A PARTLY-RETROSPECTIVE application to upgrade a garden centre on the main road to Pembroke Dock has been submitted to Pembrokeshire planners.
In the application, submitted through agent Hayston Developments & Planning Ltd, Mr and Mrs Wainwright seek permission for upgrade of a garden centre with a relocated garden centre sales area, additional parking and the creation of ornamental pond and wildlife enhancement area (partly in retrospect) at Cosheston Garden Centre, Slade Cross, Cosheston.
The application is a resubmission of a previously refused scheme, with the retrospective aspects of the works starting in late 2023.
The site has a long planning history and started life as a market garden and turkey farm in the 1980s and then a number of applications for new development.
A supporting statement says the previously-refused application included setting aside a significant part of the proposed new building for general retail sales as a linked farm shop and local food store/deli in addition to a coffee bar.
It was refused on the grounds of “the proposal was deemed to be contrary to retail policies and the likely impact of that use on the vitality and viability of nearby centres,” the statement says, adding: “Secondly, in noting that vehicular access was off the A 477 (T) the Welsh Government raised an objection on the grounds that insufficient transport information had been submitted in respect of traffic generation and highway safety.”
It says the new scheme seeks to address those issues; the development largely the same with the proposed new garden centre building is now only proposed to accommodate a relocated garden centre display sales area rather than a new retail sales area with other goods, but retaining a small ancillary coffee bar area.
“Additional information, in the form of an independent and comprehensive Transport Statement, has now been submitted to address the objection raised by the Welsh Government in respect of highway safety,” the statement says.
It concedes: “It is acknowledged that both the creation of the ornamental pond and ‘overspill’ parking area do not have the benefit of planning permission and therefore these aspects of the application are ‘in retrospect’ and seeks their retention.”
It finishes: “Essentially, this proposal seeks to upgrade existing facilities and offer to the general public. It includes the ‘relocation’ of a previously existing retail display area which had been ‘lost’ to the ornamental pond/amenity area and to provide this use within the proposed new building and moves away from the previously proposed ‘farm shop’ idea which we thought had merit. This revised proposal therefore involves an ‘upgrading’ rather than an ‘expansion’ of the existing Garden Centre use.”
The proposals will be considered by county planners at a later date.
