Understanding planning · 13 min read
Planning application documents: what to read first
Understand planning application documents, officer reports and decision notices. Use a reading checklist, document table and worked example to inspect a case.
Application overview
Alterations & Extension
Proposal details
- Reference
- 25/0451/PA
- Ward
- Pembroke Dock Pennar
- Parish
- HT_Pembroke_Dock
- Agent
- Mr Mike Scourfield
- UPRN
- 10023952632
Sign in to view all collected council fields and recorded changes.
Sign in to view collected detailsDocuments 0 of 0
No documents match this view.
Documents open on the council website. Browse council documents if a link has changed.
Application timeline
Council milestones and published deadlines. A deadline passing does not confirm a decision.
Consultation expiry date
Past published deadlineA published target or deadline. It does not confirm an outcome.
Council sourceStatutory expiry date
Past published deadlineA published target or deadline. It does not confirm an outcome.
Council sourceSite notice end date
Past published deadlineA published target or deadline. It does not confirm an outcome.
Council sourceDecision due date
Past published deadlineA published target or deadline. It does not confirm an outcome.
Council source
Decision & conditions
Planning conditions
- There is potential for protected species to be utilising the site, as a result a Preliminary Ecology Assessment is required. In the absence of this Assessment, the proposal fails to demonstrate that the development would not adversely affect protected species, therefore reducing biodiversity. As such, the proposal conflicts with policies SP 1 (Sustainable Development), criterion 4 of policy GN.1 (General Development Policy) and policy GN.37 (Protection and Enhancement of Biodiversity) of the adopted Local Development Plan for Pembrokeshire (adopted 28 February 2013).
- Due to the siting of the proposed shed adjacent to the highway, the scheme fails to demonstrate the recommended vehicular visibility splays of 2.4m x 25m and pedestrian splays of 1.5m x 1.5m that are required. As a result, the proposed development would result in adverse impact on pedestrian users of the existing footpath and give rise to highway safety concerns in conflict with the requirements of criterion 5 of Policy GN.1 (General Development Policy) of the Local Development Plan for Pembrokeshire (adopted 28 February 2013).
- The application fails to include a Green Infrastructure Statement to demonstrate how green infrastructure has been incorporated into the design of the proposed development. The submitted application does not include any details of green infrastructure or biodiversity enhancement. In the absence of such information, the development fails to demonstrate a positive approach to maintaining and enhancing biodiversity and thus fails to accord with the environmental requirements of policy SP 1 (Sustainable Development), criterion 4 of policy GN.1 (General Development Policy) and policy GN.37 (Protection and Enhancement of Biodiversity) of the adopted Local Development Plan for Pembrokeshire (adopted 28 February 2013) and the Environment (Wales) Act 2016
- The proposed rear single storey extension would be finished with a gable roof design. The proposed roof form is poor in design terms, which will have a significant detrimental impact on the neighbouring properties resulting in a loss of natural light. Furthermore, the proposed siting of the shed within the northeast corner of the curtilage, adjacent to the highway, is considered inappropriate and visually intrusive. Its position fails to make effective use of the available space within the rear garden and resulting in an adverse impact on the character of the area, which leads to a significant adverse impact on visual amenity. The prominence of the shed within the street scene is unnecessary given the substantial rear garden, which could accommodate the structure in a less conspicuous location. As such, it is considered that the proposed development would not result in good design which pays regard to local distinctiveness and character in terms of form, which would be contrary to the requirements of policies SP 1 (Sustainable Development), GN.1 (General Development), and GN.2 (Sustainable Design) of the LDP.
- This decision relates only to the plans identified below: RSG Contracting, Proposed plans and elevations, dated 01/08/2025
