Scheme to convert one house into three refused in Welsh seaside village

Bruce Sinclair, Local democracy reporter

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.