City and County of Swansea Area 2 Development

CITY AND COUNTY OF SWANSEA

NOTICE OF MEETING

You are invited to attend a Meeting of the

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE

At: Council Chamber, Guildhal l, Swansea.

On: Tuesday, 11 February 2014

Time: 2.00 pm

Members are asked to contact Ryan Thomas (Planning Control Manager) on 535731 should they wish to have submitted plans and other images of any of the applications on this agenda to be available for display at the Committee meeting.

AGENDA

Page No.

1 Apologies for Absence.

2 Disclosures of Personal and Prejudicial Interests. 1 - 2

3 Minutes. 3 - 6 To approve as a correct record the Minutes of the meeting of the Area 2 Development Control Committee held on 14 January 2014.

4 Items for deferral / withdrawal.

5 Determination of planning applications under the Town and 7 - 63 Country Planning Act 1990.

Patrick Arran Head of Legal, Democratic Services & Procurement Tuesday 4 February 2014 Contact: Gareth Borsden - 636824

ACCESS TO INFORMATION LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1972 (SECTION 100) (AS AMENDED)

(NOTE: The documents and files used in the preparation of this Schedule of Planning Applications are identified in the ‘Background Information’ Section of each report. The Application files will be available in the committee room for half an hour before the start of the meeting, to enable Members to inspect the contents).

Agenda Item 2 Disclosures of Interest

To receive Disclosures of Interest from Councillors and Officers

Councillors

Councillors Interests are made in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Conduct adopted by the City and County of Swansea. You must disclose orally to the meeting the existence and nature of that interest.

NOTE: You are requested to identify the Agenda Item / Minute No. / Planning Application No. and Subject Matter to which that interest relates and to enter all declared interests on the sheet provided for that purpose at the meeting.

1. If you have a Personal Interest as set out in Paragraph 10 of the Code, you MAY STAY, SPEAK AND VOTE unless it is also a Prejudicial Interest.

2. If you have a Personal Interest which is also a Prejudicial Interest as set out in Paragraph 12 of the Code, then subject to point 3 below, you MUST WITHDRAW from the meeting (unless you have obtained a dispensation from the Authority’s Standards Committee)

3. Where you have a Prejudicial Interest you may attend the meeting but only for the purpose of making representations, answering questions or giving evidence relating to the business, provided that the public are also allowed to attend the meeting for the same purpose, whether under a statutory right or otherwise. In such a case, you must withdraw from the meeting immediately after the period for making representations, answering questions, or giving evidence relating to the business has ended , and in any event before further consideration of the business begins, whether or not the public are allowed to remain in attendance for such consideration (Paragraph 14 of the Code).

4. Where you have agreement from the Monitoring Officer that the information relating to your Personal Interest is sensitive information , as set out in Paragraph 16 of the Code of Conduct, your obligation to disclose such information is replaced with an obligation to disclose the existence of a personal interest and to confirm that the Monitoring Officer has agreed that the nature of such personal interest is sensitive information.

5. If you are relying on a grant of a dispensation by the Standards Committee, you must, before the matter is under consideration:

i) Disclose orally both the interest concerned and the existence of the dispensation; and ii) Before or immediately after the close of the meeting give written notification to the Authority containing:

E:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\4\7\8\AI00006874\$4yatf5hg.docPage 1 a) Details of the prejudicial interest; b) Details of the business to which the prejudicial interest relates; c) Details of, and the date on which, the dispensation was granted; and d) Your signature

Officers

Financial Interests

1. If an Officer has a financial interest in any matter which arises for decision at any meeting to which the Officer is reporting or at which the Officer is in attendance involving any member of the Council and /or any third party the Officer shall declare an interest in that matter and take no part in the consideration or determination of the matter and shall withdraw from the meeting while that matter is considered. Any such declaration made in a meeting of a constitutional body shall be recorded in the minutes of that meeting. No Officer shall make a report to a meeting for a decision to be made on any matter in which s/he has a financial interest.

2. A “financial interest” is defined as any interest affecting the financial position of the Officer, either to his/her benefit or to his/her detriment. It also includes an interest on the same basis for any member of the Officers family or a close friend and any company firm or business from which an Officer or a member of his/her family receives any remuneration. There is no financial interest for an Officer where a decision on a report affects all of the Officers of the Council or all of the officers in a Department or Service.

E:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\4\7\8\AI00006874\$4yatf5hg.docPage 2 Agenda Item 3

CITY AND COUNTY OF SWANSEA

MINUTES OF THE AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE

HELD ON TUESDAY 14 JANUARY 2014 AT THE GUILDHALL , SWANSEA AT 2.00 P.M.

PRESENT : Councillor R Francis-Davies (Chair) presided

Councillor(s) : Councillor(s) : Councillor(s) :

A C S Colburn A J Jones C L Philpott D W Cole S M Jones J A Raynor A M Cook D J Lewis T H Rees J P Curtice R D Lewis R V Smith W Evans P Lloyd C M R W D Thomas E W Fitzgerald K E Marsh D W W Thomas L James G Owens M Thomas Y V Jardine

47. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors N S Bradley, J E Burtonshaw, M H Jones, J Newbury, J C Richards, R J Stanton, R C Stewart and G J Tanner.

48. DISCLOSURES OF PERSONAL AND PREJUDICIAL INTERESTS

In accordance with the provisions of the Code of Conduct adopted by the City and County of Swansea, the following interests were declared:

Councillor L James - Minute No. 51 - Personal - Planning Application Nos. 2013/0491, 2013/1409, 2013/1322, 2013/1255 (Items 1, 2, 3 and 4) - as Member of the Gower Society.

Councillor R V Smith - Minute No. 51 - Personal - Planning Application No. 2013/1255 (Item 5) - I know the applicant.

Councillor M Thomas - Minute No. 51 - Personal and Prejudicial - Planning Application No. 2013/1255 (Item 5) - I know the applicant and left prior to discussion.

49. MINUTES

RESOLVED that the Minutes of the meeting of the Area 2 Development Control Committee held on 10 December 2013 be agreed as a correct record.

Page 3 Minutes of the Area 2 Development Control Committee (14.01.2014) Cont’d

50. ITEMS FOR DEFERRAL/WITHDRAWAL

None.

51. DETERMINATION OF PLANNING APPLICATIONS UNDER THE TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990

The Planning Control Manager submitted a schedule of planning applications. Amendments to this schedule were reported and are indicated below by (#).

RESOLVED that:

(1) the undermentioned planning applications BE APPROVED subject to the conditions in the report and/or indicated below:

(#) (Item 1) Application No. 2013/0491

Detached dwelling at land adjacent to Hill Top, Oxwich, Swansea.

( NOTE : Mrs Davies (objector) and Mr Woodward (agent) addressed the Committee: A visual presentation was given. Late letters reported from the applicant clarifying land ownership issues. Report updated: Page 20, second paragraph states that there is a “logical step down in height from the ridge of the southern adjacent dwelling Hilltop”. This should read “Bryn View” not “Hilltop”.)

(#) (Item 3) Application No. 2013/1322

Construction of three detached dwellings and associated works at land adjacent to The Haven, Horton, Gower, Swansea. ( NOTE : Mr Jones (objector) and Mr Baxter (agent) addressed the Committee:

Late letter of objection from Penrice Community Council reported raising concerns regarding the impact upon The Haven by virtue of overbearing, overlooking and overshadowing impacts, loss of view, impact upon the views from the proposed Emmanuel House Development, scale of development,

Page 4 Minutes of the Area 2 Development Control Committee (14.01.2014) Cont’d

inadequate access width impact upon the green focal area, lack of affordable housing, inappropriate design of Plot 3, no economic or social justification, loss of tennis courts and lack of landscape design.

Report updated: Page 43 - Plot 1 (sixth line from bottom) - the boundary treatment to plot 1 is a wall.

Amended Condition 12 as below

“No development shall take place without the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority of a scheme for the landscaping of the site. The landscaping scheme shall include the retention and enhancement of the existing hedgerow/boundary along the western boundary and southern boundary of the site and a management scheme for the future maintenance and management...... ”

(Item 5) Application No. 2013/1255

Replacement dwelling with free standing solar array detached garage and associated landscaping at ‘The Hollies’, Llanrhidian, Swansea.

(2) the undermentioned planning applications BE REFUSED for the reasons indicated in the report and/or indicated below:

(#) (Item 2) Application No. 2013/1409

Increase in ridge height of garage to provide living accommodation first floor rear extension and covered canopy porch at Hill Park, Reynoldston, Swansea.

(NOTE: Mr Bowles (agent) addressed the Committee)

(#) (Item 4) Application No. 2013/159

Change of use from office (Class A2) to a pizza takeaway (Class A3) at 6A Glanmor Terrace, Penclawdd, Swansea.

Page 5 Minutes of the Area 2 Development Control Committee (14.01.2014) Cont’d

( NOTE : Mr Ludkewycz (objector) and Mr Yildirim (applicant) addressed the Committee.)

Late letter of objection raising concerns regarding parking, noise, litter.

Late petition of support with 370 signatures and 6 additional letters of support from third parties submitted by the applicant.

The meeting ended at 3.05 p.m.

CHAIR

S: Area 2 Development Control Committee - 14 January 2014 (GB/EJF) 14 January 2014

Page 6

CITY AND COUNTY OF SWANSEA 1. BISHOPSTON DINAS A SIR ABERTAWE 5. COCKETT

7. DUNVANT Report of the Head of Economic Regeneration 8. FAIRWOOD & Planning to the Chair and Members of the 9. GORSEINON Area 2 Development Control Committee 10. GOWER 11. GOWERTON 12. KILLAY NORTH DATE: 11 TH FEBRUARY 2014 13. KILLAY SOUTH 29 14. KINGSBRIDGE 18. LOWER LOUGHOR 20. MAYALS 9 27 35 23. NEWTON 18 24. OYSTERMOUTH 14 25. PENCLAWDD 27. PENLLERGAER 11 28. PENNARD Page 7 5 29. PENYRHEOL 25 32. SKETTY 35. UPPER LOUGHOR 7 8 12 36. WEST CROSS

13 32

10 Agenda Item5 36 28 1 23 24

Phil Holmes BS(Hons), MSc, Dip Econ Head of Economic Regeneration & Planning

TWO STAGE VOTING

Where Members vote against officer recommendation, a two stage vote will apply. This is to ensure clarity and probity in decision making and to make decisions less vulnerable to legal challenge or awards of costs against the Council.

The first vote is taken on the officer recommendation.

Where the officer recommendation is for “approval” and Members resolve not to accept this recommendation, reasons for refusal should then be formulated and confirmed by means of a second vote.

The application will not be deemed to be refused unless and until reasons for refusal have been recorded and approved by Members. The reason(s) have to be lawful in planning terms. Officers will advise specifically on the lawfulness or otherwise of reasons and also the implications for the Council for possible costs against the Council in the event of an appeal and will recommend deferral in the event that there is a danger that the Council would be acting unreasonably in refusing the application.

Where the officer recommendation is for “refusal” and Members resolve not to accept this recommendation, appropriate conditions should then be debated and confirmed by means of a second vote. For reasons of probity, Member should also confirm reasons for approval which should also be lawful in planning terms. Officers will advise accordingly but will recommend deferral if more time is required to consider what conditions/obligations are required or if he/she considers a site visit should be held. If the application departs from the adopted development plan it (other than a number of policies listed on pages 89 and 90 of the Constitution) will need to be reported to Planning Committee and this report will include any appropriate conditions/obligations.

The application will not be deemed to be approved unless and until suitable conditions have been recorded and confirmed by means of a second vote.

Where Members are unable to reach agreement on reasons for refusal or appropriate conditions as detailed above, Members should resolve to defer the application for further consultation and receipt of appropriate planning and legal advice.

Page 8

CONTENTS

OFFICER ITEM APP. NO. SITE LOCATION REC.

1 2013/1494 33 Llys Teg Dunvant Swansea SA2 7QQ REFUSE Retention of rear roof terrace and associated railings and screening

2 2013/1805 154 Mumbles Road Blackpill Swansea SA3 5AW APPROVE Replacement dwelling

3 2013/1701 2 Woodville Road Mumbles Swansea SA3 4AD APPROVE Variation of condition d of planning permission 89/0765 granted 6th July 1989 to allow for the opening hours to be extended to 10.30 pm on Thursday, Friday and Saturdays and 9 am to 5pm on Sundays

4 2013/1588 Plot 1 Morfryn St. Annes Close Langland Swansea SA3 APPROVE 4NX Retention and completion of dwelling on plot 1 to include single storey side/rear extension (amendment to planning permission 2012/1018 granted 8th March, 2013)

5 2013/1799 Land at Morfryn St. Annes Close Langland Swansea APPROVE SA3 4NX Detached garage to serve Plot 5

6 2013/1677 Land between Wellpark Hall and Kings Head Hotel REFUSE Llangennith Swansea SA3 1HU Detached dwelling

7 2013/1836 Toyoda Gosei TG UK, T G Park, Heol y Mynydd, APPROVE Gorseinon, Swansea, SA4 4NY Extension to rear elevation

8 2013/1719 208 Swansea Road, Waunarlwydd, Swansea SA5 4SN REFUSE First floor rear extension and front porch

Page 9 TH AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 11 FEBRUARY 2014 TH AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 11 FEBRUARY 2014

ITEM 1 APPLICATION NO. 2013/1494 WARD: Dunvant Area 2

Location: 33 Llys Teg Dunvant Swansea SA2 7QQ Proposal: Retention of rear roof terrace and associated railings and screening Applicant: Mr Dean Ripley

27 1 15

1 9 1

8 1

D 1 D 7 WY ED D RO B 4

4 3

9 4

5 8

5 0

5 6 4 1

9 3

4 6 E R

D 1 7 N E H

1 3

3 4

2 0

5 3

3 G

L L

2 1

8 1

3 2

1 3 4

3 9

9 4

0 1

Presbytery

NOT TO SCALE This material has been reproduced from Ordnance Survey digital map data with the permission of the controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, © Crown Copyright.

Page 10 TH AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 11 FEBRUARY 2014

ITEM 1 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2013/1494

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

POLICIES

Policy Policy Description Policy EV1 New development shall accord with a defined set of criteria of good design. (City & County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008).

Policy HC7 Proposals for extensions and alterations to existing residential dwellings will be assessed in terms of; relationship to the existing dwelling, impact on the character and appearance of the streetscene, effect on neighbouring properties, and impact on car parking. (City & County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008)

SITE HISTORY

App No. Proposal 2011/1553 Part two storey part single storey rear extension with balcony and new pitched roof over front extension Decision: Grant Permission Conditional Decision Date: 13/04/2012

2004/1243 First floor rear extension Decision: Grant Permission Conditional Decision Date: 05/10/2004

2007/2261 First floor rear extension Decision: Grant Permission Conditional Decision Date: 31/10/2007

2010/1184 Single storey rear extension, new roof to existing single storey rear extension and fenestration alterations to existing first floor rear extension Decision: Grant Permission Conditional Decision Date: 17/01/2011

RESPONSE TO CONSULTATIONS

Four neighbouring properties have been consulted and TWO LETTERS OF OBJECTION and ONE LETTER OF NO OBJECTION have been received, the comments of which are outlined below:

• All first floor level terraces, balconies and verandas in Llys Teg have been refused planning approval to protect the privacy of neighbours. Screening has also been recently refused in the neighbourhood.

Page 11 TH AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 11 FEBRUARY 2014

ITEM 1 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2013/1494

• There is an unlawful extension to an existing veranda/balcony at first floor level at No.29 Llys Teg, which is in breech of planning conditions. The retention of a terrace on the other side will create a further impact.

• It has been noted prior to this application being submitted that screening does not alleviate the problem of overlooking and would create a harmful effect on the visual appearance of the property and also cause an overbearing impact upon No 31 and 35 Llys Teg.

• There is potential for overlooking to create more of a loss of privacy for the rear amenity area of the neighbour’s property (No 31) than created by the retention of an unlawful veranda at No.29.

• In relation to conditions 2 and 3 of 2011/1553 – screening will not alleviate this problem. This part of the original application has already been clearly restricted to a Juliette with windows opening inwards, it does not come within the parameters of the ‘original application’.

• There should be awareness of the detrimental impact already created on the rear amenity area of a neighbour’s home by not enforcing the breech of planning permission on the retention of an unlawful veranda to date at No.29.

• The LPA is not empowered to approve amendments to planning permission except through determination of another planning application. The Local Authority cannot produce any other determination for the retention of another veranda/or extension to the existing veranda at first floor level at No.29 Lys Teg.

Highways Observations - Proposals relate to the retention of a rear roof terrace and associated railings and screenings. Parking is unaffected. There are no highway objections.

APPRAISAL

This application is reported to Committee for decision and a Site Visit has been requested by Councillor Jennifer Raynor to assess the possible effect on the residential amenity of properties in Llys Teg and Derlwyn

Full planning permission is sought for the retention of a rear roof terrace and associated railings and screening at No.33 Llys Teg, Dunvant. The roof terrace is located above the existing single storey rear extension and which it is proposed will incorporate approximately 1.8m high bamboo screens either side and railings to the front of the balcony. It should be noted that a previous application (2011/1553) for a part two storey part single storey rear extension with balcony and new pitched roof over front extension was approved at this site with the following conditions attached which restrict the use of the roof of the single storey rear extension :

Condition 2 - Notwithstanding the submitted plans the terraced area above the single storey rear extension approved under this application and railings are not approved as part of this planning permission.

Page 12 TH AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 11 FEBRUARY 2014

ITEM 1 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2013/1494

The development shall be implemented in accordance with revised plans which shall include inward opening patio doors and juliette style flush fitted balustrade to the rear elevation which shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of work and thereafter maintained in accordance with the approved details.

Condition 3 - The flat roof of the single storey rear extension approved under this application shall not be used as a roof terrace, roof garden or amenity area unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

The main issues for consideration with regard to this application are the impact of the proposals on visual and residential amenity, having regard to Policies EV1 and HC7 of the Unitary Development Plan and The Design Guide for Householder Development. It is not considered that the provisions of the Human Rights Act raise any other overriding considerations.

The roof terrace with screens and railings is considered to be in keeping with the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the surrounding area. The proposals are visible from the surrounding area given the elevated nature of the site but are not as such considered to give rise to a detrimental impact given the minimal nature of the proposals in terms of size and scale of the development. In visual terms the proposals are, therefore, considered to comply with Policies EV1 and HC7 of the Unitary Development Plan.

In terms of overbearance and overshadowing, the proposal is considered to have an impact on the amenities of No.35 Llys Teg given that the host property is set further back than the neighbouring property, therefore, the north-west facing privacy screen will conflict with the 45 degree code when taken from this neighbouring property and have an adverse physical impact on this property.

With regard overlooking, it is acknowledged that the proposed privacy screens will mitigate some of the overlooking particularly to properties either side of the host property.,

Overlooking would, however, be possible towards the nearest neighbouring property to the rear namely No. 34 Derlwyn. Whilst the rear of this neighbouring property is already overlooked to certain extent by dwellings fronting Llys Teg the significant chance in levels, together with the proximity and the activity necessarily associated with a balcony would, it is considered increase the perception of overlooking to an unacceptable degree. Therefore, given the above the proposals is considered unacceptable in terms of the impacts on the residential amenities of neighbouring properties contrary to the provisions of Policies EV1 and HC7 of the Unitary Development Plan and the Design Guide for Householder Development.

In terms of the concerns raised in response to the consultation exercise, previous history associated with the area has been taken into consideration when determining this application. In terms of impacts on visual and residential amenities, these are considered to be addressed within the context of the report. It is acknowledged that there is an on going issue with the balcony erected to the rear of No.29 Llys Teg (2007/2763) and this is currently being investigated by the Authority’s Enforcement Section.

Page 13 TH AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 11 FEBRUARY 2014

ITEM 1 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2013/1494

The Head of Transportation and Engineering Services has stated that parking is unaffected and therefore no objections are raised.

In conclusion, therefore, the proposal is considered to represent an inappropriate form of development that would have an unacceptable impact on the residential amenities of the surrounding neighbouring properties by virtue of the perception of overlooking and overbearance, contrary to the requirements of Policies EV1 and HC7 of the City and County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan and the Design Guide for Householder Development.

RECOMMENDATION

REFUSE, for the following reasons:

1 The proposed balcony by virtue of its elevated position and close proximity to No 34 Derlwyn would introduce an unacceptable perception of overlooking that would be detrimental to the residential amenities of the occupiers of this property contrary to the provisions of policies EV1 and HC7 of the City and County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008.

2 The proposed north-west facing bamboo privacy screen, by virtue of its projection beyond the main rear elevation of the dwelling would have an unacceptable overbearing and overshadowing impact which would be detrimental to the residential amenities of the occupiers of No. 35 Llys Teg, contrary to the provisions of the Council's Supplementary Planning Guidance `Design Guide for Householder Development' and Policies EV1 and HC7 of the Unitary Development Plan (2008).

INFORMATIVES

1 The development plan covering the City and County of Swansea is the City and County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan. The following policies were relevant to the consideration of the application: (Policies EV1 and HC7 of the Unitary Development Plan)

PLANS

SA2008137QQ-002 EXISTING AND PROPOSED FLOOR PLANS AND ELEVATIONS AND SA2008137QQ-001 EXISTING AND PROPOSED BLOCK PLAN & SITE LOCATION PLAN DATED 16TH OCTOBER 2013.

Page 14 TH AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 11 FEBRUARY 2014

ITEM 2 APPLICATION NO. 2013/1805 WARD: Mayals Area 2

Location: 154 Mumbles Road Blackpill Swansea SA3 5AW Proposal: Replacement dwelling

Applicant: Mr M Bailey 1 1 Magnolias 148

Issues 38

2 6

0 5 1

2 t

5 3 1 s 3 o

r 3 5 e b

m i L

6.1m

a 4 5 1

D A

O 5 4 R 1 S E L B

M U

2 M

e d a n e

m o r P

e h b T 4 5 1

d n 2 a

9 S

6 15

3 1

FS W

i n

t t a

y g r n e o s a

g n i p o

l 3

S 7

NOT TO SCALE This material has been reproduced from Ordnance Survey digital map data with the permission of the controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, © Crown Copyright.

Page 15 TH AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 11 FEBRUARY 2014

ITEM 2 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2013/1805

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

POLICIES

Policy Policy Description Policy EV1 New development shall accord with a defined set of criteria of good design. (City & County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008).

Policy EV2 The siting of new development shall give preference to the use of previously developed land and have regard to the physical character and topography of the site and its surroundings. (City & County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008).

Policy EV3 Proposals for new development and alterations to and change of use of existing buildings will be required to meet defined standards of access. (City & County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008)

Policy HC2 Housing development within the urban area will be supported where the site has been previously developed, its development does not conflict with other policies, does not result in ribbon development, and the coalescence of settlements, overintensive development, loss of residential amenity, adverse effect on the character and appearance of the area, loss of urban green space, harm to highway safety, adverse effects to landscape, natural heritage, security and personal safety, infrastructure capacity, and the overloading of community facilities and services. (City & County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008)

SITE HISTORY

App No. Proposal 2001/2086 Construction of new access and driveway Decision: Grant Permission Conditional Decision Date: 19/02/2002

2004/1906 Detached garage Decision: Grant Permission Conditional Decision Date: 07/10/2004

2011/0832 New access with 2.1m high wall and entrance gates, side extension with front balcony and landscaping works to form tiered garden Decision: Grant Permission Conditional Decision Date: 03/01/2012

2009/1669 Retention of balcony Decision: Refuse Decision Date: 10/12/2009

Page 16 TH AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 11 FEBRUARY 2014

ITEM 2 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2013/1805

2008/0078 Replacement detached bungalow. Decision: Grant Permission Conditional Decision Date: 04/03/2008

2006/1251 Retention of detached garage Decision: Grant Permission Conditional Decision Date: 03/10/2006

2008/1106 Detached garage, front wall and gates. Decision: Grant Permission Conditional Decision Date: 04/12/2008

2008/1843 Retention and completion of replacement detached bungalow (amendment to Planning Permission Ref. 2008/0078 granted 4th March 2008) Decision: Grant Permission Conditional Decision Date: 15/01/2009

2013/1163 Replacement dwelling Decision: Grant Permission Conditional Decision Date: 01/10/2013

2005/1335 Two storey side extension, single storey side extension and addition of 1.1m railings to existing single storey rear extension to form balcony Decision: Grant Permission Conditional Decision Date: 07/11/2005

RESPONSE TO CONSULTATIONS

This application was advertised on site and four individual properties were consulted. ONE JOINT LETTER OF OBJECTION has been received, which is summarised as follows:

1. The proposed dwelling will be 27.2 metres in width (compared with 20 metres currently including a small attached garage), a gable rather than a hipped roof, have side wings that have been substantially increased in height, and have a ridge line, which will be longer and higher means that that the mass of the rear elevation will be nearly twice that existing. This to the east and south east will be hugely intimidating and will virtually eliminate morning sunlight. 2. The house will be built partially across the only open aspect from no.154b and will result in a sense of complete enclosure from the front of their property. 3. The siting of the new house within 3m of the side boundary with no.154b could almost be referred to a terracing to no.154b. 4. The lower ground floor created above the lower ground floor extension creates a huge potential patio area with views into the front elevation of Mrs Francis home. 5. Mrs Francis would have clear views through the large full length windows of the indoor swimming pool and Jacuzzi and should not have the antics of bathers imposed upon her. Page 17 TH AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 11 FEBRUARY 2014

ITEM 2 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2013/1805

6. There are 4 car parking spaces identified and a further 9 shown as occupying the lower ground floor extension. Will this space be used for commercial purposes or the storage and sale of vehicles? 7. The 3m high front wall will add considerably to the bulk and perceived height of the dwelling. 8. The height, width, mass and form of the dwelling would render it overpowering and inappropriate in the context of it setting and the street scene. 9. Whilst the slab level of the proposed dwelling is lower than that of 154a and 154b, the height of the proposed structure, is such that when combined with mass and proximity (particularly to 154b), will create significant overbearance and overshadowing.

The Gower Society – Comments as follows:

1. We are always concerned about the demolition of a perfectly good restorable house to make way for a larger modern edifice. 2. If this property does not impinge upon the landscape and view from the coastal footpath we do not have any other strong opinion. 3. We are intrigued by the shark tank but this is hardly a planning matter.

Highways Observations: Access and site layout is established and other than slight internal improvement no alterations affecting access and parking are proposed. I recommend therefore that no highway objections are raised .

APPRAISAL

This application is reported to Committee for decision and a Site Visit has been requested by Councillor Linda Tyler-Lloyd to assess the increase in the scale of the property, underground car park and ground disturbance.

Full planning permission is sought for a replacement dwelling at No 154 Mumbles Road, Mumbles. The site is large plot situated within an elevated position along Mumbles Road. The existing property is a large two storey dwelling which, it is considered, has been unsympathetically extended over time. The dwelling is of no particular architectural merit. Members will recall that planning permission for a replacement dwelling on the site of a comparable scale was approved in October 2013 – 2013/1163 refers. The current scheme incorporates a new design where the main body of the dwelling measures approximately 19m x 11.6m, with two, two storey side wings which measure 4.2m x 5.6m and a rear single storey wing which measures approximately 15m with a varied depth of between 8.6m and 10m. The height of the dwelling will vary from 10m for the main body and 7.8m for the side wings. The main body of the existing dwelling measures approximately 12m x 12m with additions either side which measure a maximum overall width of approximately 20m. The new dwelling would also be sited approximately 3m forward of the siting of the existing dwelling.

The re-development will also take advantage of the change in ground levels to incorporate a subterranean level at basement at the front of the property, as previously approved, and the rising levels to the rear of the plot to incorporate a mixture of single and two storey elements. Accommodation will be provided over two distinct levels in this respect.

Page 18 TH AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 11 FEBRUARY 2014

ITEM 2 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2013/1805

The main issues for consideration during the determination of this application relate to the principle of a replacement dwelling at this location and the impact of the resultant proposal upon the visual amenities of the area, the residential amenities of the neighbouring properties and highway safety having regard for the provisions of the Swansea UDP.

The site is identified as white land and as such falls within the Urban Area as identified on the Swansea Unitary Development Plan (UDP) Proposals Map and as such Policy HC2 (Infill Development) of the UDP allows for the principle of residential development within the urban area subject to conforming with the set criteria.

Policies EV1 and HC2 of the UDP require new development such as this to relate to their context in terms of scale, height, massing, elevational treatment, materials and detailing, layout, form mix and density.

There is no prevailing characteristic or dominant house type to suggest a specific architectural response on this site. However, it is evident the design concept has recognised the need for the development to respond to the character of the area and its positioning in the wider landscape, whilst respecting the residential amenities of the neighbouring properties.

The general form incorporates a mixture of pitched roof elements and flat roof elements incorporating large areas of glazing which differ in heights and differing materials which couple to break down the overall massing of the building ensuring the proposal is in scale with the plot, the wider area and also creates a series of spaces around the dwelling. The replacement dwelling is slightly higher and wider than the existing property but it is considered that the proposed design, coupled with the siting set back from the main road, although sited further forward in the plot than the existing dwelling, will mitigate against any undue visual impact upon the wider area and fundamentally respect and enhance the character and appearance of its local context. Further information will be required to ensure detailed quality of the scheme as it is important that the proposal relates to its immediate context and as such the quality of the materials is critical. An appropriate condition requiring submission of external material samples is therefore recommended.

The proposal takes advantage of the land levels to the front of the property and will utilise this to provide a large subterranean garage, which in visual terms is regarded as acceptable. The scheme also incorporates large areas of glass in the west facing elevation in order to exploit views across Swansea Bay which are appropriate given the variety of design throughout the street-scene. Whilst it is acknowledged the scheme incorporates a mixture of flat roof elements to the side and rear and a two storey circular site element, these are considered to complement the proposed design ethos and add variety to the proposed design.

As such the proposed redevelopment of the site is considered to complement the character and appearance of the street-scene and will add character and variety to the local context in compliance with the principle of Policies EV1, EV2 and HC2 of the City and County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008.

With regard impact upon residential amenity of neighbours, the proposal will mainly affect No’s 154 a, 154 b, 150 and 154 a Mumbles Road.

Page 19 TH AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 11 FEBRUARY 2014

ITEM 2 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2013/1805

The proposed dwelling is sited a sufficient distance from the boundaries of the neighbouring properties and at a significantly lower level than both No’s 154a (to the west of) and 154b (to the north of) Mumbles Road, and as such the scheme will not result in unacceptable overbearing or overshadowing impacts. Furthermore the proposal is sited in excess of 30m from No’s 150 and 150b and the scheme proposes the retention of the dense foliage which separates these properties. As such the scheme will not result, it is considered, in unacceptable overbearing or overshadowing impacts upon the residential amenities of these properties.

With regard overlooking, windows to the east will mainly overlook the front of the application site and as such will raise no issues relating to overlooking in this direction. Ground floor overlooking will be mitigated via an agreed boundary treatment and/or the retention of the existing boundary treatment which will be retained via an appropriately worded condition. Furthermore in light of the rising land levels to the rear of the property, the 1 st floor element of the proposal will appear single storey from the rear and as such any overlooking will also be mitigated via the retention of the boundary treatment.

There are a number of 1 st floor windows which will face towards No 154b and 150 Mumbles Road. In terms of overlooking to the north, all proposed habitable room windows are sited in excess of 10m from the boundary with No 150 Mumbles Road and as such the proposal will not raise overlooking issues which could warrant the refusal of this planning application in this respect. In terms of the south facing windows, there is one Jacuzzi window serving the pool area. The Jacuzzi windows are approximately 12m from the boundary with No 154b which exceeds the recognised distance of 10m to prevent unacceptable loss of privacy to private amenity space. However, as there is large amount of glazing facing no.154b and the perception of overlooking would it is considered be detrimental to their residential amenities. However, this issue could it is considered be addressed through the use of obscure glazing. An appropriate condition is therefore recommended. Part of the first floor windows serving the sitting area for bedroom 3 is also within 4m of the common boundary with No.154b Mumbles Road, but given that the existing first floor conservatory has windows overlooking the side of 154b at present and that the design of the window would direct views towards the front garden area of No.154b, it is not considered that there would be any loss of privacy experienced over and above that currently experienced. The proposed front balcony area also serving bedroom 3 would be within 8m of the common boundary with No.154b, but again the views would be over the front garden area.

As such subject to conditions, the proposed redevelopment will respect the residential amenities of the neighbouring properties in compliance with Policies EV1 and HC2 of the Swansea UDP.

In terms of highways safety, the Head of Transportation and Engineering has raised no objections to the proposal.

Notwithstanding the above, one letter of objection has been received which raised concerns with respect the visual impact and the size and scale of the proposal. These issues have been addressed above in the main body of the report. There are no know ground stability issues and this issue is more appropriately addressed via building regulations approval.

Page 20 TH AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 11 FEBRUARY 2014

ITEM 2 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2013/1805

In conclusion, and having regard to all material considerations, it is considered that the proposed development responds to the constraints of the site and would result in the introduction of a modern dwelling would add to the character and appearance of the street-scene and the visual amenities of the wider area. Furthermore, subject to conditions the proposal would not result in an acceptable impact upon the residential amenities of the neighbouring properties or unacceptably affect highway safety. As such the scheme is considered to comply with the principles of Policies EV1, EV2, EV3 and HC2 of the City and County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008. Approval is therefore recommended.

RECOMMENDATION

APPROVE, subject to the following conditions:

1 The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than five years from the date of this decision. Reason: To comply with the provisions of Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1990.

2 Samples of all external finishes shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing before the development is commenced. The scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details. Reason: In the interests of visual amenity.

3 Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995, (or any Order revoking or amending that Order), Class B of Part 1 of Schedule 2 shall not apply. Reason: The development hereby approved is such that the Council wish to retain control over any future development being permitted in order to ensure that a satisfactory form of development is achieved at all times.

4 The jacuzzi/pool window in the side elevation, facing no.154b Mumbles Road shall be obscure glazed and unopenable below a height of 1.7m from internal floor level, and shall be retained as such at all times unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To safeguard the privacy of the occupiers of neighbouring residential properties.

5 The dwelling(s) shall be constructed to achieve a minimum of Code for Sustainable Homes Level 3 and achieve a minimum of 1 credit under category "Ene1 - Dwelling Emission Rate" in accordance with the requirements of the Code for Sustainable Homes: Technical Guide (November 2010 - Version 3). The development shall be carried out entirely in accordance with the approved assessment and certification. Reason: In the interests of sustainability.

Page 21 TH AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 11 FEBRUARY 2014

ITEM 2 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2013/1805

6 The construction of the dwelling(s) hereby permitted and any external works shall not begin until an "Interim Certificate" has been submitted to the Local Planning Authority, certifying that a minimum Code for Sustainable Homes (Level 3) and a minimum of 1 credit under "Ene1 - Dwelling Emission Rate", has been achieved in accordance with the requirements of the Code for Sustainable Homes; Technical Advice Guide (November 2010 - Version 3). Reason: In the interests of sustainability.

7 Prior to the occupation of the dwelling(s) hereby permitted, a Code for Sustainable Homes "Final certificate" shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority certifying that a minimum Code for Sustainable Homes (Level 3) and a minimum of 1 credit under "Ene1 - Dwelling Emission Rate", has been achieved in accordance with the requirements of the Code for Sustainable Homes; Technical Advice Guide (November 2010 - Version 3). Reason: In the interests of sustainability.

8 No retained tree or hedgerow shall be cut down, uprooted, destroyed, pruned, cut or damaged in any manner within 5 years from [the date of the occupation of the building for its permitted use], other than in accordance with the approved plans and particulars, without the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority Reason: To ensure as far as possible that the landscaping scheme is fully effective and ensure the residential amenities of the neighbouring properties

9 If any retained tree or hedgerow is cut down, uprooted, destroyed or dies another tree shall be planted at the same place and that tree shall be of such size and species and planted at such time as may be specified in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure as far as possible that the landscaping scheme is fully effective and ensure the residential amenities of the neighbouring properties

10 No development including demolition work shall commence on site until a scheme for the retention and protection of trees and hedgerow to British Standard 5837:2012 - Trees in relation to design, demolition and construction has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. This shall include full details on all works that impact on the original ground conditions within the root protection areas, as detailed in BS5837:2012 and in particular details of protective fencing, ground protection & construction method, required tree surgery operations, service trenching position and any changes in ground level within the root protection areas of all retained trees. No development shall take place except in complete accordance with the approved scheme, and the works required by that scheme are in place. All protective fencing, ground protection etc shall be retained intact for the full duration of the development hereby approved, and shall only be removed, or altered in that time with the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure the protection of retained trees on site during construction works.

Page 22 TH AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 11 FEBRUARY 2014

ITEM 2 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2013/1805

11 No development including demolition work shall commence until all tree protection measures as detailed in the approved scheme have been implemented, inspected and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure the protection of retained trees on site during construction works.

INFORMATIVES

2 Bats may be present. All British bat species are protected under Schedule 5 of the Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) and are listed in Schedule 2 of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010. This legislation implements the EC Habitats & Species Directive in the UK making it an offence to capture, kill or disturb a European Protected Species or to damage or destroy the breeding site or resting place of such an animal. It is also an offence to recklessly / intentionally to disturb such an animal. If evidence of bats is encountered during site clearance e.g. live or dead animals or droppings, work should cease immediately and the advice of the Natural Resources Wales sought before continuing with any work (01792 634960).

3 Birds may be present in this building and grounds please note it is an offence under the Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) to intentionally (intentionally or recklessly for Schedule 1 birds) to: - Kill, injure or take any wild bird - Take, damage or destroy the nest of any wild bird while that nest in use or being built - Take or destroy an egg of any wild bird Care should be taken when working on buildings particularly during the bird nesting season March-August.

4 This consent is issued without prejudice to any other consents or easements that may be required in connection with the proposed development.

PLANS

10.54/00B site location and block plans, 10.54/01 topographical survey, 10.54/02B proposed site plan, 10.54/03B proposed basement and ground floor plans, 10.54/04B proposed first floor and roof plan, 10.54/05B proposed front elevation, 10.54/06B proposed rear and side elevations, 10.54/07B existing and proposed sections dated 16th December 2013

Page 23 TH AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 11 FEBRUARY 2014

ITEM 3 APPLICATION NO. 2013/1701 WARD: Oystermouth Area 2

Location: 2 Woodville Road Mumbles Swansea SA3 4AD Proposal: Variation of condition d of planning permission 89/0765 granted 6th July 1989 to allow for the opening hours to be extended to 10.30 pm on Thursday, Friday and Saturdays and 9 am to 5pm on Sundays Applicant: Miss Hannah Davies

5 3 a

h t

e 5 a 5

t p

T 7 5 a b e W r A n L a T c E le R S C R E S C E N

1 2 2 4

C H A P E L

5 1 S T R Hall 1 E E 8 T

UE 0 AVEN 1

VICTORIA

1 THE 4

6 MUMBLES

3 9

18 5 13 2 2 1 30

2 ACE ER PL

3 GOW

5 28

1 7 18.0m 5 1A B

1 13.7m

1 1 1

2 Albert 5 15

Place

2 1

22.6m

1 2

I L

2 M 5

R 1

4 E

3 2

4 T

3 1

8 3 7

2 4

4 1 7 0

1 9 4

2 4

1 2

3 8

9 6

W 4

O 2

A 2 11 V K 7 5 I 1 1a L

A L

N E

R O

O A

D A D NOT TO SCALE This material has been reproduced from Ordnance Survey digital map data with the permission of the controller of Her Majesty’s StationeryPage 24 Office, © Crown Copyright. TH AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 11 FEBRUARY 2014

ITEM 3 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2013/1701

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

POLICIES

Policy Policy Description Policy EV1 New development shall accord with a defined set of criteria of good design. (City & County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008).

Policy EC6 The provision of appropriate small-scale local shopping and neighbourhood facilities will be encouraged within local shopping centres and areas of acknowledged deficiency in order to meet local need. (City & County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008)

SITE HISTORY

App No. Proposal 94/1115 RELAXATION OF CONDITION (B) OF PLANNING PERMISSION 89/0765 GRANTED 6TH JULY 1989 RESTRICTING THE PREMISES TO OPERATE AS A WHOLEFOOD VEGETARIAN CAFE ONLY Decision: *HGPC - GRANT PERMISSION CONDITIONAL Decision Date: 25/10/1994

89/0765/04 CONTINUATION OF USE AS WHOLEFOOD VEGETARIAN CAFE. Decision: *HGPC - GRANT PERMISSION CONDITIONAL Decision Date: 06/07/1989

97/1336 VARIATION OF CONDITION (D) OF PLANNING PERMISSION 89/0765 GRANTED ON 6 TH JULY 1989 TO ALL THE PREMISES TO BE OPENED FROM MONDAY TO SATURDAY INCLUSIVE; ALL CUSTOMERS SHALL HAVE LEFT THE PREMISES BY 11.30PM AND NO STAFF SHALL REMAIN AT THE PREMISES AFTER 12PM; THE PREMISES SHALL REMAIN CLOSED ON SUNDAY. Decision: REFUSE Decision Date: 24/02/1998

RESPONSE TO CONSULTATIONS

The application was advertised on site and two individual properties were consulted. THREE LETTERS OF OBJECTION have been received, which are summarised as follows:

1. Opening hours will result in increased traffic and noise. 2. I can clearly hear music and customer noises downstairs and evenings and Sundays are the only times when it is possible to rest in peace and quiet. 3. In the last few months the cafe opened late on a number of occasions and there were times when customers didn’t leave until past 11pm causing additional noise and disturbance.

Page 25 TH AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 11 FEBRUARY 2014

ITEM 3 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2013/1701

4. The back entrance where deliveries, rubbish, bottle disposal and staff access is used, gives very loud noises which are magnified by the current building shape and are echoed into and around our property. 5. There are already parking issues and if longer hours were granted, the residents would suffer parking facilities problems outside normal business hours. 6. I have a blue badge and a resident parking permit and often have to walk up the hill to park which is a struggle for an 86 year old. 7. The extended drinking time means that the actual drinking time would be much later as people have time to drink up and the staff would clean up later, increasing noise levels until very late in the evening. 8. Late night departing customers will disturb the peace of this normally quiet area.

Highways Observations - There are unlikely to be any highway safety or parking implications with this proposal. I recommend no highway objection.

APPRAISAL

This application is reported to Committee for decision and a Site Visit requested by Councillor Tony Colburn to assess concerns over the impact upon residential amenity.

Planning permission is sought to vary condition (d) of planning permission 89/0765 granted on 6 th July 1989 at the café premises known as Ty Junction at 2 Woodville Road in Mumbles. The current application proposes to increase the opening hours to 10.30pm on Thursday, Friday and Saturdays with a shorter opening period of 9am – 5pm on Sundays.

No.2 Woodville Road was originally granted planning permission in July 1989 for a change of use to a whole food vegetarian café. Condition (d) stated that “ the café shall open between the hours of 9am to 9pm Monday to Saturday only and shall remain closed on Sundays”. The reason given for this condition was “the site is situated in a primarily residential area and as such late night opening would be detriments to the amenities of residents of adjoining properties”. A subsequent planning permission was approved in October 1994 for the use of the premises as a general restaurant/café with the same control over opening hours – 94/1115 refers.

In February 1998, a planning application to increase the opening hours to 11.30 pm from Monday to Friday was refused - 97/1336 refers. The reason for this refusal was “the extended late night opening hours would be detrimental to the standards of residential amenity that occupants of surrounding residential properties could reasonably expect to enjoy by virtue of increase vehicular and pedestrian activity noise and general disturbance”.

The main issues to be considered therefore is whether or not the proposed increase in opening time on the days specified above would unduly impact upon residential amenities and vehicular activity, having regard to the previous planning history and the relevant Policies of the City and County’s Unitary Development Plan 2008.

Policy EV1 (iii) states that development should not result in significant detrimental impact on local amenity in terms of JJ..disturbance and traffic movements”.

Page 26 TH AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 11 FEBRUARY 2014

ITEM 3 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2013/1701

Policy EC6 refers to “the provision of appropriate small-scale local shopping and neighbourhood facilities will be encouraged within local shopping centres and in areas of acknowledged deficiency in order to meet local need”. As the application site is located just outside the defined shopping centre of Mumbles, the use of the premises would be considered as a neighbourhood facility in this instance. In the amplification of the Policy 2.4.20, it states that J.facilities should be located centrally to the areas they are intended to serve and easily accessible by foot, bicycle and public transport.” As the premises are so close to the District Centre boundary, it is easily accessible.

In terms of residential amenity, it is considered that the increase in opening hours by 1 ½ hours for 3 nights of the week would not give rise to an unacceptable increased level of noise and activity over and above that which is currently experienced sufficient to warrant a recommendation of refusal. Although the opening hours would also be extended to a Sunday, a day where it is acknowledged that residents would generally expect less noise and disturbance, it is not considered that the restricted daytime opening times would unduly impact upon the surrounding residents to a degree that would warrant a recommendation of refusal. It is now common practice that most commercial premises of this nature open on a Sunday. It should be noted that whilst the application to increase the opening hours under planning application Ref. 97/1336 mentioned above was refused, as part of the pre decision negotiation process, the Local Planning Authority suggested that a 10.30pm closing time would likely be supported. Notwithstanding this, at the time, the applicant declined to amend their proposal.

It is recognised that the site lies within a primarily residential area, but a partial increase in opening hours where the customers have to leave the premises by 10.30pm, is not considered to be an unreasonable request. The objections received relate to the increased noise and disturbance from late night revellers, which is understood and noted. However, a certain amount of drinking up time is not a legal requirement and if the opening hours are increased then the condition can be worded as such so that the customers have to leave the premises by 10.30pm. If this is imposed, it is considered that the concerns of the local residents could be alleviated. The Licensing Officer has confirmed that there have been no complaints received relating to the conduct of the business but has confirmed that the current alcohol licence for the premises does not reflect the hours applied for so this would also need to be amended.

The other concern raised by objectors is of lack of parking in the area. The Head of Transportation and Engineering, however, has raised no highway objection and in highway safety terms the proposed increase in opening hours is unlikely to raise any significant additional issues in this respect.

In conclusion and having regard to all material considerations, including the Human Rights Act, on balance, the increase in the opening hours as applied for is considered an acceptable form of development at this location that complies with the requirements of Policies EV1 and EC6 of the City and County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008 and approval is recommended.

RECOMMENDATION

APPROVE, subject to the following condition:

Page 27 TH AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 11 FEBRUARY 2014

ITEM 3 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2013/1701

1 The premises shall not be occupied by customers before 9am nor after 9pm from Monday to Wednesday, not before 9am nor after 10.30pm from Thursday to Saturday and not before 9am nor after 5pm on Sundays. Reason: To safeguard the amenities of the occupiers of neighbouring properties.

INFORMATIVES

2 This consent is issued without prejudice to any other consents or easements that may be required in connection with the proposed development.

PLANS

Site location plan dated 21st November 2013. Site location plan dated 13th December 2013

Page 28 TH AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 11 FEBRUARY 2014

ITEM 4 APPLICATION NO. 2013/1588 WARD: Oystermouth Area 2

Location: Plot 1 Morfryn St. Annes Close Langland Swansea SA3 4NX Proposal: Retention and completion of dwelling on plot 1 to include single storey side/rear extension (amendment to planning permission 2012/1018 granted 8th March, 2013) Applicant: Mr J White

51 49 41

62.2m

63.4m

62.2m R LANE

HIGHE

6 3 5 6

5 0

2 4

The Old Vicarage House 2

The Sun Spot

Gower Court Bay House

4 3

R H E

CLOS 4 FORT BEAU Parc Rise

1 Raglan

0 1

2 3

E CLOS NE'S

ST AN

6 2

25 3

BEAUFORT AVENUE

0 1

NOT TO SCALE This material has been reproduced from Ordnance Survey digital map data with the permission of the controller of Her Majesty’s StationeryPage 29 Office, © Crown Copyright. TH AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 11 FEBRUARY 2014

ITEM 4 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2013/1588

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

POLICIES Policy Policy Description Policy EV1 New development shall accord with a defined set of criteria of good design. (City & County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008).

SITE HISTORY App No. Proposal 2011/0364 Four detached dwellings with detached garages (outline) Decision: Perm Subj to S106 Agree Decision Date: 23/12/2011

2012/1041 Five detached dwellings with detached garages Decision: Withdrawn Decision Date: 25/07/2012

2003/2166 Single storey side extension on western elevation and single storey side extension, incorporating integral double garage on eastern elevation Decision: Grant Permission Conditional Decision Date: 16/01/2004

98/1513 TWO STOREY SIDE EXTENSION (AMENDMENT TO PLANNING PERMISSION 98/1111 GRANTED ON 25th SEPTEMBER 1998) Decision: *HGPC - GRANT PERMISSION CONDITIONAL Decision Date: 27/11/1998

2012/1018 Demolition of existing dwelling and erection of 5 no. detached dwellings with detached garages Decision: Perm Subj to S106 Agree Decision Date: 08/03/2013

Page 30 TH AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 11 FEBRUARY 2014

ITEM 4 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2013/1588

98/1111 TWO STOREY SIDE EXTENSION Decision: *HGPC - GRANT PERMISSION CONDITIONAL Decision Date: 25/09/1998

RESPONSE TO CONSULTATIONS

The application was advertised on site and two individual properties were consulted. TWO LETTERS OF OBJECTION have been received, which are summarised as follows:

1. The current proposal is disproportionate in terms of size and scale of the approved dwelling and other houses and gardens. 2. Overlooking of private gardens and surrounding areas is unacceptable. 3. There is concern over the excessive length of the north west wall, its visual impact and its overbearing nature particularly with plot 2. 4. The proposal to extend creates a higher massing effect. 5. It does not comply with Policy HC7 due to its excessive size. 6. I have concerns over potential noise issues with a pool and decking so close to private gardens. 7. The proposal is likely to affect the roots of the existing hedgerow. 8. There will be noise from the pumps. 9. The window will overlook my garden. 10. The dwellings are overbearing leaving no greenery but a mass of concrete.

Dwr Cymru Welsh Water – No objection subject to conditions.

APPRAISAL

This application is reported to Committee for decision and a Site Visit as requested by Councillor Tony Colburn due to concerns over overbearing impact and overintensification.

Full planning permission is sought for the retention and completion of a detached dwelling on Plot 1, Morfryn St Anne’s Close in Langland. Members will recall that planning permission for 5 dwellings on the site was approved in March 2013 – 2012/1018 refers. The current application for the dwelling differs from that approved under 2012/1018 in that the previously detached garage has been omitted and a single storey side/rear extension is proposed to house a swimming pool and gym with a replacement garage proposed adjoining the northern elevation of the dwelling. The extension would be sited along the boundary with Plot 2, to the rear of the attached garage, in a similar position to that of the previously approved garage, and would measure between 5.1m and 6m in width, 15m in length with a flat sedum roof height of approximately 2.9m. The attached garage element has an irregular shape, would be set back from the front elevation of the dwelling by approximately 3m, would measure between 5.3 and 8m in width, 7.5m in depth and have a flat roof height of approximately 2.9m.The main body of the house is substantially completed.

Given that the principle of residential development has clearly been established by the previous approval, the main issues for consideration are the impact of the amended designed dwelling on the visual and residential amenities of the area and highway safety having regard to the Policies of the Unitary Development Plan 2008. The Head of Transportation and Engineering raises no highway objection. Page 31 TH AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 11 FEBRUARY 2014

ITEM 4 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2013/1588

Policies EV1, EV2, HC2 and HC7 are considered to be the most relevant. Policy EV1 refers to development complying with good design criteria. Policy EV2 refers to the preference for new development on previously developed land and that any development should have regard to the physical character and topography and it surroundings and be acceptable in terms of impact upon visual and residential amenity and highway safety. Policy HC2 refers to infill development in urban areas and Policy HC7 refers to extensions or alteration to domestic dwellings.

Given that the main body of the house was approved under the previous planning permission, in residential amenity terms, the main issue to be considered as part of this application relates to the impact of the siting, scale and design of the single storey side/rear additional extension on the surrounding properties. Whilst the extension is long, the garage element is only 0.9m above the proposed 2m high means of enclosure to be erected along the common boundary with Plot 2. In addition the element that will house the proposed pool is on a lower ground level and as such would not be visible above the 2m high fence. It is considered therefore that the proposal would not appear unacceptably overbearing or overshadowing when viewed from Plot 2. Similarly the siting of the extension in relation to the existing dwellings to the east in Beaufort Avenue would also dictate that there would be no undue impact in terms of overbearing physical impact. It is acknowledged that the extension would be sited to the south east of the garden area of Plot 2 but given the modest height of the extension, it is not considered that it would result in unacceptable overshadowing or loss of light. The site is well screened to the east and as such it is considered that there would be no unacceptable overbearance or loss of privacy for the occupiers of Nos. 2 and 4 Beaufort Avenue.

In terms of visual amenity, the siting of the extension would dictate that it would not be highly visible from within the cul de sac and notwithstanding issues regarding its prominence the amended dwelling would incorporate an acceptable scale, design and materials relative to the previously approved scheme.

With regards to highway safety issues, the Head of Transportation and Engineering raises no highway objection.

Notwithstanding the above, two individual letters of objection were received raising concerns which relate mainly to impact upon residential amenity. These issues pertaining to which have been addressed above in the main body of the report.

In conclusion and having regard to all material considerations, including the Human Rights Act, on balance, the proposed dwelling with the addition of the single storey side/rear extension is considered an acceptable form of development at this location that would not unduly impact upon the visual or residential amenity of the area nor highway safety. It is considered therefore that the proposal complies with the requirements of Policies EV1, EV2, HC2 and HC7 of the City and County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008 and approval is therefore recommended.

RECOMMENDATION

APPROVE, subject to the following conditions:

Page 32 TH AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 11 FEBRUARY 2014

ITEM 4 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2013/1588

1 The development shall be completed in accordance with the plans hereby permitted. Reason: To comply with the provisions of Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1990.

2 Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995, (or any Order revoking or amending that Order), Classes A, B, C, E and F of Schedule 2 shall not apply. Reason: The development hereby approved is such that the Council wish to retain control over any future development being permitted in order to ensure that a satisfactory form of development is achieved at all times.

3 Before the development hereby approved is occupied the means of enclosing the boundaries of the site shall be completed in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of visual amenity and general amenity.

4 Prior to the occupation of the dwelling(s) hereby permitted, a Code for Sustainable Homes "Final certificate" shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority certifying that a minimum Code for Sustainable Homes (Level 3) and a minimum of 1 credit under "Ene1 - Dwelling Emission Rate", has been achieved in accordance with the requirements of the Code for Sustainable Homes; Technical Advice Guide (November 2010 - Version 3). Reason: In the interests of sustainability.

6 Prior to the dwellings being brought into beneficial use a 'Give Way' road marking shall be installed and thereafter maintained at the junction of the site access road with St. Anne's Close. Reason: In the interest of highway safety.

7 Foul water and surface water discharges shall be drained separately from the site. Reason: To protect the integrity of the Public Sewerage System.

Page 33 TH AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 11 FEBRUARY 2014

ITEM 4 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2013/1588

8 Notwithstanding the plans submitted, further details of the sustainable drainage (SUDS) measures such as permeable paving for the driveway access and car parking area, and rainwater harvesting shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved details shall be implemented and retained as such, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interest of sustainability

9 No retained tree or hedgerow shall be cut down, uprooted, destroyed, pruned, cut or damaged in any manner within 5 years from [the date of the occupation of the building for its permitted use], other than in accordance with the approved plans and particulars, without the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure as far as possible that the landscaping scheme is fully effective

10 If any retained tree or hedgerow is cut down, uprooted, destroyed or dies another tree shall be planted at the same place and that tree shall be of such size and species and planted at such time as may be specified in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure as far as possible that the landscaping scheme is fully effective

11 The single storey rear roof the garden room shall not be used as an amenity area or roof garden. Reason: In the interest of residential amenity.

INFORMATIVES

1 Any culverting of a watercourse requires the prior written approval of the Local Authority under the terms of the Public Health Act 1936, and the prior written consent of the Environment Agency under the terms of the Land Drainage Act 1991/Water Resources Act 1991. The Environment Agency seeks to avoid culverting, and its consent for such works will not normally be granted except for access crossings. The Environment Agency has no knowledge of flooding in this vicinity. However, you are also advised to consult with your Engineers Department, who may hold records/additional information, prior to the granting of planning consent.

2 The Environment Agency and the Local Authority have permissive powers to maintain watercourses depending on the watercourse's definition as "Main River" or "Ordinary Watercourse". The responsibility for general maintenance of the river and its banks rests with the riparian owner. Any bankside trees or vegetation within 3 metres of the watercourse should be protected from development in order to promote conservation and preserve visual amenity.

3 Site operators should ensure that there is no possibility of contaminated water entering and polluting surface or underground waters.

Page 34 TH AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 11 FEBRUARY 2014

ITEM 4 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2013/1588

4 Any waste excavation material or building waste generated in the course of the development must be disposed of satisfactorily and in accordance with Section 34 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. Carriers transporting waste must be licensed waste carriers.

5 The activity of importing waste into the site for use as, for example hardcore, must re-registered by the Environment Agency Wales as an exempt activity under the Management Licensing Regulations 1994.

6 Under the terms of the Water Resources Act 1991 and the Land Drainage Byelaws, the prior written consent of the Environment Agency is required for any proposed works or structures in, under over or within 7 metres of the top of a main river i.e. Nant-y-Fendrod & Nant Bran.

7 Any culverting of a watercourse requires the prior written approval of the Local Authority under the terms of the Public Health Act 1936, and the prior written consent of the Environment Agency under the terms of the Land Drainage Act 1991.

8 Birds may be present in this building and grounds please note it is an offence under the Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) to intentionally (intentionally or recklessly for Schedule 1 birds) to: - Kill, injure or take any wild bird - Take, damage or destroy the nest of any wild bird while that nest in use or being built - Take or destroy an egg of any wild bird Care should be taken when working on buildings particularly during the bird nesting season March-August.

9 The development plan covering the City and County of Swansea is the City and County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan. The following policies were relevant to the consideration of the application: EV1, EV2, HC2

10 This consent is issued without prejudice to any other consents or easements that may be required in connection with the proposed development.

11 If connection is required to the public sewerage system, the developer is advised to contact Dwr Cymru Welsh Water's Developer Services on 0800 917 2652.

12 The developer is advised that the Welsh Government have introduced new legislation that will make it mandatory for all developers who wish to connect to the public sewerage to obtain an adoption agreement for their sewerage with Dwr Cymru Welsh Water (DCWW) (Mandatory Build Standards). Further information on the Mandatory Build Standards can be found on the Developer Services Section, DCWW at www.dwrcymru.com or on the Welsh Government’s website www.wales.gov.uk.

Page 35 TH AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 11 FEBRUARY 2014

ITEM 4 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2013/1588

13 The developer is advised that some public sewers and lateral drains may not be recorded on Dwr Cymru Welsh Water's (DCWW) maps or public sewers because they were originally privately owned and were transferred into public ownership by nature of the Water Industry (Schemes for Adoption of Private Sewers) Regulations 2011. The presence of such assets may affect the proposal. DCWW advise that the applicant contacts their Operations Contact Centre on 0800 085 3968 to establish the location and status of the sewer. Under the Water Industry Act 1991 DCWW has rights of access to its apparatus at all times.

PLANS

10.50/03G proposed site layout, 10.50/10C proposed elevations and floor plans dated 6th November, 2013 Amended plans 10.50.01 C site location plan and existing and proposed block plans dated 15th November, 2013

Page 36 TH AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 11 FEBRUARY 2014

ITEM 5 APPLICATION NO. 2013/1799 WARD: Oystermouth Area 2

Location: Land at Morfryn St. Annes Close Langland Swansea SA3 4NX Proposal: Detached garage to serve Plot 5 Applicant: Mr Alan Clews

ANE 62.2m R L HIGHE

6 5 3 6

5 0

2 4

The Old Vicarage House 2

The Sun Spot

Gower Court Bay House

4 3

R H E

CLOS 4 FORT BEAU Parc Rise

1 Raglan

0 1

2 3

E CLOS NE'S

ST AN 6

dy B

E 2

25 3

BEAUFORT AVENUE

0 1

P a th ( um )

NOT TO SCALE This material has been reproduced from Ordnance Survey digital map data with the permission of the controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, © Crown Copyright.

Page 37 TH AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 11 FEBRUARY 2014

ITEM 5 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2013/1799

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

POLICIES

Policy Policy Description Policy HC2 Housing development within the urban area will be supported where the site has been previously developed, its development does not conflict with other policies, does not result in ribbon development, and the coalescence of settlements, overintensive development, loss of residential amenity, adverse effect on the character and appearance of the area, loss of urban green space, harm to highway safety, adverse effects to landscape, natural heritage, security and personal safety, infrastructure capacity, and the overloading of community facilities and services. (City & County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008)

Policy EV1 New development shall accord with a defined set of criteria of good design. (City & County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008).

SITE HISTORY

App No. Proposal 2011/0364 Four detached dwellings with detached garages (outline) Decision: Perm Subj to S106 Agree Decision Date: 23/12/2011

2013/1331 Detached garage to serve Plot 5 Decision: Refuse Decision Date: 25/11/2013

2012/1041 Five detached dwellings with detached garages Decision: Withdrawn Decision Date: 25/07/2012

2012/1018 Demolition of existing dwelling and erection of 5 no. detached dwellings with detached garages Decision: Perm Subj to S106 Agree Decision Date: 08/03/2013 Page 38 TH AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 11 FEBRUARY 2014

ITEM 5 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2013/1799

2013/1189 Detached garage Decision: Withdrawn Decision Date: 11/09/2013

RESPONSE TO CONSULTATIONS

The application was advertised on site TWO LETTERS OF OBJECTION have been received, which are summarised as follows:

1. The two proposals are almost identical but the new one has raised the height of the roofline but I cannot say as no measurements have once again been left off. 2. The plans are inaccurate since the position of the garage as shown on the lock plan varies from that shown on the proposed side elevation. Plot 5 already has a large 3-4 car garage capable of housing a boat if required. 3. The proposed position and size is excessive and disproportionate to the site itself. 4. There are concerns that the proposal will be a workshop in closed proximity to residential dwellings. 5. Further garages would amplify the built environment and create an overdeveloped feel to the area.

Highways Observations - This proposal is a resubmission of an application for a large garage to accommodate a speed boat that was recently refused consent on planning grounds. The applicant has amended the design however transportation aspects remain unchanged and my original recommendation remains unaltered.

I recommend no highway objection.

APPRAISAL

This application is reported to Committee for decision and a Site Visit requested by Councillor Tony Colburn due to concerns over overbearing impact and overintensification.

Full planning permission is sought for the construction of a detached boat garage to serve Plot 5 on land at St Morfryn, St Anne’s Close in Langland. Members will recall that a recent planning application for a larger boat garage on this land was refused in November 2013 – 2013/1331 refers – for the following reason:

“The proposed garage by virtue of its scale and design would represent a visually incongruous form of development which would be detrimental to the character and appearance of the area contrary to the provisions of Policies EV1 and HC7 of the City & County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan (2008) and the Council's adopted Supplementary Planning Guidance entitled "A Design Guide for Householder Development 2008”.

The current application therefore has been submitted to try and overcome the above refusal reason. The proposed detached garage would still be sited adjacent to the entrance of the site, behind the existing hedge and fence and will measure approximately 14.1m x 6.8m with an eaves height of 2.5m and a maximum overall height of 3.3m. The external materials would consist of blue pennant stone walls and a hardwood garage door.

Page 39 TH AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 11 FEBRUARY 2014

ITEM 5 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2013/1799

The scheme has therefore been reduced in length by 1.9m from 16m and reduced in height from 3.5m. The roof design has also been amended from a flat roof to a mansard style design to reduce its overall mass.

The main issues for consideration are the impact of the amended structure on the visual and residential amenities of the area and highway safety having regard to the Policies of the Unitary Development Plan 2008. The Head of Transportation and Engineering raises no highway objection.

In terms of impact upon visual amenity, it is acknowledged that the current scheme for the boat garage is still large in scale, albeit reduced in length and height. However, the dwellings within the development are also of a substantial size and as such the structure would not appear as a discordant or incongruous feature within the street scene. In addition, the change in roof design reduces the massing of the garage and as the garage would be sited behind the existing wall and fence which fronts onto St. Anne’s Close which has a height of approximately 2m, it is considered that this existing means of enclosure will successfully mitigate against any unacceptable visual impact from outside of the site itself. The proposed use of high quality external materials which are also in use within the surrounding development would ensure that the garage would be in keeping with the overall character and appearance of the new street scene.

The siting, scale and design of the garage would dictate that there would be no undue impact for the occupiers of the surrounding properties in St Anne’s Close by virtue of loss of light or privacy or overbearing physical impact. A distance of approximately 8m would be retained to the side elevation of the dwelling approved on Plot 1 and it is considered that its modest height would not result in any unacceptable physical impact or loss of light for the future occupiers.

It is recognised that there is already ample car parking provision on the site but this particular building is indicated as being required for the applicant’s accommodation of a boat. Notwithstanding this, the siting, scale and design of the proposed building is considered acceptable and as such, it is not considered that there are any material planning objections to its construction, irrespective of its use as a car or boat garage or domestic workshop.

The majority of the issues raised by the objectors have been addressed in the main body of the report. The comment concerning dimensions is noted but the plans are drawn to scale. The objector contends that the plans are inaccurate but this is not considered to be the case as the siting, layout and elevational plans all correspond.

Page 40 TH AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 11 FEBRUARY 2014

ITEM 5 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2013/1799

In conclusion and having regard to all material considerations, including the Human Rights Act, the proposed detached garage is considered an acceptable form of development at this location that would not unduly impact upon the visual or residential amenity of the area nor highway safety. The proposal is therefore considered to be in accordance with the requirements of Policies EV1, EV2, HC2 and HC7 of the City and County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008 and approval is recommended.

RECOMMENDATION

APPROVE, subject to the following conditions:

2 The garage indicated in the submitted plans shall be retained for the parking of vehicles and purposes incidental to that use and shall not be used as or converted to domestic living accommodation. Reason: To ensure adequate on site car parking provision in the interests of highway safety, and residential and visual amenity.

INFORMATIVES

2 This consent is issued without prejudice to any other consents or easements that may be required in connection with the proposed development.

3 Birds may be present please note it is an offence under the Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) to intentionally (intentionally or recklessly for Schedule 1 birds) to: - Kill, injure or take any wild bird - Take, damage or destroy the nest of any wild bird while that nest in use or being built - Take or destroy an egg of any wild bird Care should be taken when working on buildings particularly during the bird nesting season March-August.

PLANS

10.50/16H-site location plan, block plan, proposed floor plans and elevations received 13th December 2013

Page 41 TH AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 11 FEBRUARY 2014

ITEM 6 APPLICATION NO. 2013/1677 WARD: Gower Area 2

Location: Land between Wellpark Hall and Kings Head Hotel Llangennith Swansea SA3 1HU Proposal: Detached dwelling Applicant: Mr & Mrs J O Williams

Wellpark

Wellpark Hall

Well

k c a r T Llangennith

16 Avoca

The Narrows

13 El 2 Sub Town House Sta 11 C a G t i Kings Head s a

Hotel 1

(PH) D 0 D 1 Y N E C T S S

55.8m O

e L 7 v d C o r a g e h e m c g n

a e 6 e r e l a B G c i

V Well Hall e h

T The

NOT TO SCALE This material has been reproduced from Ordnance Survey digital map data with the permission of the controller of Her Majesty’s StationeryPage 42 Office, © Crown Copyright. TH AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 11 FEBRUARY 2014

ITEM 6 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2013/1677

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

POLICIES

Policy Policy Description Policy EV1 New development shall accord with a defined set of criteria of good design. (City & County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008).

Policy EV20 In the countryside new dwellings will only be permitted where justification is proved in terms of agriculture, forestry or the rural economy; there is no alternative existing dwelling in nearby settlements; and the proposed dwelling is located close to existing farm buildings etc. (City & County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008)

Policy EV16 Within the small villages identified on the Proposals Map, small-scale development will be approved only where it is appropriate to the location in terms of the defined criteria. (City & County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008)

Policy EV22 The countryside throughout the County will be conserved and enhanced for the sake of its natural heritage, natural resources, historic and cultural environment and agricultural and recreational value through: i) The control of development, and ii) Practical management and improvement measures. (City & County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008)

Policy EV26 Within the Gower AONB, the primary objective is the conservation and enhancement of the area's natural beauty. Development that would have a material adverse effect on the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage of the AONB will not be permitted. (City & County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008)

SITE HISTORY

App No. Proposal 2011/1093 Detached dwelling (outline) Decision: Refuse Decision Date: 02/11/2011

2005/2049 Two, two storey buildings for 5 no. serviced holiday letting units, an office, reception and boiler/maintenance room, detached laundry unit and provision of additional car parking Decision: Grant Permission Conditional Decision Date: 13/06/2006 Page 43 TH AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 11 FEBRUARY 2014

ITEM 6 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2013/1677

2008/0389 Retention and completion of two, two storey buildings for 5 no. serviced holiday letting units, an office, reception and boiler/maintenance room, detached laundry unit and provision of additional car parking (amendment to planning permission 2005/2049 granted on 13th June 2006) Decision: Grant Permission Conditional Decision Date: 15/04/2008

99/1549 SINGLE STOREY REAR EXTENSION TO PROVIDE NEW DINING AREA, KITCHEN AND ANCILLARY STORAGE, FIRST FLOOR ENCLOSED FIRE ESCAPE AND ERECTION OF FRONT PORCH Decision: *HRP - REFUSE PERMISSION Decision Date: 14/02/2000

2007/2523 Three detached dwellings (outline) Decision: Refuse Decision Date: 22/01/2008

RESPONSE TO CONSULTATIONS

Neighbours: The application was advertised on site and in the local press as a development within a Conservation Area. In addition to this three neighbouring dwellings were individually consulted. THREE LETTERS OF OBJECTION were received which are summarised below:

• The proposed development is in open countryside, historically and currently used for agricultural purposes. • The application site is not an infill and if allowed will be contrary to many of your Authority’s policies safeguarding the community and the A.N.O.B. • The village side of this agricultural land is bordered by housing so by allowing this application you will be opening up all this land to future development. • This land lies between the village and the common ground of the hill above it. Further development here will be an eyesore and destroy the beautiful vista. • The granting of permission will create a precedent affecting other open countryside in the village and in Gower generally. • The same site was considered by your Authority in 2011 and was refused because of the above issues. The reduction in scale and the repositioning of the four bedroom detached dwelling does not alter the principles involved. • Approval of the development creates a precedent and will put in jeopardy many other rural parcels of land not only within the village of Llangennith but in Gower generally. • This is a revised scheme for the same plot of land submitted by Mr and Mrs J 0 and E M Williams in 2011 under reference 2011/1093, which was turned down by your Planning Authority on 2 November 2011. • The reasons given for refusal remain unchanged, notwithstanding the design and positioning of the proposed detached property has been modified.

Page 44 TH AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 11 FEBRUARY 2014

ITEM 6 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2013/1677

• The land lying between Well Park Hall to the North and Well Park Farm could also be regarded as infill, as could the land to the west of Well Park Hall which adjoins the Bungalows of Walters Lane. In addition the field between Highbury to the East of Well Park Hall could also be considered as infill, if the current application is approved. • The proposed development would result in unjustified development within the open countryside which would represent a visually intrusive and suburbanising form of development that fails to Conserve or enhance the character and appearance of the Gower AONB contrary to the requirements of policies EV1, EV2, EV16, EV20, EVZ2 and EV26 of the Unitary Development Plan 2008. • Approval of this application would set an undesirable precedent for developments of a similar nature in Llangennith, the cumulative effect of which would have a significant and detrimental impact upon the character and appearance of the village and the surrounding Gower ANOB, contrary to policies EVl, EV2, EV12, EV20 and EV26 of the Unitary Development Plan 2008. • From the proposed scheme the adjoining boundary walls of Well Park Hall are to be used in part to enclose the site. The walls belong to Well Park Hall, are not party boundaries therefore cannot be used by the Applicants' as a means of part enclosure of the development. Access will also have to be allowed for future maintenance of these boundaries. • The site is not an infill development as both Well Park Hall and Well Park Farm have never been within the settlement limits of the Village and have always been and remain in open countryside accommodating agricultural use. • Well Park Hall obtained planning consent in 1974 from Glamorgan County Council under the savings provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act 1948, as a result of a planning consent granted by the Gower Rural District Council in 1939. • The entrance gate, to the proposed development is not set back into the proposed site, as is the gated entrance to Well Park Hall and Well Park Farm, which will result in unnecessary obstruction to the users of Well Park Hall. • Design and Access Statement. Paragraph 2.3 refers to the King's Head accommodation as "holiday cottages". This is incorrect as they are merely rooms for rent and are part of the Kings Head Hotel business. • Design and Access Statement paragraph 4 Policy Context -approval will be contrary to paragraphs 4.1 iii and IV of policy EV16. • Design and Access Statement Paragraph 4.5 Heritage Context. - How can the proposed development be justified that it will not contravene the principles of policy EV9 of the UDP, as it will not preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the conservation area or its setting as it will constitute, interalia, a loss of an open space hitherto used for agricultural purposes. • Design and Access Statement Paragraph 6.3.5 landscape. It is disagreed that the property will not be readily apparent as there are many parts of the community that the development will be seen from. To suggest that the proposed four bedroom detached house will only become apparent at very dose quarters is disingenuous and misleading. • The plan indicating the application site is incorrect, as the access from the adopted highway does not in part belong to the Applicants and please refer to their registered title to establish the extent of ownership in respect thereof. The application is incorrect in its current form and should be reissued with the appropriate certificate served on the owner thereof.

Page 45 TH AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 11 FEBRUARY 2014

ITEM 6 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2013/1677

Llanmadoc Llangennith and Cheriton Community Council – The Community Council objects because the proposal is still outside the village envelope and is on agricultural land. This contravenes the planning of the AONB.

Dwr Cymru Welsh Water - No Objection subject to standard conditions and informatives

Glamorgan Gwent Archaeological Trus t - it is unlikely that archaeological material would be disturbed by the proposed development.

Highways: This proposal is to erect a new dwelling on land between Wellpark Hall and The Kings Head, Llangennith. Access is form an existing shared access track which joins the highway at the bend on entering the village north of The Kings Head public house. Visibility at the access point is acceptable with adequate views in each direction. The access track is sufficiently wide for two cars to pass at its junction and is unlikely to present any difficulty in accommodating a further dwelling. The layout of the plot, whilst being indicative, indicates that adequate access and sufficient parking facilities can be accommodated within the site, where room for at least 4 cars and turning facilities is available I recommend that no highway objections are raised.

Note: Improvements to the proposed access will enable the proposal to be reconsidered.

APPRAISAL

This application is reported to Committee for decision and for a Site Visit requested by Councillor Richard Lewis in order to consider whether the site is within open countryside.

Description

Full planning permission is sought for the construction of a detached dwelling on land between Wellpark Hall and Kings Head Hotel, Llangennith, Gower. The site is considered to be located outside the village of Llangennith, on the boundary of the Llangennith Conservation Area, but within an area of open countryside within the Gower AONB.

In terms of planning history a similar application seeking outline consent for a detached dwelling was refused on the 2 nd November 2011 (2011/1093 refers) for the following reasons:

“The proposed development would result in unjustified development within the open countryside which would represent a visually intrusive and suburbanising form of development that fails to conserve or enhance the character and appearance of the Gower AONB contrary to the requirements of Policies EV1, EV2, EV16, EV20,EV22 and EV26 of the Unitary Development Plan 2008.”

“Approval of this application would set an undesirable precedent for developments of a similar nature in Llangennith, the cumulative effect of which would have a significant and detrimental impact upon the character and appearance of the village and the surrounding Gower AONB, contrary to Policies EV1, EV2, EV16, EV20,EV22 and EV26 of the Unitary Development Plan 2008.”

Page 46 TH AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 11 FEBRUARY 2014

ITEM 6 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2013/1677

Issues

The main issues for consideration during the determination of this application is the principle of development at this location, the impact of the proposal upon the visual amenities of the area and the residential amenities of the neighbouring occupiers, ecology of the site, drainage and highway safety having regard for the provisions of Policies EV1, EV2, EV16, EV20, EV22 and EV26 of the Unitary Development Plan 2008.

Principle

Llangennith, with a nucleated settlement structure and a village green offering both a green focal space as well as defining the centre for the village, is a named settlement under Policy EV16 of the Swansea UDP and as such small-scale residential development within this Village is considered acceptable subject to the following criteria:

• It is of a scale density and layout compatible with the size and form of the settlement • It has a design that in its from, elevational treatment, detailing and use of materials is sympathetic to the architectural character of the village • It will not involve the loss of land of recreational, natural heritage or amenity value • It has an acceptable relationship with adjacent buildings, spaces and landscape, including coastal features.

In this instance however, the application site is considered clearly positioned outside of the settlement within the open countryside just north of the main settlement, and is laid as an agricultural field with no clearly defined defensible boundaries to suggest a logical infill. It is acknowledged that there is a dwelling to the north at Wellpark Hall, however this dwelling is also considered to be within the countryside and was constructed under a grant of planning permission dating back to the 1970's issued by the former West Glamorgan County Council preceded by the former Gower Rural District Council. It is considered that the nature of the site in question makes it clearly outside the village and better related to the open countryside and as such Policy EV16 is not considered relevant in this instance. As such the site is considered to fall within the countryside and therefore residential development such as this needs to be assessed in policy terms as development in the Countryside where Policy EV20 would primarily apply.

Given that it is considered that the plot lies within the countryside and Gower AONB, Policies EV22 and EV26 of the UDP would also apply and dictate that within this area the countryside must be conserved and enhanced for the sake of its natural heritage, natural resources, historic and cultural, environment and agricultural and recreational value through the control of development. Within this area Policy EV20 of the UDP allows for new dwellings providing the dwelling is required to accommodate a full time worker employed in agriculture, forestry or an appropriate use to serve the rural economy who needs to live on the premises rather than a nearby settlement and there is no alternative existing dwelling available in nearby settlements. In light of the above and having regard for Policy EV20 in particular, and in the absence of any supporting evidence demonstrating that the proposal is required for an agricultural or forestry workers dwelling, or for any other overriding economic or use to serve the rural economy, there is no justification for the introduction of a new dwelling within this countryside location and the proposal would result in an undesirable visual intrusion into the countryside and Gower AONB. Page 47 TH AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 11 FEBRUARY 2014

ITEM 6 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2013/1677

The proposal therefore fails to provide an essential agricultural or overriding economic or rural need for a dwelling, and there are no other material considerations that outweigh the provisions of the Unitary Development Plan.

Visual Amenity

Whilst it is acknowledged that the proposed dwelling displays some elements of traditional vernacular, and is potentially capable of amendment such that may be possible to achieve an overall improved and satisfactory design, the fundamental overriding objections to the proposal in terms of principle, are such that t is considered to represent a visually intrusive form of development that would result in unacceptable visual intrusion into the Gower AONB and fail to protect the character of the countryside for its own sake contrary to Policies EV1, EV2, EV22, EV26 and EV20 of the Unitary Development Plan 2008.

Moreover, in view of the above consideration, if permitted, it is considered that this proposal would set an unacceptable precedent for further similar releases in the Gower AONB, the cumulative effect of which would be further erosion of the character and appearance of the village and unacceptable degradation of the natural beauty of the Gower AONB.

Residential Amenity

In terms of residential amenity it is considered that the proposal respects the residential amenities of the neighbouring properties and will not give rise to unacceptable overlooking, overbearing or overshadowing in compliance with Policy EV1 of the Swansea UDP.

Highways

Access is form an existing shared access track which joins the highway at the bend on entering the village north of The Kings Head public house. Visibility at the access point is acceptable with adequate views in each direction. The access track is sufficiently wide for two cars to pass at its junction and is unlikely to present any difficulty in accommodating a further dwelling. The layout of the plot indicates that adequate access and sufficient parking facilities can be accommodated within the site, where room for at least 4 cars and turning facilities is available, the Head of Transportation and Engineering recommends no highway objections are raised.

Burry Inlet

Finally, the application site will drain into the Burry Inlet catchment area. On the basis of the strategic concerns raised by our statutory advisor, the Countryside Council for Wales, whereby they object to schemes where there is not enough information to assess the possible effects of the Carmarthen Bay and Estuaries Special Area of Conservation (SAC), Burry Inlet Special Protection Area (SPA) and Burry Inlet RAMSAR.

However, as the application is being recommended for refusal on overriding planning grounds, a full Habitats Regulation Assessment has not been carried out.

Page 48 TH AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 11 FEBRUARY 2014

ITEM 6 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2013/1677

However, a Test of Likely Significant Effect under the Habitat Regulations has been undertaken where it was concluded that subject to the refusal of the application, there will be no adverse effect on the integrity of this European site as there would be no increased flows entering the drainage network.

The TLSE only applies, however, if the application is refused. Should it be proposed to approve this application, an Appropriate Assessment will need to be undertaken.

Response to Consultations

Notwithstanding the above, three letters of objection have been received which raised concerns in relation to the principle of development having regard to the planning history, and the impact upon character of area, the issues pertaining to which have been addressed above. The precedent for further development within the village and beyond has been raised, and whilst it is fully acknowledged that any future application would be determined on the basis of their own individual merits, it is nevertheless considered that in this instance the precedent argument is relevant and valid and therefore material to the consideration of this application.

Conclusion

In conclusion, having regard to the above considerations, including the Human Rights Act, it is considered that the release of this land for a new dwelling house would result in an unacceptable urbanising and visually intrusive form of development within the countryside and Gower AONB, with no satisfactory rural justification or need, to the detriment of the rural character and status of this site and its landscape quality. As such the proposal would not only detract significantly from the character and appearance of the immediate surrounding vicinity, but would unacceptably harm the visual amenities and quality of this sensitive landscape and countryside. Therefore the proposed development is considered to be contrary to Policies EV1, EV2, EV16, EV20, EV26 and EV22 of the Swansea UDP. On this basis it is not considered that there is any justification to warrant a departure from the Development Plan at this location. Refusal is therefore recommended.

RECOMMENDATION

REFUSE, for the following reasons:

1 The proposal would result in unjustified residential development within the countryside which would represent a visually intrusive and suburbanising form of development that fails to conserve or enhance the character and appearance of the Gower AONB contrary to the requirements of Policies EV1, EV2, EV16, EV20,EV22 and EV26 of the Unitary Development Plan 2008.

2 The approval of this application would set an undesirable precedent for further unjustified residential development within the countryside and Gower AONB the cumulative impact of which would have a seriously detrimental impact upon the character, appearance and openness of the area contrary to Policies, EV1, EV2, EV20, EV22 and EV26 of the City & County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008.

Page 49 TH AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 11 FEBRUARY 2014

ITEM 6 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2013/1677

INFORMATIVES

1 The development plan covering the City and County of Swansea is the City and County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan. The following policies were relevant to the consideration of the application: Policies EV1, EV2, EV20, EV22 and EV26 of the Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008.

PLANS

LP2 Site location plan dated 4th November. FC01 front elevation, GVC01 proposed front elevation, GVC02 proposed side elevation, GVC03 proposed rear elevation, GVC04 proposed side elevation, GVC05 proposed section, GVC06 proposed ground floor plan, GVC07 proposed first floor plan, GVC08 roof plan, GVC09 existing site plan, GVC10 block plan, GVC11street scene, GVC12 block plan, GVC13 various plans dated 3rd December, 2013

Page 50 TH AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 11 FEBRUARY 2014

ITEM 7 APPLICATION NO. 2013/1836 WARD: Gorseinon Penyrheol Area 2

Location: Toyoda Gosei TG UK, T G Park, Heol y Mynydd, Go rseinon, Swansea, SA4 4NY Proposal: Extension to rear elevation

C Applicant: Mr Shogoo Hirata a l B ro o k CB

f e

Coal Brook

ED Bdy

ain Dr

ETL

D ra in

D ra in Tank

n i a r D

ain Dr

Weir ck Tra D rain

Chy

TG Park

Factory

h t

in ra D

n i a r

H E O L Y M Y N Y D D

n i

a r

Drain

NOT TO SCALE This material has been reproduced from Ordnance Survey digital map data with the permission of the controller of Her Majesty’s StationeryPage 51 Office, © Crown Copyright. TH AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 11 FEBRUARY 2014

ITEM 7 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2013/1836

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

POLICIES

Policy Policy Description Policy EV35 Development that would have an adverse impact on the water environment due to: i) Additional surface water run off leading to a significant risk of flooding on site or an increase in flood risk elsewhere; and/or, ii) A reduction in the quality of surface water run-off. Will only be permitted where it can be demonstrated that appropriate alleviating measures can be implemented. (City & County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008)

Policy EV39 Development which would create, affect or might be affected by unstable or potentially unstable land will not be permitted where there would be a significant risk. (City & County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008)

Policy EV1 New development shall accord with a defined set of criteria of good design. (City & County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008).

Policy EC3 Improvement and enhancement of the established industrial and commercial areas will be encouraged where appropriate through building enhancement, environmental improvement, infrastructure works, development opportunities and targeted business support. (City & County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008)

Policy EV40 Development proposals will not be permitted that would cause or result in significant harm to health, local amenity, natural heritage, the historic environment or landscape character because of significant levels of air, noise or light pollution. (City & County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008)

SITE HISTORY

App No. Proposal 2010/1565 Construction of 2 no. external plant installations and escape platform with ladder Decision: Grant Permission Conditional Decision Date: 18/11/2010

99/0219 ERECTION OF CANOPY EXTENSION OVER EXISTING LOADING BAY Decision: *HGPC - GRANT PERMISSION CONDITIONAL Decision Date: 29/03/1999

Page 52 TH AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 11 FEBRUARY 2014

ITEM 7 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2013/1836

2009/0456 Two freestanding entrance signs Decision: Grant Advertisement Consent (C) Decision Date: 26/05/2009

98/0367 SINGLE STOREY EXTENSION TO EXISTING CHEMICAL STORE Decision: *HGPC - GRANT PERMISSION CONDITIONAL Decision Date: 27/04/1998

RESPONSE TO CONSULTATIONS

The proposed development was advertised by way of 3 No. site notices around the perimeter of the site adjacent to public access points. No third party correspondence has been received.

Highways and Transportation

1 Introduction

1.1 This proposal is for the extension of the facility through the addition of a further 2660 Sq M. An additional 100 staff are envisaged and 10 further office staff.

1.2 The current facility employs 190 staff the majority of whom work a two-shift system. The expansion and improvement of facilities will include revised working practices to a three-shift system and the additional staff movements therefore will be spread with only a small increase at each shift time.

2 Traffic Attraction and Impact

2.1 A transport statement has been submitted with the application. The nature of the proposal is not large enough to require a full transport assessment.

2.2 Existing traffic flows have been surveyed along the site frontage to Heol y Mynydd together with traffic movements into and out from the site. Additionally, movement counts at Pontardulais Road mini roundabout, Asda roundabout and High Street traffic signals have been included.

2.3 The existing traffic movements into the site have been used to determine movements per employee and the resultant figures used to predict additional movements. From the surveys peak travel times associated with the plant show that peak movements are outside the traditional road network peak and therefore the plant does not have any significant impact on other traffic movements in the vicinity.

2.4 The results of the assessment indicate an expected additional 19 two-way movements between 0700 - 0800, 6 between 1400 - 1500 and 17 two way movements between 1600 - 1700. This is a relatively small increase and will not have any significant impact on local highway conditions.

Page 53 TH AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 11 FEBRUARY 2014

ITEM 7 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2013/1836

3 Parking

3.1 The car park on site accommodates 260 spaces and there is a further smaller parking area next to the building for 28 cars. Site surveys indicate that the large car park is generally under used with only 78 cars present during the survey and 12 in the smaller car park. Significant spare capacity is present therefore all demand will be accommodated.

4 Conclusion and Recommendation

4.1 Existing traffic flows and proposed additional traffic has been assessed and the results indicate that the development is unlikely to have any adverse impact on local highway conditions.

4.2 Parking facilities at the site are more than adequate to meet any expected demand and no overspill parking will occur.

4.3 I recommend that no highway objections are raised.

Drainage The application has been reviewed and while no information has been submitted to support the indicative surface water management strategy it must be considered in the light of the fact the site is currently operating and other alternatives exist should the proposed scheme prove non viable. Therefore we recommend no objection subject to the recommended drainage conditions being appended to any grant of consent.

Pollution Control The brief is to provide a simple enclosure to house and protect the new production line from the elements. Thermal performance and day lighting are unimportant to the process since the space will be unheated with only anti condensation measures put in place.

The production process requires high intensity task lighting for inspection of the components and this would be required irrespective of the amount of daylight entering the facility. In order to minimise light pollution from the facility, no windows or roof lights are proposed. Therefore as long as there will be no light pollution from the facility, I have no further comments to make.

Nature Conservation It is unlikely that there will be a large ecological impact as a result of the work. Most of the ground around the site appears to be closely mown grass. In this instance a survey will not be necessary but as a precaution. Please include the informatives relating to the protection of Bats, Birds and Reptiles.

APPRAISAL

Introduction

This application is reported to Committee and a Site Visit requested by Cllr. David Lewis in order that the visual impact of the proposed scheme may be assessed.

Page 54 TH AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 11 FEBRUARY 2014

ITEM 7 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2013/1836

A full planning application is made for an extension to the existing factory unit known as Toyoda Gosei, Heol y Mynydd, Gorseinon. The proposed extension will be located off the North West facing corner of the existing unit and to the rear of the host building relative to Heol Y Mynydd.

The application site is a substantial stand alone industrial unit constructed in the early 90’s and used by Valeo Climate Control from construction until they ceased occupation and operations in 2001. Toyoda who now occupy the premises for the manufacture of moulded interior car parts are seeking to increase the level of production at the plant and this would be facilitated by the proposed extension.

Toyoda Gosei have indicated that not only would this increased investment in the scale of the production area serve to secure a viable business but would allow the further expansion to 24 hour operation securing additional employment opportunities at the plant. The expansion would allow for an additional shift rotation requiring approximately 85 production staff with additional support personnel which would constitute an increase in employment opportunities at the plant numbering approximately 100 across a range of disciplines.

The application property is an established industrial unit and additional investment by the current occupier is welcomed. The proposed extension is necessary for the expansion of the production line and the application site occupies a large site entirely divorced from the surrounding built form with no immediate neighbouring properties.

Issues

The main issues for consideration with regard to this application relate to the impact of the proposal upon visual and residential amenities, economic growth and sustainability having regard to the provisions of Policies EV1, EV35, EC3 and EV40 of the City and County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan.

In addition to the above Planning Policy Wales (PPW) makes clear provision for the support of proposed developments that contribute towards economic growth subject to an appraisal of the impact upon sustainability, visual amenity and environmental impacts. In this respect PPW makes clear that there will be occasions where economic considerations outweigh social or environmental concerns. There are in this case considered to be no additional issues arising from the provisions of the Human Rights Act.

Description

The proposed extension would have a footprint of approximately 2,660 square metres and a maximum height of approximately 13.3 metres terminating approximately 5.0 metres above that of the existing building. In addition the proposed extension would project in a northerly direction approximately 22.0 metres beyond the rear elevation of the existing building.

The proposed development would be clad in KS10000 profiled metal composite sheet and coloured Goose Grey to complement the existing facility.

Page 55 TH AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 11 FEBRUARY 2014

ITEM 7 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2013/1836

The existing building and the proposed extension would over lap by approximately 55.0 metres along the west facing side elevation with views from the front being partially screened by a section of the existing factory building.

The proposed works would introduce a significant mass off the North West corner of the host building, however this is a closed site and views afforded from public vantage points would be from a significant distance. The principle views would be gained from vantage points along Heol Y Mynydd and from this perspective it is considered that the existing building will provide a significant visual screening of views from public vantage points whilst existing landscaping would soften any perceived visual impact. As such whilst the proposed extension is significant in scale in visual amenity terms the proposed extension is considered entirely appropriate in this existing industrial context and when balanced against the economic benefits associated with this proposal it is not considered that a recommendation of refusal on visual grounds could be justified in this instance.

Turning to residential amenity given the isolated location of this industrial unit there are not considered to be any unacceptable impacts upon the amenities of neighbours in this instance. With regard to sustainability issues it is not considered that the full requirements of TAN 22 would apply in this instance as the proposal is not for a new build stand alone commercial unit but represents an extension to the existing facility.

The applicant has sought, however, to ensure that whilst not bound by BREEAM the sustainability and environmental credentials of the materials used been from a Green Guide Rating of A+. In addition to the above the Authority’s Pollution Control Division and Nature Conservation Section have indicated that there are no overriding issues that would warrant a recommendation of refusal. Similarly the Council’s Drainage Officers have indicated that the initial proposal whilst lacking detail are satisfactory however any planning permission should be bound by a condition, as recommended below, requiring detailed technical information to be provided.

Access & Highway Safety Given the extent of parking facilities and the proposal to increase the operation of the factory to a full 24 hrs, a focused Transport Plan was requested to provide analysis in respect of increased vehicle movements resulting from increase in commercial traffic and vehicle movements associated with any additional staff. The Head of Transportation and Engineering has appraised the Transport Plan as provided and raises no highway objection to the proposal.

CONCLUSION In conclusion, it is considered that having had regard to all material considerations including the Human Rights Act, the proposed scheme constitutes an acceptable form of development which would provide significant economic benefits to the area in compliance with the provisions of Planning Policy Wales and Policies EV1, EV35, EC3 and EV40 of the City and County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan. Approval is therefore recommended.

RECOMMENDATION

APPROVE, subject to the following conditions:

Page 56 TH AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 11 FEBRUARY 2014

ITEM 7 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2013/1836

2 No development shall commence until the developer has prepared a scheme for the comprehensive and integrated drainage of the site showing how surface water and land drainage will be dealt with and this has been approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. This scheme shall include details of a sustainable drainage system (SuDS) for surface water drainage and/or details of any connections to a surface water drainage network. The development shall not be brought into beneficial use until the works have been completed in accordance with the approved drainage scheme, and this scheme shall be retained and maintained as approved unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure that a satisfactory comprehensive means of drainage is achieved and that no adverse impact occurs to the environment and to minimise surface water run-off.

3 With regard the requirements of condition 2 of this planning permission the results of soakaway tests carried out in strict accordance with BRE Digest 365 or the equivalent CIRIA document must be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of development and any surface water drainage system must be designed to accommodate the 1 in100 year critical storm including an appropriate allowance for climate change. Reason: To ensure that an appropriately designed surface water management system is implemented so as to avoid creating surface water flood risk to the development itself and adjacent third parties.

INFORMATIVES

2 This consent is issued without prejudice to any other consents or easements that may be required in connection with the proposed development.

3 Bats may be present. All British bat species are protected under Schedule 5 of the Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) and are listed in Schedule 2 of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010. This legislation implements the EC Habitats & Species Directive in the UK making it an offence to capture, kill or disturb a European Protected Species or to damage or destroy the breeding site or resting place of such an animal. It is also an offence to recklessly / intentionally to disturb such an animal. If evidence of bats is encountered during site clearance e.g. live or dead animals or droppings, work should cease immediately and the advice of the Natural Resources Wales sought before continuing with any work (01792 634960).

Page 57 TH AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 11 FEBRUARY 2014

ITEM 7 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2013/1836

4 It is an offence under the Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) to intentionally (intentionally or recklessly for Schedule 1 birds) to: - Kill, injure or take any wild bird - Take, damage or destroy the nest of any wild bird while that nest is in use or being built - Take or destroy an egg of any wild bird You are advised that any clearance of trees, shrubs, scrub (including gorse and bramble) or empty buildings should not be undertaken during the bird nesting season, 1st March - 31st August and that such action may result in an offence being committed.

5 REPTILES Reptiles may be present. All British reptiles are protected under Schedule 5 of the Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981 (as amended). It making it an offence to intentionally kill or injure adder, slow worm and common lizard. If the reptiles listed above are encountered work must cease immediately and the advice of Natural Resources Wales sought before continuing with any work (01792 634960).

PLANS

Site location plan, 3.1 site layout, SW1084AL(5)011 proposed elevations and section, SW1084AL(5)010 proposed ground floor and roof plan, plan of extension, SW1084 5 002 existing photo elevations, 6408/01 drainage layout, 1000 Rev B site layout, 2.1 site location, 2.2 local highway network, 2.3 traffic survey locations, 2.6 public transport, 2.7 cycle infrastructure dated 20th December, 2013

Page 58 TH AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 11 FEBRUARY 2014

ITEM 8 APPLICATION NO. 2013/1719 WARD: Cockett Area 2

Location: 208 Swansea Road, Waunarlwydd, Swansea SA5 4SN Proposal: First floor rear extension and front porch Applicant: Mr Matt Crome Waunarlwydd Bus Depot SP 37.2m

17 Scrapyard

24 25

3 D

4 MEA O 1

1 W C R O F T

5 9 2

6 1 L

O 7 S

2 6

238 BRIDGE ROAD

232 2

2 9 34 230 228

222

7 3 2

1 2 9 0 2 2 0 2 194 1 204 92 S

WAN

3 S 2 2 EA R OAD 1

5 1 2

186

7 2

2 43.7m

5 0 2

3 0 2

5 9

1 9

3 9 1

9 8

7 8 1

1 5

1 4

A 1 2

Community 1

Y 0 Centre E N Library P E

S 96 7

NOT TO SCALE This material has been reproduced from Ordnance Survey digital map data with the permission of the controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, © Crown Copyright.

Page 59 TH AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 11 FEBRUARY 2014

ITEM 8 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2013/1719

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

POLICIES

Policy Policy Description Policy EV1 New development shall accord with a defined set of criteria of good design. (City & County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008).

SITE HISTORY

App No. Proposal 2003/2427 First floor side extension Decision: Grant Permission Conditional Decision Date: 10/02/2004

RESPONSE TO CONSULTATIONS

No objections have been received.

Highways Observations - Whilst the proposal will add a third bedroom parking requirements are likely to qualify for a reduction of at least one space, therefore parking demand will not alter from the existing situation. On balance I would recommend that no highway objections are raised

APPRAISAL

This application is reported to Committee for decision and a Site Visit has been requested by Councillor Andrew Jones to assess the impact upon the visual amenities of the area and overlooking.

Full planning permission is sought for a first floor rear extension and front porch at No. 208 Swansea Road, Waunarlwydd. The first floor rear extension is proposed to project off the north facing element of the dwelling and the front porch is proposed to the south of the dwelling. The first floor extension is a flat roofed extension which covers the width of the property and the front porch incorporates a pitched roof and is centrally located within the front elevation. The application property is a mid-terrace dwelling located in a predominately residential area. It should be acknowledged that the amenity space to the rear of the host property is located predominantly to the rear of the neighbouring property at No.210 Swansea Road.

The main issues for consideration with regard to this application are the impact of the proposals on visual and residential amenity, having regard to Policies EV1 and HC7 of the Unitary Development Plan and The Design Guide for Householder Development. Page 60 TH AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 11 FEBRUARY 2014

ITEM 8 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2013/1719

It is not considered that the provisions of the Human Rights Act raise any other overriding considerations.

The front porch is considered to be in keeping with the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the surrounding area given its sympathetic siting, scale and design. The first floor rear extension, however, is considered to be at odds with the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the surrounding area by virtue of its inappropriate siting, scale and design. It is acknowledged that there are similar types of development within the surrounding area, however, they are not considered to form the prevailing character of the area. Therefore, the first floor extension is not considered to comply with the criteria set out in Policies EV1 and HC7 of the Unitary Development Plan and the Design Guide for Householder Development.

With regard residential amenity impacts, the extension is not considered to give rise to a detrimental physical impact given that it is located above the existing single storey extension and also given its relatively minimal projection. It is also acknowledged that as a first floor extension to a terraced property it does comply with the Design Guide in that it does not project more than 4m from the main rear wall of the dwelling. However, there are concerns regarding windows within the first floor extension which would be within close proximity of the neighbouring property’s rear amenity space (No 206 Swansea Road) particularly given the juxtaposition of the rear amenity spaces of properties at this location. In terms of the overlooking, the plans indicate that the window serving the bedroom in the rear elevation of the first floor extension will be obscurely glazed and could only be opened 1.7m above floor level. In terms of the other window within the rear of the extension whilst it is not indicated on the plans that this window is proposed to be glazed with obscure glass, an appropriate condition could be attached ensuring obscure glass to be fitted to this window this is possible given that this window serves a non-habitable room (bathroom). Notwithstanding the above, it is considered that the proposal to obscurely glaze a main bedroom window would be unacceptable given that the living conditions of the present and future occupiers would be unacceptably affected. Therefore, given the above reasons it is also considered that the provision of an obscure glazing and non- openable bedroom window within the first floor rear extension would be unacceptable in residential amenity terms and would not comply with the criteria set out in Policy EV1 of the Unitary Development Plan.

The Head of Transportation and Engineering Services has stated that whilst the proposal will add a third bedroom parking requirements are likely to qualify for a reduction of at least one space, therefore, parking demand will not alter from the existing situation. Therefore, no objections are raised.

In conclusion, therefore, the proposals are considered to represent inappropriate forms of development that would have an adverse impact upon the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the locality and would be considered to have an impact on the residential amenities of the current and future occupiers of the host property, contrary to the requirements of Policies EV1 and HC7 of the City and County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan and the Design Guide for Householder Development.

RECOMMENDATION

REFUSE, for the following reasons;

Page 61 TH AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 11 FEBRUARY 2014

ITEM 8 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2013/1719

1 The proposed first floor rear extension by virtue of its scale and design would detract from the character and appearance of the existing dwelling to the detriment of the visual amenities of the surrounding area. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policies EV1 and HC7 of the Unitary Development Plan and the Council's Supplementary Planning Guidance document entitled 'A Design Guide for Householder Development'.

2 The use of a fixed and obscure glazed window to serve a habitable bedroom would have an unacceptable impact upon the residential amenities and the living conditions of the occupiers of the host dwelling. The proposal is, therefore, contrary to Policy EV1 of the Unitary Development Plan and the Design Guide for Householder Development.

INFORMATIVES

PLANS

MC1/1 site location plan, MC1/2 block plan (black and white), MC1/4 elevations, MC1/5 sections, MATT 2 side sections dated 29th November 2013 MC1/3 floor plan - existing and proposed dated 10th December 2013. Amended MC1/2 block plan dated 31st January 2013.

Page 62 AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE (37)

Councillors

Labour Councillors: 25 Nicholas S Bradley David J Lewis June E Burtonshaw Paul Lloyd Mark C Child Geraint Owens Bob A Clay Jennifer A Raynor David W Cole J Christine Richards Ann M Cook Neil M Ronconi-Woolard Jan P Curtice Robert V Smith William Evans R C Stewart Robert Francis-Davies Mitchell Theaker Terry J Hennegan Gloria J Tanner David H Hopkins Des W W Thomas Yvonne V Jardine Mark Thomas Andrew J Jones

Liberal Democrat Councillors: 6 Mary H Jones Cheryl L Philpott Richard D Lewis T Huw Rees John Newbury R June Stanton

Independent Councillors: 4 E Wendy Fitzgerald Susan M Jones Lynda James Keith E Marsh

Conservative Councillors: 2 Anthony C S Colburn C Miles R W D Thomas

Page 63