A UK BANKING company’s appeal against a national park refusal to allow the siting of a cash pod in Tenby’s conservation area, close to its historic town walls, has been dismissed.
The HSBC application for a standalone community cash pod at Tenby’s Five Arches pay and display car park was refused by Pembrokeshire Coast National Park planners last summer.
The proposed site – in the town’s conservation area – would have been directly opposite St Teilo’s Church, a Grade-II listed-building, and in close proximity to Tenby’s Town Walls, a Scheduled Ancient Monument.
A planning officer report at the time, recommending refusal, said: “The site is therefore highly sensitive. The proposed cash pod would be located within the north-eastern corner of the car park.
“Given its prominent location and its impact upon important views of Tenby Town Walls and the listed Church, and its failure to preserve or enhance the appearance of Tenby’s Conservation Area, it is considered that the cash pod is inappropriate in terms of its siting and design.”
The application was refused on those grounds.
Since the refusal, an appeal was lodged with Planning and Environment Decisions Wales (PEDW), along with an application for costs.
Members of the April 9 meeting of Pembrokeshire Coast National Park’s development management committee meeting of April 9 heard the appeal had been dismissed.
Following a site visit earlier this year, an inspector appointed by Welsh Ministers dismissed the appeal, saying: “Due to its design, position and orientation, the CCP would be a prominent and unsympathetic structure that would be particularly noticeable from the seafront approach and partially obscure views of the church, although its windows would likely remain visible.
“Although it would be less prominent in views from the town centre approach, it would visibly protrude forward of the church’s front elevation. This would introduce a discordant feature into the streetscene and visual clutter into the setting of the church and town walls when viewed in both directions along South Parade.
“Furthermore, this intrusion would draw the eye to the CCP and detract from how the three historic assets are experienced together.”
The inspector disagreed with claims there would be a neutral impact, saying: “Rather it would make a negative contribution to the setting of the Church and Town Walls, causing harm to their significance, and fail to preserve the character and appearance of the CA.”
The related application for costs was also dismissed.
At the April meeting, officers told members: “Hopefully the applicants will come back with a better application that doesn’t sit next to a listed church.”
