Giant Shed Application to Pembrokeshire Planners Refused

A call for a 60-foot-long shed and stables at the proposed home of a gypsy traveller family near a Pembrokeshire village has been refused by planners.

In an application to Pembrokeshire County Council, Ryan Surname Boswell & Family, through agent Hayston Developments & Planning Ltd, sought provision for an access road and replacement of temporary stables and storage containers with a multi-purpose shed and stables at Greenwells, Cosheston Bridge, Cosheston.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

The application initially sought a 24.3 by 9.1 metre building, which has now been reduced to 18.3m by nine.

A supporting statement said that land to the north “is subject to a current planning application for the provision of two traveller family pitches with improvements to access and ecological enhancements with other land in our client’s ownership being un-affected”.

It added: “Mr Boswell and his family are of traveller origin and intend to make this site their family home. They own various domestic equipment, children / family articles, mowers / tools and farming equipment that require secure storage. The shed will also be used to house horses/ponies that are currently stabled in the temporary wooden stable block currently on skids on the land in question.”

It concluded: “The scale, design and use of materials (and colours) of the proposed shed is comparable to many new such sheds throughout Pembrokeshire. There will be no significant negative impacts on the level of amenity enjoyed by any neighbours or those travelling along the minor county road to Cosheston from any aspects of the proposed development.”

Local community council Cosheston had raised concerns including the “excessive” size of the proposed building, feeling “this is on the large side of what is required for a couple of ponies”.

It added: “Our concern is that the applicant intends to run his building/property maintenance business from the property. If the council grants the application, restrictions should made on the property’s use. i.e. restricted to agricultural use only.

“We have no objection to the construction of a small stable block, similar in size to the existing one on site.”

Objections were also received from two members of the public, raising concerns including the scale, environmental concerns, and a potential conflict with the ongoing application.

An officer report recommending refusal said the scheme was part-retrospective due to the prior formation of an access track within the field.

It added: “Despite amendments to the application as originally submitted by the reduction in building footprint and scale, the proposal remains a substantial and visually intrusive structure in the open countryside. An essential countryside need has not been justified nor evidence provided of an agricultural or equine enterprise warranting a building of this size or permanence.”

The application was refused on the grounds it “is not typical of a structure intended solely for the storage of paraphernalia associated with grazing land or for equine use and no information has been provided within the application to demonstrate the functional need for a building of this scale”.

It added: “The nature, siting and scale of the building would not be compatible with the capacity and rural character of the site, and together with the access track results in an unjustified and visually intrusive form of development in the open countryside, which does not represent sustainable development.”