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.
RESOLVED That the application be APPROVED subject to the conditions outlined in Section 1.1 of the report.
RESOLVED That the application be deferred to allow a site visit to be undertaken
RESOLVED That the application be APPROVED subject to the conditions outlined in Section1.1 of the report.
Chairs announcement: The Chair advised Members of an amendment on Planning Application No. 26/0249/PA – Land at the Valero Refinery, Rhoscrowther, Pembroke SA71 5SJ. The applicant was Valero Refinery and not Pembrokeshire County Council as shown on the application report.
Item 7: Planning Application no. 26/0249/PA – Land at the Valero Refinery, Rhoscrowther, Pembroke SA71 5SJ Councillor Steve Alderman declared a personal and prejudicial interest by virtue of being a member of the liaison committee but had received dispensation from the Standards Committee to speak and vote. Councillor Tony Wilcox declared a personal and prejudicial interest by virtue of being a member of the liaison committee but had received dispensation from the Standards Committee to speak and vote. Councillor Tony Wilcox declared a personal interest by virtue of a close family member being employed by Valero Refinery. Councillor Alec Cormack declared a personal and prejudicial interest by virtue of being an Authority appointed member of the liaison committee.
The vote, undertaken by way of a show of hands, was carried. RESOLVED That the Minutes of the meeting held on 28 July 2026 be approved as a correct record subject to the following amendment: That Councillor Simon Hancock was in attendance.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED That the application be APPROVED.
The Chair advised the Committee that the Porch and retaining wall had been approved at the previous meeting. Whilst both recommendation 1.1 and 1.2 were on the report, recommendation 1.1 was resolved at the previous meeting and therefore, the recommendation for consideration is 1.2 only. The application was presented for Committee consideration as it had been reported to the Planning Committee on the 28 July 2026 when a decision was deferred as Members were Minded to approve the application contrary to the policies of the Local Development Plan. [Councillors Anji Tinley and Danny Young joined the meeting at this juncture.] The Chief Planning Officer presented the application to the Committee highlighting the previous Minded to resolution. 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 (In Person) The Chair invited the Applicant to address the Committee and then invited questions from Members to the Applicant. The key points were highlighted as follows: The Applicant explained that when the roof was removed, he had been advised by his Builder that the two chimneys were unsafe and should be removed. Following removal, a rear chimney was rebuilt and was used for a working log burner. The chimneys removed were not required and were therefore not rebuilt. In response to a question raised by Councillor Wilcox regarding the presentation of the elevation image contained within the report, the Applicant clarified that he was content with the image that had been presented and reiterated that he had not been aware of the need to apply for planning permission. There were no further questions from Members to the Applicant. The Committee then debated the application. The key points were highlighted as follows: Councillor Simon Hancock raised concerns regarding the comment made by the Chief Planning Officer that the Committee’s ‘Minded to approve’ resolution would be contrary to a Parliamentary Act. The Chief Planning Officer clarified that Councillors needed to ensure they have special regard to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of a conservation area as set out in section 160 of the Historic Environment (Wales) 2023 when making a decision. However, he explained that this did not mean that Members were bound to refuse the application. They can resolve that the proposed design does not cause harm to the area but need to ensure they have given special regard to their duty. Councillor Alec Cormack emphasised that there must be clarity on the reasons for the vote to approve the recommendation as he was unclear on the reasons to vote against the Officer recommendation. He was concerned that this may be the first step to removing the 24 Conservation Areas in the county. This application had only been brought before the Committee as the Applicant was related to a Member of the Authority. Section 19 of the Constitution stated that Members must not act in a manner that could be seen as bringing the office into disrepute. Councillor Cormack questioned that Members were seeking to vote against the recommendation simply because it was a relative of a Member of the Council. The Chair highlighted that the debate must maintain focus on the application and that any suggestions made by Councillor Cormack were not appropriate. The Deputy Monitoring Officer highlighted the need to report evidence-based facts and matters of planning only. Councillor Cormack continued that the reasons set out by Officers and the site visit had demonstrated that the application clearly affected the conservation area and that there was no reason to go against the Officer recommendation. In response to a comment raised by Councillor Tony Wilcox that the removal of the chimney stacks was de minimis, the Chief Planning Officer highlighted that it was for Members to decide if a development was harmful and that the term de minimis was for something defined as being of no consequence. The loss of two chimneys was not de minimis as they were an important part of a roof of a building. One chimney remained to the rear but this is not visible from the front of the property. Additionally, it was not the same as the original chimneys. Members need to be mindful of how the building sits within the conservation area and whether the loss of the chimneys adversely affected the area. Councillor Wilcox declared that the visual impact of the building had been improved. Councillor Anji Tinley then highlighted that, having not been a Member of the Committee during the previous discussions, and not being party to the previous planning decisions, it was clear that two chimneys had been removed. However, the property had been vastly improved and approved by Building Control Officers. Councillor Tinley raised the question of whether the replacement of the chimney would be of heritage benefit or a modern-day replica for the sake of reinstating it and questioned the benefits of a fake chimney on the property. The Chief Planning Officer advised that the building was not a listed building and that the contribution made in architectural terms was not about the stone or technique of the build. Elements of a listed building being demolished was a criminal offence. However, development in a conservation area was about the general character and appearance to the village. The decision of the Committee would potentially set an undesirable precedent which must be taken into account. In addition, the Chief Planning Officer clarified that the replacement chimney could be a replica. The Chief Planning Officer then clarified that a vote ‘For’ the recommendation was a vote for the refusal of the demolition of the chimney. Councillor Wilcox highlighted that Building Control Officers had agreed that the chimneys could be demolished and that Cosheston Community Council had no objections to the demolition. However, the Chief Planning Officer emphasised that building regulations and planning regulations were completely different. Whilst they were in the same department, they remained as completely different legislation and, whilst Building Control had agreed the demolition, this work had not been approved by Planning Officers. In addition, the Chief Planning Officer cautioned against using the Building Control Officer comments as justification as this could lead to a judicial review. The Chair highlighted that there must be disregard for comments made about involvement of the Building Control Officer. Approval of the recommendation was then 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, John Davies, Tim Evans, Simon Hancock and Danny Young [6] Against the Motion: Councillor John Cole, Nick Neumann, Anji Tinley, Iwan Ward, Michele Wiggins, Tony Wilcox and Michael Williams [7] Abstain: Councillor Steve Alderman [1] Councillor John Cole then Moved that the application for removal of the Chimney stacks be approved as there was no significant harm to the conservation area by removal of the chimneys; Seconded by Councillor Tony Wilcox. The Chief Planning Officer clarified that it was a valid reason. Councillor Cormack then declared that the reasons for going against the Officer Recommendation were unclear. Cosheston was a conservation area and that Members should be able to understand why it would not affect the conservation area and queried whether this could be the end of chimneys in the area. The Chair clarified that this was a democratic process and that all Committee Members held their own opinions as to the importance of Chimneys and could vote accordingly. The Chair advised Members that a vote to Approve the removal would not then be required to be presented to Full Council. 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, Anji Tinley, Iwan Ward, Michele Wiggins, Tony Wilcox and Michael Williams [7] Against the Motion: Councillor Mark Carter, Alec Cormack, John Davies, Tim Evans, Simon Hancock and Danny Young [6] Abstain: Councillor Steve Alderman [1] RESOLVED That the application be APPROVED.
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, Councillor Alec Cormack left the meeting for this item of business.] The application was presented for Committee consideration as it includes Class B1 (Offices and light industry) development exceeding 1000SQM and Class B2 (General industrial) development exceeding 1000sqm (Appendix 1 to Section 14 of the Constitution). The Chief Planning Officer presented the application to the Committee. The Committee was advised that there were no public speakers in attendance at the meeting. The Chair then invited the Local Member, Councillor Steve Alderman to address the Committee. Councillor Alderman highlighted that the application would offer a visual enhancement to the area, particularly to road users. Approval of the application was then Moved by Councillor Steve Alderman; Seconded by Councillor Simon Hancock. The Committee then debated the application. The key points were highlighted as follows: Councillor Simon Hancock highlighted concerns regarding the wildlife habitat at the location but noted that these concerns had already been addressed by the conditions set out in Section 1.1 of the report. Councillor Iwan Ward emphasised his disappointment that the application did not present any images of solar panels on the roof and encouraged applications to be mindful of renewable energy, particularly with commercial buildings that were south facing. Councillor Alderman highlighted that, due to biodiversity at the western end of the site, there was a large area of habitat which was actively maintained to encourage and support biodiversity in the area. 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 Davies, Tim Evans, Simon Hancock, Nick Neumann, Anji Tinley, Iwan Ward, Michele Wiggins, Tony Wilcox, 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 deferred to allow a site visit to be undertaken
The application was presented for Committee consideration as it was for tourism development on a site exceeding 0.5 Hectare in area (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. The Chair then invited the Local Member, Councillor John Davies to address the Committee who advised that he was supportive of the application as it enhanced the area and the economic viability of the area. However, there were concerns raised by the Community Council regarding the highways access noting the potential detriment to the immediate community of Cwm Plysgog. The report noted it was a single-track road; however, Councillor Davies advised that it was actually a no through road. In addition, Councillor Davies emphasised concerns regarding the well-being of the River Teifi and that the phosphates issue which remained of significant concern to one of the longest rivers that starts and ends in Wales. Councillor Davies advised Members that he had sought reassurance from Welsh Water regarding similar issues on the River Teifi who had advised that work would be completed in December 2025. However, he pointed out that we were now nearing December 2026 and there was no sign of completion of the works. In seeking reassurance that any Grampian conditions were not specific to a date or a promise but on the activity of completion of the works, the Chief Planning Officer advised that the Grampian condition would ensure that no benefit could be taken from the planning permission until the Welsh Water works were completed. In imposing Grampian conditions, the Authority sought assurance that the works were deliverable within the life of a planning permission The Authority had received suggestions from Welsh Water that works would be completed in 2025, and then 2026, however, they were subject to slippage. The condition would require that works must be carried out and that the Authority should receive confirmation of completion. In responding to a question raised by Councillor Davies regarding the situation should the works not be concluded within the next five years, the Chief Planning Officer explained that any timescale in excess of five years would normally fall outside the life of a planning permission and therefore a Grampian condition would not be appropriate. He explained that the Water Industry Act contains provisions for developers to requisition works. This would mean that a developer can require Welsh Water to provide a calculation on additional costs on completing works ahead of its planned timescale as set out in its Asset Management Plan (AMP). However, Councillor Davies remained concerned on this assurance from Welsh Water as they were currently on AMP 6 and an issue of credibility arose. The Chief Planning Officer further clarified that when considering an imposition of a Grampian condition, with no clear indication of the works being completed within a 5 year timescale, consideration would be given to refusal of planning permission. Additional investment can be brought forward outside the AMP due to ecological reasons. In granting a permission, the condition was a safeguard on completion of the works. Councillor Davies concluded that this Authority needed to ensure greater scrutiny and challenge to organisations including Welsh Water and Natural Resources Wales. Further concerns were raised by Councillor Davies regarding the inadequate highway infrastructure at the site. The access road was a no through road, one way in and one way out with a humped back bridge and he suggested that a site visit may be of benefit to the Committee to fully appreciate the location and to give further clarity to the highway network. Councillor Iwan Ward concurred with the concerns raised by Councillor John Davies and, whilst also being very supportive of small businesses bringing economic value to the area, also raised concerns on the highway infrastructure. Councillor Ward advised that this may not be the most appropriate location for this development and agreed that a site visit would be beneficial to highlight the issue. The application stated that vehicles would arrive on site and then visitors would utilise footpaths, bicycles and buses to travel around; however, this was unlikely to take place and would therefore increase traffic in the area. The Chair noted that they have heard from the two local Members that a site visit would be beneficial and then Moved that a site visit be undertaken to fully appreciate the location; seconded by Councillor Michele Wiggins. The vote, undertaken by way of a roll-call, was carried. The votes were recorded as follows: For the Motion: Steve Alderman, Mark Carter, Alec Cormack, John Davies, Tim Evans, Simon Hancock, Nick Neumann, Anji Tinley, Iwan Ward, Michele Wiggins, Tony Wilcox, Michael Williams and Danny Young [13] There were no votes against and no abstentions. RESOLVED That the application be deferred to allow a site visit to be undertaken
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 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. The Committee was advised that there were no public speakers in attendance at the meeting. The Committee then debated the application. The key points were highlighted as follows: Councillor Wilcox highlighted that the application would improve the building and encourage further applications. Approval of the application was then Moved by Councillor Tony Wilcox; Seconded by Councillor Mark Carter. The Chair noted that the only way to rejuvenate the towns would be to increase residents. Councillor Alec Cormack agreed with the need to regenerate buildings within the County and highlighted the extent of support available for a commercial property conversion to a residential property and emphasised that there should be increased publicity to increase the housing potential. In responding to concerns regarding sewage disposal at the property, the Chair agreed that at a residential property, occupants would usually leave during the day to attend work and therefore not produce the same amount of sewage as an occupied commercial building. The Chief Planning Officer advised that the information submitted by the Agent, along with the Nutrient Ecologist’s response had demonstrated an acceptable impact. The calculation had demonstrated that the amount of waste produced by the significant number of employees and visitors to the business was more than balanced by the amount of waste produced by use as a private dwelling. The Nutrient Ecologist had accepted the calculations provided. The Chief Planning Officer committed to ensuring that such calculations were publicly available for future applications. 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, Tim Evans, Simon Hancock, Nick Neumann, Anji Tinley, Iwan Ward, Michele Wiggins, Tony Wilcox, 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.
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.