Planning applications, the local development plan and what can be built where.
What councils do
Councils decide planning applications for new buildings, extensions and changes of use, and write the local development plan that says where new homes and jobs can go. National parks decide applications inside their boundaries.
Who decides
Planning officers decide most applications. Larger or disputed ones go to the planning committee of councillors, which meets in public.
Having a say
Anyone can comment on an application while it's open, usually for 21 days. Stick to planning matters such as traffic, design, noise and overlooking.
In numbers
Welsh councils plan to spend £40 per person on this in 2026-27.
It ranges from £13 in Pembrokeshire to £152 in Neath Port Talbot.
Planning applications decided within eight weeks: 45% across Wales.
RESOLVED: Pursuant to this Committee’s delegated powers the following development control applications be determined in accordance with the recommendation set out in the reports of the Director of Planning, Transport and Environment, subject to any further amendments as detailed below and notification be given of the decisions in accordance with Section 70 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 or Section 74 of the Planning (Listed Building & Conservation) Act 1990.
APPLICATIONS RESOLVED TO BE GRANTED SUBJECT TO ENTERING INTO A BINDING SECTION 106 AGREEMENT
23/01705/VAR – BUTETOWN
RED DRAGON CENTRE AND COUNTY HALL, ATLANTIC WHARF, CARDIFF
A variation of condition application made pursuant to Section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to vary Condition 2 (approved plans), Condition 9 (CEMP) and Condition 10 (Soil Resource Survey) of the detailed planning permission (Arena and Hotel) within hybrid planning permission reference: 21/02687/MJR
The application was approved as per recommendation subject to the amendments to the conditions set out with in the Amendment Sheet/Late Representations Schedule.
23/00050/FUL – CAERAU
LAND SOUTH OF NARBERTH ROAD, CAERAU, CARDIFF
Development of 83 residential units (use Class C3, including affordable housing) as well as associated vehicular, cyclist and pedestrian access, engineering and infrastructure works, landscaping, open space and sustainable urban drainage.
The application was approved as per recommendation subject to the amendments to the conditions set out with in the Amendment Sheet/Late Representations Schedule.
APPLICATION GRANTED
23/01501/FUL – FAIRWATER
CANTONIAN HIGH SCHOOL, FAIRWATER ROAD, FAIRWATER, CARDIFF
Construction of new Cantonian, Woodlands and Riverbank Schools and other associated buildings including new Health and Well-being Centre. Provision of various outdoor spaces, Sports Pitches and Multi-Use Games Areas, Flood-lighting, parking and access provision, cycle and refuse storage areas, SuDS provision and other associated work including the demolition of the school buildings.
The application was approved as per recommendation.
AGREED – T H A T Committee notes the Vale of Glamorgan’s draft response to
the Boundary Commission’s draft proposals, Cabinet’s suggested response and
deliberations on the proposals at its 5th October meeting, along with the following
Minutes - AR
comments of the Committee on the suggestions raised within the report to be
forwarded to Cabinet, as follows:
• Dinas Powys Community Council - The proposed changes to the Dinas
Powys Community Ward boundaries were acceptable to the Council on the
whole, as it avoided the Community Council having to create a 5th ward.
However, the Community Council was concerned by the proposed transfer
of houses along Sully Road. It was deemed quite illogical and unacceptable
to move said houses into Penarth.
• Llanfair Community Council - Concerns had previously been raised by
the Council in relation to future proposals meaning a loss in rural identity
should it merge with the larger Cowbridge Town Council. Having
considered the electoral numbers, close proximity to Llanmaes Community
Council, as well as the similar community makeup of other nearby villages
such as Llysworney (that currently sat under Llandow Community Council),
it was deemed appropriate to have a discussion with the other two
Community Councils to see whether any other alternative proposals could
be presented to the Commission.
• Ewenny and Corntown Community Council -The Community Council
was looking to make representation to the Boundary Commission voicing its
displeasure at the proposals. It was the Community Council’s view that the
suggested merging with St. Brides Major and Ogmore would not enable the
residents of Ewenny to be properly represented. The Council felt it was
geographically separate from St.Brides and Ogmore and had been a long-
established Community Council with its own specific needs and
requirements in the area, which would not be best serviced by joining with
another. The proposals would be a dissolution of the democratic process
because it would move further away from the area currently administered
by the Community Council. The proposals were based on a mathematical
calculation rather than local identity and local politics.
• Llandow Community Council - It was the intention of the Community
Council to put together a detailed proposal and objection for the Boundary
Commission on the basis that, as its stood, Llandow should stay the size
and makeup that it currently was to avoid dilution of local village
representation and identity.
• Colwinston Community Council - The Boundary Commission had looked
at the community review in detail and had found that it made sense for
Colwinston and Llangan to remain separate even though the individual
electorate numbers did not reach 1000. Therefore, the only issue with
keeping the two councils separate laid with the Vale of Glamorgan Council.
Llangan and Colwinston were six miles apart, considerably different,
separate villages, with nothing in common so the suggested merging did
not make sense.
• Llangan Community Council - The Community Council bordered with a
very different local authority, Bridgend County Borough Council therefore,
the Community Council’s issues were completely separate and irrelevant to
the residents living in Colwinston. The Llangan community area may be a
very small area geographically, but its issues were completely different to
Colwinston.
Minutes - AR
• Llanmaes Community Council - The Community Council was thankful
that the Boundary Commission had not proposed to merge Llanmaes with
Llantwit Major Town Council as originally suggested. However, it was
disappointing to hear that the Vale of Glamorgan Council would be
supporting the Boundary Commission’s proposal for changes to the
Llanmaes Community boundary due to the fact that the changes involved
only 2 properties, housing 5 individuals, who considered themselves to live
in a rural area and therefore wished to remain under a community rather
than town council. The existing boundaries were based on water course,
which in many instances was logical for setting boundaries. However, the
boundary change now being suggested was as a result of boundaries
following a road boundary rather than a water course which was
disappointing.
• Barry Town Council - The proposals relevant to Barry Town Council
seemed logical moving forward. The only minor criticism is that the Cadoc
Ward in Barry was potentially too large and therefore it could be suggested
to split the Cadoc ward in to two. Democracy was really healthy in Barry
and every seat was contested by multiple parties at elections. Therefore, it
was hoped that the proposals put by the Commission would help to
promote democracy in smaller communities across the Vale of Glamorgan
by encouraging and holding elections, as many seats were often
uncontested in the Community Councils.
• Wenvoe Community Council - The Community Council had held a
meeting to discuss the proposals and it was bitterly opposed to the
proposals put forward. The Wenvoe Community was a close-knit
community, and the proposals made no sense at all. One of the main
reasons for objection was in relation to the playing fields and allotments
based in Twyn-Yr-Odyn, which were owned by Wenvoe Community Council
and bequeathed to the Council some time ago for the use of people living in
the Wenvoe community. A petition had been organised by Councillor
Russell Godfrey amongst the residents of Dyffryn, St. Lythans and Twyn-yr-
Odyn and not one resident expressed a wish to move out of the Wenvoe
community. Prior to the last Town and Community Council election, the
Wenvoe community lost the St.Nicholas with Bonvilston ward to the
Llancarfan ward and therefore Wenvoe Community Council did not want
any further changes. St. Nicholas and Bonvilston were developing areas,
with residential property development ongoing, and therefore looking to
increase its number of residents but, this should not be to the detriment of
the Wenvoe community.
• Penllyn Community Council - The Community Council was very pleased
to see that both the Boundary Commission and the Vale of Glamorgan
Council’s cross party working group had supported the Community
Council’s proposals in terms of the Penllyn area, especially in terms of the
area that would be affected by the Darren Farm residential development.
The Community Council was concerned about the reduction in the number
of councillors that was being proposed as, being a relatively dispersed
area, the council found that the current numbers of councillors worked very
well. Therefore, the council would be making a recommendation to the
Commission that councillor numbers were not reduced taking account of
the fact that the sizing policy was for guidance only.
Minutes - AR
• St. Nicholas and Bonvilston Community Council – The Council and the
relevant ward member did not wish Twyn-Yr-Odyn to join with St.Nicholas
so, that point was misinformation in the public domain. In terms of the
Playing fields and allotments in Twyn-Yr-Odyn, those facilities could remain
within the area for Wenvoe Community Council, and this was endorsed by
the St. Nicholas and Bonvilston Community Council.
• Wick Community Council - The comments raised by councillors at Town
level demonstrated a lack of understanding on how democracy worked in
smaller communities. To suggest there was a democratic deficit within
Community Councils, if there had not been an election, was wrong. The
council would be writing to the Commission to oppose the proposals.
• Councillor Haines – 1) Reducing the number of councillors representing
the smaller communities would result in the councils losing what they were
as a community.
2) Basing proposals on making assumptions on what would be included or
not within the Council’s Local Development Plan or what would happen or
not with a community in the future could lead to unfulfilled promises for the
area which was best avoided. Therefore, it was important for the Vale
Council to really think about what it recommended to the Commission.
• Councillor Wilson – 1) for the 2022 elections, there were a number of
Community Councils that did not have elections and therefore individuals
were co-opted which was a concern because there were not enough
individuals standing for the number of seats available. To a certain extent,
the Cabinet report and subsequent recommendations of the Vale of
Glamorgan Council tried to address this issue. There was a collective wish
for democracy to work well in the Vale of Glamorgan area as a whole and
not just in the main towns.
2) When communities worked together, this did not mean that the
communities diminished, rather they grew stronger and increased their
capacity to do things because of pooling finances and resources as well as
more likely to be heard at a county council level.
3) Community reviews happened rarely and therefore there was a need to
think ahead to future proof communities for how they would develop over
the subsequent decade until the next review was undertaken.
• Councillor Dr. Johnson – 1) the political situation was clearly different in
some of the more urban areas than it was in some of the more rural areas
of the Vale of Glamorgan.
2) There were currently 26 Town and Community Councils in the Vale of
Glamorgan and, out of that number, only six held elections in 2022 to his
knowledge, so this represented a democratic deficit when people were
setting local taxes without being elected by local people.
• Councillor Hodges - The size of some of the Community Council budgets
were very small especially once clerk salaries were accounted for. This
meant that there was very little money to do anything with and effecting
change in the community using the precept available to a council was most
important.
Minutes - AR
2) Increasing the size and population of a community could increase the
chances of constituents engaging in local elections as well as the money
available to it to effect meaningful change.
Reason for recommendation
Having regard to the contents of the Cabinet report on the Community Review to
ensure that Community Liaison Committee has the opportunity make any
representations to Cabinet.
RESOLVED – T H A T in pursuance of the powers delegated to the Committee,
the following applications be determined as indicated and any other necessary
action be taken.
2022/00792/FUL Received on 8 July 2022
(P. 73)
APPLICANT: Castell Group Castell Construction Ltd, Dyffryn Court, Riverside
Business Park, Swansea, SA7 0AP
AGENT: Mr Liam Griffiths Unit 9, Oak Tree Court, Cardiff Gate Business Park,
Cardiff, CF23 8RS
Land at Moat Farm, Llysworney
Proposed residential development of 7 dwellings and associated works
RESOLVED – T H A T subject to Welsh Government removing the holding call-in
direction and subject to the applicant entering into a Section 106 agreement for
the following:
• Pay a contribution of £18,676 towards public open space provision, to serve
the development
APPROVED – Subject to the conditions as contained within the report.
Reason for decision
Having regard to the content of the report and discussions at the meeting.
2023/00381/FUL Received on 6 April 2023
(P. 131)
APPLICANT: Mr. Peter Davies 11, Dyffryn Close, St. Nicholas, CF5 6SS
AGENT: Sustainable Studio Architects 1, Gold Tops, Newport, NP20 4PG
11, Dyffryn Close, St. Nicholas
Demolition of existing annex and construction of a two storey side extension with
associated works
APPROVED – Subject to the conditions as contained within the report.
Reason for decision
Having regard to the content of the report and discussions at the meeting.
2023/00740/FUL Received on 12 July 2023
(P. 149)
APPLICANT: Mr and Mrs Richard and Anne Prosser 16 Heol Y Frenhines, Dinas
Powys, CF64 4UH
AGENT: Mr and Mrs Richard and Anne Prosser 16 Heol Y Frenhines, Dinas
Powys, CF64 4UH
16, Heol Y Frenhines, Dinas Powys
Retention of a 6ft fence to the side / rear of the property to enclose the garden.
The fence is set back from the boundary line approximately 20 cm
DEFERRED – To consider conditions, following the recommendation to refuse
and authorise enforcement action not being accepted.
Reason for decision
Having regard to the content of the report and discussions at the meeting.
RESOLVED: Pursuant to this Committee’s delegated powers the following development control applications be determined in accordance with the recommendation set out in the reports of the Director of Planning, Transport and Environment, subject to any further amendments as detailed below and notification be given of the decisions in accordance with Section 70 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 or Section 74 of the Planning (Listed Building & Conservation) Act 1990.
APPLICATION RESOLVED TO BE GRANTED SUBJECT TO ENTERING INTO A BINDING SECTION 106 AGREEMENT
(Councillor Adrian Robson, in accordance with his declaration of a prejudicial interest, left the meeting during discussion of his item)
22/02901/FUL - RIVERSIDE
51-65 COWBRIDGE ROAD EAST AND 2-8 LOWER CATHEDRAL ROAD, RIVERSIDE
Demolition of existing structures and the replacement with mixed-use development comprising three commercial units at ground floor level (Use Classes A1/A2/A3), residential apartments above (Use Class C3), and associated works, including sustainable drainage, landscaping, amenity space and other works.
The application was approved as per recommendation, subject to the following:
· Para 8.1 should state that the analysis section is Section 9, not Section 10
· Para 9.48 should state 3pm and not 3am
· The removal of Condition 26 as this states that all Use Class A1 units shall not be used for purposes other than the sale of convenience goods.
RESOLVED – T H A T the dispensations as set out in the schedule below be
granted up to the date of the next Local Government Elections or as and where
indicated:
Member Requesting Paragraph(s) of Decision
Dispensation the Standards
Committee (Grant
of Dispensations)
(Wales) Regulations
2001 Under Which
Dispensation is
Granted and as
applied for
Councillor H.J. Payne (d), (e), (f) and (i) To speak and vote at Vale
of Glamorgan Council
meetings on matters
relating to the review of
Council employee terms
and conditions ( including
budgets) in view of family
members being employed
by the Authority .
Dispensation granted to the
date of the next Local
Government Elections
Councillor G. Smith (d), (e) and (i) To speak only on matters
relating to the forthcoming
Vale of Glamorgan Local
Development Plan
throughout the entire period
of consultations relating to
the forthcoming Vale of
Glamorgan Local
Development Plan 2021-
2036. Dispensation
granted throughout the
entire period of consultation
relating to the replacement
LDP up until its adoption
Councillor Dr. P. Dickson (a) and (i) To speak and vote at
Llantwit Major Town
Council Planning
Committee meetings in
relation to Planning
Application
2023/00596/FUL – Purlon
No.
Farm. The dispensation to
be granted for the one
meeting when the
application is to be
discussed.
Councillor G. Morgan (a) and (i) To speak and vote at
Llantwit Major Town
Council Planning
Committee meetings in
relation to Planning
Application
2023/00596/FUL – Purlon
Farm. The dispensation to
be granted for the one
meeting when the
application is to be
discussed
Councillor D. Foster (a) and (i) To speak and vote at
Llantwit Major Town
Council Planning
Committee meetings in
relation to Planning
Application
2023/00596/FUL – Purlon
Farm. The dispensation to
be granted for the one
meeting when the
application is to be
discussed
Councillor J. Deakin (a) and (i) To speak and vote at
Llantwit Major Town
Council Planning
Committee meetings in
relation to Planning
Application
2023/00596/FUL – Purlon
Farm. The dispensation to
be granted for the one
meeting when the
application is to be
discussed
Councillor G. Hughes (a) and (i) To speak and vote at
Llantwit Major Town
Council Planning
Committee meetings in
relation to Planning
Application
2023/00596/FUL – Purlon
Farm. The dispensation to
No.
be granted for the one
meeting when the
application is to be
discussed
Councillor S. Sivagnanam (d), (e), (f) and (i) To speak and vote at Vale
of Glamorgan Council
meetings when matters are
discussed, including
budgets, in relation to the
school. Dispensation
granted to the date of the
next Local Government
Elections
Reason for decisions
To comply with the regulations and obligations for the grant of dispensations to
speak and vote and having regard to the applications submitted.
RESOLVED: that Council be recommended to
1. approve the Replacement Local Development Plan Preferred Strategy (as set out in Appendix 1) for consultation purposes.
2. approve the revised timetable for preparation of the Replacement Local Development Plan as set out in this report so it can be formally submitted to Welsh Government for their consideration and agreement.
RESOLVED: That the Chairperson writes to the Cabinet Member on behalf of the Committee to convey any comments, observations and recommendations made during the way forward.
RESOLVED – T H A T dispensations as set out in the schedule below be granted up
to the date of the next Local Government Elections:
Member Requesting Paragraph(s) of Decision
Dispensation the Standards
Committee (Grant
of Dispensations)
(Wales)
Regulations
2001 Under Which
Dispensation is
Granted and as
applied for
Councillor G. John (d) and (f) To speak and vote
at Vale of Glamorgan
Council and Llantwit Major
Town Council meetings
when matters concerning
Llantwit Major Royal British
Legion are being
considered
Councillor L. Green (d), (e) and (i) To speak only at meetings
of Llanmaes Community
Council when matters
relating to the neighbour’s
field are discussed in
respect of the replacement
Local Development Plan
and its updates/
consultations.
Councillor H. Payne (c, d, f and (h) To speak only at Vale of
Glamorgan Council
meetings when matters
regarding housing and
homelessness are
discussed relating to
finance and property given
the Councillors role for
Llanmau.
Reason for decisions
To comply with the regulations and obligations for the grant of dispensations to
speak and vote.
No.
RESOLVED: Pursuant to this Committee’s delegated powers the following
development control applications be determined in accordance with the
recommendation set out in the reports of the Director of Planning, Transport and Environment, subject to any further amendments as detailed below and notification be given of the decisions in accordance with Section 70 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 or Section 74 of the Planning (Listed Building & Conservation) Act 1990.
APPLICATION RESOLVED TO BE GRANTED SUBJECT TO ENTERING INTO A BINDING SECTION 106 AGREEMENT.
(Councillor Adrian Robson left the meeting during consideration of this application in accordance with his prejudicial interest)
21/02984/MJR – CATHAYS
PLOTS 4 AND 5, CENTRAL SQUARE, CITY CENTRE, CARDIFF
Full planning application for a mixed-use building providing commercial uses at ground floor/mezzanine level (Use Classes A1/A2/A3/B1/D1/D2) and residential accommodation above (Use Class C3 and including non C3 Use Class residential), a pavilion (Use Classes A1/A2/A3), public realm, cycle parking, access, drainage and other infrastructure works required for the delivery of Central Square Plots 4 and 5.
Officers were requested to amend Condition 12 (Cycle Parking) to emphasise need for cycle parking to be secure and covered by CCTV.
RESOLVED –
(1) T H A T further to discussion of the matter at Planning Committee meetings
on 1st March, 2023 and 18th May, 2023 and the content of this report, the following
putative reasons for refusal be approved:
No.
(i) In the absence of an up to date preliminary ecological appraisal, the
proposed development fails to appraise the biodiversity interests at this
site. Therefore, the proposed development fails to incorporate,
conserve or enhance biodiversity interests, as those biodiversity
interests have not been quantified in the first instance. As a result, the
development is contrary to the requirements of Policies SP1 (Delivering
the Strategy), MD2 (Design of new development) Criterion 10, MD9
(Promoting Biodiversity) and MG19 (Sites and Species of European
importance) of the Vale of Glamorgan Local Development Plan 2011 –
2026, guidance within the Biodiversity and Development SPG; National
guidance contained within Planning Policy Wales (Edition 11, 2021),
Policy 9 of the Future Wales National Plan 2040 and the Sustainable
Development Principle No.2 of the Well-being of Future Generations
(Wales) Act 2015;
AND
(ii) The proposed development by virtue of its layout, scale and massing
would have a harmful impact on the setting of historic assets. The
benefits of the scheme are not considered to outweigh the identified
harm to the designated heritage assets. The proposed development is
therefore contrary to Policies SP10 (Built and Natural Environment) and
MD8 (Historic Environment) of the Vale of Glamorgan Local
Development Plan 2011 – 2026, guidance within the Porthkerry
Conservation Area Appraisal and Management Plan SPG, National
guidance contained within Planning Policy Wales (Edition 11, 2021)
and Technical advice note (TAN) 24 (the historic environment).
(2) T H A T the Head of Legal and Democratic Services / Operational Manager
Legal Services be authorised to appoint external consultants to conduct the appeal
on behalf of the Council.
Reasons for decisions
(1) Having regard to the contents of the report and discussions at the meeting.
(2) To provide for the appointment of external consultants to prepare the
Council’s defence to the non-determination appeal.
RESOLVED – T H A T in pursuance of the powers delegated to the Committee, the
following application be determined as indicated and any other necessary action be
taken.
2022/00602/RES Received on 12 May 2022
(P24)
APPLICANT: Wales and West Housing Association, c/o Agent,
AGENT: Gwen Thomas Unit 9, Oak Tree Court, Cardiff Gate Business Park, Cardiff,
CF23 8RS
Land at Heol y Pentir, Rhoose
Proposed Reserved Matters application for residential development and associated
works.
APPROVED – Subject to the conditions as contained within the report.
Reason for decision
Having regard to the content of the report and discussions at the meeting.
RESOLVED –
(1) T H A T the Authority’s position, with regard to the Appeal for non-
determination of planning application for the Land at Model Farm, Port Road,
Rhoose (2019/00871/OUT) be defended at Appeal
(2) T H A T the Authority’s defence at Appeal be based on the following putative
reasons for refusal:
• Ecology;
• Heritage;
• Climate Emergency.
(3) T H A T a further report be submitted to the Committee in order to approve the
exact wording for the putative reasons for refusal as part of the Appeal.
Reasons for decisions
(1) To confirm that Committee wishes to defend the Non-Determination Appeal
(2) To confirm that had the Committee been able to do so it would have refused
the application due to the concerns raised around Ecology, Heritage and Climate
Emergency factors.
(3) To allow time for preparation of detailed wording in relation to the putative
reasons for refusal to be considered and approved by the Committee.