**Approval Given to Retain Leisure Status of Pembrokeshire Coastal Land Despite Local Opposition**
A parcel of land sitting close to the rugged Pembrokeshire coastline has been officially cleared for continued recreational use, following a contentious debate between its long-standing owners and neighbouring residents. The outcome, decided by the Pembrokeshire Coast National Park Authority, reflects the often complex intersection of heritage, legal precedent, and community sentiment that can arise when determining land use in picturesque but contested rural settings.
The plot in question lies just east of Bryntirion Lodge in Cippyn, St Dogmaels—a small village renowned for its proximity to some of West Wales’ most scenic stretches. Phillip Thomas of Rhydlewis, acting through Preseli Planning Ltd, submitted a certificate of lawful development application, hoping to cement the longstanding leisure label attached to the patch. Such certificates are designed to legitimise land uses proven to have endured for a legally stipulated period, regardless of their current popularity or local support.
Supporting documentation made clear that the site’s connection to leisure activity is both lengthy and deeply personal. According to written evidence provided, the land has remained under the stewardship of Thomas’ family since the 1970s. First set aside as a leisure retreat by the applicant’s grandfather, the area has transferred through three successive generations.
The family’s application followed a knock-back on a separate bid to install a holiday pod on the site—a proposal that had raised eyebrows in the locality and ultimately failed to secure approval. “The ongoing use of this site for leisure is a matter of considerable sensitivity for the family,” the supporting statement elaborated. “Its use began over 40 years ago and has persisted, in one form or another, throughout that time.”
Despite this legacy, the application prompted an outpouring of opposition from a group of local residents, who penned detailed objections challenging both the character and usage of the land. In their communications, neighbours described the plot as steep, neglected, and almost impenetrable thanks to dense underbrush and invasive species. Doubts were raised about the frequency—or indeed the reality—of family leisure activity, with allegations instead pointing to sporadic dumping of building waste.
A report compiled by planning officers noted these community concerns in detail. Specifically, it cited allegations of unauthorised activity, issues related to access, and claims of the area being blighted by persistent dumpings of materials. The officers’ report, however, sought to clarify the strictly legal nature of the decision at hand. “While the views of local residents are acknowledged regarding the present state and history of the grounds,” the report stated, “the legal test for a Certificate of Lawfulness is not a matter of what is desirable for the community, but whether the stated use has been undertaken continuously for the required timeframe.”
Interestingly, while a section of the land was used as a temporary storage space for construction materials in 2019, the officers accepted the family’s argument that this did not constitute a permanent change in its recreational designation.
After weighing testimony and historical evidence, including input from both applicant and objectors, the Authority concluded that the family had, on the balance of probability, succeeded in demonstrating steady leisure use of the plot for more than ten years—more than enough to satisfy planning law requirements. The ruling essentially means that, regardless of neighbourhood misgivings, the legal rights to informal leisure occupation of the land remain protected.
Decisions such as this speak to broader themes frequently encountered in rural planning matters: tensions between individual or familial legacy, the evolving identity of local communities, and the inflexibility of legal frameworks for certifying land use. While some neighbours may feel their concerns remain unresolved, the case illustrates the weight habitual use and documented history can carry in planning assessments. As Pembrokeshire continues to juggle the demands of tourism, tradition, and environmental care, such debates are likely to persist.
The legacy of small-scale, informal leisure spaces, often quietly maintained over generations, is a particular feature of many coastal areas in Wales. This case serves as a reminder that, even in locally contentious circumstances, historical customs and documentary evidence can ultimately prevail over more recent or vocal opposition. As the coastal landscapes of Pembrokeshire evolve, balancing private enjoyment with community consensus remains an enduring, and often delicate, local challenge.