Four holiday units and games room at Land at Pant Y Dwr, Rhayader

“Application Type: Full planning permission…”

“Proposal: Siting of 2 holiday units, erection of games room, extension of access tracks, sewage treatment plant and all associated works…”

“The application seeks planning permission for the siting of two additional holiday let units and the erection of a games room within an agricultural field adjacent to the defined ‘small village’ of Pant-y-Dŵr, as identified in the Powys Local Development Plan (2018).”

“In principle, national planning policy set out in Planning Policy Wales (Edition 12) supports sustainable rural tourism development where it is of an appropriate scale and nature, is sensitively located, and does not result in unacceptable harm to the character of the countryside. Such development can contribute positively to the rural economy through diversification and job creation, provided it is well integrated into its surroundings.”

“25/1443/FUL - Siting of 2 holiday lets, new access, package treatment plant and all associated works – Approved 14 th October 2024.”

“Given the above considerations, it is therefore considered that the proposed development does fundamentally comply with relevant planning policy. The recommendation is one of approval subject to conditions.”

“Concerns have been raised regarding the potential for overdevelopment; however, having regard to the scale of the proposal, its relationship to the previously approved units, and the extent of proposed mitigation planting, the development is not considered to represent an over-intensive or incongruous form of development in this location.”

“Land in grades 1, 2 and 3a should only be developed if there is an overriding need for the development, and either previously developed land or land in lower agricultural grades is unavailable, or available lower grade land has an environmental value recognised by a landscape, wildlife, historic or archaeological designation which outweighs the agricultural considerations.”

“The Committee considered the report (copies filed with the signed minutes).”

“Members questioned the potential for future development on the neighbouring land and whether the existing pods had been relocated as this had been highlighted in the Community Council submission, the Officer clarified that no neighbouring land is owned by the applicant and that any movement of the pods would be considered de minimis.”

“It was moved and duly seconded to approve the application as recommended by the Officer.”

“RESOLVED: Reason for decision: that the application be granted consent, subject to the conditions set out in the report which is filed with the signed minutes.”

“As officer’s recommendation as set out in the report which is filed with the signed minutes.”