A legal request to overturn a Pembrokeshire County Council-granted approval for a £6m expansion of a south Pembrokeshire holiday park is still ongoing despite a previous announcement it had been turned down, county planners have heard.

Back in February, Pembrokeshire planners were informed a legal challenge to a November 2023-granted application for works at Heritage Park, Pleasant Valley/Stepaside had been launched.

The holiday park scheme had previously been backed twice by county planners after a ‘minded to approve’ cooling-off period was invoked as it was against repeated officer recommendations to refuse.

The controversial scheme by Heritage Leisure Development (Wales) Ltd includes 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 associated office, and associated works.

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

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

Along with 245 objections to the current scheme, Stepaside & Pleasant Valley Residents’ Group (SPVRG Ltd) – formed to object to an earlier 2019 application which was later withdrawn – also raised a 38-page objection, with a long list of concerns.

A failed legal challenge to try and overturn a council decision to approve three separate planning applications at Heritage Park was launched in 2021 by SPVRG Ltd, which failed in early 2022; the council awarded costs of £10,000 despite external legal fees paid totalled £34,000 plus VAT.

At the June meeting of Pembrokeshire County Council’s planning committee members were told the recent judicial review call by SPVRG Ltd had been refused by the high court, the grounds put forward “not considered to be reasonably arguable”.

Committee chair Cllr Simon Hancock said a council request for SPVRG Ltd to pay costs incurred by the county council in defending the claim had now been submitted.

Following that, at the July planning meeting, in his chair’s announcement, Dr Hancock gave a clarification on the position.

“I can advise that whilst the application for judicial review was refused by the High Court Judge on May 31, 2024, the appellants have challenged this decision.

“This matter is listed for a renewal hearing, and accordingly the legal challenge is still in progress; I’m hoping that’s a clarification from the announcements I made back in June.”

Responding to the clarification, Trish Cormack of SPVRG Ltd pointed out it was not “an appeal,” adding: “Firstly, we are ‘requesting the decision to be reconsidered at a hearing,’ which is a bit less dramatic than ‘challenging the decision’.

“Secondly, the claim remains open for seven days after the decision on the papers in expectance of you requesting the hearing, and the form 86B comes attached to the decision with the case number already filled in for you.

“This is just part of the process for a judicial review. If the Judge really thought there were no merits to the case, he was free to issue a ‘without merits refusal’.

“That would have ended the claim there and then. The only way to resurrect it would have been to take it to the appeal court. But he didn’t.

“Thirdly, the announcement makes it sound like our ‘challenge’ had happened after their previous announcement, whereas in fact we only had seven days from May 31 in which to make the request, so they knew the moment we did (June 7) because we had to simultaneously email it to the court, PCC and the developer’s agent. So, they knew full well that there would be a renewal hearing.”