councillor Bateman supported Councillor Carter’s reasoning and expressed the view that the application would benefit from full consideration by the Planning Committee, allowing Members to explore the nuances of the case and question the applicant or agent directly. The Chief Planning Officer summarised that the business originally operated from Castle Villa farmhouse and later from a converted stone outbuilding, which may require further review regarding its use. The current building replaced an agricultural structure without planning permission and has since been used for business purposes, although it is only authorised for agricultural use. Reference to links with a business in Wolfscastle was noted, but supporting information was limited. Members were advised to consider whether the application met Criterion 1 (adverse planning impact beyond immediate neighbours) or Criterion 2 (complex or sensitive issues), as no conflict with planning policy under Criterion 3 had been identified. Councillor Huw Murphy stated that, in his view, the application met Criterion 2 and also appeared to meet Criterion 3 due to potential conflicts between planning policies relating to rural development, the rural economy, the Well-being of Future Generations Act and sustainability considerations such as travel and carbon footprint. He noted that supporting evidence had not demonstrated why relocation to an alternative site closer to the farm was not feasible. Councillor Murphy therefore moved that the application be referred to the Planning Committee under Criteria 2 and 3, adding that inclusion of Criterion 1 would be a matter for other Members. The Chief Planning Officer acknowledged Councillor Murphy’s comments and reiterated that only one criterion is required for referral. He agreed that Criterion 2 could apply due to the complexity and sensitivity of the case but maintained that Criterion 3 was not met, as the policies within the Local Development Plan were not in conflict. He explained that sustainability concerns are addressed through policy by prioritising employment development on allocated or settlement-related sites, with countryside locations considered only where no alternatives exist. Councillor Huw Murphy Moved that the application be removed from the scheme of delegation and be considered by the Planning Committee as Criterion 2 and 3 had been met; Seconded by Councillor Pat Davies. The vote, undertaken by way of a roll-call, was carried. The votes were recorded as follows: For the Motion: Councillors Pat Davies, Phil Kidney, Huw Murphy, Vanessa Thomas and Steve Yelland [5] Against the Motion: Councillor David Simpson [1] There were no abstentions. RESOLVED That the application be REMOVED from the scheme of delegation and be considered by the Planning Committee as Criteria 2 and 3 had been met.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED That the application be REMOVED from the scheme of delegation and be considered by the Planning Committee as Criterion 2 had been met.
The Chair welcomed the Planning Officer to the meeting to give a presentation on the item. The Planning Officer advised that the reasons cited for referral under Criteria 1 and 2 were unsupported, as no evidence was provided of adverse planning impact beyond immediate neighbours, nor of complexity or sensitivity warranting public examination. Regarding Criterion 3, the Officer explained that there was no conflict between relevant policies; the previous refusal related solely to the absence of an affordable housing contribution, not policy inconsistency. It was therefore recommended that the application remain within the scheme of delegation. The Local Member for Lamphey, Councillor Tessa Hodgson, was invited to present her reasons for the application to be removed from the scheme of delegation and referred to the Planning Committee. Councillor Hodgson explained that she had referred the application due to concerns raised within the community. She acknowledged difficulty in aligning these concerns with the referral Criteria but highlighted that a previous application for a two-storey dwelling on the site had been refused due to the absence of an affordable housing contribution. The current proposal for a chalet/caravan, already on site, appeared to resemble a permanent dwelling in design and finish, creating a perceived inconsistency with the earlier refusal. She therefore considered the application merited further examination by the Planning Committee. The Chair queried the reference to subdivision of the existing residential curtilage and sought clarification on its relevance. In response, the Chief Planning Officer explained that curtilage refers to land associated with a dwelling and can change over time depending on use. He advised that subdivision does not necessarily require planning permission unless it results in a material change of use. In this case the proposal would create two planning units: the existing dwelling with its garden and a separate holiday unit with associated land. Councillor Davies sought clarification on whether the proposal would result in three separate dwellings with individual curtilages. In response, the Chief Planning Officer confirmed that this was not the case. The site currently comprises one dwelling and a second structure, which is either a caravan or a building, and the application seeks to create a separate holiday unit. He explained that the original dwelling would remain as a C3 residential unit, while the proposed holiday let would fall under Class C6. He added that if the structure is a caravan, its original ancillary use would not have required planning permission, but the change to a separate holiday unit does. Councillor David Simpson queried how the proposed holiday unit could operate given his understanding that ancillary caravans could not include cooking facilities and asked for clarification on the Community Council’s views. In response, Councillor Hodgson confirmed that only two structures were present on the site, the original dwelling and a detached chalet/caravan, and advised that the Community Council had expressed concern about the scale of development and the transition from a refused permanent dwelling to the current arrangement. The Chief Planning Officer added that the term ‘annex’ refers to accommodation used in connection with the main dwelling, which can include a caravan. He explained that ancillary use is determined by how facilities are used rather than their presence and that distinguishing between ancillary and independent use can be complex, particularly where physical separation or separate facilities exist. The Chief Planning Officer further concluded that no clear evidence had been provided to demonstrate an adverse impact beyond the immediate locality under Criterion 1. While Criterion 2 had not been explicitly cited, concerns raised by the Community Council could indicate some sensitivity. He reiterated that there was no conflict between planning policies, as the previous refusal related solely to the absence of an affordable housing contribution. Members were advised that, if any criterion applied, it would most likely be Criterion 2. Councillor Huw Murphy Moved that the Officer’s recommendation be upheld and that the application is not removed from the scheme of delegation; Seconded by Councillor David Simpson. The vote, undertaken by way of a roll-call, was lost. The votes were recorded as follows: For the Motion: Councillors Huw Murphy and David Simpson [2] Against the Motion: Councillors Pat Davies, Phil Kidney, Vanessa Thomas and Steve Yelland [4] There were no abstentions. Councillor Phil Kidney then Moved that the application be removed from the scheme of delegation and be considered by the Planning Committee as Criterion 2 had been met; Seconded by Councillor Vanessa Thomas. The vote, undertaken by way of a roll-call, was carried. The votes were recorded as follows: For the Motion: Councillors Pat Davies, Phil Kidney, Vanessa Thomas and Steve Yelland [4] Against the Motion: Councillors Huw Murphy and David Simpson [2] There were no abstentions. RESOLVED That the application be REMOVED from the scheme of delegation and be considered by the Planning Committee as Criterion 2 had been met.
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.