A BID to convert an empty Carmarthenshire chapel into a five-bedroom house has been knocked back again despite “huge support”, a meeting heard.
Applicant Mike Deem reapplied to the county council to convert Bethany Welsh Chapel, Burry Port, but it was refused on flood risk grounds for the second time.
The plan was to have a ground-floor living room, kitchen and utility area and five first-floor bedrooms – one en-suite – and a family bathroom.
A report before the council’s planning committee, which discussed the application, heard there were four recommended reasons for refusal including river and sea flood risk because of where the chapel was located.
It said the scheme would constitute “highly vulnerable” development as ground-floor residential use was proposed, and that although Mr Deem proposed installing demountable flood barriers in response to flood warnings he hadn’t provided a flood consequence assessment as required.
Burry Port councillor Shelly Godfrey-Coles addressed the committee in support of the application and queried several points about flood risk planning policy which she felt ought to be considered. She also said the floor of the empty chapel, on New Street, was higher than the surrounding ground level.
“We’ve got empty buildings in our ward and throughout Carmarthenshire which have been left empty and are going to rack and ruin that are a blight on our communities,” she said.
Referring to the chapel application, she said: “We have had huge support from within the community, from residents and the local town council.”
Plans to convert a property in the area into a five-bedroom house of multiple occupation had, she said, recently been approved whereas the chapel application was for a couple.
Fellow ward councillor John James, who is a planning committee member, said flood prevention measures implemented decades ago had proved successful for properties in the area. He said the chapel had been vandalised and that local people were worried it was going to get worse.
Planning officer John Thomas said the recommended reasons for refusal, including insufficient information to show it would not have an adverse impact on water quality in the nearby marine special area of conservation, were “robust and well-defined”.
Councillors voted in favour of refusal by nine votes to one, with three abstentions.
