Home » Plans for new five-storey apartment block rejected in Porthcawl

Plans for new five-storey apartment block rejected in Porthcawl

Bridgend County Borough Council's Civic Offices

PLANS to build a new five-storey apartment block at the site of a former Porthcawl restaurant have been rejected by Bridgend County Borough Council despite officers recommendations.

The proposals would have seen the former Fulgoni’s restaurant on John Street demolished in order to make way for a “landmark building” which contained 43 affordable apartments.

They were outlined to members of the council’s development control committee at a meeting in June of 2026, where officers, members of the public and developers at the Codi Group addressed the chamber.

Here, council bosses heard about the plans which would have seen the redevelopment of the vacant Porthcawl property for it to become a five-storey apartment block for over 55’s.

If approved they would have consisted  of 35 one bedroom flats and eight two bedroom flats, along with a commercial unit and community space.

However, they also heard how the application had drawn major opposition from local residents who sent in 91 letters of objection and only one in support.

These focused on issues over the proposed height and scale of the building as well as the potential for over-intensification on the street, and impacts on the privacy of neighbouring properties.

Others also voiced concern over issues with parking at the property as the plans offered a total of 26 parking spaces for the 43 flats, which was below the council’s planning guidance.

Speaking at the meeting councillor Ian Williams of Oldcastle said he felt the design was “absolutely hideous” and was completely out of keeping with the street scene.

Officers said they recommended the scheme for approval as it would contribute to the visual amenities of the area and bring much needed living accommodation to the town.

They also felt it would not adversely affect the residential amenities of neighbouring residents.

Following discussions, members decided to reject the plans after a narrow vote of seven members to six.

Councillor Ian Spiller outlined the main reasons for rejection as being the size and scale of the building, as well as concerns over parking and consistency of information provided.

These reasons will be brought back in full to the next planning committee in July, before applicant has the right to appeal to Welsh Government planning inspectors.

Author