RYANAIR has announced its Summer 2026 schedule from Cardiff Airport, offering five routes including popular holiday destinations Alicante, Faro, Malaga and Tenerife, as well as the city break favourite Dublin.

The low-cost airline said it will increase frequencies on four routes — Alicante, Dublin, Faro and Malaga — giving Welsh passengers more travel options and improved connectivity throughout the summer season.

Flights are now available to book via the Ryanair app, with fares starting from £29.99.

Ryanair’s Director of Communications, Jade Kirwan said: “Ryanair is pleased to launch our Summer 2026 schedule at Cardiff, offering five routes with extra frequencies on four of these routes, including holiday hotspots like Alicante, Faro and Malaga, as well as the top city break destination Dublin. This provides Welsh customers with even more low-fare choice and regular connections for their Summer 2026 getaways.”

Cardiff Airport Chief Executive Jon Bridge welcomed the announcement, highlighting the importance of the Dublin route in particular.

He said: “It’s great to see Ryanair strengthening its commitment to Cardiff Airport, with the Dublin service now operating daily throughout the summer and increasing to twice daily on selected days in October 2026. This is a hugely popular route, particularly for business travellers, providing a vital gateway between Ireland and Wales and strengthening economic ties between our Celtic nations.

“Alongside Dublin, we’re delighted to see Ryanair offering a strong portfolio of summer destinations from Cardiff, including Alicante, Faro, Malaga and Tenerife. These routes provide fantastic choice for Welsh travellers seeking a well-earned break, while also supporting tourism and connectivity.”

The airport said the expansion reflects continued demand for convenient low-cost travel from Wales.

PLANS for retractable awnings to protect visitors to a Pembrokeshire village beachside café have been given the go-ahead by the national park.

In an application to Pembrokeshire Coast National Park, the Saundersfoot Beach Company sought permission for the erection of two manually controlled full cassette awnings at the Beachside Cafe, to the rear of the Old Chemist Inn, The Strand, Saundersfoot.

No objections were received from local community council Saundersfoot.

An officer report recommending approval said: “The café is a modern, stone-clad kiosk building, which serves café food and drinks. It faces east onto the sands of Saundersfoot Beach, to the north of Saundersfoot Harbour, with views of Saundersfoot Bay and the wider Carmarthen Bay beyond.”

It added: “The property is accessed from the beach, and through the ‘Old Chemist Inn’ and lies amongst a mixture of modern and traditional buildings within Saundersfoot Conservation Area.

“This application proposes attaching two canvas full cassette awnings to the principal (east) elevation of the kiosk building. It is considered by this authority that the proposal is acceptable, subject to suitably worded conditions and a recommendation to grant consent is made.”

The application was conditionally approved by park planners.

PLANS to turn one Pembrokeshire seaside village home into three have been refused by the national park.

In an application to Pembrokeshire Coast National Park, Peter Parker of the nearby New Hedges-based Park House Court Nursing Home, through agent Halsall Lloyd Partnership, sought permission for the reconfiguration of Sunningdale, The Glen, Saundersfoot, from a single family house, to provide three independent dwellings.

The application also included the addition of a storey; reconfiguration of existing internal layout; removal of existing flat roof, and introduction of pitched roof and new vehicle access, along with changes to external hardstanding.

Saundersfoot Community Council objected to the scheme, saying: “There was discussion about how many properties in the Glen have greatly expanded the size of the original buildings and that there was no on-street parking at all.”

It recommended refusal on the grounds there would be a “significant need” for additional parking with the extra dwellings, there was a risk it would become a holiday let, and an established hedge would need to be removed for the extra parking spaces.

The council’s highways department also objected on highway safety grounds, “citing inadequate visibility from the proposed secondary access, insufficient turning provision within the site, and concerns regarding parking provision,” an officer report for park planners said.

The report, recommending refusal, said the scheme would see the creation of one two-bed flat, and two three-bed houses.

It said, following a site notice, members of the public had objected raising concerns including overdevelopment of the site, increase parking demands and traffic congestion, impact on neighbours, and it “could set an unwelcome precedent for similar projects in the area”.

The report said that, while the principle of the scheme is “potentially acceptable” it would represent “a significant intensification of the use of the site,” which is “compounded by the physical alterations required to facilitate the scheme”.

It said the proposed elevations would introduce “a more complex and vertically dominant form, with multiple pitched gables and a markedly increased height to the central section of the building,” which would have the potential for “an overbearing relationship and increased overlooking” impact on neighbouring properties.

It said the highways objections were “of particular significance,” saying: “In this instance, it is considered that the proposal fails to demonstrate that safe and policy-compliant access, turning and parking arrangements can be achieved to serve three independent dwellings.

“The scheme therefore represents an overdevelopment of the plot, in that the intensity of use proposed cannot be accommodated without resulting in unacceptable highway safety impacts.”

It finished by concluding “the proposal fails to demonstrate that the site can accommodate three independent dwellings without unacceptable impacts on highway safety and the amenities of neighbouring occupiers,” adding: “The development is therefore considered unacceptable and is recommended for refusal.”

The application was refused by park planners.