Rear extension and emergency refuge accommodation at 41 New Road, Skewen
Decided: The committee approved application P2025/0825, subject to the conditions contained in the circulated report.
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 approved application P2025/0825, subject to the conditions contained in the circulated report.
Decided: Members approved the application, in line with the officer recommendation. Councillor M Powell abstained, as he was not present for the full debate.
Decided: Members approved the application, in line with the officer recommendation.
Decided: Members approved the application in line with the officer recommendation, subject to a Section 106 agreement, which is a legal deal that sets out what the developer must provide. The agreement would keep the homes as affordable units for local housing need, and would secure an off-site payment to upgrade existing play areas. Councillor G Stacey left the meeting during this item and did not vote.
Decided: Members were minded to refuse the application, contrary to the officer recommendation. They said the garden levels would be too high, there would be severe overlooking of neighbouring properties and a significant loss of amenity to neighbours.
Decided: Members approved the application, in line with the officer recommendation.
Decided: Members approved the application, in line with the officer recommendation.
Decided: Members approved the application in line with the officer recommendation, subject to a Section 106 agreement, which is a legal deal setting out what the developer must provide. The agreement would secure two one-bedroom flats for social rent, meaning rents below market level, on the site.
Decided: Members approved the application in line with the officer recommendation. A condition is a requirement attached to a planning permission, and Members amended condition 6. Condition 6 now requires the root protection to be laid and built to drawing 695.02 Rev B, and kept that way unless the council as local planning authority agrees otherwise in writing.
Decided: Members approved the application in line with the officer recommendation.
RESOLVED to retire into private session in order to receive legal advice pursuant to Paragraph 16 of Schedule 12 to the Local Government Act. Having regard to the relevant paragraphs of the Licensing Authority’s Statement of Licensing Policy and the Statutory Guidance issued under by the DCMS and Home Office identified in the agenda item, and those to which it had been referred by the parties, it was: RESOLVED, having considered all the evidence placed before it, that the application should be granted subject to the licence conditions agreed between the Applicant and the Police. REASONS In coming to its decision, the Sub-Committee made the following findings. 1. The premises had not previously had the benefit of a premises licence. 2. The premises was in a predominantly residential area. 3. Many local residents had objected to the application. 4. None of the Responsible Authorities had objected to the application. 5. Representations made by the police had been agreed by the applicant and subsequently withdrawn. 6. The applicant had prior experience of operating similar licensed premises elsewhere. 7. There was no evidence that these premises were poorly run or a cause of crime and disorder or public nuisance. 8. There were issues of anti-social behaviour /crime and disorder and public nuisance in the vicinity of the premises. 9. The premises was in the vicinity of streets identified in the Council’s statement of Licensing Policy as crime and disorder hotspots. In determining the application, the Sub-Committee was required to follow the decision of the High Court in the case of R (on the application of Daniel Thwaites plc) v Wirral Borough Magistrates Court [2008]EWHC 838(Admin). The Sub-Committee had therefore: 1. Attached weight to the views of the Responsible Authorities and the fact that none of them had objected to the application. 2. Recognised that the Police was the main source of advice to the Sub-Committee on crime and disorder. 3. Noted that concerns and fears about what might happen if the licence was granted, where not supported by real evidence, were not matters that the Sub-Committee could take into account. The Sub-Committee accepted the evidence of the local residents regarding issues of anti-social behaviour and parking in the vicinity of the premises and the likely increase in traffic flow arising from the opening of the premises as a convenience store. Balanced against this however, the Sub-Committee noted the police did not object to the application and had agreed with the applicant for additional conditions to be added to the licence instead. The Sub-Committee noted that some of the issues raised by the objectors (such as the need for the premises) were more relevant to the ongoing planning application than the licensing application. The Sub-Committee also noted that most of the proposed activities at the premises did not require a premises licence and that alcohol sales would therefore only form a relatively small part of the overall business. The Sub-Committee further noted that the Planning process was an entirely separate matter and that a decision to grant the licence did not mean that planning consent would be granted. Although the Sub-Committee shared some of the concerns of the local residents, it concluded that they were not sufficient to overcome the weight that the Sub-Committee must attach to the views of the police and the lack of representations from other responsible authorities. The Sub-Committee was therefore satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that to grant the application in its amended form and subject to the licence conditions agreed between the applicant and the police, would not undermine the licensing objectives. The Sub-Committee was also satisfied that those additional licence conditions were an appropriate and proportionate response to the concerns raised by the objectors.
Decided: The committee resolved that decisions be recorded as shown on the planning applications schedule attached as Appendix A. It also authorised the Planning and Development Manager to draft any amendments to, or additional conditions for, those applications. The individual decisions are not in the material available, so they are not reported here.
Decided: The committee approved the application for listed building consent. The approval was referred to Cadw.
Decided: The committee approved application DM/2025/00296 by 13 votes to none, with no abstentions. The approval is subject to the conditions in the report, plus an extra condition on foul drainage requested by Welsh Water. It is also subject to a Section 106 legal agreement, a legal agreement with the developer under planning law that sets out extra obligations the developer must meet.
Decided: The Committee resolved to grant the application, subject to the conditions in the report and addendum or reported at the meeting.
Decided: The application was deferred for reasons for refusal. The reason given is that the proposed extension would have an overbearing relationship with a neighbouring home, contrary to Policy KP5 of the adopted Local Development Plan 2016.
Decided: The Committee referred the decision back to the decision maker, recommending that it be referred, as a key decision, for determination by Cabinet. It also recommended to Cabinet that Cabinet should be the decision maker on the planning application.
Decided: Members asked for a site visit to application P2025/0825 at 41 New Road, Skewen. After a vote, the committee agreed the site visit. The application is for a three-storey rear extension, an external staircase and changes to windows, to keep the ground floor offices and convert the upper floors into emergency refuge accommodation.
Decided: The application was withdrawn from consideration at today's meeting. It will return to the committee only after a site visit has taken place.
Decided: The Committee approved the application, subject to the conditions in the report. Twelve members voted for it, and none against.
Decided: The Committee approved the application, subject to the conditions in the report. Twelve members voted for it, and none against.
Decided: The Committee approved the application, subject to the conditions in the report. Twelve members voted for it, and none against.
Decided: The Committee approved the porch and retaining wall, subject to conditions. It was minded to approve removal of the chimney stacks, because the loss was not harmful to the heritage value of the street scene. A minded-to decision must return to Committee before it is final.