Second cricket pitch at Cresselly Cricket Club, Kilgetty, Cresselly

What was proposed

The application sought to change an agricultural field into a second cricket pitch with one artificial wicket, fencing, and no buildings or lighting.

“Proposed Development: Change of use from an agricultural field to a second cricket pitch…”

“The applicant seeks planning permission for the change of use from an agricultural field to a second cricket pitch.”

Officer report

The site

The 1.65-hectare field lies in the countryside south of Cresselly, opposite the existing cricket ground, with fields, a farm and homes nearby.

“The site comprises a field situated within the countryside to the south of Cresselly, opposite the Cresselly Cricket Club Ground. The site, which has an area of 1.65 hectares, is accessed via a lane which leads south- east off the A4075. To the west is the existing cricket club facility, and to…”

Officer report

Planning history

There was no relevant planning history, and the proposal was not environmental impact assessment development.

“Planning History, EIA screening and scoping history…”

“The proposal does not fall within Schedule 1 or 2 of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)) (Wales) Regulations 2017 and is not EIA development.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Approval was recommended because community and social benefits outweighed the loss of agricultural land, while visual, residential, highway and biodiversity impacts were acceptable.

“The development would utilise agricultural land. PPW explains that Agricultural Land of Classification (ALC) 1, 2 and 3a is the Best and Most Versatile (BMV) and should be conserved as a finite resource for the future.”

“Given the primacy of the LDP, the nature and scale of the development, proximity to the existing cricket club and the social benefits that would result from the scheme, on balance, it is considered that the principle of the proposal should be supported, notwithstanding the loss of agricultural land.”

Officer report

Consultation and representations

Highways accepted the access arrangements, the Ecologist supported a biodiversity condition, the Community Council supported approval, and no third-party representations were received.

“The proposed access route for pedestrians is not shown within the application. Could the applicant please clarify the proposed pedestrian access arrangements? Specifically, is pedestrian access still intended to be through the site’s eastern boundary hedge onto the private access lane, or will it be via the existing vehicular access onto the lane?”

“A.2.6 The application was advertised as a major application by site notice and in the press. No third-party representations have been received.”

Officer report

Who spoke

The Planning Officer presented the application, and no public speakers attended the meeting.

The committee vote

Councillor Alan Dennison moved approval, Councillor Chris Williams seconded it, and all 12 recorded votes supported the motion.

“Councillor Alan Dennison Moved the recommendation for approval; Seconded by Councillor Chris Williams.”

“For the Motion: Councillors Steve Alderman, Mark Carter, Alec Cormack, Alan Dennison, Tim Evans, Brian Hall, Simon Hancock, Nick Neumann, Tony Wilcox, Chris Williams, Michael Williams and Danny Young [12]”

Minutes

The decision

The application was approved subject to the reasons and conditions in the recommendation.

“It is recommended that the application be APPROVED subject to the following conditions:”

“Time period for implementation • Development in accordance with approved and amended plans • Implementation of green infrastructure and biodiversity enhancements.”

Officer report