Loading
Loading
Councils have been deciding individual planning applications and progressing local development plan work, including annual monitoring reports due with Welsh Government by 31 October 2026.[1][3]
Written in November 2026 from council records since 20 September 2026, open consultations and official sources. Written automatically, then checked: every point names its sources and every figure appears in them. Follow the links to check anything before relying on it.
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.
Planning officers decide most applications. Larger or disputed ones go to the planning committee of councillors, which meets in public.
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.
| Council | Items | With a decision |
|---|---|---|
| Rhondda Cynon Taf | 99 | 89 |
| Caerphilly | 95 | 0 |
| Gwynedd | 65 | 51 |
| Wrexham | 59 | 43 |
| Pembrokeshire | 58 | 51 |
| Denbighshire | 38 | 32 |
| Carmarthenshire | 25 | 21 |
| Bridgend | 24 | 0 |
| Powys | 21 | 11 |
| Ceredigion | 20 | 11 |
| Neath Port Talbot | 20 | 18 |
| Blaenau Gwent | 19 | 17 |
| Cardiff | 18 | 17 |
| Newport | 18 | 12 |
| Conwy | 18 | 18 |
| Swansea | 16 | 16 |
| Vale of Glamorgan | 15 | 11 |
| Torfaen | 14 | 13 |
| Monmouthshire | 13 | 10 |
| Flintshire | 10 | 6 |
| Merthyr Tydfil | 5 | 5 |
Decided: The Committee noted the report.
Decided: The Committee refused planning permission for two reasons: the cumulative health impact of another hot food outlet, and insufficient evidence on parking and highway safety.
Decided: The Committee refused planning permission for two reasons: an overconcentration of houses in multiple occupation (HMOs) near the site, and extra demand for on-street parking.
Decided: The Committee deferred consideration of the application. It asked the applicant to consider a connection to the mains sewer, or to show why a connection is not feasible.
Decided: The Cabinet agreed to recommend to full Council that the four draft guidance documents be approved for formal public consultation. It also agreed to give officers delegated power to make minor changes, such as typing or factual corrections.
Decided: Members delegated to the Head of Environment Department the power to approve the application, subject to a Section 106 agreement (a legal deal in which the developer pays towards local services) or a unilateral agreement for an education contribution and play equipment on the open space, and to conditions. A proposal to refuse the application fell on a recorded vote, with 6 in favour and 9 against.
Decided: Members delegated powers to the Senior Planning Manager (officers decide without a further committee vote) to refuse the application. The reasons were: visual harm in the Llŷn Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB, a nationally protected landscape); insufficient information for an assessment of the Pen Llŷn and Sarnau Special Area of Conservation (a protected wildlife site); loss of the best and most versatile farmland; a sub-standard entrance with a second entrance left unrestricted; no drainage statement; and no flood consequences assessment in flood zones 2 and 3.
Decided: The committee resolved to refuse the application, for four reasons. The reasons were: the huts would create new permanent camping accommodation in a Special Landscape Area (a local landscape protection area); there is insufficient information on the effect on the Afon Dyfrdwy and Llyn Tegid Special Area of Conservation; flood consequences were not assessed in flood zones 2 and 3; and no drainage statement was submitted.
Decided: Members were minded to refuse the application, contrary to the officer recommendation. The matter was deferred to a later meeting for a report on the strengths and weaknesses of refusing against officer advice.
Decided: Members were minded to refuse Conservation Area Consent, which is permission to demolish buildings in a conservation area, contrary to the officer recommendation. The matter was deferred to a later meeting. The report will cover the strengths and weaknesses of refusing against officer advice.
Decided: Members approved the outline application in line with the officer recommendation.
Decided: Members approved the application in line with the officer recommendation, but removed condition 3, which required screening.
Decided: Members approved the application in line with the officer recommendation.
Decided: Members refused the application, contrary to the officer recommendation.
Decided: The Committee refused planning permission for the repair, alteration and extension of the building at Rainbow Bargain Ltd, Bangor Street, Roath, and for a change to a flexible mixed use. The reason given was that the height and position of the northern extension would be too close to the side windows of the neighbouring property, which has consent for residential use. This would harm the amenity of its occupants, and the minute says it is contrary to Policy KP5 of the adopted Local Development Plan 2016.
Decided: The Committee agreed and noted its forward work programme, subject to the changes reported: a new Local Development Plan item on 15 October, subject to an all-Member workshop, and a wider review of county road maintenance following a Council motion.
Decided: The minute records a resolution that decisions be recorded as shown on the schedule attached as Appendix A. The schedule itself is not in the material provided, so individual decisions are not reported here.
RESOLVED: that the application be REFUSED contrary to officer recommendations for the reasons for refusal would be the development would be outside the LDP development boundary and would be an over-concentration of affordable housing in a single location. It was also would have an unacceptable impact on highway safety Meeting Concluded at 11:10am
Decided: The committee granted planning permission, subject to the conditions in the report and addendum. The addendum proposed changing condition 6 to allow five years of data gathering.