Pleasant Valley holiday park planning application before committee again

AN application to allow larger units at a Pleasant Valley holiday park is back before planning committee again this week with a threat of judicial review hanging over it.

Heritage Park’s application to vary planning conditions relating to the size of units and relocation of a public car park was due to be approved in November 2020 following a section 106 agreement being put in place.

A report to the planning committee on Tuesday (February 9) states that a pre-action letter was received by the council on January 8 indicating the “likely intention by the Stepaside and Pleasant Valley Residents’ Group to submit for judicial review.”

This is due to “alleged errors in the report to the committee.”

Pembrokeshire County Councillors are being asked to reconsider the application as legal advice is that there are matters in the November report that “could give rise to a challenge.”

The updated planning report will be considered “afresh” and retains an officer recommendation of approval “subject to a Deed of Variation to tie any planning permission to the section 106 agreement entered into” and a number of planning conditions.

The park owners want to alter conditions that limited new caravans to single units, with twin units to be allowed, and whether new caravans could be occupied before a car park was relocated.

Existing planning is in place for 29 new caravans at the park bringing the park’s total of 132 units available.

Objectors to the application included Amroth Community Council, which has submitted public rights of way application under the Wildlife and Countryside Act, and the Stepaside and Pleasant Valley Residents’ Group.

An objection has been received based on alleged non-compliance with The Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act (AMAAA) 1979 due to loss of access by the public to Stepaside/Kilgetty Ironworks and the loss of car park spaces.

A report to Tuesday’s meeting adds that a “robust response” refuting the potential challenge has been made to the letter of notice before action and there was no requirement to postpone consideration of the application.