Plans for a Pembrokeshire holiday park extension, backed by councillors in 2023 despite repeated officer recommendations for refusal, may now have to be revisited after a high court judgement.

In late 2023 Pembrokeshire County Council approved an application by Heritage Leisure Development (Wales) Ltd for works including the installation of 48 bases for holiday lodges, a spa facility at a former pub, holiday apartments, a café and cycle hire, equestrian stables, a manège and an associated office at Heritage Park, Pleasant Valley/Stepaside.

It was said the scheme, next to the historic remains of the 19th century Stepaside ironworks and colliery, would create 44 jobs.

The final decision was made at full council after members of the planning committee had twice supported the scheme against an officer recommendation of refusal.

Officer grounds for refusal, based on the Local Development Plan, included the site being outside a settlement area.

Approval was given as it was considered that greater weight should be afforded to economic benefits of the scheme rather than policy.

The application was approved by 37 votes to 16, with two abstentions.

Since that approval, a legal challenge was launched by Stepaside & Pleasant Valley Residents’ Group (SPVRG Ltd), who had objected to the original application.

The challenge was made against PCC as the freeholder of the existing park, which it leased to the applicant in 2007.

Permission to bring the challenge was granted on the basis of “no or no adequate reasons were given by the council for its decision” and “that the council dealt with the issue of the economic benefits of the proposed development in a way that was unreasonable and unlawful”.

A High Court hearing presided by Judge Jarman KC recently ruled against the council decision, saying “the reason given by the council did not deal adequately with the important principal issues of development in the countryside, sustainability and precedent”.

It added: “Nor did it deal adequately with the important principal issue of the extent to which detrimental impact on existing sites was or should be taken into account when weighing the economic benefit of the proposed development. The economic assessment of the interested party expressly dealt with the latter, but not the former.”

It said the “major departure from countryside and sustainability policies is likely to have a lasting relevance for the question of policy in future cases,” and the “council’s resolution [was] simply to endorse the resolution of the planning committee, which predated the fuller report of the head of planning to the council.”

A PCC spokesperson said after the hearing: “A judgment has recently been handed down by the High Court in relation to planning permission reference 20/0462/PA. The judge found against the council on two grounds that related to the material consideration relied upon by councillors to outweigh the identified policy conflict and accordingly the planning permission was quashed.

“Officers are considering the merits of appealing this decision and also the procedure for the redetermination of the planning application if the decision is not appealed.”