A FRESH call to allow the retrospective conversion of office space to a chocolate factory, a beauty salon and laundrette has been submitted after a previous refusal.
In an application refused by Pembrokeshire County Council in March, Mr M Williams, through agent Preseli Planning Ltd, sought retrospective permission for the subdivision of an office on land off Scotchwell Cottage, Cartlett, Haverfordwest into three units forming a chocolate manufacturing, a beauty salon, and a launderette, along with associated works.
A supporting statement, for the chocolate manufacturing by ‘Pembrokeshire Chocolate Company,’ as part of the scheme said: “The operation comprises of manufacturing of handmade bespoke flavoured chocolate bars.
“Historically there was an element of counter sales, but this has now ceased. The business sales comprise of online orders and the delivery of produce to local stockist. There are no counter sales from the premises.”
It said the beauty salon “offers treatments, nail services and hairdressing,” operating “on an appointment only basis, with the hairdresser element also offering a mobile service”.
It said the third unit of the building functions as a commercial laundrette and ironing services known as ‘West Coast Laundry,’ which “predominantly provides services to holiday cottages, hotels and care homes”.
The application was refused on the grounds it represents an unjustified out of centre use with regard to the salon and nail bar, “insufficient information has been provided to justify the loss of B1 employment floorspace,” and “the introduction of a hairdressing salon and nail bar, uses typically found within established shopping centres, into this out of centre location would undermine the strategic role, vitality, and viability of Haverfordwest town centre”.
Since then, a resubmitted application aimed at addressing the reasons for refusal has been lodged.
A supporting statement with that resubmitted application says it has “included additional evidence in terms of a sequential assessment, financial viability and client needs to justify the mixed-use unit having an out-of-town centre location, which is of a scale that would not undermine the vitality and viability of the town centre and has a saturation of similar services being offered”.
It adds: “The application has also provided additional evidence to justify the loss of 70 square metres of a B1 unit not being harmful to employment land provision in the settlement, where adequate alternative provision remains.”
It says the scheme “would represent a suitable re-use of the building, which would not undermine the vitality and viability of the town centre or result in harmful loss of employment land,” and would not “result in any significant harmful impacts upon neighbouring amenity or the character of the area”.
The latest application will be considered by county planners at a later date.
