Plans for a “grand designs style” replacement house on an iconic part of the Pembrokeshire coast have been turned down by the National Park.

A site visit was held last month at Pencastell, Moylegrove – with some development management committee members unable to find the remote site – which overlooks Ceibwr Bay in one of the most unspoilt stretches of coastline in Pembrokeshire.

Park planning officers state that “development is located in a prominent and sensitive location” and it is recommended for refusal on the grounds it is considered to be of an “inappropriate design, visually inconsistent and lacking any traditional or vernacular design features” that will “cause harm to the special qualities of the National Park.”

Richard George, whose family has lived at the nearby farm since 1940 spoke at development management committee on Wednesday (July 21) and raised concerns about increased traffic, as well as the visual impact on the area.

Hedydd Lloyd, on behalf of Nevern Community Council that objected to the proposal, said that he area should be visited for its natural beauty and not “architecturally amazing structures” with concerns raised about the design, size and location of the new building closer to the cliff edge.

The original fishermen cottages, adapted into the current building, were built for shelter, added Mrs Lloyd, “because you cannot live on a view, but now people want to live for the view, the new house is designed for selfish reasons.”

She said that Pencastell should be brought back to a “traditional Pembrokeshire cottage.”

Applicant Andrew Hebard said he and his family wanted to return from 20 years living in America and the new house would be for them, with the deigns focusing on balancing ecology, sustainability, aesthetics and family accommodation.

“Significant design changes” were made following initial feedback and he felt the application “presented a plan that compliments the magnificence of the location.”

Clr. Mike Evans said that what is currently there was “not acceptable” and he hoped a resubmission would be made and officers would help to “take opportunity to improve this area for the local community and also the whole of the park.”

The committee voted to refuse the application by 13 votes with four abstentions.