Skip to main content
Internet Archive's 25th Anniversary Logo

Full text of "Cabinet"

See other formats


Rep 
No. 


Reference 


General 
(Joint) 
3950/Gen 


Welsh 
Government 
Network 
Management 
Division 
Transport 
4180/Gen 


Ministry of 
Defence 
Estates — 
Safeguarding 


Defence 
Infrastructure 
Organisation 


Report of Consultations 
APPENDIX A1 


Supplementary Planning Guidance 


Representation 


The Welsh Government (Network 
Management Division) has no 
significant comments relating to the 
comprehensive LDP2 SPG 
consultation. 


The county of Pembrokeshire and also 
the National Park contains a number of 
MOD sites along with all or part of 
Safeguarding zones designated to 
protect technical assets and explosive 
storage sites. Statutory safeguarding 
zones surround Cawdor Barracks, 
Manorbier and Castlemartin Ranges 
and the MOD should be consulted on 
development within these safeguarding 
zones so we can assess proposed 
developments and determine any 
impact on our assets and operations. 
The provision of new housing and the 
creation of new and/or expanded 
caravan, camping and chalet sites 
within these zones would need to be 
assessed by the MOD. 


Where development falls outside 
designated safeguarding zones the 
MOD may also have an interest, 
particularly where the development is 
of a type likely to have an impact on 
operational capability. An example of 
this type of development is the 
installation of wind turbine generators. 
Wind turbines can impact on military 
aviation activities in particular they can 
degrade and cause interference to the 
effective operation of radar and other 
air traffic systems. The MOD therefore 
needs to review all applications for all 
types of wind turbines 11 metres or 
greater in height or turbines with rotor 
blades 2 metres or greater in length. 
Policy 31 of the adopted Local 
Development Plan requires any effect 
on radars to be demonstrated. 


Officer Response and 
Recommendation 


Comment noted. No change needed. 


Comments noted. 


The respective planning authorities’ 
development management service 
will consult the Ministry of Defence in 
accordance with the relevant 
Safeguarding Zones provisions. 


With regard to developments falling 
outside designated safeguarding 
zones the National Park Authority 
and the County Council do carry out 
these consultations. 


No change needed. 


Rep 


No. 


3. 


4. 


Reference 


0/Gen 


Authority 
Member 


4698/Gen 


Mr Harrington 


Representation 


The MOD has no objection to the new 
and proposed changes to existing 
Supplementary Planning Guidance 
items however the presence of 
statutory safeguarding zones within the 
county of Pembrokeshire and the 
Pembrokeshire Coast National Park 
should be taken into account by 
decision makers and also the 
requirement to consult the MOD on all 
wind turbine developments exceeding 
11 metres in height. 

Are there were likely to be any 
changes to landscape character areas 
as a result of the loss of Ash trees as a 
result of Ash Die Back, given that this 
has been quite a significant issue in 
some places. 


Which item of SPG are you 
supporting or objecting to? 

Other (please specify) - not had a look 
at the survey as yet 

Please make your response below. 


i think building of more empty homes in 


Officer Response and 
Recommendation 


Advice was sought from Natural 
Resources Wales (NRW). 


NRW are keen to try and keep 
LANDMAP up to date as far as 
possible, and any significant change 
in a locality can warrant an update to 
the LANDMAP surveys and mapping. 


The NRW Officer advised that many 
trees are ‘living with’ ash dieback so 
their contribution as yet may not be 
lost in the landscape. But where 
there is a remarkable change we can 
update the LANDMAP 
records/GIS/survey including any 
recommendations on what to do, if 
anything. 


NRW does not have a means to do 
this nationally at present. 


For a change to be implemented it 
would need to be a change that is 
significant enough to change the 
character/aspect area classification 
and/or evaluation or just to update 
the survey description because the 
existing description does not reflect 
the current situation. 


NRW would also welcome any locally 
available evidence to assist in its 
understanding of the issue. 


The issue will continue to be 
monitored. No change needed at this 
stage. 
Looking at the context Welsh 
Government has issued a 
statement on ‘Second Homes’ on the 
29" January 2021 outlining existing 
initiatives: 

- Council tax premiums on 

second homes 


Rep 
No. 


Reference 


Representation 


the village is a waste of energy ,not 
good for the local economy except the 
builders and planners and we have not 
got the infrastructure for more people 
draining the services that we still have 
Further clarification email received: 


The Village i refer to is Newport 
Pembrokeshire. | have seen 
unaffordable housing built that no local 
can afford to buy . It has also come to 
my notice that some people buy these 
homes and register them as a place of 
buisness avoiding council tax and 
getting relief on their homes in the city 
citing that they are holiday homes 
when all the time they leave their 
homes in pembrokeshire empty most 
of the year or rent them out at great 
profit to themselves not of any profit 
too local communities. 


Officer Response and 
Recommendation 

- Land Transaction Tax 

- Researching the feasibility of 
monitoring non-domestic 
rates 

- Training for local authorities 
on the compulsory powers in 
relation to empty homes 

The statement refers: 

- to a range of questions that 
need to be solved. 

- | The need to consider the 
recommendations from_Dr 
Simon Brooks' research and 
the need for further action. 

- Welsh Government 
commissioning further 
research to qualitatively 
assess interventions 
elsewhere. What are the 
impacts? 

- To the need to understand 
the data around ‘second 
homes’ which encompasses 
a myriad of property issues. 

- To developing a new 
methodology for 
understanding housing 
needs. 

- Exploring the potential for a 
statutory registration scheme 
for holiday accommodation. 

- Exploring the reforming of 
local government finance. 


The commitment is to continue to 
explore this work programme in the 
next Senedd term (election results 
pending). The National Park Authority 
would need to reflect on the outcome 
of these initiatives. 


Officers are engaged with the issue 
at a national level. We are part of a 
Rural Housing working group, 
facilitated by Welsh Local 
Government Association, which 
focussed greatly on second homes 
and holiday lets. The 
recommendations of that group were 
put to the Welsh Local Government 
Association rural forum, where they 
were accepted and are to be raised 
with Welsh Government. In addition 
to this the 3 National Parks have 
been meeting with Welsh 
Government officers, including the 
recently appointed a Head of Second 
Homes Policy Officer, in order to feed 


Rep 
No. 


Reference 


Archaeology 
(Joint) 
4689/Arch 


Dyfed 
Archaeological 
Trust — 
Development 
Management 


4689/Arch 


Dyfed 
Archaeological 
Trust — 
Development 
Management 


4689/Arch 


Dyfed 
Archaeological 
Trust — 
Development 
Management 


Representation 


I’ve looked through the draft SPG, 
which looks generally fine, and just 
have the following few 
comments/suggestions: 


25.Where insufficient information has 
been provided, the planning authority 
can decide refuse to grant planning 
permission. Just a typo —‘to refuse’? 
65.Historic Environment Appraisal We 
rarely, if ever, recommend an appraisal 
nowadays. | think these were 
introduced as a way of dealing with the 
influx of wind turbine applications a few 
years ago. | suggest removing this 
paragraph to avoid confusion with 
desk-based assessments. 

66.Where there is good reason to 
believe that an application site has 
significant archaeological potential and 
information is currently inadequate, the 
planning authority may direct the 
applicant to provide a desk-based 
assessment prior to the determination 
of an application. | suggest that this is 
reworded to say ‘where there is good 
reason to believe an application site 
may have an adverse impact on the 
historic environment’. The significance 


Officer Response and 
Recommendation 

into their considerations and these 
meeting are to continue as the 
momentum grows. 


Officers of the Authority have also 
been invited to liaise with 
Pembrokeshire County Council to 
look at issues locally. This Authority 
is responsible for planning only within 
the National Park. 


Also it might be useful to note for 
information that the issue of second 
homes and a policy response of local 
needs housing was debated in detail 
at the recent Local Development Plan 
Examination. The Authority's paper 
on the issue of local connections 
policies is available to view on the 
Authority's website. 


Such a policy was not included in the 
Local Development Plan. Some 
sustainability appraisal monitoring 


indicators were included as an 
outcome. 


Para 25 change proposed: Agree. 


Para 65 change proposed: Agree. 


Para 66 change proposed: Agree. 


Rep 


No. 


10. 


11. 


12. 


13. 


Reference 


4689/Arch 


Dyfed 
Archaeological 
Trust — 
Development 
Management 
4689/Arch 


Dyfed 
Archaeological 
Trust — 
Development 
Management 


4689/Arch 


Dyfed 
Archaeological 
Trust — 
Development 
Management 


4213/Arch 


Natural 
Resources 
Wales 
4697/Arch 


Mr O’Brien 


1095/Arch 


Lichfields on 
behalf of Bourne 
Leisure 


Representation 


of this impact will be confirmed by the 
assessment. 

68. The main types of geophysical 
survey currently being used are 
magnetometer survey and ground 
penetrating radar. Perhaps Resistivity 
Survey should be added here. 


71. In each area sufficient excavation 
will normally be undertaken to ensure 
that the natural horizons are reached 
and proven. An evaluation will 
excavate deposits to the top of the 
archaeological horizon or the top of 
natural horizons — whichever is 
reached first. 

72. advice should be sought from the 
Dyfed Archaeological Trust, who can 
recommend a form of recording 
appropriate to circumstances and 
national standards. Typo on 
‘Archaeological’ and | suggest this 
should again refer to the Development 
Management section of the Trust. 


| hope this helps — let me know if you 
require further information. 

e Historic Environment (Archaeology) 
Archaeology is outside of Natural 
Resources Wales’ remit and therefore 
have no comment on the above SPG. 


Officer summary of representation 
A detailed submission is provided — 
see Appendix B to this report. 


The issue relates to how the 
commentator considers the settings of 
Scheduled Monuments are considered 
in the County Council application 
process. 


The request is for ‘change behaviour’ 
alongside any necessary change to 
processes. 


Two case studies are included to 
support the requested change. 
Name of SPG item: Archaeology 
Object: Paragraph 3 
“Supplementary Planning Guidance 
does not form part of the two Local 
Development Plans, but when adopted 
has significant weight in deciding 
whether a proposal can receive 
planning permission.” (Lichfields 
emphasis) 


Officer Response and 
Recommendation 


Para 68 change proposed: Agree. 


Para 71 change proposed: Agree. 


Para 72 change proposed: Agree. 


Comment noted. No change needed. 


The representation appears to reflect 
a misunderstanding concerning the 
purpose of the Supplementary 
Planning Guidance, which is 
designed as a user friendly 
signposting document and guide to 
archaeology in the planning process. 
It is the primary legislation, secondary 
legislation and other Welsh 
Government documents that should 
be referred to understand in detail 
what is required and these are all 
signposted in the document. 


No change proposed. 


The ‘Introduction’ to the 
Supplementary Planning Guidance 
has been reviewed to ensure 
consistency with Welsh 
Government’s Development Plan 
Manual 3 Chapter 9: Supplementary 
Planning Guidance. This has resulted 
in edits to paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 
which should address the issue 


Rep 
No. 


Reference 


1095/Arch 


Lichfields on 
behalf of Bourne 
Leisure 


Representation Officer Response and 
Recommendation 
Chapter 9 of the Development Plans raised. 


Manual (Edition 3) (DPM) states that 
“Only the policies in the adopted 
development plan have special status 
under section 38(6) of the PCPA 2004 
in deciding planning applications. 
However, Supplementary Planning 
Guidance (SPG) can be taken into 
account as a material consideration 
provided it is derived from and is 
consistent with the adopted 
development plan and has itself been 
the subject of consultation, which will 
carry more weight.” 

Whilst it is recognised that only limited 
weight can be given to SPGs that have 
not followed the steps set out in the 
DPM, it is not automatically the case 
that significant weight is given to an 
SPG where these procedures have 
been followed. It is for the decision 
maker to decide the weight to be given 
to the SPG. 

To ensure consistency with Chapter 9 
of the DPM, we suggest that the word 
“significant” is removed from 
Paragraph 3. This will ensure that the 
weight awarded to the SPG is for the 
decision-maker to decide when 
determining planning applications, 
reflecting national policy and guidance. 
Bourne Leisure therefore proposes the 
following amendment to Paragraph 3: 
“Supplementary Planning Guidance 
does not form part of the two Local 
Development Plans, but when adopted 
has significant weight in deciding 
whether a proposal can receive 
planning permission.” (proposed 
amendment with strikethrough) 


Paragraph 40 Paragraph 40 has been edited to 
Paragraph 40 of the SPG states: meet the concerns raised. 
“The planning authority is required to 

consult with Cadw (acting on behalf of 

Welsh Government) on any application 

likely to affect a scheduled monument 

or its setting. A planning application 

which adversely affects a scheduled 

monument will normally be refused.” 

Bourne Leisure does not object to the 

principle of protecting scheduled 

monuments and their settings. 

However, the Company is keen to 

ensure that any such considerations 

are in accordance with national 

planning policy and guidance. 

Paragraph 4.2 of the Planning Policy 


Rep 


No. 


14. 


Reference 


Biodiversity 
(Joint) 
0/Bio 


Officer 


Representation Officer Response and 
Recommendation 
Wales Technical Advice Note 24 
(TAN24): The Historic Environment 
(2017) states that “When considering 
development proposals that affect 
scheduled monuments or other 
nationally important archaeological 
remains, there should be a 
presumption in favour of their physical 
preservation in situ, i.e. a presumption 
against proposals which would involve 
significant alteration or cause damage, 
or would have a significant adverse 
impact causing harm within the setting 
of the remains (see Annex A).” 
To ensure consistency with Paragraph 
4.2 of TAN24, Bourne Leisure 
proposes the following amendment to 
Paragraph 40: 
“The planning authority is required to 
consult with Cadw (acting on behalf of 
Welsh Government) on any application 
likely to affect a scheduled monument 
or its setting. A planning application 
which 
monument would have a significant 


adverse impact to or within the setting 
of a scheduled monument, will 


normally be refused.” (proposed 
amendments underlined and with 
strikethrough). 

This proposed amendment will ensure 
that planning applications which may 
have a significant adverse impact on 
the setting of a scheduled monument 
are considered against the 
requirements of TAN24. 


Propose inclusion reference to the Natural Resources Wales has been 
consulted on this suggestion and this 
is supported in principle. Suggested 
edits are proposed (to the proposed 
new appendix) which are agreed and 
are reflected in Appendix C to this 


protection of peat soils. 


Committee Report. 


It is proposed that Biodiversity 
Supplementary Planning Guidance 
be amended by adding a short 
paragraph that cross refers to a new 
Appendix containing guidance on 
peat. It is suggested this is added 
after the ‘SuDS section’ (paragraphs 


62 to 64). 


‘Peat: 


Rep 
No. 


15. 


Reference 


0/Bio 


Officer 


Representation 


On the Biodiversity SPG we think we 
need potentially a cross-reference in 
somewhere to the new NRW guidance 
on phosphates....... 


Officer Response and 
Recommendation 


Peatlands hold large stocks 
carbon and excavation of 
peat will result in large 
carbon losses from the 
excavated peat and also the 
areas affected by drainage. 
Appendix x provides more 
advice on peat management 
procedures with the aim of 
preventing disturbance in the 
first instance.’ 


Also the Authorities’ Constraints layer 
would be amended to include the 
peat layer from Lle: Lle - Unified Peat 


Map of Wales (gov.wales) 


The layer on the National Park 
Authority’s website can be found 
here: 

Pembrokeshire Coast National Park 


Authority: (arcgis.com). 


A footnote will be added to the 
paragraph above in the 
Supplementary Planning to advise 
where the peat layer can be 
accessed and to advise: ‘That this 
layer should be used with some 
caution as there still may be areas of 
deep peat that are not shown and 
areas that are shown as deep peat 
that may not be. As a precautionary 
approach, where deep peat is 
suspected a peat survey should be 
undertaken.’ 


It is worth noting that Natural 
Resources Wales are currently 
working on peat survey guidance. 


The new Appendix to the 
Supplementary Planning Guidance 
can be viewed in Appendix C to the 
Committee Report. 

It is proposed to insert text under the 
International, European and UK 
legislation under paragraph 19 under 
the Habitats Regulations 2017. 


Text: 


‘Natural Resources Wales 
Planning Policy Guidance on 
Water Quality in Riverine Special 
Areas of Conservation (SAC) 


Rep 


No. 


16. 


17. 


18. 


19. 


20. 


Reference 


4213/Bio 


Natural 
Resources 
Wales 


4213/Bio 


Natural 
Resources 
Wales 


4213/Bio 


Natural 
Resources 
Wales 


4213/Bio 


Natural 
Resources 
Wales 
4213/Bio 


Natural 
Resources 
Wales 


Representation 


e Biodiversity 

We welcome and support the 
submitted SPG and offer the following 
comments. 


Table 1. Protection of Sites — Following 
the changes made to the Conservation 
of Habitats and Species Regulations 
2017 (as amended), Special Areas of 
Conservation (SAC) and Special 
Protection Areas (SPA) are now known 
collectively as the national site 
network. Any reference to Natura 2000 
sites should be amended accordingly. 
Paragraphs 47, 72 and 73 - We 
welcome the emphasis on the 
enhancement of biodiversity 
throughout the document. 


Paragraph 28 — Reference is made to 
Paragraph 54 in respect of licensing, it 
should be amended to Paragraph 57. 


Paragraph 29 — We advise removing 
reference to particular species, all 
species should be considered unless 
scoped out. 


Paragraph 42 — It is stated ‘A proposal 
must show how it has been designed 
in such a way so as to minimise any 
adverse effects..’ we recommend this 


wording is amended to include avoid or 


minimise any adverse effects, in line 
with Paragraph 44. 


Officer Response and 
Recommendation 

In January 2021 NRW published an 
assessment of phosphate levels in 
Riverine SACs in Wales. The 
assessment showed a failure to meet 
targets in the Dee, Cleddau, Wye, 
Teifi and Usk. 


Alongside this data NRW published a 
Planning position statement and 
Interim guidance which should both 
be considered by applicants for 
proposals within the catchment or 
which impact on the waterbody of a 
Riverine SAC. More information is 
available via the PCC website: 


https ://www.pembrokeshire.gov.uk/pl 
anning-and-ecology/phosphates- 
quidance-from-national-resources- 
wales ‘ 

Agree to amendment proposed 
regarding references to the National 
Site Network. Amendment done in 
Tables 1 and 2 and Appendix 1. 


Support noted. 


Agree to correct referencing. Note 
further edits to the document may 
change the paragraph number. An 
automated cross reference has been 
inserted. 


Amendment regarding removing 
reference to particular species 
agreed. 


Amendment regarding the wording of 
this paragraph is agreed. 


Rep 


No. 


21. 


22. 


Reference 


1095/Bio 


Lichfields on 
behalf of Bourne 
Leisure 


1095/Bio 


Lichfields on 
behalf of Bourne 
Leisure 


Representation 


Paragraph 25 of the Biodiversity SPG 
states: 

“This section considers how 
biodiversity is best protected and 
enhanced through the development 
management process. There are three 
key elements to this: 

e Providing accurate information with 
the planning application on the existing 
status of habitats or features and the 
presence of plants, invertebrates, 
amphibians, reptiles, birds or 
mammals (including bats) on or 
adjacent to the proposed development 
site. 

e Where it is known that a protected or 
priority species or habitat is present, 
ensuring that assessments are 
undertaken to identify the potential 


impact(s) of the proposed development 


on them, so as to inform the planning 
process. 

e Where such assessments 
demonstrate that species or habitats 
would be adversely affected, ensuring 
the development proposal is modified, 
to avoid the destruction or damage of 
sites used by protected species and/or 
to mitigate/compensate any potential 
impact.” 


Bourne Leisure endorses the approach 
set out in Paragraph 25 as it is 
practical and recognises that mitigation 
and compensation for biodiversity is 
sometimes needed. This is consistent 
with Planning Policy Wales (Edition 10) 
which states: 

“Planning authorities must follow a 
stepwise approach to maintain and 
enhance biodiversity and build resilient 
ecological networks by ensuring that 
any adverse environmental effects are 
firstly avoided, then minimized, 
mitigated, and as a last resort 
compensated for; enhancement must 
be secured wherever possible.” 
(paragraph 6.4.21) 


Paragraph 55 
Paragraph 55 of the Biodiversity SPG 
states: 


“Examples of the use of planning 
obligations for major developments 
may include: 

e Provision of access and interpretation 


Officer Response and 
Recommendation 


Support noted. 


The general guidance is that LPAs 
should seek to overcome planning 
objections, where appropriate, or 
secure mitigation by condition rather 
than by s.106 obligations — this is set 
out in paragraph 4.21 of Welsh 
Government Circular WGC 016/2014. 
The Circular does note that there are 


Rep 
No. 


Reference 


Representation 


of facilities for areas of biodiversity 
interest / feature; 

e Provision of new habitats; ...” 

The “provision of access and 
interpretation of facilities for areas of 
biodiversity interest / feature” is not 
considered to be a requirement sought 
through a planning obligation, as 
Paragraph 55 denotes. 

Instead this should be delivered by 
way of a planning condition. 

The Welsh Government Circular ‘The 
Use of Planning Conditions for 
Development Management’ 

(ref. WGC 016/2014) sets out that 
planning conditions should be used in 
preference to planning obligations, with 
Paragraph 4.21 of the Circular stating 
that “Local planning authorities should 
seek to overcome planning objections, 
where appropriate, or secure mitigation 
by condition 

rather than by a planning obligation.” 
There is no reason why such 
infrastructure cannot be delivered by 
condition. 

The following amendment to 
Paragraph 55 of the SPG is proposed: 
“Examples of the use of planning 
obligations for major developments 
may include: 

interest feature; 

e Provision of new habitats; ...” 
(proposed amendment with 
strikethrough) 

The proposed amendment will ensure 
that the local planning authorities are 
adopting appropriate guidance as to 
what planning obligations they may 
seek for major developments. Of 
course, the authorities may wish to 
consider adding the provision of 
access and interpretation of 

facilities as an example of mitigation 
and/or enhancement elsewhere in the 
document. 


Officer Response and 
Recommendation 

some matters which are more 
appropriately required through a 
planning obligation and should not be 
required in a condition, although the 
examples given are transfers of land 
or payments to the Local Planning 
Authority. 


However, it is noted that paragraph 
5.81 of the Circular says that “there 
are certain sites where any conditions 
or obligations affecting them will need 
to be consistent with the provisions 
applicable to their protection”, and 
directs the reader to TAN 5 for further 
advice. It is considered that this can 
be interpreted as meaning that the 
general guidance on the use of 
conditions (and s.106 obligations) 
should be read in the context of the 
specific guidance contained in TAN 5. 


Paragraph 4.7.1 of TAN 5 
acknowledges the general position 
(i.e. the preference of using 
conditions over s.106 obligations), 
but notes that “in many 
circumstances, for nature 
conservation matters, obligations 
provide a more flexible, but equally 
reliable and enforceable means of 
controlling development than 
conditions”. It also notes that they 
are particularly useful to, among 
other things, “ensure proposed 
natural heritage benefits are 
delivered in a timely and appropriate 
way, where these have been material 
considerations in the planning 
decision” — this is essentially what the 
particular part of the Supplementary 
Planning Guidance relates to. This 
guidance in TAN 5 therefore provides 
a justification for imposing s.106 
obligations for specific purposes 
relating to nature conservation. 


Paragraph 4.7.2 includes the 
following (among others) as 
examples of matters that obligations 
may be appropriate for providing: 


e information and interpretation, for 
example, about the geological 
interest of a site or feature; 

e improved access for all to sites or 
features of nature conservation 
interest. 


Rep 


No. 


Reference 


23. 3468/Bio 


Campaign for 
the Protection of 
Rural Wales 


Representation 


... Comment 


We support the protection and 
enhancement of Biodiversity but 
unless we have tight conditions in 
place on planning consents and good 
monitoring and quick enforcement it 
won't be delivered. 


We are disappointed at the lack of 
enforcement of conditions on consent 
by the County Council some of which 


directly relate to biodiversity provision. 


We hope you fare better. 


Officer Response and 
Recommendation 


This broadly covers the part of the 
SPG which the representation 
received takes issue with i.e. 
“Provision of access and 
interpretation of facilities for areas of 
biodiversity interest / feature”. 


It is also worth noting that the model 
conditions in the Conditions Circular 
do not include conditions dealing with 
the specific matters in question i.e. 
access to and interpretation of areas 
of biodiversity interest (albeit model 
conditions 125 — 127 do relate to 
other aspects of wildlife and habitat 
protection). When taken with the 
specific guidance in TAN 5, this could 
also be used to argue that conditions 
are not necessarily the way in which 
matters in question should be dealt 
with. 


Therefore, whilst there is probably an 
argument that this could be dealt with 
by condition provided it was carefully 
worded, given the specific guidance 
in TAN 5 there is a reasonably 
strong argument to justify continuing 
with the approach set out in the 
Supplementary Planning Guidance 
by dealing with it through a s.106 
obligation instead. 


The comment on enforcement is 
noted. No change to the guidance is 
needed in response to this. 
Pembrokeshire County Council will 
contact CPRW to investigate the 
comment around a lack of 
enforcement on conditions relating to 
biodiversity.