A SHED planned in Rhossili has become a big bone of contention, but the furore has now been settled by a planning inspector.
It was proposed on a small strip of land, near St Mary’s Church, which used to be a bus depot.
Applicant Brian Bond, who owns the strip of land but doesn’t live in the Gower village, wanted the storage building for tools to maintain the plot, plus for surfboards and wetsuits – but not a Jet Ski.
He contended that a shed in the corner nearest the church would not obstruct views across Rhossili Bay, and that he planned to plant a wildflower hedge around it.
He said the 8ft by 11ft shed – with a Dutch barn-style roof – was chosen to be as aesthetically pleasing as possible.
But the owner of the adjacent farm property, Daniel Jones, objected to the proposal. He argued that it would interrupt the view to the bay for people arriving in the village.
“This proposal to plonk a shed in the middle of that arrival view is disgraceful,” he said in an email to Swansea Council’s planning department.
Mr Jones was also concerned that the shed could be a “holiday get-away” in disguise.
Mr Bond suggested that objector Mr Jones didn’t live in Rhossili either, and that the view of the bay which the shed might affect had been screened by buildings on Mr Jones’s land.
Rhossili Community Council and the Gower Society also objected.
Swansea Council turned the application down, saying the planned shed was an inappropriate development which would harm the Rhossili Conservation Area and adversely affect the setting of the grade two-listed church.
The case was then heard by a Welsh Government-appointed planning inspector after Mr Bond appealed the decision.
Mr Bond’s appeal statement said: “As far as I am aware there has been no objections from any private resident who live within Rhossili, and the residents I have spoken to while visiting have been supportive and were keen to see the plot looking attractive with flower etc rather than how it looks currently, which is unsightly brambles.”
But planning inspector PJ Davies dismissed the appeal.
The timber shed, she said, would be a “patent contrast” to St Mary’s Church and other nearby buildings.
Her decision said: “The proposed building would not be an especially large one but having regard to its visually jarring design, and relative to the small and contained parcel of land it would be situated on, it would appear as a bulky and unsympathetic addition to the site.”