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 Section1.1 of the report.
RESOLVED That the application be APPROVED subject to the conditions outlined in Section1.1 of the report.
RESOLVED That the application be deferred to allow a site visit to be undertaken
Item 6: Planning Application No. 25/0287/PA – Dewslake Farm, Lamphey, Pembroke Councillor Steve Alderman declared a personal and prejudicial interest by virtue of knowing the owners and withdrew from the meeting for this item of business.
Moved by Councillor Mark Carter; Seconded by Councillor Alec Cormack. The vote, undertaken by way of a show of hands, was carried. RESOLVED That the Minutes of the meeting held on 2 June 2026, be approved as a correct record.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED That the application be APPROVED subject to the conditions outlined in Section1.1 of the report.
The application was presented for Committee consideration as the application was for a leisure and recreational development over 500 square metres in floorspace (Appendix 1 to section 14 of the Constitution). There were no public speakers in attendance for this application. Councillor Alec Cormack advised that this was an excellent use of the existing building and the removal of the temporary structures would add to the improvements. Approval of the application was then Moved by Councillor Alec Cormack; Seconded by Councillor Danny Young. In response to a question raised by Councillor Mark Carter regarding the barn serving an existing business and any restrictions that had been applied, the Planning Officer advised that the site was open from 1 March to the end of September. The Committee were advised that the site is then closed along with the website. Clarification was sought by Councillor Nick Neumann as to whether the camp site was fully licence and the Planning Officer advised that it was. 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, Iwan Ward, 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 Section1.1 of the report.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED That the application be APPROVED subject to the conditions outlined in Section1.1 of the report.
The application was presented for Committee consideration as the application involves a development that is contrary to the Development Plan but which is being recommended for Approval (Appendix 1 to Section 14 of the Constitution). The Chair invited the Applicant to address the Committee who advised that the One Planet Development application was not for a permanent dwelling and that the mobile home would be recycled at the end of the project. The Applicant further highlighted that the Walnut trees had been planted more than 20 years ago with excellent harvests of green Pembrokeshire walnuts and that the business had grown into an award-winning honey business. The Chair then invited questions from Members to the Applicant. The key points were highlighted as follows: In response to a question raised by Councillor Alec Cormack regarding the monitoring of the development with ‘red and yellow’ cards, the Chief Planning Officer explained that there was a requirement for One Planet Developments for annual monitoring reports to be produced. The Committee were advised that annual reporting was difficult to assess however, many Local Authorities had noted that seasonal visits leading up to the annual reporting could support the monitoring process. Cllr Tim Evans congratulated the applicant on a well-presented application. In response to a question raised by Councillor Mark Carter regarding the products sold at the farm shop, the Applicant clarified that Honey and Walnut products were on sale together with meat from rabbits and guinea pigs that had been bred for their meat together with vegetables produced on the land. The Committee then debated the application with the key points highlighted as follows: In response to a concern raised by Councillor Alan Dennison that there were two adults on the property and questioned any restrictions that could be imposed if the family were to expand, the Chief Planning Officer advised that the One Planet Development requirements were that the land produced the food for the occupants of the site. Should the number of occupants change, a revised management plan would be required, highlighting that this was a national policy. Councillor Alec Cormack highlighted concerns on a precedent being set if the application was approved and the Chief Planning Officer advised that the only precedent was that a well thought out One Planet Development management plan would increase the likelihood of a successful application. The Chief Planning Officer further highlighted that the plan had been in development over a number of years with the trees having been planted 20 years ago. The majority of the grove was well established prior to the accommodation as was the non-food production element. Approval of the application was then Moved by Councillor Alec Cormack; Seconded by Councillor Tim Evans. In response to a concern raised by Councillor Michael Williams regarding the exit strategy and whether a bond should be in place to ensure sufficient funding to return the land to its original use, the Chief Planning Officer advised that it was not normal to request a bond. The exit strategy was presented by the applicant and, should the business not be successful, the strategy was to allow the applicant to remove themselves from the business. Councillor Michael Williams sought clarity on what had changed since the application refusal in September 2023. The Planning Officer explained that it had failed to demonstrate that it met the One Planet Development requirements as the energy and water needs were not sufficiently addressed. In response to a question raised by Councillor Tim Evans regarding the number of One Planet Developments in the County, the Chief Planning Officer advised that there were more than 20 and the resources were not available to monitor every application regularly with the need for prioritisation. Councillor Evans emphasised that there had been a few before the Planning Committee but that not many had been successful. The Chief Planning Officer concurred that the management plans submitted with some applications had failed although these could be modified. It was further emphasised that the red and yellow monitoring cards were in place to give the applicant every chance to succeed. In response to a concern raised by Councillor Alan Dennison regarding the existence of water and electricity at the site, the Chief Planning Officer advised that this was already in place for existing outbuildings for storage as planning permission had been approved previously for a land based enetrprise building with solar panels providing a renewable energy source. Councillor Mark Carter then highlighted the application before the Committee already had the provision for an income from day one with the distinct specialities in honey and walnut production. Approval of the application had already been Moved by Councillor Alec Cormack; Seconded by Councillor Tim Evans. 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, Simon Hancock, Nick Neumann, Iwan Ward, 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 Section1.1 of the report.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED That the application be deferred to allow a site visit to be undertaken
The application was presented for Committee consideration as the application had been made by or on behalf of a close family member of a Member of the Council (Appendix 1 to Section 14 of the Constitution). The Chair invited the Agent to address the Committee with the key points highlighted as follows: Councillor Mark Carter clarified that the property was now a dwelling and former Public House. The Agent advised the Committee that they had only become involved in the application on 26 June 2026 and had been engaged to review the recommendation and provide consideration of the scheme. The Agent emphasised the issue around the chimney stacks that had been demolished following advice. The Applicant had spoken with Building Control and had been advised that the chimney stacks were unsafe and, as there was underfloor heating and a wood burner, redundant. On first review of the application, the Agent highlighted a number of issues as follows: The application was in a conservation area and the incorrect form had been used; Should the application be refused, concerns were raised on appeal due to the incorrect forms having been used; One chimney had already been repaired for use on the wood burner; The draughtsman had omitted two chimneys from the drawing which had not been noted by Officers; and Five other chimneys had been removed from the conservation area without applications being made. The Agent suggested that the application should be deferred for a site visit to be undertaken and to allow the opportunity to ensure all paperwork was correct. The Chair then invited questions from Members to the Agent. The key points were highlighted as follows: In response to a question raised by Councillor Simon Hancock regarding the advice sought by the applicant, the Agent advised that following discussions with the local Building Control Officers, the Applicant had not sought further advice from Planning Officers. Councillor Tony Wilcox then clarified that Building Control had deemed the chimney to be unsafe. Councillor Tim Evans sought clarification on the accuracy of the paperwork submitted by the Applicant highlighting that, if the paperwork had been correct, would the chimneys have been in character with the building. The Agent advised that the chimneys were impractical and often redundant. One of the chimneys had been refurbished and rebuilt to serve a wood burner however, the chimneys at the front of the property had been deemed to be redundant and unsafe and, if retained, would have been false. In response to a further comment from Councillor Evans that there were false chimneys in a lot of new developments, the Agent advised that all new properties in one development had false chimneys which had now been removed as they had served no purpose. In response to a concern raised by Councillor Alec Cormack regarding previous applications made for the property, the Agent clarified that the application was not wholly retrospective as there had been previous planning applications submitted. Councillor Cormack highlighted that the submitted form highlighted significantly altered windows, the Agent clarified that an Article 4 Direction under the Planning Regulations did not apply in Cosheston which meant that the Authority did not control changes to windows and doors in the conservation area. In responding to Councillor Alan Dennison regarding any visual harm to the community, the Agent emphasised that everyone has an opinion and there were many chimneys in place however, they were now considered architectural features and were redundant. In response to comments made by the Agent regarding the legality of submitted forms, the Chief Planning Officer informed the Committee that the submitted application and forms were correct. The property was a dwelling and conservation area consent is only required for the substantial demolition of a building. The Chief Planning Officer clarified that demolition of two chimneys was not substantial demolition for the purpose of determining whether conservation area consent was required. There were no further questions from Members to the Agent and the Chair highlighted that there was the option available to undertake a site visit to the property. The Committee then debated the application with the key points highlighted as follows: In response Councillor Alan Dennison regarding the advice received from Building Control, the Chief Planning Officer clarified that he would not expect Building Control to give planning advice or planning officers to provide Building Control advice. Any questions raised would be answered within their own field of expertise. Councillor Simon Hancock emphasised that this application had been deferred on two occasions and it would have been very disappointing if there had been any procedural errors. Councillor Hancock advised that chimneys within a conservation area were vitally important and, where removed, should be replaced. He commended the Applicant for converting the property into a dwelling but felt that that chimney stacks were a historic element to the building. Councillor Hancock then Moved the split recommendation; Seconded by Councillor Chris Williams. Councillor Michael Williams commented that the street scene was enhanced by the retention of the dwelling and disagreed that the removal of two chimneys held a great impact. In response to a question raised by Councillor Tim Evans regarding the replacement of the two chimneys, the Chief Planning Officer clarified that they would need to replicate the architectural structure of the building and could be false chimneys. In response to a concern raised by Councillor Alec Cormack regarding the rationale behind the split recommendation, the Chief Planning Officer advised that there were a number of elements to the proposal which were not implicitly linked. The porch and retaining wall did not impact on the decision relating to the chimneys which had informed the split decision. Councillor Tony Wilcox then Moved a recommendation that a site visit be undertaken to fully appreciate the visual impact on the area; 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 Mark Carter, John Davies, Alan Dennison, Nick Neumann, Iwan Ward, Tony Wilcox and Danny Young [7] Against the Motion: Councillors Steve Alderman, Alec Cormack, Tim Evans, Simon Hancock and Chris Williams [5] There were no abstentions. RESOLVED That the application be deferred to allow a site visit to be undertaken
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.