Plans to convert a former art gallery to a dental surgery on the edge of a Pembrokeshire town have been refused.
In an application to Pembrokeshire County Council, Ahmed Abouserwel, through agent A.D Architectural Design Consultants LTD, sought permission for a change of use of the former Kadinsky gallery, Redstone Road, Narberth, to a dental surgery, along with associated works.
A supporting statement said: “The existing open plan gallery space will be transformed into the main dentist area, with a glazed internal lobby, leading directly into the open reception / waiting area. There will be five treatment rooms accessed directly off the reception, with a private archive room behind the reception desk.
“The rear lean-to projection will be extended to the north to accommodate a proposed decontamination room and to re-model the Staff area and W.C provision (number to remain as existing).”
It said the proposal would create 10 full and three part-time jobs.
An officer report recommending refusal said concerns were raised by the county Highways authority, who having assessed the application on safety, capacity and policy considerations, recommended the application be REFUSED on the grounds of insufficient evidence provided.
“The submitted design and access statement and block plan indicate on-site parking provision for 16 vehicles, located to the north and west of the building. The application form states that the site will employ 10 full-time staff and three part-time staff. However, the submission does not differentiate between practitioners and ancillary/support staff.”
It said, on planning guidance, health centres require three spaces per practitioner; and one space per three ancillary staff, adding: “As the applicant has not provided a breakdown of staff roles, the Highway Authority is unable to assess whether the proposed parking provision is adequate.”
It stressed: “Whilst there is no in-principle objection to the redevelopment of this established site for a dental surgery, insufficient information has been provided to fully assess the proposal.”
It was refused on the grounds including it would lead “to the unjustified loss of an employment premises in a location which contributes to the local supply of employment land and buildings,” adding: “Insufficient evidence has been submitted to demonstrate that the building is no longer suitable or viable for continued employment use, nor that there is overriding community need to justify its loss.”
It was also refused on the grounds that “Insufficient information has been submitted to demonstrate that the development would operate without giving rise to unacceptable highway safety impacts or on street parking pressure”.
| [donate]
| Help keep news FREE for our readersSupporting your local community newspaper/online news outlet is crucial now more than ever. If you believe in independent journalism,then consider making a valuable contribution by making a one-time or monthly donation. We operate in rural areas where providing unbiased news can be challenging. |
