Plans submitted for three homes in Castle Caereinion
New plans have been put forward for a development in a village near Welshpool just weeks after permission proposals were approved.
Daniel Williams has lodged more fresh plans with Powys planners to build three homes at land south of Cwm Lane in Castle Caereinion known locally as 'Michael's Meadow.'
The proposal is to build a two two-storey semi-detached dwellings with two bedrooms and includes parking provision, landscaping and other 'associated works.'
The third home would be a bungalow with two bedrooms and will include three garden sheds.
At the end of March, Mr Williams had been given planning permission for a two storey house and bungalow development at the field.
This follows on from another application for a house and a 'detached' annexe/garage building being given planning permission at the site in September last year.
The principle of developing the site had been agreed by Powys planners in an outline planning application for two houses back in 2022, but this was for a bigger patch of land at the site.
A a chicken shed with gated access and room for vehicle parking had been in place at the site.
While the shed has been removed a concrete base for parking is still there.
Part of the site is at risk of flooding from the nearby Sylfaen Brook.
Due to this a Flood Consequence Assessment (FCA) has been included with the application.
The FCA by RAB consulting said: 'Natural Resources Wales (NRW) flood map for planning indicates that the majority of the site and the access road is located outside the flood zones.'
They say that a small section to the southwest of the site is located in flood zone two and three.
These cover surface water and small watercourses as a result of a natural surface water flow path and is associated with Sylfaen Brook which is located 65 metres south of the site.
As the development is 'small scale' and mostly outside the flood zone RAB consulting said: 'The development is not expected to be impacted by flood water in all but the most extreme scenario.'
'Safe and dry' access and exit to and from the site is 'expected' in all but the 'most extreme' flood scenario.
RAB consulting said: 'There is scope within the proposed development to incorporate a SuDS (sustainable drainage) treatment train to manage the
impact of the development on surface water.
'The proposed development is appropriate for the flood risk and is not expected to increase the risk of flooding elsewhere.'
A decision on the application is expected by July 1.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Finextra
7 hours ago
- Finextra
Preparing for BNPL regulation: What firms need to do now: By Ben O'Brien
The arrival of formal regulation for Buy Now, Pay Later (BNPL) products is no longer a question of if, but when. With the Treasury's May 2025 consultation response, the direction is this: by mid-2026, third-party BNPL lenders will fall within the scope of the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA). This change brings with it a full set of regulatory requirements—covering affordability, creditworthiness, redress, disclosures, and governance. While many firms are familiar with the general framework, the pace and detail of implementation demand serious attention. Risk leaders now face a critical window to build a strategy that aligns commercial goals with regulatory readiness. Scope of the new BNPL regime From mid-2026, third-party BNPL providers must be authorised by the FCA and comply with its rules on affordability, creditworthiness, consumer duty, complaints, disclosures, and more: Mandatory, proportionate affordability and creditworthiness checks Firms must demonstrate verifiable checks at the point of decisioning, aligned to individual circumstances, not just product type. Firms must demonstrate verifiable checks at the point of decisioning, aligned to individual circumstances, not just product type. Access to the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) BNPL customers can now escalate complaints to FOS, increasing the importance of auditable redress processes and timely resolution. BNPL customers can now escalate complaints to FOS, increasing the importance of auditable redress processes and timely resolution. Tailored disclosure requirements for digital-first products The FCA will introduce a bespoke regime focused on real-world comprehension — not just information delivery. Firms will need to test and evidence understanding. The FCA will introduce a bespoke regime focused on real-world comprehension — not just information delivery. Firms will need to test and evidence understanding. Extension of Section 75 protections to BNPL agreements Providers will be jointly liable for qualifying claims, requiring clear merchant oversight, governance controls, and capital planning to manage new exposure. While third-party BNPL is the initial focus, merchant-offered BNPL products remain outside the perimeter for now. This exemption, based on Article 60F(2) of the Regulated Activities Order, is under review and could be revisited if scale or harm increases. What this means for compliance and risk leaders The FCA isn't looking for surface-level compliance. It expects firms to demonstrate that processes are working and that consumers are genuinely protected. Affordability frameworks must evolve Checks must be proportionate and verifiable, with models recalibrated to reflect customer circumstances. Even low-value lending must evidence the potential for harm reduction. Complaint handling will need to be FOS-ready This includes robust audit trails, clear redress pathways, MI reporting on themes, and training on FOS processes. Joint liability introduces new exposure Providers must enhance governance around merchant partnerships, define liability clearly in contracts, and plan for potential claims in their capital models. Joined-up governance is essential Effective programmes will require close collaboration across credit, compliance, legal, product, and ops teams—with clear ownership under SM&CR. Disclosures must reflect real-world understanding It's not just about format. The FCA expects firms to test, monitor, and evidence comprehension—particularly for vulnerable customers. Making best use of the Temporary Permissions Regime The FCA will launch a Temporary Permissions Regime (TPR) to support the transition. Providers must be ready to act quickly when the window opens. Prepare for registration Ensure that internal records, model documentation, and business models are clearly aligned with regulatory expectations. Conduct a readiness assessment Review decisioning processes, affordability checks, complaints management, and financial crime controls. Plan for dual-track execution Meet TPR requirements while simultaneously building toward full authorisation. Engage early with the FCA Establish open communication lines to reduce ambiguity and show proactivity. Plan for contingencies Prepare wind-down plans, customer messaging, and backup procedures in case of registration delays or rejections. Innovation and consumer protection can coexist The decision to exclude some legacy Consumer Credit Act requirements reflects the unique nature of BNPL: short-term, interest-free, and often accessed via digital channels. This creates space for a more relevant, user-centric approach to disclosures but it also raises the bar. Risk and compliance teams should work with product, legal, and design leads to ensure communications are: Integrated into real customer journeys Mobile-friendly and accessible Prompted by user behaviour Supported by outcome-based testing and complaints data Those who treat disclosures as a compliance task may struggle. Those who invest in relevance and usability will have stronger customer engagement and defensibility. Merchant carve-out and the risk of market distortion The decision to exclude merchant-led BNPL from the regulatory scope has sparked debate. Without oversight, merchant-offered credit could create competitive asymmetry and raise consumer protection concerns. Risk leaders should: Monitor merchant product developments and prepare for potential perimeter expansion Review all third-party merchant partnerships for regulatory dependencies Revisit financial promotions and credit broking arrangements, particularly where merchants promote BNPL products without broking permissions Regulatory costs and anticipated market impact The Treasury's impact assessment estimates: An Equivalent Annual Net Direct Cost to Business (EANDCB) of £2.3 million A Net Present Value of -£20.1 million over the assessment period over the assessment period Authorisation application fees: £5,000 to £25,000 Annual supervision fees: £10,000 to £50,000 Technology upgrades: £500,000 to £2 million per provider for systems supporting affordability, reporting, and complaints per provider for systems supporting affordability, reporting, and complaints Section 75 exposure: Estimated at 0.5% to 1.2% of transaction values With the UK's BNPL market valued at £20 billion annually, sector-wide exposure to Section 75 alone could exceed £100 million. Consolidation is expected. Government modelling suggests 20–30% of providers may exit the market post-regulation. But with global BNPL volumes growing rapidly, those who remain stand to benefit from a stronger, more trusted marketplace. How leading firms are responding Some providers have already started adjusting: Klarna Following regulatory scrutiny in Sweden, Klarna UK introduced income verification, real-time spend tracking, and risk-based onboarding. Monzo Flex Built affordability into product design from the outset, with integrated credit reporting and real-time tracking. PayPal Adopted a cross-functional compliance strategy with specialist teams, training, and documentation of governance processes. The clock is ticking and the gap between those who prepare and those who delay will widen fast. For risk leaders, this is a chance to go beyond baseline compliance, strengthening frameworks, improving customer outcomes, and shaping the future of BNPL in a regulated environment.
Rhyl Journal
14 hours ago
- Rhyl Journal
WHSmith prices 'should be illegal' after selling £4.19 Pepsi
Welsh snooker legend Mark Williams recently posted a picture of a checkout screen in WHSmith, where it showed a 500ml bottle of Pepsi Max costing £4.19. Williams was at Heathrow Airport at the time. Airports across the country are slightly notorious for charging inflated prices. At the time of writing, a 500ml bottle of Pepsi Max from Tesco costs £1.59. Customers subsequently blasted the store. WHSmith pricing should be illegal in general, no clue how they get away with it One said: "WHSmith literally sold off their entire High Street business but kept travel hub shops for this very reason. It's like printing money and they don't care about the customers." Another commented: "Smiths are proper cosy cosy with all the airports, word is they mark up their prices by 50% and go halters with the airport the shops located in". Someone else replied: "I paid that in Liverpool airport a couple of weeks ago, couldn't believe my eyes". Another said: "WHSmith pricing should be illegal in general, no clue how they get away with it". Some, however, defended the pricing. Recommended reading: Replying to the previous post, a user commented: "It's in an airport mate". To which he responded: "Expensive in other WHSmith stores too hence why I said general". Airports tend to be expensive due to a combination of factors, including high operational costs, the captive audience they serve, and the unique challenges of operating within a confined space. These costs are then reflected in higher prices for food, beverages, retail goods, and services within the airport, as well as in airline ticket prices, which often include airport fees.
Leader Live
14 hours ago
- Leader Live
WHSmith prices 'should be illegal' after selling £4.19 Pepsi
Welsh snooker legend Mark Williams recently posted a picture of a checkout screen in WHSmith, where it showed a 500ml bottle of Pepsi Max costing £4.19. Williams was at Heathrow Airport at the time. Airports across the country are slightly notorious for charging inflated prices. At the time of writing, a 500ml bottle of Pepsi Max from Tesco costs £1.59. Customers subsequently blasted the store. WHSmith pricing should be illegal in general, no clue how they get away with it One said: "WHSmith literally sold off their entire High Street business but kept travel hub shops for this very reason. It's like printing money and they don't care about the customers." Another commented: "Smiths are proper cosy cosy with all the airports, word is they mark up their prices by 50% and go halters with the airport the shops located in". Someone else replied: "I paid that in Liverpool airport a couple of weeks ago, couldn't believe my eyes". Another said: "WHSmith pricing should be illegal in general, no clue how they get away with it". Some, however, defended the pricing. Recommended reading: Replying to the previous post, a user commented: "It's in an airport mate". To which he responded: "Expensive in other WHSmith stores too hence why I said general". Airports tend to be expensive due to a combination of factors, including high operational costs, the captive audience they serve, and the unique challenges of operating within a confined space. These costs are then reflected in higher prices for food, beverages, retail goods, and services within the airport, as well as in airline ticket prices, which often include airport fees.
