A Saundersfoot hotelier has lost his bid to increase his floorspace for wedding receptions by erecting a temporary marquee at the front of his premises.

The Pembrokeshire Coast National Park Authority's development control committee turned down the application by Mr. Tim Rowe, of Saundersfoot's four-star rated Gower Hotel, on Wednesday, after hearing there was opposition from neighbours, Dyfed-Powys Police and Pembrokeshire County Council's environmental health division.

Development control officer, Mrs. Cathy Milner told members that the Park had been called in after neighbours had reported that a temporary marquee had been erected at the front of the hotel in Milford Terrace for at least two functions recently.

She commented that the application was unusual as the authority normally received requests for such marquees in the grounds of country house hotels, whereas this hotel was in "a very built-up part of Saundersfoot."

She revealed that a letter of objection had been received from a neighbour complaining that the structure took up parking spaces at the hotel, causing "further pressure on parking in the area"; it was an unattractive addition to the street scene and spoiled their views and, as the canvas had no insulation, the "noise was unbearable."

Mrs. Milner added that the county council's health and environment division had monitored noise levels at the marquee when it was erected over the August Bank Holiday and found music noise levels to be "intrusive within a neighbouring property."

They felt that the use of a marquee as an extension to the hotel would cause amenity problems in properties "given the poor insulation qualities."

Dyfed Powys Police were also against the proposal as it would "be like holding a party in the roadway" as the "flimsy structure will have no effect on preventing noise."

Mrs. Milner explained that the applicant's agent had written to the authority pointing out that the hotel was one of only three four-star rated hotels in the south of the county and the marquee was intended to provide more space for the larger wedding party.

He doubted that a wedding party would create a noise nuisance given that the hotel was in a mixed use area with an amusement arcade and a night club in the vicinity.

He also pointed out that there were several public houses in the vicinity with outdoor drinking areas.

The agent also noted that only two parking spaces were lost, which was "not significant" as there was a "plentiful supply of public car-parking spaces in the vicinity."

He estimated that the marquee would be used some 12 times a year and, with time to erect and take down taken into account, would be in position for about 40 days in the year.

He suggested that the application be given a 12-month temporary consent so that the impact of the marquee could be assessed.

However, Mrs. Milner pointed out that the marquee had been erected on at least two occasions already, which had allowed its impact to be judged.

"It has had a trial and has been found wanting," she commented. "None of the agent's offers meet the concerns of officers, consultees and the objectors.

"This is an inappropriate way for an hotel to increase its space, and we feel that all functions should be contained within the building."