An appeal against National Park refusal of a shepherd hut holiday let in a Pembrokeshire village, which gained public support after it was turned down, has been lodged.

In an application refused by the Pembrokeshire Coast National Park Authority last year, Alex Mazaheri of Melrose, Whitehill, near Cresselly sought retrospective permission for a shepherd hut holiday let, and car parking space in the property grounds.

Work started in February 2025.

An officer report recommending refusal said: “National and local planning policies strictly control new development in such locations, permitting only certain forms where the need for a countryside location is essential.

“It is not considered that the applicant has demonstrated this essential need. Furthermore, the siting of the hut and associated access works, including the removal of a section of boundary hedge, has resulted in a significant visual impact when viewed from the public highway. “

It said a number of concerns had been raised by members of the public including the work already having been carried out, the hut sited in close proximity to the highway at one of the narrowest points of the road, removal of hedgerow and creation of a new access without permission, and a lack of adequate visibility to the road for vehicles emerging.

The application was refused on the grounds including it represented “unjustified new development in the countryside,” it would “appear visually intrusive and discordant within the street scene and surrounding rural landscape,” and “insufficient information was provided to demonstrate that the proposal would achieve nutrient neutrality within the Pembrokeshire Marine Special Area of Conservation (SAC) catchment”.

An appeal lodged with Planning and Environment Decisions Wales (PEDW), says: “The appellant contends that the refusal was disproportionate and failed to properly reflect the modest scale of the proposal, relevant consultee responses, and the ability to address matters through reasonable planning conditions.”

It added: “Neighbours and passers‑by have commented positively on the hut, noting its modest and sympathetic appearance. Following refusal, local press coverage generated a number of public comments, the majority of which were supportive of the proposal.

“While these are not formal consultation responses, they indicate that the local community did not view the shepherd’s hut as harmful.”

It disputed the ‘retrospective’ description as misleading, saying: “The shepherd’s hut was placed within the domestic curtilage in the belief that this was permissible, as ancillary domestic structures are generally allowed under permitted development rights,” adding the hut works are not yet fully complete.

It added Mr Mazaheri had “not sought to evade planning control but has instead acted in good faith, investing in landscaping and improvements for the immediate area while applying for planning in an open and transparent manner”.

It said he was willing to accept conditions including holiday occupancy-only, retention of an off-street parking space, obstruction-free visibility splays, and biodiversity enhancements.

It concluded: “The proposal is proportionate, reversible, and consistent with both local precedent and national guidance. It will support a young local family, provide modest but meaningful income diversification, and deliver biodiversity enhancements without causing harm to landscape character, ecology, highways, or amenity.”

A decision on the appeal is expected later in the year.

If you want to keep abreast of what’s happening when it comes to statutory or planning notices, you can simply visit publicnoticeportal.uk and enter your post code.

The portal is a one-stop shop for all of the notices placed with local authorities across the UK.

Find out about planning applications that affect you by visiting the Public Notice Portal.

The Labour Government said that it wants to limit the requirement for public notices when it comes to licensing and, previously, the Cardiff Bay administration backed down on a suggestion that your county council would not have to publish in print its plans for tax or services charge increases.