City and County of Swansea Area 1 Development Control Committee

CITY AND COUNTY OF SWANSEA

NOTICE OF MEETING

You are invited to attend a Meeting of the

AREA 1 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE

At: Council Chamber, Civic Centre, Swansea

On: Tuesday, 2 October, 2012

Time: 2.00 pm

Members are asked to contact John Lock (Planning Control Manager) on 535731 or Ian Davies (Team Leader) on 635714 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. To receive Apologies for Absence.

2. To receive Disclosures of Personal and Prejudicial Interests. 1

3. To approve as a correct record the Minutes of the Meeting of the 2 - 5 Area 1 Development Control Committee held on 4 September 2012.

4. Items for deferral / withdrawal.

5. Determination of planning applications under the Town and 6 - 91 Country Planning Act 1990.

Patrick Arran Head of Legal, Democratic Services & Procurement Tuesday, 25 September 2012 Contact: Democratic Services - Telephone:- 636820

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 Personal Interest from Members

To receive Disclosures of Personal Interest from Members 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 -

- details of the prejudicial interest; - details of the business to which the prejudicial interest relates; - details of, and the date on which, the dispensation was granted; and - your signature

D:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\8\3\7\AI00001738\$flvhgjfk.docPage 1 Agenda Item 3

CITY AND COUNTY OF SWANSEA

MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE AREA 1 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE

HELD AT THE CIVIC CENTRE, SWANSEA ON TUESDAY 4 SEPTEMBER 2012 AT 2.00 P.M.

PRESENT: Councillor R Francis-Davies (Chair) presided

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

J C Bayliss J E C Harris B G Owen N J Davies E T Kirchner I M Richard W J F Davies R D Lewis P Sangha P Downing P Lloyd P B Smith C R Doyle P M Meara D G Sullivan V M Evans J Newbury C Thomas J A Hale P M Matthews G D Walker A S Harrington H M Morris T M White

20. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors N S Bradley, M H Jones, D Phillips, C E Lloyd, D H James and L G Thomas.

21. DISCLOSURES OF PERSONAL AND PREJUDICIAL INTERESTS

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

Councillor W J F Davies - Planning Application No. 2012/0826 (Item 7) - Morriston Comprehensive School - Governor of Morriston Comprehensive - personal and prejudicial interest - view expressed publicly that I am opposed to the application.

22. MINUTES

RESOLVED that the Minutes of the Meeting of the Area 1 Development Control Committee held on 7 August 2012 be accepted as a correct record.

23. ITEMS FOR DEFERRAL/WITHDRAWAL

(1) the undermentioned planning applications were DEFERRED for the reasons indicated below:

Page 2 Minutes of the Area 1 Development Control Committee (04.09.2012) Cont’d

(Item 4) Application No. 2012/0695

Change of use from guest house (Class C1) to eight bedroom house in multiple occupation, removal of rear store and garage, single storey rear extension and external alterations at 6, Uplands Crescent, Uplands, Swansea.

Reason

Deferred due to concerns over the background information and to allow consultation with Board Members over information needed.

(Item 5) Application No. 2012/0993

Demolition of rear garage (application for conservation area consent) at 6, Uplands Crescent, Uplands Swansea.

Reason

Deferred as the application needs to be considered in conjunction with Application No. 2012/0695.

(Item 8) Application No. 2012/0452

Construction of advanced energy facility producing electricity (10.3 mw) and heat through pyrolysis using refuse-derived fuel for use within the existing industrial processes and for export to the National Grid involving the extension and alteration of the existing site buildings, erection of 41m high emission stack, erection of external plant including gas storage trunks and 4 no. 21m high feedstock storage silos, demolition and replacement of existing workshop/fabrication shop, 2.4m high fence enclosure at Vale Europe Limited, Clydach Refinery, Ynyspenllwch Road, Clydach, Swansea.

Reason

Application deferred so that further ecological information can be provided.

(2) RESOLVED that: the undermentioned planning applications BE DEFERRED for the reasons outlined:

Page 3 Minutes of the Area 1 Development Control Committee (04.09.2012) Cont’d

(Item 2) Application No. 2012/0849

Change of use from public house (Class A3) to eight self- contained flats (Class C3), two storey and single storey rear extensions, three external staircases, fenestration alternations and associated parking at 124, Neath Road, Hafod, Swansea.

Reason

To allow a further report on air quality issues to be prepared.

(3) the undermentioned planning application BE DEFERRED FOR A SITE VISIT.

(Item 7) Application No. 2012/0826

Construction of temporary car park and new temporary access road for a period of two years (Council Development Regulation 3) at Morriston Comprehensive School, Heol Maes Eglwys, Cwmrhydyceirw, Swansea.

Reason

To consider the impact on the surrounding area.

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

The Planning Control Manager submitted a schedule of outline applications, reserved matters and 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. 2012/0645

Change of use of first and second floors to a 8 bedroom HMO to provide student accommodation and ancillary car parking at 96, Mansel Street, Swansea.

Page 4 Minutes of the Area 1 Development Control Committee (04.09.2012) Cont’d

(Item 6) Application No. 2012/0863

Detached bungalow (details of scale, appearance and landscaping pursuant to Condition 1 of planning permission 2010/1715 granted on 3 March 2011 at 71, Bryn Street (rear of 51 Penfilia Road), Brynhyfryd, Swansea.

(2) the undermentioned planning application BE REFERRED to Development Management Control Committee as a departure from the Development Plan with a recommendation for approval subject to a 106 agreement in accordance with the recommendation:

(Item 3) Application No. 2012/0270

Extensions to existing garden centre buildings, provision of new access, car parking area, coffee shop, farm shop, landscape centre, nature walk and associated works (outline) at Pontarddulais Garden Centre, Allt-y-Graban Road, Pontarddulais, Swansea.

The meeting ended at 2.33 p.m.

CHAIR

S: Area 1 Development Control Committee - 4 September 2012 (JEP/KL) 7 September 2012

Page 5

Agenda Item 5 CITY AND COUNTY OF SWANSEA

DINAS A SIR ABERTAWE

Report of the Head of Economic Regeneration & Planning to Chair and Members of Area 1 Development Control Committee

ND DATE: 2 OCTOBER 2012

19 30

16 21 2. BONYMAEN 3. CASTLE 17 4. CLYDACH 6. CWMBWRLA 22 15. LANDORE 26 16. LLANGYFELACH 17. LLANSAMLET 19. MAWR 6 15 2 21. MORRISTON 22. MYNYDDBACH 33 26. PENDERRY 30. PONTARDDULAIS 34 3 31 31. ST. THOMAS 33. TOWNHILL 34. UPLANDS

Phil Holmes BS(Hons), MSc, Dip Econ Head of Economic Regeneration & Planning Page 6 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 7 CONTENTS

OFFICER ITEM APP. NO. SITE LOCATION REC.

1 2012/1095 17-20 The Strand Swansea SA1 2AW APPROVE Demolition of three buildings and removal of concrete slab (application for Conservation Area Consent)

2 2012/0674 105 Mynydd Garnllwyd Road Morriston Swansea SA6 APPROVE 7NZ Change of use of existing ground floor retail shop (Class A1) to fish bar (Class A3) and change of use of first floor flat from residential (Class C3) to offices and business stores (Class A2) and external extractor flue

3 2012/1052 Morriston Superstore Rhodfa Fadog Cwmrhydyceirw APPROVE Swansea SA6 6LQ Change of use of part of ground floor from retail (Class A1) cafe/restaurant and hot food takeaway (Class A3), additional window and new entrance door

4 2012/0452 Vale Europe Ltd, Clydach Refinery, Ynys Penllwch Road APPROVE Clydach Swansea SA6 5QR Construction of Advanced Energy Facility producing electricity (10.3MW) and heat through Pyrolysis using Refuse Derived Fuel for use within the existing industrial processes and for export to the National Grid involving the extension and alteration of the existing site buildings, erection of a 41m high emissions stack, erection of external plant including gas storage tanks and 4 no. 21m high feedstock storage silos, demolition and replacement of existing workshop / fabrication shop, 2.4m high fence enclosure.

5 2012/0695 6 Uplands Crescent Uplands Swansea SA2 0PB APPROVE Change of use from guest house (Class C1) to 8 bedroom house in multiple occupation, removal of rear store and garage, single storey rear extension and external alterations

6 2012/0993 6 Uplands Crescent Uplands Swansea SA2 0PB APPROVE Demolition of rear garage (application for Conservation Area Consent)

Page 8 ND AREA 1 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 2 OCTOBER 2012

OFFICER ITEM APP. NO. SITE LOCATION REC.

7 2012/0849 124 Neath Road Hafod Swansea SA1 2LG REFUSE Change of use from Public house (Class A3) to eight self-contained flats (Class C3), two storey and single storey rear extensions, three external staircases fenestration alterations and associated parking

Page 9 ND AREA 1 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 2 OCTOBER 2012 ND AREA 1 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 2 OCTOBER 2012

ITEM 1 APPLICATION NO. 2012/1095 WARD: Castle Area 1

Location: 17-20 The Strand Swansea SA1 2AW Proposal: Demolition of three buildings and removal of concrete slab (application for Conservation Area Consent) Applicant: Coastal Housing Group

S T 7.0m E 2 R 9

C L

A A El Sub Sta C

E 3

T 0

0 2

T 1

R Castle

E Foot Bridge

E Buildings 9

8 T 1

5 1 t 3 U n i t 1

t U n i i

n 4

1 2

U 1

C a s t l e A r c a d e

1 3 2 PC U n i t 4 U n i t 2

3 15.2m 6

5 1

4 1

3 4

8 2

3 9

6 4

0 1 PH 14.6m 2

1 C

S e t T r e L l e S t e m p E T B

A Well

0 I 2 L 5.8m E

9 E 1

8 e 1 n a L Pond e

t l Telephone

s 7 a 1 C

Exchange

5 1

Pond

3 1

11.3m 1 1

C C l u A 0 S 1

T t

E o L

5 E H

R E T P S E R PH S C A Q U A ORSTelephone Unit

6 E

7 8

9 H

1 P 0

1 1 1

PH 8

2 3 2

4 Mardy 5 t a b S 1 1 to 50 l S u Chambers 4 PC E 6

Hen Llys

6 6 Excludes nos 35&36 E N A L

7 N 1 5 O G A R D

7 1 Posts 1 N 8 E - 9 E R G PH

1 0 2

1 2

1 8.3m

6 1 1

1 3 6

LB PH

9 6

5 t

o 1 7

7 PH 5 W 1 8 PH I N T 1 9

D S C B s

6 T

T 5 R E

E E

5 T

2 E PH 5

1 R 4

ST 5

Y o

AR t

2 M 5 5 1

ST PH 5 PH

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 ND AREA 1 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 2 OCTOBER 2012

ITEM 1 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2012/1095

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

POLICIES

Policy Policy Description Policy EV10 Demolition of unlisted buildings that contribute to the character or appearance of a Conservation Area will not be granted unless fully justified. (City & County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008)

SITE HISTORY

App No. Proposal 2012/0405 Demolition of buildings (application for the Prior Notification of Proposed Demolition) Currently being considered 2012/0407 Demolition of former warehouse (application for Prior Notification of Proposed Demolition) Currently being considered 2012/1283 Redevelopment of site for a mixed use comprising 30 residential dwellings, upto 1764 sq m (GIA) of restaurant and cafe use (Class A3), a 42 sq m (GIA) kiosk for retail or business use (Classes A1, A2, A3 or B1) and means of access, plant room, car park, external seating area and associated landscaping works Currently being considered

RESPONSE TO CONSULTATION

The application was advertised on site and in the local press. No public response received.

Glamorgan Gwent Archaeological Trust - There are two issues that will be material considerations in the determination of any planning application in this area. They are the impact of the development on the buried archaeological resource and the impact of the development on the setting of the adjacent Swansea Castle, a Scheduled Ancient Monument. The application’s supporting information contains a Heritage Impact Statement, which considers the impact of the demolition on the setting of the Scheduled Monument and on the Medieval Castle Lane. This work concludes that the demolition will have a significant impact on both of these, with the loss of built form opening land around Castle Lane and creating a “blank façade” fronting the castle, although at the same time opening views to the castle. The work notes that further archaeological mitigation will be undertaken as part of the larger redevelopment and that the impact of the open area will be essentially temporary and reversed once the development has restored the built form.

Results of recent archaeological work in the area have provided us with sufficient information to make further recommendations for the site. Specifically relating to the demolition and removal of the slab, it is our opinion that a recording of the buildings should be made prior to their demolition.

Page 11 ND AREA 1 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 2 OCTOBER 2012

ITEM 1 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2012/1095

Currently, they form an element of the earlier port of Swansea, on a Medieval site but of late 19th and early 20th century date, as the River Tawe ran in the Strand area prior to it’s canalisation and the nature of the buildings reflect this maritime industry. The removal of the slab is unlikely to encounter significant archaeological features, which are likely to be at a lower depth, but as noted there is the potential for Medieval and Post-Medieval remains to be exposed and it is our opinion that an archaeological watching brief should be undertaken during the removal of the slab.

We therefore recommend that two conditions should be attached to the consent; firstly, a record of the structures both by the means of a descriptive, drawn and photographic record should be made, prior to any works being undertaken. The completed record should then be deposited in a suitable repository, such as the West Glamorgan Archives or the Historic Environment Record to enable access by future historians.

In order to ensure that the work is undertaken we recommend that a condition based on the model suggested by the Association of Local Government Archaeological Officers in their document Analysis and Recording for the Conservation and Control of Works to Historic Buildings should be attached to any planning consent granted by your Members. This condition is worded: -

No site works shall be undertaken until the implementation of an appropriate programme of building recording and analysis has been agreed with the local planning authority, to be carried out by a specialist acceptable to the local planning authority and in accordance with an agreed written specification.

The justification for the imposition of the condition would therefore be: -

As the buildings are of architectural and cultural significance the specified records are required to mitigate the impact of the development.

Secondly, we recommend that a condition requiring an archaeological watching brief to be conducted during the removal of the slab should be attached to any planning consent granted in respect to the current application, in order that all archaeological features are identified and recorded. This recommendation is made following the advice given in Welsh Office Circular 60/96, section 22.

We suggest that the condition be worded:

The developer shall ensure that a suitably qualified archaeologist is present during the undertaking of any ground disturbing works in the development area, so that an archaeological watching brief can be conducted. The archaeological watching brief shall be undertaken to the standards of the Institute for Archaeologists. The Local Planning Authority shall be informed, in writing, at least two weeks prior to the commencement of the development of the name of the said archaeologist and no work shall begin until the Local Planning Authority has confirmed, in writing, that the proposed archaeologist is suitable. A copy of the watching brief report shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority within two months of the fieldwork being completed by the archaeologist.

Reason: To identify and record any features of archaeological interest discovered during the works, in order to mitigate the impact of the works on the archaeological resource.

Page 12 ND AREA 1 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 2 OCTOBER 2012

ITEM 1 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2012/1095

Pollution Control – No objection to demolition but require information regarding schedule of works etc. However express concern regarding the introduction of residential units into Wind Street without the necessary sound insulation.

Building Control - The report findings seam to be fine, the buildings are in a serious disrepair condition verging on being in a dangerous condition, It would be sensible to demolish the building before another winter.

APPRAISAL

The application is reported to Area 1 Development Control Committee in accordance with the Council’s Constitution because the recommendation of approval prior to the grant of permission for a redevelopment proposal is a departure from the normal procedures for dealing with such applications.

The application seeks Conservation Area Consent for the demolition of 3 buildings and the removal of a concrete slab at 17 – 20 The Strand, Swansea.

The Local Planning Authority is also in receipt of two corresponding applications seeking the prior approval for the demolition of the same buildings (applications 2012/0405 and 2012/0407 refer) and a mixed use application for the redevelopment of the this site and that of 1 - 4 Castle Square (planning application 2012/1283 refers).

The site lies within the Wind Street Conservation Area which was designated in 1975 primarily on account of the high quality townscape on Wind Street which contains a high concentration of listed buildings.

The Strand forms a counter poise to the formal and ornate buildings of Wind Street, with functional warehouses and associated public houses that skirted the edge of the former docks. The buildings on the site comprise:

• 17-18 The Strand, which is a three storey, three bay brick building. To the ground floor shallow arched windows and doors provide the only openings in the façade. The upper floors are blank with emphasised frame and recessed brickwork panels. The roof is not visible and the façade is finished by a plain parapet.

• 19 The Strand, which is a rendered small scale two storey former pub. It has a symmetrical elevation and slate roof.

• 20 The Strand, which is a four storey brick building which turns the corner onto Castle Lane. The ground floor openings comprise door and loading bay. The upper floors have full height casement windows. A shallow pitch hipped roof covers the building. The side and rear elevations relate to Castle Lane and Swansea Castle beyond.

The buildings back onto a vacant site following the demolition of the buildings along 1 – 4 Castle Square in the 1990’s. The site lies adjacent to Swansea Castle which is a grade I listed building and Scheduled Ancient Monument.

Page 13 ND AREA 1 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 2 OCTOBER 2012

ITEM 1 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2012/1095

Welsh Office Circular 61/96 – Planning and the Historic Environment, advises that the general presumption should be in favour of retaining buildings which make a positive contribution to the character or appearance of a conservation area and proposals to demolish such buildings should be assessed against the same broad criteria as proposals to demolish listed buildings, namely:

I. The condition of the building, the cost of repairing and maintaining it in relation to its importance and to the value derived from its continued use.

II. The adequacy of efforts made to retain the building in use.

III. The merits of alternative proposals for the site.

In cases where a building makes little or no such contribution it is stated that the authority will normally need to have full information about what is proposed for the site after demolition. It is advised that consent for demolition should not be given unless there are acceptable and detailed plans for redevelopment and that the Local Planning Authority is entitled to consider the merits of any proposed development in determining whether consent should be given for the demolition of any unlisted building in a conservation area.

It is stated that it will be appropriate to impose on the grant of consent for demolition a condition that demolition shall not take place until a contract for carrying out development has been made and planning permission granted.

The above advice is reflected and implemented through Policy EV10 of the City & County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan (UDP). This states that consent for the demolition of unlisted buildings that make a positive contribution to the character or appearance of a conservation area will not be granted unless it can be demonstrated that:

I. The condition of the buildings would not justify the cost of repair, II. Efforts have been made to find a viable use, III. Redevelopment would produce substantial benefits for the community that would outweigh the loss resulting from demolition, and IV. There are acceptable and detailed plans for redevelopment.

The amplification to the policy explains that where the redevelopment of an unlisted building presents an opportunity to enhance the character and appearance of a conservation area, replacement buildings will be required to be of an appropriate quality. Demolition will only be allowed where there are approved plans for redevelopment, and a contract for the commencement of development has been signed, to prevent the creation of unsightly gaps in the street frontage.

In terms of assessing the contribution the buildings make to the Wind St Conservation Area, the application is supported by a Heritage Impact Statement. This states that historical mapping highlights that all of the buildings subject to this application were constructed during the early 20th century, although there had been buildings on the site previously.

In assessing the value of the assets it is concluded that properties 17-20 Strand Row are of negligible value by virtue of them being of ‘no architectural or historical note’. It is stated that: Page 14 ND AREA 1 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 2 OCTOBER 2012

ITEM 1 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2012/1095

“Whilst the buildings are included within the Wind Street Conservation Area it is more by virtue of their location within an urban block, the form of which has been determined by the historic street pattern and previous alignment of the river, rather than architectural merit or historic interest. Neither do they appear to have any close historical associations with people or events of importance to Wales, or hold any group value.”

In assessing the impact on cultural heritage assets, it is concluded that there are no direct changes to listed buildings/structures, ancient monuments or historic landscapes resulting from the proposal. It is acknowledged however that there will be a direct impact upon the Wind Street Conservation Area in which they lie, and potentially indirect impacts upon the setting of the Grade l listed Castle and Scheduled Ancient Monument, and as a result upon the setting of the Grade II listed Castle Cinema.

In this respect it is concluded that the proposed demolition of 17-20 The Strand will have a significant impact upon the setting of Swansea Castle, principally because the Castle will sit within an open space, albeit temporarily, and Castle Lane will have no form of enclosure.

It is stated that:

“Views to the Scheduled Ancient Monument will be extended as a result of the demolition, however the works will expose the side elevations of 15 The Strand. This will serve to further extend the blank façade fronting onto the Castle and will be detrimental to the setting of the Castle.

It is the loss of built form, rather than the buildings proposed for demolition, which will have a negative impact upon the character of Castle Lane. Its distinct character, the result of enclosure of the narrow medieval route by buildings on both The Strand and (formerly) Wind Street, will be further diluted by the loss of 20 The Strand. This will be detrimental to not only the setting of the Castle, as stated previously, but also to the character of the Conservation Area.

Similarly the loss of frontage to The Strand, the character of which is defined by the wall of buildings which run along much of its length, will have an adverse impact on the character of the Conservation Area immediately to the south of the Castle.”

It is noted however that whilst the Castle forms a prominent part of the streetscape of Castle Square, the rear portions of the properties on Strand Row and the side elevation of 5 Castle Square, which were never intended to be visible in the streetscene, are clearly visible and are detrimental to its setting.

The above conclusions are largely accepted as it is considered that the architectural merit of the buildings is limited, being of plain functional appearance and much altered over time. Whilst therefore not making a significant positive contribution to the character or appearance of the conservation area, they do not on the whole detract from it. It is essentially a neutral impact and the proposal therefore falls to be considered against the above criteria of Policy EV10.

Page 15 ND AREA 1 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 2 OCTOBER 2012

ITEM 1 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2012/1095

Glamorgan Gwent Archaeological Trust in response to their consultation on this application has highlighted two material issues, namely the impact of the development on the buried archaeological resource and the impact of the development on the setting of the adjacent Swansea Castle Scheduled Ancient Monument. In terms of the latter the Trust note that the findings of the aforementioned supporting Heritage Impact Statement but also note that further archaeological mitigation will be undertaken as part of the larger redevelopment and that the impact of the open area will be essentially temporary and reversed once the replacement development has restored the built form.

Specifically relating to the demolition and removal of the slab, it is the opinion of the Trust that a recording of the buildings should be made prior to their demolition. This can be controlled by condition.

The Trust explains that currently the buildings form an element of the earlier port of Swansea, on a Medieval site but of late 19th and early 20th century date. The River Tawe ran in the Strand area prior to its canalisation and the nature of the buildings reflects this maritime industry. In the view of the Trust the removal of the slab is unlikely to encounter significant archaeological features, which are likely to be at a lower depth. However, there is the potential for Medieval and Post-Medieval remains to be exposed and accordingly in the opinion of the Trust, an archaeological watching brief should be undertaken during the removal of the slab. Again, this is a matter which can be controlled by way of a condition.

Dealing with the first and second criteria of Policy EV10, relating to the condition of the buildings and viable uses, the application is supported by structural surveys for 17/18 and 20 The Strand which note significant dilapidation and structural cracking and corrosion within the buildings. It is advised that a further subsequent inspection has been undertaken and it is noted that the condition of these buildings has deteriorated and the cracking and corrosion especially within the warehouse of Nos. 17/18 has increased. Within the buildings it is explained that the timber/steel beam and concrete floors have also deteriorated and are now beyond reuse.

With regards to No. 19 [the former public house] it is explained that the first floor has collapsed and the fragile condition of the building is such that it is not safe to carry out an internal survey. It is advised that this situation has worsened and there is now significant water ingress and damp penetration present.

The conclusions of the surveys are accepted by the Council’s Building Control Team who confirm that the buildings are in serious disrepair, verging on being in a dangerous condition and that it would be sensible to demolish the building before another winter.

In terms of conversion, it is advised by Coastal’s Quantity Surveyor that the scope of works to modify the buildings and to satisfy minimum Welsh Government Design & Quality Requirements, Code and Building Regulations would require significant structural and non structural alterations, considerable facade and roof external insulation improvement with noise and fire upgrading works necessitating the complete strip-out and reconstruction of all internal floor structures and access cores.

The conclusions go on to explain that the brickwork on all the buildings is in an extremely poor condition with surface delaminating evident which makes facade repair and improvements “virtually impossible and certainly unviable”. Page 16 ND AREA 1 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 2 OCTOBER 2012

ITEM 1 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2012/1095

The Quantity Surveyor has advised that based on the condition, age of the buildings and likely conversion issues the repair and conversion costs will be greater than demolition and new build and would, in addition, require significant design compromise on access arrangements, floor levels and internal configuration between the retained and new buildings. As such it has been concluded that the retention of the existing buildings, particularly No.20, to provide new social housing apartments is unviable.

The redevelopment scheme architects (HMA) has also examined the feasibility of utilising the three buildings as part of the proposals and have concluded that the restrictive nature of the three separate but adjacent buildings, particularly the incompatibility of their varying storey heights, means that conversion into one coordinated residential scheme would be inefficient at best and unviable.

Furthermore, the applicant’s consultant has advised that, given that the ground floor areas of the buildings are located at a level of below current extreme flood level, the nature and structure of the buildings is such that the introduction of measures for compliance in respect of waterproofing and setting acceptable threshold levels also do not appear to be practical or viable.

In assessing the present structural condition and the flooding issues Ateb Engineers conclude that the structural and fabric of these buildings appear beyond economic and practical repair and conservation.

In terms of efforts to find a viable use, the buildings have been vacant for a considerable time and having regard to the condition of the buildings it is accepted that attracting occupants would be extremely challenging. Having regard to the foregoing therefore it is acknowledged that the condition of the buildings and their limited architectural merit would not justify the cost of repair.

With regards to the third and fourth criteria, relating to whether the community benefits arising from demolition would outweigh the loss resulting from demolition, and there being acceptable and detailed plans for redevelopment, as noted above, the Authority is in receipt of an application for the comprehensive redevelopment of both the application site and the adjoining site at 1 – 4 Castle Square. The proposed development would consist of 30 dwellings and approximately 900 sq m of commercial floor space.

This application has been the subject of extensive and positive pre-application discussions and it is considered that the replacement scheme has been carefully designed to draw on the character of the area and would enhance the character of the conservation area and the setting of Swansea Castle.

The proposed redevelopment along The Strand draws on the established warehouse vernacular and the frontage is broken into three distinct buildings with the massing on the rear of the footway reducing in scale closer to the corner with Castle Lane. The corner building is a very literal interpretation of number 20 albeit with floor to ceiling heights appropriate to residential accommodation. The main mass is located alongside the larger Walkabout rear elevation with a gabled frontage reflecting other warehouses on the Strand. The middle building is a subservient linking design which is low key in a similar manner to the existing former pub (albeit larger in scale). The materials are robust and high quality using brick which references the character along The Strand. Page 17 ND AREA 1 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 2 OCTOBER 2012

ITEM 1 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2012/1095

It is considered that not only would the architectural approach compliment the area, the project would introduce a vibrant mixed use scheme into a long derelict site and would further help to regenerate The Strand and enliven Castle Lane.

The scheme has also been welcomed by the national design champion, the Design Commission for Wales which commented:

“We think this is an aspiration scheme which takes design quality seriously…. The contextual response of the built form is appropriate and the reinstatement of Castle Lane as an active route is greatly welcomed…. The Panel welcomed the quality of the contextual response to the building typologies, of the burgage plots on Wind Street and the warehouse buildings along The Strand…..”

The Council is therefore in receipt of acceptable and detailed plans for the redevelopment of the site and given the vacant and poor condition of the buildings and the derelict character of 1 – 4 Castle Square, it is considered that the redevelopment of the site would produce substantial benefits to this important city centre site that would outweigh the loss resulting from demolition of the existing buildings. Consequently the proposal is considered to provide an opportunity to enhance the character and appearance of the conservation area. However, full and appropriate consideration of the submitted scheme must be reserved for a future report to this Committee or consideration by the Head of Economic Regeneration & Planning under his delegated powers.

Having regard to the foregoing it is considered that the application for conservation area consent is acceptable when assessed against the broad criteria to assess the demolition of listed buildings as set out in Welsh Office Circular 61/96, and the demolition of unlisted buildings within conservation areas as set out in criteria (i) – (iv) of UDP Policy EV10.

The residual issue here is that both Circular 61/96 and the amplification to Policy EV10 state that demolition will only be allowed where there are approved plans for redevelopment, and a contract for the commencement of development has been signed, to prevent the creation of unsightly gaps in the street frontage. Consequently normal procedures are that applications for conservation area consent to demolish and planning permission for redevelopment are considered and determined concurrently.

This application however seeks conservation area consent prior to plans for redevelopment being approved and without a condition requiring a contract to be entered into for carrying out the development prior to demolition taking place.

The applicant has explained that it was considered necessary to progress with this application for demolition in the first instance due to an urgent need to commence with the demolition works and to allow archaeological investigations to take place. In this respect the applicant has been made aware by Glamorgan Gwent Archaeological Trust that prior to redevelopment of the Castle Lane site, archaeological excavations will be required to be undertaken once the buildings on site have been demolished.

The applicant, Coastal Housing Group, is therefore seeking for the archaeological works to be undertaken as a matter of urgency due to the funding arrangements in place to finance the project.

Page 18 ND AREA 1 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 2 OCTOBER 2012

ITEM 1 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2012/1095

It is advised that the Castle Lane scheme is to be funded through public and private investment. The public investment, which comprises a significant part of the monies, is made up from Social Housing Grant from the Welsh Government (WG) and Strategic Regeneration funds from the City & County of Swansea. Agreements have been put in place to allocate this funding starting year end 2012/2013. This is typically based upon a start on site (for the main permission). There is a concern however that any extensive archaeological works necessary, which are only discovered as a result of the excavations after the demolition has taken place, will result in a delay in a start on site and a risk that the funding is allocated elsewhere. In the case of WG funding this could be to a different local authority area. For the Castle Lane project the removal of this funding would render the scheme undeliverable at the expense of providing 26 affordable dwellings and the enhancement and regeneration of a key site within the city centre.

To this end the Chief Executive of Coastal Housing Group has also submitted a letter in support of the application to demonstrate full commitment to delivering the scheme with construction anticipated to commence in March 2013 and completed in May 2014.

In terms of ecology, the application is supported by an Ecological Appraisal and Building Inspection Survey. In consideration of the content of this document, the Council’s Ecologist has advised that the general ecology of the site is of minor interest and shouldn't form a constraint on the proposed development.

The surveyors noted some bat activity in the area and as a result of this suspect there is a roost close by but probably not in the buildings to be demolished. It is recommended that a protected species informative be attached to any consent granted.

Conclusions

The supporting Heritage Impact Statement concludes that the buildings to be removed are of negligible value and that the setting of the southern side of the Castle is currently of a degraded quality as a result of the previous demolition of 1-4 Castle Square in the 1990’s. It is submitted that the proposals will effectively replace poor quality buildings with a vacant site, and extended blank facades.

As a group it is considered that the buildings reflect the varied appearance and mixed uses which would have characterised the whole of The Strand and the wider docklands. The significance of the buildings in the Conservation Area lies primarily in the massing and juxtaposition of scale. The architectural merit of the buildings is acknowledged as limited. They are of plain functional appearance and have been much altered over time. There are considered to be better examples of warehouses along The Strand including number 4 The stand which is a grade II listed building. The examples of good quality warehouses and period commercial buildings include the rear of Walkabout (adjoining the site) and corner of Green Dragon Lane (the rear of number 10 Wind Street which is also grade II listed). Smaller warehouses can be found to the south of Walkabout. There are also other examples of pubs which are still in use interspersed with the former warehouses along the Strand. Therefore the buildings on site are not the best examples or last vestige of the historic dockside character.

It is however considered that the proposed demolition of 17-20 The Strand will have a significant impact upon the setting of Swansea Castle, principally because the Castle will sit within an open space and Castle LanePage will have19 no form of enclosure. ND AREA 1 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 2 OCTOBER 2012

ITEM 1 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2012/1095

Whilst views to the Scheduled Ancient Monument will be extended as a result of the demolition, the works will however expose the side elevations of 15 The Strand. This will serve to further extend the blank façade fronting onto the Castle and as such will be detrimental its setting.

Essentially it is the loss of built form, rather than the buildings proposed for demolition, which it is considered will have a negative impact upon the character of Castle Lane. Its distinct character, the result of enclosure of the narrow medieval route by buildings on both The Strand and (formerly) Castle Square, will be further diluted by the loss of 20 The Strand. This will be detrimental to not only the setting of the Castle, as stated previously, but also to the character of the Wind Street Conservation Area.

It is considered that the acknowledged adverse impacts would however be remedied by the redevelopment of the site, which will once again provide the built form, continuous frontage and streetscape enclosure which epitomises the character of the setting of the Castle and the conservation area.

Whilst timing issues prevent the usual safeguards being put in place regarding an approved replacement scheme, along with a contract for the same prior to demolition taking place, Coastal Housing Group has set out its commitment to comprehensively redevelop the site in a manner which it is considered will enhance both the character and appearance of the conservation area. In this regard the application is currently with the Local Planning Authority and confirmation has been received that the appropriate funding for the project is in place and commencement is planned for March 2013.

It should, however, be acknowledged that there is a risk that the redevelopment does not take place and that the aforementioned adverse impacts would be realised for a longer term. It is though considered that this needs to be balanced against the risk that if the granting of conservation area consent is delayed until the usual safeguards can be put in place, that funding for the development will be lost and that the existing buildings will fall further into disrepair whilst the Castle Square site will remain vacant, thereby detracting from the character and appearance of the conservation area and the setting of the Castle listed building and scheduled ancient monument.

Given the prominence, importance and sensitivity of the site, it is, on balance, considered that conservation area consent should be granted to help facilitate a comprehensive redevelopment of the site, which it is considered would enhance the wider Conservation Area. Further weight can be given to this recommendation on the basis that the buildings are of little architectural merit and of very poor condition. The latter is confirmed by supporting structural surveys and the Council’s Building Control Team. Consequently the condition of the buildings would not justify the cost of repair and maintenance in relation to their importance.

The particular characteristics of the proposal before members is therefore considered to be sufficient to depart from normal procedures and would unlikely be replicated to a degree whereby an unsatisfactory precedent would be established.

Page 20 ND AREA 1 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 2 OCTOBER 2012

ITEM 1 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2012/1095

Accordingly the proposal is not considered to unacceptably conflict with the provisions of UDP Policy EV10.

There are considered to be no additional issues arising from the provisions of the Human Rights Act and approval is therefore recommended.

RECOMMENDATION APPROVE, subject to the following conditions:

1 The demolition shall be undertaken not later than 5 years from the date of this consent and shall be completed in accordance with the said applications, plans, and conditions. Reason: To comply with the provisions of Section 18 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (as amended) and to ensure the demolition is undertaken within a reasonable period.

2 Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority, no site works shall be undertaken until the implementation of an appropriate programme of building recording and analysis has been agreed with the local planning authority, to be carried out by a specialist acceptable to the local planning authority and in accordance with an agreed written specification. Reason: To mitigate the impact of the development.

3 The developer shall ensure that a suitably qualified archaeologist is present during the undertaking of any ground disturbing works in the development area, so that an archaeological watching brief can be conducted. The archaeological watching brief shall be undertaken to the standards of the Institute for Archaeologists. The Local Planning Authority shall be informed, in writing, at least two weeks prior to the commencement of the development of the name of the said archaeologist and no work shall begin until the Local Planning Authority has confirmed, in writing, that the proposed archaeologist is suitable. A copy of the watching brief report shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority within two months of the fieldwork being completed by the archaeologist. Reason: To identify and record any features of archaeological interest discovered during the works, in order to mitigate the impact of the works on the archaeological resource.

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: EV10.

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. Page 21 ND AREA 1 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 2 OCTOBER 2012

ITEM 1 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2012/1095

If evidence of bats is encountered e.g. live or dead animals or droppings, work must cease immediately and the advice of the Countryside Council for 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 is in use or being built • Take or destroy an egg of any wild bird Care should be taken when working on buildings, trees and clearing bushes, particularly during the bird nesting season, March - August.

PLANS

Site location plan received 3rd August 2012

Page 22 ND AREA 1 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 2 OCTOBER 2012

ITEM 2 APPLICATION NO. 2012/0674 WARD: Mynyddbach Area 1

Location: 105 Mynydd Garnllwyd Road Morriston Swansea SA6 7NZ Proposal: Change of use of existing ground floor retail shop (Class A1) to fish bar (Class A3) and change of use of first floor flat from residential (Class C3) to offices and business stores (Class A2) and external extractor flue Applicant: Mr Nicholas Beddoe

S E L O E C 1 R E El Y T M A Sub 2 8 Sta

2 5

5 6 2

3 4

148.7m

2 3

1 4

9 2

2 a

1 C 1 A R N O

P 5 1 L 1 A C

E 1 3

TCB 2

1 5 7

2 1

2 3

1 0 9 149.0m

C a r n o

l a c

0 2

149.7m

o o l 9 9 S e n io r S p e c ia l S c h

( M a y t r e e A u t i s t i c U n i t )

A D R O Y D 9 7 150.0m L W NL A R D D G NY

M Y

8 8

6 4

P e n - Y - B r y n

6 S e n i o r S p e c i a l S c h o o l

7 2 A

NOT TO SCALE This material has been reproduced from OrdnancePage Survey23 digital map data with the permission of the controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, © Crown Copyright. ND AREA 1 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 2 OCTOBER 2012

ITEM 2 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2012/0674

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

POLICIES

Policy Policy Description 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 89/0028/03 ERECTION OF A KITCHEN,BEDROOM, AND BATHROOM Decision: *HRP - REFUSE PERMISSION Decision Date: 07/03/1989

86/0953/03 PERMISSION TO USE LIVING ACCOMMODATION ON FIRST FLOOR AS BED AND BREAKFAST ESTABLISHMENT Decision: *HGPC - GRANT PERMISSION CONDITIONAL Decision Date: 30/10/1986

86/0668/03 CANOPY OVER DOORWAY. Decision: *HGPCU - GRANT PERMISSION UNCONDITIONAL Decision Date: 31/07/1986

84/1319/03 CHANGE OF USE TO SHOP WITH DWELLING ABOVE. Decision: *HGPC - GRANT PERMISSION CONDITIONAL Decision Date: 29/11/1984

87/0631/03 EXTENSION TO EXISTING RETAIL SHOP. Decision: *HGPC - GRANT PERMISSION CONDITIONAL Decision Date: 09/06/1987

89/0844/03 REAR EXTENSION TO EXISTING RETAIL SHOP. Decision: *HGPC - GRANT PERMISSION CONDITIONAL Decision Date: 25/08/1989

2011/0796 One internally illuminated fascia sign Decision: Withdrawn Decision Date: 28/07/2011

Page 24 ND AREA 1 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 2 OCTOBER 2012

ITEM 2 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2012/0674

2011/0787 Conversion of existing ground floor retail unit (Class A1) to fish bar (Class A3) with additional car parking at rear Decision: Refuse Decision Date: 22/07/2011

RESPONSE TO CONSULTATIONS

The application was advertised on site. Ten neighbouring residents and previous objectors were individually consulted. EIGHT LETTERS OF OBJECTION have been received. The main points raised are summarised as follows:

1. Access and highway safety concerns. 2. No requirement for a chip shop in the area as there is a chip shop in Clase and another in Vicarage Road. 3. Concerns about litter and rubbish. 4. Directly opposite a school. School children would be attracted to the chip shop and this would be dangerous on such a busy road. 5. Opening hours are not as a conventional shop. Increased noise and disturbance. 6. Gangs could congregate in the evenings. Anti social behaviour. 7. Devaluation of properties. 8. Light pollution from signage. 9. Concerns over extra noise from vehicles, extra pollution and smells from cooking. 10. Loss of privacy due to lack of boundary treatments between the application property and neighbours. 11. Affect on trade in other nearby establishments. 12. Increase in vandalism and damage experienced at Ysgol Pen-y-Bryn. 13. I believe the only sensible solution would be to convert the entire building into residential use.

Headteacher of Ysgol Pen y Bryn – Writing on behalf of pupils, staff and governors of Ysgol Pen y Bryn. Letter summarised as follows:

1. We do not feel that opening such an establishment opposite our special school would be a good idea. 2. Having the lure of a chip shop across the road could lead to the real possibility of our pupils crossing that road with due care and attention and becoming involved in an accident. 3. Concerns raised over problems currently encountered with vandalism. We feel that the chip shop would be a magnet for young people who may well decide not just to deposit their chip papers over our fence, but to jump over and cause more damage. 4. Implore you to take our case seriously and to listen to our well founded appeal.

PETITION OF OBJECTION – 34 SIGNATURES

Main points summarised as follows: 1. Healthy Eating/School – Having additional outlets close to schools would negate efforts by the Council and its partners in supporting the Healthy Schools and Appetite for Life Programmes to ensure that young people have access to healthy option. 2. Highway Safety and Parking – Hot food takeaways tend to attract a high proportion of car borne and short stay customers. Page 25 ND AREA 1 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 2 OCTOBER 2012

ITEM 2 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2012/0674

3. Control of Odours and Cooking Smells – Odours produced through cooking processes in hot food takeaways can cause amenity problems, particularly in areas which are residential in character. 4. Disposal of Waste Products – Inadequate refuse storage facilities can harm visual amenity and increase risk to public health. 5. Litter – Litter is inherently unsightly, can cause considerable annoyance to residents and adjoining businesses and can attract pests and vermin. 6. Safety, Crime and Anti-Social Behaviour – Hot food takeaways can attract gatherings of people which can result in crime and disorder particularly at night.

Highway Observations - Change of use of existing ground floor retail shop (Class A1) to fish bar (Class A3) and change of use of first floor flat from residential (Class C3) to offices and business stores (Class A2) and external extractor flue.

There was a previous planning application refused at the site for the change of use to a hot food take away with a residential flat over it and this was dismissed at appeal by the Planning Inspector but only on residential amenity. The Inspector considered the highway safety side of things as concerns had been raised by the local residents but took the view that he did not consider that the concerns were valid when considering the existing lawful use of the site as retail.

There are parking bays shown to the front for use by the take away (4 no.) and there is also provision for turning within the site to allow access/egress in a forward gear. There is a rear parking area shown too (4 spaces) for use by the offices. The parking spaces have been detailed to the superceded parking standards of 2.4m wide by 4.8m long whereas they should be 2.6m wide by 4.8m long. There is scope to accommodate this increase within the site.

On balance and given the existing use of Retail at the site, together with comments made in the appeal decision I do not consider that a highway objection could be raised to the application which could be sustained at appeal.

I recommend that no highway objections are raised to the proposal subject to: 1. The car parking layout being laid out in accordance with the approved plans but with the revised sizes of 2.6m width by 4.8m length. 2. The car parking areas being made available prior to beneficial use of the offices or the hot food take away commencing and maintained for parking purposes only in perpetuity.

Dŵr Cymru Welsh Water – No objection subject to standard conditions and advisory notes.

Pollution Control – No objection

APPRAISAL

This application is reported to Committee for decision at the request of Councillor Ceinwen Thomas to consider the impact upon highway safety.

Page 26 ND AREA 1 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 2 OCTOBER 2012

ITEM 2 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2012/0674

This application seeks planning permission for the change of use of the ground floor of No. 105 Mynydd Garnllwyd Road, Morriston from a retail outlet (Use Class A1) to a fish bar (Use Class A3) and change of use of first floor from residential (Class C3) to office (Class A2) and external extractor flue. Additional car parking is proposed to the rear. The proposed operating hours for the A3 use on the ground floor are 11.30am to 9.30pm Monday to Saturday. 11.30am to 7.00pm on bank holidays and closed on Sunday. The first floor office would be open from 08.00am to 6pm Monday to Friday, 08.00am to 1.00pm on Saturday and closed on Sunday. The two storey building is currently vacant and was previously used as a convenience store with living accommodation to the first floor.

The property is situated on the northern side of Mynydd Garnllwyd Road close to the junction with Long View Road. The property is bounded on either side by residential properties and the rear backs onto the rear gardens of residential properties along Carno Place and Long View Road. The application site is located in a predominantly residential area directly opposite Pen y Bryn and Maytree Schools.

BACKGROUND HISTORY

In terms of the most recent planning history of this application site, members may recall that planning permission was refused on 22nd July 2011 under application ref:2011/0787 for the conversion of the existing ground floor retail unit (Class A1) to fish bar (Class A3) with additional car parking to the rear, for the following reason:

‘The proposed development would be seriously detrimental to amenities that could reasonably be expected to be enjoyed by the occupants of the surrounding residential properties by virtue of noise, smell, the generation of vehicular and pedestrian movements and the associated general disturbance especially during the evening. As such the proposal is contrary to Policies EV1 and EV40 of the adopted City & County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008’

The proposal was dismissed at appeal by the Inspector on 19th April 2012 (Appeal Decision APP/B6855/A/11/2165583), and the Inspector’s main conclusions were as follows:-

Point 7. Noise and Disturbance

…the proposed use is located near two schools and could be a location where individuals would meet during lunchtime and after school. Nevertheless, that could also have been a pattern of activity associated with the lawful use or any future retail use of the premises. As a result, I do not consider the proposed use would be significantly worse in relation to disturbance than what could legitimately take place. I consider the character of the proposed use, the influx of trade during peak periods of lunchtime and evening would not be materially different to that of the lawful use.

Point 8. Disturbance associated with traffic

…’the Appellant has revised the proposal so that only staff and residents of the flat would park to the rear of the premises. Parking in the front forecourt would cater for calling customers. Page 27 ND AREA 1 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 2 OCTOBER 2012

ITEM 2 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2012/0674

This arrangement would not be different to that which could legitimately take place with the lawful use and so the impact on the living room and bedroom windows of No.103 on the side elevation of this property would not materially change’.

Point 9. Proximity of flue to adjoining properties

…’Despite the paucity of technical evidence on noise and odour, the technical specification of the equipment shows that the motor and extraction fan would be located within the rear storage room of the premises. This shows an overall sound pressure of 61DBA at 1m inside the building. However, this unit would be directly beneath a bedroom and bathroom of the upper floor flat. The noise characteristic would not greatly diminish through the floor, and adding to this problem the extraction unit would only be switched off half an hour following closing. The extraction point of the flue would be some 1.5m from the rear windows of the flat, and although modern filtration equipment would be used the noise characteristics of the unit together with the regular high velocity flush of air through the duct would have a significant harmful effect on the living conditions of occupiers of the flat. Furthermore, I am not persuaded that the point of extraction of the cowl would adequately disperse odour particles for the occupiers of the flat because of its proximity and the length of time when it operates following closure of the proposed use’.

Point 13. Impact of the proposal on the occupiers of neighbouring properties.

…’I have carefully considered the objections in relation to noise, litter, disturbance and odour of existing occupiers of neighbouring properties, but I am not persuaded that the impact of the proposal would be significant in these respects. I am also aware of the concern expressed on highway safety, but there is no technical evidence to back these objections and the Council’s Highway Section did not raise an objection to the proposal. I also note the issues raised on need and I viewed other similar hot food establishments in the area, but these matters do not outweigh my conclusion on the main issue’.

Main Issues

The principal considerations are the suitability of the proposed change of use at this location, having regard to prevailing Unitary Development Plan policies, and the impact of the proposal on highway safety, the amenities of the occupants of nearby residential properties, and the character and appearance of the surrounding area. In addition, consideration is given to the previous planning history and Appeal decision relating to this site. There are, in this instance, considered to be no additional issues arising from the provision of the Human Rights Act.

Policy EV40 states that 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. The amplification to this policy goes on to say that pollution may cause significant damage to human health, quality of life and residential amenity.

The Council wishes to foster high standards in all new development, and guard against changes of use which might unacceptably harm the amenities of the occupiers of surrounding properties.

Page 28 ND AREA 1 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 2 OCTOBER 2012

ITEM 2 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2012/0674

In particular, sensitive planning control is required to ensure that the character and amenity of residential areas is not damaged through the introduction of incompatible land uses, and ensure that the proposal does not result in a significant loss of amenity arising from traffic generation, noise, atmospheric pollution, visual impact or other general disturbance, including unsocial hours of operation.

The application site is situated within the urban area of Morriston. The detached mixed use property is situated on the northern side of Mynydd Garnllwyd Road and is surrounded by the nearby residential properties along Mynydd Garnlwydd Road, Longview Road and Carno Place. The application property is sandwiched between Nos.103 and 107 Mynydd Garnllwyd Road and the rear boundary adjoins the common boundary with No.19 Carno Place and No.5 Long View Road.

The current proposal

This application has been submitted to address the Appeal Inspector’s reasons for dismissing the previous appeal and proposed to change the use of the first floor from a residential flat to offices.

For clarification and the avoidance of doubt, the Appeal Inspector’s conclusion was that the living conditions of the occupiers of the residential flat on the first floor would be significantly harmed by the impacts of the proposal in terms of noise and odour. The Inspector also considered that ‘this would be the case whether the occupiers are the Appellant and his family or future unrelated occupants who would be aware of the situation before they took up residency’. In all other respects, the proposal was considered acceptable.

The concerns raised by the local planning authority during the consideration of the previous application 2011/0787 and the reasons for refusal still remain. It was considered that the proposed Class A3 would result in a considerable intensification in the use of the premises, potentially in the evening and on weekends, generating noise and disturbance from additional vehicular and pedestrian activity within the surrounding residential area, which will have a significant impact on the amenities of local residents, through increased traffic generation and associated car parking, particularly with the introduction of an additional parking area to the rear, and general disturbance, over and above that experienced from the lawful use as an A1 retail shop.

However, the Appeal Decision (APP/B6855/A/11/2165583) is a material planning consideration and the Appeal Inspector concluded that… I do not consider the proposed use would be significantly worse in relation to disturbance than what could legitimately take place. I consider the character of the proposed use, the influx of trade during peak periods of lunchtime and evening would not be materially different to that of the lawful use.

In addition, the local planning authority also raised further concerns with regard to smells and odour within close proximity to neighbouring residential properties and issues of general disturbance. In this respect the Appeal Inspector considered that… ‘despite the paucity of technical evidence on noise and odour, the technical specification of the equipment shows that the motor and extraction fan would be located within the rear storage room of the premises. This shows an overall sound pressure of 61DBA at 1m inside the building. However, this unit would be directly beneath a bedroom and bathroom of the upper floor flat. Page 29 ND AREA 1 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 2 OCTOBER 2012

ITEM 2 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2012/0674

The noise characteristic would not greatly diminish through the floor, and adding to this problem the extraction unit would only be switched off half an hour following closing. The extraction point of the flue would be some 1.5m from the rear windows of the flat, and although modern filtration equipment would be used the noise characteristics of the unit together with the regular high velocity flush of air through the duct would have a significant harmful effect on the living conditions of occupiers of the flat. Furthermore, I am not persuaded that the point of extraction of the cowl would adequately disperse odour particles for the occupiers of the flat because of its proximity and the length of time when it operates following closure of the proposed use.

However, with regard to the impact of the proposed change of use of the ground floor from retail (Class A1) to Hot food takeaway (Class A3) on the amenities of the surrounding residents, the Appeal Inspector noted that … ‘I have carefully considered the objections in relation to noise, litter, disturbance and odour of existing occupiers of neighbouring properties, but I am not persuaded that the impact of the proposal would be significant in these respects. I am also aware of the concern expressed on highway safety, but there is no technical evidence to back these objections and the Council’s Highway Section did not raise an objection to the proposal. I also note the issues raised on need and I viewed other similar hot food establishments in the area, but these matters do not outweigh my conclusion on the main issue’.

In terms of the proposed change of use of the first floor to office/store accommodation, there would be no habitable rooms, and therefore the concerns of the Inspector with regard to the impact of the proposed flue on the residential amenity of the occupiers of the first floor flat have been addressed.

With regard to the proposed change of use of the first floor to office/store accommodation, there are no additional windows proposed. It is not considered that the proposed use would give rise to any significant increase in overlooking or noise and disturbance over and above the lawful use as a residential flat that would be so harmful to sustain a recommendation of refusal in this instance.

Highway Safety

Turning to highway issues, the Head of Transportation and Engineering has made reference to the Inspector’s Appeal Decision (Ref: APP/B6855/A/11/2165583). The Inspector considered that parking in the front forecourt would cater for calling customers and that this arrangement would not be different to that which could legitimately take place with the lawful use. There are parking bays shown to the front for use by the take away (4 no.) and there is also provision for turning within the site to allow access/egress in a forward gear. There is a rear parking area shown (4 spaces) for use by the offices. The parking spaces have been detailed to the parking standards of 2.4m wide by 4.8m long, whereas under the parking guidelines adopted in March 2012, they should be 2.6m wide by 4.8m long. However, there is scope to accommodate this increase within the site.

On balance and given the existing use of Retail (Class A1) lawful use at the site, together with comments made by the Appeal Inspector in the appeal decision, the Head of Transportation and Engineering does not consider that a highway objection could be raised to the application which could be sustained at appeal.

Page 30 ND AREA 1 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 2 OCTOBER 2012

ITEM 2 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2012/0674

No highway objections are raised to the proposal subject to; the car parking layout being laid out in accordance with the approved plans but with the revised sizes of 2.6m width by 4.8m length; and the car parking areas being made available prior to beneficial use of the offices or the hot food take away commencing and maintained for parking purposes only in perpetuity.

Response to consultation

The letters of objection and the petition received raise concerns of light pollution, access, highway safety and parking, litter and smells, noise disturbance, public order and antisocial behaviour. With regard to issues raised by objectors which have not been addressed above, the behaviour of individuals or gangs cannot be controlled via planning legislation; whilst the presence of a number of other take-aways within the area and any affect on their levels of trade are not matters which is material to the determination of the application. Litter from hot food establishments can be further monitored and controlled via environmental health legislation, and whilst concerns over damage to private property and loss of property value have been noted, these issues are not overriding material planning considerations in the context of this proposal.

Conclusion

The previous appeal was dismissed because the Inspector considered that the extraction flue and the noise characteristics of the unit would have a significant harmful effect on the living conditions of occupiers of the flat. The Appeal Inspector carefully considered the objections in relation to noise, litter, disturbance and odour of existing occupiers of neighbouring properties, but was not persuaded that the impact of the proposed change of use would be significant in these respects. The Appeal Inspector was also aware of the concern expressed on highway safety, but noted there is no technical evidence to back these objections. The Head of Transportation and Engineering has not objected to the proposal. The Authority’s Pollution Control Department have been fully consulted on this proposal, have been provided with technical data relating to the proposed extraction systems and have no objection to this proposal.

In light of the previous appeal decision, and having regard to all material considerations including the Human Rights Act and appeal decision, the change of use from residential to office accommodation has addressed the Appeal Inspector’s reasons for dismissing the previous appeal, and on this basis, it is considered that the proposal accords with Policy EV40 of the City and County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008 and the local planning authority would be unable to sustain a recommendation of refusal on appeal. Approval is 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.

Page 31 ND AREA 1 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 2 OCTOBER 2012

ITEM 2 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2012/0674

2 Prior to the beneficial use of the ground floor A3 use or the first floor A2 use commencing, the car parking areas shall be laid and be available for use. The car parking area to the rear shall be for the use of staff only. The car parking areas shall be retained for parking purposes in connection with the application premises only unless agreed otherwise in writing by the local planning authority. Reason: In the interests of highway safety.

3 The car parking layout shall be laid out in accordance with the approved plans but with the revised parking space sizes of 2.6m width by 4.8m length and shall be retained as such unless agreed otherwise in writing by the local planning authority. Reason: In the interests of highway safety.

4 The ground floor A3 use shall not be used by customers before 11.30am nor after 9.30pm Monday to Saturday, before 11.30am nor after 7.00pm on Bank Holidays and shall remain closed on Sunday. The first floor A2 use shall not be used by staff or visitors before 8.00am nor after 6.00pm Monday to Friday, before 8.00am nor after 1.00pm on Saturdays and shall remain closed on Sunday. Reason: To safeguard the amenities of the occupiers of neighbouring properties.

5 Prior to the beneficial use of the new hot food takeaway (Class A3) in the ground floor of No. 105 Mynydd Garnlwydd Road commencing, the use of the first floor of this property as a residential flat shall permanently cease and thereafter it shall not be used as residential or for any purpose within Class C3 of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987. Reason: In the interests of residential amenity.

6 Prior to the use commencing, a method of ventilation and fume extraction shall be implemented in accordance with the specifications for the extractor system as detailed in correspondence and drawings from P&T Ltd dated 8th July 2012 and 8th August, unless agreed otherwise in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To prevent any nuisance from fumes and/or cooking odours to the occupiers of neighbouring premises.

7 No chiller or freezer condenser units shall be installed at 105 Mynydd Garnlwydd Road without the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To prevent any nuisance to the occupiers of neighbouring premises.

INFORMATIVES

4 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: EV40

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

Page 32 ND AREA 1 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 2 OCTOBER 2012

ITEM 2 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2012/0674

6 To protect the integrity of the Public Sewerage System, foul water and surface water discharges shall be drained separately from the site.

7 To prevent hydraulic overloading of the public sewerage system, to protect the health and safety of existing residents and ensure no detriment to the environment, no surface water shall be allowed to connect (either directly or indirectly) to the public sewerage system unless otherwise approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

8 To prevent hydraulic overload of the public sewerage system and pollution of the environment, land drainage run-off shall not be permitted to discharge, either directly or indirectly, into the public sewerage system.

9 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.

10 The developer is advised that the Welsh Government are planning to introduce 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.

11 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.

12 To prevent hydraulic overload of the public sewerage system and sustain an essential and effective service to existing residents, the developer shall provide a suitable grease trap to prevent entry into the public sewerage system of matter likely to interfere with the free flow of the sewer contents, or which would prejudicially affect the treatment and disposal of such contents.

PLANS

Site location plan, existing site location plan, site plan as existing and existing floor plans, existing elevations, proposed elevations, ground floor plan as proposed, first floor plan as proposed site plan as proposed received 8th May 2012

Page 33 ND AREA 1 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 2 OCTOBER 2012

ITEM 3 APPLICATION NO. 2012/1052 WARD: Morriston Area 1

Location: Morriston Superstore Rhodfa Fadog Cwmrhydyceirw Swansea SA6 6LQ Proposal: Change of use of part of ground floor from retail (Class A1) cafe/restaurant and hot food takeaway (Class A3), additional window and new entrance door Applicant: Mr M Temel 6 0 S

A ' R E O

O D F 2 R H 1

5 9

4 1

5 7

7 3

3 1 4

R H O D 1 F 2 A 4

F A D O 1 7 G

N E A

F T 1 N O B 1 Y 1 S 4 L O

C 3

1 9

R H OD F A F A D

1 OG

1 4 N O R E A 1 2 R Y T R 1 1 W C

1 0

1 4

L E Y W C U R O S C

C L

1 5

6 9 2 6

NOT TO SCALE This material has been reproduced from OrdnancePage Survey 34 digital map data with the permission of the controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, © Crown Copyright. ND AREA 1 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 2 OCTOBER 2012

ITEM 3 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2012/1052

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

POLICIES

Policy Policy Description Policy AS6 Provision of car parking in accordance with adopted standards. (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 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 EV13 Proposals for new or renovated shopfronts, including security grilles, should be sympathetic to the character of the building, adjacent properties and the surrounding area. (City & County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008)

SITE HISTORY

App No. Proposal 90/0539/03 ERECTION OF A SECURITY FENCE. Decision: *HGPC - GRANT PERMISSION CONDITIONAL Decision Date: 19/06/1990

2003/2460 Change of use of part of premises from retail (Class A1) to food and drink (Class A3) Decision: Withdrawn Decision Date: 10/02/2004

RESPONSE TO CONSULTATIONS

EIGHTEEN neighbouring properties were consulted and the proposal was advertised on site. EIGHTEEN LETTERS OF OBJECTION have been received which are summarised as follows:

1) The existing car park is used by boy racer and loud music playing. 2) Litter. 3) This is a residential area. 4) Seagulls. 5) Odours. 6) This will contribute to national obesity. Page 35 ND AREA 1 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 2 OCTOBER 2012

ITEM 3 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2012/1052

7) Already fish and chip shop nearby. 8) Late night noise issues. 9) Lack of communication. 10) There are people living in the superstore. 11) Competition for my business. 12) The owners of Morriston Superstore took down the planning notices.

Furthermore a petition of objection containing a total of 168 signatures has been submitted. However no reasons for objecting have been indicated.

Highway Observations – The application is for a change of use from retail to a cafe/hot food takeaway, additional window and new door.

There is adequate parking available for customers and staff in the adjacent car park which is also used by users of the existing Morriston Superstore.

Access to the car park is as existing, off the roundabout off Rhodfa Fadog and Dee Place so there are not considered to be any highway safety issues arising from its continued use.

I recommend that no highway objections are raised to the proposal subject to the parking area being retained for parking purposes only in perpetuity.

APPRAISAL

This application is reported to committee for decision at the request of Councillor John Davies to assess the impact upon residential amenity. A site visit has also been requested.

It is proposed to install a new entrance and window and subdivide the existing commercial unit to provide a takeaway/restaurant (A3) at Morriston Superstore, Rhodfa Fadog, Morriston. The existing unit comprises of a supermarket and storage facility contained within the building. The unit is sited within a residential estate and is served by a large car park with two small commercial units sited to the south west. To the north of the site lies a public grassed area with residential properties sited approx. 23m away and the nearest residential property to the west lies approx. 30m away. Access is gained off Rhodfa Fadog.

A previous application for a similar scheme at this site (ref: 2003/2460) was submitted to the Council for consideration but withdrawn prior to any decision being taken. It should be noted that there are two units to the south west of the site, one of which contains a fish and chip shop. The other (Unit 1) has a planning history the most recent being ref: 2002/0110 which was recommended for approval but subsequently overturned at Area 1 committee on the grounds of an adverse impact upon the amenities of the occupiers of neighbouring properties. This application was then dismissed at appeal for the same reasons. However a previous application (ref: A00/0128) at the adjoining site (unit 2) was refused by the Local Planning Authority but the appeal was allowed and planning permission granted.

Page 36 ND AREA 1 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 2 OCTOBER 2012

ITEM 3 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2012/1052

In this regard Units 1 and 2 are located at the front of the site and are in a prominent location. They are sited 20m from the nearest residential properties (directly opposite) and in the case of Unit 1 which was dismissed at appeal, this was considered an unacceptable relationship. The current application site is located some 35m further back into the site and is separated from the properties to the south and west by the car park and Units 1 and 2. A row of mature vegetation separates the application site from the properties to the west, the nearest residential property now being sited more than 30m away from the front of the application property. It is on this basis that the application can be assessed on its own merits whilst acknowledging the material circumstances that have occurred at Units 1 and 2.

The main issues for consideration in this instance relate to the acceptability of the proposed use in policy terms, the appropriateness of the proposed use in terms of its likely impact upon the amenities of neighbouring uses, the visual impact of the proposed alterations and highway safety implications. There are no issues with respect to the Human Rights Act to consider in this instance.

Policy Implications

Policies EV1, EV2, EV3, EV13 and AS6 of the City and County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008 are relevant. In addition the application should be assessed against the Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) entitled ‘Shop Front Guidance’.

There are no policies within the UDP that seek to restrict the proposed part use of the building as an A3 unit in this location. As such, the issues that remain to consider relate to the appropriateness of the proposed use in terms of its likely impact upon the amenities of neighbouring uses, the visual impact of the proposed alterations and highway safety implications.

In terms of visual amenity, the building is a large single storey unit of no architectural merit and is constructed using red-brick and sheet profile roof. There are limited windows and other openings to the front elevation. It is proposed to insert a new entrance door and window on the left hand side of the building to create access to a subdivided unit which will be used as the new A3 unit in place of its current provision of a store room associated with the Superstore.

It is considered that the proposed external alterations would respect the character and appearance of the host building and would serve to improve the dead frontage that currently exists due to the solid front elevation. This is considered to add vitality and viability to the frontage and is considered to represent a visual improvement over the current situation.

With regard to residential amenity, the proposed physical alterations, due to their siting at the shop front and distance from the nearest residential properties (minimum of 30m from the front), are not considered to result in any adverse physical impact by virtue of overbearing, overlooking or overshadowing that would warrant a refusal in this instance.

Page 37 ND AREA 1 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 2 OCTOBER 2012

ITEM 3 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2012/1052

With regard to the proposed use and its potential impact upon the occupiers of neighbouring residential properties it is not considered that the proposed use would generate any significant increase in general noise and disturbance over and above that currently experienced as a result of the existing retail use and car park at the premises and in light of the fact that there already exists a fish and chip shop located in close proximity which itself provides a level of activity and interruption to neighbouring residents. Notwithstanding the above, the main perceived impact as a result of the development would lie to the front as this is where access is gained to the unit. The residential properties sited adjacent to the application site are located a minimum of 30m away from the unit and the mature vegetation along their rear boundaries would serve to further protect the occupiers from any noise and disturbance. However, whilst noise nuisance is controlled via legislation outside the remit of the planning process, a condition is recommended seeking control over the opening hours to safeguard the amenities of the occupiers of neighbouring properties during the night.

Following consultation with the Head of Pollution and in relation to the potential odours emanating from the premises, a condition is recommended seeking details relating to the ventilation system to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to works commencing.

Turning now to highway safety, the Head of Transportation and Engineering has confirmed that the change of use of part of the site to restaurant/take away use will not be detrimental to highway safety.

With regard to the points made in the letters of objections, points 1, 6 and 11 are not material in the determination of this application. The issues relating to noise, disturbance and odours have been addressed above. With regard to the point referring to lack of communication, 18 properties were individually consulted, site notices were put up on three separate occasions and all third parties who submitted written observations have received notification of receipt via the post. In terms of the removal of the site notices, it has been alleged that significant numbers of counterfeit site notices have been erected in the neighbourhood and these have been taken down by the application and submitted to the Planning Department. Members are advised that the removed notices were not erected by the Local Planning Authority and did not form part of the consultation process. With regard to the claim that people are living at the back of the superstore this has been reported to the Planning Enforcement Team for investigation.

With regard to litter and the presence of seagulls, these issues are controlled under separate legislation.

In conclusion therefore and having regard to all material planning considerations including the Human Rights Act, the proposal is considered to represent an acceptable form of development having particular regard to Policies EV1, EV2, EV3, AS6 and EV13 of the City and County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008. Accordingly approval is recommended.

RECOMMENDED

APPROVE, subject to the following conditions:

Page 38 ND AREA 1 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 2 OCTOBER 2012

ITEM 3 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2012/1052

2 The premises shall not be used by customers before 10:00 nor after 22.30 on any day. Reason: To safeguard the amenities of the occupiers of neighbouring properties.

3 Prior to works commencing, a method of ventilation and fume extraction shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and be implemented in accordance with the approved plans. Reason: To prevent any nuisance from fumes and/or cooking odours to the occupiers of neighbouring premises.

INFORMATIVES

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

2 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. EV3, AS6, EV13 of the City and County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008.

PLANS

753/011 site location plan, block plan, floor plans and elevations received 26th July 2012

Page 39 ND AREA 1 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 2 OCTOBER 2012

ITEM 4 APPLICATION NO. 2012/0452 WARD: Clydach Area 1

Location: Vale Europe Ltd, Clydach Refinery, Ynys Penllwch Road Clydach Swansea SA6 5QR Proposal: Construction of Advanced Energy Facility producing electricity (10.3MW) and heat through Pyrolysis using Refuse Derived Fuel for use within the existing industrial processes and for export to the National Grid involving the extension and alteration of the existing site buildings, erection of a 41m high emissions stack, erection of external plant including gas storage tanks and 4 no. 21m high feedstock storage silos, demolition and replacement of existing workshop / fabrication shop, 2.4m high fence enclosure. Applicant: Vale Europe Limited

Chy

Works

Tanks El Sub Sta

Works

El Sub Sta

Sinks

D is m an t led R ai Issues lw ay y w a a i l l R d ) r a s e i n e s u M ( d i

NOT TO SCALE This material has been reproduced from OrdnancePage Survey 40 digital map data with the permission of the controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, © Crown Copyright. ND AREA 1 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 2 OCTOBER 2012

ITEM 4 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2012/0452

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

This application was DEFERRED from the Area 1 Committee meeting on 4 September 2012 so that further ecological information could be provided. My report has been updated to incorporate an additional comment from the Environment Agency and further comments from the Head of Pollution Control. Additionally, a further letter has been received from the Bwllfa and Spion Kop Residents Association forwarding a letter sent to the Environment Agency in respect of the variation to the Environmental Permit. This letter is incorporated to the report within the response to consultations section. A Site Visit has also been requested by the local Ward Member.

RELEVANT PLANNING POLICIES

Swansea Unitary Development Plan

Part 1 Strategic Policies

Policy SP12 The Efficient Use of Resources

Part 2 Policies

Policy EV1 New development shall accord with a defined set of criteria of good design including having regard to the desirability of preserving the setting of any listed building.

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.

Policy EV3 Accessibility criteria for new development.

Policy EV25 Development should not adversely effect the integrity of a European protected site (SAC, Marine SAC, SPA and Ramsar Sites)

Policy EV27 Development should not adversely affect the special interests designated as SSSIs and National Nature Reserves (NNRs)

Policy EV34 Development proposals will only be permitted where they would not pose a significant risk to the quality of controlled waters.

Policy EV35 Surface water run-off

Policy EV36 New development within flood risk areas will only be permitted where flooding consequences are acceptable.

Policy EV38 Development proposals on land where there is a risk from contamination or landfill gas will not be permitted unless it can be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Council, that measures can be taken to satisfactorily overcome any danger to life, health, property, controlled waters, or the natural and historic environment. Page 41 ND AREA 1 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 2 OCTOBER 2012

ITEM 4 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2012/0452

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.

Policy EV41 The development of new hazardous installations involving the use, storage or movement of hazardous substances that would cause significant safety or health risks, or would adversely affect natural heritage and the historic environment to a significant degree or would prejudice the use or development of other land will not be permitted.

Development of land in the vicinity of existing hazardous installations will not be permitted if there would be significant risk to life or health.

Policy AS2 Design and layout of access to new developments should allow for the safe, efficient and non intrusive movement of vehicles

Policy R11 Proposals for the provision of renewable energy resources, including ancillary infrastructure and buildings, will be permitted subject to the satisfaction of a list of criteria.

Policy R12 Proposals for the development of waste management facilities involving the transfer, treatment, re-use, recycling, in-vessel composting, energy recovery from waste, or open composting in farm locations, will be assessed against regional and local requirements. Proposals will be permitted within areas designated for B2 industrial use or having the benefit of lawful B2 use provided that there are no significant adverse effects

National Planning Guidance

Planning Policy Wales (Edition 4 – February, 2011)

Technical Advice Note 21: Waste (Nov. 2001)

‘Towards Zero Waste’ – the Overarching Waste Strategy Document for Wales (June 2010).

South West Wales Regional Waste Plan 2008

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

LV/77/ 0209 Construction of three flue chimney 300ft high with ancillary Equipment to replace existing refinery chimneys Planning Permission June, 1977

LV/81/0163/03 Flood prevention works and storm water pumping station Planning Permission April, 1981

Page 42 ND AREA 1 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 2 OCTOBER 2012

ITEM 4 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2012/0452

LV/93/0253/03 Proposed Modification of the existing building to produce special products using the carbonyl process Planning Permission July, 1993

LV/96/0644 Erection of metal clad steel tower for powder handling process within confines of old electrical workshop Planning Permission October, 1996

LV/97/1255 Erection of heat and power plant Planning Permission December, 1997

LV/98/0377 Erection of heat and power plant (amendment to 97/1255) Planning Permission December, 1997

A00/0222 Erection of heat and power plant (amendment to 98/0377) Planning Permission March, 2000)

2006/0971 Installation of a synthetic gas generator unit Planning Permission June, 2006

2006/2276 Upgrade of existing stack filtration system, incorporating new control room with associated ductwork and external stairs Planning Permission October, 2006

2008/2189 Single storey extension to control room Planning Permission December, 2008

2008/2400 Installation of 2 storage tanks Planning Permission February, 2009

2009/0762 Installation of 2 storage tanks (amendment to 2008/2400) Planning Permission August, 2009

2012/0977 Construction of replacement warehouse building Currently being considered

RESPONSE TO CONSULTATIONS

PETITION OF OBJECTION

The application was advertised on site and in the local press as an application accompanied by an Environmental Statement. A PETITION OF OBJECTION has been received containing 38 signatures. Additionally, letters of concern have been received from the Bwllfa and Spion Kop Residents Association and from the Pontardawe and Swansea Angling Society Ltd. The principal objections may be summarised as follows:

Page 43 ND AREA 1 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 2 OCTOBER 2012

ITEM 4 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2012/0452

1. No problem with finding alternative means to sustain our way of life. We just want a more specific outline of what materials will be used in the process and their possible effects on health.

2. The community (Ynystawe) is approx. 1100m away from the site of the proposed development, overlooks it, and is at a similar elevation to the height of the stack.

3. The applicants have assessed the likely effects on human health by reference to a list of substances and a number of “sensitive receptors” (human and environmental). In general the highest concentrations of pollutants at ground level are at points closest to the plant. The sensitive receptors which have been assessed and which are closest to the plant are Clydach Rugby Ground (383m) and Clydach High Street (333m). For the sensitive receptors assessed the applicants give assurances that pollutant levels will be within acceptable standards. The Pontardawe and Swansea Angling Society Ltd has fishing on the River Tawe within 200mm of the proposed stack. Our members include children. Some of the fish caught by our Members (trout, sea-trout and salmon) are returned, some are consumed. This does not seem to have been taken into account in the assessments.

A further letter has been received from the Bwllfa and Spion Kop Residents Association forwarding a letter sent to the Environment Agency in respect of the variation to the Environmental Permit. This letter is reiterated below:

We write in connection with the application by Vale Europe Ltd for a variation of their environmental permit, allowing them to commission a pyrolysis plant at “The Mond” in Clydach.

We represent a community located on the western hillside of the Swansea Valley, at about the same elevation as the top of the proposed stack and about 1,000–1,400 metres to the south west of it.

We don’t wish to object to the proposed development for the sake of it, as we appreciate that “Energy from Waste” is desirable in principle, but we have a number of concerns:

1. We only became aware of this proposal at a late stage. Its description as a pyrolysis plant or advanced energy project seems to have obscured the fact that it will be a waste incinerator, subject to the EU Waste Incineration Directive. As a result, it has attracted less attention than might have been expected, which is worrying. Although the company appears to have made some efforts to involve the community in Clydach, hardly anyone in Ynystawe (and apparently Glais as well) appears to have heard of the proposal, or appreciated its significance. We appreciate your willingness to receive representations after the original closing date of 12th July.

2. We have looked at reports from experts representing various national and international organisations and note that:

a. The health risk is anticipated to be small, if plants work properly, but not everything is known about longer term risks;

Page 44 ND AREA 1 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 2 OCTOBER 2012

ITEM 4 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2012/0452

b. To the extent that it reduces effective sorting of waste and recycling, pyrolysis is an undesirable method of waste disposal.

3. The supporting information submitted with the company’s application indicates that, if the plant works as intended, exposure to emissions should be well within normal standards. The trouble with this is that:

a. There’s doubt about whether normal standards for harmful substances such as dioxins are truly safe.

b. Emission dispersal projections are based on prevailing winds at Mumbles Head. The terrain in the Swansea Valley is completely different.

c. Successful operation of the plant depends upon the content and consistency of the waste to be used as feedstock. This seems likely to be difficult to control effectively.

d. The proposed plant will apparently be the first of its kind in the UK, so we’re unable to look at emissions from comparable plants as a way of checking the reliability of the applicant’s projections. (We understand that you’ve asked the company to carry out some further modelling to project emission levels under other operating conditions, outside the normal conditions expected).

4. The arrangements for monitoring and reporting emissions are therefore important. We note from the applicant’s submission that:

a. The continuous monitoring proposed won’t extend to the most harmful substances (dioxins etc).

b. Monitoring of dioxins etc will be at frequencies to be determined.

c. Reporting of emission levels to the Environment Agency, the first point at which the public will be able to scrutinise them, will be at a frequency to be determined.

5. We therefore ask you to

a. Let us see the results of the additional modelling that you’ve requested;

b. Ensure that, if you allow the plant to be commissioned, monitoring and reporting of emissions (at least for the first two years of operation of the plant) are as frequent as you are allowed to impose, so that we can see the results ourselves as soon as emissions commence.

c. Confirm that the plant, if licensed and commissioned, will be subject to a program of random / scheduled inspections by yourselves, or a representative organisation, and that any ensuing reports will be made available for public scrutiny.

Health and Safety Executive – does not advise, on safety grounds, against the granting of planning permission. Page 45 ND AREA 1 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 2 OCTOBER 2012

ITEM 4 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2012/0452

Countryside Council for Wales – originally objected (8 May, 2012) to the proposal on the grounds that the air quality impacts may adversely affect the Crymlyn Bog SAC, SSSI, Ramsar and the impact of the substation construction on the Glais Moraine SSSI unless additional information can show it would have no adverse effects. In particular:

Air Quality – based on the modelling results CCW cannot be certain that the proposed energy plant would not have a significant effect on Crymlyn Bog SAC and Ramsar, due to deposition of atmospheric Nitrogen and / or Acid. As such we advise that this modelling work is revisited in order to assess Acid deposition on the site….

Extended Phase 1 Survey and Bat Risk Assessment - Having reviewed the information provided in these documents, CCW are satisfied with the conclusions and recommendations. The measures suggested should be made appropriate and enforceable planning conditions, if your Authority is minded to grant permission. If any bats are found on site then all works must stop and CCW contacted for further advice.

We are also pleased to see the proposals made in the report, which recommend that any landscaping should be designed to maximise the benefits to biodiversity (i.e. – incorporating areas of species rich grassland and using native trees and shrubs wherever possible). CCW advise that any such landscaping proposals are agreed following discussions with your Authority’s Planning Ecologist.

Glais Moraine SSSI – CCW note that part of the site (the substation to the south of the river) lies within the Glais Moraine SSSI. In order to provide confidence that the construction of the substation will not adversely affect the site, CCW request that additional detailed information is provided on the construction of the substation within the SSSI. Such details should include: a methodology for the construction, depth of the foundations, working area, access routes, soil movements and landscaping.

Further CCW Response – 29 June 2012 - following the submission of additional Information in the form of the report entitled; ‘Atmospheric Dispersion Modelling Study of Releases from Proposed Advanced Energy Plant' (ECL Document Reference P1028/R015 Rev 1) by Environmental Compliance Limited and dated May 2012. Further information on the proposed substation was also provided in an email dated 14 June 2012.

Air Quality – CCW have reviewed the information provided in the report entitled; ‘Atmospheric Dispersion Modelling Study of Releases from Proposed Advanced Energy Plant' (ECL Document Reference P1028/R015 Rev 1) by Environmental Compliance Limited and dated May 2012.

The report shows that the maximum Nitrogen deposition is now calculated to 0.26% of the minimum Critical Load; while the Acid components are calculated at 0.27% and 0.14% (S and N) of the minimum Acid Critical Loads.

Therefore, CCW would not consider the plant as having a likely significant effect on Crymlyn Bog SAC. As a result we withdraw our objections relating to the main plant as a result of Air Quality considerations, as neither the nitrogen or Acid deposition constitutes >1% of the relevant minimum critical loads for the most sensitive features of the site. Page 46 ND AREA 1 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 2 OCTOBER 2012

ITEM 4 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2012/0452

Nevertheless, CCW continue to advise that Regulation 61 of the Conservation of Habitat and Species Regulations 2010 (as amended) applies to this proposal and as a result the Authority should carry out a test of likely significant effect on the SAC and Ramsar site listed above.

Glais Moraine SSSI - In the email dated 14 June 2012, it was confirmed by Environmental Compliance Limited that the proposed substation is no longer required, as a result of a re-design which will utilise the existing substation and existing cable trench. Therefore, as there will be no new construction within the boundary of the SSSI, CCW are satisfied that there will be no damage to the geological features of the site.

Given the new information provided and a review of the proposal, CCW has no further objection to the application. However, CCW refer you to their previous comments related to the Extended Phase 1 Survey and Bat Risk Assessment, the Landscape and Visual elements and the Site Drainage and Flood Risk, which were made in our previous letter of 8 June 2012.

Environment Agency – we would continue to offer no objection to the proposed development, however, in addition to our previous correspondence (9 May 2012) we would offer the following amended comments for your consideration.

Environmental Permit – As your Authority is aware the Vale Europe Limited operates the installation under a permit issued by the Environment Agency under the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2010. We have received an application from the operator for a substantial variation to their current permit to allow for the operation of the proposed pyrolysis energy plant, which is currently under review. Your Authority will be consulted as part of the variation process.

Air Quality - We note that the nearest sensitive receptor with regard to air quality and nitrogen deposition is the Crymlyn Bog SAC. However, on review of the submitted Environmental Statement we are satisfied that due to the minimal levels of nitrogen and the direction of the prevailing winds away from the bog that the proposed development should not adversely impact upon the SAC.

You may also wish to liaise with your own Environmental Health Team regarding the proposals and other sensitive receptors within the vicinity of the site.

Flood Risk - As your Authority is aware the proposed development lies within zone C1 as defined by the development advice maps referred to under TAN 15 Development and Flood Risk (July 2004). The application is supported by a flood consequence assessment (FCA) which accepts that the criteria within TAN 15 cannot be fully met but concludes that the consequences of flooding can be managed as part of the risk management strategy for the wider industrial facility.

In this instance considering the existing use of the site, the similar footprint of buildings before and after development and the acceptance of risk with improved management processes we would not object to the application. However, we would advise that if your Authority are minded to approve the application then the development should be carried out in accordance with the recommendations of the submitted FCA. This should form a condition within any permission granted. Page 47 ND AREA 1 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 2 OCTOBER 2012

ITEM 4 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2012/0452

Contaminated Land - From our information there may be historical contamination from previous uses on parts of the site that may not have been addressed under the current permit conditions. However, it is not clear from the information submitted in support of the application where the building is on site in relation to previous uses of the site. Therefore as a precautionary approach we would request that appropriate conditions are included within any permission granted.

Clydach Community Council – No objection in principle but would like reassurance about the environmental impact of the proposals on the surrounding area. We have asked the company to attend a meeting where the concerns of the community could be addressed.

Head of Pollution Control –

1. The bulk of any comments the Pollution Control Division would make will be covered by an Environmental Permit for the installation. Discussions with the Environment Agency have taken place.

2. A Construction Environment Management Plan will be required.

3. Hours of construction work are stated as Monday – Friday 07.00 to 19.00 and Saturday – Sunday 07.30 to 17.00. These hours should be acceptable but the Pollution Control Division will have to investigate any complaints that may be received and act accordingly.

4. A background noise assessment has been carried out with regard to the proposed operation and the finished noise report will need to be submitted once the final plant has been agreed and the BS41542 assessment completed.

Further consultation response

Having looked back through the health risk assessment submitted with the application, it states the cancer risk and the non-cancer risk (hazard quotients) in section 4.6 and 4.7.

The highest Cancer Risk for a resident child was at: -

Site highest 2 (160m) = 0.000000731 Max GLC LT (200m) = 0.000000711

The acceptable risk level used in the UK is 0.00001 and so the cancer risks are still below this value at the two sites at 160m and 200m from the stack.

The highest non-cancer risk for a resident child, hazard quotient was at: -

Site Highest 2 (160m) = 0.105 Max GLC LT (200m) = 0.103

The report states that a hazard quotient of less than or equal to 1 is considered to be health protective. These highest two results are below this value.

Page 48 ND AREA 1 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 2 OCTOBER 2012

ITEM 4 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2012/0452

The email from the Angling Club states a distance of 200m from the stack and due to the nature of the season of the migratory trout and salmon (and their exposure to the particular stretch of watercourse) any potential exposure to members via ingestion would be reduced and the risks are likely to be negligible.

Regarding the coarse fishing that would take place; again due to the assessments already carried out (stated above) and at Garth Road, which is 561m from the stack, both the cancer and non-cancer risks are below the acceptable risk levels at:-

Garth Road Cancer Risk = 0.000000133 Acceptable risk level = ≤0.00001 Garth Road Non-Cancer Risk = 0.0155 Acceptable risk level = ≤1

With this information, it is likely that the risk to members of the angling club via ingestion will be negligible.

Further Consultation response

It is understood that some residents feel uncomfortable with any ‘energy from waste’ proposal and so would make the following comments: -

Firstly, whilst this application is not for an incinerator, it does have to comply with the Waste Incineration Directive (WID) and will be permitted as such and that permit will be rigorously enforced by the Environment Agency under the Environmental Permitting (England & Wales) Regulations 2010.

Secondly, even if it were an incinerator, there is no reputable scientific evidence that a compliant WID plant causes any adverse health impact through its atmospheric emissions. A detailed review of all the health evidence of various waste treatment systems was provided to members of the previous administration as part of our role in assisting members to make waste disposal policy; this document is still available if they wish. However it should be pointed out that there have been a number of more recent reviews by the Environment Agency, their consultants and the Health Protection Agency (HPA). These reviews have examined all the peer-reviewed literature worldwide on all the potential pollutants of interest.

Thirdly, Pyrolysis is not a new technique; it is one that has been a gas producing process for many years. The big advantage of this proposal is that it is a more reliable way of generating power from the gas produced from the Pyrolysis component. This is cleaner and more reliable in terms of controlling emissions than in a normal Refuse Derived Fuel (RDF) burning plant.

Concerns about waste sourcing or precision informing RDF pellets are misplaced because Pyrolysis plants will be there simply to produce gas from any biodegradable element in the waste pellet. This means that RDF will be sourced with a view to its gas potential which has multiple environmental benefits. It is not simply combusting a material that could have been recycled. The gas powered energy generators are a standard technology and are easier to control. Any breach of permit condition will be dealt with by the EA in the normal way.

Page 49 ND AREA 1 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 2 OCTOBER 2012

ITEM 4 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2012/0452

Sourcing of waste streams is not really a planning consideration as there is considerable growth in waste treatment facilities throughout the European Union and there is a growing market for waste as a source of energy; for example, many of the aerobic digesters built in the UK will transport their final product anywhere in the EU for use as an energy source.

The main driver for the applicant is the huge reduction in their Carbon footprint, this is a huge environmental benefit and a legal requirement as all significant industrial operators will be penalised if they do not reduce their Carbon footprint.

Fourthly, Dioxins have been mentioned as they are associated with this activity. It must be clarified in terms of actual risk because the main source of dioxins to the UK population is through the food chain. Industrial emissions are not a significant source in this locality and a WID compliant plant will certainly not be causing any local impact.

Highway Observations –

Introduction A Transport Statement was provided by the applicant that provided details of the traffic movements and impacts associated with the proposed development to allow comparison with traffic impacts of the existing development on this site.

The site is located off Ynys-Penllwch Road which the nearest highway network. The site is an existing industrial site located on the south eastern boundary of the village of Clydach. There is no other built development within close proximity to the site.

The site covers an area of 27 acres and the proposal within this planning application is to install an advanced conversion treatment (ACT) facility within an existing building located on the southern part of the site. There will be some demolition of existing buildings involved in order to construct the proposed scheme.

When operational the scheme will employ 12 people working three shifts to allow production 24 hours a day 7 days a week.

Site Accessibility The site is considered to be a sustainable location with access to good public transport facilities although no services run directly passed the site. The site is close to local amenities and is accessible by foot, on a cycle and also by car.

Comparison of traffic aspects of proposed and existing development.

Existing development

The development will be located within the existing Clydach Nickel refinery which has been in operation since 1902. At its peak it employed over 2000 people, since that time the numbers have dropped to 210. Many of the employees drive to work and utilize the existing car parking areas.

The means of transporting materials to and from the site has also changed during the lifetime of the refinery from rail to road. Currently there are approx 70 HGV movements a day in addition to 15 smaller commercial vehicles (2 ways trips making 30 trips in total).

Page 50 ND AREA 1 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 2 OCTOBER 2012

ITEM 4 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2012/0452

The trips have declined over time and as there are less people employed now than previously it can be assumed that there are less people driving to work than previously.

Proposed development

The proposed development relates to the construction of a dedicated plant to produce energy as electricity and heat use within the refinery and for export to the national grid. The fuel source will be RDF (Refuse Derived Fuel) and the plant will have the capacity to generate 48,000 tonnes per annum. This will be delivered by HGV'S and equates to ten deliveries per day. This is less than two per hour spread over a standard working day.

The operating hours (in terms of accepting deliveries) will remain the same for both the existing and proposed uses, namely 0730 to 1700 Monday to Friday.

The increase of HGV movements is in the order of 29%, up from 70 to 90 but this is only an increase of two per hour. It is worthwhile to note that even at the level of 90 movements this is well below levels previously experienced at the site.

Conclusion There is a small hourly increase in HGV usage arising from the proposed plant. Given the previous historical uses at the site is it not felt that this will be detrimental to highway safety and the vehicles will utilize the existing access as is currently the case.

The staff of 12 (spread over three shifts) to operate the plant will have ample parking opportunities in the existing car parks and also the site is well served by walking, cycling and bus routes giving staff alternatives to car travel.

I recommend that no highway objections are raised to the proposal.

APPRAISAL

The application has been called to Committee by Cllr Rob Stewart in order that Members can assess the potential environmental impact of this proposal and a site visit has also been requested by the Local Ward Member. Members will also note the submission of the petition of objection.

The proposed development involves the refurbishment and redevelopment of part of the Clydach Nickel Refinery (CNR) site to facilitate the construction of an Advanced Conversion Technology (ACT) plant to produce energy – as electricity and heat – for use within the refinery and for export to the National Grid. The project is referred to as the “Advanced Energy Project” (AEP). The applicants, Vale Europe Ltd., is a leading world producer of nickel and associated metals such as copper, cobalt and precious metals. It has operated at Clydach since 1902, and is known locally as “The Mond”. It is indicated that the CNR is the largest nickel refinery in Europe with a workforce of some 210 – 220 employees.

The proposed ACT technology will consist of a pyrolysis process which allows for the thermal degradation of organic substance in the absence of oxygen. The process requires an external heat source to maintain temperatures required to allow the process to take place. The proposed feedstock would consist of refuse derived fuel (RDF).

Page 51 ND AREA 1 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 2 OCTOBER 2012

ITEM 4 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2012/0452

The process causes an accelerated decomposition of the organic material in the waste and the heat cracks the long chain hydrocarbons in the feedstock to produce a synthesis gas (‘syngas’) which is a mixture of gases including carbon monoxide, hydrogen, methane and a broad range of other organic compounds. A carbon rich solid bio-char is also produced. The syngas is used to power gas engines to generate electricity, and the waste heat is captured and used for drying fuel or to generate additional electricity.

RDF is a fuel produced by sorting, shredding and dehydrating municipal solid waste (MSW), which would otherwise be sent to landfill, and consists largely of combustible components of MSW such as plastics and biodegradable waste. Non-combustible materials such as glass and metals are removed using residual treatment technologies such as mechanical biological treatment, and the residual material may be compressed into pellets, bricks or logs. It is indicated that it is intended to source the RDF as locally as possible based on the proximity principle, thereby diverting this material from local landfill sites. Vale Europe want to ensure long term security of supply with several RDF suppliers, and are currently in discussions with local suppliers with planned and current capacity from 5,000 tonnes p.a. to in excess of 80,000 tonnes p.a.

It is indicated that the AEP facility will have the capacity to utilise up to 48,000 tonnes of RDF per annum which will be delivered to the site by approx. 10 HGV’s each day. The HGV’S will deliver the feedstock into an enclosed unloading bay where it will be transported into 4 no. 21m high storage silos. When fully operational the AEP will include six pyrolysis modules. Once the syngas is produced it will be fed into three interconnected gas holders, and then into three gas engines to generate electricity. When fully operational the AEP will generate some 10.3 MW of electrical power, of which, 6.5 MW will be used on site and 3.8MW will be available for export to the National Grid. Although the pyrolysis process does not involve combustion, the gas engines used to create electricity produce exhaust gases. These exhaust gases will be cleaned to meet the requirements of the Waste Incineration Directive (WID) before being discharged to the atmosphere via a 41m high stack.

The CNR operates under a PPC Permit under the Environmental Permitting Regulations 2010. An application has been to the Environment Agency for the applicant to change their environmental permit in order to allow the operation of the refuse derived fuel pyrolysis plant.

The CNR is a designated Control of Major Accidents and Hazards Site (‘COMAH’). UDP Policy EV41 states that development of land in the vicinity of existing hazardous installations will not be permitted if there would be significant risk to life or health. The Health and Safety Executive (Hazardous Installations Directorate) has been consulted on the proposal, and does not advise on safety grounds, against the granting of planning permission for the proposed development.

The proposed development will be located within the existing industrial site although part of the application site extends across the River Tawe to an existing substation. The application as originally submitted involved the construction of a new substation next to the existing southern substation. This southern area of the application site is located within the Glais Moraine SSSI which is designated for its geological interest.

Page 52 ND AREA 1 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 2 OCTOBER 2012

ITEM 4 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2012/0452

UDP Policy EV27 states that development should not adversely affect the special interests of sites designated as SSSIs and National Nature Reserves (NNRs). CCW originally raised concerns that the construction of the substation would potentially adversely affect the SSSI. Subsequently, Vale Europe has omitted the proposed substation from the proposal. It is now proposed that electricity will be exported via an 11kV connection, rather than the earlier design of 33kV which required the new substation. The 11kV connection can utilise the existing substation and existing cable trench, and would thus alleviate any impact on the Glais Moraine SSSI. CCW have since confirmed that there will no damage to the geological features of the site.

The proposed development would involve the refurbishment and alteration of a block of existing industrial buildings and the demolition of a workshop building and an adjoining amenity block to facilitate the construction of the AEP. The buildings form part of the much larger CNR complex and are presently used for storage. A subsequent redevelopment on an adjacent area is proposed to provide a replacement warehouse building (this is currently subject to a separate application for planning permission – ref:2012/0977). The demolition of the buildings are required to provide a sufficiently large enough area, adjacent to the AEP building, to accommodate the external plant and infrastructure associated with the AEP which will be enclosed with a 2.4m high palisade fence. The buildings will be used to accommodate the pyrolysis unit, generators and storage of the RDF. The external plant area will accommodate:

• 3 no. 5m x 6m high gas holders; • Gas plant water cooling and filtration plant; • Engine water cooling plant; • 4 no. 20.9m high 4.5m (diameter) RDF feedstock storage silos tanks which will be protected within a galvanised steel frame; • Regenerative Thermal Oxidiser (RTO); • Turboden with a pitched roof to cover the ORC to be protected by a low brick wall; • A 41m high AEP discharge stack (diameter approx. 1.60m); • The main fan unit; and • The pipework that links many of the above features together.

A replacement workshop building will be located to the north west of the site.

The application is accompanied by an Environmental Statement (ES), Planning Supporting Statement, Design and Access Statement, Transport Statement, Flood Consequences Assessment and a Statement of Community Involvement.

Need and Alternatives The ES has addressed the issue of need for the proposed development, as well as the main alternative technologies considered for the project and why pyrolysis was deemed to be the most appropriate form of technology.

Need It is indicated that the primary strategic reason for the proposed AEP is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and the carbon footprint of the CNR.

Page 53 ND AREA 1 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 2 OCTOBER 2012

ITEM 4 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2012/0452

In addition to concerns about climate change there is also a strong economic reason for moving away from the use of gas and electricity derived from fossil fuels and sourcing CNR’s energy supplies from alternative means. Additionally, it is indicated that the industrial activities undertaken at CNR are very energy intensive, and that energy costs form a large proportion of its operational costs. Gas and electricity are currently supplied from the national grid. Therefore the proposed operation is aimed to reduce energy costs whilst ensuring a sustainable source of energy. It is stated that this will have the longer term effect of enhancing the economic viability of the Clydach plant, thus helping to maintain jobs, the local community and economy.

Alternative Technologies A wide variety of renewable energy options were initially considered. These included wind and solar; biomass, combined heat and power; incineration and gasification. Pyrolysis technology was selected as the most appropriate to fulfil Vale’s future energy requirements for the reasons set out below.

Pyrolysis Pyrolysis is an Advanced Thermal Treatment (ATT) technology process which allows for the thermal degradation of organic substance in the absence of oxygen. The process requires an external heat source to maintain temperatures (typically between 3000C – 800OC) required to allow the process to take place. The heat cracks the long chain hydrocarbons in the organic matter (i.e. wood, paper, food resides, textiles, plastic etc) in the feedstock to produce a synthesis gas (“syngas”) which is a mixture of gases including carbon monoxide, hydrogen, methane and a broad range of other organic compounds. A carbon rich solid bio-char is also produced. The syngas is used to power gas engines to generate electricity, and the waste heat captured is used for drying fuel or to generate additional electricity.

It is indicated that pyrolysis can utilise a wide variety of fuel sources provided they are of an organic origin. In this case it is proposed for this organic feedstock for the fuel source to consist of RDF. RDF is a fuel, often in pellet form, which is produced from combustible elements of household and commercial waste, and is used in industrial boilers to produce energy from waste. In addition to RDF, it is indicated that other feed stocks, such as clean, recycled wood, may be used.

The ES indicates that pyrolysis was selected as the most appropriate technique to fulfil Vale’s future energy requirements for the following reasons:

• it is considered to be one of the more efficient technologies; • it is one of the more sustainable techniques in that it is using material that would otherwise go to landfill; • it does not involve direct combustion, and therefore, it is less contentious than standard incineration processes; • there is the potential for the syngas produced by the process to be used elsewhere in the refinery; • RDF is not as commoditised as biomass, and thus is less subject to fluctuations in price and availability, in turn, providing high levels of continuity of supply; • The storage of RDF feedstock does not present serious logistical issues as a maximum of only 50 tonnes of RDF – which equates to approx. three days supply to the pyrolysis units – would be required to be stored on site; and Page 54 ND AREA 1 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 2 OCTOBER 2012

ITEM 4 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2012/0452

• the use of pyrolysis to produce power is compatible with the refinery’s existing technology and infrastructure.

Planning Policy Technical Advice Note21: Waste (November 2001) This Technical Advice note is intended to facilitate the introduction of a comprehensive, integrated and sustainable land use planning framework for waste management in Wales. The waste hierarchy is adopted into waste management policies, which is based on the principles of reduction of waste and the use of natural resources, re-use of materials and products, recovery of raw materials through recycling or compositing and energy recovery (energy from waste). Pyrolysis is a recognised technology in delivery waste to energy facilities.

Towards Zero Waste – the Overarching Waste Strategy Document for Wales (June 2010) Towards Zero Waste – the Overarching Waste Strategy Document for Wales (June 2010) establishes the target of achieving a 70% recycling rate by 2025, and as such sets the residual waste (i.e. material; that cannot be recycled) at a maximum of 30% by 2025. The residual waste will be phased out of landfill sites and sent instead to high efficiency ‘energy from waste’ plants in accordance with the waste hierarchy in order to deliver the best sustainable outcomes for this waste. The reduction in the residual waste fraction will mean there will be less need for residual waste treatment facilities such as ‘energy from waste’ plants with the number and / or capacity required progressively reducing from 2025 to 2050. Energy from waste technologies includes the use of pyrolysis.

Unitary Development Plan Strategic Plan Policy SP12 states: Development that makes efficient use of resources and energy will be encouraged….Proposals aimed at waste minimisation, appropriate recycling and the creation of energy from waste with the minimum environmental impact and disposal of residuals will be favoured. The landfill of waste will be kept to the lowest practical level and the provision of a range of waste management facilities will be supported.

The waste policies contained within the UDP together with the Council’s Municipal Waste Management Strategy and the South West Wales Regional Waste Plan form part of an integrated set of measures that will deliver a sustainable approach to waste management, which seek to minimise waste, maximise reuse, recycling and composting with the development of a residual waste treatment facility, which will utilise either Mechanical Biological Treatment (MBT) and/or waste to energy technologies. The South West Wales Regional Waste Plan forms a material consideration when assessing any planning application for waste management facilities in the County. In particular UDP Policy R12 (Resources and Waste) states that:

Proposals for the development of waste management facilities including energy recovery from waste will be assessed against regional and local requirements. Proposals will be permitted within areas designated for B2 industrial use or having the benefit of lawful B2 use provided that there are no significant adverse effects in relation to: (i) Scale and location, (ii) Public safety, (iii) Amenity, (iv) Transportation, (v) Visual impact, Page 55 ND AREA 1 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 2 OCTOBER 2012

ITEM 4 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2012/0452

(vi) Natural heritage and the historic environment, including water quantity and quality and air pollution, (vii) The type, quality and source of waste, and (viii) Relationship to adjoining land uses.

Proposals should conform to the principles of the waste hierarchy and the proximity principle and demonstrate the Best Practical Environmental Option (BPEO).

The amplification to the policy indicates that the waste hierarchy is used to advise on waste management options. The waste hierarchy states that the most effective environmental solution is to reduce waste generation. However, where this not practicable, products and materials can often be re-used, either for the same or different purposes. Failing that, value should be recovered from waste through recycling or composting, or through energy recovery. Only if none of the above offer an appropriate solution should waste be incinerated without energy recovery, or disposed to landfill. Where waste incineration with energy recovery is the BPEO, the potential for incorporating CHP facilities or co-locating energy from waste schemes with large industrial users should always be considered in order to increase the efficiency of the process. It is also indicated that where proposals for waste management facilities satisfy the above criteria they are more likely to be located in existing or proposed General Industrial (B2) areas unless an assessment of the proposal indicates that more onerous location standards should apply and that proposals for energy from waste facilities should be able to either link into the National Grid or provide heat and power for local communities or large industrial users close to the facility.

It is therefore clear from national and development plan policy that the use of RDF, which otherwise be sent to landfill as residual waste, within an energy from waste use would conform to the waste hierarchy strategy which is adopted into waste management policies, and that pyrolysis is a recognised technology in achieving the above aims. Whilst within the context of UDP Policy R12, its use within an established general industrial site, is likely to satisfy the criteria of the policy.

Planning Assessment The material considerations with regard to the application are set out below and correspond largely to the impacts assessed in the Environmental Statement.

• Ground Conditions; • Air Quality; • Climate Change; • Drainage; • Fluvial Flood Risk; • Ecology; • Human Health; • Community Wellbeing; including Noise; Landscape and Visual; Employment and Business; and Transport.

There are considered to be no additional issues arising from the provisions of the Human Rights Act.

Page 56 ND AREA 1 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 2 OCTOBER 2012

ITEM 4 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2012/0452

Ground Conditions The impact of the proposed development on the ground conditions is considered in respect of human health and the environment. The earliest records suggest that the CNR has had industrial occupation since 1902. Site investigations have been undertaken, however, the contamination profile of the project area has not been characterised. It is though likely that the underlying ground conditions are in-keeping with the remainder of the site and typical for an industrial site which has operated for over 100 years. The ES indicates that during the construction phases there is the potential to release contaminated dust to the atmosphere. To avoid any occurrences of such incidents, prior to construction, a construction environmental management plan will be developed to ensure that there sufficient control measures in place to minimise any potential adverse effects to human health or the environment.

The facility has been designed to meet best available techniques as described in EA guidance and as such it is not anticipated that the operational phase of the development will have any impact on the existing ground conditions. It is considered that the implementation of the above construction phase and operation phase design and control features will ensure that any potential detrimental effects to land and/or air are minimised.

The Environment Agency note that there may be historical contamination from previous uses on parts of the site that may not have been addressed under the current Environment Permit conditions and therefore have recommended that a precautionary approach is taken and recommend that phased approach involving a preliminary risk assessment / site investigation / remediation strategy is taken in order to address any potential contaminants on the site.

Air Quality The Council, CCW and the Environment Agency have required air dispersion modelling to be undertaken in order to assess the impact of the potential emissions to air. The proposed facility will operate and be regulated under the Waste Incineration Directive, 200/79/EC (‘WID’). This imposes stringent controls on plants that thermally treat most types of waste, and prescribes air emission limit values that must be complied with by such plants. The proposed AEP project, and specifically the emissions from the associated discharge stack, will be subject to the requirements of the WID, and therefore the emission limit value within the WID.

It is indicated that the construction phase could result in a small amount of dust being released to atmosphere in certain meteorological conditions, however, it is indicated that the construction dust is likely to remain within the confines of the CNR boundary. The ES indicates that after mitigation measures, the impact of construction dust will be of negligible significance. The mitigation measures specific to air quality during the construction phase will form part of the construction environmental management plan (‘CEMP’).

In respect of the operation effects of the AEP facility, an Atmospheric Dispersion Modelling Study (ADMS) was undertaken to assess the impact of releases for the discharge stack. In particular, the study comprised a preliminary stack height screening assessment, to determine a suitable stack height by modelling the worst case emission scenario for a range of heights; and also to determine the impact of emissions from the proposed plant for the selected stack height.

Page 57 ND AREA 1 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 2 OCTOBER 2012

ITEM 4 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2012/0452

The ES indicates that during the design phase of the project, and based on the results of the dispersion modelling study, a 41m stack height was determined to be a suitable height for the project in order to mitigate against air quality risks. The proposed installation has been designed to ensure that emissions from the stack will be well below WID emission limit values. As previously indicated the AEP facility will be subject to strict controls under its Environmental Permit and will be regulated by the EA.

The ADMS incorporates a comparison of the highest predicted maximum pollutant ground level concentrations attributable to releases from the AEP with air quality targets. The ADMS indicates none of the releases from the proposed facility will exceed air quality standards. Additionally, the ADMS selected 32 potentially sensitive receptors (both human and environmental) in order to assess the impact of the releases from the installation, in relation to human health and the general environment at these locations. The selected human sensitive receptors included the local schools and the environmental sensitive receptors included Crymlyn Bog SSSI. The ADMS indicates that the impact of releases from the proposed AEP will not cause a breach of any air quality standards either at the points of maximum pollutant ground level concentrations or at the sensitive human receptors considered. The study therefore concludes that the proposed development will not have a detrimental effect on local human health. Similarly, the ADMS concludes that none of the releases will have a detrimental effect on the local environment with regard to air quality.

With regard to potential odour emissions, the operations will be undertaken within the confines of the proposed plant and buildings with ventilation air being extracted and used as fluidising air within the AEP. All RDF will be stored within the silo and will be offloaded within an enclosed building. Similarly the char will be stored within a silo and off-loaded to a vehicle via a pipeline or within the enclosed buildings. Again the WID will impose controls regarding any emissions from the plant, and will also be controlled under the Environmental Permit which is regulated by the Environment Agency. To ensure that the levels of pollutants are within those set by the WID during operation of the plant the continuous monitoring equipment will be used to trigger a shutdown of the plant should the air emissions exceed those imposed by the environmental permit.

Policy EV25 of the UDP advises that development, alone or in combination with other plans or projects, which is likely to adversely affect the integrity of a European protected site (SAC, Marine SAC, SPA and Ramsar Sites) and is not directly connected with or necessary to the management of the site, will not be permitted unless:

I. There are imperative reasons of over-riding public interest, including those of a social or economic nature, which are sufficient to override the reasons for designation, and II. There is no alternative solution.

Countryside Council for Wales (CCW) originally issued a holding objection to the proposal as they considered that insufficient information had been supplied to assess the air quality impact on the Crymlyn Bog Special Area of Conservation (SAC), SSSI and Ramsar site. In particular, CCW indicated concerns over potential negative impacts on Crymlyn Bog SAC as a result of Nitrogen deposition and requested that further detailed modelling was carried out in order to provide greater certainty with regard to the potential adverse effects of deposition of atmospheric Nitrogen and / or Acid deposition.

Page 58 ND AREA 1 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 2 OCTOBER 2012

ITEM 4 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2012/0452

Additionally, it was indicated that the EA had made a similar request with regard to the Environmental Permit application.

On the basis of a revised Atmospheric Dispersion Modelling Study submitted, CCW consider that the AEP would not have a likely significant effect on Crymlyn Bog SAC in respect of Nitrogen or Acid deposition. Nevertheless, CCW advised that Regulation 61 of the Conservation of Habitat and Species Regulations 2010 (as amended) applies to this proposal and as a result the Local Planning Authority should carry out a test of likely significant effect on the SAC and Ramsar site listed above. Following deferment from the last Area 1 Development Control Committee, additional information has been provided to allow for the Council’s Ecologist to fully carry out the test of likely significance effects. Based on the findings of the Test of Likely Significance, it was concluded that the proposal is not likely to have a significant effect on Crymlyn Bog SAC and Ramsar site.

No objection has been received from the Council’s Pollution Control Team in respect of Air Quality.

Climate Change The EIA has assessed the impact of the proposal on climate change, in particular, the assessment considers the levels of carbon dioxide emissions from the process and the impact of the proposal on existing, or other proposed development.

It is indicated that the project when fully operational (including all six pyrolysis converters and three engines), will be capable of generating 10.2MW of electrical energy, which is equivalent to 81,600 MWh per annum. This will provide sufficient electricity to power the project, the CNR and still be capable of exporting 25,569MWh to the national grid – enough to power around 5,000 homes. A climate change assessment has been undertaken using the EA’s H1 guidance for greenhouse gas emissions. The assessment has concluded that the Project will reduce the carbon footprint of the CNR by almost 74,000 tonnes per annum, a reduction in its carbon footprint of almost 50%.

Drainage The existing drainage systems at the CNR and the associated discharge and water quality limits/controls have been reviewed and the potential impact of the Project on the environment has been assessed. This is to determine whether the existing drainage systems are able to manage the post development drainage flows, without having an adverse effect on the existing discharge permit to the River Tawe.

The ES indicates that controlled and permitted discharges are made into the River Tawe whilst water is abstracted from the Swansea Canal for the existing CNR processes. The existing foul water drainage system discharges to the public foul sewer in Ynys Penllwch Road. An effluent drainage system conveys waste water from various production buildings across the site to an effluent treatment plant (ETP). The ETP removes contaminants such as nickel content, removes suspended solids, adjusts the pH and temperature, all in accordance with the licensed permit granted by the EA. The existing surface water drainage system is connected to an outfall to the River Tawe via a licensed discharge permit.

Page 59 ND AREA 1 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 2 OCTOBER 2012

ITEM 4 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2012/0452

Mitigation measures required to protect water quality during the construction phase will be incorporated into the Construction Environmental Management Plan. The proposed development will utilise the existing foul water, surface water, effluent water drainage systems and the ETP. It is indicated that the post-development impermeable area of the site will remain as present. No additional surface water runoff or effluent water will be generated by the proposed development. A minimal increase in foul water flow is anticipated. The conclusion is that the proposed development will have a negligible impact on existing surface water run off flows (flow rate and water quality), before reaching the existing effluent treatment plant and is considered to have no affect on the final discharge quality to the River Tawe and hence the overall discharge permit to the river. The same conclusion applies to foul drainage discharges to the public foul sewer.

Dwr Cymru Welsh Water raise no objections to the proposal subject to standard drainage conditions requiring a scheme for the comprehensive and integrated drainage of the site indicating how foul and surface water, and land drainage will be dealt with.

Flood Risk UDP Policy EV36 indicates that new development, where considered appropriate within flood risk areas, will only be permitted where developers can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Council that its location is justified and the consequences associated with flooding are acceptable. The proposed development is within flood Zone C2 and accordingly is supported by a Flood Consequences Assessment (FCA).

The development site lies within the catchment area of the River Tawe, which forms the southern boundary of the CNR. The site has been subject to flooding in the past in 1979 with flooding across the whole of the CNR site boundary. As a consequence, flood defences were constructed in 1980 / 81, which consist of raised earth banks, concrete walls and flood gates. It is indicated that since the flood defences were constructed there has been no flooding incidents.

The FCA concludes that the site is considered to be flood free within the 1:100 year plus climate change flood event complying with TAN15 regulatory provision. However, the FCA recognises that the site is at risk from the 1: 1000 year extreme flood event. This extreme flood event will lead to overtopping of the current flood defences resulting in widespread flooding across the site at estimated depths of between 0.8m – 1.2 m AOD. This extreme event would not just impact on the proposed development but would also impact on the operational procedures of the CNR resulting in a controlled shut down and the implementation of evacuation procedures.

TAN15 provides indicative guidance on what is considered tolerable conditions for different types of development and notes that industrial development could have a maximum depth of flooding of 1000mm (subject to no structural damage) and emergency services / general infrastructure a maximum depth of flooding of 600mm. Both of these levels apply to a 1:1000 year flood event. It is clear that the predicted flood depths (0.8 – 1.2 m AOD) would be greater than the maximum depth of flooding of 600mm allowable for emergency services. However, the FCA contends that as is this is an established industrial location with good service provision, including adequate local warning systems that the additional development would have a negligible effect on emergency services and would not increase risk to life.

Page 60 ND AREA 1 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 2 OCTOBER 2012

ITEM 4 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2012/0452

The EA acknowledge that the FCA accepts that the criteria within TAN 15 cannot be fully met but concludes that the consequences of flooding can be managed as part of the risk management strategy for the wider industrial facility. Moreover, having regard to the existing use of the site, the similar footprint of buildings before and after development and the acceptance of risk with improved management processes, the EA do not object to the application but recommend a condition that the development be carried out in accordance with the recommendations of the submitted FCA. In particular, that the regular inspection of flood defences is incorporated into the CNR maintenance regime, and controlled shut down and evacuation procedures are updated in light of identified risk from extreme and or unplanned flood events.

Ecology An extended Phase I habitat survey and bat risk assessment was carried out in June 2011. The principal objectives of the assessment were:

• To characterise and map the habitats present within the site; • To assess the study area for features that would indicate the presence of protected species and habitats of nature conservation importance; and • To assess the area for the presence of non-native species that could represent a constraint to development.

As stated above, part of the site (the substation to the south of the river) falls within the Glais Moraine geological SSSI, whilst the river Tawe bisects the site, and is a candidate SINC. The survey did not find any evidence of bats within the site, and notes that the buildings within the site provide very few opportunities for roosting bats. The River Tawe provides opportunities for kingfishers and is also known to provide a habitat for otters and water voles; however the Survey/ES states that as the proposed development and its associated construction works will not affect the river or its bank sides, there should be no impact on these species. CCW have reviewed the submitted information, and are satisfied with the conclusions and recommendations made in the extended Phase I habitat survey and bat risk assessment.

Throughout the operational phase, the site will be monitored and regulated by the EA under conditions of the site’s environmental permit and the Environmental Permitting Regulations 2010. Compliance with these regulations and the site’s environmental permit will minimise the potential for any detrimental environmental effects. The ES concludes that the mitigation measures, implemented at both the design stage and the operational stage, are considered to be sufficient to ensure that the proposed development will not breach any air quality objectives and any spillages would not cause any pollution and thus have a detrimental effect on the local ecology.

As set out above, due to the amendment of the application in respect of the substation to the south of the River Tawe, CCW have also confirmed that they are satisfied that there will be no ecological damage to the Glais Moraine SSSI.

Human Health A Human Health Risk Assessment (“HHRA”) has been undertaken is order to determine the potential effects a proposed new development may have on the health of the local population. The HHRA includes a collection of baseline data on those substances likely to be present in emissions from the facility for which ambient air standards or air quality guidelines have been set. Page 61 ND AREA 1 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 2 OCTOBER 2012

ITEM 4 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2012/0452

UDP Policy EV40 indicates that 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.

The likely effect on human health from the construction phase will be from dust during construction and site clearance operations, however, the effects of construction are largely predicted to be confined to the CNR. It is indicated that mitigation measures specific to the protection of human health during the construction phase would form part of the construction environmental management plan (‘CEMP’). These mitigation measures would include dust suppression such as site access roads being watered, sheeting of vehicles and inspections of local highways.

The potential effects of the proposed development on the health of the local community have been considered in the context of the potential emissions from the AEP. In this respect, the data indicates that none of the pollutants in the releases from the proposed facility would exceed air quality standards. As indicated under Air Quality above, the impact on the potentially sensitive human receptors identified in the ADMS concluded that there will be no detrimental effects on human health associated with emissions from the identified pollutants in the HHRA from the proposed AEP.

The results of the atmospheric dispersion modelling study have been used to undertake a HHRA in relation to potential exposure to dioxins and furans. The modelling has demonstrated that the cancer risks and hazard quotients for all receptors are below levels set for the protection of human health. Consequently, the ES concludes that the potential health impact on receptors in the vicinity of the CNR is not considered significant and therefore it can be concluded that potential exposure to emissions from the proposed Vale AEP will not pose unacceptable risks to human health.

Representations have been received from the Pontardawe and Swansea Angling Society (who have fishing rights on the River Tawe) highlighting the potential effects on health from consuming fish caught in the Tawe. The HHRA considers the impact of the proposal on human health in terms of inhalation and ingestion, through the food chain, and includes consideration of the consumption of fish from the River Tawe. The conclusions of the HHRA are that the potential health impact on receptors in the vicinity of the works are not considered significant and that potential exposure to emissions from the proposed Advanced Energy Facility will not pose unacceptable risks. Additional clarification has been sought from the applicants with regard to this particular point and as a result additional dispersion modelling work at two sensitive receptor points on the River Tawe has been undertaken to determine the potential environmental impact of emissions from the AEP. The modelling work indicates that none of the air quality standards at either of the sensitive receptor points will be exceeded and as such would not have a detrimental effect on human health. The Head of Pollution Control has considered this specific point and having regard to the potential exposure to humans via ingestion, considers the risk to be negligible and has verified the above conclusions.

Community Wellbeing

Page 62 ND AREA 1 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 2 OCTOBER 2012

ITEM 4 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2012/0452

Noise UDP Policy EV40 states that 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.

This Section of the ES provides an assessment of the potential noise impacts of the proposed development on existing dwellings in the vicinity of the development area. To allow a future assessment of the potential noise impacts a Baseline Noise Survey was undertaken in 2011, against which any future noise impacts may be assessed. Potential noise impacts associated with the development have been assessed for both the construction and operational phases of the project. (Industrial noise is regulated through the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2010 (as amended). Conditions can be included within a permit for the control of noise, as appropriate to the specific situation.)

The measurement locations for the noise assessment were agreed with the Council’s Pollution Control Section prior to the assessment being undertaken. The measurement positions were selected to represent typical ambient noise at the nearest sensitive receptors to the north, south, east and west of the proposed site. The agreed locations were:

• Position 1: Tawe Place, off High Street Clydach – approx. 280 metres to the north of the proposed facility. • Position 2: Gwalia Housing, off High Street, Clydach – approx. 400 metres to the north west of the proposed facility. • Position 3: Clos y Coedwr, off Hebron Road, Clydach – approx. 600metres to the west of the proposed facility. • Position 4: Garth Road Glais; - approx. 500 metres to the south west of the proposed facility; and • Position 5: Coed Gwilym Park, off Pontardawe Road, Clydach – approx. 780metre to north east of the proposed facility.

The ambient noise at the sensitive receptors was measured between 46dB LAeq, 60min and 56dB LAeq, 60 min for the daytime; 32dB LAeq, 15min and 53dB LAeq, 15min for the night time. The background noise at the sensitive receptors was measured between 41dB, LA90, 30min and 52 dB LA90, 60min for the daytime; 27dB LA90, 15min and 52dB LA90, 15min for the night time.

The assessment concluded that the proposed development will result in a slight increase in noise during the construction phase of the proposed development as work will be undertaken in the open. The noise will be associated with the demolition of buildings and the construction and installation of external plant and new buildings, albeit these works will be relatively short-term. However by limiting the construction working hours and the careful selection of working methods including the shutting down of equipment when not in use it is anticipated noise levels will be kept within permitted acceptable levels. All construction will take place between the hours of 07.00 to 19.00, Monday to Friday and 07.30 to 17.00 hours on Saturday / Sunday. Any work to be undertaken outside these stated hours would only be carried out with prior approval from the LPA. The Head of Pollution Control indicates these hours to be acceptable and would be controlled under the Construction Environment ManagementPage Plan 63 (‘CEMP’). ND AREA 1 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 2 OCTOBER 2012

ITEM 4 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2012/0452

It is indicated that particular care has been taken in designing the proposed development to ensure that the principal noise generating equipment is housed within the building and all potentially noisy activities such as the unloading of the feed stock, will take place within the building, and noise levels within the building will be required to conform to Control of Noise at Work Regulations 2005. The potential for any noise associated with the AEP facility to exceed permitted acceptable levels during its operational phase is therefore negligible. Should, however, the proposed development be found to increase existing noise levels in the area, acoustic insulation could be fitted. An Environmental Management Plan will be prepared and implemented throughout the operational phase, which will identify potential impacts and specific mitigation measures where considered necessary to ensure that noise levels are kept within permitted acceptable levels. It is indicated that the noise rating levels will be determined in accordance with BS4142, which describes a method for determining the rating level of noise of an industrial nature, together with procedures for assessing if the noise in question is likely to give rise to complaints from people living in the vicinity. The Head of Pollution Control raises no objection in this respect.

Landscape and Visual Visual impact assessments consider the changes that arise in the composition of available views as a result of changes to the landscape, to people’s responses to those changes, and to the overall effects with respect to visual amenity. Underlying the visual impact assessment is an assessment of the potential effects the AEP may have on the physical landscape. Accordingly the landscape and visual section of the EIA assessed the impact of the AEP upon the landscape of the Tawe Valley and thus the visual amenity of the nearby communities of Clydach and Glais.

UDP Policies EV1 and EV2 expect all new development proposals to respect the landscape and character of the area. Photomontages of the proposed development from the following viewpoints were assessed:

• Garth Road • Lone Road, Clydach • Bethania Road, Clydach • Pont Glais, Clydach • Graigola Road, Glais • Gellionen Road, Clydach • Bethania Road / Quarry Road junction, Clydach • Chapel Road / Vardre Road junction, Clydach • Cefn Road / Garth Road junction, Clydach • Graigola Road / Graig-y-Deri, Glais.

The Photomontages of the proposed development reveal that the proposed 41m high stack will be the only part of the AEP visible from these viewpoints and from the villages of Clydach and Glais due to the topography of the site and its existing screening from many viewpoints by either the existing buildings of the refinery site or the offsite tree cover (in particular the vegetation along the A4067 / River Tawe). The Landscape and Visual Section of the ES concludes that given the existing urban area setting of the development and the fact that the stack will be located alongside 2 others within an industrial setting, that the proposed AEP will have a minor adverse effect upon the visual quality of the area.

Page 64 ND AREA 1 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 2 OCTOBER 2012

ITEM 4 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2012/0452

The conclusions with regard to the landscape and visual impacts are broadly accepted and it is not considered that the minor adverse impacts on visual amenity would be sufficient to warrant refusal of this application.

Employment and Business This section has assessed the potential socio-economic impacts of the proposed development on the nearby communities. It is indicated that CNR is the last of the heavy industries in the area which sustained the community over the last century and the CNR is the major employer in the area. The ES indicates that the key socio-economic effects of the proposed development will be the creation of 12 permanent new jobs and, indirectly, the safeguarding of 207 existing jobs at the CNR. The proposal will also provide employment opportunities during its construction and decommissioning stages to the local construction and demolition companies. It is acknowledged that the development of the AEP will assist in safeguarding the existing jobs at the refinery as the existing process consumes large amounts of energy and the cost of providing the energy forms a substantial element of the refinery’s costs. The AEP will provide a more sustainable, lower carbon and cheaper source of energy resulting in reduced fuel costs, and should ensure the long term future of the site for nickel refining and thus safeguard the jobs of those employed at the site.

Transport A Transport Statement (TS) has been submitted in support of the application, which provides details of the traffic movements and impacts associated with the proposed development. The TS indicates that currently the site has an average of 70 HGV vehicle movements a day in addition to 15 other smaller commercial vehicles coming on site for maintenance and delivery purposes, with the vast majority of HGV movements occurring during the week between 07.30am and 5pm. It is stated that the number of HGV and other vehicles delivering to site has declined over the years. When fully operational it is anticipated the facility will process 48,000 tonnes of RDF per annum, however, it is indicated that the facility will not reach this stage until 3 years after the commencement of the operation.

The RDF would principally be delivered to site by HGV’s using the existing site access. This annual amount equates to 180 tonnes or 10 deliveries a day. It is anticipated that RDF will be sourced locally and transported to the site via the M4 and the A4067 which is the existing route used by HGV’s delivering to the site.

The TS indicates that there will be a 29% increase in the number HGV movements currently associated with the site once the AEP is fully operational, up from 70 movements to 90 movements, which equates to an additional 2 HGV movements an hour. Having regard to the previous vehicle movements to and from the site, the Head of Transportation considers that the small hourly increase in HGV usage arising from the proposed plant would not have a detrimental impact on highway safety. No highway objections are therefore made in respect of this proposal.

Conclusions

The proposed AEP facility would be located within an existing B2 general industrial site and would represent a sustainable form of development in line with national and local policy guidance in respect of waste management policies.

Page 65 ND AREA 1 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 2 OCTOBER 2012

ITEM 4 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2012/0452

The proposal is not considered to have unacceptable impacts in terms of air quality, flood risk, ecology, human health, transport and landscape and visual impacts. Overall it is considered that the proposal would provide a socio-economic benefit in assisting the long term economic future of the CNR. Having regard to all the relevant Development Plan Policies and all other material considerations the proposal would represent an acceptable form of development. Approval is therefore recommended.

RECOMMENDATION APPROVE, subject to the following conditions:

1 The development shall be commenced not later than the expiration of five years from the date of this permission and shall be completed in accordance with the said application, plans and conditions prior to any part thereof being brought into beneficial use, unless otherwise agreed with the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To comply with the provisions of Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1990, and to ensure that the development is completed in accordance with the plans approved by the City and County of Swansea, and so avoid any detriment to amenity or public safety by works remaining uncompleted.

2 Notwithstanding the details submitted in the application and Environmental Statement, the nature and composition of the proposed feedstock material (i.e. 'refuse derived fuel') shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The proposed development ('Advanced Energy Project') shall only be operated using the approved feedstock material. Reason: In order that the proposed feedstock material can be assessed to ensure conformity to the waste hierarchy strategy.

3 The materials used in the development hereby approved shall match those of the existing plant and buildings, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of visual amenity.

4 Prior to each phase of development approved by this planning permission, a remediation strategy that includes the following components to deal with the risks associated with contamination of the site shall each be submitted to and approved, in writing, by the local planning authority: 1. A preliminary risk assessment which has identified: -all previous uses - potential contaminants associated with those uses - a conceptual model of the site indicating sources, pathways and receptors - potentially unacceptable risks arising from contamination at the site. 2. A site investigation scheme, based on (1) to provide information for a detailed assessment of the risk to all receptors that may be affected, including those off site. 3. The results of the site investigation and the detailed risk assessment referred to in (2) and, based on these, an options appraisal and remediation strategy giving full details of the remediation measures required and how they are to be undertaken. - Continued - Page 66 ND AREA 1 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 2 OCTOBER 2012

ITEM 4 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2012/0452

4. A verification plan providing details of the data that will be collected in order to demonstrate that the works set out in the remediation strategy in (3) are complete and identifying any requirements for longer-term monitoring of pollutant linkages, maintenance and arrangements for contingency action. Any changes to these components require the express written consent of the local planning authority. The scheme shall be implemented as approved. Reason: Controlled waters at the site are of high environmental sensitivity and contamination is strongly suspected at the site due to its previous use as a nickel foundry site.

5 Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority, no occupation of any part of the permitted development shall take place until a verification report demonstrating completion of works set out in the approved remediation strategy and the effectiveness of the remediation shall be submitted to and approved, in writing, by the local planning authority. The report shall include results of sampling and monitoring carried out in accordance with the approved verification plan to demonstrate that the site remediation criteria have been met. Reason: To demonstrate that the remediation criteria relating to controlled waters have been met and (if necessary) to secure longer-term monitoring of groundwater quality. This will ensure that there are no longer remaining unacceptable risks to controlled waters following remediation of the site.

6 Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority, no development shall take place until a long-term monitoring and maintenance plan in respect of contamination including a timetable of monitoring and submission of reports to the Local Planning Authority, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reports as specified in the approved plan, including details of any necessary contingency action arising from the monitoring, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Any necessary contingency measures shall be carried out in accordance with the details in the approved reports. On completion of the monitoring specified in the plan a final report demonstrating that all long-term remediation works have been carried out and confirming that remedial targets have been achieved shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure that longer term remediation criteria relating to controlled waters have been met. This will ensure that there are no longer remaining unacceptable risks to controlled waters following remediation of the site.

7 If, during development, contamination not previously identified is found to be present at the site then no further development (unless otherwise agreed in writing with the local planning authority) shall be carried out until the developer has submitted a remediation strategy for the written approval of the Local Planning Authority detailing how this unsuspected contamination shall be dealt with. The remediation strategy shall be implemented as approved. Reason: It is considered possible that there may be unidentified areas of contamination at the site that could pose a risk to controlled waters if they are not remediated.

Page 67 ND AREA 1 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 2 OCTOBER 2012

ITEM 4 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2012/0452

8 Foul water and surface water discharges must be drained separately from the site and no surface water shall be allowed to connect (either directly or indirectly) to the public foul sewerage system. No land drainage run-off will be permitted, either directly or indirectly, to discharge into the public sewerage system. Reason: To prevent hydraulic overloading of the public sewerage system and pollution of the environment.

9 The development hereby approved shall not be utilised until a scheme for the comprehensive and integrated foul water, surface water and land drainage for the site has been implemented in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved 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 or the existing public sewerage system.

10 Prior to the beneficial use of the development hereby approved commencing, a flood management / emergency evacuation plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved scheme shall include details of a flood warning system, defined emergency evacuation routes and measures to make all employees aware of the approved emergency plan. Reason: To ensure safe evacuation of the employees in the event of a potential extreme flood event.

11 The development shall be carried out in accordance with a comprehensive Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) which shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The plan shall identify all possible and foreseeable detrimental effects to the environment through the release of contaminants to the air and water arising from construction of the development and specify how these are to be avoided, or where this is not practicable, mitigated. All construction activities on the site shall be undertaken in accordance with the approved plan. Reason: In order to prevent pollution of the environment, protect the residential amenities of the area and to secure the satisfactory development of the site.

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: UDP Policies EV1, EV2, EV3, EV25, EV27, EV34, EV35, EV36, EV38, EV40, EV41, AS2, R11 & R12.

2 In accordance with Article 24 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) Order, (Wales) 2012, the Local Planning Authority hereby confirm that the information contained in the environmental statement submitted with this application was taken into consideration by the Authority in the determination of the application.

Page 68 ND AREA 1 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 2 OCTOBER 2012

ITEM 4 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2012/0452

3 The Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) should include the following: a) Demolition/Construction programme and timetable; b) Detailed site plans to include indications of temporary site offices/ compounds, materials storage areas, proposed compounds, delivery and parking areas etc.; c) Traffic scheme (access and egress) in respect of all demolition / construction related vehicles; d) An assessment of construction traffic generation and management in so far as public roads are affected, including provisions to keep all public roads free from mud and silt; e) Proposed working hours; f) Principal Contractor details, which will include a nominated contact for complaints; g) Details of all on site lighting (including mitigation measures) having regard to best practicable means (BPM); h) Details of on site dust mitigation measures having regard to BPM; i) Details of on site noise mitigation measures having regard to BPM; j) Details of waste management arrangements (including any proposed crushing/screening operations); and k) Notification of whether a Control of Pollution Act 1974 (Section 61) Notice is to be served by Principle Contractor on Local Authority. Note: items g - j inclusive need to take particular account of the potential for statutory nuisance from site related activities.

4 During construction work the developer shall operate all best practice to minimise dust arisings or dust nuisance from the site. This includes dust and debris from vehicles leaving the site. The Local Authority has the power to enforce this requirement by service of an abatement notice. Any breaches of the conditions attached to such a notice will lead to formal action against the person[s] named on said notice.

PLANS

P01 Rev A site plan, P02 topographical survey (sheet 1 of 2), P03 topographical survey (sheet 1 of 2), P04 Rev A existing site layout (sheet 1 of 2), P05 Rev A exiting site layout (sheet 2 of 2), P06 existing north and south elevations, P07 existing east and west elevations and section, P08 existing building 127/127A, P09 existing south sub-station and compound, P10 Rev A proposed site layout (sheet 1 of 2), P11 Rev A proposed site layout (sheet 2 of 2), P12 Rev A proposed north and south elevations, P13 Rev A proposed west elevation and section, P14 Rev A proposed east elevation, P15 proposed replacement building, P16 proposed addition to south sub station received 22nd March 2012

Page 69 ND AREA 1 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 2 OCTOBER 2012

ITEM 5 APPLICATION NO. 2012/0695 WARD: Uplands Area 1

Location: 6 Uplands Crescent Uplands Swansea SA2 0PB Proposal: Change of use from guest house (Class C1) to 8 bedroom house in multiple occupation, removal of rear store and garage, single storey rear extension and external alterations Applicant: Miss Philippa Marsh 1

E L O S

I N C N K 1 N D O C W

2 1 4

t o

1 7 1 2 1 6 1 t o

2 6 Richmond Mews 3 6 C E N T R C R E S

M I R A D O

1 5

2 5 1

3 1 5

E N A L

E V A R

G L E B

Belgrave Gardens

2 1 6

G a r a g e

37.2m E N T S C R E S C

39.3m U P L A N D

1 1 5

1 LB 1 5

2 B 3

P a

n O

N y a n z a T

e 34.7m 4 r r a c e Fynone

Villa

3 1

y n 33.2m

2 - y 9 2 - Mo r C r es c e

1 3

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 70 Office, © Crown Copyright. AREA 1 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 2ND OCTOBER 2012

ITEM 5 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2012/0695

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

This application was DEFERRED at the Area 1 Committee Meeting held on 4th September 2012. The information on Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMOs) provided for Members related to HMOs within a 250 metre diameter of the application site whilst the circumference which was drawn on the plan measured a 500 metre diameter. Following consultation with Members the information provided is in relation to HMOs for both planning and licensing purposes within a 500 metre diameter of the planning application site.

In terms of control of HMOs, there are two regimes, a Licensing Regime and a Planning regime. The plans produced at Appendix 1 and Appendix 2 attached to this agenda identify properties that are Licensed by this Council as HMOs (Appendix 1) and properties that for planning purposes are designated as HMOs (Appendix 2). Information is sourced from the Council’s HMO Public Register. HMO licensing deals with the condition of the property with regards to the health and safety of the tenants, amenities (kitchen and bathroom) and the management of the property. The HMO licensing regime has no control over land use. The control of land use rests with the Local Planning Authority and in considering whether the use of the property as a HMO is acceptable in land use terms, consideration must be given to what constitutes a HMO for planning purposes only.

The information indicates that within 500m of the application site, there are 427 properties. Of these properties, 77 are licensed by the Council as being of sufficient standard to be occupied, for licensing purposes, as a HMO. This constitutes 18% of the properties, which are identified on the plan produced at Appendix 1. 39 of the properties are licensed for occupation by more than 6 people. If the occupants of the property were not a family, the property would be considered a HMO for planning purposes. This constitutes 9.1% of the properties within 500 metres of the application site and the properties are identified on the plan produced at Appendix 2.

Members are advised that the information provided identifies those properties licensed for occupation as an HMO. The information does not identify those properties that are actually occupied for such purposes.

My recommendation of approval remains unchanged.

POLICIES

Policy Policy Description Policy AS6 Provision of car parking in accordance with adopted standards. (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).

ITEM 5 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2012/0695

Policy EV9 Development within or adjacent to a Conservation Area will only be permitted if it would preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the Conservation Area or its setting. (City & County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008)

Policy HC5 Proposals for the conversion of dwelling or non-residential properties to HMO's will be permitted subject to a set of defined criteria including the effect upon residential amenity; harmful concentration or intensification of HMO's in an area, effect upon the external appearance of the property and the locality; effect on local car parking and highway safety; and adequate refuse storage arrangements. (City & County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008)

SITE HISTORY

App No. Proposal 2012/0993 Demolition of rear garage (application for Conservation Area Consent) Being considered elsewhere on the agenda.

RESPONSE TO CONSULTATIONS

FIVE neighbouring properties were consulted and the proposal was advertised on site and in the local press. EIGHT LETTERS OF OBJECTION have been received which are summarised as follows:

1) There are too many HMO’s in the wider area already 2) Parking concerns 3) Noises concerns 4) 8 is too many. It should be 6 5) Works have commenced 6) Litter 7) HMOs to the detriment of permanent residents 8) Flats are more suitable

TWO LETTERS OF SUPPORT have been received supporting the proposal due to the benefits that will be felt by local businesses and local economy.

Letter of support – The applicant has submitted a supporting statement and a petition of support containing 50 signatures. The letter details and emphasises the quality of the accommodation to be provided, internally and externally and includes the following points:

1) The property lies in an area mostly consisting of commercial premises. 2) We are increasing off-street parking from one space to six. 3) The property will be sound proofed to building regulation standards and the tenancy agreement will include strict clauses on noise.

Page 72 AREA 1 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 2ND OCTOBER 2012

ITEM 5 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2012/0695

4) The property previously provided a guest house for up to 14 occupants. 8 students is a marked reduction. 5) The only work we have commenced is to make the building secure, safe, wind and water tight. 6) We are providing full bin storage facilities in accordance with Building Regulation and HMO requirements. 7) There is no evidence to support any claim that HMOs are to the detriment of permanent residents. 8) The property is physically unsuitable for the conversion to flats.

Highway Observations – Change of use from guest house (Class C1) to 8 bedroom house in multiple occupation, removal of rear store and garage, single storey rear extension and external alterations.

The current use of the site is as a guest house with owner’s accommodation. There is a garage to the rear providing one car parking space. There are 8 bedrooms currently in the guesthouse and the proposal is for a HMO for eight. In accordance with our parking guidelines for the guesthouse use there should be a minimum of eight spaces plus staff parking. There is only one space being provided.

The proposal intends to knock down the rear garage and provide six parking spaces plus space for cycle storage facilities. Given the sustainable location of the site it is considered to be an appropriate level of parking provision.

Along the site frontage there are limited waiting bays and these are in high demand day and night.

It is considered that the provision of six spaces for the proposed use is an acceptable level and therefore it is not envisaged that any overspill parking would be required to use the on street facilities along Uplands Crescent, Mirador Crescent and Uplands Terrace. However to safeguard this provision for existing users it will be a condition that the residents of this establishment will not be entitled to apply for residents parking permits.

I recommend that no highway objections are raised to the proposal subject to:

1. The parking area being laid out in accordance with the approved plans prior to beneficial occupation of any of the rooms, and maintained for parking purposes only in perpetuity.

2. The cycle stands being made available as per the approved plans prior to beneficial occupation of any of the rooms.

3. Before the development hereby permitted is occupied arrangements shall be agreed in writing with the local planning authority and be put in place to ensure that no resident of the development shall obtain a resident's parking permit within any controlled parking zone which may be in force in the area (Uplands Crescent/Mirador Crescent/Uplands Terrace) at any time.

Page 73 AREA 1 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 2ND OCTOBER 2012

ITEM 5 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2012/0695

Additional Plan

An auto-track plan has been submitted indicating movement into and out of the parking spaces onto the rear lane. Highway comments on the plan are included below:

‘The applicant has submitted further details indicating how the car parking area at the rear of the premises will work. As previously, the parking area accommodates three cars side by side in two rows, therefore the first row of cars is blocked in by the second row of cars. When a vehicle in the first row needs to exit, then any vehicle parked behind would also have to move. There is sufficient room in the lane for this manoeuvre which is no different than a vehicle reversing out from a garage.

If this proposal was for separate flats, then this scenario would be unlikely to be acceptable. However, as the proposal is for 8 people with shared facilities (HMO), then occupants are effectively living as a single household and therefore the parking can be managed as in a single residential property with family members often having to move cars in order to allow others to exit.’

APPRAISAL

This application is reported to committee for decision at the request of Councillor Nick Davies due to local/public concern.

Full planning permission is sought for the change of use of 6 Uplands Crescent from a Guest House (Class C1) to an 8 bedroom HMO. The application property is a large semi- detached property located within the Ffynone Conservation Area. It is also proposed to remove the rear store and garage to provide off-street parking, a single storey rear extension and associated external works.

No 6 Uplands Crescent is one half of a semi detached pair within the Ffynone Conservation Area. It forms part of a group of large three storey brick town houses with bath stone dressings. They face the road across long front gardens.

The main issues for consideration with regard to this application relate to the acceptability of the proposed use and external alterations, having regard to Policies AS6, EV1, EV2, EV3, EV9 and HC5 of the City and County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008. There are in this case considered to be no additional overriding considerations arising from the provisions of the Human Rights Act.

Policy HC5 states that proposals for conversion of properties into multiple occupancy will only be permitted where there is no significant adverse affect in terms of the following:

1. Impact on residential amenity 2. Intensity of use 3. Off-street parking provision 4. Traffic generation 5. Refuse storage arrangements 6. Sound insulation 7. The effect on the external appearance of the property and the character and appearance of the area.

Page 74 AREA 1 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 2ND OCTOBER 2012

ITEM 5 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2012/0695

Policy EV1 is a more general policy and requires development to have regard to the amenities of the surrounding area with particular reference to visual impact, loss of light or privacy, increased activity and traffic movements or parking problems.

In terms of policy implications and the acceptability of the scheme in principle, the existing lawful use at the site is that of a Guest House. There are many examples of commercial premises in the immediate vicinity with offices, retail and residential in close proximity. Indeed this Section of Uplands Crescent is a mixed use area. The HMO Public Register reveals there are only 6 properties registered as HMOs in Uplands Crescent providing accommodation over 6 bedrooms and thus defined as an HMO for planning purposes. Therefore it would be difficult to argue that the provision of an HMO at this site would result in an unacceptable accumulation of such uses in the street as approval of this application would result in only 7 HMOs in Uplands Crescent, set amongst numerous commercial enterprises (Appendix 2). In the same respect, Uplands Crescent is not a predominantly residential street with the few residential properties scattered amongst the other range of uses and so an HMO in this street would not have any significant impact upon the character of the street. In addition, Appendix 2 indicates that within a 500m diameter of the application site there are 39 properties that are licensed as HMOs and as they can be occupied by more that 6 residents would be classed as HMOs for planning purposes. This constitutes 9.1% of the properties and it is not considered the addition of an additional HMO would adversely affect the character of the area.

It is therefore considered that in policy terms, the application site is considered wholly acceptable for the provision of an HMO in principle.

In terms of visual amenity it is considered that the use of the property as a HMO would have no adverse impact upon the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. It therefore remains to consider the physical alterations to the building. The proposed rear extension is not highly visible from any main public vantage point with views only being gained to the rear of the site. The proposed extension is relatively small scale, measuring 3m in height, 1.9m in depth and 4m in width and is recessed into the ground (relative to the rear parking area by approx. 1.8m. This element of the proposal will replace a rear storage area that measures 3m in height and approx. 6m in depth. The proposed rear extension is considered visually acceptable having no adverse impact upon the character of the host building or the wider street scene and would serve to enhance or preserve the character of the Conservation Area.

With regard to the demolition of the rear garage, this will facilitate the provision of 6 off- street parking spaces and will be in the form of a flat surface, accessed off the rear lane. The demolition of the rear garage is subject to an application for Conservation Area Consent (ref: 2012/0993) which is also presented to this committee. It is apparent that the garage is no longer at the site and the applicant has confirmed that the garage had partly collapsed and had to be removed on safety grounds. Whilst the garage was a poor quality structure, it did provide enclosure to the rear lane and created a secure rear boundary. It is considered that the creation of an open expanse for car parking diminishes the enclosure of the lane and may result in an impact upon the character of the conservation character. However, it is considered that in order to provide an enclosure at this boundary the required number of car parking spaces cannot be met. Therefore, on balance, it is considered that the provision of the flat surfaced parking area in place of the garage that once stood at this site would be acceptable in this instance and would not warrant a justifiable refusal on this element alone. Page 75 AREA 1 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 2ND OCTOBER 2012

ITEM 5 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2012/0695

The remaining works involve the replacement of all windows. Whilst other buildings in the conservation area do have uPVC, the application property retains timber windows in the front at ground and first floor. The second floor front windows are uPVC and they clearly lack the detail and depth of the timber windows. To the rear, there may have been timber windows but these are in the process of being replaced.

Given the prominence of the front elevation, it is considered that the timber windows in the front elevation should be retained or replaced with like for like double glazed timber units to preserve/enhance the character of the Conservation Area. The second floor uPVC window should be replaced with timber. Should the Committee be mindful to approve this application, a condition is recommended which requires details of windows to be submitted because the elevation drawings do not represent the windows in sufficient detail.

In terms of the rear elevation and given that it is not highly visible, the rear elevation windows are acceptable subject to the submission of acceptable details. Whilst work has commenced and several windows have already been replaced, it should be noted that the newly installed windows lack a central glazing bar shown in the proposed elevations and are deemed unacceptable. However it is considered that if windows are installed on the rear elevation in line with the details indicated on the submitted plans, this element of the scheme is considered acceptable. Again a condition is recommended requiring suitable details to be submitted and implemented in accordance with the approved details.

In light of the above it is considered that the proposal would be acceptable in visual terms having no adverse impact upon the host building and would serve to preserve and enhance the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.

With regard to residential amenity, the property was last in use as an 8 bedroom Guesthouse and the submitted floor plans demonstrate that the accommodation is capable of providing 8 bedrooms for use as an HMO. Furthermore it is considered that the use of the property as an 8 bed HMO would not result in an unacceptable increase in the intensity of the use of the property in terms of movements in and out of the building, or result in an unacceptable increase in noise and general disturbance to the residents within the neighbouring properties to the detriment of their residential amenities over and above that previously experienced as a Guest house.

It is therefore considered that the use of the property as an 8 bed HMO would not result in an adverse impact upon the residential amenities of the occupiers of neighbouring properties.

In terms of the proposed rear extension, due to its small scale and in light of the scale of the existing rear extension at the site, it is not considered that the proposed extension would result in any adverse physical impact in terms of overbearing or overshadowing.

Furthermore there are no new window openings proposed and therefore there are no overlooking issues to consider in this instance.

In terms of highway safety implications, the Head of Transportation and Engineering has raised no objection to the scheme.

Page 76 AREA 1 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 2ND OCTOBER 2012

ITEM 5 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2012/0695

In response to the points raised in the letters of objection, points 1, 2 and 3 have been addressed above. With respect to points 4 and 8, the Local Planning Authority can only assess that which is submitted and in this instance an 8 bedroom HMO is being considered not 6 or flats. In terms of points 5 and 6 any works undertaken are at the developer’s own risk and cannot prejudice any decision taken in relation to this application. In terms of litter, the Local Planning Authority cannot distinguish between occupiers of residential properties. With reference to point 7 there is no evidence supporting the claim that HMOs are detrimental to permanent residences. Furthermore Uplands Crescent is not a predominantly residential street and is dominated by retail, offices and other commercial uses, with the occasional residential property.

In conclusion therefore and having regard to all material planning considerations including the Human Rights Act, the proposal is considered to represent an acceptable form of development having particular regard to the criteria set out in Policies HC5, EV1, EV2, EV3, EV9 and AS6 of the City and County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008. Accordingly, approval is recommended.

RECOMMENDATION

APPROVE, subject to the following conditions:

2 Notwithstanding the details hereby approved, all proposed windows shall be installed in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interest of preserving and enhancing the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.

3 Prior to the beneficial occupation of the development, the proposed parking area shall be laid out in accordance with the approved plans and retained for parking purposes only at all times unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interest of highway safety.

4 Prior the beneficial occupation of the development the cycle stands, as indicated in the approved plans shall be made available for use. Reason: In the interest of sustainability.

5 Before the development hereby permitted is occupied arrangements shall be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority and be put in place to ensure that no resident of the development shall obtain a resident's parking permit within any controlled parking zone which may be in force in the area (Uplands Crescent/Mirador Crescent/Uplands Terrace) at any time. Reason: In the interest of highway safety. Page 77 AREA 1 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 2ND OCTOBER 2012

ITEM 5 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2012/0695

6 Prior to the beneficial occupation of the development a bin/recycling storage area shall be implemented and maintained as such in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To safeguard the visual amenity of the locality and the residential amenities of future occupiers.

INFORMATIVES

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

2 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: Poliicies EV1, EV2, EV3, AS6, EV9 and HC5 of the City and County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008.

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, work should cease immediately and the advice of the Countryside Council for Wales sought before continuing with any work (01792 634960).

4 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.

PLANS

HG.12.07.AL(0)1 site plan, HG.12.07.AL(0)02 existing floor plans, HG.12.07.AL(0)03 existing elevations, HG.12.07.AL(0)05 proposed floor plans, HG.12.07.AL(0)06 proposed elevations received

Page 78 AREA 1 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 2ND OCTOBER 2012

ITEM 6 APPLICATION NO. 2012/0993 WARD: Uplands Area 1

Location: 6 Uplands Crescent Uplands Swansea SA2 0PB Proposal: Demolition of rear garage (application for Conservation Area Consent) Applicant: Miss Philippa Marsh

E L O S

I N C K 1 O N N D C W

2 1 4

t o

1 7 1 2 1 6 1 t o

2 6 Richmond Mews 3 6 C E N T R C R E S

M I R A D O

1 5

2 5 1

3 1 5

E N A L

E V A R

G L E B

Belgrave Gardens

2 1 6

G a r a g e

37.2m E N T S C R E S C

39.3m U P L A N D

1 1 5

1 LB 1 5

2 B 3

P a

n O

N y a n z a T

e 34.7m 4 r r a c e Fynone

Villa

3 1

y n 33.2m

2 - y 9 2 - Mo r C r es c e

1 3

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 79 AREA 1 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 2ND OCTOBER 2012

ITEM 6 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2012/0993

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

This application was DEFERRED at the Area 1 Committee Meeting held on 4th September 2012 to enable a decision to be made in conjunction with the corresponding application ref: 2012/0965 at this site.

POLICIES

Policy Policy Description Policy EV9 Development within or adjacent to a Conservation Area will only be permitted if it would preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the Conservation Area or its setting. (City & County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008)

SITE HISTORY

App No. Proposal 2012/0695 Change of use from guest house (Class C1) to 8 bedroom house in multiple occupation, removal of rear store and garage, single storey rear extension and external alterations Being considered on this agenda

2002/1324 One externally illuminated wall sign Decision: Grant Advertisement Consent (C) Decision Date: 01/10/2002

RESPONSE TO CONSULTATIONS

TEN neighbouring properties were consulted and the proposal was advertised on site and in the local press. NO RESPONSE has been received.

Highway Observations – No highway objection.

APPRAISAL

This application is reported to Committee for consideration at the request of Councillor Nick Davies due to public/local concern.

This application is to be considered in conjunction with planning application ref: 2010/0695 which is also reported to this committee for consideration which seeks permission for the change of use of the premises from a Guest House (Class C1) to an 8 bedroom House in Multiple Occupation, removal of the rear storage area and garage, single storey rear extension and external alterations.

This application seeks Conservation Area Consent for the demolition of the garage to the rear of 6 Uplands Crescent. The works will provide a rear parking area accessed of the lane to the rear of the property and provide the level of parking provision required to serve the proposed new use.

Page 80 AREA 1 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 2ND OCTOBER 2012

ITEM 6 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2012/0993

The main issues for consideration with regard to this application relate to the acceptability of the demolition of the garage and its impact upon the character and appearance of the Conservation Area in which it is situated, having regard to Policy EV9 of the City and County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008. There are in this case considered to be no additional overriding considerations arising from the provisions of the Human Rights Act.

In terms of visual amenity the demolition of the rear garage will facilitate the provision of 6 off-street parking spaces and will be in the form of a flat surface, accessed off the rear lane. It is apparent that the garage is no longer at the site and the applicant has confirmed that the garage had partially collapsed and had to be removed on safety grounds. Whilst the garage was a poor quality structure, it did provide enclosure to the rear lane and created a secure rear boundary. It is considered that the creation of an open expanse for car parking may diminish the enclosure of the lane and therefore may impact upon the character of the conservation character. However, it is considered that in order to provide an enclosure at this boundary the required number of car parking spaces cannot be met. Furthermore a site visit confirmed there are a number of properties along this rear lane that have, at some point in the past, demolished their rear garages and provided flat parking areas. Indeed, the property on the corner of Uplands Crescent and Mirador Crescent provides open parking and this is located in a highly prominent location when viewing the application site. Therefore, on balance, it is considered that the provision of the flat surfaced parking area in place of the garage that once stood at this site would be acceptable in this instance and would not warrant a justifiable refusal on this element alone.

In light of the above it is considered that the proposal would be acceptable in visual terms having no adverse impact and would serve to preserve and enhance the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.

In terms of highway safety implications, the Head of Transportation and Engineering has raised no objection to the scheme.

In conclusion therefore and having regard to all material planning considerations including the Human Rights Act, the proposal is considered to represent an acceptable form of development having particular regard to the criteria set out in Policy EV9 of the City and County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008. Accordingly, approval is recommended.

RECOMMENDATION

APPROVE, unconditionally

INFORMATIVES

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

Page 81 AREA 1 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 2ND OCTOBER 2012

ITEM 6 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2012/0993

2 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: Policy EV9 of the City and County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008.

PLANS

HG.12.07.AL(0)1-OS extract & block plan, HG.12.07.AL(0)02- plans as existing, HG.12.07.AL(0)03-elevations as existing, HG.12.07.AL(0)05-plans as proposed, HG.12.07.AL(0)06- elevations as proposed received 12th July 2012

Page 82 AREA 1 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 2ND OCTOBER 2012

ITEM 7 APPLICATION NO. 2012/0849 WARD: Landore Area 1

Location: 124 Neath Road Hafod Swansea SA1 2LG Proposal: Change of use from Public house (Class A3) to eight self-contained flats (Class C3), two storey and single storey rear extensions, three external staircases fenestration alterations and associated parking Applicant: Mr J Galavian

Depot

4 PH

2 1

30.0m Community Sports Hall

/ Neuadd Chwaraeon Cymunedol S

1 Works

1 1

35.7m

1 3 M

1 1

2 8

4 9 0 4 2 1 3 6

V I V I A N S T R E E T

1 0

1 7

1 5

Shelter

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 83 Office, © Crown Copyright. AREA 1 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 2ND OCTOBER 2012

ITEM 7 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2012/0849

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

The application was DEFERRED at the meeting of the Area 1 Development Control Committee meeting on the 4th September 2012 to allow a further report on Air Quality issues to be prepared by the Pollution Control Division of the Environment Department having regard to the second reason for refusal. The Pollution Control Division has advised as follows:

The Local Authority has a statutory duty under the Environment Act 1995 to assess areas for Air Quality and declare any failures that are identified.

Limit Values are set for several pollutants identified with the National Air Quality Strategy 2007. These limit values have been transposed from the European Union and importantly are health based and have been produced by International medical consensus due to their significant impact on public health.

It is agreed that the impact in the United Kingdom in terms of deaths brought forward is at least 29,000 each year, costing the economy 15billion pounds (DEFRA). This is ignoring the morbidity effect on the population, which is higher, in the form of raised blood pressure, increased strokes, increased cardiovascular problems, Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD), asthma exacerbation and arguably more complex effects such as childhood development rates.

During the Local Air Quality Management (LAQM) work that the authority undertakes, Swansea has declared several failing areas for Air Quality and has a legal duty to deliver an Air Quality Action Plan (AQAP). The authority is expected to use all their powers, in particular planning and highway, to assist in reducing population exposure.

Swansea is a named area in the current infraction proceedings between the European Commission and the Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA). This puts the Local Authority under increased scrutiny as the European Commission are examining all relevant AQAP’s.

The Public Protection Service Unit has not rigidly adopted any particular stance in Air Quality Management Areas (AQMA’s) as each application is considered on its merits, there are occasions when there may be overriding socio-economic reasons especially if they are part of a package of other measures which can be seen to deliver other relevant benefits. For example, it could be an enabling development to secure significant traffic flow improvements.

This can be a complex issue as we cannot readily expose an increased population to an unhealthy amount of air pollution. The Air Quality standards normally apply to residential units because they are looking at the longer term exposure. However, some pollutants have a rapid effect and therefore in other circumstances we may have concerns about non-residential uses for example schools, hospitals.

The applicant has also been further requested to consider amending the scheme to reduce the number of flats proposed and revise the parking layout in order to address the first reason for refusal. However the applicant has confirmed that this is not a viable option and the scheme is to be considered as submitted. Page 84 AREA 1 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 2ND OCTOBER 2012

ITEM 7 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2012/0849

My recommendation of refusal remains unchanged.

POLICIES

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

Policy HC6 Proposals for the conversion of larger dwellings and vacant or underutilised commercial and industrial buildings to flats or similar will be permitted subject to a set of defined criteria including the effect upon residential amenity; overintensive use of the dwelling or building, effect upon the external appearance of the property and the locality; effect on local car parking and highway safety; and adequate refuse storage arrangements. (City & County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008)

Policy AS6 Provision of car parking in accordance with adopted standards. (City & County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008)

SITE HISTORY

App No. Proposal 81/0832/03 ALTERATIONS AND EXTENSION TO PUBLIC HOUSE Decision: *HGPC - GRANT PERMISSION CONDITIONAL Decision Date: 30/07/1981

2004/2172 Formation of beer garden and seating area at front of building with associated landscaping, provision of new entrance doorway with handrail on front elevation and new doorways on rear elevation, external fenestration alterations, external staircase on rear elevation, provision of 3 velux rooflights on each side elevation and change of use of first floor living accommodation to storage area Decision: Grant Permission Conditional Decision Date: 14/03/2005

Page 85 AREA 1 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 2ND OCTOBER 2012

ITEM 7 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2012/0849

2003/1302 Change of use from retail unit (Class A1) to public house (Class A3) Decision: Grant Permission Conditional Decision Date: 09/09/2003

RESPONSE TO CONSULTATION

The application was advertised on site and FOUR neighbouring properties were consulted. There was NO response.

Dwr Cymru Welsh Water – No objection subject to standard conditions and advisory notes.

Highway Observations – This proposal is for the conversion of the Mexico Fountain public house into 8 one bedroom flats. The site access is located on Pentremawr Road near to its junction with Neath Road.

The applicant has indicated a parking area to the rear of the premises and 6 parking spaces are shown. The parking spaces however are below current standards in terms of width and insufficient space exists between the two rows of spaces shown which makes accessing the parking spaces difficult and would result in the need for reversing manoeuvres either into or out from the site. This would be detrimental to highway safety due to the proximity of the Neath Road junction and the presence of the adjacent Comprehensive school which attracts significant pedestrian movements past the site access. Adopted parking guidelines also recommend that no fewer than 1 space per flat be provided and therefore the proposal is at least 2 resident spaces short with additional shortfall for visitors.

On balance, I recommend that the application is refused on the grounds that the parking provision is substandard, potentially leading to on street congestion and reversing manoeuvres to the detriment of the safe and free flow of vehicles and pedestrians in the vicinity of the site.

Pollution Control Department – Object. The application site is centrally sited in the declared Air Quality Management Area (AQMA) and no development which increases air pollution or which increases exposure to air pollution should be granted without careful consideration of these issues. The proposed development would increase the number of residents exposed to poor air quality and would not reduce congestion on Neath Road which is one of the principal causes of target failures.

APPRAISAL

This application is reported to Committee at the request of Councillor Beverley Hopkins to allow members to consider the impact of the proposed change of use on the surrounding area.

Planning permission is sought for the change of use of the former Mexico Fountain public house (Class A3) at No. 124 Neath Road to eight no. one bedroom flats (Class C3), two storey and single storey rear extensions, three external staircases, fenestration alterations and associated parking.

Page 86 AREA 1 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 2ND OCTOBER 2012

ITEM 7 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2012/0849

The application property is a two storey commercial property located in a prominent, elevated site on the junction of Neath Road and Pentre Mawr Road. A single storey split level annexe extends from the rear of the building. There is also a single storey wc block again located at the rear of the building. To the north and west of the site is a builder’s yard with offices and beyond these are the grounds of Pentre Hafod Secondary School.

East of the site, on the opposite side of Neath Road, is a range of commercial units primarily utilised by the motor trade. They include car sales, servicing and repair, cleaning and valeting services. Due south of the site are rows of terraced dwellings which have recently benefited from refurbishment under the Hafod area renewal scheme.

The site is therefore located in a mixed residential and general industrial area, with the residential development located on the southern side of Pentre Mawr Road, and the western side of Neath Road. The application site is separated from the residential development by the junction of these two roads. North and east of the road junction the uses are more industrial in nature. A main railway line also lies to the east of the site, beyond the industrial uses on Neath Road. These uses and the railway are all noise producing activities.

The pub had been operating until fairly recently, until it was proving uneconomic to continue trading as a public house. It is now proposed to convert the pub into eight no. one bedroom flats. The proposal seeks to demolish the existing single storey flat roofed toilet block at the rear of the property to make way for the single and two storey bathrooms extensions to the proposed flats. The original rear annexe will also be extended and a floor introduced to form two no. duplex type flats within the high roof structure. The external staircases will provide access to the flats proposed on the 1st floor of the building. The concrete rear yard area will be paved to provide residents parking for up to six cars and six cycles.

Main Issues

The main issues for consideration are the principle of the change of use of the building to residential use, the impact on neighbours’ amenity, the impact upon highway safety and parking, and its location within the designated Air Quality Management Area having regard to Policies EV1 (Design) EV2 (Siting and Location), HC6 (Flat Conversions), AS6 (Parking) and EV40 (Air, Noise and Light Pollution) of the City & County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008. There are no overriding issues regarding the provisions of the Human Rights Act.

Given the siting of the application site on one of the main arterial routes into and out of Swansea, the site is a sustainable one located on a main bus route and close to employment opportunities and shops. National and local development plan policies place considerable emphasis on the need for sustainable development and it is acknowledged this proposal is well located to contribute towards sustainable development.

With regard to the principle of the change of use to residential, Policy HC6 – Flat Conversions states that proposal for the conversion of larger dwellings and vacant or underutilised commercial and industrial buildings to flats or other self contained units of accommodation will be permitted subject to the satisfaction of a number of criterion, including:

Page 87 AREA 1 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 2ND OCTOBER 2012

ITEM 7 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2012/0849

a) demonstrating that the former use is no longer viable; b) no detrimental impacts upon residential amenity in terms of noise and disturbance; c) that it would not be an over-intensive use of the building d) no adverse impacts on the external appearance or on the character of the locality; e) no significant adverse effect on local car parking and highway safety f) appropriate refuse storage provision.

With regard to point (a), it is noted that the public house ceased trading some months ago due to lack of custom and was no longer a viable business. It is considered that the use of the building for residential purposes is an appropriate use for the property and will bring the vacant building back in to beneficial use.

With regard to point (b) it is considered that the use of the property as flats would have a less intrusive impact upon the amenity of the neighbouring residential uses than that of a public house in terms of noise and disturbance. It is also noted that there have been no objections from local residents.

With regard to point (c), the proposal is to provide 8 x one bedroom flats. Whilst compact, and aimed at the more affordable end of the housing market, each flat would have a separate living/kitchen area, bedroom and bathroom. Three flats at ground floor would have their own entrances from the front of the building. The remaining flats (at ground and first floor) would have their own separate entrances at the rear of the building accessed via the external staircases.

With regard to point (d), the external alterations proposed, particularly at the front of the building, include the removal of external signage and doorways and the provision of three separate entrance doorways and new windows, designed to replicate the facades of the traditional terraced dwellings located due south of the site. At the rear the external alterations proposed include demolishing the existing single storey flat roofed toilet block at the rear of the property to make way for the single and two storey bathrooms. The original rear annexe will also be extended and a floor introduced to form two no. duplex type flats within the high roof structure. Three external staircases are proposed at the rear of the building. Whilst it is noted that the existing building has been extended and altered in the past, it is not considered that the proposed extensions and alterations would have such a detrimental impact on the visual appearance of the building or on the character of the local area that would warrant a refusal in this instance. Indeed it is considered the proposed alterations, particularly at the front of the premises would aesthetically improve the physical appearance of the building.

With regard to point (e) Highway Officers have recommended the application be refused on the grounds that the parking provision is substandard, potentially leading to on street congestion and reversing manoeuvres to the detriment of the safe and free flow of vehicles and pedestrians in the vicinity of the site.

With regard to point (f), no details of the refuse / recycling storage area have been submitted. However it is noted that the existing pub has a small front terrace which is elevated above the road, which would become usable for the three ground floor flats accessed via the front of the property.

Page 88 AREA 1 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 2ND OCTOBER 2012

ITEM 7 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2012/0849

It is also noted that whilst the kitchens are small and compact the applicant has advised that each flat will have its own waste/recycling facility within the kitchen area. Notwithstanding a condition requiring further details of refuse provision could be provided on the grant of any planning permission.

In terms of impact on visual amenity, the main part of the public house is to be split into three ground floor flats with three flats above. However, in appearance the front façade of the proposal would resemble the nearby row of terraced dwellings which have benefited from refurbishment under the Hafod Renewal Area scheme.

The proposed rear extensions are considered to be compatible with the existing building in terms of its size, scale, design and materials having no adverse visual impact upon the host building. Whilst the property is located in a prominent location, the extensions are sited behind the main frontage elevations and are therefore shielded from significant view by the building itself when approaching from the east. The proposed extensions are to be finished in render with roof tiles to match existing. The materials are considered acceptable in visual terms. It is therefore considered that the proposed extensions and alterations would be an acceptable addition to the building having no adverse impact upon the building nor the wider street scene. Moreover, it is considered the alterations proposed, particularly on the front façade will aesthetically enhance the appearance of the building in line with the neighbouring properties.

With regards impact on residential amenity, the property is situated adjacent to a main vehicular route into Swansea. Although relatively isolated, there are a number of residential properties within close proximity. Given the authorised use of the building as a Public House, the proposed residential use is considered more compatible with the surroundings and, is it considered, will have less of an impact in terms of noise and general disturbance and levels of activity at the premises. Furthermore, and given the isolated position of the public house, relative to neighbouring properties, it is not considered that the proposed extensions to the property would result in any physical overbearing, overshadowing or overlooking impact to the detriment of the amenities of the occupiers of neighbouring properties.

Notwithstanding the above, the site is centrally located within the declared Hafod Air Quality Management Area. The impact of air quality on the health and amenity of future occupants of sensitive new development is a material consideration. In this area the poor air quality is attributed to traffic fumes and the land topography, which does not lend itself to ready dispersion of pollutants. The area has been declared an Air Quality Management Area on account of its failure to meet the statutory target for Nitrogen Dioxide. The proposed flats would increase the number of residents of exposed to poor air quality.

The Head of Pollution Control has accordingly advised that permission should be refused on the grounds that the proposed development would increase the number of residents exposed to poor air quality, and would not reduce congestion on the Neath Road which is one of the principal causes of target failures.

In terms of access and highway safety the Head of Transportation and Engineering has advised that the parking spaces indicated are below current standards in terms of width and insufficient space exists between the two rows of spaces shown which makes accessing the parking spaces difficult and would result in the need for reversing manoeuvres either into or out from the site. Page 89 AREA 1 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 2ND OCTOBER 2012

ITEM 7 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2012/0849

This would be detrimental to highway safety due to the proximity of the Neath Road junction and the presence of the adjacent Comprehensive school which attracts significant pedestrian movements past the site access. Adopted parking guidelines also recommend that no fewer than I space per flat be provided and therefore the proposal is at least 2 resident spaces short with additional shortfall for visitors.

On balance therefore the Head of Transportation and Engineering has recommended that the application is refused on the grounds that parking provision is substandard, potentially leading to on street congestion and reversing manoeuvres to the detriment of the safe and free flow of vehicles and pedestrians in the vicinity of the site.

Conclusions

In conclusion and having regard to all material planning considerations including the Human Rights Act, whilst it is acknowledged that the site is well located to contribute towards sustainable development, the proposal is considered to represent an unacceptable form of development on the grounds that the parking provision is substandard, potentially leading to on street congestion and reversing manoeuvres to the detriment of the safe and free flow of vehicles and pedestrians in the vicinity of the site. Furthermore, the proposal by virtue of its siting within a declared Air Quality Management Area will result in an unacceptable increase in the number of residents exposed to poor air quality. The proposal fails to accord with Policies EV1, EV2, EV40, HC6 and AS6 of the City and County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan. Refusal is therefore recommended.

RECOMMENDATION

REFUSE, for the following reasons: 1 The car parking provision indicated, is substandard both in terms of dimensions and numbers, and could potentially lead to on street congestion and reversing manoeuvres to the detriment of the safe and free flow of vehicles and pedestrians in the vicinity of the site contrary to the provision of Policies EV1, EV2, HC6 and AS6 of the City and County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008.

2 The proposed development, by virtue of its siting within a declared Air Quality Management Area, will result in an unacceptable increase in the number of residents exposed to poor air quality contrary to Policy EV40 of the City and County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan.

PLANS Site location plan, block plan, 212 516 01-floor plans as existing, 212516 02- floor plans as proposed, 212 516 03-existing & proposed elevations, photographs received 15th June 2012

Page 90 AREA 1 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE (35)

Labour Councillors: 25 John C Bayliss Erika T Kirchner Nicholas S Bradley Clive E Lloyd Nick J Davies Paul Lloyd W John F Davies Penny M Matthews Phil Downing Hazel M Morris C Ryland Doyle Byron G Owen V Mandy Evans David Phillips Robert Francis-Davies Neil M Ronconi-Woollard Joe A Hale Pearleen Sangha Andrea S Harrington Paulette B Smith Jane E C Harris Ceinwen Thomas David H Hopkins T Mike White Dennis H James

Liberal Democrat Councillors: 6 Chris A Holley Paul M Meara Mary H Jones John Newbury Richard D Lewis L Graham Thomas

Independent Councillors: 3 Ioan M Richard Gordon D Walker D Gareth Sullivan

Conservative Councillor: 1 Vacancy

Copies Needed - 80

Page 91