Area 2 Development Control Committee

CITY AND COUNTY OF SWANSEA

NOTICE OF MEETING

You are invited to attend a Meeting of the

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE

At: Council Chamber, Civic Centre, SWANSEA

On: Tuesday 19th April 2011

Time: 2.00p.m. Members are asked to contact John Lock (Planning Control Manager) on 635731 or Phil Baxter on 635733 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

1. Apologies for Absence.

2. Declarations of Interest To receive Disclosures of Personal and Prejudicial Interests from Members in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Conduct adopted by the City and County of Swansea. (NOTE: Members are requested to identify the Agenda Item /minute number/ planning application number and subject matter that their interest relates).

3. To approve as a correct record the Minutes of the meetings of the Area 2 Development Control Committee held on 22nd March 2011.

FOR DECISION

4. Town and Country Planning - Planning Applications:- (a) Items for deferral/withdrawal. (b) Requests for Site Visits. (c) Determination of Planning Applications.

Roderic Jones Acting Head of Legal, Democratic Services & Procurement 13th April 2011 Contact: Democratic Services 01792 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)

Item No. 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

Z:\Committees\A Agenda Pack\Cttees\Area 2\2008-09\08jun24\02 - Disclosures of Personal Interest.doc

Item No. 3

CITY AND COUNTY OF SWANSEA

MINUTES OF THE AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE

HELD AT THE CIVIC CENTRE, SWANSEA ON TUESDAY 22ND MARCH 2011 AT 2.00 P.M.

PRESENT: Councillor A R A Clement (Chairman) presided

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

V A Bates-Hughes S M Jones T H Rees J E Burtonshaw J B Kelleher J C Richards A C S Colburn K E Marsh G Seabourne A M Day P Matthews M Smith W Evans P M Meara P B Smith E W Fitzgerald W K Morgan R J Stanton D I E Jones B G Owen D W W Thomas M H Jones C L Philpott D P Tucker

6. APOLOGIES

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors N S Bradley, M C Child, W E A Jones, J T Miles, J Newbury and C M R W D Thomas.

7. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

In accordance with the provisions of the Code of Conduct adopted by the City and County of Swansea the following interest was declared:

Councillor D P Tucker - personal - Item 8 (2011/0122) - Business Interest.

8. MINUTES

RESOLVED that the Minutes of the South West Area Planning Committee held on 22nd February 2011 and the Minutes of the Special Area 1 Development Control Committee held on 28th February 2011 be agreed as correct records.

Minutes of the Area 2 Development Control Committee (22.03.11) Cont’d

9. ITEMS FOR DEFERRAL/WITHDRAWAL

RESOLVED that the undermentioned planning application BE DEFERRED for the reasons outlined below:

(Item 4) Application No. 2010/1602

Detached dwelling house with integral garage at land adjacent to 17 Bryncerdin Road, Newton.

Reason

To allow consideration of additional late information.

10. ITEMS DEFERRED FOR SITE VISITS

RESOLVED that the undermentioned planning applications BE DEFERRED for SITE VISITS for the reasons outlined below:

(Item 6) Application No. 2010/1900

Detached garage on front elevation with patio area above and associated alterations to boundary walls at 5 Clarendon Road, Sketty, Swansea.

Reason

To assess the visual impact upon the street scene.

(Item 7) Application No. 2011/0072

Variation of condition 3 of planning permission 2010/1318 granted 7th October, 2010 to allow for the windows, doors, fascias and soffits to be constructed of oak effect UPVC at Stoney Forge, Trumpet Lane, Knelston, Swansea.

Reason

To assess the impact of the development having regard to the character of the surrounding area.

Minutes of the Area 2 Development Control Committee (22.03.11) Cont’d

(Item 8) Application No. 2011/0112

Retention of use of land as residential curtilage, detached outbuilding and patio area at land adjacent to Long Meadow, Kennexstone, Llangennith, Swansea.

Reason

To assess the impact of the development upon the surrounding countryside.

(Item 10) Application No. 2011/0061

Rear conservatory at 12 Martell Street, Fforestfach, Swansea.

Reason

To assess the scale of the development and its impact on the site and surroundings.

(Item 13) Application No. 2011/0097

Retention and completion of single storey rear extension at 1 Bridge Road, Waunarlwydd, Swansea.

Reason

To assess the impact of the development on the residential amenity of the neighbouring occupier.

11. SCHEDULE OF PLANNING APPLICATIONS UNDER THE TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990

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

RESOLVED that:

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

Minutes of the Area 2 Development Control Committee (22.03.11) Cont’d

# (Item 1) Application No. 2010/1354

Detached dwelling and detached garage at land adjacent to Long Elms 118 Bishopston Road, Bishopston, Swansea.

(NOTE: Mr. Tribe addressed Committee on behalf of the objectors.

Mrs Griffiths (agent) addressed Committee on behalf of the applicant.

A visual presentation was given to Members.

# (Item 2) Application No. 2010/1432

Two storey rear extension incorporating a rear balcony at 10 Bishopston Road, Swansea.

(NOTE: Mr. Francis addressed Committee on behalf of the objectors.

A visual presentation was given to Members.

Amended/additional conditions as below:

• Condition 02 amended to read as follows:

02. Prior to the commencement of development details of the private screen to be erected on the south elevation of the balcony shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The privacy screen shall be minimum of 1.8m high and shall be erected prior to the use of the extension commencing and shall thereafter be retained as such:

Reason

In the interest of privacy protection.

Minutes of the Area 2 Development Control Committee (22.03.11) Cont’d

• Additional Condition 06:

06. Notwithstanding the plans hereby approved all of the rooflight windows in the proposed extension shall be positioned a minimum of 1.7 metres above the internal floor level of the proposed accommodation in the roof space.

Reason

In the interest of privacy protection.)

# (Item 9) Application No. 2010/1818

Two storey side extension and single storey rear extension at 15 Brown’s Drive, Southgate, Swansea.

(NOTE: A visual presentation was given to Members.

Typographical error reported on 4th line of 3rd paragraph of page 82 substitute the first overbearing with overshadowing.)

(Item 11) Application No. 2011/0118

Retention of use of buildings as artist's studio and holiday accommodation let at The Old Hay Parkmill Studios, Parkmill, Swansea.

(Item 12) Application 2011/0153

Siting of additional 7 no. touring caravan pitches at Gower Holiday Village, Monkland Road, Reynoldston, Swansea.

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

# (Item 3) Application No. 2010/1230

First floor side extension with two dormers and addition of porch and two balconies to south elevation at Upway Cottage, Port Eynon, Swansea.

Minutes of the Area 2 Development Control Committee (22.03.11) Cont’d

(NOTE: Mr. Duncan (applicant) addressed the Committee.

A visual presentation was given to Members.

Planning history 99/1094 deleted from report as this relates to the adjoining site.)

# (Item 5) Application No. 2010/1744

New front pedestrian and vehicular access at The Old Rectory, Port Eynon, Swansea.

(NOTE: A visual presentation was given to Members.)

The meeting ended at 4.04 p.m.

CHAIRMAN

S: Area 2 Development Control Committee - 22 March 2011 (GB/EJF) 18th March 2011

CITY AND COUNTY OF SWANSEA 1. BISHOPSTON DINAS A SIR ABERTAWE 5. COCKETT 7. DUVANT Report of the Head of Economic Regeneration 8. FAIRWOOD & Planning to the Chair and Members of the 9. GORSEINON Area 2 Development Control Committee 10. GOWER 11. GOWERTON 12. KILLAY NORTH DATE: 19TH APRIL 2011 13. KILLAY SOUTH 14. KINGSBRIDGE 29 18. LOWER LOUGHOR 20. MAYALS 9 27 23. NEWTON 35 18 24. OYSTERMOUTH 14 25. PENCLAWDD 27. PENLLERGAER 11 28. PENNARD 5 29. PENYRHEOL 25 32. SKETTY 35. UPPER LOUGHOR 7 8 12 36. WEST CROSS

13 32

20 10 36 28 1 23 24

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

CONTENTS

ITEM APP. NO. SITE LOCATION OFFICER REC.

1 2010/1900 5 Clarendon Road Sketty Swansea SA2 0SR REFUSE Detached garage on front elevation with patio area above and associated alterations to boundary walls

2 2010/1602 Land adjacent to 17 Bryncerdin Road Newton Swansea APPROVE Detached dwelling house with integral garage

3 2011/0072 Stoney Forge Trumpet Lane Knelston Swansea SA3 REFUSE 1AR Variation of condition 3 of planning permission 2010/1318 granted 7th October 2010 to allow for the windows, doors, fascias and soffits to be constructed of oak effect UPVC

4 2011/0097 1 Bridge Road Waunarlwydd Swansea SA5 4SP APPROVE Retention and completion of single storey rear extension

5 2011/0061 12 Martell Street Fforestfach Swansea SA5 8HX REFUSE Rear conservatory

6 2011/0112 Land adjacent to Long Meadow, Kennexstone, REFUSE Llangennith, Swansea, SA3 1HS Retention of use of land as residential curtilage, detached outbuilding and patio area

7 2011/0071 Unit 3 The Precinct Killay Swansea SA2 7BA APPROVE Change of use of ground floors from hairdressers (Class A1) to cafe (Class A3) and installation of new shop front

8 2010/0973 12 Westland Avenue West Cross Swansea SA3 5NP REFUSE Side roof extension

9 2010/1386 Seven Lights, Penmaen, Swansea, SA3 2HQ APPROVE Detached dwelling (outline)

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE- 19TH APRIL 2011

ITEM APP. NO. SITE LOCATION OFFICER REC.

10 2010/1787 434 Mumbles Road Mumbles Swansea SA3 4BY APPROVE Single storey rear extension and rear dormer

11 2010/1850 The Croft, 43 Langland Road Mumbles Swansea SA3 APPROVE 4LU Detached dwelling House 3 (details of siting, design and external appearance and landscaping pursuant to outline planning permission 2007/2053 granted 11th December 2007)

12 2010/1865 384 Middle Road Gendros Swansea SA5 8EN REFUSE Single storey rear extension, side and rear dormers

13 2011/0056 Dunraven Farm Reynoldston Swansea SA3 1HR REFUSE Retention of a caravan for an agricultural worker, and retention of associated residential curtilage

14 2011/0111 Compass Coffee Shop, Reynoldston, Swansea, SA3 APPROVE 1AN Change of use from coffee shop (Class A3) and first floor holiday flat (Class C3) to one detached holiday let (Class C3), front canopy, porch and two new accesses

15 2011/0281 Oaklea Llangennith Swansea SA3 1HU REFUSE Two storey rear extension with balcony and single storey side extension

16 2011/0318 40 Ffordd Taliesin, Killay, Swansea REFUSE Retention of incorporation of land into residential curtilage and 1.8m boundary fence

17 2010/1101 Land at Oxwich Bay Hotel, Oxwich, Swansea, SA3 1LS REFUSE Temporary siting of marquee and associated overspill car park from 1st November 2010 to 31st March 2011, 1st November 2011 to 31st March 2012 and 1st November 2012 to 31st March 2013

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE- 19TH APRIL 2011

ITEM APP. NO. SITE LOCATION OFFICER REC.

18 2010/1102 Land at Oxwich Bay Hotel, Oxwich, Swansea, SA3 1LS REFUSE Temporary siting of marquee, associated overspill car park and associated landscaping from 1st April 2011 to 31st October 2011, 1st April 2012 to 31st October 2012, 1st April 2013 to 31st October 2013 and 1st April 2014 to 31st October 2014

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE- 19TH APRIL 2011 AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 19TH APRIL 2011

ITEM 1 APPLICATION NO. 2010/1900 WARD: Sketty Area 2

Location: 5 Clarendon Road Sketty Swansea SA2 0SR Proposal: Detached garage on front elevation with patio area above and associated alterations to boundary walls Applicant: Mr Simon Packer

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

This application was DEFERRED FOR A SITE VISIT at the Area 2 Development Control Committee on 22nd March 2011 to assess the visual impact upon the streetscene.

POLICIES

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

SITE HISTORY

App No. Proposal 2010/1611 Detached garage on front elevation with patio area above, with associated alterations to boundary walls Decision: Refuse Decision Date: 06/12/2010

RESPONSE TO CONSULTATIONS

The neighbouring properties were consulted individually. NO letters of objection have been received.

Highways Observations – No highway objection subject to the construction of a vehicular crossing to Highway Authority specification and work commencing until engineering details including calculations of all retaining walls have been submitted and approved.

APPRAISAL

This application is reported to Committee for decision at the request of Councillor Paul Meara.

Full planning permission is sought for the construction of a detached front garage with patio and associated alterations to boundary walls. The dwelling may be characterised as a semi detached building located within an established residential area. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 19TH APRIL 2011

ITEM 1 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/1900

This application is submitted in attempt to overcome the reasons for refusal as issued on the 6th December 2010 in respect of application Ref: 2010/1611. In this respect the main elements are similar to the scheme previously considered with the significant difference being the introduction of an additional tier to the patio area in order that the height of the front elevation is reduced relative to that of the previous scheme.

The street scene in the main displays a uniform character with the majority of front boundary walls being constructed in period red brick finished to sphere pilasters atop of the gate posts. Two properties show a departure from this uniform appearance Nos. 7 & 8 Clarendon Road. These properties were given consent for front garages in the mid 1970’s.

The proposal currently before the Local Authority would see a similar form of development undertaken at No.5 Clarendon Road with a section of front boundary wall being demolished to provide access to an undercroft garage with a patio area above.

Issues The main issues for consideration with regard to this application relate to the impact of the proposal upon visual and residential amenities having regard to Policy EV1 of the City and County of Swansea and the Supplementary Planning Guidance document entitled A Design Guide for Householder Development. There are in this case considered to be no additional issues arising from the provisions of the Human Rights Act.

Visual Amenity It is considered that, whilst there have been attempts to address the concerns over design insofar as the patio area has been tiered to reduce the overall height of the front elevation the scale, design and external appearance of the proposed development still fails to respect the overriding character of the street scene and would have a detrimental impact upon the character of both the dwelling to which it relates and the wider area contrary to the provisions of Policy EV1 of the City and County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008.

As previously stated in respect of Application Ref:2010/1611 whilst it is acknowledged that there are two examples of similar development in the street scene these are considered to be the exception rather than the norm and as such they do not form a significant part of or contribute to the overriding character of this side of Clarendon Road. The two examples were approved in the 1970’s when matter of design had far less emphasis than currently. It is acknowledged that the opposite side of Clarendon Road displays a different character in so far as it is dominated by garages. This character is distinctly different from this stretch of Clarendon Road, where the red brick walls form a dominant feature.

It is therefore considered that the proposal would give rise to a deleterious impact in respect of the prevailing street scene and as such is contrary to the provisions of policy EV1.

Residential Amenity With regard to residential amenity, the distance and relationship of the existing surrounding properties is considered sufficient to safeguard residential amenity. It is not therefore considered, given the nature of the proposed works that the proposed development would introduce any unacceptable overlooking, overshadowing or overbearing impacts on the neighbouring properties. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 19TH APRIL 2011

ITEM 1 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/1900

Access & Highway Safety The Head of Transportation and Engineering raises no highway objection to the proposal subject to the provision of engineering details including calculations of all retaining works. Additional information in respect of the engineering operations has not been sought in view of the concerns about the streetscene impact.

In conclusion, having regard to all material considerations including the Human Rights Act, the proposal is considered to represent an unsatisfactory form of development which fails to comply with current development plan Policy EV1 of the City and County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008 and the Supplementary Planning Guidance document entitled A Design Guide for Householder Development and as such has an unacceptable impact on the character and visual amenities of the streetscene and area in which it is situated. Refusal is therefore recommended.

RECOMMENDATION

REFUSE, for the following reason:

1 By virtue of its scale, design and external appearance the proposed development fails to respect the overriding character of the street scene and would have a detrimental impact upon both the character of the dwelling and the wider area to which it relates contrary to the provisions of Policy EV1 of the City and County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008 and the Council's Household Extension Design Guide.

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: EV1, HC7

PLANS

Site location plan, block plan, CR/5/1A existing and proposed elevations, CR/5/2A existing and proposed floor plans, CR/5/3A section 1-1, CR/5/4A section 2-2, CR/5/5 garage floor plan received 23rd December 2010

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 19TH APRIL 2011

ITEM 2 APPLICATION NO. 2010/1602 WARD: Newton Area 2

Location: Land adjacent to 17 Bryncerdin Road Newton Swansea Proposal: Detached dwelling house with integral garage Applicant: Mr & Mrs J Evans

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

This application was DEFERRED to allow consideration of further information. My report has been updated to include additional information provided by the applicant and 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).

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

SITE HISTORY

App No. Proposal 84/0924/03 ERECTION OF DWELLING + GARAGE. Decision: *HGPC - GRANT PERMISSION CONDITIONAL Decision Date: 30/08/1984

RESPONSE TO CONSULTATION

The application was advertised on site and one neighbouring property consulted. FIVE LETTERS OF OBJECTION have been received, the comments of which are summarised as follows: AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 19TH APRIL 2011

ITEM 2 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/1602

1. The application would impact mostly upon No’s 1 and 2 Bryncerdin Road. 2. The scale of the proposal in its elevated position should be considered. 3. The applicants have not consulted neighbours. 4. Concerned about the position of the boundary fence. 5. Concerned about overlooking of existing property. 6. Proposal is not in-keeping with the existing property. Concerned about the scale and design of the proposal. 7. The area is already overdeveloped. 8. Concerned about the impact upon wildlife. 9. Concerned about the impact upon highway safety. 10. Concerned about the limited consultation exercise.

Mumbles Community Council – OBJECT for the following reasons:

1. Over intensification 2. Large building footprint 3. Out of keeping with existing houses 4. Concern regarding trees

Highway observations - This proposal is for a new dwelling in the side garden of 17 Bryncerdin Road, Newton. Access is proposed from Highpool Lane and adequate parking together with turning facilities will be provided within the site.

There is an existing access for the next door property and a number of drives opposite therefore the principle of direct access onto Highpool Lane is not considered to be an issue.

No highway objection subject to the construction of a vehicular crossing to Highway Authority Specification.

Note: The Developer must contact the Team Leader - Highways Management, City and County of Swansea (Highways), Players Industrial Estate, Clydach, Swansea. SA6 5BJ (Tel 01792 841601) before carrying out any work.

APPRAISAL

This application is reported to committee for decision at the request of Councillor Miles Thomas.

The site is a level area of grass currently used as front garden space associated with the host dwelling Highpool House. The site is located at the junction of Highpool Lane with Bryncerdin and is elevated above the adjacent carriageway by some 1200mm – 1500mm.

The surrounding area consists of a variety of suburban house types of varying styles, sizes and designs with a marked difference in character between the more traditional south-eastern area of Highpool Lane and beyond which includes the imposing Manor House and the north/north-western portion of Highpool Lane which includes more modern semi-detached properties with a more regimented, uniform appearance. The area is dominated by detached and semi-detached properties all constructed with active frontages addressing the carriageway. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 19TH APRIL 2011

ITEM 2 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/1602

Although the area, exhibits a leafy suburban character there is no prevailing characteristic or dominant house type or style to suggest a specific architectural response on this site. However, the shape, size and more importantly the visual prominence of the site and the need to safeguard the amenities of the host dwelling represent constraints to development at this location which require careful consideration.

The main issues for consideration in the determination of this application are whether the dwelling is acceptable having regard to visual and residential amenity, having regard to Policies EV1, EV2, HC2, and AS6 of the Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008. There are in this instance no matters arising for consideration under the provisions of the Human Rights Act.

In terms of impact upon visual amenity, the proposed dwelling will be sited centrally within the site and orientated in line with site boundaries and will enjoy a new frontage onto Highpool Lane. The design of the house is quite angular and gives the appearance of being made up of a number of components; principally single storey but also including two storey elements. Although much of the dwelling takes the form of a single storey dwelling two floors of accommodation are provided albeit much of the second floor is set within the roof void with the exception of the two storey element. The building to plot ratio is considered acceptable and comparable with other dwellings in the vicinity. The dwelling's public elevations are attractive and given that the plot occupies a corner location the design of the dwelling is such that an active frontage is introduced to both Highpool Lane and Bryncerdin Road. The front bank is to remain as a feature open plan edge to the site. Minor decorative planting is proposed to enhance the frontage but the bank effectively provides a suitable barrier between public and semi-private space. The side wall fronting Bryncerdin Road is to remain unaltered. It is noteworthy also that all existing trees on site are to remain. On the basis that the site frontage is to remain largely unaltered and given that the proposed dwelling has taken influence from the host dwelling in terms of scale and massing, it could be reasonably argued that the proposal is consistent with the established character of the immediate local context.

The proposed dwelling exhibits a contemporary quality yet seeks to mimic key styles of the nearby host dwelling in a subtle manner. The proposed use of materials also serves to compliment the host dwelling. Overall therefore the proposal is not considered to result in any significant loss of visual amenity or to be sufficiently detrimental to the character and appearance of the area to justify a recommendation of refusal.

Turning to matters of residential amenity, regard needs to be had principally to the adjacent host property Highpool House. The scale and siting of the dwelling is such that it is not considered to have an unacceptable physical or overbearing impact upon this dwelling. The ridge height of the proposed dwelling varies due to the design of the dwelling; however an average ridge height of 6.2m is proposed, which is similar to the 6m ridge height of the host property. Furthermore the majority of habitable room windows contained on the rear elevation are limited to ground floor and will be screened by the proposed 2m high solid boundary treatment. It is noted however that the rear elevation includes a two storey projection that includes a bedroom with an oriel window feature. Due to the angular design of the window the outlook therefrom is limited to oblique angles; the eastward facing panel would overlook Bryncerdin Road and a portion of the front garden of the host dwelling while the westward facing panel will be focussed towards south western corner of Highpool House, which is a single storey element and as such any view form the window will be of the roofplane. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 19TH APRIL 2011

ITEM 2 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/1602

It is considered that a dwelling of the size and design proposed would not unacceptably overwhelm the application plot or adjacent property. As such therefore, the proposal is not considered to unacceptably detract from the amenity of the adjacent site. Whilst the dwelling would be sited close to the boundary with No. 31 Highpool Lane the single storey nature at this boundary is such that it would not, it is considered, result in any adverse amenity impact on this property.

Turning now to the access arrangements, it is proposed to include a new access into the plot directly off Highpool Lane. The change in level from the highway up to the garden plateau is achieved with a sloping driveway at gradient of 1:9. Adequate parking together with turning facilities will be provided within the site. There is an existing access for the next door property and a number of drives opposite therefore the principle of direct access onto Highpool Lane is not considered to be an issue. Additionally it is noted that the driveway will be constructed with a permeable finish to allow moisture/nutrients to continue to travel to the trees that bound the site.

The Head of Transportation and Engineering raises no objection to the proposal subject to the construction of a vehicle crossover to highway authority specification, the application is therefore considered to be acceptable in highway safety terms.

The concerns raised by neighbours relate primarily to matters of visual and residential amenity, which have been addressed above. Further points raised relate to the applicant not consulting with neighbours prior to submitting the application, which is a matter of choice on the applicants’ part and not material to the consideration of this application. Finally concern is expressed over the loss of trees on site, however none of the tree on site are covered by preservation orders and consequently their removal is outside the control of the Local Planning Authority. Nevertheless as stated previously in the report the application does not propose the felling of any trees. Similarly there are not considered to be any harmful impact upon any nature conservation interests in the area.

In conclusion, therefore, it is considered that the proposal represents an appropriate form of residential development that would have a limited impact upon the visual and residential amenity of the area, and would not compromise or prejudice highway safety standards. The proposal is therefore in accordance with Policies EV1, EV2, AS6 and HC2 of the Swansea Unitary Development Plan and approval is therefore justified.

RECOMMENDATION

APPROVE, subject to the following conditions:

1 The development shall be commenced not later than the expiration of 5 years from the date of this planning 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 in writing by 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.

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 19TH APRIL 2011

ITEM 2 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/1602

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

3 Foul water and surface water discharges shall be drained separately from the site. Reason: To protect the integrity of the public sewerage system.

4 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. Reason: 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.

5 Land drainage run-off shall not be permitted to discharge wither directly or indirectly into the public sewerage system. Reason: To prevent hydraulic overload of the public sewerage system and pollution of the environment.

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

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

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

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 19TH APRIL 2011

ITEM 2 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/1602

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

10 Before the development hereby permitted is commenced, details of the levels of the building(s), road(s) and footpath(s) in relation to the adjoining land and highway(s) together with any changes proposed in the levels of the site shall be submitted to and agreed by the Local Planning Authority in writing. Reason: To ensure that the work is carried out at suitable levels in relation to the highway and adjoining land having regard to drainage, gradient of access, and the amenities of adjoining occupiers.

11 No development shall take place without the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority of a scheme for the landscaping of the site. The landscaping scheme shall be carried out within 12 months from the completion of the development. Any trees or shrubs planted in accordance with this condition which are removed, die, become seriously diseased within two years of planting shall be replaced by trees or shrubs of similar size and species to those originally required to be planted. Reason: To ensure that the site is satisfactorily landscaped having regard to its location and the nature of the proposed development, and to accord with Section 197 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

INFORMATIVES 1 The development plan covering the City and County of Swansea is the City and County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan. The following policies were relevant to the consideration of the application: Policies EV1, EV2, AS6 and HC2 of the Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008.

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 (Natural Habitats & c.) Regulations 1994. 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).

3 Birds may be present in the roof of this building 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. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 19TH APRIL 2011

ITEM 2 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/1602

4 The Developer must contact the Team Leader - Highways Management, City and County of Swansea (Highways), Players Industrial Estate, Clydach, Swansea SA6 5BJ (Tel 01792 841601) before carrying out any work.

5 To protect the integrity of the public sewer and avoid damage thereto the application site is crossed by a public sewer the position of which is marked on the Statutory Public Sewer Record. Under the Water Industry Act 1991 Dwr Cymru Welsh Water has rights of access to its apparatus at all times. No part of the building will be permitted within 3 meters either side of the centreline of the public sewer.

PLANS

AO1 Site and block plan, A02 ground floor plan, A03 1st floor plan, A04 roof plan, A05 front and left elevations, A06 rear and right elevations, A07 section received 19th October 2010. A08 Streetscape elevations received 22nd March 2011.

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 19TH APRIL 2011

ITEM 3 APPLICATION NO. 2011/0072 WARD: Gower Area 2

Location: Stoney Forge Trumpet Lane Knelston Swansea SA3 1AR Proposal: Variation of condition 3 of planning permission 2010/1318 granted 7th October 2010 to allow for the windows, doors, fascias and soffits to be constructed of oak effect UPVC Applicant: Mr Andrew Davies

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

The application was DEFERRED FOR A SITE VISIT to assess the impact of the development having regard to the character of the surrounding area. My recommendation of refusal remains unchanged.

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

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

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

SITE HISTORY App No. Proposal 2010/1318 Detached dwelling house and garage Decision: Grant Permission Conditional Decision Date: 07/10/2010

2007/1841 Continuation of use of premises for dairy purposes (Class B8) (application for a Certificate of Lawfulness) Decision: Is Lawful Decision Date: 18/10/2007

2006/0824 Retention of detached dwelling house and construction of detached double garage with first floor storage area (Amendment to planning permission 2003/1310 dated 3rd February 2005) (Willow Cottage) Decision: Grant Permission Conditional Decision Date: 25/10/2006

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 19TH APRIL 2011

ITEM 3 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0072

2003/1310 Construction of one detached dwelling house (Willow Cottage) Decision: Appeal Allowed Decision Date: 03/02/2005

2008/1673 Replacement of existing dairy with three dormer holiday cottages Decision: Grant Permission Conditional Decision Date: 18/12/2008

RESPONSE TO CONSULTATION

Neighbours: The application was advertised on site in the form of a site notice and all adjoining neighbouring properties were individually consulted. No letters of comment were received.

Highways: No highway objection.

APPRAISAL

This application is reported to Committee for decision at the request of Councillor Richard Lewis.

Description

An application has been submitted for the Variation of Condition No 3 of planning permission 2010/1318 granted on 7th October 2010 to allow for the windows, doors, fascias and soffits to be constructed of Oak effect UPVC at Stoney Forge, Trumpet Lane, Knelston.

Site History

In terms of the sites planning history planning permission was previously granted under Ref: 2008/1673 for the replacement of the existing dairy with three dormer holiday cottages. A subsequent application was submitted (Ref: 2010/1318) and granted for a detached dwelling house and as such the principle of the re-development of the site has clearly been established with the previous approvals.

Critically with both schemes it was considered crucial to the success of finished development to ensure the form of the finished building reflected a traditional cottage appearance that a condition was attached to the approvals requiring the use of timber windows, doors, soffits and fascias.

The current application is submitted to allow for the use of Oak effect UPVC materials similar to that used next door at Willow Cottage (Ref: 2006/0824).

Summary of Case for the Applicant

The applicant contends that Condition No3 is neither necessary, relevant or reasonable in accordance with Circular No. 11/95: The Use of Conditions in Planning Permission. In addition to this the applicant contends that there are no natural hardwood materials used along Trumpet Lane. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 19TH APRIL 2011

ITEM 3 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0072

The immediate adjacent property Willow Cottage (granted permission on appeal) has Oak effect UPVC windows, doors, soffits and fascias. The applicant maintains that the use of UPVC is an appropriate and respectful material to be used as it is considered to respect the setting into which it will be built.

The applicant contends that as there is no specific guidance on materials on Gower and as such suggests that the blanket use of timber has no relevance to any local vernacular on Gower. Gower has a mixed variety of building styles and use of materials. Therefore the applicant contends that the insistence of the use of timber on new dwellings is unreasonable with no real historical significance.

The salt laden exposure of the location requires a high level of maintenance of timber materials. In addition to this the supporting information suggests that the quality of UPVC windows these days makes it difficult to distinguish UPVC from natural oak.

Whilst not a material planning consideration there are cost implications with regard hard wood materials which are both expensive to construct and maintain.

Issues

Given that the principle of development, residential amenity and highway safety issues have previously been addressed with the previous approval (Ref: 2010/1318), the main issues for consideration in the determination of this application relate to the impact of the proposed variation of condition upon the visual amenities of the surrounding area, the integrity of the finished dwelling and the wider Gower AONB having regard for the site history and the provisions of the Swansea Unitary Development Plan (UDP). There are in this instance no additional overriding issues for consideration under the provisions of the Human Rights Act.

The Council wishes to foster high standards of design in all new development, and this is reinforced by Planning Policy Wales 2010, which states that “The visual appearance of proposed development, its scale and its relationship to its surroundings and context are material planning considerations. Local planning authorities should reject poor building and contextual designs”. It goes on to state that within AONBs, the primary objective of this designation is the preservation of the natural beauty of this area, and development control decisions affecting the AONB should respect this by considering the importance of traditional and local distinctiveness. Furthermore the use of appropriate building materials is highlighted as being of particular importance in areas recognised for their landscape, townscape or historic value, such as Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty. Therefore new development needs to respect, and enhance where possible, the environment through location, scale, and design. In addition Technical Advice Note (Wales) 12: Design, 2009, emphasises that design should improve the character and quality of locations.

This is amplified by Policy EV1, which require that the design of new development proposals should respect and be sympathetic to the character and amenity of the site and its immediate surroundings, and protect the amenity currently enjoyed by neighbouring residents.

It should be noted that the use of timber materials was specifically mentioned in the report for the dwelling as being intrinsic to the finished scheme and its traditional nature and was therefore considered relevant, reasonable and necessary to be conditioned accordingly. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 19TH APRIL 2011

ITEM 3 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0072

As such the use of high quality traditional materials for this prominent new development was a fundamental requirement of the original application for houses of traditional design and it is not considered that the use of UPVC complies with this requirement. UPVC windows tend to lack the refinement and slenderness of traditional timber windows.

It must also be acknowledged that as previously indicated, the use of this condition was also explicit within the planning permission for three dormer holiday cottages on this site. In that instance the applicant submitted details for timber windows and accepted the significance of this requirement.

It is recognised that there are many examples of UPVC in the immediate vicinity, but in most cases, the use of this material was outside of the control of the Local Planning Authority. It is clear that the use of this material within the area actually re-inforces the need to drive up standards in the area and ensure more appropriate traditional materials are used whenever possible and where planning control exists. It is appreciated that the dwelling on the adjacent site that was first allowed on appeal in 2005 has utilised UPVC windows. However, when it was allowed, the use of materials was a condition of the consent. A further application for the retention and completion of the dwelling was submitted as it had not been built in accordance with the approved plans and was subsequently approved, albeit with the use of UPVC windows. Whilst this is regretful, it should not, nevertheless, set the standard for this application, which itself was approved on the basis of its individual high design quality.

Conclusion

In conclusion, therefore, and having regard to the foregoing, it is considered that the use of UPVC is a retrograde step which fails to conserve and enhance the character and appearance of the Gower AONB contrary to Policies EV1, EV16 and EV26 of the Unitary Development Plan 2008 and refusal is recommended.

RECOMMENDATION

REFUSE, for the following reason:

1 The of oak effect UPVC windows, doors, facias and soffits would undermine the traditional integrity of the approved dwelling and would therefore fail to conserve or enhance the character and appearance of the area and wider Gower AONB at this location contrary to the requirements of Policies EV1, EV16 and EV26 of the Unitary Development Plan 2008.

PLANS Design & access statement, supplementary statement, site location plan received 26th January 2011

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 19TH APRIL 2011

ITEM 4 APPLICATION NO. 2011/0097 WARD: Cockett Area 2

Location: 1 Bridge Road Waunarlwydd Swansea SA5 4SP Proposal: Retention and completion of single storey rear extension Applicant: Mr Julian Hillman

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

This application was DEFERRED FOR A SITE VISIT at the Area 2 Development Control Committee held on the 22nd March 2011 to assess the impact of the development on the residential amenity of the neighbouring occupier.

The report has been updated to include ONE FURTHER LETTER OF OBJECTION from an existing objector.

POLICIES

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

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

SITE HISTORY

App No. Proposal 2010/1779 Rear conservatory Decision: Withdrawn Decision Date: 25/02/2011

RESPONSE TO CONSULTATIONS

One neighbouring property has been consulted on the application; TWO LETTERS OF OBJECTION have been received from the same neighbouring property, which are summarised as follows:-

1. The extension blocks out all natural sunlight from entering the kitchen. All you can see from the kitchen window is an 8ft fence, then the extension wall which is over 12ft. The neighbour cannot see anything but the fence and wall from their kitchen window, so they have to use lights all the time, including during the daytime in the kitchen, at the neighbour’s own expense.

2. This is all considered to be totally unacceptable and the neighbour believes they would never have bought the property if that was all they could see from the kitchen window. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 19TH APRIL 2011

ITEM 4 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0097

3. It will be considered to put off prospective buyers and devalues the neighbour’s property.

4. Neighbour highlights that when she purchased her house at No. 2 Bridge Road the boundary fence was only 3 to 4 ft. tall (therefore approximately max. 122cm). However, by the time she moved in the fence had been changed to 199cm tall.

5. Neighbour states that this fence blocked light out of her study room (measured ground to top of window is 160cm), thus the fence is 39cm higher. Also highlighted that the kitchen window from ground to top of window is 225cm, thus the fence left only 26cm of light.

6. First complaint made to planning after the further changes/renovations were made to No. 1 Bridge Road, including patio doors leading out from upstairs window onto a balcony which resulted in complete invasion of privacy of adjacent property.

7. Further neighbour concerns raised after the wall of the new extension went up in summer of 2010, which has been measured by neighbour as 257cm at its lowest and 274cm at its highest. The wall is sited only 145cm from the neighbour’s kitchen window, is considerably close so clearly blocks out light.

8. Neighbour doesn’t open blinds to the kitchen window now since all she has to see through is this hideous wall and fence which is totally unacceptable.

9. Concerns raised regarding neighbour rights to have natural light, not switch lights on in kitchen and the rights to have privacy in her bedroom and kitchen.

10. Concerns that the effects on neighbouring property should be fully addressed through proper site visit, including taking photographs, measurements and viewing from both properties.

11. Neighbour request that the scheme should be re-evaluated to take into account issues of loss of light, privacy, and appearance of the development.

12. Also concerns that the balcony at No. 1 Bridge Road remains and this hasn’t been properly considered.

13. The extension will clearly raise the price of No. 1 Bridge Road whilst devaluing the neighbour’s property at No. 2 Bridge Road.

Geraint Davies MP – letter of concern received which is summarised as follows:-

1. After a short break away from the house, Mr and Mrs Raiessi returned to their house to find the neighbour had built an extension on their house, without planning permission.

2. This extension blocks light from the kitchen and the study, which Mrs Raiessi considers reduces the value of her house.

3. Mrs Raiessi has concerns that this is adding to stress in her living conditions and she has had to leave her job. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 19TH APRIL 2011

ITEM 4 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0097

APPRAISAL

This application is reported to Committee for decision at the request of Councillors James Kelleher and Keith Morgan.

Full planning permission is sought for the retention and completion of a single storey rear extension at No.1 Bridge Road. The property forms part of a pair of semi-detached properties located in a relatively isolated position situated along the road that leads to the ALCOA site in Waunarlwydd. The extension has already been partly erected and the plans indicate that it has a maximum height of approximately 2.8m and an eaves height of 2.4m, and projects approximately 2.4m from the main back wall of the dwelling with its northern boundary wall closely abutting the fence and common boundary with the neighbouring property at No. 2 Bridge Road.

The main issues for consideration with regard to this application relate to the impact of the proposal upon the residential amenities of the neighbouring occupiers and the visual amenities of the surrounding area, having regard to Policies EV1 and HC7 of the Unitary Development Plan and the Supplementary Planning Guidance document entitled ‘A Design Guide for Householder Development’. There are in this case considered to be no additional issues arising from the provisions of the Human Rights Act.

In terms of visual amenity, the scale and design of the extension is considered to be modest and in keeping with the character and appearance of the host dwelling. In addition, the extension is sited to the rear of the house, where it is not highly visible from the front highway of Bridge Road, and as such will have no adverse impact on the visual amenities of the surrounding area.

However further consideration has been given to the visual and physical impact, including overshadowing and overbearing, on the residential amenities of the immediate neighbouring occupiers of No. 2 Bridge Road. Neighbour concerns have been raised in response to public consultation that the extension as built blocks out sunlight entering the kitchen, and as a result they have to use their lights at all times. A letter of concern reiterating these neighbour concerns has also been received from the local MP. In this latter respect, the main issue raised is whether the extension deprives these habitable rooms of their principal daylight and sunlight.

As described above, the extension is sited closely abutting the common boundary fence with the neighbouring property, and it is noted from the plans submitted, and confirmed by the case officer’s visit that the extension is sited approximately 1.6m from the side window serving the kitchen to the neighbouring property. This is the only window serving this habitable room. In addition consideration has been given to the impact of the extension on the rear facing window serving the study of the neighbouring house, which is also considered a habitable room.

Whilst the new extension is sited to the immediate south of the neighbour’s kitchen window, it is noted that the highest point of the roof (2.8m maximum height) is only 0.8m higher than the fence that can be lawfully erected along this boundary. It is also noted that extension complies with the Council’s Household Extension Design Guide (para. 2.11) which advises that single storey extensions to the semi detached properties ‘should not exceed 3.5m in length externally, where the extension is built on a shared boundary. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 19TH APRIL 2011

ITEM 4 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0097

This allows for the construction of a reasonable sized extension without unacceptably impacting on the amenity of a neighbouring property. Furthermore, in terms of the impact on the amount of sunlight received by the kitchen of the neighbouring property, the extension if anything will only potentially have an affect for a relatively small period of time during the early to late afternoon. On this basis, it is not considered that the impact upon the residential amenities of this neighbouring property through loss of sunlight and daylight in this particular case is sufficient to warrant refusal of the extension.

Similarly, with regard to the impact on the neighbour’s study, this is already in shade for a large part of the day because of its rear facing location (facing west) and the overshadowing effect of the built form of the two existing houses and their common boundary fence. As such whilst the 45 degree rule is breached, as described above the extension meets the requirements of the Council’s Household Design Guide for a single storey extension (up to 3.5m), and again it is not considered that there are, in this instance, any overriding reasons to depart from this guidance given the single storey nature and scale of the scheme.

In terms of overlooking, there are considered to be no issues with regard to impact on the privacy of the adjoining property given there are no windows within the side of the extension or facing this property.

In conclusion, taking the above issues into consideration and on balance, it is not considered that the extension has an unacceptable impact on the residential amenities of No.2 Bridge Road and as such the proposal is considered to comply with Policies EV1 and HC7 of the Unitary Development Plan.

In terms of the concerns raised, the impact on visual and residential amenity is addressed above in the main body of the report, making specific reference to the impact on the adjoining property’s kitchen and study windows. Furthermore, overshadowing and loss of light was part of this assessment. The devaluation of the property and the issues regarding the future sale of the neighbouring property are not considered to be material planning considerations, however, it is stressed that the impact on the residential amenities of the neighbouring property has been fully taken into consideration during the determination of this application. With regard to the concerns of a possible balcony, this does not form part of the application and for the avoidance of doubt a suitable condition has been attached ensuring the roof of the extension is not utilised as a viewing/amenity platform. In relation to a further site visit being undertaken, it is considered that the site visits to the neighbouring property and the application property were satisfactory, and a Committee Site Visit has also been undertaken.

In conclusion, therefore, the extension is considered to be an appropriate form of development that would not have any significant adverse visual impact upon the character and appearance of the host dwelling or the streetscene and on balance, would not have such a harmful impact upon the residential amenities of neighbouring occupiers sufficient to warrant refusal of permission. Therefore, the proposal is considered to comply with Policies EV1 and HC7 of the City and County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan and the Design Guide for Householder Development.

RECOMMENDATION

APPROVE, subject to the following conditions: AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 19TH APRIL 2011

ITEM 4 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0097

1 The development 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 in writing by 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 The roof of the single storey rear extension shall not be used as a roof terrace, roof garden or amenity area unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To protect the privacy of the occupiers of neighbouring properties.

INFORMATIVES

PLANS

Site location plan, Existing and proposed elevations, part floor plan : Received 20th January 2011. Additional block plan received 31st January 2011.

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 19TH APRIL 2011

ITEM 5 APPLICATION NO. 2011/0061 WARD: Cockett Area 2

Location: 12 Martell Street Fforestfach Swansea SA5 8HX Proposal: Rear conservatory Applicant: Mr & Mrs Cadmore

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

POLICIES

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

SITE HISTORY

App No. Proposal 91/1227 SINGLE STOREY SIDE EXTENSION (CAR PORT), TWO STOREY SIDE AND REAR EXTENSION, AND SINGLE STOREY REAR EXTENSION Decision: *HGPC - GRANT PERMISSION CONDITIONAL Decision Date: 19/12/1991

2010/1491 Rear conservatory Decision: Refuse Decision Date: 15/11/2010

RESPONSE TO CONSULTATIONS

Six neighbouring properties have been consulted on the application; ONE LETTER OF SUPPORT and a PETITION OF SUPPORT have been received, which are outlined below.

1. Whilst it is appreciated that there are concerns about protecting amenity space, I am sure it is agreed that this is frequently a subjective matter dependent on the local circumstances and wishes of the applicant.

2. A location plan of the development approved by Council in Clos Aneira just off Cwmbach Road is attached as an example; this is provided to illustrate the limited amount of amenity space permitted. It is noted that this was accepted on balance in order to permit development on this particular site. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 19TH APRIL 2011

ITEM 5 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0061

3. Reference is also made to the intentions of the Westminster government who encourage more discretion to planners in applying sometimes onerous regulations. An extract is enclosed which contains comments of the Minister as to how these have marginalised planners as agents of imposition in the eyes of local communities.

4. With regard to the conservatory, it is considered that the revised scheme on balance is satisfactory and a permission would save the time and trouble of an appeal.

Petition of Support with 12 signatures – I/We confirm that I/We have no objection to Mr & Mrs Cadmore’s plans to extend the rear of their property with a conservatory, at: 12 Martell Street, Fforestfach, Swansea.

APPRAISAL

This application is reported to Committee for decision at the request of Councillor Nicola Holley.

Full planning permission is sought for a rear conservatory at No.12 Martell Street, Fforestfach. The property is located in an established residential area and forms part of a pair of semi-detached properties. An application for a rear conservatory was previously refused consent in November 2010 (Ref: 2010/1491) for the following reasons:

1. The proposed rear conservatory, by virtue of its excessive projection beyond the main rear elevation of the dwelling would have an unacceptable overbearing and overshadowing impact which would be detrimental to the residential amenities of the occupiers of No. 11 Martell Street, contrary to the requirements of the Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance ‘Design Guide for Householder Development’ and Policies EV1 and HC7 of the Unitary Development Plan (2008). 2. The proposed development, by virtue of its scale when combined with the existing extensions would dominate the plot upon which it is sited and result in an overdevelopment of the site leaving an insufficient amount of amenity space remaining for the occupier of the dwelling detrimental to the amenity of its occupiers, contrary to Policies EV1 and HC7 of the City & County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan (2008) and the Household Extension Design Guide.

The current proposal will incorporate an eaves height of 2.4m and a ridge height of 3.2m and has been reduced in depth by 1 metre to 4 metres.

The main issues for consideration with regard to this application relate to the impact of the proposal upon visual and residential amenities having regard to Policies EV1 and HC7 of the Unitary Development Plan and the Supplementary Planning Guidance document entitled A Design Guide for Householder Development. There are in this case considered to be no additional issues arising from the provisions of the Human Rights Act.

In terms of its visual amenity, the proposed conservatory is considered to be in keeping with the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the surrounding area due to its sympathetic scale, siting and design. The conservatory will be located to the rear of the property and as such will not be visible from the public highway of Martell Street. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 19TH APRIL 2011

ITEM 5 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0061

In terms of impact on residential amenity, the conservatory would breach the 45 degree code as specified within the Design Guide for Householder Development as it affects the neighbouring residential property of No.11 Martell Street. Whilst this will be less of a breach than occurred with the previous proposal (2010/1491) due to the reduction in length by 1m, this still does not overcome the fundamental reasons for the previous refusal. Whilst incorporating a relatively low eaves height, the conservatory is still considered to be unacceptable by virtue of its excessive projection beyond the main rear elevation of the dwelling. This will result in an unacceptable overbearing and overshadowing impact which would be detrimental to the residential amenities of the occupiers of No.11 Martell Street.

In addition, the conservatory is still considered to result in the loss of residential amenity space associated with the host property, therefore, dominating the plot upon which it is sited. The reduction in the length of the conservatory by 1m is still not considered to leave a sufficient amount of amenity space. Existing extensive extensions already cover part of the site and therefore, the proposal on top of these previous extensions would be considered to cover a high percentage of the property’s usable amenity space, leaving an insufficient amount of amenity space remaining, and will result in overdevelopment of the plot area available.

In terms of overlooking, there is considered to be no detrimental viewing from the proposal given the sympathetic position of fenestration within the proposals.

The issues raised within the letter of support include reference to another example and concern that the revised proposal is acceptable in terms of the provision of amenity space. Whilst it maybe that other sites include a minimal amount of amenity space, the Authority needs to look at each site in terms of its own merits and particular circumstance. As stated within the report the revised scheme is not considered acceptable in this instance and together with previous extensions on this property will result in overdevelopment and insufficient amenity space.

In conclusion, therefore, the proposal is considered to be an inappropriate form of development that whilst not having any significant adverse visual impact upon the character and appearance of the host dwelling or the streetscene, would, however, impact upon the residential amenities of the neighbouring occupier, and will result in insufficient amenity space due to over development of the plot area. The proposal therefore fails to comply with Policies EV1 and HC7 of the City and County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan and the Design Guide for Householder Development.

RECOMMENDATION

REFUSE, for the following reasons:

1 The proposed rear conservatory, by virtue of its excessive projection beyond the main rear elevation of the dwelling would have an unacceptable overbearing and overshadowing impact which would be detrimental to the residential amenities of the occupiers of No. 11 Martell Street, contrary to the requirements of the Council's Supplementary Planning Guidance `Design Guide for Householder Development' and Policies EV1 and HC7 of the Unitary Development Plan (2008).

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 19TH APRIL 2011

ITEM 5 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0061

2 The proposed development, by virtue of its scale when combined with the existing extensions would dominate the plot upon which it is sited and result in an overdevelopment of the site leaving an insufficient amount of amenity space remaining, for the occupier of the dwelling detrimental to the amenity of its occupiers, contrary to Policies EV1 and HC7 of the City and County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan (2008) and the Household Extension Design Guide.

INFORMATIVES

PLANS

Site location plan, block plan, existing plans, proposed plans received 14th January 2011

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 19TH APRIL 2011

ITEM 6 APPLICATION NO. 2011/0112 WARD: Gower Area 2

Location: Land adjacent to Long Meadow, Kennexstone, Llangennith, Swansea, SA3 1HS Proposal: Retention of use of land as residential curtilage, detached outbuilding and patio area Applicant: Mr & Mrs D Rogers

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

POLICIES

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

Policy EC13 Development that would result in the loss of the best and most versatile agricultural land will not normally be permitted. (City & County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008)

SITE HISTORY

App No. Proposal 2009/0036 Single storey side extension Decision: Grant Permission Conditional Decision Date: 26/02/2009

88/1684/03 DWELLING HOUSE. Decision: *HPS106 - PERMISSION SUBJ - S106 AGREEM. Decision Date: 13/03/1990

RESPONSE TO CONSULTATIONS

The application was advertised on site as a Departure to the Development Plan. No response.

The Gower Society – comment as follows: AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 19TH APRIL 2011

ITEM 6 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0112

1. We note from our aerial surveys that the western boundary hedge was in place in March 2008 and the field adjacent to the property clearly agricultural. 2. In June 2009 the hedge could be seen to have been removed and a substantial part of the field enclosed into Long Meadow boundary as well as a concrete base constructed. 3. In our August 2010 survey the drive has been constructed, a patio built, a shed erected and the extension completed.

The applicants statement and claims is confusing (to us) and all we can state is that what appeared to be agricultural land has been taken into Long Meadow boundary and used for domestic purposes. We are not mindful to object but ask that you look at aerial photographs and make the appropriate professional decision.

Llangennith, Llanmadoc & Cheriton Community Council – OBJECTS on grounds that the original house was built for the farmer’s son in order for agriculture to continue. More recently an extension was added. At that time the entrance was to be shared with the existing drive. However, it appears that there are now two families in the house and they are gradually separating the two parts of the building which means in the long term there may be two houses. Moreover, the area which has recently been incorporated into the garden area was good quality farmland which is to be preserved on Gower. The drawings are inaccurate and do not show a large wooden she in the area. The area has been used as farming land for 50 years and the entrance should remain on the old driveway.

Highway Observations - Visibility at the altered access is acceptable and I recommend that no highway objections are raised.

APPRAISAL

This application is reported to Committee for decision at the request of Councillor Richard Lewis.

Full planning permission is sought to retain a parcel of land measuring 20m in width by 50m in depth adjoining Long Meadow, Kennexstone, Llangennith as residential curtilage with the associated retention of a detached outbuilding, a raised patio area and a tarmacadam roadway.

The main issues to be considered are the impact of the development on the character and appearance of the countryside and the visual amenities of the surrounding AONB having regard to the prevailing development plan policies.

Policy EV22 states that the countryside should be protected for its own sake whereby Policy EV26 refers specifically to the AONB and states that the primary objective within it is the conservation and enhancement of the area’s natural beauty and that should be protected from inappropriate development. In addition Policy EC13 states that development that results in the loss of the best and most versatile agricultural land will not normally be permitted. This is reinforced by the national planning policy guidance provided by Planning Policy Wales (July 2010) which makes it clear that the open countryside must be protected from inappropriate development and agricultural land of Grades 1, 2, 3a, and 3b should be conserved as a finite resource for the future and its loss should be minimised. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 19TH APRIL 2011

ITEM 6 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0112

The land that has been incorporated into the residential curtilage of Long Meadow is part of an agricultural field which lies to the south west of Kennexstone Farm Caravan and Camping Park. The applicant removed the previous field boundary and planted another within the field to create the new residential boundary. A tarmacadam driveway has been laid from the new access created into this parcel of land, an outbuilding/shed has been constructed on the site and the existing dwelling has been extended by the addition of a raised patio area. One of the objectives of the Unitary Development Plan 2008 is to protect the countryside from development that would cause material harm and to protect and enhance the valued natural heritage. It is considered that the works undertaken create an unacceptable urbanising form of development within this protected countryside location which is unjustified and which fails to either conserve or enhance the visual amenities and natural beauty of the Gower AONB. In addition, approval of this application would set an undesirable precedent for development of a similar nature, the cumulative effect of which would have an unacceptable and significant impact upon the visual qualities of the Gower AONB.

The applicant’s agent maintains in the Design and Access Statement that the land has been thus used for over 5 years with no objection and that the use of the land as residential curtilage would not prejudice the viability of the agricultural unit. However, photographic evidence from a previous application approved in February 2009 – 2009/0036 refers, shows the original residential boundary in place at this time. In addition, the current application has been submitted after investigation by the Enforcement Team following a complaint received. Irrespective of this, it remains that capturing of agricultural land for incorporation into residential curtilage within the AONB is not acceptable and is considered an urbanising form of development having a harmful impact upon the visual qualities of the AONB. This is further exacerbated by the use of unsympathetic material for the driveway i.e. tarmacadam and the siting of a large and conspicuous building within the land itself. The applicant’s agent also states that parcel of land the subject of this application was always intended to be used as residential curtilage for the dwelling granted planning permission in March 1990 – 2/1/88/1684/03 refers. However, whilst no curtilage was ever agreed when that permission was granted it is clear that a much smaller area than currently proposed was long established, being enclosed by hedgerows, which was entirely acceptable at this location. It is also clear that the same established curtilage was in existence and being utilised as such when the 2009 application was determined. He continues that this land was included in the building regulations application in 1990 and is shown on a Welsh Water plan of the same year. Neither of these facts or the fact that the parcel of land is owned by the applicant gives automatic rights for it to be used as residential curtilage of this dwelling in the open countryside without the express grant of planning permission and without special justification.

In conclusion therefore the retention of the land as residential curtilage is considered an urbanising form of development, unacceptable at this location, which fails to conserve or enhance the visual qualities of the AONB and undermines the aims and objectives of established countryside protection policies contrary to Policies EV22, EV26 and EC13 of the Unitary Development Plan 2008 and refusal is recommended.

RECOMMENDATION

REFUSE, for the following reasons: AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 19TH APRIL 2011

ITEM 6 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0112

1 The use of the land as residential curtilage and the associated works is considered an unacceptable and unjustified form of urbanising development at this open countryside location, which prejudices the use of part of the adjoining agricultural, detrimental to the character and appearance of the countryside and Gower AONB, contrary to the requirements of Policies EV22, EV26 and EC13 of the Unitary Development Plan 2008.

2 The approval of this application would set an undesirable precedent for future developments of a similar nature, the cumulative effect of which would result in the significant erosion of the visual qualities and the character and appearance of the countryside and Gower AONB, contrary to Policies EV22 and EV26 of the Unitary Development Plan 2008.

INFORMATIVES

PLANS

Site location plan, block plan, design and access statement received 21st January 2011

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 19TH APRIL 2011

ITEM 7 APPLICATION NO. 2011/0071 WARD: Killay South Area 2

Location: Unit 3 The Precinct Killay Swansea SA2 7BA Proposal: Change of use of ground floors from hairdressers (Class A1) to cafe (Class A3) and installation of new shop front Applicant: Ms Emma Kamio

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

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 ECNR Proposals for non retail uses at ground floor level within shopping centres will be assessed against defined criteria, including their relationship to other existing or approved non retail uses; their effect upon the primary retail function of the centre; the proposed shop front and window display; the time the unit has been marketed for A1 uses, and its likelihood of continuing to be vacant; its location in relation to the primary shopping area; and its impact upon the vitality, viability and attractiveness of the centre. (City & County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008)

Policy EC5 Development within designated district centres will be encouraged where it is of a type and scale that maintains or improves the range and quality of shopping facilities and meets other specified criteria. (City & County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008)

SITE HISTORY

App No. Proposal 2010/1903 Change of use of ground and first floors from a hairdressers (Class A1) to cafe/restaurant (Class A3) Decision: Withdrawn Decision Date: 20/01/2011

2003/1079 One non - illuminated high level double sided directional sign Decision: Withdrawn Decision Date: 12/03/2008

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 19TH APRIL 2011

ITEM 7 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0071

2003/1090 Retention of one internally illuminated box sign on front elevation and one non-illuminated letter sign and one non-illuminated projecting sign on rear elevation Decision: Grant Advertisement Consent (C) Decision Date: 28/08/2003

2003/1045 Retention of shop front, single storey rear extension with roof mounted refrigeration plant, external alterations, trolley and cage storage bays and proposed screen wall enclosure to the refrigeration plant. Decision: Grant Permission Conditional Decision Date: 05/01/2006

RESPONSE TO CONSULTATION

ORIGINAL SCHEME (Change of use of ground floor and first floors from hairdressers to café/restaurant and installation of new shop front.)

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

1. We are already well provided with places to buy and eat food so another restaurant is not needed. 2. If this application is granted it will leave the door open for further changes of use if shops become vacant. 3. If the business does not succeed as a café then it will become another takeaway. 4. Its immediate neighbour has been refused planning permission for a similar use back in 2009 and there is very little difference in both applications. 5. The change of use to A3 will exclude the opportunity of complementary retail and prevent the Village to further its diversity and convenience. 6. The internal layout is congested and the disabled toilet facilities are situated at the rear of the premises with only a one metre door and wheelchair users will be unable to enter the proposed toilet. 7. The facilities provided for staff are sub standard. 8. Adequate natural and conditioned air will be required to maintain the welfare of occupants. 9. Any ventilation will cause nuisance to the surrounding domestic properties. 10. The above premises will attract loiterers due to the seating and the excessive opening hours and will result in noise and nuisance from people. 11. The proposal will create increased traffic problems and the privacy and peaceful enjoyment of property owners land will be lost.

Killay Community Council – Objects as follows:

1. The village of Killay is well catered for with three licensed premises in nearby proximity all serving non- alcoholic beverages and food all day and evenings. It also has an Indian restaurant/takeaway, Chinese takeaway and fish and chip shop together with two bakeries serving hot food and drinks during the day. We therefore think this is adequate for the size of the village. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 19TH APRIL 2011

ITEM 7 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0071

2. The most important issue in this application is the fact that Killay precinct is a designated core shopping centre whereby there shall be a presumption against the introduction of non retail uses outside those covered by Class A1 at ground floor level and should not be considered if they adversely affect the vitality and character of the area. The proposal also conflicts with Policy B2 of the Local plan by virtue of loss of amenity. 3. In the past a restaurant takeaway was refused on the ground floor of unit 4, also an off-licence, betting shop and financial services refused in other units thereby to allow this change of use would set an undesirable precedent more so should other units in the area become vacant. 4. The applicant claims to have approached Killay Community Council which is completely untrue as we only received the plans two and a half weeks ago and was only discussed recently by the Council hence the lateness of the letter.

AMENDED SCHEME (Change of use of ground floor from hairdressers to café and installation of new shop front)

The application was advertised on site and seven individual properties were consulted. 23 LETTERS OF SUPPORT AND A PETITION OF SUPPORT with 322 signatures have been received, which are summarised as follows:

1. We think Killay would benefit from this facility and it lacks a communal meeting place and large sections of the community do not want to visit licensed premises. 2. We have often wondered why such a facility does not exist in the village. 3. The addition of a café to the precinct will enhance the shopping experience and be of benefit to the trading community. 4. A welcome addition to the precinct. 5. It’s a wonderful opportunity to bring life and re-generate the centre of our village. 6. Many parents will welcome a child friendly café. 7. Killay is the nearest shopping centre to Gower and would attract a lot of trade to the other outlets there.

Killay Community Council – Original objection still stands.

APPRAISAL

This application is reported to Committee for decision at the request of Councillor Jeff Jones.

Full planning permission is sought for a change of use of the ground floor of an existing hairdresser’s (Class A1) to a café with the addition of a new shop front at unit 3, The Precinct, Killay.

The main issues to be considered are the impact of this proposed use within the shopping centre and the vitality and viability of the area having regard to the Policies of the prevailing Development Plan. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 19TH APRIL 2011

ITEM 7 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0071

Policy EV1 refers to development complying with the criteria of good design, Policy EV2 (xi) states that development must integrate with existing community facilities and Policy ECNR refers to ground floor non-retail uses within shopping centres must have regards to the relationship of the proposal to other existing or approved non-retail uses within the centre, the affect on the primary retail function of the centre, the nature of the shop front and window display, whether and for what period of time the premises have been genuinely marketed for retail uses, the likelihood the unit remaining vacant for a significant periods of time, the location of the site and the overall impact upon the vitality and viability of the centre. Policy EV5 states that developments that improve the range of shopping facilities within designated shopping centres will be encouraged.

The originally submitted application was for the change of use of both floors to a café/ restaurant with opening times from 7.30am to 11pm Monday to Friday and opening on Saturday from 7.30am to 2pm. However, after discussions with the Local Planning Authority, the proposal has been amended to the use of the ground floor only to a café with opening hours from 7.30am to 6pm Monday to Saturday and not at all on Sundays.

The proposed use would be sited between two existing retail units thus not contributing to the proliferation of non-retail uses at this particular location. In addition, the District Centres SPG states that at least 50% of frontages within district centres should be A1 and this number would not be compromised by the change to a restricted A3 use at this location.

Whilst it is recognised that no details of the premises having been actively marketed for retail use have been submitted, it is considered that a facility of this nature is appropriate for a shopping centre where no comparable facility of this nature exists. There are opportunities within the Precinct to buy food e.g. The Village Inn and two tables outside the bakery on Gower Road, but there is no other café per se.

It is acknowledged that planning permission was refused at the next door premises (Unit 4) in June 2009 for a restaurant and takeaway due to the adverse impact upon the vitality and viability of the Killay District Centre. It is considered that the use of the current premises, being flanked by existing retail uses as a café only and not as a restaurant/takeaway as originally proposed is entirely different and given that the hours of use would be restricted to daytime hours 7.30am to 6.30pm Monday to Saturday, as apposed to 12pm to 11pm proposed for Unit 4, it is considered that such a sue and activity would encourage rather than deter footfall in the District Centre, during its busiest times of the day as well as compliment the surrounding uses.

In visual terms the proposed new shop front would not detract from the character and appearance of the shopping centre and is considered an improvement to that in situ. With regards to residential amenity, it is not considered that the opening hours or its use as a café only would unduly impact upon the residential amenities of surrounding properties by virtue of noise, smell or disturbance.

The Head of Transportation and Engineering raises no highway objection as customers would use the existing parking facilities at the Centre and as such a problem would be unlikely to be presented. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 19TH APRIL 2011

ITEM 7 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0071

In conclusion and having regard to all material considerations including the Human Rights Act, the use of the premises as a café with restricted opening hours is considered an acceptable form of development at this location that complies with the requirements of Policies EV1, EC5 and ECNR of the Unitary Development Plan 2008. Approval is therefore recommended.

RECOMMENDATION

APPROVE, subject to the following conditions:

2 This permission relates to the ground of the premises only, which shall only be used as a café and for no other purpose (including any other purpose in Class A3 of the Schedule to the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order (1987), or in any provision equivalent to that Class in any statutory instrument revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification. The use of the premises as a restaurant or hot food takeaway is expressly excluded. Reason: In the interests of the vitality and of the District Shopping Centre.

3 The opening hours of the premises shall be restricted to 7.30am to 6.30pm Monday to Saturday only and the premises shall not be open to customers on Sundays and Bank Holidays. Reason: In the interests of the vitality and viability of the District Shopping Centre.

4 Prior to the commencement of use, a scheme which specifies the provisions to be made for the control of ventilation and fume extraction shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of residential amenity

INFORMATIVES

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

2 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.

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 19TH APRIL 2011

ITEM 7 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0071

3 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.

4 If a connection is required to the public sewerage system, the developer is advised to contact Dwr Cymru Cymru Welsh Water's Network Development Consultants on 01443 331155.

5 To protect the integrity 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.

6 The development plan covering the City and County of Swansea is the City and County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan. The following policies were relevant to the consideration of the application: EV1, EV2, EV5, ECNR

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

PLANS

Site location plan, access statement received 14th January 2011. Amended plans existing and proposed floor plans received 11th February 2011

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 19TH APRIL 2011

ITEM 8 APPLICATION NO. 2010/0973 WARD: West Cross Area 2

Location: 12 Westland Avenue West Cross Swansea SA3 5NP Proposal: Side roof extension Applicant: Mr Stuart J Pengelly

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

POLICIES

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

SITE HISTORY

None

RESPONSES TO CONSULTATION

The application has been advertised via direct neighbour consultation. NO RESPONSE.

Mumbles Community Council – No objection.

APPRAISAL

The application is reported to Committee for decision at the request of Councillor Des Thomas.

Full planning permission is sought for a side roof extension to a detached dwelling at No.12 Westland Avenue, West Cross, Swansea. The proposed roof extension would at maximum dimensions of 12.6m wide; 2.6m high and occupies the majority of the side roof plane.

The main issues for consideration with regard to this application relate to the impact of the proposal upon visual and residential amenities relative to the prevailing Unitary Development Plan policy and the Supplementary Planning Guidance document entitled ‘A Design Guide for Householder Development’. There are in this case considered to be no additional issues arising from the provisions of the Human Rights Act, nor are there any highway safety issues to consider.

Paragraph 5.6 of the adopted householder development design guide states that:- AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 19TH APRIL 2011

ITEM 8 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/0973

“ A dormer roof extension should not compromise the roof form or dominate the plane of the original roof. To achieve this, it should be set up from the eaves, down from the ridge and not occupy too much of the width of the roof.”

Amended plans have been sought to make the extension smaller and acceptable, however, these have not been forthcoming.

In visual terms, the proposal would be visible from Westland Avenue, and from the properties to the rear. It is considered that the proposed roof extension would not relate well to the roof plane in terms of its siting, size and proportion and as such would represent a dominant and visually incongruous feature in the street scene which would upset the design and proportions of the existing dwelling to the detriment of the overall character and appearance of the area.

The roof extension is considered excessively large and would result in a negative impact upon character and appearance of the dwelling contrary to the provisions of the prevailing supplementary planning guidance (A Design Guide for Householder Development) and policies EV1 and HC7 of the Unitary Development Plan.

Whilst there are large roof extensions nearby these either do not benefit from consent, are permitted development or are smaller and not necessarily unacceptable. The applicant has been advised that if the dormer was made smaller, it is likely to be permitted development.

With regard to residential amenity, it is considered that the landing window in the proposal, would result in an increase of overlooking into the rear garden of the adjacent property over and above that currently experienced. It is however considered that the overlooking impact from the proposed landing window could be eliminated via the use of obscure glazing.

In conclusion, therefore and having regard to all material considerations including the Human Rights Act, it is considered that the proposed side dormer represents an unsatisfactory form of development, which would have an unacceptable impact upon the character and appearance of the existing dwelling and wider area. As such the proposal fails to meet the essential criteria of Policies EV1 and HC7 of the Swansea Unitary Development Plan and the Council’s Design Guide for Householder Development. Refusal is therefore recommended.

RECOMMENDATION

REFUSE, for the following reason:

1 The proposed side roof extension by virtue of its overly large size and inappropriate design would be out of keeping with and detract from the character and appearance of the existing dwelling and the visual amenities of the street scene. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policies EV1 and HC7 of the City and County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan and the Council's Supplementary Planning Guidance document entitled 'A Design Guide for Householder Development.

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 19TH APRIL 2011

ITEM 8 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/0973

INFORMATIVES

PLANS

Site location and block plan, existing first floor plan, existing front elevation, existing rear elevation, existing side elevation, existing cross section, proposed first floor plan, proposed front elevation, proposed rear elevation, proposed side elevation, proposed cross section received 28th June 2010

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 19TH APRIL 2011

ITEM 9 APPLICATION NO. 2010/1386 WARD: Gower Area 2

Location: Seven Lights, Penmaen, Swansea, SA3 2HQ Proposal: Detached dwelling (outline) Applicant: S Camm

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

POLICIES

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

SITE HISTORY

App No. Proposal 2008/1922 Increase in ridge height of main dwelling by 0.5m and one front and two rear dormers Decision: Refuse - Allowed on Appeal Decision Date: 19/03/2009

RESPONSE TO CONSULTATIONS

ORIGINAL SCHEME

Three neighbouring properties have been consulted; FIVE LETTERS OF OBJECTION have been received from neighbouring properties, the comments of which are outlined below:

1. Planning is generally not permitted in this village if it is considered unsightly and overly imposed, which this property will be.

2. It will appear more like a ‘town house’ with little garden remaining for both properties, and is inappropriate for such a location. The proposals scale, massing and density would create an urbanising effect. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 19TH APRIL 2011

ITEM 9 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/1386

3. The new property will cause overlooking into neighbouring properties and their gardens. The distance between the proposed dwelling and the nearest neighbouring property would now only be 3.5m, a reduction of 82.5%. Combined with the difference in levels and the full three storey nature of the proposed dwelling, the detrimental impact with regard to overlooking will be significant and fails to meet the requirement of the fifth criteria of Policy EV16.

4. The existing security light shines directly into a neighbour’s bedroom and with a new house the neighbour considers they would have daylight at all hours.

5. In terms of existing ridge heights from ground level, that of Seven Lights is 8.1m and that of Hunter’s Hollow is 8.4m, although the later is set at a much lower level. The ridge height of the proposed dwelling is 9.4m above ground level, resulting in a difference between it and Hunter’s Hollow of 1m. The difference in height to eaves level from ground level is much greater. Both Seven Lights and Hunter’s Hollow measure 5.3m, but the proposed dwelling’s height to eaves will be 6.8m.

6. The development is not considered to comply with the first criteria of Policy EV16 of the Unitary Development Plan in that its general scale and density is wholly inappropriate for the area. The ‘sinking’ of the slab level into the ground represents a failed attempt to conceal a dwelling that will represent a significant mass with a greater front elevation surface area than the existing dwellings in the street.

7. In terms of the second criteria of Policy EV16, it is considered that the proposal’s general scale parameters clearly suggest that the proposed design will not meet the requirements of this criteria which deals with matters of detailed design.

8. In terms of the fourth criteria attached to Policy EV16 it is considered that the proposal’s close proximity, a mere 3.5m away is far less than any other existing gap between dwellings in the adjoining area at present. The net result will be a dwelling that will create a cramped and high density sense of form between two dwellings than is currently present in the existing streetscene. This will represent an overdevelopment of the area due to its unsympathetic relationship with adjacent buildings.

9. In terms of the fifth criteria, the scale and siting of the proposal would indicate that the proposal will have a significant detrimental impact on the amenity of the occupants of Hunter’s Hollow. Its position and height will reduce the occupants’ enjoyment of their lounge due to the proposed building blocking light currently obtained through a window on their western elevation. Although this has already been attempted to be reduced through the erection of a fence (2.4m in places and without planning permission), the impact of the proposed dwelling will be far greater.

10. There is a query regarding whether the plans as submitted indicate that sufficient space is available to provide sufficient turning and parking space to enable all vehicles to leave the Site in a forward gear. This concern is also expressed in relation to the reduced associated space at Seven Lights and we would request that the local highway authority be asked to review and comment on these issues in particular in its consideration of the application. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 19TH APRIL 2011

ITEM 9 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/1386

11. It is considered that approval of this application would set a precedent for similar types of development within the Gower.

12. A notice advertising the development has not been seen or read, is this no longer done or has this been an oversight.

The Gower Society –

We are very concerned about this proposal which we consider will be totally out of character with the existing properties in the locality. The proposal would seriously damage the amenity of the two adjacent houses and in particular that of Hunters Hollow which would appear to be dominated by this development. We refer in particular to the massing, height and proximity to Hunters Hollow. Despite Claims made in the Architectural Design Document, this proposal would damage the landscape and would be seen from the coastal footpath, Three Cliffs Bay, Pennard Cliffs and Cefn Bryn. It would bring and urbanising ribbon effect to this most rural area of Penmaen. Attempts to infill a gap such as this should be resisted. In fact, the Design document makes many statements that are urban to the extreme such as reference to external lighting. The proposed parking and hard surfacing is alien to the rural environments.

Ilston Community Council –

The proposed building will be on the site of an existing single-storey garage, very close to the boundary with Hunter’s Hollow to the east, and the house and garden will occupy most of the garden to the east of Seven lights, thus reducing the garden area of this dwelling to a much smaller area. The houses in this part of Penmaen are set in gardens that give space and privacy to each. The building of a dwelling as proposed will upset this relationship with adjacent buildings, spaces and landscape, contrary to Policy EV16 iv.

The proposed building is very close to Hunter’s Hollow and, due to the size, siting and height, it will detract from the amenity currently enjoyed by this dwelling. Hunter’s Hollow has a window in the sitting room to the west which will have its light taken away by the proposed building.

The Community Council consider that the reasons for refusal applied to the application in respect of land adjacent to Silverstone, Penmaen (2007/2235) are equally applicable to this proposal at Seven Lights. These reasons relate primarily to urbanising development, the setting of an undesirable precedent and the detrimental scale, siting and layout of the dwelling having a harmful impact on the surrounding area.

Highway Observations - This proposal is for the demolition of a detached garage and erection of a new dwelling within the grounds of Seven Lights, Penmaen. A new access will be constructed so that the existing and proposed dwellings will have individual access to on site parking and turning facilities. The plot boundary is set back a considerable distance from the road edge and therefore there is no necessity for a 'Gower Set-back' at the access points as visibility is more than adequate.

I recommend that no highway objections are raised. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 19TH APRIL 2011

ITEM 9 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/1386

Welsh Water – It is requested that conditions and advisory notes are included within the consent to ensure no detriment to existing residents or the environment and to Dwr Cymru Welsh Water’s assets.

Commons Officer – Part of the development identified is registered common land (register CL8 – Cefn Bryn Common). Any proposed works on the common land may require consent from the Welsh Assembly under s.194 of the Law of Property 1925. Any works carried out without such consent will be unlawful. A suitable informative is, therefore, attached.

AMENDED SCHEME

TWO LETTERS OF OBJECTION were received, however, they were sent on behalf of the same property, the comments of which are outlined below:

1. There still remains a gap much smaller than that found between existing dwellings, between the proposed dwelling and Hunters Hollow, with regard to the northern half of Penmaen.

2. According to the CCS Wales – Wales Parking Standards (2008), a dwelling at this location would be required to provide at least 3 parking spaces for residents and possibly 1 further space for visitors, due to the Site’s rural location and absence of on-street parking. Taking the above into consideration, we note that the proposed layout suggests that only 1 space would be provided, with the remaining two (at least) being then provided as a double integral garage. Taking into consideration that the standard dimension for a car parking space is now 2.6m by 4.8m, this would then require both internal parking spaces to be set side by side, as opposed to two deep. The creation of such a double garage with a door of at least 5.2m in width would mean that such a door would occupy at least 55% of the ground floor of the now proposed front elevation of the dwelling. This would not only result in the front elevation of the dwelling having a somewhat ramped appearance, but would also represent a far more urban design than is found in a rural village such as Penmaen. As a result the dwelling’s appearance would be out of character with Penmaen and the Gower AONB as a whole, contrary to the requirements of Policy EV16.

3. The adjoining properties benefit from quite generous garden areas, which adds and helps define the character of this area of the village. In contrast, the proposed development result in a form of cramming that is only to the detriment of the character of the surrounding area, but could set a dangerous and detrimental precedent to the area.

4. As such many of the original concerns raised still stand and the fact is the site is clearly unable to accommodate any form of development without incurring detriment to the character and setting of the surrounding area, village of Penmaen and the Gower AONB as a whole.

5. Photos are provided showing views from the next door neighbouring property’s lounge window. It is noted that the view from this window is already affected in terms of loss of light and overbearance. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 19TH APRIL 2011

ITEM 9 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/1386

The proximity and bulk of the new dwelling in relation to the neighbour’s home will be considered to have an even greater detrimental impact, in effect blocking both windows illustrated on the attached photographs.

6. There is surprise that the Authority has accepted a Bat Survey undertaken outside, what is considered by experts and CCW, to be the survey season.

Ilston Community Council –

The proposed building is very close to Hunter’s Hollow and, due to the size, siting and height, will detract from the amenity currently enjoyed by this dwelling. Hunter’s Hollow has a window in the sitting room to the west which will have its light taken away by the proposed building.

Approval of this development would set an undesirable precedent for the consideration of proposals of a similar nature along this rural lane.

The Gower Society –

This newer application (amended) does not alter our concerns regarding the effect on the neighbourhood. An increase in such ribbon development should be resisted; the gap there in the build line is important and the visual gap should remain. In view of our reservations re the scale of this development and the effect on neighbouring properties and the rural scene, the Gower Society wishes its objection to remain.

Ecologist –

As the garage is to be demolished it was requested that a survey of protected species was submitted, following this request a survey was submitted, the surveyor found no evidence of bats using the building however no emergence survey was carried out due to the time of year (February). On reading the report it seems unlikely that bats are using the building but as no emergence survey was carried out it is possible something was missed. Informative statements, which will be attached to the consent, will be sufficient.

Highways Observations - Amended Plan. No further comments to make.

APPRAISAL

This application is reported to Committee for decision at the request of Councillor Richard Lewis. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 19TH APRIL 2011

ITEM 9 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/1386

Outline planning permission is sought for a detached dwelling on land adjacent to Seven lights, Penmaen, Swansea with all matters reserved for subsequent approval. The plot itself is considered to fall within the village of Penmaen being within the Gower Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and adjacent to Cefn Bryn Common. The scale parameters are 9.5m wide by 7m deep with a maximum of 8m to ridge and 5.5m to eaves.

The main issues to be considered are the principle of a dwelling at this location and its general visual impact on the character and appearance of this part of the Gower Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty together with its impact upon the amenities of neighbouring residents and highway safety. It is not considered that the provisions of the Human Rights Act raise any other overriding considerations.

Policy EV16 in particular refers to small villages such as Penmaen and allows small scale development where it is appropriate to the location in terms of scale, design and layout, sympathetic in terms of character and has an acceptable relationship with adjoining buildings, spaces and the landscape and respects residential amenity and highway safety.

An application for the erection of a detached dwelling house was refused in January 1984 (83/1447/01) this was due to the proposal being contrary to the structure plan, the intentions of ‘Strategy for Gower’, resulting in undesirable ribbon development, being detrimental to the visual amenity of the Gower AONB, creating a precedent, and as the garages were used as a private car hire business, the further proposed development was considered to lead to an overintensive use of the site.

Pre-application advice was given with regard to the possibility of a residential development within the curtilage of the property and it was considered that the plot was potentially suitable for residential development; however, it was stated that this was subject to a dwelling encompassing a suitably sensitive siting, scale and design.

The original proposal has been amended by the scale parameters being reduced. This was to ensure that the development did not present itself as an overly residential dominating structure within the streetscene and landscape and did not have an adverse impact on the amenities of Hunters Hollow.

In terms of the visual impact, the maximum ridge height has been amended to ensure that any proposed dwelling does not extend above the height of Hunters Hollow and, therefore, the proposed dwelling would be considered to respect the character of the streetscene with any proposed dwelling not being overly dominant within the context of this stretch of Penmaen. The proposed development is not considered to result in a cramped form of development, with sufficient space being maintained between the properties either side. Furthermore, the development will not be considered to be at odds with the character and appearance of the surrounding area and will not be considered to create an urbanising affect.

The site is considered to have a stronger correlation with the existing settlement pattern than it does with the countryside with distinctive barriers between the countryside to the north provided by a hedge and partial wall and by hedging to the south. The proposal is considered to be situated comfortably within the plot which is considered to be relatively generous in size. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 19TH APRIL 2011

ITEM 9 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/1386

The Penmaen settlement in its entirety could be considered to be dispersed in its nature, however, this particular stretch forms a relatively linear format with the proposed dwelling following the established building line, not projecting forward of either the existing Seven Lights dwelling or Hunters Hollow.

In terms of residential amenity, there are considered to be sufficient gaps between the proposed dwelling and the dwellings either side to ensure no unacceptable overbearing and overshadowing impact. Furthermore, the concern regarding the physical impact on the side of Hunters Hollow, specifically with regard to the impact on the side window within this property, is not considered to present a significant issue in this instance given the distance between the proposed structure and this neighbouring dwelling and the fact that the window in question is not the primary window serving the neighbours lounge.

In term of any potential overlooking, this again would be controlled during the submission of a further detailed application, however, with regard to viewing from the rear of the property, whilst it is acknowledged that the dwelling will permit a higher degree of overlooking of Hunters Hollow’s garden, this is not considered to result in unacceptable overlooking given that any proposed fenestration would not directly overlook this amenity area given that the fenestration will be rear facing.

In terms of the previous refusal for a dwelling at the site in 1984, it has to be acknowledged that planning policy has evolved since this time and as such, different policies are now in place which are considered to support development of this type. Especially with regard to Policy EV16 which states that as long as the development meets the specified criteria it is likely to be supported.

In terms of the concerns raised, the impact on visual and residential amenity issues have been addressed in the report and, therefore, do not require further discussion. It should also be noted that this application is outline in its form, therefore, issues relating to specific reserved matters are not required to be taken fully into consideration in this instance. With regard to lighting, the application is purely for an outline proposal and as stated above does not include specific detail. With regard to the concerns regarding the possible height of the proposal, the proposal has now been reduced in terms of the maximum ridge height, with the amended ridge height considered to be acceptable. The Highways Officer has analysed the proposals and offered no objection, as such the proposals are not considered to raise concern with regard to these issues in this instance.

In terms of the concerns raised regarding the setting of a precedent, the application is determined with regard to its own individual merits, notwithstanding this, the proposal is considered to be acceptable in principal and, therefore, any precedent it would set would not be considered to be an undesirable one. All appropriate neighbouring properties were consulted, therefore, a site notice was not erected on site as it was not considered to be a requirement in this instance. There have been concerns raised that the proposal will be viewed from many vantage points, whilst this may be the case, for the reasons already discussed this does not make the development unacceptable. The garden area left at the existing Seven Lights property will be considered to be sufficient as will the garden space available to the proposed dwelling. With regard to the refusal at the land adjacent to Silverstone, Penmaen, this application is considered to differ to the proposed application in that the site and its surroundings at Silverstone is much more rural in its nature. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 19TH APRIL 2011

ITEM 9 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/1386

With regard to the concern raised in relation to the timing of the bat survey, the Authority’s Ecologist considered that the information submitted was sufficient to suit the necessary requirements in this instance.

Finally in terms of highway safety, the Head of Transportation and Engineering Services has stated that a new access will be constructed so that the existing and proposed dwellings will have individual access to on site parking and turning facilities. The plot boundary is set back from the road edge and therefore there is no necessity for a ‘Gower Set-back’ at the access points as visibility is more than adequate. Therefore, no objections are raised.

In conclusion, and having regard to all material considerations including the Human Rights Act, it is considered that the dwelling could be accommodated on the site without resulting in any significant adverse impact on visual amenity, residential amenity, access and highway safety. The proposal is considered to be in accordance with the relevant UDP Policies as such conditional approval is recommended.

RECOMMENDATION

APPROVE, subject to the following conditions:

1 Details of the access, appearance, landscaping, layout, and scale, (hereinafter called "the reserved matters") shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority before any development begins and the development shall be carried out as approved. Reason: To ensure that the development is carried out in an orderly and satisfactory manner.

2 The development to which this permission relates shall be begun either before the expiration of 5 years from the date of this outline permission, or before the expiration of 2 years from the date of approval of the last of the reserved matters to be approved, whichever is the later. Reason: To comply with the provisions of Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1990 and to ensure that development is begun within a reasonable period.

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

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

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 19TH APRIL 2011

ITEM 9 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/1386

5 The dwelling hereby approved shall be no greater than 9.5 metres wide by 7 metres deep and shall not exceed 8 metres in ridge height and 5.5 metres eaves height. Furthermore, the ridge height shall not exceed that of Hunter's Hollow. Reason: In the interests of visual amenity and general amenity.

6 Foul water and surface discharges shall be drained separately from the site. Reason: To protect the integrity of the public sewerage system.

7 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. Reason: 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.

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

INFORMATIVES

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

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 19TH APRIL 2011

ITEM 9 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/1386

4 Part of the application site has been identified as registered common land (register CL8 - Cefn Bryn Common). Any proposed works on this land may require consent from the Welsh Assembly under s.194 of the Law of Property 1925. Any works carried out without such consent will be unlawful.

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

6 If a connection is required to the public sewerage system, the developer is advised to contact Dwr Cymru Welsh Water's Network Development Consultants on 01443 331155

PLANS

Drawing No. 2173C Site location, block plan, layout plan, section, streetscene plan received 11th January 2011.

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 19TH APRIL 2011

ITEM 10 APPLICATION NO. 2010/1787 WARD: Oystermouth Area 2

Location: 434 Mumbles Road Mumbles Swansea SA3 4BY Proposal: Single storey rear extension and rear dormer Applicant: Ms Liz Brimacombe

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

POLICIES

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

SITE HISTORY

None

RESPONSE TO CONSULTATIONS

The neighbouring properties were consulted individually. One letter of objection has been received in respect of the proposed scheme. Its content is summarised below:

1. The rearward projection at first floor level exceeds that set out in the councils design guide. The 45 degree code is already compromised by the existing first floor extension any further extension would exacerbate the existing situation.

2. The balcony will result in a loss of privacy over our rear garden.

3. The proposed front dormer is not in keeping with the style of the house the introduction of a balcony does not meet with current planning guidelines.

The above comments were received in respect of the proposals as originally submitted a revised design was re advertised for a period of 14 days and ONE additional Letter of OBJECTION has been received its content is summarised below.

1. Proposed rear ground floor extension: The depth of the proposed extension, combined with the existing extension at ground floor exceeds the maximum length set out in the planning design guide for this type of property and also extends beyond the rear building line of the adjoining house (434a), therefore does not comply.

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 19TH APRIL 2011

ITEM 10 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/1787

2. New Windows: Proposed new windows to the rear dormer, rear first floor and proposed ground floor extension are entirely different from the existing windows in size, shape and proportion. Also the proposed windows are considerably larger, which will exacerbate the loss of privacy to the adjoining properties. (See section B13 of the Design Guide for Householder Development.

3. In general we do not believe the planning application has considered or meets the current planning guidelines. There are no extenuating circumstances to justify a relaxation of the rules, therefore the application should be refused permission.

Mumbles Community Council – No objection.

Highways Observations – There are no highway safety or parking implications as a result of this proposed extension.

APPRAISAL This application is reported to committee for decision at the request of Councillor Anthony Colburn.

Full planning permission is sought for the construction of a single storey rear extension and rear dormer roof extension at No.434 Mumbles Road, Mumbles. The property may be characterised as a Victorian terraced property located in a visually prominent position opposite Mumbles Promenade. The property is located within an established residential area.

The scheme as originally submitted saw alterations to the front dormer incorporating a balcony, a two storey rear extension incorporating a balcony and a rear dormer. Following a process of negotiation with the agent for the scheme a revised proposal was received seeking to address officer concerns. The significant alterations were the deletion of alterations to the front dormer and the substitution of a single storey rear extension for the two storey addition originally proposed.

The proposed scheme would see a dormer addition located on the rear roof plane and a ground floor extension constructed off the existing rearward projection with a further rearward projection of approximately 4.9 metres. This would be approximately 2.5 metres longer than the existing single storey element that would be demolished under this proposal. The neighbouring property at No.434a Mumbles Road has a ground floor flat roof extension that finishes level to the existing rear ground floor extension at the application site.

Other alterations include a refurbishment of the front dormer extension and the insertion of a large window into the gable end of the existing two storey rear wing, neither of which require planning permission.

The main issues for consideration with regard to this application relate to the impact of the proposal upon visual and residential amenities having regard to Policies HC7 and EV1 of the City and County of Swansea and the Supplementary Planning Guidance document entitled A Design Guide for Householder Development. There are in this case considered to be no additional issues arising from the provisions of the Human Rights Act, nor are there any highway safety issues to consider. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 19TH APRIL 2011

ITEM 10 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/1787

In respect of visual amenity the proposed scheme would not result in any alterations to the existing street scene. The proposed rear extension would see the existing single storey flat roofed extension replaced with an extension approximately 2.5 metres longer and finished to a pitched roof. The proposed rear dormer addition would be of fairly modest dimensions with a pitched roof design and it would not present as a dominant addition to the roof plane. In design terms it is considered that the proposals would remain subordinate and proportionate to the host building and as such are considered to be of a scale, design and external appearance that are in keeping with the character and appearance of the run of properties to which they relate.

Turning to residential amenity, it is acknowledged that the total length of the proposed extension at ground floor level from the main back wall of the host dwelling is approximately 10.2 metres. This would be approximately 2.9 metres longer than that recommended within the Design Guide for Householder Development in relation to terraced properties, however, in this instance there are no alterations proposed at first floor level with the exception of the new window and as such it is not considered that the proposal would increase the level of overshadowing experienced by the proposed development.

Whilst the proposed ground floor addition deviates from the recommended guidelines in terms of its total length it is considered that the proposed rear ground floor addition would, with an eaves height of approximately 2.2 metres and a maximum height at the ridge of approximately 3.6 metres, not give rise to any additional overbearing or overshadowing impacts.

The ground floor addition will project past the rear elevation of the ground floor serving No.434a by approximately 2.5. The ground floor elevation at the neighbouring property has a large rear facing window and a door which is adjacent to the common boundary formed by a wall of approximately 2 metres in height. It is accepted that the proposed scheme is located to the south of No.434a however given the built environment further to the south of the application site and the wider topography of the area it is not considered that the proposal would prove detrimental to the level of light currently enjoyed by No.434a and as such a recommendation of refusal on this basis would not be warranted.

The proposed alterations will see three new windows created in the rear elevation one at each floor level. The rear dormer addition would serve to provide additional head room for a stairwell into existing loft accommodation, the first floor gable window does not of itself require planning permission and the ground floor gable end would be significantly glazed. It is considered that the proposals reflect the arrangement typical of a residential setting and that any increase in overlooking would be at oblique angles and as such in terms of overlooking the proposals are considered acceptable.

Therefore, it is considered that the proposal would not, given the distance and relationship of the existing surrounding properties introduce any unacceptable overlooking, overshadowing or overbearing impacts upon the residential amenity of neighbouring properties.

The Head of Transportation and Engineering raises no highway objection to the proposal. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 19TH APRIL 2011

ITEM 10 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/1787

In conclusion, having regard to all material considerations including the Human Rights Act, the proposal is considered to represent a satisfactory form of development which complies with current development plan Policies HC7 and EV1 of the City and County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008 and has an acceptable impact on the character and visual amenities of the streetscene and area in which it is situated and the residential amenity of neighbouring occupiers. Approval is therefore recommended.

RECOMMENDATION

APPROVE, subject to the following condition:

INFORMATIVES

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

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

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 19TH APRIL 2011

ITEM 10 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/1787

PLANS

M104-006 site location plan, M104-007 existing block plan, M104-001 existing floor plans, M104-002 existing elevations, M104-003 proposed floor plans, M104-004 proposed elevations, M104-005 proposed roof plan and block plan received 25th November 2010 Amended Plans M104-003 proposed floor plans Rev A, M104-004 rev B proposed elevations received 11th February 2011 Additional Plan M104-008 received 11th February 2011

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 19TH APRIL 2011

ITEM 11 APPLICATION NO. 2010/1850 WARD: Oystermouth Area 2

Location: The Croft, 43 Langland Road Mumbles Swansea SA3 4LU Proposal: Detached dwelling House 3 (details of siting, design and external appearance and landscaping pursuant to outline planning permission 2007/2053 granted 11th December 2007) Applicant: Mr J Collins

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

POLICIES

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

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

Policy EV30 Protection and improved management of woodlands, trees and hedgerows which are important for their visual amenity, historic environment, natural heritage, and/or recreation value will be encouraged. (City & County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008) AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 19TH APRIL 2011

ITEM 11 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/1850

SITE HISTORY

App No. Proposal 2010/1863 Engineering works to construct retaining wall Decision: Grant Permission Conditional Decision Date: 04/04/2011

2010/1846 Detached dwelling House 2 (details of siting, design and external appearance and landscaping pursuant to outline planning permission 2007/2053 granted 11th December 2007) Decision: Officer Consideration Decision Date: 30/03/2011

2008/1574 To lop and top 1 beech tree and remove one branch from 1 yew tree covered by TPO no 127 Decision: Withdrawn Decision Date: 18/12/2008

92/0506 LOP BRANCHES OVERHANGING DRIVE - REFERRING TO T.P.O.127 Decision: *HGCC - GRANT CONSENT WITH CONDITIONS Decision Date: 12/06/1992

2010/1851 Detached dwelling House 1 (details of siting, design and external appearance and landscaping pursuant to outline planning permission 2007/2053 granted 11th December 2007) Decision: Officer Consideration Decision Date: 29/03/2011

2007/2053 Three dwellings (outline) Decision: Grant Permission Conditional Decision Date: 11/12/2007

2005/1588 To reduce the crowns of 3 Holm Oaks trees, 1 Copper Beech tree and 1 Bay tree covered by TPO no 127 Decision: Grant Tree Pres Order Consent (C) Decision Date: 12/09/2005

2009/1347 To fell 1 bay tree covered by TPO no 127 Decision: Grant Tree Pres Order Consent (C) Decision Date: 05/11/2009

98/0768 TO TOP AND LOP 3 HOLM OAKS, 1 COPPER BEECH AND 1 BAY COVERED BY TPO NO. 127 Decision: *HGCC - GRANT CONSENT WITH CONDITIONS Decision Date: 10/07/1998 AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 19TH APRIL 2011

ITEM 11 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/1850

85/0411/10 SECTION 60 APPLICATION TO CROWN CUT A COPPER BEECH COVERED BY TPO 127. Decision: *HGPC - GRANT PERMISSION CONDITIONAL Decision Date: 25/04/1985

RESPONSE TO CONSULTATIONS

Neighbours: The application was advertised on site in the form of a site notice and all neighbouring dwellings were individually consulted. Four letters of response were received which raised concerns relating to:

1. Difficult to assess the proposals impact upon the neighbouring properties. 2. Dwelling is four storey and will be metres higher than the ground level of my rear garden. 3. There should be a standard of 21m between habitable rooms. Where there are differences in levels these differences should be increased. 4. Proposal would adversely affect the outlook from my property and result in the loss of light to existing windows due to the proximity of the proposed dwelling. 5. The close proximity of the dwelling to my property would have an adverse impact upon my residential amenity. 6. Dwelling would be dominant and overbearing. 7. Proposal will unacceptably affect the level of privacy enjoyed contrary to TAN 12. 8. TAN 15 states a development must relate to its surroundings. 9. Close proximity to No 6 Langland Close. 10. Loss of light to front elevation. 11. Balconies would result in overlooking and introduce and alien feature into the neighbourhood. 12. Proposal is overdevelopment of the land. 13. Loss of light. 14. Highway safety concerns.

Highways: This proposal was considered at outline stage and granted consent. Requirements imposed at the outline stage are still valid and I therefore reiterate those requirements excluding the parking details which are now indicated on the currently submitted plans.

I recommend no highway objections subject to the following;

1. The site boundary shall be set back along the Langland Road frontage to accommodate a footway in accordance with details to be submitted and approved.

2. The access drive gradient shall not exceed 1:9

3. No water shall drain of the site access road and onto the adjoining highway. Drainage details to prevent this shall be installed.

4. Retaining wall engineering details shall be submitted and approved prior to development commencing on site. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 19TH APRIL 2011

ITEM 11 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/1850

Note: The Developer must contact the Network Manager City and County of Swansea, Highways Division, Players Industrial Estate, Clydach, Swansea, SA6 5BJ. Tel 01792 841601 before carrying out any work.

Mumbles Community Council: Overintensification. Highways consideration narrow lane on steep hill. Loss of TPO trees.

APPRAISAL

This application is reported to Committee for decision at the request of Councillor Anthony Colburn.

Description

A reserved matters application is submitted for a detached dwelling (details of siting, design and external appearance and landscaping pursuant to outline planning permission 2007/2053 granted on the 11th December 2007). The site is situated within the established urban area of Mumbles as identified on the Southern Proposals Map of the Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008. The proposal would be accessed via a newly formed access. The application site rises away from the house and remains at a higher elevation to the road. The land to the rear of the application site rises steeply.

The existing dwelling is a large detached property set within substantial grounds. The property is not listed but has a unique character which warrants its retention. There are also a number of protected trees within the site.

The proposal is for a detached contemporary style dwelling, which due to the site levels will incorporate a subterranean garage. The dwelling will have accommodation over three floors and incorporates front balconies which take advantage of the sites elevated position in the wider landscape.

Site History

Outline planning consent was granted on the 11th December 2007 under Ref: 2007/2053 for three dwellings. Matters relating to access were determined at this stage with all others reserved for future consideration. Three other applications have recently been approved on the wider site. Application Ref: 2010/1863 for the construction of a rear retaining wall, Ref: 2010/1846 – Reserved Matters Application for a Detached Dwelling (House 2) and Ref: 2010/1851 – Reserved Matters Application for a Detached Dwelling (House 1).

Issues

Given the principle of residential development has clearly been established with the approval of the Outline Consent the main issues for consideration during the determination of this application relate to the impact of the proposal upon the visual amenities of the area, the residential amenities of the neighbouring occupiers, the impact upon the protected trees and highway safety having regard for the site history and the provisions of the Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 19TH APRIL 2011

ITEM 11 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/1850

Visual Amenity

The area is characterised by a mixture of large detached two storey dwellings, blocks of flats, semi-detached and terraced properties situated within varying plot sizes fronting the highway. Given the principle of development at this location has been clearly established with the previous outline approval it is not considered that the re-development of this site is unacceptable in visual terms. The proposed dwelling incorporates a contemporary design which due to the topography of the site, will incorporate a subterranean garage. The proposals siting, adjacent to the Croft will ensure that Langland Road maintains its linear character. House 3 and 2 crucially are sited almost 10m from the side elevation of the Croft on either side and House No 1 further again and therefore the proposed dwelling will have no oppressive impact upon the existing dwelling and subsequently allows it to breathe within its own grounds.

The ridge of the proposed dwelling will be sited marginally lower than the Croft and a similar height to the adjacent No 6 Langland Close therefore will not appear unusual. The dwelling will be visible from wider vantage points however it is considered that its design will add interest to the character and appearance of the area.

There is no prevailing characteristic or dominant house type to suggest a specific architectural response on this site and it is evident that a strong design concept has underlined this development from the start; recognising the need for the architecture to respond to character of the area, whilst respecting the residential amenities of the neighbouring properties.

The dwelling will measure approximately 9.2m at its widest and 9.4m at its longest and as such the plot can easily accommodate a dwelling of this stature. The general form follows an almost ‘Swiss Chalet’ Design and incorporates a low gradient roof in order to accommodate an additional floor in the roofspace and a subservient two-storey front gable and larger two storey rear gable which couple to break down the overall massing of the building ensuring the proposal is in scale with the plot and the wider area. It is considered that the design, coupled with the siting set back and elevated from the road will limit the visual impact upon the wider area and fundamentally respect the character and appearance of its local context.

This proposal will utilise quite large areas of glass in order to maximise the views from the northern aspect. The application plans indicate the materials to be used in its construction will be reconstituted or fibre cement slates with clay ridge tiles, velux roof lights, timber facias/barge boards, colour coated aluminium rainwater goods, self coloured render walls, projecting reconstituted stone surrounds/cills to openings, windows doors and opening hardwood, balconies galvanised steel and ballustrading clear armour plate glass. The materials are considered to be of a high quality given its location.

Therefore, it is considered that the design of the proposed development is of a high quality which will safeguard and protect the visual amenity of the area. In addition the siting set into the existing levels coupled with its form and design will ensure the proposal will not prove unacceptably dominant or overbearing when viewed from public vantage points and as such is considered to comply with Policies EV1, EV2, EV3 and HC2 of the Swansea UDP. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 19TH APRIL 2011

ITEM 11 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/1850

In visual terms the proposed dwelling is considered to relate satisfactorily to the character and appearance of the surrounding area and will complement the existing built form. The dwelling incorporates Swiss Chalet design which given the variety within the street-scene the proposed siting and design is considered to relate and compliment the built form and will not prove dominant or overbearing from wider vantage points. As such the proposal is considered to comply with Policies EV1, EV2, and HC2 of the Swansea UDP.

Residential Amenity

Turning to residential amenities, site sections indicate that the proposed property would be situated at a significantly lower level than the properties along Overland Road and Overland Close and this change in level coupled with the separation distances of a minimum of 8.8m from the boundary with No 1a Overland Close will ensure the proposal will neither prove unacceptably overbearing, overshadowing or result in unacceptable overlooking. The proposed dwelling will mostly impact upon the Croft and No 6 Langland Close.

In terms of the impact upon No 6 Langland Close the dwellings would be separated in excess of 3m and this coupled with the siting of the proposed dwelling at a similar level and height will ensure that the proposed dwelling will not prove domineering upon No 6 Langland Close. Whilst the majority of the proposed dwelling will have similar depth as No 6 Langland Close it is acknowledged that the development will project beyond the frontage of No 6 Langland Close by approximately 7m, however the majority of this projection (4.4m) will be subterranean and therefore it is considered that the proposal will have an acceptable overbearing/overshadowing/light impact upon the amenities of this dwelling. Turning to overlooking there are no habitable room windows in the side elevation facing No 6 Langland Close and the high level positioning of the velux type windows will not give rise to unacceptable overlooking in this direction.

With regard the impact upon The Croft, ground floor overlooking can be mitigated against by an agreed level of boundary treatment. The 1st floor secondary bedroom window in the side elevation facing The Croft will primarily overlook the car parking spaces for the Croft which will improve natural surveillance and given only oblique views will be available into the garden of the Croft it is not considered necessary to condition that this window be obscurely glazed and fixed shut in this instance. The high level positioning of the velux type windows will not give rise to unacceptable overlooking in this direction.

A triangular balcony is proposed at the front of the property on both the 1st and 2nd floors. The balcony will enjoy views to the front of The Croft and No 6 Langland Close however given this area of land is already within the public domain a certain degree of mutual overlooking is expected and as such is considered acceptable. In terms of the rear garden area, an agreed level of boundary treatment via condition can mitigate against unacceptable overlooking.

Trees

Having consulted the Councils Landscape Officer it is acknowledged that prior to the submission of this application significant pre-application discussions took place regarding the removal of trees described in this current application. It is noted that the submitted methodology details works to and for the protection of trees in relation to construction, and the locations of contractor’s huts and means of access during construction. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 19TH APRIL 2011

ITEM 11 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/1850

The Tree Officer’s comments made in the pre application advice that the removal of the existing Fraxinus excelsior (Ash) covered by the TPO was of some concern but that it could be acceptable subject of adequate landscaping of the frontage and the inclusion of an appropriately worded condition.

Furthermore the requirement to ensure and maintain the root protection area (RPA) around each retained tree and that all construction vehicles, site huts and storage etc. are to be kept clear from the underside of tree canopies is important.

Tree surgery and tree protection measures are to be completed (as described within ‘David Rice’s Arboricultural method statement to those trees covered by TPO’s) prior to the commencement of the development. Particular note is to be taken to exclude any service provision through the RPA.

In view of the above it is considered that whilst the proposals will result in the removal of two trees this is considered acceptable subject to the replanting being undertaken.

Response to Consultations

Notwithstanding the above four letters of objection were received raising concerns relating to the impact upon visual amenity, residential amenity and highway safety. The issues pertaining to which have been addressed above.

Conclusion

In conclusion the proposed dwelling is considered an acceptable form of infill development which respects the visual amenities of the area, respects the residential amenities of the neighbouring properties and highway safety. Furthermore the proposal will have an acceptable impact upon protected trees within the vicinity of the site in accordance with Policies EV1, EV2, EV3, EV30, EV35 and HC2 of the Swansea UDP.

RECOMMENDATION

APPROVE, subject to the following conditions:

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

2 Prior to the first occupation of the development hereby approved the site boundary shall be set back along the Langland Road frontage in order to accommodate a footway in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interest of highway safety.

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 19TH APRIL 2011

ITEM 11 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/1850

3 The access drive gradient shall not exceed 1:9 unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interest of highway safety.

4 No water shall drain from the site access road onto the adjoining highway. Reason: In the interest of highway safety.

5 Prior to the commencement of work on site details of the retaining wall engineering details shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interest of highway safety.

6 No development shall take place without the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority of a scheme for the landscaping of the site. The landscaping scheme shall be carried out within 12 months from the completion of the development. Any trees or shrubs planted in accordance with this condition which are removed, die, become seriously diseased within two years of planting shall be replaced by trees or shrubs of similar size and species to those originally required to be planted. Reason: To ensure that the site is satisfactorily landscaped having regard to its location and the nature of the proposed development, and to accord with Section 197 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

7 No development or other operations shall take place except in accordance with the guide on "The Protection of Trees on Development Sites" attached to this planning permission. No trees, shrubs, or hedges shall be felled or cut back in any way, except where expressly authorised by the landscaping scheme as approved by the Local Planning Authority until two years after the completion of the development. Any trees, shrubs or hedges removed without such authorisation, or dying, or being seriously damaged or diseased before the end of that period shall be replaced by plants of a size and species as may be agreed with the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To secure the protection of trees growing on the site whilst the development is being carried out.

8 The internal vehicular and pedestrian circulation areas, including parking spaces shall be laid out using pervious paving in order to aid drainage, in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure a satisfactory means of drainage.

9 No development shall commence on site until a scheme for the retention and protection of trees, which shall include protective fencing, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. No development shall take place except in complete accordance with the approved scheme, and the works required by that scheme are in place. Reason: To ensure the protection of the protected trees during construction .

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 19TH APRIL 2011

ITEM 11 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/1850

10 No excavations for services, storage of materials or machinery, parking of vehicles, deposit of soil or rubble, lighting of fires, disposal of liquids, or the mixing of cement shall take place within the area fenced off, or otherwise protected by the approved scheme as required by Condition No 9. Reason: To ensure the protection of the protected trees during construction .

11 All protective fencing as required by Condition No 9 shall be retained intact for the full duration of the development hereby approved, and shall only be removed, or altered in that time with the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure the protection of the protected trees during construction .

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

13 The first floor side window in the north east elevation serving the en-suite shall be obscure glazed and unopenable, except for a fan light, and thereafter retained as such unless otherwise approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interest of privacy protection.

INFORMATIVES

PLANS

D30774-01 site location plan, DRC01A block plan, DRG04 site section house 3, DRG07 proposed first and second floor plans, DRG08 proposed basement and ground floor plan, DRG11A proposed front and side elevation, DRG12 proposed rear and side elevation, DRG13 street scene, DRG14 landscape plan, land levels, tree survey, arboricultural method statement received 10th December 2010

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 19TH APRIL 2011

ITEM 12 APPLICATION NO. 2010/1865 WARD: Cockett Area 2

Location: 384 Middle Road Gendros Swansea SA5 8EN Proposal: Single storey rear extension, side and rear dormers Applicant: Mr Nick Rees

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

POLICIES

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

SITE HISTORY

None

RESPONSE TO CONSULTATIONS

The neighbouring properties were consulted by letter no third party correspondence has been received.

APPRAISAL

This application is reported to Committee for decision at the request of Councillor Keith Morgan

Full planning permission is sought for a single storey rear extension together with side and rear dormer additions at No.384 Middle Road, which is a two storey semi-detached property located within an established residential area.

In response to concerns raised in respect of the proposed development a revised scheme has been submitted seeking to overcome the issues identified. The principle difference between the two schemes relates to the side dormer addition which has been slightly reduced in size.

In addition to the above the applicant has provided sections through the building in attempt to demonstrate that the proposal must be constructed as proposed in order to comply with building control requirements in respect of achieving minimum headroom for the stairwell. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 19TH APRIL 2011

ITEM 12 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/1865

The main issues for consideration with regard to this application relate to the impact of the proposal upon visual and residential amenities in respect of Policies HC7 and EV1 of the City and County of Swansea and the Supplementary Planning Guidance document entitled A Design Guide for Householder Development. There are in this case considered to be no additional issues arising from the provisions of the Human Rights Act, nor are there any highway safety issues to consider.

With regard to the impact upon visual amenity the side dormer addition conflicts with sections 5.6 and 5.8 of the prevailing Design Guide for Householder Development given that it serves to dominate the side roof plane. Whilst the rear dormer is constructed off the ridge and adopted guidance indicates that a set down should be utilised. Overall, the design of the dormer is considered acceptable because it does not occupy much of the roof and is well set up fro the eaves.

Whilst the side dormer extension no longer compromises the corner ridges of the side elevation, it is still, considered to be too dominant in the roof plane in that it occupies the majority of the roof plane. In addition, the dormer has a gable design whereby the dwelling has a hipped roof design when viewed within the streetscene and the dormer should reflect this.

No.390 Middle Road has a similar form of development that has no associated planning history. It is not considered that this extant development provides any justification for similar forms of development within the street, rather, conversely it is the view of the Planning Authority that the objectives of good design should be applied to all development proposals, at all scales, including the alteration of individual buildings. It is not considered that developments that preceded the increased emphasis that is now placed on achieving good design as illustrated by the Council’s design guidance and national planning policy are sufficient justification to continue to allow developments that would lead to further erosion of the character of the area.

The proposed rear ground floor extension runs almost to the full width of the house and is to be constructed with a flat roof. The extension would replace a number of ad hoc additions to the rear and have a rearward projection on the common boundary of approximately 3.8 metres. The rearward projection of the rear extension marginally exceeds the 3.5 metres recommended at section 2.10 of the prevailing Design Guide for Householder Development, however it is considered acceptable by virtue of the extant rear extension at the neighbouring property and the high level boundary treatment together with its flat roof design so would not adversely impact upon the amenities of neighbours or surrounding character.

Turning to the impact upon residential amenity the proposed side dormer will overlook the neighbouring property at No.382 Middle Road, however, it would serve a stairwell and have principal views over the side elevation of this dwelling and as such is not considered to introduce any additional overlooking that may be considered detrimental to the residential amenity of these neighbouring occupiers. The rear dormer reflects the existing situation in terms of window orientation and no additional loss of privacy is considered likely to arise from this element of the scheme. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 19TH APRIL 2011

ITEM 12 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/1865

Whilst the rear dormer and extension are considered acceptable, the proposed side dormer is considered to be unacceptable by virtue of its excessive scale and inappropriate design contrary to Policies HC7 and EV1 of the City and County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008 and the Supplementary Planning Guidance document entitled A Design Guide for Householder Development.

RECOMMENDATION

REFUSE, for the following reason:

1 The proposed side dormer extension by virtue of its excessive size and inappropriate design would be out of keeping with the character and appearance of the existing dwelling and detrimental to the visual amenities of the locality contrary to the provisions of Policies EV1 and HC7 of the City and County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008 and the Design Guide for Householder Development 2008.

INFORMATIVES

PLANS

01 site location, block and existing plans received 15th December 2010. Amended proposed plans received 11/02/2011. Additional Plans Cross Sections 1 & 2 received 10/03/2011.

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 19TH APRIL 2011

ITEM 13 APPLICATION NO. 2011/0056 WARD: Gower Area 2

Location: Dunraven Farm Reynoldston Swansea SA3 1HR Proposal: Retention of a caravan for an agricultural worker, and retention of associated residential curtilage Applicant: David & Ann Cowley

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

POLICIES

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

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

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

SITE HISTORY

None

RESPONSE TO CONSULTATIONS

The application was advertised on site and in the local press as a Departure from the Development Plan. THREE LETTERS OF SUPPORT and a PETITION OF SUPPORT with 421 signatures have been received which are summarised as follows: AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 19TH APRIL 2011

ITEM 13 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0056

1. I consider the proposed application is essential to the long term feasibility of Dunraven Farm. 2. The view from our regular walk from Burry Green through Dunraven Farm and onto Ryer’s Down is not compromised by the caravan in question. 3. We recognise the importance of agriculture on the peninsular and difficulty farmer’s have in retaining staff to work on the land. 4. The structure offers no visual offence it poses no risk and it does offer the family a home now especially considering the cost of housing in the area and lack of affordable housing and its siting helps the farm survive. 5. To remove the caravan which is set back from the main road and is shielded from view is completely unnecessary and in no way will harm the Gower Countryside.

Llangennith, Llanmadoc and Cheriton Community Council - No objection

The Gower Society – Comments as follows:

1. We query whether there is a legitimate agricultural use being made of this caravan. 2. It is in a conspicuous location within the AONB; we remind you of other such dwellings that have been turned into log cabin type homes by exploiting such situations i.e. The Lanches at Llandewi – this must not be allowed to happen again. 3. If the application can truly show that there is a need for a son as a resident worker, we have no objection but we would suggest that the caravan should have been located closed to the main dwelling. 4. We note that an appeal regarding the caravan has been lodged with PINS, but has been withdrawn as the applicant failed to pay the required fee.

We express caution about any longer term intentions for this site and ask that a full agricultural analysis of the situation be made.”

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

CONCLUSION STATEMENT FROM THE APPLICANT’S AGRICULTURAL CONSULTANT

“The current trend in our agricultural communities is towards larger farms and smaller farms such as Dunraven would normally be purchased by neighbouring farmers and would effectively disappear as holdings in their own right. An effort is being made at Dunraven to reverse this trend by ensuring that two generations of the same family to have a part to play in their own farm. I feel sure that Swansea County Council have concerns about the changing nature of this agricultural community of the Gower Peninsular in that the inherent farmers are fast disappearing at the expense of people from outside the area. A vibrant rural community is essential to life in Gower and essential in order that eh people who know land management best continue to be entrusted with the work of maintaining the beauty of the peninsular. The family have long been established at Dunraven and recent Assembly guidelines encourage the youngsters of today to stay within their communities – what better way to satisfy this than to allow this application.” AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 19TH APRIL 2011

ITEM 13 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0056

APPRAISAL

This application is reported to Committee for decision at the request of Councillor Richard Lewis.

Full planning permission is sought to retain a residential caravan and the associated residential curtilage that has been created at field 5555 at Dunraven Farm, Burry Green, Reynoldston. The caravan is sited approximately 50m to the north east of the existing farm house and is occupied by the applicant’s son. A timber ranch style fence separates the caravan from the rest of the field and several fence panels have been erected along part of the southern field boundary in an attempt to provide some screening from the wider area.

The main issues to be considered in this instance are, whether there is sufficient justification for the provision of a second dwelling within the agricultural unit having regard to the relevant Policies in the adopted Development Plan for the area. It is considered that the provisions of the Human Rights Act do not raise any other overriding considerations.

The Policies most pertinent to the consideration of this application are Polices EV1, EV2, EV20, EV22 and EV26 of the Unitary Development Plan 2008 in conjunction with the requirements of TAN 6.

Policy EV1 refers to development proposals only being approved where they have proper regard to the amenities of the surrounding area. Particular aspects to be considered will be visual impact, loss of light or privacy, increased activity and traffic movements or parking problems. Policy EV2 refers to the siting of new development be on previously developed land over green field sites and must have regard to the physical character and topography of the site and its surroundings, avoiding locations that have a significant adverse impact on….landscapes and open spaces, effectively integrate with the landscape and….. avoiding conspicuous locations on prominent skylines and ridge retaining site features and taking into account topography, landscape …trees and hedgerows and not prejudicing the viability and function of any agricultural land adjoining the site.

Policy EV20 states that in the countryside new dwellings will only be permitted where:

(i) The dwelling is required to accommodate a full time worker solely or primarily employed in agriculture, forestry or an appropriate use to serve the rural economy who needs to live on the premises rather than a nearby settlement. (ii) There is no alternative existing dwelling available in nearby settlements and there are no existing buildings on the farm or forestry unit suitable for conversions to residential use, and (iii) The proposed dwelling is located as close as possible to the existing farm buildings, forestry complex or place or work.

Policy EV22 states that the countryside throughout the County will be conserved and enhanced for the sake of its natural heritage, natural resources, historic and cultural, environment and agricultural and recreational value through: AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 19TH APRIL 2011

ITEM 13 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0056

(i) The control of development (ii) Practical management and improvement measures.

Policy EV26 states that within the Gower AONB the primary objective is the conservation and enhancement of the area’s natural beauty. Development that would have a material adverse effect on the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage of the AONB will not be permitted. Any Development within the AONB should :

(i) be of an appropriately high standard of design, and (ii) retain and where possible enhance existing features of natural heritage and the historic environment.

Technical Advice Note 6, which refers specifically to Agriculture and Rural Development, states that new permanent dwellings should only be allowed to support existing agricultural activities on well-established agricultural units, providing:

(a) there is a clearly established existing functional need; (b) the need relates to a full-time worker, or one who is primarily employed in agriculture, and does not relate to a part-time requirement; (c) the unit and the agricultural activity concerned have been established for least three years, have been profitable for at least one of them, are currently financially sound, and have a clear prospect of remaining so; (d) the functional need could not be fulfilled by another dwelling already on the unit, or any other existing accommodation in the area which is suitable and available for occupation by the workers concerned; and (e) other normal planning requirements, for example, on siting and access, are satisfied.

The holding comprises three separate elements i.e. 38.36 hectares owned by the applicant, 11.07 hectares are rented on an informal basis and commoner’s rights held for grazing of sheep, amounting to another 20.92 hectares in total. The applicant, as well as running the farm, also runs another timber business.

There are five buildings currently in use on the farm which consist of a large general purpose shed, a Dutch barn and associated shed and two workshop buildings. The stock on the farm consists of 50 ewes with lambs, 45 suckler cows with calves, one bull and 150 ewes taken in on winter tack. It is anticipated that this stock will be increased to 250 ewes, 50 suckler cows and one bull.

In assessment of the submitted reports, the Authority has sought independent advice on the content of the functional and financial test. The independent consultant has stated the following:

“The stated intentions in this case, whilst possible in terms of the capacity of the holding, are not supported with any evidence that they are reasonably likely to materialise and specifically in respect to the market garden retail element that it is capable of being sustained into the future. The tests on whether a second dwelling is essential are dealt with below. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 19TH APRIL 2011

ITEM 13 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0056

TAN 6 sets out in more detail the required tests. In this case, we may start by assuming that it is an established enterprise and that there is sufficient labour requirement on the holding to fully employ one worker. It is also accepted that there is a functional need for one worker to be on site and that this is satisfied by the first farm worker’s dwelling that already exists.

The application is not for a seasonal caravan. No evidence is offered to demonstrate a transfer of responsibility to a younger worker. The timber business is off-site so is not a qualifying rural enterprise under 4.3.2, so the tests begin at 4.4.1:

4.4.1(a): There is no clearly established need for a second worker to be on site. The agent describes animal welfare as the only reason, but there is no evidence that the need cannot be adequately addressed by the first worker. This test is failed.

4.4.1(b): The agent provides the labour requirement at 4.1 of his report. We cannot accept the figures. We note that they do not include management of the store cattle and all the figures are based on the assumed and dramatic expansion for which there is no supporting evidence. Based on current stocking levels, we are only satisfied that there is evidence of sufficient labour for one full time worker. This test is failed.

4.4.1(c): The enterprise has been established for over three years, but no evidence is submitted on past accounts to prove the rest of the test. The budgets are not allocated to a particular year, assume the expansion for which there is no evidence and do not add any weight to the evidence required for the test. TAN 6 requires evidence of 3 years past accounts and 5 years budgets for the future. These are not provided. This test is failed.

4.4.1(d): There are other dwellings locally (to the west) and of course there is the existing house on the holding. No evidence is offered and the test is failed.

4.4.1(e): No detailed assessment of the other factors have been carried out in this assessment.

TAN 6 section 4.5 sets out two exceptions where the tests above are not completely satisfied. This application fails both of the exception tests, not least because the business is not proven to be financially sustainable and because tests c-e of 4.4.1 are failed.

4.7.1 of TAN 6 clarifies that the LPA having sought the necessary information is entitled to refuse the application on the grounds of lack of proper justification. In our opinion, the information provided lacks such a proper justification.

The agent reports that the enterprise has been running since 1951, with the applicants taking it over in 1994. It cannot be assessed therefore under 4.6 of TAN 6 as a new enterprise. The proposed expansion is not a new enterprise, but a proposed expansion of an existing.

In our opinion, the application fails the tests. There is no proven need for the retention of the caravan and therefore no proven need to retain any curtilage to it.” AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 19TH APRIL 2011

ITEM 13 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0056

The above analysis by the independent consultant concludes that the submitted information fails to demonstrate adequate functional or financial need for an additional agricultural workers dwelling at Dunraven Farm. As such the proposal is considered to be unacceptable and fails to comply with Policy EV20 of the City and County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008 and TAN 6 – Agriculture and Rural Development.

In terms of visual amenity, the caravan is of standard size and design and as such is not of the high quality design in order to comply with the requirements of Policies EV26 or EV1. It is acknowledged that the caravan is not highly visible in the landscape due to the fence that has been erected along the southern boundary of the field but nevertheless, is visible from public vantage points. In addition, the use of domestic fence panels as a boundary treatment within the open countryside is not considered an acceptable form of development and is considered at odds with the rural nature of the area, contrary to Policy EV2. It is the principle of the development that is considered unacceptable in this case and its approval would lead to further visually unacceptable sporadic developments within the Gower AONB which neither conserve nor enhance its visual qualities.

The site is located well away from existing residential dwellings and as such, it is considered that there would be no loss of residential amenity from the proposal. Therefore the application is considered to be acceptable in this regard, and complies with Policy EV1 of the City and County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008.

The Head of Transportation and Engineering raises no highway objection to the scheme as there are considered to be no highway safety or parking implications with this proposal.

In conclusion and having regard to all material planning considerations, including the Human Rights Act, the proposal is considered to represent an unacceptable form of development, which fails to comply with the criteria set out in Policies EV1, EV2, EV20, EV22 and EV26 of the Unitary Development Plan 2008 and if approved would set an undesirable precedent for future developments of a similar nature. Refusal is therefore recommended.

RECOMMENDATION

REFUSE, for the following reasons:

1 The applicant has failed to demonstrate an agricultural or overriding economic or social need for this residential development in the open countryside in accordance with Policy EV20 of the City and County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008 and Welsh Assembly Technical Advice Note 6. The development therefore constitutes unjustified urbanising development in the open countryside detrimental to the character and appearance and openness of the area contrary to PoliciesEV1, EV2, EV20, EV22 and EV26 of the Unitary Development Plan 2008.

2 Approval of this application would set an undesirable precedent for developments of a similar nature, the cumulative effect of which would significantly impact upon and detract from the visual qualities, character and appearance of the Gower AONB.

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 19TH APRIL 2011

ITEM 13 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0056

INFORMATIVES

PLANS

Design and Access Statement, site plan, photograph of caravan, photographs of surrounding area received 11th February 2011

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 19TH APRIL 2011

ITEM 14 APPLICATION NO. 2011/0111 WARD: Gower Area 2

Location: Compass Coffee Shop, Reynoldston, Swansea, SA3 1AN Proposal: Change of use from coffee shop (Class A3) and first floor holiday flat (Class C3) to one detached holiday let (Class C3), front canopy, porch and two new accesses Applicant: Mr Robert Holloway

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

POLICIES

Policy Policy Description Policy EC12 The conversion of existing buildings in the countryside to new uses that contribute to the local economy and the extensions of such buildings will be permitted subject to a defined set of criteria including the building's structural integrity, its ability to be converted without prejudicing the character of the building or its locality, the building's compatibility with its surroundings, issues of access and highway safety, and the building's past uses etc. (City & County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008)

Policy EC17 Proposals for tourism and recreation developments of an appropriate scale in locations which relate acceptably to the existing pattern of development and/or their surroundings in terms of the nature of the proposal concerned will be permitted provided they comply with a specified list of criteria including standard of design, effect on landscape and nature conservation, effect of visitor pressure on sensitive locations, provide acceptable and safe access, would not cause a loss of best agricultural land. (City & County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008)

Policy EC19 The creation of well-designed un-serviced tourist accommodation through the conversion of existing appropriate rural buildings will be supported. (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 14 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0111

SITE HISTORY

App No. Proposal 2009/1271 Change of use from coffee shop (Class A3) and first floor holiday flat (Class C3) to one detached dwelling (Class C3), front canopy, porch and two new accesses Decision: Refuse Decision Date: 17/03/2010

2006/1745 Demolition of existing dwelling and construction of detached dwelling house Decision: Refuse Decision Date: 20/02/2007

2002/1580 Change of use of repair workshop to a tea room (Class A3) with holiday flat (Class C3) at first floor and associated external alterations Decision: Grant Permission Conditional Decision Date: 17/01/2003

2005/1926 Retention of change of use from repair workshop to tea room (Class A3) with holiday flat (Class C3) at first floor and associated external alterations, new access, 12 no. space car park and formation of outside seating area (amendment to planning application 2002/1580 granted on 17th January 2003) Decision: Grant Permission Conditional Decision Date: 24/04/2006

RESPONSE TO CONSULTATIONS

The application was advertised on site. No response.

The Gower Society – Comments as follows:

1. We are concerned that the change of use conflicts with the original planning permission that was given for this café. 2. There is a proven need for such a café; its loss will reflect the applicant’s intentions to maximise the development potential for the site and the various applications that have been made. 3. We are not entirely happy with the design for a holiday cottage – in particular the front canopy. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 19TH APRIL 2011

ITEM 14 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0111

Highways Observations – This proposal is for a change of use of the Compass Coffee Shop in Reynoldston, to a holiday let unit. Access alterations are proposed where a new access to the unit will be provided on the eastern side and the existing access on the western side is to be repositioned slightly further west to give access to the existing dwelling to the rear. Both accesses will be laid out as per the standard for private accesses in Gower and are considered satisfactory, with adequate parking and on site turning facilities for both dwellings. With the removal of the coffee shop, traffic attraction to the site is likely to be reduced.

I recommend that no highway objections are raised.

APPRAISAL

This application is reported to Committee for decision at the request of Councillor Richard Lewis.

Full planning permission is sought for a change of use of the Compass Coffee Shop with the holiday flat above in Reynoldston to a single holiday accommodation unit with external alterations and the provision of two new vehicular accesses. The alterations include a new front porch and front canopy with the creation of a residential curtilage for the new dwelling in part of the existing car parking area, enclosed by a 1.2m high stone wall and the creation of a new access to provide a driveway to the existing dwelling to the rear, “Sunnybank”.

The application property was given planning permission to be partially rebuilt and converted to a holiday let and coffee shop from a car repair garage in 2003 (2002/1580 refers). A subsequent amended application was approved in 2006 (2005/1926 refers), which included the formation of a 12 space car park and the provision of an outside seating area. In both applications, the scheme was considered acceptable as it would contribute to the local economy and would have a positive impact upon the visual amenities of the area by removing an unsightly repair garage. The Policies in place at that time were in favour of the re-use of the existing building to uses that supported the local economy and holiday accommodation.

Members will recall that an application for the change of use of the building to permanent residential accommodation was refused March 2010, (2009/1271 refers) for the following reason:

“The change of use of the building to a detached dwelling constitutes an unjustified and inappropriate form of development within the open countryside and contrary to Countryside Protection Policies EC12, EV20 and EV22 of the City & County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008.”

The main issue to be considered therefore is the principle of a holiday accommodation unit at this location and the resultant effect upon the character and appearance of the area, having specific regard to the Unitary Development Policies EV1, EV2, EV22, EV26, EC19, EV21, EC17and EC12 having regard to the planning history of the site. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 19TH APRIL 2011

ITEM 14 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0111

Policy EV1 specifies that developments should comply with the criteria of good design and Policy EV2 refers to preference being given to the use of previously developed land. Policies EV22 and EV26 of the Swansea UDP seek to protect the environment and natural beauty of the countryside for its own sake. Within the Gower AONB the protection of natural beauty will be the primary objective. Policy EC12 of the Unitary Development Plan which refers to the reuse of existing buildings in the open countryside providing they are capable of conversion, are structurally sound, can provide safe access and that their conversion would not adversely affect the rural character of the locality.

Policy EC17 refers to rural tourism and refers to the acceptability of developments providing they are in keeping with the area, have no adverse affects on the landscape, would not create an unacceptable level of visitor pressure at sensitive locations and can provide safe access without harming the character of adjacent lanes. Policy EC19 refers to the provision of unserviced tourist accommodation through the conversion of appropriate rural buildings being supported.

In principle therefore the use of the building as holiday accommodation at this location is acceptable as it is structurally sound and capable of conversion and would be a use that contributes to the local economy and as such would comply with the criteria of Policies EC12, EC17 and EC19 of the Unitary Development Plan 2008.

In terms of visual amenity, the conversion of the building would not make a visual difference to the area over and above what is on site at present apart from the addition of a front porch and canopy. However, the change to the means of enclosure would be an improvement on the current situation on site as it would be more sympathetic to the area and therefore complies with Policies EV1 and EV26 in visual terms. Bearing this in mind, it is considered that the change of use of the premises to a holiday let, which is a use supported by Policy EC12 and EC19 as a use contributing to the local economy, the change to the means of enclosure would also be considered an improvement. The porch and canopy are considered a visual improvement to the existing frontage of the building.

Turning to highway safety issues, the Head of Transportation and Engineering raises no highway objection and considers that the change of use would be an improvement in highway safety terms as less traffic would be attracted to the area.

In conclusion therefore and having regard to all material considerations, including the Human Rights Act, the proposal is considered an acceptable form of development at this location which complies with the provisions of Policies EV1, EV2, EV22, EV26, EC19, EV21 EC17 and EC12 of the Unitary Development Plan 2008 and approval is recommended.

RECOMMENDATION

APPROVE, subject to the following conditions: AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 19TH APRIL 2011

ITEM 14 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0111

2 The owner shall ensure that an up to date register containing details of all occupiers of the holiday let together with the dates of occupancy and details of the occupiers' main home address, is maintained and submitted to the Local Planning Authority on an annual basis (the register for each calendar year shall be submitted by the 31st January in the following year unless otherwise agreed by the Local Planning Authority), and shall also be made available at all reasonable times for inspection by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure that the holiday accommodation is not used for unauthorised permanent residential accommodation.

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

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

INFORMATIVES

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

PLANS

Site location plan, block and proposed floor plans, proposed elevations, existing elevations, design and access statement received 1st February 2011

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 19TH APRIL 2011

ITEM 15 APPLICATION NO. 2011/0281 WARD: Gower Area 2

Location: Oaklea Llangennith Swansea SA3 1HU Proposal: Two storey rear extension with balcony and single storey side extension Applicant: Mrs Rachel Searle

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

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

Policy 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 None

RESPONSE TO CONSULTATIONS

The proposal was advertised by way of press and site notice. TWO LETTERS OF OBJECTION have been received their content is summarised below.

1. It cannot be guaranteed that the foundations of my property are of the standards expected of planning conditions today, and I am concerned that any development which would impinge upon the structure of my house would be potentially hazardous. 2. Having viewed the plans, it is obvious that the proposal is to directly link part of the development to the pine end of my house. I am very concerned with this, not just because of the potential structural problems which may arise as a result of this (as outlined in point 1 above), but also that my property would become a mid-terrace and no longer be a semi-detached house. This also gives rise to concerns of damp. This will inevitably also have an effect upon the value of my home. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 19TH APRIL 2011

ITEM 15 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0281

3. Maintenance of my pine-end would also be affected if this proposal is approved. 4. The double-storey proposal would also directly affect the light and view I currently have and enjoy at the rear of my house. I have a partial sea view (which was a selling point for me when I bought it and would be a selling point should I wish to do so at some time in the future – see the photographs attached). This extension would remove that view from me and would result in a large part of my garden losing direct sunlight in the existing patio, permanently depriving that area of sunlight and air flow - as shown by the simulation photographs enclosed. 5. The extension would also cause severe loss of light in my kitchen. I have a single small window and partially glazed door which would no longer receive direct sunlight. These are the only windows on the ground floor of this projection of the house (see photographs enclosed). This area of the house is used constantly by all members of my family, to sit in, prepare food, etc. to have this two storey wall in front of us would be overbearing and dismal. 6. I have also observed that the proposed plans show that the footprint of the two-storey extension appears to be larger than the existing house. 7. The position of the balcony would result in a complete loss of privacy for the only section of my remaining garden which would enjoy sunlight. 8. Precedence to refuse a balcony in these circumstances has already been refused to a property in the immediate vicinity for the same reasons of privacy? 9. I also notice that the plans submitted for approval does not truly reflect the actual dimensions and structure of my home. The plans show a continuous building extending into my garden when, in fact, it is not at all like that. Indeed, there is an outhouse at the extreme part of that projection which is not connected to the main body of my house and it is this area which will be affected by the proposal. I am amazed that the architect should provide drawings which are misleading. 10. It is also easy to see, from the plans, that an alternative is available to my neighbour. The extension could be proposed to occupy the other side of their garden, which abuts a lane. I can only assume that they have chosen not to use this area because THEY would not be able to make best advantage of the available sunlight, something they seem to be ignoring as far as my property is concerned. 11. The property subject to the application; “Oaklea,” is a detached cottage originating from circa 1780. My home was once the “Welcome to Town” public house and formerly the home of the Gower folk singer Phil Tanner. So my home has social history within the area and it is especially upsetting to think that the integrity of this historical building should be compromised in this way and absorbed into what would become a mid-terraced property. 12. The design is more in keeping with an urban or city environment and not at all in keeping with a small village in an area of outstanding beauty. 13. There seems to be a lack of sympathy for use of suitable materials to assimilate with the original materials of their cottage and these do nothing to enhance or respect the rest of the properties within the community. 14. The application proposal also highlights a concern with the scale of the extension; something which, if passed, will be larger than the original cottage. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 19TH APRIL 2011

ITEM 15 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0281

15. I am very worried and distressed at the thought of the extension appearing to be attached to my home and it would ultimately convert my historically significant home into a mid-terrace property and thereby lose its identity and value. 16. The applicants have a large plot of land with a great deal of space on the other side of their property which could be used for the development. 17. They also do not provide the planning committee with a true reflection of the impact this will have on my home. The plans are inaccurate and suggest a building within my land which doesn’t exist. 18. The plans also show, on the floor plan of their property, a shed which will be converted into the single storey extension. This, in fact, doesn’t exist (at present it is just sheets of corrugated metal which has been wedged into the space between our homes to provide them with a small covered area).

Llangennith, Llanmadoc and Cheriton Community Council – Objects on the following grounds: Overintensification of that area of Llangennith and excessive footprint of extension, obstruction of light and intrusion to both neighbouring properties and design out of keeping with surrounding area.

The Gower Society – OBJECTS for the following reasons:

1. This property is within Llangennith Conservation Area, and in a conspicuous location opposite the church. 2. The existing house is being more than doubled in size. 3. The design is inappropriate for its location and does not reflect either the existing property or the adjacent Welcome to Town pub now known as The Welcome. 4. We appreciate that the rear extension will not be excessively intrusive in the landscape when viewed from the road but we do have reservations about the impact on the neighbouring property, and possibly views from the church yard opposite. 5. This development would certainly be grossly at odds with the draft design guide. 6. The design for this extension is poor ugly and not even sympathetic to the existing dwelling; the balcony will cause a lack of privacy to the neighbours.

Highways & Transport - According to our adopted parking guidelines the area of the two storey rear extension requires 3 car parking spaces. There is sufficient car parking and turning within the curtilage of the site. – No Highways Objection

APPRAISAL

This application is reported to Committee for decision at the request of Councillor Richard Lewis

Full planning permission is sought for the construction of a two storey rear extension with balcony and a single storey side extension at Oaklea Cottage, Llangennith. The application site is bounded to the north by the dwelling know as The Welcome, to the south by an access track serving fields to the rear. On the opposite side of the track is No.1 Wellpark, with Oak Cottage abutting the application site to the rear of the application site. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 19TH APRIL 2011

ITEM 15 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0281

The dwelling lies in a relatively large plot within the Llangennith Conservation Area and Gower AONB where Development Plan Policy and National Guidance requires a high standard of design that conserves or enhances the character and appearance of these areas irrespective of how prominent a proposed form of development may be. The property also lies opposite St Cennydd’s Church, a Grade II Listed Building, dating from the 12th Century. However, the siting of the extension largely at the rear means that the setting of the Listed Building would not be adversely affected.

The application site currently comprises a cottage of traditional design which has remained largely unaltered with the exception of a lean to rear extension and an increase in window size to the front elevation.

The proposed side extension would be approximately 2.0m in width at its narrowest point widening at the rear to approximately 3.7 metres in width and would be approximately 5.3 metres in depth incorporating a flat roof with a height of approximately 3.2 meters when viewed from the front elevation.

The two storey rear addition would have a maximum height of approximately 6.4 metres where it abuts a solid wall of 6.7 metres in height and approximately 8.3 metres in width constructed approximately 1.4 metres off the common boundary with the adjoining property.

At first floor level the proposed extension would have a wrap around balcony which would be set back from the end of the wall by approximately 0.4 metres. The rear elevation would have four sets of French doors, two located at ground floor level and two located at first floor level, with a similar arrangement to the side elevation.

The scheme currently before the Local Planning Authority was submitted for pre application advice and prior to any formal advice being given the applicant submitted the scheme for consideration as a planning application.

With regard to impact upon visual amenity, the proposal would not, it is considered, respect the design or proportions of the existing dwelling and would give rise to an unsympathetic overdevelopment of the host property that would in terms of its scale, and design fail to conserve or enhance the character and appearance of the dwelling or the Conservation Area, or this part of the Gower AONB.

The dwelling currently has a simple form which is considered to relate well to the character and context of the wider street scene. Whilst the proposed alteration would be only partially visible from public vantage points they would inevitably compete with the principle dwelling and present as a discordant poorly considered addition.

Overall it is considered that the form of the proposed extension and its poor relationship to the host dwelling in terms of design and massing would not reach the high standards of design required in either the Conservation Area or Gower AONB.

Turning to impact upon residential amenity given the siting and location of the property in respect of its neighbours it is considered that the proposed wall forming the north elevation of the proposed rear extension would give rise to an oppressive and overbearing form of development in respect of the adjacent property The Welcome. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 19TH APRIL 2011

ITEM 15 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0281

With an area of approximately 57 square metres the proposed wall would, notwithstanding the change in levels between the two properties of approximately 1.0 metres would give rise to harmful impacts upon the living conditions of the occupiers of this property.

In addition to the above it is considered that, notwithstanding the open nature of the rear gardens the extent of the balconies proposed give rise to some concerns in respect of a potential increase in the opportunity to overlook the amenity areas associated with the neighbouring property, however it is acknowledged that this may be addressed by setting back the balcony and provision of additional screening.

In conclusion and having regard to all material considerations, it is considered that the proposal by virtue of its siting, scale and design would fail to respect the character and proportions of the host dwelling, undermining the character and appearance of the existing building, the Conservation Area and the Gower AONB contrary to Policies HC7, EV1, EV9 and EV26 of the City and County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan and the Supplementary Planning Guidance “A Design Guide for Householder Development”.

RECOMMENDATION

REFUSE, for the following reason:

1 The proposed extension by virtue of its excessive scale and inappropriate design would appear as a discordant feature which would fail to respect the proportions and the character of the existing dwelling and be detrimental to the character and appearance of the Llangennith Conservation Area and the Gower AONB. The proposal is therefore contrary to the provisions of Policies HC7, EV1, EV9 and EV26 of the City and County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan and the Council's Supplementary Planning Guidance 'A Design Guide for Householder Development'.

2 The proposed rear extension would give rise to an oppressive and overbearing impact upon the occupiers of the neighbouring property to the north 'The Welcome', detrimental to their residential amenity contrary to Policies EV1 and HC7 of the City & County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan (2008) and the Council's Supplementary Planning Guidance 'A Design Guide for Householder Development'.

INFORMATIVES

PLANS

SH063-01- site location plan, SH063-02- existing block/site plan, SH063-04- existing ground floor plan, SH063-05- existing first floor plan, SH063-06- existing roof plan, SH063- 07- existing elevations, SH063-08- proposed site plan, SH063-09- proposed ground floor plan, SH063-10- proposed first floor plan, SH063-11 proposed roof plan, SH063-12- proposed section A-A, SH063-13- proposed elevations, SH063-14-proposed block plan received 23rd February 2011 AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 19TH APRIL 2011

ITEM 16 APPLICATION NO. 2011/0318 WARD: Killay North Area 2

Location: 40 Ffordd Taliesin, Killay, Swansea Proposal: Retention of incorporation of land into residential curtilage and 1.8m boundary fence Applicant: Mr D Price

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

POLICIES

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

SITE HISTORY

App No. Proposal 2010/0830 Retention of change of use of land from open land to extension of household curtilage with 2 metre fencing on front boundary Decision: Withdrawn Decision Date: 03/03/2011

2005/1239 Single storey rear extension Decision: Grant Permission Conditional Decision Date: 20/12/2005

2004/0805 To remove 2 primary branches and a number of smaller branches from 1 Ash tree covered by TPO no 254 Decision: Grant Tree Pres Order Consent (C) Decision Date: 28/05/2004

RESPONSE TO CONSULTATION

The application was advertised via direct neighbour consultation. NO RESPONSE.

APPRAISAL

This application is reported to Committee for decision at the request of Councillor Mary Jones. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 19TH APRIL 2011

ITEM 16 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0318

This application seeks planning permission for the retention of a parcel of land as residential curtilage with a 1.8 metre boundary fence. The application dwelling is a link style property that occupies a corner plot opposite the junction between Ffordd Taliesin and Lamb Lane.

Ffordd Taliesin comprises of a variety of linked and detached properties. The estate is generally open in character with few fences or walls defining property boundaries. The fences that have been installed along this primary arterial route are predominantly small 1m boundary fences that maintain the openness of the estate. The previous boundary would have been located some 4m further back and did not project further forward than the building line of Number 40 Ffordd Taliesin. The new boundary has incorporated an area of land that is stated as being under the ownership of the applicant and is defined by a 1.8 metre high timber fence. The parcel of land is located to the north of the dwelling.

In terms of amenity value, whilst the parcel of land did not use to be curtilage, given its very small area the land would have had limited amenity value, as such the principle of the use of the land as part of the curtilage of the property is acceptable. However, in visual terms, it is considered that the erection of a 1.8 metre high fence in such a prominent location on the principal access route into the development has an adverse visual impact on the open character of the estate to the detriment of the visual amenity of the surrounding area contrary to Policies EV1 and EV2 of the City and County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan (November 2008). Refusal is therefore recommended.

RECOMMENDATION

REFUSE, for the following reason:

1 The 1.8m timber fence, by virtue of its height and siting at a prominent location has an unacceptable detrimental impact on the open character and appearance of the street scene and locality contrary to Policies EV1 and EV2 of the City and County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan (2008).

INFORMATIVES

PLANS

Site location plan, Drwg No.01 Site layout, 1A Existing site plan, Proposed site plan, Block plan, Fencing details : Received 28th February 2011

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 19TH APRIL 2011

ITEM 17 APPLICATION NO. 2010/1101 WARD: Gower Area 2

Location: Land at Oxwich Bay Hotel, Oxwich, Swansea, SA3 1LS Proposal: Temporary siting of marquee and associated overspill car park from 1st November 2010 to 31st March 2011, 1st November 2011 to 31st March 2012 and 1st November 2012 to 31st March 2013 Applicant: Mr I Williams

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

POLICIES

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

Policy EV11 Development will not be permitted that would harm the character or setting of a registered Historic Park or Garden or the character of an Historic Landscape. (City & County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008)

Policy EV27 Development that significantly adversely affects the special interests of sites designated as SSSI's and NNR's will not be permitted unless the need for the development is of such significance that it outweighs the national importance of the designation. (City & County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008)

Policy EV31 Along the undeveloped coastline development proposals for the provision of visitor and recreation facilities and services to complement existing facilities will be permitted at specified coastal locations. (City & County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008) AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 19TH APRIL 2011

ITEM 17 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/1101

Policy EV21 In the countryside non-residential development will only be permitted where it can be demonstrated that it is beneficial for the rural economy, or it meets overriding social or economic local needs, or it is appropriate development associated with farm diversification, sustainable tourism or nature conservation, or it provides an acceptable economic use for brown field land or existing buildings, or it is essential for communications, other utility services, minerals or renewable energy generation. (City & County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008)

SITE HISTORY

App No. Proposal 2008/2185 Temporary siting of marquee and associated overspill car park from 1 February 2009 to 31 October 2009 Decision: Grant Temporary Permission Decision Date: 15/01/2009

2009/1599 Extend the period of temporary permitted use for marquee and associated overspill car park to include the period commencing 1st November 2009 and ceasing on 31st March 2011 including alterations to colour of marquee between the begining of December and end of February with this period. Decision: Withdrawn Decision Date: 07/05/2010

2008/0064 Temporary siting of marquee and associated overspill car park from April to September 2008 and December 2008 Decision: Grant Temporary Permission Decision Date: 04/03/2008

2006/2781 Temporary siting of marquee from April to September 2007 and December 2007, associated overspill car park and landscaping. Decision: Grant Temporary Permission Decision Date: 15/05/2007 AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 19TH APRIL 2011

ITEM 17 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/1101

98/0565 ENGINEERING OPERATIONS TO REPROFILE OPEN MEADOW TO FORM A PLATEAU FOR THE TEMPORARY SITING OF A MARQUEE WITH ASSOCIATED ACCESS WAY AND LAND DRAINAGE WORKS Decision: *HRP - REFUSE PERMISSION Decision Date: 14/07/1998

2004/1741 Siting of temporary marquee April to September inclusive and December, and associated overspill car park Decision: Grant Temporary Permission Decision Date: 11/08/2005

98/1207 RETENTION OF LAND DRAINAGE WORKS, ALTERATIONS TO FIELD ACCESS AND REPROFILING OF PLATEAU AREA Decision: *HGPC - GRANT PERMISSION CONDITIONAL Decision Date: 09/03/1999

2005/2635 Submission of details for conditions 3 and 5 of planning permission 2004/1741 granted on 11th April 2005 to show new hedge and background lighting for the marquee and overspill car park Decision: Withdrawn Decision Date: 28/03/2008

2010/1102 Temporary siting of marquee, associated overspill car park and associated landscaping from 1st April 2011 to 31st October 2011, 1st April 2012 to 31st October 2012, 1st April 2013 to 31st October 2013 and 1st April 2014 to 31st October 2014 Decision: Officer Consideration Decision Date: 10/02/2011

90/0500/03 SITING OF PORTAKABIN AND FLOODLIGHTS Decision: Withdraw Decision Date: 25/03/1996

2007/2148 Addition of pitched roof to part of northern elevation and replacement roof to existing entrance canopy Decision: Grant Permission Conditional Decision Date: 13/11/2007

89/1470/03 ALTERATIONS AND EXTENSIONS TO HOTEL PREMISES. Decision: *HGPC - GRANT PERMISSION CONDITIONAL Decision Date: 15/12/1989

84/0188/03 THE SITING OF A PORTAKABIN + THE SITING OF A MOBILE ICE- CREAM VAN. Decision: *HRP - REFUSE PERMISSION Decision Date: 29/03/1984 AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 19TH APRIL 2011

ITEM 17 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/1101

84/1190/06 ILLUMINATED HOTEL RESTAURANT SIGN - SIZE:- 3FT X 1FT 6INS. Decision: *HRP - REFUSE PERMISSION Decision Date: 25/10/1984

84/1288/03 ADDITION OF NEW ENTRANCE PORCHES,BAY WINDOWS,EXTRA TOILET ACCOMMODATION AND GENERAL ALTERATIONS AND IMPROVEMENTS. Decision: *HGPCU - GRANT PERMISSION UNCONDITIONAL Decision Date: 29/11/1984

84/1600/12 RELAXATION OF CONDITION (B) ON PREVIOUS APPROVAL 82/1383/11 REFERRING TO NO COACHES OR CHARABANCS BEING ALLOWED TO ENTER SITE. Decision: *HGPC - GRANT PERMISSION CONDITIONAL Decision Date: 31/01/1985

85/0812/12 RELAXATION OF CONDITION 'C' ON PREVIOUS CONSENT RELATING TO USE FOR MUSIC DANCING AND OUTSIDE FUNCTIONS SUCH AS WEDDING RECEPTIONS. Decision: *HGPC - GRANT PERMISSION CONDITIONAL Decision Date: 25/07/1985

85/0886/06 HANGING SIGNS. Decision: *HGPCU - GRANT PERMISSION UNCONDITIONAL Decision Date: 25/07/1985

86/0082/12 RELAXATION OF CONDITION 'E' ON CONSENT FOR MUSIC AND DANCING + OUTSIDE FUNCTIONS, (2/1/85/0812/12). Decision: Withdraw Decision Date: 18/03/1986

86/0286/12 RELAXATION OF CONDITION 'C' ON PREVIOUS CONSENT NUMBER 821383 RELATING TO USE FOR MUSIC,DAN- CING + OUTSIDE FUNCTIONS SUCH AS WEDDING RECEPTIONS FOR A Decision: *HGPC - GRANT PERMISSION CONDITIONAL Decision Date: 06/05/1986

86/0359/03 USE OF BUILDING (HOTEL) FOR MUSIC AND DANCING IN CONNECTION WITH PRIVATE FUNCTIONS. Decision: *HGPC - GRANT PERMISSION CONDITIONAL Decision Date: 26/06/1986

86/1566/03 EXTENSION TO EXISTING KITCHENS. Decision: *HGPC - GRANT PERMISSION CONDITIONAL Decision Date: 29/01/1987

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 19TH APRIL 2011

ITEM 17 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/1101

90/1260/03 ERECTION OF GARAGE, CAR PORT + SCREENING TO SERVICE AREA, HUT AND BARRIER TO EXISTING CAR PARK, HEIGHTENING OF ROOF STORE + PROVISION OF ACCESS. Decision: DEFERRAL AT AREA PLANNING CMTE Decision Date: 13/11/1990

91/0088/03 ERECTION OF WALL Decision: *HGPC - GRANT PERMISSION CONDITIONAL Decision Date: 29/04/1991

91/1506 ERECTION OF STORM PORCH WITH FIRST FLOOR CONSERVATORY Decision: *HGPC - GRANT PERMISSION CONDITIONAL Decision Date: 25/02/1992

91/6027 RETRACTABLE SUN BLINDS Decision: *HGCC - GRANT CONSENT WITH CONDITIONS Decision Date: 09/07/1991

94/1316 EXTENSION OF EXISTING PORCH, ERECTION OF NEW STAIRWELL AND FORMATION OF RAISED GARDEN Decision: *HGPC - GRANT PERMISSION CONDITIONAL Decision Date: 07/02/1995

96/0906 FIRST FLOOR EXTENSION INCORPORATING NEW BALCONY, SINGLE STOREY CONSERVATORY EXTENSION AND NEW PORCH AND BALCONY ON FRONT (EAST) ELEVATION, ALTERATIONS TO ELEVATIONS, EXTENSION TO ROOF AND CONSTRUCTION OF FIRST Decision: *HGPC - GRANT PERMISSION CONDITIONAL Decision Date: 13/01/1998

97/1168 SINGLE STOREY SIDE CONSERVATORY EXTENSION, SINGLE STOREY SIDE/REAR EXTENSION AND ERECTION OF COVERED WALKWAYS Decision: *HGPC - GRANT PERMISSION CONDITIONAL Decision Date: 03/02/1998

RESPONSE TO CONSULTATIONS

The application was advertised on site and in the press as a departure from the Development Plan and a development within a Conservation Area and four neighbouring properties were individually consulted. TWO LETTERS OF OBJECTION and ONE LETTER OF SUPPORT have been received, which are summarised as follows: AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 19TH APRIL 2011

ITEM 17 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/1101

OBJECTION

1. The marquee has had an extremely adverse effect on the beauty of the surrounding area. 2. Having the marquee in place for the winter will severely detract from the beauty of this internationally important landscape and nature reserve. 3. The green front to the marquee from January to March is only a minor concession and the white marquee will be in place in November and December. 4. I have been approached by visitors who say that the marquee has detracted from their enjoyment of the surrounding countryside. 5. The marquee site and car park area were both green fields until recently. A road has been driven through at the back and substantial landscaping works have been undertaken. Planning permission has never been sought for these works. 6. The marquee has been left up without permission this winter already and granting an application in this manner will create an extremely unfortunate precedent. 7. It is an environmental eyesore through the summer and noisy and it is only right that it should be properly removed for at least two thirds of the year so that tourist can enjoy the pastoral nature of our coastline for which it is famous.

SUPPORT

1. We have had fundraising events at the Marquee and thanks to the support of Mr Williams we have raised thousands of pounds for cancer research. 2. The marquee is a very popular party venue and as we understand that commercial bookings are priority, the majority of our fundraising functions area held out of season, usually in the winter month which will unfortunately cease if planning is not granted. 3. I know that other charities and local churches also hold events at the marquee and these people could be affected too. 4. Having such a lovely setting and venue attracts more people from outside Gower to each event, which in turn raises more for our worthwhile charity.

The Gower Society – Objects:

1. By allowing this occupancy the CCS would in fact be giving 12-month permission (if 2010/1102 were to be allowed). The next step would be for a permanent structure at this location. 2. We note that the applicant is proposing an olive green roof. However, the sides would remain very conspicuous. The extensive photographs and montages do not convince us of any real change in the impact on the landscape. 3. This structure is very prominent, located adjacent to the historic Church and alongside a very popular beach used all year. It is highly visible from both near and far. Once leaf fall has occurred, this will stand out even more. 4. The applicant has indicated that he would not hold any event in the marquee for a period between January and March. What is the marquee to be used for in November and December? AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 19TH APRIL 2011

ITEM 17 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/1101

5. We would point out that there is no need for the marquee to be present in order to show potential clients. With today’s technology, potential customers could be shown photographs and/or DVD’s to illustrate what is available. A virtual tour of the marquee could be available on a web-site. 6. We have previously suggested that the marquee could have originally be placed closer and to the rear of the hotel. 7. Were the Authority to consider this application for approval, then we ask that the whole of the exterior of the marquee be olive-green or similar so that the structure is much less visible in the landscape of the AONB – otherwise this application should not be considered.

The Gower Society: further comment as follows:

“We would like to draw your attention the following information that has recently come to light or has been made known to us regarding the above application.

English Heritage apparently state that such temporary structures would be entirely inappropriate when near to a Listed Building and harm the value of a place” or words to that effect. We do not have the exact quotation but they are clearly opposed to such structure in sensitive locations. This is very much in line with our own comments that were made in our letter of 1st December 2010.

We are also informed that the applicant may be claiming that a marquee has been utilised on this site for 19 years. This in our opinion is inaccurate and misleading and the marquee has only been present for the last 5 or 6 years and your files should reveal this.

You will also recall that a number of people including ourselves were greatly concerned about the unauthorised works that were carried out to the north and east of the hotel car park when earthworks were ruined a natural primrose meadow and we understand a road was driven around the rear of the hotel to access the marquee. We are not certain where the marquee is now situated was levelled but it was certainly not 19 years ago.

We repeat we are not against a marquee in principle at eh rear of the hotel but to give permission for such a highly visible structure so close to the listed church and in such a grossly prominent position does not fit comfortably with the current UDP, the AONB or indeed with common sense.”

Countryside Council for Wales – “There appears to be a discrepancy between the ownership boundary outlined on the drawing titled ”Ownership and Site Boundary with SSSI and SAC Conservation Areas” and what CCW understand to be the ownership boundaries at the site. We enclose a map showing the boundary of the Oxwich Nature Reserve hatched in red, an area leased by CCW from the Estate of George Bertram Bathurst (deceased). The indicative boundary of the applicant’s ownership appears to overlap with this lease area.

We would request that the above information is passed on to the applicant or their agent.” AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 19TH APRIL 2011

ITEM 17 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/1101

Highways Observations - The application is for the renewal of temporary permission to site a marquee and associated overspill car parking. There have been no reported issues as a result of this and the temporary overspill parking area is considered to be beneficial when events are being held at the site, to ensure that no extraneous parking takes place within the village. I recommend no highway objections be raised.

Supporting Statement submitted with the application.

The roof of the principal mass of the temporary marquee will be covered with olive coloured Upvc during the months of December, January and February to help blend the marquee into the meadow surroundings during the winter period and the dark backcloth of Oxwich woods.

The neighbouring hedge referred to in past reviews screening the site of the temporary marquee from the views of the beach will be enhanced and upgraded by additional planting and this is illustrated on the accompanying photo montages.

We wish to emphasise that the marquee and its associated mobile services vehicles are temporary. They are not permanent, are removable and permit the existing landscape and topography to return to their original condition and form upon demand.

Our landscape architect has given careful consideration to and undertaken a survey of the existing tree and shrub series to ensure that the location of any strategic new planting will help to enhance the existing landscape and overcome and visual impact the marquee may have. The temporary marquee will be linked to the hotel through an arch of mature evergreen hedging and informal soft landscaped pathway.

The site evaluation and proposals include photo montages of the siting of the marquee from a number of important and prominent vantage points which demonstrate how we envisage the impact of the temporary marquee may be considerably reduced.

The visual impact of the temporary marquee and its temporary support facilities from St.Illtyds church will be considerably reduced, if not overcome by new planting and clearing of the area.

The Oxwich Bay Hotel is very pleased to be able to offer upon request the WC facilities provided within the temporary marquee to St. Illtyds church and an identified access will be provided.

The area at the rear and front access to the marquee will be cleared of barriers and fencing and the slope adjusted to offer a consistent grade whilst at the same time offering an attractive soft landscape are at the entrance to the marquee.

Reference has also been made to the Land Maps prepared by the Countryside Council for Wales and particularly Habitat, Cultural Historic, Visual sensory and geological for this particular area at Oxwich. We wish to emphasise that eh proposals the subject of this application are for a temporary marquee which can be removed, and the area immediately returned to meadow in accordance with the CCW Land Maps. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 19TH APRIL 2011

ITEM 17 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/1101

Any possibility of light pollution has been addressed by the use only of solar lighting to identify the pedestrian route linking the hotel with the marquee and careful design and testing of the light output within the marquee itself.

Experience and business trends tell use in a strong way that the period 2nd January to 10th February each year is purely showcasing the facilities, such an important step by the customer in the decision making process. They would be prepared to sign a legal document that can be agreed between us covering this use only between these dates.

APPRAISAL

This application is reported to Committee for decision at the request of Councillor Richard Lewis.

The application site is situated on land at Oxwich Bay Hotel. This field site (Field No. 2821) is located to the south east of the hotel at the southern end of Oxwich Bay. The site is located on the beach side of the prominent headland at Oxwich Point, both within the Oxwich Village Conservation Area, and close to the Grade II* Listed Church of St Illtyds, and adjacent to the Gower Ash Woods Special Area of Conservation.

Temporary planning permission is sought for the retention of the existing marquee and associated overspill car park for a period of three years over the winter months from 1st November 2010 to 31st March 2013.

Planning permission was previously granted on the 15th January, 2009, for the temporary siting of a marquee at this site (Ref: 2008/2185), subject to conditions including Condition 01, as follows:-

“Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995, this permission is for a limited period expiring on 31st October 2011. During this period the marquee hereby approved shall only be used between the 1st April and 31st October (inclusive) in any year, and shall be removed in its entirety from the planning unit between the 1st November and 31st March in any year”.

Members are advised that notwithstanding the above conditional requirement, the marquee has not been removed and is still erected on site. In response to discussions with the case officer, the applicant’s agent submitted a supporting written statement with the application to justify not removing the marquee during the winter months.

In terms of its overall size and siting the marquee currently on site is different to the one that was granted temporary planning permission under planning application 2008/2185 so, irrespective of it being in situ over the winter months, the summer marquee is also currently unauthorised. The approved marquee was mainly in two sections measuring 27m by 12m and 18m by 9m (486m2), however the marquee as erected is in one main section measuring 30m by 12m (324m2). In addition, the structure now has a degree of permanency that was not clarified or considered during the determination of the previous approval, including hardstandings and associated paths constructed to the front entrance to the marquee and around the sides and rear of marquee, as well as fixed connections to power supplies. There has also been a significant amount of unauthorised engineering operations. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 19TH APRIL 2011

ITEM 17 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/1101

The marquee has an integral kitchen and toilets and as such could be considered to be a stand alone development that need not rely on the existing hotel for services or facilities.

Related Planning History

Prior to the above approval in 2009, the application site had been used for approximately ten years to site a temporary marquee (albeit smaller than the current proposal) during the summer months. Originally in the late 1990s, planning permission was not required for the marquee because the tent was not erected for more than 28 days in any year, and as such was permitted development for the purposes of Part 4 of Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995. However, retrospective planning permission was granted in March 1999 (application ref. 98/1207) for the associated engineering and re-profiling works that had been carried out unlawfully to this former wildflower meadow.

In 2005, planning permission was granted for the retention of a temporary marquee that had been erected at that time (application ref. 2004/1741). This marquee was granted temporary planning permission for the months of April to September and the month of December, and was removed in the intervening periods with the field restored to its original state. A similar application was also approved under 2006/2781 for the 2007 season.

Prior to 2009, therefore, the land was restored to a green field site during the winter. Moreover, the former site was well screened by a hedgerow on the beach side along the north eastern facing boundary of the site, which helped screen the previous structure especially during the summer months.

Policy Considerations

The main issues to be considered are whether the retention and continuous use of the current marquee throughout the winter months until 31st March 2013 (as well as during the authorised summer months) would cause material harm to the character and appearance of the countryside and rural landscape of the designated Gower Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and Oxwich Village Conservation Area, and the setting of nearby listed Church of St. Illtyds, having regard to the prevailing policies of the Unitary Development Plan and National planning guidance. It is not considered that the provisions of the Human Rights Act raise any other overriding considerations.

Recent Central Government policy guidance, provided by Planning Policy Wales 2010 and its supporting Technical Advice Notes set out the overarching critical principles and objectives in respect of sustainability, biodiversity, design and tourism, which are applied to reinforce the policies of the Unitary Development Plan. Within AONBs the primary objective of this designation is the conservation and enhancement of their natural beauty although it will also be appropriate to have regard to the economic and social well-being of the area. In addition, the effect of development proposals on the wildlife or landscape of any area can be a material consideration. The Council has a statutory duty to have regard to the AONB purposes and protect the landscape and scenic quality (Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000). The above National Planning Policy Guidance recognises that the Countryside Council for Wales LANDMAP provides nationally consistent data on landscape assessment in Wales. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 19TH APRIL 2011

ITEM 17 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/1101

LANDMAP is the formally adopted methodology for landscape assessment, and is advocated by Planning Policy Wales, July 2010 as being an important information resource upon which local planning authorities can draw in making landscape assessments to inform local policy, guidance and decision making in the field (para. 5.3.13, PPW 2002). LANDMAP describes and evaluates aspects of landscape and provides the consistent Wales-wide approach to landscape assessment. This includes, for example, local distinctiveness, special landscape area, and design.

An analysis of the Visual and Sensory data for South Gower concludes that the application site falls within an area with the following ‘landscape receptors’: a gently rolling landscape where there is an overall high scenic quality (picturesque views of coast), with attractive views both in and out(views of coast/cliffs from some viewpoints) and high character (strong sense of place), where the open landscape and field/hedge character should be retained and conserved, and tourism influence should be changed. This is reinforced by the cultural landscape data for Oxwich Bay/Oxwich area, which recognises the national importance of Oxwich Bay as a “honey pot” destination for holiday makers throughout the UK and overseas. It describes the aspect area as ‘a three-mile crescent of gently-sloping white sand that culminates in the east with Great Tor. Within that area are two spectacular headlands and several castles. The village and the area is dominated by the leisure industry, though its history is still evident…the Oxwich Bay Hotel, a former 18th century rectory now utterly spoiled by modern additions’. The recommendations include the immediate improvement of the appearance of beach buildings and caravan parks.

The landscape, geological and historical layers of LANDMAP add to the above baseline data. The landscape data confirms that apart from being with the Gower AONB, the application site is close to sites of international importance and adjacent to a high value area of semi-natural broadleaved woodland ‘Woods at Oxwich Point’ which is regarded as high priority habitat supporting high levels of biodiversity within SSSI.

In conclusion, this baseline data highlights the landscape constraints, landscape value, and local landscape character of this area and underlines that the application site is in an area of high scenic quality and character, which should be retained and conserved, and tourism influence should be denied to protect these qualities.

In rural areas, PPW 2010 states that tourism is an essential element in providing for a healthy, diverse, local economy, but the scale and nature of such development must be sensitive to the local environment.

The Unitary Development Plan for Swansea was adopted on the 10th November, 2008, and in line with the above national planning policy guidance, the relevant objectives and policies seek to protect the countryside and sensitive areas of high landscape quality in Gower AONB from development that would cause material harm, particularly where the undeveloped coastline or other areas of high landscape quality are concerned. The Local Planning Authority seeks to protect the environment and landscape of Gower AONB and Oxwich Village Conservation Area through the application of Strategic Part 1 Policies SP1, SP2, and SP3 and Part 2 Policies EV1, EV2, EV9, EV11, EV21, EV22, EV25, EV26, EV31, EV40 are relevant to this application. In addition, Policy EC17 regarding rural tourism has also been considered in respect of this application. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 19TH APRIL 2011

ITEM 17 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/1101

In this particular case, because the application site is located in a particularly sensitive coastal location with the Gower AONB and the Oxwich Conservation Area, careful consideration has to be given to the need to cater for increased visitor and tourism needs against the need to safeguard the visual character and appearance and environmental capital of the Gower landscape, so that it is preserved for the benefit of future generations. The Gower Peninsula is recognised internationally as a most important visitor attraction, however if development is not carefully controlled there is a risk of destroying the very qualities which constitute its attraction.

Visual Impact

Although the application site lies within the grounds of Oxwich Bay Hotel, it is separated from the main hotel complex by a distance of approximately 76m, and is seen in the context of the surrounding countryside setting, including the wide sweep of Oxwich beach and bay to the north east, and the backcloth of the Gower Ash Woods Special Area of Conservation (SAC) to the south west. In addition the marquee has to be considered in the context of the setting of the neighbouring CADW listed St Illtyds Church situated approximately 90m to the south east of the application site.

The application field site is naturally an integral part of the surrounding highly valued landscape and an intrinsic part of the character of this edge of woodland and beach location. Whilst it is acknowledged that the current marquee facility provides an improved facility for the hotel in providing a separate venue for weddings, it must also be assessed against the need to conserve the special landscape qualities of the Gower AONB.

As referred to above, LANDMAP is the formally adopted methodology for landscape assessment, and is advocated by Planning Policy Wales, July 2010 as being an important information resource upon which local planning authorities can draw in making landscape assessments to inform local policy, guidance and decision making in the field (para. 5.3.13, PPW 2010.) LANDMAP describes and evaluates aspects of landscape and provides the consistent Wales-wide approach to landscape assessment. This includes, for example, local distinctiveness, special landscape area, and design.

An analysis of the relevant Visual and Sensory data for South Gower concludes that the application site falls within an area where there is an overall high scenic quality (picturesque views of coast), with attractive views both in and out (views of coast/cliffs from some viewpoints) and high character (strong sense of place), where the open landscape and field/hedge character should be retained and conserved, and tourism influence should be changed. This is reinforced by other layers of data including cultural landscape, geological and historical layers of LANDMAP that add to the above baseline data. In conclusion, this data highlights the landscape constraints, landscape value, and local landscape character of this area and underlines that the application site is in an area of high scenic quality and character, which should be retained and conserved, and tourism influence should be denied to protect these qualities.

The main section of the current marquee has a footprint of approximately 360m², and height of approximately 4.8m, with a 6m x 6m oriental style reception canopy with a maximum height of 5.4m, and is considered more visually prominent in the surrounding landscape than any of the previous marquees. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 19TH APRIL 2011

ITEM 17 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/1101

The case officer’s site visit has confirmed that the current marquee can be viewed easily because of its significant height above the neighbouring hedge, and the visual impact is exacerbated by the external materials finish in a brilliant white canvas.

The application site is clearly visible from numerous public vantage points in the immediate and wider surrounding area, for example the existing structure can be viewed easily from all the beaches surrounding within Oxwich Bay and is also visible long distance from Pennard Cliffs and Cefn Bryn. This impact is demonstrated in the “Site Evaluation and Proposals for Temporary Marquee” document submitted as part of the current application. The applicant has also submitted an addendum to this proposal which shows the visual impact with photographs taken during the winter months with both the white and proposed green roof.

It has been noted that the marquee is clearly visible in the summer months, and this is further exacerbated during the winter months, when the white marquee stands out sharply against the dark backcloth of Oxwich woods as a prominent white structure. In this context, the marquee appears as an alien and incongruous feature in relation to its surroundings with significant harm to the landscape, which is characterised by the green quality of the agricultural fields, woodland backdrop and coastal views across Oxwich Bay. This contrasts particularly with the subdued impact of the protected church that nestles discretely nearby against the backcloth of trees.

Whilst it is acknowledged that the applicant has indicated that the materials for the roof of the marquee would be changed to an olive colour during the months of December, January and February, this does not negate the principle policy concerns that the marquee would remain highly visible within the wider landscape during the winter months, when additional internal and external illumination will inevitably be required, increasing the potential for light pollution at the sensitive coastal location in the Gower AONB. The applicant has suggested the use of solar powered lighting to light the footpath to the marquee and carefully designing and testing the lighting within the marquee itself. This however, does not overcome the concerns of the Local Planning Authority on this issue as no specific details of the lighting has been submitted for consideration.

Furthermore, the marquee, by its very appearance and nature is not considered appropriate for a more permanent function facility, particularly in an area designated for its natural beauty and recognised internationally as being part of a coastal area of high scenic quality and value. Notwithstanding any change in colour, the retention of the marquee during the winter months is considered to represent an inappropriate form of development at this location that is visually harmful to the character and appearance of the natural beauty of this part of the coastline and AONB location. To allow the marquee to remain on the application site for a continuous period until 31st March 2013 would result in a degree of permanence to this development that is clearly in conflict with the overriding objective to preserve the character of the AONB, and is therefore contrary to National and Unitary Development Plan policies.

Moreover, it is not considered that screening through additional planting can help screen this structure, given its siting on a lowland coastal site which is prominently visible from higher ground in the surrounding AONB area. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 19TH APRIL 2011

ITEM 17 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/1101

In conclusion, therefore the current marquee is highly visible within the wider landscape and its retention during the winter months, notwithstanding the change in colour, is considered to represent an inappropriate form of development at this location that is visually harmful to the character and appearance of the natural beauty of this part of the coastline and AONB location. In addition, due to its size, siting, and appearance, the marquee is considered to have a dominant and obtrusive impact on the immediate setting of the protected listed church and detracts from the character and appearance of Oxwich Village Conservation Area. To allow the marquee to remain on the application site for a continuous period each year until 2013 would result in a degree of permanence to this development that is clearly in conflict with the overriding objective to preserve the character of the AONB, and is therefore contrary to National and Unitary Development Plan policies. It is not considered that any change in colour of the marquee would overcome the fundamental policy concerns and as such the development is contrary to national planning policy guidance and UDP policies EV1, EV2, EV9, EV11, EV22, and EV26.

The overspill car park is associated with the use of the marquee but is not in a highly visible location. The previous temporary approval allowed for this area to regenerate during the winter months when the need for additional car parking would be at its lowest. The applicant has made representation that the marquee would only be used to showcase the marquee to potential clients during the months of January to March and as car parking for this use would not increase the amount of spaces needed significantly, it is not considered that its use during the winter months should be supported.

Tourism/Business Issues The applicant has submitted information in support of his application to retain the marquee during the winter months. In particular he maintains that the investment that he has made in this venture will support the local economy and provide enhanced services to the community through the injection of private funds and continued investment at this hotel location. He has confirmed that the marquee is only used for showcasing the structure from 2nd January to 10th February in any year. The applicant has also agreed to sign a legal agreement to prevent the use of the marquee between these times. However, and irrespective of it being used during these times, the structure would still be in situ and a such its visual impact would not be negated.

The advice in National Planning Policy guidance provided by Planning Policy Wales 2002 and its associated TANs is that in the interests of achieving sustainable development it is important to manage change in the tourism sector in ways which respect the integrity of the natural, built and cultural environment. Technical Advice Note (Wales) 13, October 1997: Tourism advises that such development should be compatible with neighbouring uses, and seek to protect the setting of historic buildings. In addition, the guidance emphasises that, ‘The fact that a development is intended to meet tourism needs does not mean that statutory or non statutory designations should not apply or that they should be applied less rigorously’ (para. 2.9 TAN 13). Indeed, it can be argued that the siting of a marquee as a wedding venue cannot be classed as a tourism venue. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 19TH APRIL 2011

ITEM 17 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/1101

In accordance with Policy EV26, in the AONB the main objective is the conservation and protection of the area’s natural beauty, whilst acknowledging the need to achieve a balance between the social and economic well-being of the area. UDP policy EC17 supports rural tourism; however this is subject to the development meeting specific criteria including criteria (ii) that they do not have significant adverse effects on the landscape or nature conservation interests.

Note has also been taken of the LANDMAP cultural landscape data for the Oxwich Bay/Oxwich area, which recognises the national importance of Oxwich Bay as a “honey pot” destination for holiday makers throughout the UK and overseas, and describes the aspect area as ‘a three-mile crescent of gently-sloping white sand that culminates in the east with Great Tor, with two spectacular headlands and several castles’. However the data also notes some detractors. Notably it highlights that ‘The Oxwich Bay Hotel, a former 18th century rectory now utterly spoiled by modern additions’.

In this respect it is considered that the current marquee may provide an improved tourist/business facility at this location and help aid the socio economic well being of the area, but this has to be considered against the primary objective to protect the AONB, and substantial weight must therefore be given in favour of conserving the character of the Gower AONB from any inappropriate development. The marquee, by its very appearance and nature is not considered appropriate for a more permanent function facility, particularly in an area designated for its natural beauty and recognised internationally as being part of a coastal area of high scenic quality and value.

Therefore, it is not considered that it has been demonstrated that there are sufficient grounds to allow the retention of the temporary marquee in the winter months and the development should be removed during the period 1st November to 31st March in any year as previously approved under application no. 2008/2185, in order to protect the intrinsic qualities of this high quality AONB landscape in line with national and local planning policy objectives.

Moreover, it is considered that approving this application would set a dangerous precedent for the consideration of other applications, the cumulative impact of which would erode the very qualities of the environment and natural beauty of the AONB that the Council seeks to protect.

Incremental intensification and urbanisation of this site with this more permanent structure will further undermine the objectives of national planning and local planning policy guidance which seek to protect this sensitive coastal location and ensure that the very environment that attracts tourism to this popular area is not destroyed by inappropriate development.

To this end, Policy EV31 identifies Oxwich as a suitable location for visitor and recreational facilities, provided that they are of a scale and design that respects sensitive nature conservation, landscape and historic environment interests. However, it has been demonstrated above that the proposal fails to respect the landscape of historic environment interests of the area, contrary to the requirements of the above Policy. It is also debatable as to whether the marquee can be classed as a tourist facility given it is used predominately as a wedding venue and as such fails to comply with the requirements of Policy EC17. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 19TH APRIL 2011

ITEM 17 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/1101

The visual prominence of the structure would be contrary to the overall objective of Policy EV26 with the structure neither preserving nor enhancing the character and appearance of the Conservation Area, contrary to Policy EV9. The marquee also affects the setting of the Listed Building, contrary to Policy EV7 as well as the Historic Park and Gardens, contrary to Policy EV11. Policy EV21 refers to non residential development in the countryside .As the marquee is considered to have a detrimental impact upon the environment, and as such not falling within the definition of sustainable tourism development, it would also conflict with this Policy.

Highway Observations Having consulted the Head of Transportation and Engineering, there have been no reported issues as a result of the temporary permission and the overspill car park is considered beneficial when events are being held at the site. No highway objection is raised.

Response to Consultations In response to public consultation, the Gower Society has objected raising concerns regarding the visual intrusiveness of the development and the impact upon the wider landscape, and concerns that the marquee could become a permanent at the site. These issues have been addressed above in the main body of the report. The letter of support is noted but the success of the use of the marquee as a fundraising venue does not outweigh the overriding planning objections to it retention.

The comments raised by CCW are noted but the area referred to does not form part of the site’s redevelopment. If the applicant’s wanted to develop this land, permission would have to be obtained from the landowner.

Conclusion In conclusion, having regard to the above considerations, it is considered that to allow the marquee to remain continuously on site until 2013 would result in a prominent, alien and incongruous feature within the landscape during the winter months, which would cause significant harm to the landscape and natural beauty of the Gower AONB and the Oxwich Conservation Area, and the setting of the neighbouring listed church of St. Illtyds, contrary to Policies EV1, EV2, EV9, EV11, EV21, EV22, EV26, EV27, EV31 and EC17 of the Unitary Development Plan. Refusal is recommended.

RECOMMENDATION:

REFUSE for the following reason:

1 The proposed retention of the existing temporary marquee until 31st March 2013 including changes to the colour of the roof between the beginning of December and end of February within this period, by virtue of its siting, size, design and appearance, represents an inappropriate form of development at this countryside location that results in significant harm to the rural character of the landscape and high scenic quality of this coastal area, to the detriment of the natural beauty of this part of the Gower AONB landscape, and the character and setting of the Oxwich Village Conservation Area and Grade II* Listed Church of St. Illtyds, contrary to national planning policy guidance and UDP Policies EV1, EV2, EV9, EV11, EV21 EV22, EV26, EV27, EV31 and EC17.

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 19TH APRIL 2011

ITEM 17 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/1101

INFORMATIVES

PLANS

1004.01B site location plan, 1004.02B landscape context, 1004.03B photography locations, 1004.04 site survey, 1004.05 landscape plan, 1004.06 design marquee area, 1004.07 design for marquee and hotel, 1004.08 overspill car park, 1004.09 sections, 2.01 site layout plan, 2.02 elevations, design and access statement received 8th November 2010, additional information dated 2nd February 2011

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 19TH APRIL 2011

ITEM 18 APPLICATION NO. 2010/1102 WARD: Gower Area 2

Location: Land at Oxwich Bay Hotel, Oxwich, Swansea, SA3 1LS Proposal: Temporary siting of marquee, associated overspill car park and associated landscaping from 1st April 2011 to 31st October 2011, 1st April 2012 to 31st October 2012, 1st April 2013 to 31st October 2013 and 1st April 2014 to 31st October 2014 Applicant: Mr I Williams

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

POLICIES

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

Policy EV25 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. (City & County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008)

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 19TH APRIL 2011

ITEM 18 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/1102

SITE HISTORY

App No. Proposal 2010/1101 Temporary siting of marquee and associated overspill car park from 1st November 2010 to 31st March 2011, 1st November 2011 to 31st March 2012 and 1st November 2012 to 31st March 2013 Decision: Officer Consideration Decision Date: 22/02/2011

2008/0064 Temporary siting of marquee and associated overspill car park from April to September 2008 and December 2008 Decision: Grant Temporary Permission Decision Date: 04/03/2008

2006/2781 Temporary siting of marquee from April to September 2007 and December 2007, associated overspill car park and landscaping. Decision: Grant Temporary Permission Decision Date: 15/05/2007

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 19TH APRIL 2011

ITEM 18 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/1102

2008/2185 Temporary siting of marquee and associated overspill car park from 1 February 2009 to 31 October 2009 Decision: Grant Temporary Permission Decision Date: 15/01/2009

2004/1741 Siting of temporary marquee April to September inclusive and December, and associated overspill car park Decision: Grant Temporary Permission Decision Date: 11/08/2005

98/1207 RETENTION OF LAND DRAINAGE WORKS, ALTERATIONS TO FIELD ACCESS AND REPROFILING OF PLATEAU AREA Decision: *HGPC - GRANT PERMISSION CONDITIONAL Decision Date: 09/03/1999

90/0500/03 SITING OF PORTAKABIN AND FLOODLIGHTS Decision: Withdraw Decision Date: 25/03/1996

2007/2148 Addition of pitched roof to part of northern elevation and replacement roof to existing entrance canopy Decision: Grant Permission Conditional Decision Date: 13/11/2007

89/1470/03 ALTERATIONS AND EXTENSIONS TO HOTEL PREMISES. Decision: *HGPC - GRANT PERMISSION CONDITIONAL Decision Date: 15/12/1989

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 19TH APRIL 2011

ITEM 18 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/1102

85/0886/06 HANGING SIGNS. Decision: *HGPCU - GRANT PERMISSION UNCONDITIONAL Decision Date: 25/07/1985

91/1506 ERECTION OF STORM PORCH WITH FIRST FLOOR CONSERVATORY Decision: *HGPC - GRANT PERMISSION CONDITIONAL Decision Date: 25/02/1992

94/1316 EXTENSION OF EXISTING PORCH, ERECTION OF NEW STAIRWELL AND FORMATION OF RAISED GARDEN Decision: *HGPC - GRANT PERMISSION CONDITIONAL Decision Date: 07/02/1995

86/1566/03 EXTENSION TO EXISTING KITCHENS. Decision: *HGPC - GRANT PERMISSION CONDITIONAL Decision Date: 29/01/1987

86/0359/03 USE OF BUILDING (HOTEL) FOR MUSIC AND DANCING IN CONNECTION WITH PRIVATE FUNCTIONS. Decision: *HGPC - GRANT PERMISSION CONDITIONAL Decision Date: 26/06/1986

86/0082/12 RELAXATION OF CONDITION 'E' ON CONSENT FOR MUSIC AND DANCING + OUTSIDE FUNCTIONS, (2/1/85/0812/12). Decision: Withdraw Decision Date: 18/03/1986

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 19TH APRIL 2011

ITEM 18 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/1102

91/6027 RETRACTABLE SUN BLINDS Decision: *HGCC - GRANT CONSENT WITH CONDITIONS Decision Date: 09/07/1991

97/1168 SINGLE STOREY SIDE CONSERVATORY EXTENSION, SINGLE STOREY SIDE/REAR EXTENSION AND ERECTION OF COVERED WALKWAYS Decision: *HGPC - GRANT PERMISSION CONDITIONAL Decision Date: 03/02/1998

84/0188/03 THE SITING OF A PORTAKABIN + THE SITING OF A MOBILE ICE- CREAM VAN. Decision: *HRP - REFUSE PERMISSION Decision Date: 29/03/1984

84/1190/06 ILLUMINATED HOTEL RESTAURANT SIGN - SIZE:- 3FT X 1FT 6INS. Decision: *HRP - REFUSE PERMISSION Decision Date: 25/10/1984

91/0088/03 ERECTION OF WALL Decision: *HGPC - GRANT PERMISSION CONDITIONAL Decision Date: 29/04/1991 AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 19TH APRIL 2011

ITEM 18 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/1102

RESPONSE TO CONSULTATIONS

The application was advertised on site and in the press as a Departure from the Development Plan and a development within a Conservation Area and four neighbouring properties were individually consulted. TWO LETTERS OF OBJECTION and ONE LETTER OF SUPPORT have been received, which are summarised as follows:

OBJECTION

SUPPORT

The Gower Society – Objects:

ITEM 18 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/1102

3. This structure is very prominent, located adjacent to the historic Church and alongside a very popular beach used all year. It is highly visible from both near and far. Once leaf fall has occurred, this will stand out even more. 4. The applicant has indicated that he would not hold any event in the marquee for a period between January and March. What is the marquee to be used for in November and December? 5. We would point out that there is no need for the marquee to be present in order to show potential clients. With today’s technology, potential customers could be shown photographs and/or DVD’s to illustrate what is available. A virtual tour of the marquee could be available on a web-site. 6. We have previously suggested that the marquee could have originally be placed closer and to the rear of the hotel. 7. Were the Authority to consider this application for approval, then we ask that the whole of the exterior of the marquee be olive-green or similar so that the structure is much less visible in the landscape of the AONB – otherwise this application should not be considered.

The Gower Society: further comment as follows:

“We would like to draw your attention the following information that has recently come to light or has been made known to us regarding the above application.

We repeat we are not against a marquee in principle at the rear of the hotel but to give permission for such a highly visible structure so close to the listed church and in such a grossly prominent position does not fit comfortably with the current UDP, the AONB or indeed with common sense.”

ITEM 18 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/1102

We would request that the above information on to the applicant or their agent.”

Highway Observations - The application is for the renewal of temporary permission to site a marquee and associated overspill car parking. There have been no reported issues as a result of this and the temporary overspill parking area is considered to be beneficial when events are being held at the site, to ensure that no extraneous parking takes place within the village. I recommend no highway objections be raised.

APPLICANTS SUPPORTING STATEMENT

“The marquee venue as well as the supporting services reflects a considerable investment. This investment has been made out of the Oxwich bay Hotel and finances and borrowed fund, with no introduction of grant money from any source, or from any local or national sources.

The investment will lead to an increasing number of patrons that could easily approach ten thousand people visiting the facilities from all over the world in the next 12 months. At the same time, staff (in the region of 48) will be required to provide the attendant services. The result being a substantial contribution nearing one million pounds potentially being injected into the local economy.

The additional generation of business has given the requirements to upgrade and modernise the facilities within the main area of the hotel. This has also been funded without grant aid, secures 26 jobs creates an additional six new jobs as well as three specialist posts.

Current economic pressure is making trade more difficult. Evidence would suggest that it has never been easy, and as s result, some twenty hotels have now closed in the South Gower and Mumbles area in the past twenty five years. As a family business, we have made the positive decision to invest to provide an increase in value for money trough enhanced services. This will hopefully keep the public spend within the locality rather than money moving outside of the Swansea and Gower areas, or even South Wales completely.

Further to the above The business outline we gave you …..has proved to be extremely accurate. We indicated that the number of patrons would approach then thousand and in practice in the past eight months, nine thousand have visited and enjoyed the facilities. The additional staff numbers are also very much in line with our earlier projections. We feel certain that these details give the best possible indication as to the genuine reason and background underlying our business strategy. There can be no more perfect indication and confirmation of our business intent.

Experience and business trends tell us in a strong way that the period 2nd January to 10th February each year is purely showcasing the facilities; such an important step by the customer in the decision making progress. To further indicate and underline our honest approach, I would be prepared to sign a legal document that can be agreed between us covering this use only between these dates.” AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 19TH APRIL 2011

ITEM 18 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/1102

APPRAISAL

This application is reported to Committee for decision at the request of Councillor Richard Lewis.

The application site is situated on land at Oxwich Bay Hotel. This field site (Field No. 2821) is located to the south east of the hotel at the southern end of Oxwich Bay. The site is located on the beach side of the prominent headland at Oxwich Point, both within the Oxwich Village Conservation Area, and close to the listed church of St Illtyds, and adjacent to the Gower Ash Woods Special Area of Conservation.

Planning permission is sought for the retention of the existing marquee and associated overspill car park throughout the holiday periods (1st April to 31st October) during 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014.

Planning permission was previously granted on the 15th January, 2009, for the temporary siting of a marquee at this site (Ref: 2008/2185), subject to conditions including Condition 01, as follows:-

Members are advised that notwithstanding the above conditional requirement, the marquee has not been removed and is still erected on site. The applicant has submitted a supporting written statement with the current application copied in full above, to justify not removing the marquee.

In terms of its overall size and siting the marquee currently on site is different to the one that was granted temporary planning permission under planning application 2008/2185 so it is currently unauthorised. The approved marquee was mainly in two sections measuring 27m by 12m and 18m by 9m (486m2); however the marquee as erected is in one main section measuring 30m by 12m (324m2). Further investigation on site has also revealed that the structure has a degree of permanency that was not clarified or considered during the determination of the previous approval, including hardstandings and associated paths constructed to the front entrance to the marquee and around the sides and rear of marquee, as well as fixed connections to power supplies. There has also been a significant amount of unauthorised engineering operations. The marquee has an integral kitchen and toilets and as such could be considered a stand alone development that need not rely on the existing hotel for services or facilities.

Related Planning History Prior to the approval in 2009, the application site had been used for approximately ten years to site a temporary marquee (albeit smaller than the current proposal) during the summer months. Originally in the late 1990s, planning permission was not required for the marquee because the tent was not erected for more than 28 days in any year, and as such was permitted development for the purposes of Part 4 of Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 19TH APRIL 2011

ITEM 18 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/1102

However, retrospective planning permission was granted in March 1999 (application ref. 98/1207) for the associated engineering and re-profiling works that had been carried out unlawfully to this former wildflower meadow.

Prior to 2009 therefore, the land was restored to a green field site during the winter. Moreover, the former site was well screened by a hedgerow on the beach side along the north eastern facing boundary of the site, which helped screen this previous structure especially during the summer months.

Policy Considerations

The main issues to be considered are whether the retention of the current marquee would cause material harm to the character and appearance of the countryside and rural landscape of the designated Gower Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and Oxwich Village Conservation Area, and the setting of nearby listed Church of St. Illtyds, having regard to the prevailing policies of the Unitary Development Plan and National planning guidance. It is not considered that the provisions of the Human Rights Act raise any other overriding considerations.

LANDMAP is the formally adopted methodology for landscape assessment, and is advocated by Planning Policy Wales 2010 as being an important information resource upon which local planning authorities can draw in making landscape assessments to inform local policy, guidance and decision making in the field). LANDMAP describes and evaluates aspects of landscape and provides the consistent Wales-wide approach to landscape assessment. This includes, for example, local distinctiveness, special landscape area, and design. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 19TH APRIL 2011

ITEM 18 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/1102

The Unitary Development Plan for Swansea was adopted on the 10th November, 2008, and in line with the above national planning policy guidance, the relevant objectives and policies seek to protect the countryside and sensitive areas of high landscape quality in Gower AONB from development that would cause material harm, particularly where the undeveloped coastline or other areas of high landscape quality are concerned. The Local Planning Authority seeks to protect the environment and landscape of Gower AONB and Oxwich Village Conservation Area through the application of Unitary Development Policies EV1, EV2, EV9, EV11, EV21, EV22, EV25, EV26, EV31 and EV40 are relevant to this application. In addition, Policy EC17 regarding rural tourism has also been considered in respect of this application.

ITEM 18 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/1102

Visual Impact

Although the application site lies within the grounds of Oxwich Bay Hotel, it is separated from the main hotel complex by a distance of approximately 76m, and is seen in the context of the surrounding countryside setting, including the wide sweep of Oxwich beach and bay to the north east, and the backcloth of the Gower Ash Woods SAC to the south west. In addition the marquee has to be considered in the context of the setting of the neighbouring CADW listed St Illtyds Church situated approximately 90m to the south east of the application site.

As referred to above, LANDMAP is the formally adopted methodology for landscape assessment, and is advocated by Planning Policy Wales 2010 as being an important information resource upon which local planning authorities can draw in making landscape assessments to inform local policy, guidance and decision making in the field (PPW 2010). LANDMAP describes and evaluates aspects of landscape and provides the consistent Wales-wide approach to landscape assessment. This includes, for example, local distinctiveness, special landscape area, and design.

The main section of the current marquee has a footprint of approximately 360m², and height of approximately 4.5m, and the case officer’s site visit has confirmed that the current marquee can be viewed easily because of its significant height above the neighbouring hedge, and the visual impact is exacerbated by the external materials finish in a brilliant white canvas.

The application site is clearly visible from numerous public vantage points in the immediate and wider surrounding area, e.g. the existing structure can be viewed easily from all the beaches surrounding within Oxwich Bay and is also visible long distance from Pennard Cliffs and Cefn Bryn. The applicant’s site evaluation and proposal document also confirms this is the case. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 19TH APRIL 2011

ITEM 18 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/1102

The marquee is clearly visible in the summer months when it stands out sharply against the dark backcloth of Oxwich woods as a prominent white structure. In this context, the marquee appears as an alien and incongruous feature in relation to its surroundings with significant harm to the landscape, which is characterised by the green quality of the agricultural fields, woodland backdrop and coastal views across Oxwich Bay. This contrasts particularly with the subdued impact of the protected church that nestles discretely nearby against the backcloth of trees.

To provide some mitigation and restore the site to a more natural setting, the current scheme includes landscaping proposals which involve the removal of a hedgerow from the middle of the field to return it back to a wildflower meadow, additional tree and other over ground planting with the introduction of creeping plans over the existing green kiosks to the rear and side of the marquee to help screen the marquee from the wider view.

Whilst it is acknowledged that the applicant has suggested the use of the above additional landscaping features to screen the structure, it is not considered that this would be an acceptable solution given its siting on a lowland coastal site which is prominently visible from higher ground in the surrounding AONB area.

In particular, the marquee, by its very appearance and nature is not considered visually appropriate for a more permanent function facility, particularly in an area designated for its natural beauty and recognised internationally as being part of a coastal area of high scenic quality and value. To allow the marquee and its attached kiosks, to remain on the application site for the next three summer seasons would result in a degree of permanence to this development that is clearly in conflict with the overriding objective to preserve the character of the AONB, and is therefore contrary to National and Unitary Development Plan policies. In addition, the location of the marquee is considered to detract from the setting of St Illtyd’s Church; a Grade II* Listed Building, which is a mediaeval structure of domestic scale and significant national artefact.

Whilst the applicant’s agents has given every assurance that the structure is temporary, the fact that the structure has remained on site during the unauthorised winter months and the subsequent applications to retain it for both the summer and winter months, would infer that the intention is for the structure to remain on site permanently. Whilst the current application is for the 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014 seasons only, no further information has been forthcoming about the applicant’s intentions for the site after this period.

It is recognised that the marquee and its economic issues cannot be ignored. This economic success however, does not outweigh the visual impact of the structure upon the Conservation Area and the AONB, the impact upon the setting of the Listed Church and the impact upon the Historic garden, of which it forms a part of and the surrounding SAC and SSSI. To this end, it is considered that the marquee sited permanently on this site is not an acceptable solution to the applicant’s accommodation needs in the long term.

The overspill car park is screened from the south by the hotel buildings and enclosures, from the east by the neighbouring caravan park and high hedging, from the west by the woodland, and partially from the north by the landscaped bund that has been formed across the northern end of the established car park and the overspill area. In terms of impact upon highway safety, the Head of Transportation and Engineering recommends no highway to this planning application. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 19TH APRIL 2011

ITEM 18 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/1102

It is considered, therefore that the current marquee is highly visible within the wider landscape and its retention, notwithstanding the additional landscaping proposed, is considered to represent an inappropriate form of development at this location that is visually harmful to the character and appearance of the natural beauty of this part of the coastline and AONB location. In addition, due to its size, siting, and appearance, the marquee is considered to have a dominant and obtrusive impact on the immediate setting of the protected listed church and detracts from the character and appearance of Oxwich Village Conservation Area. It is not considered therefore that the mitigation proposals submitted as part of the current application would overcome the fundamental policy concerns and as such the development is contrary to national planning policy guidance and UDP policies EV1, EV2, EV9, EV11, EV22, and EV26.

Tourism/Business Issues The applicant has submitted additional information (copied above) in support of his application to retain the marquee during the winter months. In particular he maintains that the investment that he has made in this venture will support the local economy and provide enhanced services to the community through the injection of private funds and continued investment at this hotel location. This is noted and has also been considered above.

The advice in National Planning Policy guidance provided by Planning Policy Wales 2010 and its associated TANs is that in the interests of achieving sustainable development it is important to manage change in the tourism sector in ways which respect the integrity of the natural, built and cultural environment. Technical Advice Note (Wales) 13, October 1997: Tourism advises that such development should be compatible with neighbouring uses, and seek to protect the setting of historic buildings. In addition, the guidance emphasises that, ‘The fact that a development is intended to meet tourism needs does not mean that statutory or non statutory designations should not apply or that they should be applied less rigorously’ (para. 2.9 TAN 13).

In this respect it is considered that the current marquee may provide an improved business facility at this location and help aid the socio economic well being of the area, but this has to be considered against the primary objective to protect the AONB, and substantial weight must therefore be given in favour of conserving the character of the Gower AONB from any inappropriate development. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 19TH APRIL 2011

ITEM 18 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/1102

The marquee, by its very appearance and nature is not considered appropriate for a more permanent function facility, particularly in an area designated for its natural beauty and recognised internationally as being part of a coastal area of high scenic quality and value.

Highway Safety Having consulted the Head of Transportation and Engineering, there have been no reported issues as a result of the temporary permission and the overspill car park is considered beneficial when events are being held at the site. No highway objection is raised.

Other Material Considerations In response to public consultation, the Gower Society has objected raising concerns regarding the visual intrusiveness of the development and the impact upon the wider landscape, and concerns that the marquee could become a permanent at the site. These issues have been addressed above in the main body of the report. The letter of support is noted but the success of the use of the marquee as a fundraising venue does not outweigh the overriding planning objections to it retention.

ITEM 18 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/1102

CONCLUSION In conclusion, having regard to the above considerations, it is considered that to allow the marquee to remain on site during the summers of 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014 will result in a prominent, alien and incongruous feature, which causes significant harm to the landscape and natural beauty of the Gower AONB and the Oxwich Conservation Area, and the setting of the neighbouring Listed Church of St. Illtyds, contrary to Policies EV1, EV2, EV9, EV11, EV21, EV22, EV26, EV27 and EV31 of the Unitary Development Plan 2008. Refusal is recommended.

RECOMMENDATION:

REFUSE for the following reason:

1 The proposed retention of the existing temporary marquee by virtue of its siting, size, design and appearance, from 1st April to 31st October during 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014 represents an inappropriate form of development at this countryside location that results in significant harm to the rural character of the landscape and high scenic quality of this coastal area, to the detriment of the natural beauty of this part of the Gower AONB landscape, and the character and setting of the Oxwich Village Conservation Area and Grade II* Listed Church of St. Illtyds, contrary to national planning policy guidance and UDP Policies EV1, EV2, EV9, EV11, EV21, EV22, EV26, EV27, EV31, EC17

INFORMATIVES

PLANS

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE (37)

Councillors

Swansea Administration Councillors: 19 Veronyca Anne Bates Hughes Paul M Meara Audrey R A Clement Chair W Keith Morgan A Mike Day John Newbury E Wendy Fitzgerald Cheryl L Philpott Susan M Jones Darren Price Mary H Jones T Huw Rees Jeff W Jones R June Stanton James Bernard Kelleher Nick J Tregoning Richard D Lewis D Paul Tucker Vice Chair Keith E Marsh Nicola Holley

Labour Councillors: 14 Nicholas Stuart Bradley Erika T Kirchner June E Burtonshaw Penny Matthews Mark C Child John T Miles William Evans Byron G Owen Robert Francis-Davies J Christine Richards David IE Jones Paulette B Smith W (Billy) E A Jones Des W W Thomas

Conservative Councillors: 3 Anthony C S Colburn C Miles R W D Thomas Margaret Smith

Communities of Swansea Councillors: 1 Glyn Seabourne

Copies Needed - 95