A proposal to convert an empty chapel in Carmarthenshire into a five-bedroom home has been refused for the second time on flood risk grounds, despite what a meeting heard was “huge support” from the local community.
Applicant Mike Deem reapplied to the county council to convert Bethany Welsh Chapel in Burry Port, but the planning committee voted against the scheme. The plan included a ground-floor living room, kitchen and utility area, five first-floor bedrooms – one en-suite – and a family bathroom.
Reasons for refusal
A report before the council’s planning committee set out four recommended reasons for refusal, including river and sea flood risk linked to the chapel’s location. It said the scheme would constitute “highly vulnerable” development because ground-floor residential use was proposed, and that although Mr Deem had suggested installing demountable flood barriers in response to flood warnings, he had not provided a flood consequence assessment as required.
Burry Port councillor Shelly Godfrey-Coles addressed the committee in support of the application and questioned several points about flood risk planning policy that she felt should be considered. She also noted that the floor of the empty chapel, on New Street, was higher than the surrounding ground level.
Community support and concerns
“We’ve got empty buildings in our ward and throughout Carmarthenshire which have been left empty and are going to rack and ruin that are a blight on our communities,” she said. Referring to the chapel application, she added: “We have had huge support from within the community, from residents and the local town council.”
She said plans to convert a property in the area into a five-bedroom house of multiple occupation had recently been approved, whereas the chapel application was for a couple.
Fellow ward councillor John James, a planning committee member, said flood prevention measures implemented decades ago had proved successful for properties in the area. He said the chapel had been vandalised and that local people were worried it was going to get worse.
Committee decision
Planning officer John Thomas said the recommended reasons for refusal, including insufficient information to show the scheme would not have an adverse impact on water quality in the nearby marine special area of conservation, were “robust and well-defined”.
Councillors voted in favour of refusal by nine votes to one, with three abstentions.
