Dilapidated Seaside Bookmakers Shop to Remain Standing

_{The dilapidated bookmaker's shop was preferable over a new home. (Image: Googlemaps)}

A plan to turn a disused betting shop into a home in the Georgian seaside town of Aberaeron has been rejected on appeal.

Developer Dafydd Phillips, of nearby Ffosyffin, sought to convert the former Wright Bookmakers on Castle Lane into a one-bedroom dwelling, with plans to remove its flat roof and add a first-floor extension. The shop, built in 1965 and closed in 2018, sits in Aberaeron’s conservation area behind the Prince of Wales pub and has been described as “falling into a state of disrepair.”

Conservation Concerns

In a statement supporting the application, Morgan & Flynn Architectural Services argued the building was “not providing a sympathetic approach in appearance to the setting of the conservation area” and instead “actually creates an eyesore that is not sympathetic to its surroundings.”

But a Ceredigion County Council officer’s report, recommending refusal, said the proposed design was “not deemed acceptable.” While planners acknowledged the existing structure had “little architectural merit,” they found the redevelopment would not positively contribute to the area, which contains numerous listed buildings.

Affordable Housing Requirement

Another sticking point was affordable housing policy. Under Ceredigion’s rules, developments must include a commuted sum equivalent to 10% of open market value to support local affordable housing. No such agreement was entered into at the time of the application, according to the council’s report.

The refusal cited both “inappropriate design that fails to positively contribute to the context of its location” and the absence of a formal Section 106 legal agreement for housing contributions.

Appeal Dismissed

Following the rejection, Phillips lodged an appeal with Planning and Environment Decisions Wales (PEDW).

In a report after a July site visit, the planning inspector said the redevelopment 

“would double the height of the building, raising it above the predominantly single storey rear lane buildings and boundaries, and substantially increasing its prominence.”

The inspector concluded this would “unacceptably alter the significance of the dwellings’ historically taller form and harm the experience and understanding of the historical hierarchy between the dwellings and the more subservient lane structures.”

On housing contributions, the inspector noted: “Although the appellant indicated a willingness to make an appropriate contribution to meet Policy S05 requirements, no mechanism was provided to secure such a contribution at the application stage." A later undertaking to provide funds did not convince the inspector that it would meet requirements.

The appeal was dismissed, leaving the 1960s structure standing.