Loading
The decisions as the council's minutes record them. A plain-language summary follows once it has been written.
RESOLVED That the application in respect of the porch and retaining wall be APPROVED subject to the conditions outlined in Section 1.1 of the report. The Chair then clarified that the Committee would now be debating the removal of the Chimney Stack. Councillor Simon Hancock Moved that the application to remove the Chimney Stack be refused; Seconded by Councillor Alec Cormack. In response to a concern raised by Councillor Tony Wilcox regarding the Officer Recommendation of Refusal, the Head of Planning advised that, in accordance with the Constitution, if a resolution was contrary to the Officer Recommendation and was to Approve the application, it would need to be a Minded To decision to allow the implications to be reviewed and returned to Committee to ensure a full understanding. In addition, the Chair clarified that any decision against Officer Recommendation would require full planning reasons. The Chair emphasised that the vote was to Approve the Officer Recommendation to refuse the demolition of the Chimney Stack. The vote, undertaken by way of a roll-call was lost. The votes were recorded as follows: For the Motion: Councillors Mark Carter, John Cole, Alec Cormack and Simon Hancock [4] Against the Motion: Councillors Nick Neumann, Michele Wiggins, Tony Wilcox, Chris Williams, Michael Williams and Danny Young [6] Abstain: Councillors Steve Alderman and Alan Dennison [] Councillor Nick Neumann then proposed that the removal of the Chimney Stack be Approved on the basis that the impact to the Conservation Area is minimal and is not detrimental to the heritage value of the street scheme. Councillor Neumann explained that the amount of time spent on the application was testament that Members had struggled with the application and that there was a certain amount of empathy. The Head of Planning accepted the reasons that the character and appearance would be preserved and that this was a valid planning reason; Moved by Councillor John Cole. On clarifying that the area is preserved, Councillor Simon Hancock emphasised that it was for the Member to provide the reason and not to be coached by Officers. The Chief Planning Officer clarified that Councillor Neumann felt the impact was minimal which could be translated as a neutral effect on the Conservation Area and, whilst he disagreed with that assessment, it was for the Members to decide. In response to comments raised by Councillor John Cole regarding the environmental impact, the Head of Planning clarified that the impact was not solely concerned with climate change or implications in relation to climate change, but also heritage and the protection afforded to heritage assets or designations considered to be an integral part of that environment. Whilst the Chief Planning Officer and Planning Officer had presented their professional opinions, the role of the Head of Planning is to assist Members in formulating the defendable planning reasons that are required. All decisions made by the Committee must be defendable in law. Councillor Tony Wilcox remarked that departments need to speak to each other and noted that they are a Committee and need to review applications accordingly, even if that means disagreeing with a professional opinion. In response to a question raised by Councillor Alan Dennison regarding whether any other similar applications had been made within Pembrokeshire, the Head of Planning advised that the Authority dealt with approximately 1200 applications per year, and they could not comment on whether any similar applications had been dealt with. Councillor Mark Carter highlighted that Cosheston was an extremely attractive area and, during the site visit, he could see the relationship between numerous other properties with almost identical properties with slight variations. The Chair then reiterated that they were now voting on the removal of the chimney stack only. Moved by Councillor Nick Neumann; Seconded by Councillor John Cole. The vote, undertaken by way of a roll-call, was carried. The votes were recorded as follows: For the Motion: Councillors John Cole, Nick Neumann, Michele Wiggins, Tony Wilcox, Chris Williams, Michael Williams and Danny Young [7] Against the Motion: Councillors Mark Carter, Alec Cormack and Simon Hancock [3] Abstain: Councillors Steve Alderman and Alan Dennison [2] RESOLVED That the Committee was minded to APPROVE the application as the loss of the chimney was not detrimental to the heritage value of the street scene. [Councillor Iwan Ward left the meeting and Councillor Alan Dennison joined the meeting during this item of business.] [The meeting adjourned for a short break 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.
RESOLVED That the application be APPROVED subject to the conditions outlined in Section 1.1 of the report.
RESOLVED That the contents of the appended Local Impact Report (LIR) and accompanying appendices sent to Planning and Environment Decisions Wales (PEDW) on 9 July 2026 be noted.
Chair’s Announcements The Head of Planning gave the following updates: On 21 July 2026, the Local Planning Authority received formal written notification from the Welsh Ministers of their decision to call in planning application 25/1101/PA, relating to the installation of radar antennas, supporting buildings, an auxiliary power compound, site security infrastructure, landscaping and associated works at Cawdor Barracks, Brawdy, Haverfordwest, Pembrokeshire, SA62 6NN. For clarity, the consideration of whether to call in a planning application is not a judgement on the merits of the proposed development, nor does it determine whether planning permission should be granted. Rather, it concerns the question of which body should be responsible for determining the application. In reaching the decision to call in the application, the Cabinet Secretary for Local Government, Housing and Planning concluded that the proposal raises matters of national security given its strategic defence nature and represents a novel planning issue. The proposal also has the potential to conflict with national planning policy in relation to landscape, ecology, sustainability and placemaking. Furthermore, it was considered that a decision on the application may attract controversy beyond the immediate locality and that there is already significant public interest in the proposal. Taken together, these factors led the Cabinet Secretary to conclude that the development is of more than local importance and should therefore be determined by the Welsh Ministers. Although the application was originally submitted to the Local Planning Authority and had been scheduled for consideration by this Committee at today’s meeting, the call-in direction means that responsibility for determining the application now passes to the Welsh Ministers. Details of the procedure to be followed by the Welsh Ministers in determining the application will be communicated in due course; and The Chair then invited questions from the Committee and the key points were noted as follows: In response to a question raised by Councillor Alec Cormack regarding ongoing consultation with the Planning Committee and the Authority, the Head of Planning advised that they had not been informed how this will take place at present. The Head of Planning advised that Welsh Government would appoint an independent Planning Environment Decisions Wales (PEDW) Inspector with a number of routes available including a public inquiry or hearing sessions. However, they were unclear on what opportunity would be afforded for representations to be made at this time. In response to a concern raised by Councillor Tony Wilcox regarding the next steps should it be refused by Welsh Government, the Head of Planning advised that any decisions would be made by Welsh Government Ministers. Councillor John Cole suggested that UK Government should have the final decision due to Defence and National Security. However, the Head of Planning clarified that, as far as they were aware, Welsh Government were the decision makers at this time. Councillor Steve Alderman advised that, having had involvement with a similar issue previously, should it be before the PEDW Inspector, a number of days would be provided to review the information and he implored all Members to partake in that decision making process. The Council recognises the continued impact of nutrient neutrality requirements on applicants and local communities and remains committed to finding practical, evidence-based solutions to nutrient neutrality challenges. While longer-term solutions are developed, the Local Planning Authority continues to deliver its action plan and work with developers to bring forward private mitigation proposals. Over the coming months, the Council will focus on: Reporting the findings of the Strategic Mitigation Package to Cabinet. Delivering a proposal for a local nutrient credit trading scheme. Supporting developers seeking private off-site mitigation solutions. Working with Natural Resources Wales on the preparation of the Cleddau Catchment Nutrient Recovery Plan. Exploring longer-term solutions through additional Habitats Regulations Assessment work. The Chair invited questions from the Committee and the key points were noted as follows: In response to a question raised by Councillor Steve Alderman regarding the exchange of acres involved in relation to the number of houses being built, the Head of Planning advised that there would be an opportunity to meet with CGWG regarding communications and engagement. Cabinet briefing sessions had been undertaken with mitigation opportunities discussed with further details to be presented at the September meeting of Cabinet. Councillor Alderman emphasised the vital need for farming in Pembrokeshire and sought reassurance that the mitigation for land in South Pembrokeshire would not be for projects in North Pembrokeshire. The Head of Planning declared that these concerns would be taken forward.
Item 10: Planning Application no. 25/0880/NS - Land at White House Farm, Moorland Road, Freystrop SA62 4LA Councillor Steve Alderman declared a personal interest by virtue of knowing the land owner.
Moved by Councillor Mark Carter; Seconded by Councillor Simon Hancock. The vote, undertaken by way of a show of hands, was carried. RESOLVED That the Minutes of the meeting held on 30 June 2026 be approved as a correct record. [Councillor Michele Wiggins abstained from the vote by virtue of not being in attendance at the meeting.]
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED That the application in respect of the porch and retaining wall be APPROVED subject to the conditions outlined in Section 1.1 of the report. The Chair then clarified that the Committee would now be debating the removal of the Chimney Stack. Councillor Simon Hancock Moved that the application to remove the Chimney Stack be refused; Seconded by Councillor Alec Cormack. In response to a concern raised by Councillor Tony Wilcox regarding the Officer Recommendation of Refusal, the Head of Planning advised that, in accordance with the Constitution, if a resolution was contrary to the Officer Recommendation and was to Approve the application, it would need to be a Minded To decision to allow the implications to be reviewed and returned to Committee to ensure a full understanding. In addition, the Chair clarified that any decision against Officer Recommendation would require full planning reasons. The Chair emphasised that the vote was to Approve the Officer Recommendation to refuse the demolition of the Chimney Stack. The vote, undertaken by way of a roll-call was lost. The votes were recorded as follows: For the Motion: Councillors Mark Carter, John Cole, Alec Cormack and Simon Hancock [4] Against the Motion: Councillors Nick Neumann, Michele Wiggins, Tony Wilcox, Chris Williams, Michael Williams and Danny Young [6] Abstain: Councillors Steve Alderman and Alan Dennison [] Councillor Nick Neumann then proposed that the removal of the Chimney Stack be Approved on the basis that the impact to the Conservation Area is minimal and is not detrimental to the heritage value of the street scheme. Councillor Neumann explained that the amount of time spent on the application was testament that Members had struggled with the application and that there was a certain amount of empathy. The Head of Planning accepted the reasons that the character and appearance would be preserved and that this was a valid planning reason; Moved by Councillor John Cole. On clarifying that the area is preserved, Councillor Simon Hancock emphasised that it was for the Member to provide the reason and not to be coached by Officers. The Chief Planning Officer clarified that Councillor Neumann felt the impact was minimal which could be translated as a neutral effect on the Conservation Area and, whilst he disagreed with that assessment, it was for the Members to decide. In response to comments raised by Councillor John Cole regarding the environmental impact, the Head of Planning clarified that the impact was not solely concerned with climate change or implications in relation to climate change, but also heritage and the protection afforded to heritage assets or designations considered to be an integral part of that environment. Whilst the Chief Planning Officer and Planning Officer had presented their professional opinions, the role of the Head of Planning is to assist Members in formulating the defendable planning reasons that are required. All decisions made by the Committee must be defendable in law. Councillor Tony Wilcox remarked that departments need to speak to each other and noted that they are a Committee and need to review applications accordingly, even if that means disagreeing with a professional opinion. In response to a question raised by Councillor Alan Dennison regarding whether any other similar applications had been made within Pembrokeshire, the Head of Planning advised that the Authority dealt with approximately 1200 applications per year, and they could not comment on whether any similar applications had been dealt with. Councillor Mark Carter highlighted that Cosheston was an extremely attractive area and, during the site visit, he could see the relationship between numerous other properties with almost identical properties with slight variations. The Chair then reiterated that they were now voting on the removal of the chimney stack only. Moved by Councillor Nick Neumann; Seconded by Councillor John Cole. The vote, undertaken by way of a roll-call, was carried. The votes were recorded as follows: For the Motion: Councillors John Cole, Nick Neumann, Michele Wiggins, Tony Wilcox, Chris Williams, Michael Williams and Danny Young [7] Against the Motion: Councillors Mark Carter, Alec Cormack and Simon Hancock [3] Abstain: Councillors Steve Alderman and Alan Dennison [2] RESOLVED That the Committee was minded to APPROVE the application as the loss of the chimney was not detrimental to the heritage value of the street scene. [Councillor Iwan Ward left the meeting and Councillor Alan Dennison joined the meeting during this item of business.] [The meeting adjourned for a short break at this juncture.]
The application was presented for Committee consideration as it had been deferred at the Planning Committee meeting on 30 June 2026, pending a site visit to be undertaken on 22 July 2026. The application is for Committee consideration as it 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 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: Craig Kidney – Applicant The Chair invited questions from Members to the Applicant. The key points were highlighted as follows: In response to a concern raised by Councillor John Cole regarding the condition of the chimney stack, the Applicant advised that the chimney had been blanked off and was redundant as there were no open fires in the property. They had requested to place solar panels on the roof of the property which, following advice from the Planning Department, were placed on the garage roof. Councillor Tony Wilcox highlighted concerns that the applicant had sought advice from Building Control who had advised the chimney was unsafe and did not say they could not remove them. The Applicant clarified that they had sought advice from the Building Control Inspector throughout the project. Councillor Wilcox voiced dismay that the Building Control Inspector was not working with the Planning Department effectively. In response to a question raised by Councillor Simon Hancock that, having sought advice regarding the solar panels, why would the applicant not seek advice regarding the chimney stack. The applicant advised that he had received a phone call from the builder the chimney stack was dangerous which was confirmed by the Building Control Inspector and therefore removed. There were no further questions from Members to the Applicant. The Chair reminded Members that this was a split recommendation and that a vote FOR the recommendation would be a vote to APPROVE the Porch and retaining wall and REFUSE the demolition of the chimney stack. Councillor John Cole highlighted that Cosheston had only become a conservation area in 2003 and that a number of applications pre-2003 would not be approved now. Councillor Cole noted that he was struggling to understand the reason for refusal as the chimney no longer served a purpose. Councillor John Cole then Moved that the application was APPROVED in its entirety as chimneys were aesthetic and an element to enhance the area. The Head of Planning cited the Historic Environment (Wales) Act 2023 and advised Members that they had a duty to ensure the character of the Authority’s conservation areas was preserved or enhanced. The Head of Planning further advised that each application must be dealt with on its own merit. Councillor John Cole then withdraw his proposal. Councillor Alec Cormack advised Members that he had attended the site visit with other Members of the Committee and had noted that there were some new build properties in the area but that the majority were in traditional form with chimneys at either end. The removal of the chimneys had seemed quite harsh however, this was a conservation area and he did not see a reason to go against the Officer recommendation. Councillor Alec Cormack then Moved the Recommendation of the split decision; Seconded by Councillor Simon Hancock. In response to comments raised by Councillor Tony Wilcox regarding the inconsistent approach from the Planning Department within the conservation area particularly as permission had not been sought for other properties in the area, the Head of Planning advised that if other properties had removed chimneys against planning regulations, then that would be a matter for Planning Enforcement. The Head of Planning disagreed with Councillor Wilcox regarding the inconsistent approach as the responsibility to seek advice remained with the applicant. Councillor Tony Wilcox then Moved that the Application be APPROVED due to the inconsistency. The Chief Planning Officer clarified that there was a Permitted Development Order which allowed the demolition of chimneys outside Conservation Areas however, he would not expect the Building Control Officer to be aware of that Order or whether the property fell within the Conservation Area. Whilst they operate within the Planning Department, he would not expect a Building Control Officer to provide Planning advice or vice versa. The Deputy Monitoring Officer reminded Members that the Constitution required a valid reason for any proposal that is against the Officer Recommendation, prior to voting. In response to a question raised by Councillor Chris Williams regarding the level of reconstruction required for a replacement chimney, the Head of Planning advised that the original chimney was of a stone construction with a rendered finish. Therefore, a replacement could be made of fibre glass, fixed to the roof and rendered. Any replacement chimney would need to be of similar style rather than complete replication. Councillor Simon Hancock emphasised that, whilst he had enormous sympathy for the applicant on the work that he has undertaken, following the site visit, his opinion was that the removal of the chimney stack did harm the appearance of the Conservation Area. In response to a further comment raised by Councillor Hancock regarding both Building Control and Planning being in the same department, the Head of Planning confirmed that best practice and sharing of information would be taken forward. Councillor Michael Williams highlighted that this was a matter of personal interpretation, he personally did not like the porch which Planning had no issue with. He did not accept that the removal of the chimneys would have a negative impact on the area as visitors do not look at the roof when walking down the street. The Head of Planning reiterated that Cosheston was a Conservation Area for a reason and was one of 24 in Pembrokeshire. This meant that they have a legal status within the historic Environment (Wales) Act. In response to a question raised by Councillor Michele Wiggins regarding no comments having been received from the Council’s Historic Buildings Conservation Officer, the Head of Planning advised that they do not currently have an Officer in place. In response to a concern raised by Councillor Steve Alderman regarding inconsistency in decision making as there were solar panels on the neighbouring property but the applicant’s request was denied. The Chief Planning Officer advised that every application was considered on its own merits. Councillor Nick Neumann sought clarification on the Recommendation and the Chair confirmed that a vote for Approval of the Recommendation would be a vote to approve the porch and retaining wall but refuse the removal of the chimney stacks. The Head of Planning advised that if the vote fell, then there would be the potential for a further motion to be Moved and Seconded with a valid reason. The Committee then voted on the split Officer Recommendation that had been Moved by Councillor Alec Cormack; Seconded by Councillor Simon Hancock. The vote, undertaken by way of a roll-call, was lost. The votes were recorded as follows: For the Motion: Councillors Mark Carter, Alec Cormack and Simon Hancock [3] Against the Motion: Councillors Steve Alderman, John Cole, Nick Neumann, Michele Wiggins, Tony Wilcox, Chris Williams, Michael Williams and Danny Young [8] Abstain: Councillor Alan Dennison [1] The Chair then Moved that the retention of the porch and retaining wall be approved; Seconded by Councillor John Cole. 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, Simon Hancock, Nick Neumann, Michele Wiggins, Tony Wilcox, Chris Williams, Michael Williams and Danny Young [11] Abstain: Councillor Alan Dennison [1] There were no votes against. RESOLVED That the application in respect of the porch and retaining wall be APPROVED subject to the conditions outlined in Section 1.1 of the report. The Chair then clarified that the Committee would now be debating the removal of the Chimney Stack. Councillor Simon Hancock Moved that the application to remove the Chimney Stack be refused; Seconded by Councillor Alec Cormack. In response to a concern raised by Councillor Tony Wilcox regarding the Officer Recommendation of Refusal, the Head of Planning advised that, in accordance with the Constitution, if a resolution was contrary to the Officer Recommendation and was to Approve the application, it would need to be a Minded To decision to allow the implications to be reviewed and returned to Committee to ensure a full understanding. In addition, the Chair clarified that any decision against Officer Recommendation would require full planning reasons. The Chair emphasised that the vote was to Approve the Officer Recommendation to refuse the demolition of the Chimney Stack. The vote, undertaken by way of a roll-call was lost. The votes were recorded as follows: For the Motion: Councillors Mark Carter, John Cole, Alec Cormack and Simon Hancock [4] Against the Motion: Councillors Nick Neumann, Michele Wiggins, Tony Wilcox, Chris Williams, Michael Williams and Danny Young [6] Abstain: Councillors Steve Alderman and Alan Dennison [] Councillor Nick Neumann then proposed that the removal of the Chimney Stack be Approved on the basis that the impact to the Conservation Area is minimal and is not detrimental to the heritage value of the street scheme. Councillor Neumann explained that the amount of time spent on the application was testament that Members had struggled with the application and that there was a certain amount of empathy. The Head of Planning accepted the reasons that the character and appearance would be preserved and that this was a valid planning reason; Moved by Councillor John Cole. On clarifying that the area is preserved, Councillor Simon Hancock emphasised that it was for the Member to provide the reason and not to be coached by Officers. The Chief Planning Officer clarified that Councillor Neumann felt the impact was minimal which could be translated as a neutral effect on the Conservation Area and, whilst he disagreed with that assessment, it was for the Members to decide. In response to comments raised by Councillor John Cole regarding the environmental impact, the Head of Planning clarified that the impact was not solely concerned with climate change or implications in relation to climate change, but also heritage and the protection afforded to heritage assets or designations considered to be an integral part of that environment. Whilst the Chief Planning Officer and Planning Officer had presented their professional opinions, the role of the Head of Planning is to assist Members in formulating the defendable planning reasons that are required. All decisions made by the Committee must be defendable in law. Councillor Tony Wilcox remarked that departments need to speak to each other and noted that they are a Committee and need to review applications accordingly, even if that means disagreeing with a professional opinion. In response to a question raised by Councillor Alan Dennison regarding whether any other similar applications had been made within Pembrokeshire, the Head of Planning advised that the Authority dealt with approximately 1200 applications per year, and they could not comment on whether any similar applications had been dealt with. Councillor Mark Carter highlighted that Cosheston was an extremely attractive area and, during the site visit, he could see the relationship between numerous other properties with almost identical properties with slight variations. The Chair then reiterated that they were now voting on the removal of the chimney stack only. Moved by Councillor Nick Neumann; Seconded by Councillor John Cole. The vote, undertaken by way of a roll-call, was carried. The votes were recorded as follows: For the Motion: Councillors John Cole, Nick Neumann, Michele Wiggins, Tony Wilcox, Chris Williams, Michael Williams and Danny Young [7] Against the Motion: Councillors Mark Carter, Alec Cormack and Simon Hancock [3] Abstain: Councillors Steve Alderman and Alan Dennison [2] RESOLVED That the Committee was minded to APPROVE the application as the loss of the chimney was not detrimental to the heritage value of the street scene. [Councillor Iwan Ward left the meeting and Councillor Alan Dennison joined the meeting during this item of business.] [The meeting adjourned for a short break at this juncture.]
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 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 due notification had been received from the following interested parties, who wished to exercise their right to address the Committee: Gethin Beynon – Agent The Agent advised that the applicant had been instrumental in establishing a successful and thriving business estate in Crymych and was grateful for the Planning Department’s supportive recommendation. There were no questions raised for the Agent and the Chair invited Members to debate the application. The Application was Moved by Councillor Alec Cormack; Seconded by Councillor Chris Williams. Councillor Simon Hancock highlighted the sustainable location and the considerable economic benefit to the community. In response to a question raised by Councillor Alec Cormack regarding the allocation for B1 and B8 use, when there was a lot of retail activity, the Chief Planning Officer explained that retail activity falls within Class A1 however, the vast majority of activity was generally related to trade sales and did not therefore count as retail use. 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, Alan Dennison, Simon Hancock, Nick Neumann, Michele Wiggins, 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.
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 it 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 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: Morgan Thomas - Applicant The Applicant requested the removal of two of the conditions that were recommended by the Officer regarding the package treatment system, specification, maintenance and siting and the biodiversity and green infrastructure. In response to a question raised by Councillor Alec Cormack regarding the location of the nearest mains sewer, the Applicant advised that there were three connection points identified, the first being the neighbour’s garden and they had been unable to gain permission, similar with the next garden and the third option was 186 metres along the main highway with quotes of in excess of £50K. Councillor Cormack clarified that the two neighbouring properties were connected to the main sewer. The Chair sought clarity on the details of the specifications citing the maintenance regime for the package treatment plan and drainage field that were to be submitted for approval. The Applicant advised that the information had been submitted twice along with the results of the porosity test. In addition, the Applicant clarified that the Biodiversity and green infrastructure features had also been submitted. The Chair then invited Councillor Danny Young who was a Member of the Committee to address the Committee as the Local Member. Councillor Young emphasised that the plot had been vacant for 20 years and that he was pleased that a local family with roots in the area had overcome the nitrate regulations to submit the application highlighting that, if it had not been for his connection to a County Councillor, Planning Officers would likely have approved the application. The Chief Planning Officer advised Members that, with regard to the conditions referred to by the Applicant, when the report was being compiled, the information available mentioned a make and a manufacturer’s specification for the package treatment plant but the information provided related to a number of different treatment plants of different sizes. Provided the details were clarified, the conditions for the application could be modified accordingly. With regards to the biodiversity and green infrastructure conditions, further dialogue with the Applicant to ensure sufficient information had been received could allow approval of the green infrastructure statement. The Application was then Moved by Councillor Danny Young; Seconded by Councillor Simon Hancock. In response to a concern raised by Councillor Alec Cormack regarding mains drainage assessment reports, the Head of Planning advised that applicants were attempting to overcome the nutrient neutrality issues by proposing non-mains drainage solutions such as package treatment plants and emphasised that care be taken where sites for development were located within mains sewered areas. Planners were guided by the Welsh Government’s guidance relating to non-mains drainage solutions in sewered areas which stated that any development should connect first and foremost to mains sewers where possible. The only exception being where it was not feasible to do so. It was clear in this application that it was not feasible for the Applicant to do this due to the cost implication and the practicalities. The Head of Planning emphasised that Officers were satisfied that the Applicant had evidenced the considerable lengths to undertake a mains connection. In response to a question raised by Councillor Nick Neumann regarding the dark skies initiative, the Head of Planning explained the impact of light is a planning consideration with several relevant policies. however, the Authority do not have a dark skies 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, Alan Dennison, Simon Hancock, Nick Neumann, Michele Wiggins, 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.
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 it was for a development contrary to the development plan which was being recommended for Approval (Appendix 1 to Section 14 of the Constitution). The Chief 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: Andrew Vaughan-Harries – Agent. There were no questions raised for the Agent and the Chair invited Members to debate the application. There were no questions raised and the Application was then Moved by Councillor Alec Cormack; Seconded by Councillor Alan Dennison. Comments were made by Councillor Alec Cormack regarding compliance by applicants in respect of agricultural occupancy conditions and potential abuse of the process in ten years’ time, Councillor Alan Dennison concurred with those comments. The Chair highlighted that agriculture had changed dramatically with the need for diversification. Councillor Steve Alderman emphasised concerns in respect of removing the agricultural condition from the application. 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, Alan Dennison, Simon Hancock, Nick Neumann, Michele Wiggins, 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.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED That the contents of the appended Local Impact Report (LIR) and accompanying appendices sent to Planning and Environment Decisions Wales (PEDW) on 9 July 2026 be noted.
The application was presented for Committee notification of the Local Planning Authority’s adopted local impact report submitted to Planning and Environment Decisions Wales (PEDW) (Acting on behalf of Welsh Ministers) (Development of National Significance) in accordance with Section 20 of the Constitution. The Planning Officer presented the application to the Committee emphasising that this was a notification of the adoption of the Local Impact Report as the Decision will be for Welsh Government Ministers. In response to a concern raised by Councillor Alan Dennison regarding the countryside being lost to solar panels particularly with the concerns regarding food sustainability in Britain and the amount that is being imported, the Planning Officer advised that soil quality was a matter for national policy. Welsh Government would be advised of applications that affect the Best and Most Versatile (BMV) land and was not a matter for the Authority to determine. Councillor Alec Cormack highlighted that there was already an area of solar panels in close proximity to the application and that this single application looked like two sites. Councillor Alan Dennison concurred with this concern and asked if there was a limit to the amount of electricity being generated and if there was a risk to residents. The Head of Planning advised that the application had been publicised allowing an opportunity for third party members of the public to provide a representation direct to PEDW. In response to a comment made by Councillor Alan Dennison regarding the suspension of the application by PEDW, the Planning Officer confirmed that they had received a suspension notification pending receipt of additional information from the applicant. The Chair clarified that this report was for noting only and that they were not expressing any opinion. Moved by Councillor Nick Neumann; Seconded by Councillor Steve Alderman. The vote, undertaken by way of a show of hands, was carried. RESOLVED That the contents of the appended Local Impact Report (LIR) and accompanying appendices sent to Planning and Environment Decisions Wales (PEDW) on 9 July 2026 be noted.
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.