A PEMBROKESHIRE farm barn attraction, which gained a 3,500-strong petition of support to keep it running after previously being refused by planning officers, is now recommended to be turned down by councillors next week.

Late last year, Stuart Williams of Home Farm, Leweston, near Camrose, was refused retrospective permission by planning officers to retain the Willhome Farm Barn farm park – and ancillary buildings – built in June 2022.

The site – whose facilities were used by the council’s own educational providers and parents of children with learning difficulties – is home to rabbits, llamas, donkeys, poultry, owls, goats, ponies and pigs, along with a café building, public conveniences, a children’s play area, and parking.

It was refused due to highway safety concerns and fears it would generate additional foul water flows which are likely to result in an increase in phosphate levels in the Cleddau River.

Since the refusal by planners, a change.org petition, Grant Planning Permission for Willhome Farm Barn in Pembrokeshire, was set up by Hook-based Jessica Austin, which has attracted more than 3,500 signatures to date.

Jessica’s petition said: “This decision not only affects this resilient family but also impacts schools attended with over 6,000 pupils, by adults from local wellbeing centres and families with children who have autism or learning difficulties like mine.

“It’s important to note that there are no apparent issues with existing amenities. Roads or waterways. The refusal of planning permission seems unjustified and is causing unnecessary distress within our community.”

Earlier this year, the applicant submitted a fresh call – supported by local community council Camrose – for permission to be granted, which was again due to be decided by planning officers.

At the request of local county councillor, and former council leader, Cllr Jamie Adams, a special meeting was held in July to discuss whether a decision could be made by councillors rather than officers, which was unanimously supported.

The application was due to be heard at the October meeting of Pembrokeshire County Council’s planning committee, with a recommendation of refusal, reasons including those given for the previous application.

At the start of the October meeting, members heard the scheme had been temporarily withdrawn to allow the applicant’s agent more time to address concerns, with the plans now returning to the December 3 planning committee.

The application is recommended to be refused on the basis officers say it is in an unsustainable location and would have a negative environmental impact through additional traffic movements, highways issues, and “it has not been established that the proposed development would not generate additional foul water flows which would result in an increase in phosphate levels in the Cleddau River catchment adversely affecting the Cleddau Rivers Special Area of Conservation”.

THE FAMILY of Mid & South Pembrokeshire MP, Henry Tufnell, took steps to avoid a potential tax liability weeks before Labour Chancellor Rachel Reeves announced her controversial tax changes to Agricultural Property Relief (APR). The timing has sparked questions about whether Mr Tufnell, a backbench MP, had prior knowledge of the changes—though his spokesperson firmly denies it.

“As has been widely reported, it would seem that even Steve Reed, the Secretary of State for DEFRA, was not aware of the specific changes to APR and Business Property Relief (BPR) before the Budget was announced,” the spokesperson told The Pembrokeshire Herald. “It would, therefore, be implausible to suggest that Henry…would have this kind of knowledge prior to the Chancellor’s Budget announcements before they were made public.”

Avoiding the new tax by coincidence

Around three weeks before the announcement, Mr Tufnell’s millionaire parents implemented financial measures to shield their 2,000-acre Cotswolds estate from the tax changes. While such tax avoidance is perfectly legal, critics have called the optics “spectacularly unfortunate.”

Where the money is

The average Welsh family farm earns less than £45k a year, with most of its value tied up in land—an asset that can only be realized by selling it, often at the cost of the farm’s viability. However, the Tufnells are far removed from this scenario. The family estate, owned by Mark Tufnell, includes an entire village of tenants, and Jane Tufnell, Henry’s mother, cofounded a major investment management company with over £20bn in client investments.

Avoid tax, says Pembrokeshire MP

When asked for comment, Mr Tufnell’s spokesperson encouraged Pembrokeshire farmers to follow suit in seeking professional advice to manage potential tax burdens. “The actions taken by Henry’s parents were based on professional advice… This is something every farmer in Pembrokeshire should consider in light of the Chancellor’s recent announcements.”

This statement has fueled criticism that those who stand to benefit most from the new tax policy are not small family farms but the wealthiest landowners employing tax advisers to exploit legal loopholes.

Policy must be scrapped

Welsh Parliament Member Samuel Kurtz slammed the policy, calling it devastating for small, family-run farms. “Labour must now do the right thing: scrap this policy. It’s evident that it cannot, and will not, work,” he said, echoing concerns from tax specialist Dan Neidle that the policy disproportionately impacts farmers while sparing tax avoiders.

As public outrage continues to mount, questions remain about the fairness of the tax and its potential repercussions for Wales’ hard-working farming families.

THE Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, spearheaded by Labour MP Kim Leadbeater, has passed its second reading in the House of Commons with a majority of 55 votes. A historic 330 MPs supported the measure, while 275 opposed it.

The bill proposes allowing terminally ill adults with less than six months to live the option to seek medical assistance to end their lives. Following Friday’s (Nov 29) vote, the legislation will now progress to the committee stage for detailed scrutiny. It will also be debated in the House of Lords before potentially becoming law.

MPs divided over assisted dying

The vote was conducted as a free vote, enabling MPs to act according to their conscience rather than along party lines. Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer and Chancellor Rachel Reeves were among those who backed the proposal. However, other senior figures, including Health Secretary Wes Streeting and Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood, voted against it, citing concerns over coercion and fears of a “slippery slope” towards euthanasia.

A five-hour debate in the Commons saw emotional arguments on both sides. Former Conservative minister Andrew Mitchell shared his shift in perspective, recounting the moving stories of constituents who watched loved ones suffer “in great pain and indignity.”

In contrast, Labour veteran Diane Abbott expressed concerns that the bill could pressure vulnerable individuals, stating: “Sick people may feel like a burden on society.” She warned that passing the bill could see the NHS become “a fully-funded 100% suicide service,” while palliative care remains underfunded.

‘Choice and dignity’ at the heart of the bill

Introducing the bill, Ms Leadbeater emphasised the importance of giving terminally ill patients “choice, autonomy, and dignity,” arguing the current law is failing them.

“This is about ensuring that those who are dying are afforded the care and respect they deserve,” she said, highlighting the bill’s stringent safeguards.

Under the proposed law, two independent doctors and a high-court judge must approve each case. Additionally, patients would need to self-administer the medication, ensuring their consent is clear and voluntary. The bill also imposes a 14-year prison sentence for anyone found to have coerced a person into seeking assisted dying.

Supporters rally outside Parliament

Outside the Commons, campaigners from Dignity in Dying held a demonstration in support of the bill. Protesters called for legal changes to provide terminally ill individuals with greater control over their end-of-life choices.

The debate continues to divide public opinion, but Friday’s vote marks a significant step towards potentially changing the law in England and Wales.

The legislation will now undergo further examination in committee and will face additional debate in the House of Lords. Both sides of the debate are preparing for intense scrutiny of the proposed safeguards and ethical implications.