Mark James LLM, DPA, DCA Prif Weithredwr , Chief Executive, Neuadd Y Sir, Caerfyrddin

Document Pack

Mark James LLM, DPA, DCA Prif Weithredwr , Chief Executive, Neuadd y Sir, Caerfyrddin. SA31 1JP County Hall, Carmarthen. SA31 1JP

TH WEDNESDAY, 30 SEPTEMBER, 2015

TO: ALL MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMITTEE

I HEREBY SUMMON YOU TO ATTEND A MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMITTEE WHICH WILL BE HELD IN THE CHAMBER, COUNTY HALL, CARMARTHEN AT 10.00 A.M. ON THURSDAY, 8TH OCTOBER, 2015 FOR THE TRANSACTION OF THE BUSINESS OUTLINED ON THE ATTACHED AGENDA

Mark James

CHIEF EXECUTIVE

PLEASE RECYCLE Democratic Officer: Mrs Michelle Evans Thomas Telephone (direct line): (01267) 224470 Fax: (01267) 224911 E-Mail: MEEvansThomas@carmarthenshire.gov.uk Ref: AD016-001

PLANNING COMMITTEE 19 MEMBERS

PLAID CYMRU GROUP - 7 MEMBERS 1. Councillor J.M. Charles Member of Llanegwad Community Council 2. Councillor W.T. Evans Member of Llangyndeyrn Community Council 3. Councillor J.K. Howell 4. Councillor W.J. Lemon Member of Llanelli Town Council 5. Councillor A. Lenny Member of Carmarthen Town Council 6. Councillor J. Owen 7. Councillor J.S. Williams Member of Pontyberem Community Council

LABOUR GROUP - 6 MEMBERS 1. Councillor A.P. Cooper Member of Llandybie Community Council 2. Councillor T. Davies Member of Gorslas Community Council 3. Councillor D.C. Evans Member of Ammanford Town Council 4. Councillor A.W. Jones 5. Councillor K. Madge Member of Cwmamman Town Council 6. Councillor M.K. Thomas

INDEPENDENT GROUP - 6 MEMBERS 1. Councillor D.B. Davies Member of Llansteffan Community Council 2. Councillor I.W. Davies 3. Councillor J.A. Davies 4. Councillo r I.J. Jackson Member of Llandovery Town Council 5. Councillor H.I. Jones Member of Bronwydd Community Council 6. Councillor T. Theophilus Member of Cilycwm Community Council

NOMINATED SUBSTITUTES Plaid Cymru Group (4) 1. Councillor M.J.A. Lewis 2. Councillor D.J.R. Llewellyn 3. Councillor G.B. Thomas 4. Councillor J.E. Williams

Labour Group (4) 1. Councillor P.M. Edwards Member of Pembrey & Burry Port Town Council 2. Councillor J.D. James Member of Pembrey & Burry Port Town Council 3. Councillor P.E.M. Jones 4. VACANCY

Independent Group (4) 1. Councillor S.M. Allen Member of Whitland Town Council 2. Councillor W.J.W. Evans Member of Llanddarog Community Council 3.. Councillor P.M. Hughes 4. Councillor D.W.H. Richards

A G E N D A

1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENC E.

2. DECLARATIONS OF PERS ONAL INTERESTS.

3. TO DETERMINE THE PLA NNING APPLICATIONS D ETAILED WITHIN THE FOLLOWING REPORTS OF THE HEAD OF PLANNING:-

3 .1 AREA SOUTH; 5 - 80 3 .2 AREA WEST. 81 - 176 4. PRE APPLICATION FEES . 177 - 182

5. TO SIGN AS A CORRECT RECORD THE MINUTES O F THE MEETING HELD ON THE FOLLOWING DATES:-

5 .1 10TH SEPTEMBER, 2015; 183 - 184 5 .2 22ND SEPTEMBER, 2015. 185 - 190

This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 3.1

ADRODDIAD PENNAETH CYNLLUNIO, CYFARWYDDIAETH ADFYWIO A HAMDDEN

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF PLANNING, DIRECTORATE OF REGENERATION AND LEISURE

AR GYFER PWYLLGOR CYNLLUNIO CYNGOR SIR CAERFYRDDIN

TO CARMARTHENSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL’S PLANNING COMMITTEE

AR 08 HYDREF 2015 ON 08 OCTOBER 2015

I’W BENDERFYNU/ FOR DECISION

Page 5

Mewn perthynas â cheisiadau y mae gan y Cyngor ddiddordeb ynddynt un ai fel ymgeisydd/asiant neu fel perchennog tir neu eiddo, atgoffir yr Aelodau fod yn rhaid iddynt anwybyddu’r agwedd hon, gan ystyried ceisiadau o’r fath a phenderfynu yn eu cylch ar sail rhinweddau’r ceisiadau cynllunio yn unig. Ni ddylid ystyried swyddogaeth y Cyngor fel perchennog tir, na materion cysylltiedig, wrth benderfynu ynghylch ceisiadau cynllunio o’r fath.

In relation to those applications which are identified as one in which the Council has an interest either as applicant/agent or in terms of land or property ownership, Members are reminded that they must set aside this aspect, and confine their consideration and determination of such applications exclusively to the merits of the planning issues arising. The Council’s land owning function, or other interests in the matter, must not be taken into account when determining such planning applications.

Page 6

COMMITTEE: PLANNING COMMITTEE

DATE: 8 OCTOBER 2015

REPORT OF: HEAD OF PLANNING

I N D E X - A R E A S O U T H

REF. APPLICATIONS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL

S/27547 Detached dwelling and detached garage - redesign of that previously approved incorporating plots 9 & 10 at 9 Glasfryn Gardens, Llanelli, Carmarthenshire, SA15 3LL

S/31915 Proposal for a 420 place primary school and 60 place pre-school nursery and care provision for 2 - 3 year old children with associated playing fields, outdoor learning areas and parking provision - Former Draka Site, South of Copperworks Road, Llanelli, Carmarthenshire

S/32316 Detached dwellinghouse at land part of 1 Bay View, Tyle Catherine, Pwll, Llanelli, SA15 4BE

S/32553 Demolish existing dwelling and construct a replacement dwelling at Gorffwysfa, Heol Ddu, Llwynteg, Llannon, Llanelli, SA14 8JW

Page 7

REF. APPLICATIONS RECOMMENDED FOR REFUSAL

S/30698 Replacement barn for business use and one holiday let at barn at Capel Ifan Farm, Heol Capel Ifan, Pontyberem, Llanelli, SA15 5HF

Page 8

APPLICATIONS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL

Page 9

Application No S/27547

Application Type Full Planning

Proposal & DETACHED DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE - REDESIGN Location OF THAT PREVIOUSLY APPROVED INCORPORATING PLOTS 9 & 10 AT 9 GLASFRYN GARDENS, LLANELLI, CARMS, SA15 3LL

Applicant(s) MR & MRS G PARKER, C/O PARKER BROS, GLYNCOED YARD, HALFWAY, LLANELLI, CARMS

Agent PENGRAF, 4 SPOWART AVENUE, LLANELLI, CARMS, SA15 3LA

Case Officer Robert Davies

Ward Lliedi

Date of validation 19/12/2012

CONSULTATIONS

Llanelli Town Council – No objection.

Local Members - County Councillor B Thomas and County Councillor J Williams have not commented to date.

Dwr Cymru/Welsh Water – No objection subject to the imposition of conditions and advisory notes on any planning permission granted.

The Coal Authority – Following the submission of information from the applicant which confirms that the site has been treated and stabilised against the hazards of shallow mine workings, the Coal Authority has raised no objection towards the proposed development. The Coal Authority considers that the stabilisation works are sufficient for the purposes of the planning system and meet the requirements of Planning Policy Wales in demonstrating that the application site is safe and stable for the proposed development.

Neighbours/Public – 10no. neighbouring properties consulted on the original application and re-consulted on amended plans received. 4no. neighbouring properties have responded raising the following concerns and objections:-

• The house is on land that has been raised and is far too high compared to other homes on the development. The height of the property is overbearing on the surrounding properties of Glasfryn Gardens and therefore the level of the proposed property should

Page 10 be lowered. If this cannot be done then the levels shown on the plans should be adhered to.

• The dormer windows are completely out of keeping with other houses on the development.

• The garage lends itself for conversion into residential use.

• The Ordnance Survey based site plans do not accurately shown the properties of Fairholme and Heddlys.

• Overlooking from certain windows. Such windows should be removed or glazed in obscure glass.

• Concern that the landscaping plans shows a trellis to be attached to existing walls of neighbouring properties.

• The landscaping plans propose planting on the boundary with neighbouring properties and concern is raised over the height that such planting will grow to, overhanging and maintenance concerns.

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

The following previous applications have been received on the application site:-

S/27033 1 no dwelling Withdrawn 18 October 2012

S/14976 To retain development of 10 no. dwelling houses undertaken as previously granted planning permission ref. S/01768 and with an amended scheme for plot no. 2 (previously referred no.9) Full planning permission 10 January 2007

S/11417 To retain development of 10 no. dwelling houses undertaken as previously granted planning permission ref. No. S/01768 and with an amended scheme for plots 8, 9 and 10 Withdrawn 24 November 2005

S/01768 Residential 10 dwelling houses Reserved Matters granted 26 May 1999

S/01239 Eight executive houses and roadway access to meet adoptable requirements Outline planning permission 18 May 1998

D5/16842 Demolition of existing nursery buildings and carrying out of residential development Withdrawn 12 March 1996

Page 11 APPRAISAL

THE SITE

The application site consists of a large irregular shaped parcel of land, referred to as Plot 9, on an executive style, cul de sac housing development known as Glasfryn Gardens off Glasfryn Terrace in Llanelli. The development is located on the former Glasfryn Nurseries site, and in this respect represents brownfield development.

Planning permission was previously granted in 1999 for 10 dwellings on the site as a whole. To date, the estate road is to base course level whilst five dwellings have been completed and are occupied on the site, and a sixth under construction.

THE PROPOSAL

This long standing application seeks full planning permission for a five bedroom, two and a half storey, detached dwelling and detached double garage. The proposed dwelling has a two storey gable projection to the front, and single storey flat roof projections with glazed lantern roof features to one side and the rear. Two dormer windows are proposed to the front elevation and one dormer to the rear. The proposed dwelling has a maximum width of 15.8 metres, a maximum depth of 14.2 metres, and has a maximum ridge height of 8.7 metres. The proposed external finishes consist of facing brick to the walls and concrete tiles to the roof.

The proposed detached garage which is to be located to the north east corner of the application site is 8.5 metres in width, 6.5 metres in depth, and has a maximum ridge height of 4.6 metres. The external finishes are to match the main dwelling.

The application site, which is now referred to as Plot 9, was proposed to accommodate two dwellings on the approved scheme in 1999.

The application was registered in December 2012 and soon thereafter the Local Planning Authority requested amendments to the original proposed scheme, and additional information including detailed cross section drawings and a Coal Mining Risk Assessment. The Local Planning Authority did not receive the majority of this information until August 2015.

PLANNING POLICIES

Local Planning Policy Context

The application site is located within the defined settlement limits of Llanelli as delineated in the Adopted Carmarthenshire Local Development Plan (LDP), 2014, and is allocated for housing.

In respect of the applications policy context reference is drawn to the following Local Development Plan Policies:-

Policy SP1 of the LDP promotes environmentally sustainable proposals and encourages the efficient use of vacant, underused or previously developed land.

Page 12 Policy GP1 of the LDP promotes sustainability and high quality design, and seeks to ensure that development conforms with and enhances the character and appearance of the site, building or area in terms of siting, appearance, scale, height, massing, elevation treatment and detailing.

Policy GP2 of the LDP states that proposals within defined development limits will be permitted, subject to policies and proposals of the plan, national policies and other material planning considerations.

Policy GP4 of the LDP states that proposals for development will be permitted where the infrastructure is adequate to meet the needs of the development. Proposals where new or improved infrastructure is required but does not form part of an infrastructure provider’s improvement programme may be permitted where it can be satisfactorily demonstrated that this infrastructure will exist, or where the required work is funded by the developer. Planning obligations and conditions will be used to ensure that new or improved facilities are provided to serve the new development.

Policy H2 of the LDP states that proposals for housing developments on unallocated sites within development limits of a settlement will be permitted provided they are in accordance with the principles of the plan’s strategy and its policies and proposal

Policy TR3 of the LDP highlights the highway design and layout considerations of developments and states that proposals which do not generate unacceptable levels of traffic on the surrounding road network, and would not be detrimental to highway safety or cause significant harm to the amenity of residents will be permitted.

Policy EQ4 of the LDP relates to biodiversity and states that proposals for development which have an adverse impact on priority species, habitats and features of recognised principal importance to the conservation of biodiversity and nature conservation (i.e. NERC & Local BAP, and other sites protected under European or UK legislation), will not be permitted unless satisfactory mitigation is proposed, and where exceptional circumstances where the reasons for development outweigh the need to safeguard biodiversity and where alternative habitat provision can be made.

Policy EP1 of the LDP states that proposals will be permitted where they do not lead to a deterioration of either the water environment and/or the quality of controlled waters. Proposals will, where appropriate, be expected to contribute towards improvements to water quality.

Policy EP2 of the LDP states that proposals should wherever possible seek to minimise the impacts of pollution. New developments will be required to demonstrate and satisfactorily address any issues in terms of air quality, water quality, light and noise pollution, and contaminated land.

Policy EP3 of the LDP requires proposals to demonstrate that the impact of surface water drainage, including the effectiveness of incorporating Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS), has been fully investigated.

Page 13 National Planning Policy Context

National Planning Policy is contained within Planning Policy Wales (PPW), originally published by the Welsh Assembly Government in March 2002 with the most recent edition published in July 2014. PPW is supplemented by 21 Technical Advice Notes (TANs).

Planning Policy Wales is the principle document of the Welsh Assembly Government which sets out the land-use policy context for the consideration and evaluation of all types of development. The main thrust of PPW is to promote sustainable development by ensuring that the planning system provides for an adequate and continuous supply of land available and suitable for development to meet society’s needs in a way that is consistent with overall sustainability principles.

Good design is encouraged at all levels and national policy contained in Planning Policy Wales Edition 7 – July 2014 provides the following guidance.

Paragraph 4.11.1 states: “Design is taken to mean the relationship between all elements of the natural and built environment. To create sustainable development, design must go beyond aesthetics and include the social, environmental and economic aspects of the development, including its construction, operation and management, and its relationship to its surroundings”.

Paragraph 4.11.2 states “Good design can protect and enhance environmental quality, consider the impact of climate change on generations to come, help to attract business and investment, promote social inclusion and improve the quality of life. Meeting the objectives of good design should be the aim of all those involved in the development process and applied to all development proposals, at all scales, from the construction or alteration of individual buildings to larger development proposals. These objectives can be categorised into five key aspects of good design”.

4.11.3 The design principles and concepts that have been applied to these aspects should be reflected in the content of any design and access statement required to accompany certain applications for planning permission and listed building consent which are material considerations.

4.11.4 Good design is also inclusive design. The principles of inclusive design are that it places people at the heart of the design process, acknowledges diversity and difference, offers choice where a single design solution cannot accommodate all users, provides for flexibility in use, and provides buildings and environments that are convenient and enjoyable to use for everyone (see Section 3.4).

4.11.8 Good design is essential to ensure that areas, particularly those where higher density development takes place, offer high environmental quality, including open and green spaces. Landscape considerations are an integral part of the design process and can make a positive contribution to environmental protection and improvement, for example to biodiversity, climate protection, air quality and the protection of water resources.

Page 14 impose a particular architectural taste or style arbitrarily and should avoid inhibiting opportunities for innovative design solutions.

Paragraph 2.2 of Technical Advice Note 12 Design (2014) states:

2.2 The Welsh Government is strongly committed to achieving the delivery of good design in the built and natural environment which is fit for purpose and delivers environmental sustainability, economic development and social inclusion, at every scale throughout Wales - from householder extensions to new mixed use communities.

Paragraph 2.6 & 2.7 of Technical Advice Note 12 Design (2014) states:

2.6 Design which is inappropriate in its context, or which fails to grasp opportunities to enhance the character, quality and function of an area, should not be accepted, as these have detrimental effects on existing communities.

2.7 A holistic approach to design requires a shift in emphasis away from total reliance on prescriptive standards, which can have the effect of stifling innovation and creativity. Instead, everyone involved in the design process should focus from the outset on meeting a series of objectives of good design (Figure 1). The design response will need to ensure that these are achieved, whilst responding to local context, through the lifetime of the development (from procurement to construction through to completion and eventual use). This analysis and the vision for a scheme should be presented in the design and access statement where one is required.

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

As aforementioned, four neighbouring properties have raised concerns and objections towards the proposed development. The material reasons for objection raised will now be addressed individually as part of this appraisal.

The level of the application site is higher than other existing properties located on the Glasfryn Gardens estate however is comparable with properties along Glasfryn Terrace to the north east and Felinfoel Road to the north. The approved scheme in 1999 indicated a difference in finished floor levels of approximately 2 metres between the two properties approved then on the current application site and the other properties on the opposite side of the Glasfryn Gardens estate road. Whilst the finished floor level shown on the current proposed scheme is between 350mm to 550mm higher than previously proposed, the previous scheme was nevertheless for two dwellings compared to the one now proposed. There is a significant separation distance between the application property and the existing dwellings on the opposite side of the estate road at Glasfryn Gardens. The proposed dwelling is only 8.7m to ridge which is not considered excessive. The ridge height is 1 to 1.2 metres lower than adjacent properties along Felinfoel Road and Glasfryn Terrace, whilst the ridge height is approximately 1 metre higher than no. 8 Glasfryn Gardens. However the revised scheme proposes a single storey orangery to the side elevation facing no.8 Glasfryn Gardens, which reduces the scale of the property in this respect towards no. 8 Glasfryn Gardens. In light of the above it is considered that the scale of the proposed dwelling, and its relationship with existing residential dwellings, will ensure that the proposal will not result in overbearing impact.

Page 15 In terms of the concern raised in relation to dormer windows, whilst the Local Planning Authority acknowledges that there are no dormer windows on the existing Glasfryn Gardens development, such design features are characteristic of other residential properties along Felinfoel Road. The proposed dormer windows are of a pitched roof design, fully contained within the roof slopes, and are thus considered acceptable in design terms.

The proposed garage, whilst large in footprint, is nevertheless simple in its design, and single storey in nature. A condition can be imposed to ensure that its use is purely for domestic purposes only, whilst any proposal to use the garage as a separate self contained residential planning unit would require planning permission.

The applicant does not have control over the accuracy of Ordnance Survey based plans which objectors opine inaccurately show the properties of Fairholme and Heddlys to the north east of the application site. The Local Planning Authority considers that the drawing package submitted is sufficient in order to enable a full and detailed consideration of the proposal, and its relationship with existing dwellings to be made.

With regards to the concern over overlooking, there will be a degree of mutual overlooking between the proposed and existing dwellings, whilst as aforementioned two, two storey dwellings were previously approved on this plot. It is recommended that a condition is imposed on any planning permission granted to ensure that certain first and second floor windows serving an en suite, dressing room and bathroom are glazed in obscure glass and retained as such in perpetuity to ensure that there is not an unacceptable degree of overlooking.

The final issue of concern raised relates to proposed boundary planting and the fact that the plans show a trellis fence to be attached to the existing walls of neighbouring properties. These concerns relate to the original landscaping plan submitted which has now been superseded. The revised plans indicate no boundary planting; only a small section of beech hedge to the side of the proposed orangery, whilst the boundary fencing now proposed is supported by timber upright posts. The landscaping and boundary treatment measures proposed are considered acceptable.

CONCLUSION

The application site is located within the defined settlement limits of Llanelli as delineated within the Adopted LDP and forms part of a housing allocation. The principle of developing the site for residential use has previously been established by virtue of detailed planning permission granted in 1999 for 10 dwellings. Therefore there is no in-principle objection to developing the site for residential use.

The proposed development is considered acceptable in size, scale and design terms, in keeping with existing properties on Glasfryn Gardens, and in keeping with other dwellings within the vicinity. The proposed external finishes are considered appropriate to the area, whilst the proposed boundary treatment measures are also considered acceptable. The detailed cross section drawings submitted with the application indicate that the proposed dwelling will sit comfortably within the wider context.

It is considered that there are no loss of amenity issues associated with the proposed development, whilst it is considered that the issues of concern and objection raised have adequately been addressed as part of the above appraisal. The proposed dwelling is not

Page 16 excessive in scale, and is located an appropriate distance away from adjacent well established residential dwellings.

In terms of drainage, it is proposed to dispose of foul water via the mains sewer which is considered acceptable. With regards to surface water disposal, whilst provision is made for permeable paving within the scheme, which will provide some SUDS, the development site does have a separate surface water sewer which benefits from a long standing Section 104 agreement which means that Dwr Cymru/Welsh Water will adopt. The application is for one dwelling instead of the two previously approved on this part of the site and therefore the amount of foul and surface water loading will be less than previously approved.

As the application was registered in December 2012, prior to the adoption of the LDP in December 2014, the new affordable housing commuted sum requirement is not applicable in this instance.

On balance after careful examination of the site and its surrounding environs in the context of this application, together with the representations received to date it is considered the proposal accords with the above mentioned planning policies. As such this application is put forward with a favourable recommendation subject to the imposition of the following conditions.

RECOMMENDATION – APPROVAL

CONDITIONS

1 The development hereby permitted shall be commenced before the expiration of five years from the date of this permission.

2 A sample/detailed specification of the external finishes to be used in the construction of the development hereby permitted shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of development.

3 The proposed development shall be constructed strictly in accordance with the amended 1:250 scale finished floor level plans and cross section drawings received on the 21st August, 2015, and there shall be no departure from these levels without the prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority.

4 The first floor en suite and dressing room windows, and second floor bathroom window shall be glazed in obscure glass and thereafter retained as such in perpetuity.

5 The garage shall be used for domestic purposes in perpetuity, and not for trade or business use.

6 The parking spaces and layout shown on the plans herewith approved shall be provided to the written approval of the Local Planning Authority prior to any use of the development herewith approved. Thereafter, they shall be retained, unobstructed, for the purpose of parking only.

Page 17 REASONS

1 Required to be imposed pursuant to Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

2 In the interest of visual amenity.

3+4 In the interest of preserving residential amenity.

5 To prevent any separate use on the site, and to ensure that the proposed development does not prejudice the enjoyment of neighbouring occupiers of their properties.

6 In the interest of highway safety.

REASONS FOR GRANTING PLANNING PERMISSION

The decision to grant planning permission has been taken in accordance with Section 38 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase act 2004, which requires that, in determining a planning application the determination must be in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

• It is considered that the proposal complies with Policy SP1 of the LDP in that the proposed development is environmentally sustainable.

• It is considered that the proposal complies with Policy SP2 of the LDP in that the proposed development is resilient to the impact of climate change and accords with the provisions of TAN15.

• It is considered that the proposal complies with Policy SP3 of the LDP in that the proposed development accords with the LDP’s settlement framework.

• It is considered that the proposal complies with Policy SP6 of the LDP in that provision is made for affordable housing within the scheme.

• It is considered that the proposal complies with Policy SP9 of the LDP in that the proposed development is located in a sustainable location, accessible by a variety of transport means.

• It is considered that the proposal complies with Policy SP13 of the LDP in that the proposed development respects, and will not adversely affect the built and historic environment or its setting.

• It is considered that the proposal complies with Policy SP14 of the LDP in that proposed development protects and does not adversely affect the natural environment.

• It is considered that the proposal complies with Policy SP17 of the LDP in that the proposed development will be served by appropriate infrastructure.

• It is considered that the proposal complies with Policy SP18 of the LDP in that the interests of the Welsh language will be safeguarded and promoted.

Page 18 • It is considered that the proposal complies with Policy GP1 of the LDP in that the proposed development is sustainable and will enhance the character and appearance of the area.

• Whilst the proposed development does not strictly comply with Policy GP2 of the LDP, the site is located immediately adjacent to the limits and it is considered that other material considerations as referred to under Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compensation Act 2004 warrant a relaxation of the Policy requirements in this instance.

• It is considered that the proposal complies with Policy GP3 of the LDP in that the application will be subject to a Planning Obligation to meet the requirements arising from the development.

• It is considered that the proposal complies with Policy GP4 of the LDP in that adequate infrastructure is proposed to serve the proposed development.

• It is considered that the proposal complies with Policy H2 of the LDP in that the proposed housing element of the scheme is located within defined settlement limits and accords with the principles of the plan’s strategy and its policies.

• It is considered that the proposal complies with Policy AH1 of the LDP in that provision is made within the proposed scheme for affordable housing.

• It is considered that the proposal complies with Policy TR2 of the LDP in that the proposed development is located in a highly accessible and sustainable location.

• It is considered that the proposal complies with Policy TR3 of the LDP in that the proposed development would not be detrimental to highway safety or cause significant harm to the amenity of residents.

• It is considered that the proposal complies with Policy EQ1 of the LDP in that the proposed development preserves the built and historic environment.

• It is considered that the proposal complies with Policy EQ4 of the LDP in that the proposed development will not have an adverse impact on priority species, habitats and features of principal importance.

• It is considered that the proposal complies with Policy EP1 of the LDP in that the proposed development will not lead to a deterioration of either the water environment and/or the quality of controlled waters.

• It is considered that the proposal complies with Policy EP2 of the LDP in that the proposed development will not result in any adverse pollution issues.

• It is considered that the proposal complies with Policy EP3 of the LDP in that the impact of surface water drainage and the effectiveness of incorporating SUDS has been fully investigated.

Page 19 • It is considered that the proposal complies with Policy EP5 of the LDP in that the proposed development in this coastal location will not increase the risk of erosion, flooding or land instability.

• It is considered that the proposal complies with Policy REC2 of the LDP in that a financial contribution towards improving off site open space will be made.

NOTE(S)

1 The development hereby permitted shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the following schedule of plans:-

• Location Plan 1:1250 @ A4 received 29 th November, 2012; • Site Plan (544/01B) 1:250 @ A3 received 21 st August, 2015; • Floor Plans – Ground, first, roof (544/02C) 1:100 @ A3 received 21 st August, 2015; • Elevation Plan (544/04A) 1:200 @ A3 received 21 st August, 2015; • Proposed Garage (544/05A) 1:100 @ A3 received 21 st August, 2015; • Site Sections A-A, B-B, C-C (544/03C) 1:250 @ A3 received 21 st August, 2015.

2 Comments and guidance received from consultees relating to this application, including any other permissions or consents required, are available on the Authority’s website.

3 Please note that this consent is specific to the plans and particulars approved as part of the application. Any departure from the approved plans will constitute unauthorised development and may be liable to enforcement action. You (or any subsequent developer) should advise the Council of any actual or proposed variations from the approved plans immediately so that you can be advised how to best resolve the matter.

In addition, any Conditions which the Council has imposed on this consent will be listed above and should be read carefully. It is your (or any subsequent developers') responsibility to ensure that the terms of all Conditions are met in full at the appropriate time (as outlined in the specific condition).

The commencement of development without firstly meeting in full the terms of any Conditions which require the submission of details prior to the commencement of development will constitute unauthorised development. This will necessitate the submission of a further application to retain the unauthorised development and may render you liable to formal enforcement action.

Failure on the part of the developer to observe the requirements of any other Conditions could result in the Council pursuing formal enforcement action in the form of a Breach of Condition Notice.

Page 20

Application No S/31915

Application Type Full Planning

Proposal & PROPOSAL FOR A 420 PLACE PRIMARY SCHOOL AND 60 Location PLACE PRE-SCHOOL NURSERY AND CARE PROVISION FOR 2 - 3 YEAR OLD CHILDREN WITH ASSOCIATED PLAYING FIELDS, OUTDOOR LEARNING AREAS AND PARKING PROVISION AT FORMER DRAKA SITE, SOUTH OF COPPERWORKS ROAD, LLANELLI, CARMARTHENSHIRE

Applicant(s) DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION - MR ROBERT SULLY, CARMARTHENSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL , COUNTY HALL, CARMARTHEN, SA31 1JP

Agent ASBRI PLANNING LIMITED - RICHARD BOWEN, SUITE 4, THE J SHED, KINGS ROAD, SWANSEA, SA1 8PL

Case Officer Robert Davies

Ward Glan Y Mor

Date of validation 28/04/2015

CONSULTATIONS

Head of Transport – No objection subject to conditions.

Head of Street Scene (Land Drainage) – No objection. The Land Drainage Department welcomes the latest proposal to infiltrate surface water to areas of low risk contamination outside of the preached water table area.

A further range of sustainable drainage techniques in addition to the proposed infiltration and swales, such as rainwater harvesting, rain garden planters and green roofs should also be investigated.

The detailed design of the surface water drainage system will need to be agreed by the Authority’s Drainage Engineers.

Head of Public Protection (Air Quality) – No objection.

Head of Public Protection (Pollution) - No objection subject to conditions.

Head of Public Protection (Noise) – No objection subject to conditions.

Page 21 Head of Public Protection (Contaminated Land) – No objection. Advise that the proposed development is situated at or within 250 metres of former commercial or industrial land use. In order to ensure that former land uses are fully considered in relation to the proposed end use (and remediated where necessary), a suitably worded condition requiring further information to be submitted and approved prior to works commencing on site is requested. Conditions are also requested to address unsuspected contamination and soil importation.

Head of Corporate Property – No response received to date.

Llanelli Town Council – No response received to date.

Local Members - County Councillor L Roberts has not commented to date. County Councillor W J Lemon is a Member of the Planning Committee and has therefore made no prior comment.

Natural Resources Wales (NRW) - No objection subject to conditions.

The consultation response from NRW provides detailed comments in relation to Contaminated Land, Surface Water Management, Flood Risk, Foul Drainage, Japanese Knotweed and Himalayan Balsam, Ecology, Pollution Prevention and Waste Management and Permitted Sites.

Dwr Cymru/Welsh Water (DCWW) – No objection subject to the imposition of conditions and advisory notes on any planning permission granted.

Dyfed Archaeological Trust (DAT) – No objection subject to condition.

Network Rail – No objection.

The Coal Authority - No objection.

Dyfed Powys Police (Design) - No response received to date.

Neighbours/Public – The application was advertised by virtue of both press and numerous site notices. To date two letters of representation have been received raising the following concerns and objections:-

• The proposed school is to replace Lakefield School and Copperworks School, the catchment for which currently includes large areas north of the railway. The proposed school is to the south of the railway and the Glan Y Mor level crossing is not suitable for pushchairs or mobility impaired equipment.

• The main thoroughfare from the northern catchment area to the school is indicated to be George Street, however there is an existing parking problem in George Street whereby cars park on pavements on both sides of the road, which will cause access problems for pushchairs and mobility impaired equipment.

• A 420 place primary school will create traffic problems on weekdays. The former Draka site should just have a few houses built on it.

Page 22 RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

The following previous applications have been received on the application site:-

S/29798 Temporary storage of soil at the former Draka Copperworks Site Full planning permission 23 April 2014

D5/14654 Extension of existing production building to house an electron beam facility for the manufacture of low smoke, flane reford cable Full planning permission 31 March 1994

D5/14652 Construction of two buildings to be used as warehouses Full planning permission 31 March 1994

D5/14517 Access road to Delta's southern boundary, security post & weigh bridge Full planning permission 31 March 1994

D5/14488 Replacement of old buildings with new Full planning permission 31 March 1994

D5/14487 Further enclosure of pvc and oil silo buildings Full planning permission 31 March 1994

D5/14203 Conered vehicular access Full planning permission 31 March 1994

D5/13645 Erection of 2 lattice steel towers to mount closed circuit security cameras and creation of block wall Full planning refused 04 April 1991

D5/13298 Extension to pvc plant Full planning permission 10 December 1990

D5/12699 Extension to factory building for additional machinery Approval of Reserved Matters 12/ April 1990

D5/11234 Extension to factory for additional machinery Outline planning permission 20 February 1989

D4/5032 Demolition of derelict works and chimney in the interest of safety and amenity Full planning permission 05 June 1980

APPRAISAL

This is an application in which Carmarthenshire County Council has an interest either as applicant/agent or in terms of land or property ownership.

Page 23 THE SITE

The application site forms part of the former Draka copper wire industrial site, south of Copperworks Road in Llanelli. The buildings associated with the previous industrial uses have been demolished and cleared, and the site is currently seen as a large expanse of relatively level hard standing area.

The immediate area is predominantly residential in character, with some residential properties abutting the site to the north and north west. There are however commercial and industrial uses to the west and south west of the site respectively. The main railway line and Llanelli train station are located to the north of the site beyond Copperworks Road and Great Western Terrace, whilst New Dock Road is located to the east, which along with Station Road connects the main town centre of Llanelli to the north with Machynys to the south.

As aforementioned, the 3ha application site only consists of part of the site formally associated with Draka copper wire, namely the north western portion. The eastern and southern parts of the former Draka site are identified for further development to include potentially some residential and small scale employment uses.

THE PROPOSAL

The application seeks full planning permission to construct a new 420 place primary school and 60 place pre-school nursery and care provision for 2 - 3 year old children with associated playing fields, outdoor learning areas and parking provision. The proposed school development (2690 sqm) will replace two existing primary schools, Lakefield Primary School and Copperworks Infant Nursery School, both of which are located to the north of the site, and to the northern side of the railway line. The existing school buildings are Victorian era buildings with limited outdoor space, especially for soft play.

The main school building is to be located on an east-west axis with the main facade facing Copperworks Road to the north. The two storey massing of the building is broken up by using different roof designs and external materials whilst a distinctive gable feature defines the principle entrance into the school. The main hall building, which is to have a dual function as both a dining hall and sports hall is located to the rear of the building, whilst a south facing raised terraced area to the rear of the school building will provide an outdoor learning environment.

The proposed external finishes to the development primarily consist of standing seam aluminium to the roof, and facing brickwork and coloured timber cladding to the walls. The Design and Access Statement states that the use of brickwork represents Llanelli, the metal represents the site whilst the coloured timbers will reflect the colours of both schools to be merged. It is also proposed to use brise soleil and curtain walling, and also balustrade to surround the raised external terraced area to the rear.

The main school building has been designed with flexibility in mind, and allows for community uses outside of normal school hours. This provision for community use extends outside whereby Multi Use Games Areas are proposed along with a full size 3G all weather football pitch to the southern area of the site which will be available for use by the local community during evening and weekends. Community use of the sports facilities will not coincide with the schools operational hours, whilst selective locations for proposed

Page 24 boundary treatment measures ensure that access can be gained to the sports facilities without entering the main school grounds.

The areas immediately outside the main school building consist of hard landscaped, education and play areas, with soft landscaped areas beyond. Low maintenance habitat areas are proposed to the southern parts of the site around the 3G pitch, along with swale features that form part of the surface water drainage strategy.

The Design and Access Statement states that sustainability has been a driving consideration in the development of the design, both to reduce the energy demand of the working building and to ensure that the energy required is used efficiently and obtained from low to zero carbon sources. Photovoltaic panels are proposed to the south facing areas of the roof to supply energy to the school, maximising the potential of the east-west axis. At first floor level the solar gains are managed through a combination of solar shading and solar control glazing whilst the ground floor south facing windows are shaded by the terrace overhead. The presence of this overhanging roof also creates covered play areas directly accessible from the classrooms and sheltered from the elements. The building has been designed and will be constructed to achieve high levels of air tightness throughout, allowing for a controlled natural ventilation strategy to take place as efficiently as possible.

The single storey Flying Start nursery building is proposed to the side of the main pedestrian entrance from Copperworks Road, and thus allows this facility to operate independently from the main school.

The main vehicular access to the new school is to be located to the north western corner of the site, and gained via a new mini roundabout on the junction between Copperworks Road and Marine Street. This access will lead to a parking and pick up and drop off area within the western portion of the application site, and ensures that the vehicle access is segregated from the main pedestrian entrance. An emergency vehicle entrance is proposed to the north eastern corner of the application site. It is proposed to provide a total of 58 marked car parking spaces access via a loop road. A total of 53 standard parking spaces are to be provided and an additional 5 spaces will be provided for disabled motorists. The pick up and drop off lay by is to be located to the outer circumference of the loop.

In order to ensure the safety of pedestrian and vehicular traffic that a new school will create, offsite highway measures are proposed within the immediate vicinity of the school. A zebra crossing is proposed outside the main entrance to the school, linking it to George Street and the surrounding housing, whilst further north there is scope to improve the pedestrian circulation across Glanmor Road close to the railway line, which would improve the routes to the station.

As aforementioned a mini roundabout is proposed at the western end of Copperworks Road to improve traffic flow into the school’s pick up/drop off and parking area, and associated traffic calming measures to include widened pavements, speed bumps and alterations to road markings.

Signage will also alert drivers to the presence of the school. Programmed LED units incorporating a school warning sign and 20mph roundel sign will be on during key school hours, in addition to normal speed limit signs.

Page 25 The full planning application itself was originally accompanied by the following supporting information:-

• Location plan and site plans; • Detailed elevation and floor plans; • Design and Access Statement; • Planning Statement; • Groundwater Risk Assessment; • Ground Investigation Report; • Japanese Knotweed and Himalayan Balsam Survey and Management Plan; • Environmental Noise Assessment; • Noise and Acoustic Report for Building Regulations and BREEAM; • Archaeological Desk Based Assessment; • Drainage Strategy; • Flood Consequence Assessment; • Transport Assessment; • Air Quality Assessment; • Ecological Assessment; • Water Quality Statement.

During the course of the planning application process the following additional/amended supporting information was received:-

• Level 3 Remedial Targets Methodology Groundwater Risk Assessment Report; • Revised Drainage Strategy and Plan; • Revised Landscape Masterplan; • Proposed Piled Foundations Details; • Proposed Site Longsections; • Piling Risk Assessment Report.

The revised information received was as a result of a wholesale change in direction in terms of the proposed surface water drainage strategy and foundation design. It was originally thought that infiltration of surface water on site and piling foundations were not possible due to ground conditions and potential for underlying archaeology, and therefore it was originally proposed to pump surface water via a new piped system to Delta Lakes, whilst a raft foundation design was proposed for the new school building. The pumped solution for surface water drainage was not considered to be sustainable, whilst it was established that the raft foundation design would result in settlements for the proposed structure in excess of those considered acceptable. Therefore the drainage and foundation design strategy was re-visited.

Following a site meeting with relevant consultees, further groundwater sampling was undertaken to inform the revised strategies. The further sampling identified high risk areas within the site, and also identified that contaminants are currently present in both the shallow perched water and lower aquifer. Therefore it was established that contaminants had already migrated down to the groundwater, proving that preferential pathways between the perched and groundwater already exist on site. The results highlighted that storm water infiltration would provide a minimal further risk to the groundwater, and an element of betterment could be achieved by capturing some surface water on site and discharging it into areas on site which are away from the risk of high contamination levels and perched groundwater. Such areas of low risk contamination outside of the perched groundwater have been identified from the ongoing groundwater monitoring results. The

Page 26 principle of the design will see all landscaped areas on site being used to attenuate rainfall with excessive rainfall volumes being directed to swales to infiltrate into the made ground layer.

The same sampling exercise informed a revised foundation design strategy. Site investigations found that the existing fill material on site to be unsuitable for founding and recommended either the use of a piled or deep trench fill mass concrete foundations. The piled foundation solution was progressed in consultation with Natural Resources Wales and Dyfed Archaeological Trust. The piled foundation solution requires no excavation beyond breaking out of any hard surfaces local to each pile location, and it is understood that the location of the proposed piling has been confirmed by Dyfed Archaeology to be outside the areas of specific archaeological interest, which were located more towards the south of the site in the location of the old copper furnaces.

Following guidance produced by the former Environment Agency, displacement piles were considered to be the most appropriate based on avoiding contaminated arisings produced during installation. The use of displacement piles also results in local compaction of the soil surrounding the pile, generally leading to a reduction in the permeability of the penetrated soil. The radial movement of the soil will also create a stress field in the zone of influence that will tend to make the soil close up and ‘seal’ around the pile after driving is complete, especially in cohesive materials. This would further limit the formation of any new preferential pathways created by the piling operation. Identified contamination ‘hot spots’ will be removed prior to the commencement of the piling activity. The base of the piles will be inclined so that contaminated material will not be transferred beneath each pile. Furthermore it is proposed that the groundwater is continued to be monitored at strategic locations during the construction period.

PLANNING POLICIES

Local Planning Policy Context

The application site is located within the defined settlement limits of Llanelli as delineated in the Adopted Carmarthenshire Local Development Plan (LDP), 2014, whilst the site in fact forms part of a larger mixed use site allocation with the primary focus being on education with potential for residential development and some small scale employment.

In respect of the applications policy context reference is drawn to the following Strategic and Specific planning policies: -

Policy SP1 of the LDP promotes environmentally sustainable proposals and encourages the efficient use of vacant, underused or previously developed land.

Policy SP2 of the LDP supports proposals which respond to, are resilient to and adapt to minimise for the causes and impacts of climate change. Proposals for development which are located within areas at risk from flooding will be resisted unless they accord with the provisions of TAN15.

Policy SP3 of the LDP refers to the settlement framework and states that provision for growth and development will be at sustainable locations in accordance with the LSP’s settlement framework. In this respect Llanelli is identified as a Growth Area.

Page 27 Policy SP9 of the LDP promotes the provision of an efficient, effective, safe and sustainable integrated transport system.

Policy SP13 of the LDP states that development proposals should preserve or enhance the built and historic environment of the County, its cultural, townscape and landscape assets, and, where appropriate, their setting in accordance with national guidance and legislation.

Policy SP14 of the LDP states that development should reflect the need to protect, and wherever possible enhance the County’s natural environment in accordance with national guidance and legislation.

Policy SP17 of the LDP states that development will be directed to locations where adequate and appropriate infrastructure is available or can be readily available.

Policy GP1 of the LDP promotes sustainability and high quality design, and seeks to ensure that development conforms with and enhances the character and appearance of the site, building or area in terms of siting, appearance, scale, height, massing, elevation treatment and detailing.

Policy TR2 of the LDP states that developments which have the potential for significant trip generation, should be located in a manner consistent with the plan’s objectives and in locations which are well served by public transport and are accessible by cycling and walking.

Policy EQ1 of the LDP states that proposals affecting landscapes, townscapes buildings and sites or features of historic or archaeological interest will only be permitted where it preserves or enhances the built and historic environment.

Page 28 Policy EQ4 of the LDP relates to biodiversity and states that proposals for development which have an adverse impact on priority species, habitats and features of recognised principal importance to the conservation of biodiversity and nature conservation (i.e. NERC & Local BAP, and other sites protected under European or UK legislation), will not be permitted unless satisfactory mitigation is proposed, and where exceptional circumstances where the reasons for development outweigh the need to safeguard biodiversity and where alternative habitat provision can be made.

Policy EP5 of the LDP states that proposals for development in coastal locations will be permitted provided that they are necessary in that location and they do not increase the risk of erosion, flooding or land instability.

National Planning Policy Context

National Planning Policy is contained within the Wales Spatial Plan, which provides an overall strategic framework, together with Planning Policy Wales (PPW), originally published by the Welsh Assembly Government in March 2002 with the most recent edition published in July 2014. PPW is supplemented by 21 Technical Advice Notes (TANs).

‘People, Places, Futures, the Wales Spatial Plan’ was updated in 2008. Llanelli is identified as a Primary Key Settlement as well as a Cross-Boundary Settlement in the Swansea Bay: The Waterfront and Western Valleys Area. Town Centre Regeneration in the Key Settlements is highlighted as a priority in the Wales Spatial Plan.

The WSP sets out a strategic framework to guide development across Wales, and its core theme seems to focus around promoting sustainable development. The WSP sets out visions for different areas of Wales. The vision for the ‘Swansea Bay – Waterfront and Western Valleys’ area, which includes Llanelli is:

“An area of planned sustainable growth and environment improvement, realising its potential, supported by integrated transport within the area and externally and spreading prosperity to support the revitalisation of West Wales”

One of the main elements of the strategy for the area is the development of a modern, attractive and vibrant waterfront urban area, which stretches from Port Talbot in the east through to Burry Port in the west taking in Neath, Swansea and Llanelli.

Page 29 The Plan recognises that the area has the potential to become a key driver of the Welsh economy and development should be focused on Port Talbot, Neath, Swansea, and Llanelli prioritising the use of the abundant supply of brownfield land.

Planning Policy Wales confirms at Paragraph 3.1.1 that the planning system:

“…is intended to help protect the amenity and environment of towns, cities and the countryside in the public interest while promoting high quality, sustainable development.”

This document in Paragraph 1.2.2 confirms that a primary principle or basic premise of the planning system is that it:

“… must provide for an adequate and continuous supply of land, available and suitable for development to meet society’s needs. It must do this in a way that pays regard to:-

• overall sustainability principles, outcomes and objectives, paying particular attention to climate change as a key sustainability concern; • the Wales Spatial Plan; • detail policies on the different topic areas set out in PPW.”

Planning Policy Wales promotes the notion of sustainable development as being central to all planning decisions in Wales. Paragraph 4.1.1 of PPW states that:-

“the goal of sustainable development is to “enable all people throughout the world to satisfy their basic needs and enjoy a better quality of life without compromising the quality of life of future generations”

PPW in Paragraph 4.1.4 defines sustainable development in Wales:-

“In Wales, this means enhancing the economic, social and environmental well being of people and communities, achieving a better quality of life for our own generations in ways which:-

• promote social justice and equality of opportunity; and • enhance the natural and cultural environment and respect its limits – using only our fair share of the earth’s resources and sustaining our cultural legacy.

Sustainable development is the process by which we reach the goal of sustainability.”

The document outlines a number of relevant sustainable development principles, chief amongst which is the promotion of resource efficient settlement patterns and minimising land-take. There is also recognition that the location of development should aim to reduce demand for travel, especially journeys by private car.

Section 4.9 of PPW provides a preference for the re-use of land.

Page 30

Paragraph 4.9.1 states that:-

“Previously developed (or brownfield) land (see Figure 4.3) should, wherever possible, be used in preference to greenfield sites, particularly those of high agricultural or ecological value. The Welsh Government recognises that not all previously developed land is suitable for development. This may be, for example, because of its location, the presence of protected species or valuable habitats or industrial heritage, or because it is highly contaminated. For sites like these it may be appropriate to secure remediation for nature conservation, amenity value or to reduce risks to human health.” Paragraph 4.9.2 goes on to state that:

“Many previously developed sites in built-up areas may be considered suitable for development because their re-use will promote sustainability objectives.”

The Welsh Government, in the revised Chapter 7 of Planning Policy Wales (Economic Development), defines economic development as ‘development of land and buildings for activities that generate wealth, jobs and incomes’. It goes on to state that it is essential that the planning system considers, and makes provision for the whole economy and not just those defined under parts B1-B8 of the Town and Country Planning Use Classes Order. The planning system should also support economic and employment growth alongside social and environmental considerations within the context of sustainable development (PPW paragraph 7.1.3).

Paragraph 7.6.1 advises on development management and requires local authorities to adopt a positive and constructive approach to applications for economic development. In determining applications for economic land uses authorities should take account of the likely economic benefits. Key factors include:-

• ‘The numbers and types of jobs expected to be created or retained on the site; • Whether and how far the development will help redress economic disadvantage or support regeneration priorities; • A consideration of the contribution to wider spatial strategies, for example the growth or regeneration of certain areas.’

Planning Policy Wales is supplemented by various Technical Advice Notes (TAN’s) which provide more in depth guidance on specific issues. In this instance guidance contained in the following TAN’s are applicable:-

TAN 5 Nature Conservation and Planning (2009) seeks to ensure that protected species, habitats and designated sites are both protected and conserved by the planning system.

TAN 11 Noise (1997) provides advice on how the planning system can be used to minimise the adverse impact of noise without placing unreasonable restrictions on development.

TAN 12 Design (2014) seeks to promote sustainability principles through good design and identifies how local planning authorities can facilitate this process through the planning system.

Page 31 TAN 15 Development and Flood Risk (2004) aims to direct new development away from those areas that are at high risk of flooding. Those areas of high risk are defined on a series of Development Advice Maps (DAMs) which detail three principle zones, A, B, C and sub-categories C1 and C2 that should be used to trigger Flood Consequence Assessments. TAN 15 defines what is considered to be vulnerable development and provides advice on permissible land uses in relation to the location of the proposed development and the consequences of flooding.

TAN18 Transport (2007) endeavours to ensure Wales develops an efficient and sustainable transport system to meet the needs of a modern, prosperous and inclusive society.

TAN 23 Economic Development (2014) re-iterates the broad definition of economic development contained within the revised Chapter 7 of PPW, and states that it is important that the planning system recognises the economic aspects of all development and that planning decisions are made in a sustainable way which balance social, environmental and economic considerations.

With regards to protecting the integrity of the European designated site Regulation 61 of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 reads as follows:-

Assessment of implications for European sites and European offshore marine sites

61 –

(1) A competent authority, before deciding to undertake, or give any consent, permission or other authorisation for, a plan or project which—

(a) is likely to have a significant effect on a European site or a European offshore marine site (either alone or in combination with other plans or projects), and

(b) is not directly connected with or necessary to the management of that site, must make an appropriate assessment of the implications for that site in view of that site’s conservation objectives.

(2) A person applying for any such consent, permission or other authorisation must provide such information as the competent authority may reasonably require for the purposes of the assessment or to enable them to determine whether an appropriate assessment is required.

(3) The competent authority must for the purposes of the assessment consult the appropriate nature conservation body and have regard to any representations made by that body within such reasonable time as the authority specify.

(4) They must also, if they consider it appropriate, take the opinion of the general public, and if they do so, they must take such steps for that purpose as they consider appropriate.

(5) In the light of the conclusions of the assessment, and subject to regulation 62 (considerations of overriding public interest), the competent authority may agree to the plan or project only after having ascertained that it will not adversely affect the

Page 32 integrity of the European site or the European offshore marine site (as the case may be).

(6) In considering whether a plan or project will adversely affect the integrity of the site, the authority must have regard to the manner in which it is proposed to be carried out or to any conditions or restrictions subject to which they propose that the consent, permission or other authorisation should be given.

(7) This regulation does not apply in relation to a site which is—

(a) a European site by reason of regulation 8(1)(c), or

(b) a European offshore marine site by reason of regulation 15(c) of the 2007 Regulations (site protected in accordance with Article 5(4) of the Habitats Directive).

(8) Where a plan or project requires an appropriate assessment both under this regulation and under the 2007 Regulations, the assessment required by this regulation need not identify those effects of the plan or project that are specifically attributable to that part of it that is to be carried out in Great Britain, provided that an assessment made for the purpose of this regulation and the 2007 Regulations assesses the effects of the plan or project as a whole.

Planning Policy Wales Technical Advice Note 5 ‘Nature Conservation and Planning’ also re-iterates this advice and seeks to ensure that protected species, habitats and designated sites are both protected and conserved by the planning system. In the case of this proposed development, where there is no direct on-site impact, it concentrates on those designated Natura 2000 sites to the south within the Loughor Estuary and Carmarthen Bay area.

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

As aforementioned two letters of representation have been received raising concerns and objection towards the proposed development. The material reasons for objection raised will now be addressed individually as part of this appraisal.

With regards to the accessibility concerns, the existing Lakefield and Copperworks Schools share the same catchment areas, and this will obviously remain the same for the new proposed school. The catchment area spans either side of the railway line, with the majority of the catchment area to the south of the railway line where the new proposed school is to be located. At present a number of children attending both schools and who live south of the railway line, cross the line to attend school. This situation will effectively be reversed if the development was approved.

As already mentioned a number of offsite highway improvement measures and traffic calming measures are proposed within the vicinity of the school to ensure the safety of pedestrian and vehicular traffic.

The Authority’s Head of Transport has raised no objection towards the proposed development, which aforementioned provides for offsite highway improvements, whilst also makes on site provision for sufficient car parking and pick up/drop off areas. It is also

Page 33 worth noting that Network Rail has not opposed the proposed development in relation to traffic and pedestrian movements across the level crossings.

The former Draka site as a whole is identified as mixed use site allocation in the Adopted LDP with the primary focus being on education with potential for residential development and some small scale employment. The proposed school development on part of the site therefore accords with the aspirations for the site in the LDP.

APPRAISAL

Archaeology

The application was accompanied by an Archaeological Desk Based Assessment dated January 2015. This assessment concluded that there is good potential for significant buried archaeology within the proposed development site, possibly of national importance. The site was in the mid 19th century the third largest copper smelting site in the world.

As aforementioned, the foundation design strategy has changed during the course of the planning application process, in close discussion with the Authority’s Archaeological advisors, Dyfed Archaeolgical Trust. As always Dyfed Archaeology advise that preservation of such remains would be the first option but if disturbed such remains should be comprehensively recorded.

Dyfed Archaeological Trust initially recommended an archaeological condition to cover a possible watching brief. The WB condition was viewed as precautionary and intermittent only, in the event of unforeseen, intrusive groundworks. The original methodology of raising the site and rafted foundations indicated that archaeology would be protected from the development.

Based upon the revised foundation design strategy, DAT recommend the retention of a WB condition to allow for similar circumstances within the revised methodology. It is recommended that such a condition is imposed on any planning permission granted in the interest of preserving historic environment interests whilst still enabling development.

Noise & Air Quality

In terms of noise, an acoustic report was submitted with the application. Based on the survey results an assessment has been undertaken to demonstrate that with partially open windows providing ventilation the predicted internal noise levels achieve the noise criteria of Building Bulletin 93, and therefore the site is considered suitable for educational use.

Plant noise limits have been proposed at the nearby noise sensitive receivers based on the survey results and British Standard 4142:2014. With the proposed plant meeting the noise limits the Rating Level of noise associated with the development does not exceed the Background Noise Level by more than +0 dB during the day.

Noise from the 3G and MUGA sports pitches have also been predicted at the nearby noise sensitive residential properties. The predicted noise level is below the level of community noise for moderate community annoyance in outside living areas (such as gardens) stated in World Health Organisation 1999 of 50 dB(A) externally and 35 dB(A) internally within the habitable rooms of the sensitive receivers to enable casual conversation indoors during daytime.

Page 34

There will be changes to the traffic flow rates as a result of the scheme. A change in traffic flow noise assessment has been undertaken based on the Peak hour flows.

The increase in road traffic noise levels due to the proposed development is no greater than 3 decibels on the worse case road. This is considered a perceptible increase in noise levels at the worst case location and is considered of slight adverse effect. Along all other roads the increase in noise levels is considered imperceptible with no adverse effect. It is contested that the noise impact due to the increase in road traffic associated with the development will not adversely affect the residential amenity of the existing nearby residential properties.

A construction noise assessment has also been undertaken with criteria based on contractor supplied information, plant data from BS 8228 ‐1:2009 and the ABC method of BS 5228 ‐1:2009. The proposed construction operation is considered acceptable in environmental noise terms and falls within the proposed noise limits.

Noise emission will be adequately controlled at the nearby residential properties. On the above basis the acoustic reports considers that the proposed development is acceptable in environmental operational and construction noise terms. Noise emission is adequately controlled at the school and nearby residential properties. The proposal is not expected to adversely affect nearby residents by way of noise.

This report has been considered in detail by the Authority’s Public Health Division which raises no objection towards the proposal subject to the imposition of certain noise related conditions.

In terms of Air Quality, an Air Quality Assessment Report was submitted with the application.

The report states that the operation of the proposed development has the potential to generate additional traffic compared to the previous uses on site. Consequently, the potential exists for the concentration of air pollutants at receptors in the area surrounding the site to change because of the proposed development.

A qualitative assessment of dust effects during the construction phase has been carried out. With the implementation of a range of appropriate site management practices to control dust emissions, effects associated with construction activities are considered to be negligible.

Any emissions from construction plant operating on the site would be small in comparison to the emissions from the road traffic movements on the roads adjacent to the site and therefore would be negligible.

It is anticipated that the effect of construction vehicles entering and leaving the site would be would negligible. All construction effects would be localised and temporary.

Future pollutant concentrations due to emissions from local road traffic associated with the proposed development have been modelled, using the DMRB assessment tool. Modelled results have been used to determine the effect of the proposed development on air quality at a number of sensitive receptors surrounding the site.

Page 35 Taking into account current uncertainties around future nitrogen oxides (NOx) and nitrogen dioxide (NO2) reduction trends, the proposed development is predicted to have a negligible effect at existing receptors considered for NO2 and for both PM10 and PM2.5.

This report has been considered by the Authority’s Public Health Division which raises no objection towards the proposal on the basis of Air Quality. It is recommended that a condition is imposed on any planning permission granted requiring a scheme to mitigate against potential localised dust issues during the construction period.

Highways

The application itself has been accompanied by a Transport Assessment, Interim Travel Plan and an Offsite Traffic Calming Masterplan.

The proposed vehicular access to the school is to be via a new mini-roundabout junction on Copperworks Road and the site will also be accessed by a further pedestrian only entrance and emergency vehicle entrance. The speed limit on Copperworks Road has recently been reduced to 20 mph and further traffic calming measures are to be considered on Copperworks Road and Marine Street. Highway signs will be erected and ‘school – keep clear’ carriageway markings will be installed on Copperworks Road to alert motorists of the presence of the school and associated pedestrian movement.

The trip distribution analysis has concluded that the outcome of the proposed development will predominantly be a re-assignment of existing traffic on the network in order to access the new school’s location. As the school will have a greater pupil capacity to the number currently attending the existing schools a proportion of ‘new’ trips have been added to the network to assess the impact of the potential for the generation of new trips.

The report states that the additional generated net trips associated with the development proposals can be satisfactorily accommodated on the highway network. All junctions assessed within the TA are predicted to perform within capacity in the future assessment years of 2018 and 2028.

It is contested that the successful implementation of the Travel Plan may result in modal shift from car-borne trips to pedestrian and cyclist trips. The implementation Travel Plan will include modal shift targets.

Approximately 93% of pupils (345 pupils) attending the existing schools reside within 1.2km of the proposed school (or closer) which equates to a 15 minute walk assuming a comfortable walking pace of 80 metres per minute.

It is also noted that safety upgrades are to be commissioned in 2015 at the level crossings to the west and east of Llanelli Railway Station by way of the introduction of obstacle detection technology. Both level crossings are on pedestrian routes that are currently used by pupils to access the existing schools and will be for those travelling to the proposed school. Both level crossings benefit from a good safety record.

Overall it is considered the analysis carried out indicates that the proposed school would not have a detrimental impact on highway safety and with the introduction of a Travel Plan could potentially have a betterment effect on sustainable travel to school compared to the existing schools.

Page 36 The TA report has been considered by the Authority’s Head of Transport who raises no objection subject to the imposition of conditions on any planning permission granted.

Ground Conditions

With regards to ground conditions associated with the historical industrial uses made of the site, the original application was accompanied by a Groundwater Risk Assessment and Ground Investigation Report. Subsequent to this an additional Groundwater Risk Assessment Report was submitted to inform a revised drainage and foundation design strategy.

The GI report states that the site is capped by a thickness of tarmac or concrete bases ranging in thickness between 0.10m and 0.50m which is associated with the site’s former land use as a place of heavy manufacturing. Beneath the concrete cap there is a thickness of between 1 and 3 metres of made ground comprising granular sands and gravels made up of slag, brick, clinker, ash, concrete, and assorted rubble. Within the made ground, trial pits encountered multiple buried structures including brick lined archways and conduits, concrete walls or foundations, and thick oily tar residues potentially from a hydrocarbon store.

The made ground is highly variable in its thickness, density and engineering properties so is not considered suitable for founding of structures, and hence the revised piled foundation strategy.

The additional groundwater sampling exercise identified elevated levels of metals, semi metals and organics in both perched water and lower groundwater aquifers.

The key consultees in relation to this issue are NRW (groundwater implications) and the Authority’s Public Health Division (human health).

In their response, NRW accept that contamination is concentrated in key hot spot areas, and that broadly there is contamination in both the made ground and in the perched water within the site. The Local Planning Authority is awaiting NRW’s final comments on the revised drainage and piled foundation strategies, however NRW has suggested in an email that these matters can be addressed via the imposition of conditions on any planning permission granted.

The Authority’s Public Health Division has also requested that a condition is imposed on any planning permission granted, and suggest that the proposals to provide a capping of clean covering layer and hard standings at selected locations will address any human health concerns. The exact method of remediation in this respect will be a requirement of the suggested condition.

Flooding

In terms of flooding, the application was accompanied by a Flood Consequence Report. This followed pre-application discussion with NRW who despite the fact that the vast majority of the application site is outside any of the defined flood zones, requested an Flood Consequences Assessment (FCA) to consider climate change allowance and potential implications for tidal flooding at the site.

Page 37 The FCA has found that the risks to the proposed development associated with fluvial, pluvial, groundwater and sewer flooding are low and therefore considered to be manageable.

The site is elevated above the predicted peak tidal flood level for the 0.5% APE and the 0.1% APE in 2115. When the upper confidence interval is applied to the 0.5% APE tidal level, a small area along the northern site boundary is affected by floodwaters. The proposed school building will be located in the centre of the existing site, and will therefore remain flood-free for all modelled scenarios.

The emergency access/egress to/from the site is along Copperworks Road from the proposed emergency vehicle entrance. This route has been shown to be compliant with the requirements of TAN 15 for the 0.5% APE in 2115. During the 0.1% APE in 2115, this route remains compliant during the first two tidal cycles. It is considered that occupants would have sufficient time to evacuate the premises if required between the tidal cycles. It is recommended that the occupants of the site sign up to the Flood Warning Service offered by NRW, which would provide warning of an extreme tidal event.

In summary, the proposed development of the site will not adversely affect the existing hydrological regime and the risk of flooding associated with an extreme tidal event has been shown to be manageable.

This FCA has been considered by NRW who raise no objection subject to the imposition of a condition requiring a flood management plan is developed for the site and agreed by relevant agencies. The school should sign up and receive flood warnings from NRW to ensure sufficient warning should a tidal event occur. NRW also advise that the school should not be allocated as a place of refuge during any emergencies in the areas emergency plans.

NRW’s response does state that a small part of the site is located within Zone C2 as defined by the Development Advice Maps referred to under TAN15, however such maps on the Welsh Government website indicate that no part of the site is within Zone C2. The vast majority of the site is outside any defined flood zone; however a small section to the west is within Zone B, and a tiny fraction to the north east corner within Zone C1. NRW has subsequently confirmed that their original response incorrectly identified part of the site within Zone C2.

Water Quality

There has been a long standing concern in relation to water quality in the CBEEMS, and therefore this section of the report is dedicated to this issue. However, this should not be read in isolation and needs to be considered in conjunction with following sections, especially that on foul and surface water drainage proposals.

In terms of water quality, a number of Environmental Statements have been produced in recent years with regards to other proposed developments within the Llanelli Waste Water Treatment catchment, which were tightly scoped to look at water quality. A number of key studies and reports have also been undertaken and referred to below which are relevant in this respect.

Page 38 The quality of water discharged into the European protected CBEEMS is seen as a key issue in assessing the impact of this, and other proposed developments, on the Loughor Estuary. As early as 2001 the Loughor Estuary was designated as a “Sensitive” area (eutrophic) under the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive. Such a designation and acknowledgement of the need to improve water quality has been the main driver in implementing improvements in water treatment at various waste water treatment works (WwTW) which discharge into the Burry Inlet and wider estuary. Successive Asset Management Plan programmes (AMPs) by Dwr Cymru/Welsh Water (DCWW) have seen improvements in nitrogen removal at Llanelli, Gowerton, and Llannant, in addition to which, ultra violet (UV) disinfection to kill bacteria has also been implemented to improve the quality of effluent discharged through combined sewer overflows (CSOs). The latter being a safety mechanism which discharges untreated sewerage into the estuary when excessive storm water volumes overload the system, in order to avoid surcharging of domestic properties, with raw sewerage discharged into the estuary.

The ‘Loughor Estuary – Water Quality & Nutrient Assessment’ (Final), Report No. RN2020, Revision 2 (1 May 2009), prepared by Metoc PLC, commonly known as the Metoc Report provides a qualitative assessment of water quality in the Loughor Estuary by analysing monitoring data from 1990 to 2008, thereby defining the past and current trends in terms of chemical determinants and water quality generally. A key consideration is that the sewage system in the majority of the Llanelli catchment carries both foul and surface water. During storm conditions the surface water runoff enters the system and combines with foul water. In order to prevent flooding to properties in severe storm conditions, excess storm sewage is discharged via combined sewer overflows (CSO’s) to watercourses or the Estuary. The matter is therefore one of capacity within the conveying system to accommodate additional surface water flows.

The analysis undertaken as part of the Metoc study indicates that the load level of all chemical determinants from domestic sewerage to the Estuary have reduced significantly over the past ten years or so in response to sewerage improvements under successive AMP periods and the rationalisation of treatment facilities. Nitrate and phosphate loads have decreased to 54% and 64% of previous levels respectively and biological oxygen demand (BOD) to 60%.

Further breakdown of the contribution of loading from primary sources show that the nitrate load contributed by all the WwTW discharges more than halved over the monitoring period between 1990 and 2008 from 52% to 25%. The phosphate load contribution reduction was significantly less, a 9% reduction from 73% to 64%. This indicates that phosphate levels remain relatively high, compared to improvements in nitrates and BOD. Moreover, the study indicates that WwTW are the highest contributors of phosphates to the total load in the Estuary which suggests that in order to improve the quality of water in the Estuary, further phosphate removal would be required at the WwTWs.

The accurate baseline provided by the Metoc Report has provided the basis for required mitigation. Welsh Water’s AMP 4 programme at Northumberland pumping station was substantially completed in March 2010 and involved the conversion of former primary settlement tanks to provide additional storage for combined overflows during storm conditions. The programme also included the provision of Ultra Violet treatment facilities at the plant to treat the bacterial load in the overflow waters. The Ultra Violet treatment effectively reduces the bacterial load in the discharges such that the impact on the controlled waters of the Estuary would be reduced to levels compliant with the Shellfish

Page 39 Waters Directive. Similarly, as part of the programme Ultra Violet disinfection is also being provided on the overflow at Llanelli WwTW.

In the context of the Llanelli WwTW catchment area, DCWW previously confirmed that the AMP 4 works were designed to accommodate a level of development that is broadly equivalent to that previously committed and designated in the Authority’s previous UDP, based upon current discharge rates and with no additional surface water being allowed to enter the system. This should be further qualified in terms of the permitted level of CSOs, which although intermittent in nature, would remain within consented levels, even with the proposed and identified developments in the previous UDP. The effects of CSOs mean that additional nutrients are released into the estuary under storm conditions, which given the less than favourable condition of the CBEEMS, has meant the receiving waters are under review as a candidate Polluted Water (Eutrophic) under the Nitrates Directive. As a result, any increase in nutrient levels, however small, would not be acceptable without mitigation.

The Planning Inspector’s report on the LDP noted that the current rolling 5 year Asset Management Plan (AMP) 5 runs from April 2010 to March 2015. There are planned improvements and upgrades to infrastructure in Carmarthenshire that would be delivered within this AMP 5 period. The Inspector noted that funding for the AMP 6 programme is not anticipated to be confirmed until December 2014. However, where necessary, a phased release of sites could be delivered post 2015 or appropriate developer contributions could be sought to facilitate bringing forward any necessary improvements to accommodate development84. DCWW confirmed during the examination that the existing and planned infrastructure would have sufficient capacity to service the level of growth anticipated to 2021.

One practical and direct means of mitigation is the segregation of foul and surface water at source, which would prove most beneficial on brownfield sites where there may be historic foul and surface water flows discharged into the combined system. This would see a reduction in surface water entering the combined system, and thereby reduce the premature discharge of storm sewage. The on-site separation of surface and foul flows and the progressive removal of surface water from the combined system would release capacity to accommodate more raw sewerage, while the AMP 4 programme has provided additional storage at Northumberland pumping station, reducing the volume of spillages thereby ensuring more sewerage is processed through the biological treatment process and anoxic zone treatment. This should result in an increase in the removal of nitrates through the anoxic zone process at the WwTW and consequently decrease the loading of nitrates discharged into the Estuary. The additional storage provided at Northumberland PS will not eliminate CSOs, but should mark a reduction in their frequency and duration. The aforementioned UV treatment of CSOs will also assist in treating the bacterial content of untreated effluent.

The data in the Metoc study suggests that the proposed levels of development indicated in the previous UDP would lead to an increase of approximately 2,840 domestic population equivalence or 4% of the design population equivalence of the receiving WwTW. This equates to an increase in sewer flow of 0.8% of present flow to the WwTW which the system presently has capacity to process. It should be stressed, however, that the Metoc study is based on the modelling of previously recorded data and does not therefore take account of the significant benefits provided by the recent AMP 4 works at Northumberland pumping station and Llanelli WwTW, which DCWW have estimated would accommodate the requirements of a population equivalence of 4000 people. The Metoc report also could

Page 40 not consider and envisage the improvements and upgrading works committed through AMP 5 (2010-2015), AMP6 (2015-2020) and other schemes undertaking by DCWW to reduce CSO spills e.g. Rainscape, Llanelli.

Further on the issue of surface water removal, the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) entered into between Carmarthenshire County Council, City and County of Swansea, Dwr Cymru/Welsh Water and the former Environment Agency and Countryside Council for Wales (now Natural Resources Wales) 2011 is relevant. This document sets out the partnership approach to improve and safeguard the environmental quality of the CBEEMS when taking decisions on development and regeneration schemes. The MOU includes, inter alia, a commitment on the part of the Local Planning Authority to manage a Register which records the increased foul sewage discharges (emanating from new developments) and also the amount of surface water to be removed from the combined sewerage network as part of development proposals. The commitment by developers to remove surface water from the combined system as part of development proposals thereby achieving betterment in the system is defined in the MOU and this in turn achieves benefits the in terms of hydraulic loading and a reduction in the frequency of existing discharge events into the estuary.

In recognition of the need to mitigate any increase in nutrient loading, however small, the removal of nutrients, and principally phosphate removal has been seen as a priority. The installation of an additional phosphate removal process at the WwTW at Llannant treatment works (which discharges into the estuary) in 2010 was seen as one action to serve this process and the incremental dosing of the phosphate ensures that any developments subsequently permitted would not increase the phosphates discharged. Since the most recent Memorandum of Understanding was signed in September 2011, two significant developments have taken place:-

Burry Inlet Cockle Mortalities Investigation report 2009 - 2011: a technical report to Environment Agency Wales published in January 2012. This three-year investigation into the cockle deaths that damaged the fishery in the Burry Inlet has concluded that pollution is not to blame. The study, led by experts from Hull University, ruled out the vast majority of possible causes of the mortalities. The report concluded that a combination of parasites, over-crowding and conditioning of the cockles after spawning is likely to have contributed to the mortalities. The report stated that ‘the overall conclusion from the water quality analysis must be that it is most unlikely that the general water quality of the Burry Inlet is contributing in any meaningful way to the decline of the cockle fishery’ (p.34).

David Tyldesley and Associates have undertaken a Habitat Regulation Assessment of the effects of wastewater associated with new development in the catchment of the Carmarthen Bay and Estuaries European Marine Site for the City and County of Swansea (Habitats Regulation Assessment of the Effects of Wastewater associated with new Developments in the Catchment of the Carmarthen Bay and Estuaries European Marine Site, April 2012).

The assessment concluded that developments which could be accommodated within the current licence arrangements/capacity of the WwTWs (as consented by the former EAW and reviewed under their RoC process) will not be likely to have a significant effect either alone or in combination on the CBEEMS. These cover the Gowerton, Llanelli and Llannant sewerage catchments.

Page 41 It also concludes that within the context of the requirements of Regulation 61 of the Habitats Regulations, and based upon current understanding of the potential links between water quality and cockle mortality, there was no requirement for precautionary interim nutrient stripping at Llannant for developments that can be accommodated within current NRW discharge consents within the CBEEMS.

In addition, while the separation of surface water may be beneficial in terms of improving water quality within the system as whole, the Assessment finds that it was not deemed to be necessary in terms of meeting the requirements of the Regulation 61 assessment.

Given that the impacts associated with the relevant WwTW have already been assessed by the former EAW as the relevant Competent Authority in respect of discharge consents within the catchment of the CBEEMS, it can be concluded that the same principles apply within Carmarthenshire for the current proposal as the EAW review of consents process covers catchments within Carmarthenshire, the WwTWs covering the Burry Inlet discharge area (Gower, Llanelli and Llannant sewerage catchment area) which serves this development. The most recent RoC was undertaken in early 2010.

However, despite the findings of the above assessment, the precautionary approach adopted by the Authority whereby development schemes are required to provide compensatory measures to the sewer system, combined with the ongoing nutrient stripping at the Llanant Plant, will serve to continue the trend of progressive improvements in the water quality of the Loughor Estuary. Nutrient removal measures are not within the control of developers and therefore must be provided by DCWW on the advice of NRW, both of which have raised no objection to this application. The issue of drainage betterment is addressed in further detail on the foul and surface water drainage section of this report.

The Planning Inspector’s report for the LDP draws reference to the successive AMP programmes, agreed Memorandum of Understanding and removal of surface water schemes before referring to the Habitat Risk Assessment (HRA). The HRA considered the potential effects of the Plan on the European site network and found there to be no likely significant effects on the CBEEMS alone or in-combination with other known plans or projects. The Inspector stated that the plan makes provision for appropriate considerations and measures to address water quality issues. In addition, there are a number of multi- agency commitments via the partners and signatories to the MOU to ensure that water quality issues are addressed. These include improvements in the Waste Water Treatment Works capacity, treatment levels and discharge quality through programmes in the River Basin Management Plan (under the requirements of the WFD) and through funding allocations and priorities secured through the AMP process.

The Inspector went on to note that development could be brought forward and through the provisions of the Plan, could contribute incrementally towards betterment in terms of reducing the amount of surface water entering the combined system. Improved infrastructure could also be delivered through the DCWW AMP and via appropriate developer contributions where necessary. Furthermore, multi-agency initiatives and infrastructure improvements within the area would enable the level of development planned to proceed.

In summary, it has been demonstrated that Dwr Cymru/Welsh Water’s AMP programmes and the provision of additional phosphate removal have resulted in progressive improvements in water quality in the Estuary and mitigate the potential impacts associated

Page 42 with developments identified in the previous UDP, whilst subsequent AMP programmes will continue this trend to ensure deliverability of LDP. In addition, the progressive removal of surface water from the combined system will result in betterment in terms of the capacity of the sewerage system and discharges into the Estuary.

Foul and Surface Water Drainage

In terms of foul drainage, it is proposed that foul water discharge from the site will be contained in a separate system and will connect to the existing combined public sewer in Copperworks Road, which in turn discharges to the public combined sewer in New Dock Road. Additional survey information to confirm the invert levels of the combined sewer is required prior to a connection point being identified.

As aforementioned in this report, the surface water drainage strategy has changed significantly during the course of the planning application process. It was originally thought that infiltration was not an option on this site and therefore it was originally proposed to attenuate surface water on site and discharge to delta lakes to the south via a new pumped surface water pipe solution. This strategy raised concerns in terms of cost, sustainability and ongoing maintenance. Therefore following further detailed ground investigations, it has been proven that infiltration is feasible in certain areas of the site and therefore a more positive surface water drainage strategy is proposed. The principle of the design will see all landscaped areas on site being used to attenuate rainfall with excessive rainfall volumes being directed to swales to infiltrate into the made ground layer.

In terms of betterment as required agreed by the agreed CBEEMS Memorandum of Understanding, the Drainage Philosophy document originally submitted with the application states that the existing site is currently 100% impermeable area with a positive drainage system. The topographical survey has picked up the existing drainage with cover levels, invert levels and direction of flow. It appears the site drains towards New Dock Road to the east of the development to the combined public sewer. The topographical survey suggests a combined system was in place on site.

The construction of the school will reduce the impermeable area by the introduction of soft landscaping areas. The pre development impermeable area is estimated to be 2.782 ha, whilst the post development impermeable area is 1.327 ha.

Based upon the above surface areas and in accordance with the formulas contained within the MoU, the pre development run off rates to the combined sewer is estimated to be 83.46 litres per second. As a result of the proposed surface water drainage strategy, the post development run off rates to the combined sewer will be 0 litres per second.

The estimated foul flows associated with the proposed school development in accordance with the MoU is 2.65 litres per second. Therefore there will be significant overall betterment of 80.81 litres per second, which equates to 30 times betterment. It is also worth remembering that the previous use made of the site prior to its clearance also created a foul loading of the sewer.

The proposed means of foul and surface water drainage associated with this development is considered acceptable, and is compliant with the MoU.

Page 43 In this respect it is worth noting that DCWW, NRW and the Authority’s Land Drainage Division have raised no objections in relation to drainage subject to the imposition of conditions on any planning permission granted.

Ecology

The application was accompanied by an Ecological Assessment and Japanese Knotweed and Himalayan Balsam Survey and Management Plan.

The proposed landscape scheme will include a range of dedicated wildlife areas all contributing to the bio-diversity of the site. These will include a pollinator lawn, a perennial meadow, an apple orchard, nectar and pollen gardens, hedgerows, woodland and woodland edge planting.

Mainly native species will be used but some non-natives will be included primarily in the meadow, nectar and pollen gardens and woodland edge planting in order to extend the flowering season, thereby creating greater potential for a wider range of birds, insects and small mammals to inhabit the site. A range of features will be sited within the landscape to further encourage wildlife including, bird and bat boxes, insect hotels, log piles and hedgehog houses. There is scope for all of this to tie in with the school’s curriculum, encouraging the children to engage with ecology and the wildlife around them.

In terms of priority species and habitats the Ecological Assessment has been carried out and identified the presence of certain habitats and species. Therefore it has been recommended that prior to the commencement of site operations an appropriately drafted method statement will be required to minimize the possible impact on reptiles and amphibians which must include means to prevent the accidental killing and injuring of animals if any are present.

Timing of such initial habitat disturbance work will be limited to between April and September, inclusive, as reptiles are considered to be active in this period and more able to escape disturbance.

It is recommended that site personnel should be made aware of their obligations to these protected species and prior to, and during the initial clearance of vegetation, a finger-tip search should be carried out by the site ecologist to ensure that any animals present come to no harm.

The Authority’s Planning Ecologist has considered the reports submitted with the application and advised that the habitats and species recorded on the site include: scrub, sparse grassland potentially used by common reptiles and with potential for use by breeding birds and hedgehog, the plant common broomrape which is of county significance was also recorded. The invasive plant Japanese Knotweed is also present on site.

The Planning Ecologist and NRW raise no objection on ecological grounds provided that conditions are imposed on any planning permission granted. These conditions will need to ensure that the recommendations made in the ecological reports are followed, whilst an Ecological Management and Maintenance Plan must be supplied as a condition of any consent to the Local Planning Authority identifying full details of all the proposed recommendations.

Page 44 As the site is in hydrological connectivity with the Carmarthen Bay and Estuaries Special Area of Conservation, it is necessary to identify any potential significant effects of the proposed development, on any internationally designated site (SAC, SPA, Ramsar site). A Test of Likely Significant Effect is required to be undertaken and must be informed by NRWs updated response considering changes to surface water and piling requirements. A TLSE will be produced once this information is available. The Local Planning Authority has yet to receive NRW’s revised technical response on contamination in light of the revised surface water and piling strategies, however NRW has stated that determination can proceed and such contamination matters can be dealt with under conditions. Once this response is received the Local Planning Authority will proceed to undertake a TLSE and consult with NRW.

EIA Screening

Members are advised that a screening exercise relating to the requirement of an Environmental Impact Assessment was undertaken within the first three weeks of receipt of the application. The proposed development falls within Schedule 2, Part 10b of the Town and Country Planning (Environment Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999. The area of development exceeds 0.5 hectares which is the applicable threshold for urban development projects, and as such the indicative threshold and criteria as shown in Column 3, Part 10 (infrastructure Projects) of Schedule 2 is relevant. Following due consideration of the proposal, including the significant amount of supporting information submitted with the application, the development was not considered to have significant environmental effects in terms of its siting and size; it does not occupy a sensitive location and will not give rise to any complex adverse impact; and there are no important historical or environmental features associated with the site. On this basis it was not considered that the requirement of an EIA is applicable.

As aforementioned in the preceding section of this report, the Local Planning Authority as the competent authority will undertake a TLSE in relation to this application.

CONCLUSION

The application site is located within the defined settlement limits for Llanelli as delineated in the Adopted Carmarthenshire Local Development Plan, 2014, and forms part of a larger mixed use site allocation with the primary focus being on education.

Policy SP16 of the LDP supports the provision of new community facilities and states that proposals for new education and training related developments will be supported where it supports the settlement framework and accords with the policies of the plan. The amplification to this policy states that proposals should be located in a manner consistent with the settlement framework and will only be permitted where they are either within, immediately adjacent to, or directly related to a recognised settlement. In this respect the current proposal is within the growth area of Llanelli.

The site comprises a previous industrialised site located within a sustainable location, and its redevelopment accords with the vision for the ‘Swansea Bay – Waterfront and Western Valleys’ area, which includes Llanelli as outlined in the Wales Spatial Plan.

Page 45 The efficient re-use of this previously developed site, will result in significant economic, environmental and social benefits to the area. The scale and design of the proposed development is considered acceptable within its context, whilst it is considered that the proposed development will not result in any unacceptable residential amenity impacts.

It is considered that the above appraisal has addressed the key material considerations associated with this application in detail.

As such this application is put forward with a favourable recommendation subject to the imposition of the following conditions. Members of the Planning Committee are respectfully requested to resolve to approve the application and grant the Authority’s Head of Planning plenary powers to release the planning permission following the completion of a Test of Likely Significant Effect, and provided that this is agreed by Natural Resources Wales.

RECOMMENDATION – APPROVAL

CONDITIONS

1 The development hereby permitted shall be commenced before the expiration of five years from the date of this permission.

2 Prior to the commencement of construction work details of the location, design and colour of all external play equipment, shelters, seating and cctv cameras shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

3 The landscaping and planting scheme detailed on the drawings referenced Landscape Masterplan 1:500 @ A1 (2140-001-HLM-LA-XX-XX-GA-(90)-001 Rev D4) received 25th August, 2015 shall be carried out in its entirety during the next available planting season (1st October to 31st March) after the completion of the school and shall thereafter be retained.

4 No development approved by this permission shall be commenced until an Ecological Management and Maintenance Plan detailing all necessary ecological retentions, enhancements, creation, mitigation and management measures for the development, delivering the ecological recommendations listed on pages 35-40 of the ‘Ecological Assessment’, dated 9th December 2014 by Pryce Consultant Ecologists, is submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The plan shall then be implemented as approved.

5 The recommendations made in the report titled Japanese knotweed and Himalayan Balsam Survey and Management Plan dated 11th May, 2015 shall be undertaken in strict accordance with that report.

6 Prior to the commencement of development approved by this planning permission (or such other date or stage in development as may be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority), the following components of a scheme to deal with the risks associated with contamination of the site shall each be submitted to and approved, in writing, by the Local Planning Authority:

Page 46

(i) A preliminary risk assessment which has identified:

- all previous uses. - potential contaminants associated with those uses. - a conceptual model of the site indicating sources, pathways and receptors. - potentially unacceptable risks arising from contamination at the site.

(ii) A site investigation scheme, based on (1) to provide information for a detailed assessment of the risk to all receptors that may be affected, including those off site.

(iii) The site investigation results and the detailed risk assessment (2) and, based on these, an options appraisal and remediation strategy giving full details of the remediation measures required and how they are to be undertaken.

7 Prior to the commencement of development (or such other date or stage of development as may be agreed in writing with the local planning authority), a verification plan providing details of the data that will be collected in order to demonstrate that the approved remediation strategy is complete and identifying any requirements for longer-term monitoring of pollutant linkages, maintenance and arrangements for contingency action shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved verification plan.

8 Prior to occupation of any part of the permitted development, a verification report demonstrating completion of the works set out in the approved remediation strategy and the effectiveness of the remediation shall be submitted to and approved, in writing, by the Local Planning Authority. The report shall include results of sampling and monitoring carried out in accordance with the approved verification plan to demonstrate that the site remediation criteria have been met. It shall also include any plan (a “long-term monitoring and maintenance plan”) for longer-term monitoring of pollutant linkages, maintenance and arrangements for contingency action, as identified in the verification plan, and for the reporting of this to the Local Planning Authority.

9 Reports on monitoring, maintenance and any contingency action carried out in accordance with a long-term monitoring and maintenance plan shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority as set out in that plan. On completion of the monitoring program a final report demonstrating that all long- term site remediation criteria have been met and documenting the decision to cease monitoring shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

10 If, during development, contamination not previously identified is found to be present at the site then no further development (unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority) shall be carried out until the developer has submitted, and obtained written approval from the Local Planning Authority for, an amendment to the remediation strategy detailing how this unsuspected contamination shall be dealt with.

Page 47 11 No infiltration of surface water drainage into the ground is permitted other than with the express written consent of the Local Planning Authority, which may be given for those parts of the site where it has been demonstrated that there is no resultant unacceptable risk to controlled waters. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approval details.

12 Piling or any other foundation designs using penetrative methods shall not be permitted other than with the express written consent of the Local Planning Authority, which may be given for those parts of the site where it has been demonstrated that there is no resultant unacceptable risk to groundwater.

13 Prior to the importation of any soil a copy of the certificate of analysis, details of the source of the topsoil and an interpretation of the analytical results by a suitably qualified individual shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

14 Prior to commencement of development (or such other date or stage of development as may be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority) a pollution prevention management plan detailing all necessary pollution prevention measures for the construction phase of the development shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The details of the plan shall be implemented as approved and must be efficiently communicated to all contractors and sub-contractors (for example, via toolbox talks) and any deficiencies rectified immediately.

15 Prior to the commencement of development (or such other date or stage of development as may be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority) a Construction Management Plan should be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

16 The rating level of plant noise (including the application of any acoustic feature penalty) emitted from the proposed development shall not exceed the existing background noise level at any time. The noise levels shall be determined at the nearest noise sensitive premises or at another location that is deemed suitable by the authority. Measurements and assessments shall be made in accordance with BS 4142: 2014 Methods for Rating and assessing Industrial and Commercial Sound.

17 If the authority receives a justified complaint with respect to the development, the operator within a period of 21 days shall undertake and submit to the authority a noise assessment conforming to BS 4142: 2014 Methods for Rating and assessing Industrial and Commercial Sound to determine whether noise arising from development exceeds the level specified in condition 1 above. The assessment shall be undertaken under the supervision of the Local Authority. In the event that Condition 16 is exceeded then the submitted survey shall also include mitigation measures to ensure compliance with the noise level specified in condition 16. The development shall then be undertaken in accordance with the approved details.

18 The named Multi Use Games Area (MUGA) and the artificial sports pitch facilities shall not be used outside the hours of 08:00am and 21:00pm Monday to Sunday.

Page 48 19 In accordance with the Environmental Noise Report (5853/BL/pw) a 2.4 meter high timber fence/masonry wall shall be retained/erected along the north east and north west site boundary at the rear of residential dwellings.

20 Demolition or construction works shall not take place until a scheme for the mitigation of dust has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved scheme shall be implemented during all stages of demolition and construction. Vehicles transporting materials which are likely to cause dust onto and off site shall be suitably covered.

21 Prior to occupation of the development herewith permitted, a minimum number of 58 car parking spaces (each measuring 2.6m x 4.8m, hard surfaced and surface delineated) and 5no disabled car parking spaces (each measuring 3.6m x 4.8m, hard surfaced and surface delineated with appropriate signage and surface markings (as given in CSS Wales’ Parking Standards 2008), shall be made available for members of staff only during school times, and thereafter maintained at all times, within the curtilage of the site. Where the layout and number of car parking spaces require separation by traffic aisles these shall be a minimum 6.0m width.

22 Prior to the beneficial occupation of the development hereby approved a detailed School Travel Plan, setting out ways of reducing car usage and increasing walking and cycling to and from the development shall be submitted to and agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. The detailed Travel Plan shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details and at a timescale to be approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

23 Prior to the beneficial occupation of the development hereby approved the proposed offsite traffic calming measures shown on the drawing ‘Traffic Calming Masterplan 1:500@ A2 (HW01)’ received on the 13th April, 2015 shall be undertaken in full to the written approval of the Local Planning Authority and to the specification of the Local Highways Authority.

24 Development shall not commence until a detailed surface water drainage scheme for the site, based on sustainable drainage principles has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall subsequently be implemented in accordance with the approved details prior to the occupation of the school.

25 The foul and surface water drainage arrangements to serve the proposed development, which will result in betterment in accordance with the agreed CBEEMS Memorandum of Understanding shall be undertaken in strict accordance with the revised Drainage Strategy Rev D and Revised Drainage strategy plan 1:500 @ A1 (110 – Rev P1) received 25th August, 2015. The scheme shall be fully implemented in accordance with the details shown prior to the beneficial occupation of the new school.

26 Prior to the beneficial occupation of the approved development on site a Flood Management Plan should be submitted to and agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. This should be operational under all conditions.

Page 49 27 No development shall take place until the applicant, or their agents or successors in title, has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a written scheme of investigation which has been submitted by the applicant and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

REASONS

1 Required to be imposed pursuant to Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

2+3 In the interest of visual amenity.

4 In the interests of biodiversity.

5 To prevent the spread of an invasive species.

6 Natural Resources Wales considers that the controlled waters at this site are of high environmental sensitivity, being on Secondary Aquifer and contamination is known/strongly suspected at the site due to its previous industrial uses.

7+8 To demonstrate that the remediation criteria relating to controlled waters have been met, and (if necessary) to secure longer-term monitoring of groundwater quality. This will ensure that there are no longer remaining unacceptable risks to controlled waters following remediation of the site.

9 To ensure that longer term remediation criteria relating to controlled waters have been met. This will ensure that there are no longer remaining unacceptable risks to controlled waters following remediation of the site.

10 Given the size/complexity of the site it is considered possible that there may be unidentified areas of contamination at the site that could pose a risk to controlled waters if they are not remediated.

11 There is an increased potential for pollution from inappropriately located infiltration systems such as soakaways, unsealed porous pavement systems or infiltration basins.

12 There is an increased potential for pollution of controlled waters from inappropriate methods of piling.

13 To protect human health.

14+15 Prevent pollution of controlled waters and the wider environment.

16-20 In the interest of preserving residential amenity.

21+23 In the interest of highway safety.

22 To promote sustainable means of travel.

24+25 To ensure a satisfactory form of drainage and ensure no detriment to water quality.

Page 50 26 Due to the nature of the development plans accessing the site in an extreme flood should be as important as plans evacuating the site. It is recommended that all operational services on site are to be utilised in the event of flooding.

27 To protect historic environment interests whilst enabling development.

REASONS FOR GRANTING PLANNING PERMISSION

• It is considered that the proposal complies with Policy SP1 of the LDP in that the proposed development is environmentally sustainable.

• It is considered that the proposal complies with Policy SP2 of the LDP in that the proposed development is resilient to the impact of climate change and accords with the provisions of TAN15.

• It is considered that the proposal complies with Policy SP3 of the LDP in that the proposed development accords with the LDP’s settlement framework.

• It is considered that the proposal complies with Policy SP9 of the LDP in that the proposed development is located in a sustainable location, accessible by a variety of transport means.

• It is considered that the proposal complies with Policy SP13 of the LDP in that the proposed development respects, and will not adversely affect the built and historic environment or its setting.

• It is considered that the proposal complies with Policy SP14 of the LDP in that proposed development protects and does not adversely affect the natural environment.

• It is considered that the proposal complies with Policy SP16 of the LDP in that a new education facility will be provided that supports the settlement framework of the plan.

• It is considered that the proposal complies with Policy SP17 of the LDP in that the proposed development will be served by appropriate infrastructure.

• It is considered that the proposal complies with Policy GP1 of the LDP in that the proposed development is sustainable and will enhance the character and appearance of the area.

• It is considered that the proposal complies with Policy GP4 of the LDP in that adequate infrastructure is proposed to serve the proposed development.

• It is considered that the proposal complies with Policy TR2 of the LDP in that the proposed development is located in a highly accessible and sustainable location.

Page 51 • It is considered that the proposal complies with Policy TR3 of the LDP in that the proposed development would not be detrimental to highway safety or cause significant harm to the amenity of residents.

• It is considered that the proposal complies with Policy EQ1 of the LDP in that the proposed development preserves the built and historic environment.

NOTE(S)

1 The development hereby permitted shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the following schedule of plans:-

• Flying Start GA floor plan 1:100 @ A3 (14045 L (04) 004 – Rev D2) received 13th April, 2015; • Traffic Calming Masterplan 1:1500 @ A2 (HW01) received 13th April, 2015; • GA Ground Floor Plan 1:100 @ A0 (14045/L(04) 001 Rev D2) received 13th April, 2015; • Flying Start GA roof plan 1:100 @ A3 (14045 L (04) 005 Rev D2) received 13th April, 2015; • GA first floor plan 1:100 @ A0 (14045 L (04) 002 Rev D2) received 13th April, 2015; • GA roof plan 1:100 @ A0 (14045 L (04) 003 – Rev D2) received 13th April, 2015; • Bay study and section – sheet 3 (14045 S (21) 003 – Rev D2) received 13th April, 2015; • GA rendered elevations 1:100 @ A0 (14045 E (04) 002 – Rev D3) received 27th April, 2015; • Bay study and section – sheet 1 1:20 @ A1 (14045 S (21) 001 – Rev D3) received 27th April, 2015; • Flying start GA rendered elevations 1:100 @ A3 (14045 E (04) 004 – Rev D3) received 27th April, 2015; • Bay study and section – sheet 2 1:20 @ A1 (14045 S (21) 002 – Rev D3) received 27th April, 2015; • GA sections 1:100 @ A0 (14045 S (04) 001 Rev D3) received 27th April, 2015; • Flying start GA sections 1:100 @ A3 (14045 S (04) 002 Rev D3) received 27th April, 2015; • Bay study and section – sheet 4 1:20 @ A1 (14045 S (21) 004 Rev D3) received 27th April, 2015; • Site information (Drawing no.107) 1:250 @ A0 received 23rd June, 2015; • Fence details (2140-001-HLM-LA-XX-XX-GA-(90)-011P1) 1:20 @ A0 received 4th August, 2015; • Sprinkler tank enclosure details (2140-001-HLM-A-XX-00-GA-(21)-001 Rev) 1:50 @ A1 received 4th August, 2015; • Floodlighting details (00) @ A2 received 4th August, 2015; • Landscape Masterplan 1:500 @ A1 (2140-001-HLM-LA-XX-XX-GA-(90)-001 Rev D4) received 25th August, 2015; • Proposed piled foundations details 1:100 @ A0 (010-Rev P2) received 25th August, 2015; • Proposed site long sections 1:500 @ A1 (111-Rev P1) received 25th August, 2015; • Drainage strategy plan 1:500 @ A1 (110 – Rev P1) received 25th August, 2015.

Page 52 2 Comments and guidance received from consultees relating to this application, including any other permissions or consents required, are available on the Authority’s website.

Failure on the part of the developer to observe the requirements of any other Conditions could result in the Council pursuing formal enforcement action in the form of a Breach of Condition Notice.

Page 53

Application No S/32316

Application Type Outline

Proposal & DETACHED DWELLINGHOUSE AT LAND PART OF 1 BAY VIEW, Location TYLE CATHERINE, PWLL, LLANELLI, SA15 4BE

Applicant(s) K. DEAN, HIGHBURY HOUSE, FERRYSIDE, CARMARTHEN, CARMARTHENSHIRE, UNITED KINGDOM, SA17 5SW

Agent JCR PLANNING LTD - RICHARD BANKS, 43 POTTERY STREET, LLANELLI, CARMARTHENSHIRE , SA15 1SU

Case Officer Paul Roberts

Ward Hengoed

Date of validation 14/07/2015

CONSULTATIONS

Llanelli Rural Council – Has objected to the application on the following grounds:-

1 The siting of a detached dwelling is considered excessive and in the Council’s view will result in the overdevelopment of the site resulting in the loss of garden and amenity space.

2 There are concerns over the cramped form of development the site will yield and also the potential detrimental impact the development will have on the amenity and privacy of neighbouring dwellings.

3 The development proposal will also have a detrimental impact on highway safety especially access and egress arrangements leading on to a narrow and busy road infrastructure along Elgin Road and Tyle Catherine.

Local Member - County Councillors S M Caiach has not commented on the application to date. County Councillor P Edwards is a substitute member of the Planning Committee and therefore has made no prior comment.

Welsh Water/Dwr Cymru – Has raised no objection to the application.

Page 54 Neighbours/Public – The neighbouring properties sharing a boundary with the application property have been notified of the application. In response, five letters of representation have been received from neighbouring residents who object to the application and raise the following concerns:-

• On street parking along Elgin Road, the narrowness of the road and restricted visibility at its junction with Tyle Catherine. • Hazard to pedestrian safety. • Proximity of the development and new access to the sharp right-angled junction between Tyle Catherine and Elgin Road and impact upon highway safety. • Increased traffic congestion. • Narrowness of Tyle Catherine. • Proximity of the development to the side of the neighbouring property and the impact in terms of loss of light. • Impact upon the structural integrity of the neighbouring property on the opposite side of Elgin Road which has previously had subsidence problems. • Asbestos in the roof of the outbuilding in the property adjoining the site. • The local planning authority have previously refused a number applications for a new dwelling on the site with the latest of these being overturned at appeal by the Welsh Government. Their decision to grant permission gave little consideration to the likely impact upon the road and neighbouring houses. • Flooding problems. • Damage to neighbouring properties. • Impact upon the property to the rear in terms of loss of light and privacy. • Loss of view to properties on the opposite side of Elgin Road. • Difficulties caused in terms of access to neighbouring driveways.

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

S/22648 Siting of a detached dwelling house Outline planning refused 13 May 2010 Appeal Upheld 23 September 2010

S/17781 Residential development Outline planning refused 08 January 2008

S/15917 1 No. detached house Outline planning refused 27 April 2007

S/07996 Single detached dwelling Outline planning refused 28 October 2004

APPRAISAL

THE SITE

The application site consists of a rectangular shaped parcel of land which presently forms part of the rear landscaped garden of the dwelling known as 1 Bay View located off Tyle Catherine in Pwll. Located on the western flank of Tyle Catherine adjacent to its junction with Elgin Road, the site extends to a width of 23 metres and depth of 12 metres. The land slopes down gradually towards its southern boundary with the semi detached properties of

Page 55 nos. 1 and 2 Bay View located immediately to the south and being set at a lower level than the site. No.1 Bay View has a detached double garage which adjoins the southern boundary of the site and is accessed via Tyle Catherine.

The northern boundary of the site is contiguous with Elgin Road and defined by a concrete block wall that also extends along its eastern road frontage with Tyle Catherine. To the west lies a two storey dwelling known as Blenhiem House that is separated from the site by high block walling. The site is located in a primarily residential area consisting of a mix of detached and semi detached houses with long sloping rear garden spaces.

THE PROPOSAL

The application seeks outline permission for the construction of a detached dwelling house with matters relating to the layout and access of the development being put forward for consideration as part of the application.

The layout plan accompanying the application shows the proposed new house occupying the western half of the site being within close proximity to, and fronting onto Elgin Road. The dwelling is to measure some 8.8 – 9.2 metres in width and 6.8 – 7.2 metres in depth, whilst its ridge level is to be approximately 7 – 7.3 metres in height. It is to have the benefit of a side and rear garden area while the access that currently serves the garage of no.1 Bay View is to be widened to provide a new driveway along the southern boundary of the site. The layout shows provision being made for the parking of 2 vehicles within the curtilage of the proposed new dwelling. The lawned area immediately to the south of the site is to be retained as a garden area for the existing property of no. 1 Bay View.

It is noteworthy that the application site has been the subject of four previous applications for outline planning permission for the construction of a detached dwelling, all of which have been refused by the Local Planning Authority. The latest of these applications, S/22648, was refused on 13 May 2010 on the grounds that the restrictive size of the site would mean that the proposal would result in an unduly cramped form of development that would be incongruous with the existing pattern of development and the elevated position and proximity of the new dwelling relative to the neighbouring properties of nos. 1 and 2 Bay View to the rear of the site would have an unacceptable impact upon the living standards of their respective occupiers by way of loss of privacy and overbearance.

The applicant subsequently appealed the above decision and notwithstanding the Authority’s concerns the Inspector presiding over the appeal concluded that the development proposed was acceptable within the wider context and subsequently granted outline planning permission on 23 September 2010. This permission has since lapsed and the current application essentially seeks to renew the previous outline permission.

PLANNING POLICIES

In the context of the current development control policy framework the site is located within the defined development limits for Llanelli as contained in the adopted Local Development Plan. Reference is drawn to the following policies of the Plan.

Policy SP1 promotes environmentally sustainable proposals and encourages the efficient use of vacant, underused or previously developed land.

Page 56 Policy GP1 is a general policy which promotes sustainability and high quality design, and seeks to ensure that development conforms with and enhances the character and appearance of the site, building or area in terms of siting, appearance, scale, height, massing, elevation treatment and detailing. Development proposals should also not have a significant impact on the amenity of adjacent land uses and properties.

Policy GP2 requires that proposals within defined development limits will be permitted, subject to policies and proposals of the plan, national policies and other material planning considerations.

Policy GP3 states that the Council will, where necessary seek developers to enter into planning obligations to secure improvements to infrastructure, community facilities and other services to meet the requirements arising from new developments. Allied to this, Policy AH1 states that a contribution towards affordable housing will be required on all housing allocations and windfall sites.

Policy H2 permits proposals for smaller housing developments on unallocated sites within the development limits of a defined settlement provided they are in accordance with the principles of the Plan’s strategy and its policies and proposals.

Policy GP4 states that proposals for development will be permitted where the infrastructure is adequate to meet the needs of the development. Proposals where new or improved infrastructure is required but does not form part of an infrastructure provider’s improvement programme may be permitted where it can be satisfactorily demonstrated that this infrastructure will exist, or where the required work is funded by the developer. Planning obligations and conditions will be used to ensure that new or improved facilities are provided to serve the new development.

Policy TR3 relates to the highway design and layout considerations of developments and states that proposals which do not generate unacceptable levels of traffic on the surrounding road network, and would not be detrimental to highway safety or cause significant harm to the amenity of residents will be permitted.

Policy EP2 states that proposals should wherever possible seek to minimise the impacts of pollution. New developments will be required to demonstrate and satisfactorily address any issues in terms of air quality, water quality, light and noise pollution, and contaminated land. Policy EP3 requires proposals to demonstrate that the impact of surface water drainage, including the effectiveness of incorporating Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS), has been fully investigated.

From a national Planning Policy Wales (PPW) (Edition 7, July 2014) provides a national overview of planning policy on a wide range of issues and supports the vision for good quality, mixed housing accessible to all which conforms to sustainability principles which underpin all planning policy guidance. It goes on to highlight that local planning authorities should, amongst others, promote sustainable residential environments that are easily accessible by public transport, walking and cycling, have good access to employment, retail and other services and make the most efficient use of land.

Page 57 THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

As highlighted above, a number of letters of representation have been received from neighbouring residents who raise numerous concerns regarding the development while Llanelli Rural Council has also objected to the application. The concerns raised are appraised below.

Turning firstly to the Rural Council’s concerns that the proposal would result in the overdevelopment of the site and result in a cramped form of development, the Inspector in granting the previous outline permission opined that the layout of the development would be consistent with the surrounding pattern of development with sufficient space being provided between and around existing development to ensure it would be compatible in scale and siting with its surroundings. On this basis, he concluded that the proposal would not appear cramped or harmful to the character and appearance of the locality and in this regard the proposal is considered to be in accord with the objectives of policies GP1, GP2 and H2 of the LDP.

In terms of the perceived impact upon the living standards of the occupiers of neighbouring properties, the Inspector was of the opinion that the placement and orientation of windows in the new dwelling could be designed to ensure no harmful loss of privacy to the two existing properties to the rear site while suitable boundary and landscaping treatments could limit the amount of mutual overlooking between neighbouring gardens. With this in mind he concluded that there would be no significant loss of privacy beyond that expected in built up areas while the angles and distances between the development and existing properties would ensure there would be no overbearing impact upon adjacent occupiers or an unacceptable loss of light. The proposal is therefore in accord with the requirements of policies GP1 of the LDP.

A common ground of concern amongst respondents is the inadequacy of the local highway network to safely accommodate the development with particular reference being made to the narrowness of the roadways and the current level of on street parking. In granting the previous outline permission, the Inspector concluded that the development was acceptable from an access and highway safety perspective while the Authority’s own Head of Transport was of the same opinion whereby he offered no objection to the previous application. The proposal therefore meets the requirements of policy TR3 of the LDP.

The concerns raised regarding potential damage to neighbouring properties and the loss of existing views are not material in the determination of the application. Similarly, the perceived presence of asbestos in the roof of the neighbouring property is outside the scope of planning control and not relevant to the proposal. Concerns regarding the potential flooding of neighbouring properties can be addressed via condition whereby the applicant will be required to provide details of the proposed means of surface water disposal from the development as part of any subsequent detailed application.

CONCLUSION

The application seeks to renew a previous outline planning permission granted at appeal under application reference S/22648 in May 2010 and there have been no material change in circumstances in the intervening period since the granting of this permission that would justify withholding permission in respect of the current application. There are no amenity, highway or public service objections to the development and the proposal complies with the policy objectives of the Authority’s LDP.

Page 58

The application is therefore put forward with a favourable recommendation subject to the applicant entering into a unilateral undertaking or Section 106 Agreement securing a commuted payment towards the provision of affordable housing in the locality in accordance with the requirements of Policy AH1 of the LDP.

RECOMMENDATION – APPROVAL

CONDITIONS

1 The permission now granted is an outline permission only, within the meaning of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (Wales) Order 2012.

2 The permission hereby granted relates to the land defined by the 1:1250 scale location plan received on 11 th June 2015.

3 Application for approval of reserved matters must be made to the Local Planning Authority before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission, and the development must be commenced not later than whichever is the later of the following:-

a) the expiration of five years from the date of this outline planning permission;

b) the expiration of two years from the date of approval of the last of the reserved matters to be approved.

4 Development shall not commence until detailed plans of appearance; landscaping and scale of each building stated in the application have been submitted, and received the written approval of the Local Planning Authority.

5 Cross sections throughout the site and details of the finished floor and roof levels of the dwelling hereby approved in relation to adjacent properties and the centre of the adjacent carriageways shall be submitted with any subsequent reserved matters or detailed planning application.

6 Development shall not commence until a surface water drainage scheme for the site, based on sustainable drainage principles has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall subsequently be implemented in accordance with the approved details prior to the occupation of the dwelling.

7 The access and parking layout shown on the 1:200 scale site plan received on 11 th June 2015 shall be provided in accordance with the details shown prior to the occupation of the dwelling hereby approved and thereafter retained in perpetuity.

REASONS

1 The application is in outline only.

2 For the avoidance of doubt as to the extent of this permission.

Page 59 3 Required to be imposed pursuant to Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

4 In order to ensure a satisfactory layout of the site and in the interest of visual amenities.

5 In the interest of visual amenities.

6 To ensure the installation of an appropriate drainage scheme and to prevent pollution of the environment

7 In the interests of highway safety.

REASONS FOR GRANTING PLANNING PERMISSION

The decision to grant planning permission has been taken in accordance with Section 38 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, which requires that, in determining a planning application the determination must be in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

• The proposal complies with Policies H2 of the Local Development Plan in that it is located within the development limits of Llanelli and will be in scale and compatible with the surrounding area.

• The proposal complies with Policy GP1 of the LDP in that it is appropriate in terms of scale and design and will not cause unacceptable loss of amenity to neighbouring properties.

• The proposal complies with Policy AH1 of the LDP in that the applicant/developer will contribute towards community benefits as part of the development.

• The proposal complies with Policy TRS3 of the LDP in that it will be served by suitable access and parking provision and the traffic generated by the proposed development will not adversely affect highway safety or residential amenity.

NOTE(S)

1 This planning permission is granted subject to the covenants contained in a Unilateral Undertaking under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 securing a commuted payment towards affordable housing provision in the locality.

2 Any departure from the approved plans will constitute unauthorised development and may be liable to enforcement action. You (or any subsequent developer) should advise the Council of any actual or proposed variations from the approved plans immediately so that you can be advised how to best resolve the matter.

Page 60 The commencement of development without firstly meeting in full the terms of any Conditions which require the submission of details prior to the commencement of development will constitute unauthorised development. This will necessitate the submission of a further application to retain the unauthorised development and may render you liable to formal enforcement action.

Failure on the part of the developer to observe the requirements of any other Conditions could result in the Council pursuing formal enforcement action in the form of a Breach of Condition Notice.

3 Further advice and guidance from consultees is provided in their consultation responses which can be viewed on the Authority’s website. This may include reference to other relevant permissions and legislation.

4 All surface water from the development herewith approved shall be trapped and disposed of so as to ensure that it does not flow on to any part of the public highway.

5 No surface water from the development herewith approved shall be disposed of, or connected into, existing highway surface water drains.

Page 61

Application No S/32553

Application Type Full Planning

Proposal & DEMOLISH EXISTING DWELLING AND CONSTRUCT A Location REPLACEMENT DWELLING AT GORFFWYSFA, HEOL DDU, LLWYNTEG, LLANNON, LLANELLI, SA14 8JW

Applicant(s) MRS T DEVICHAND, C/O AGENT

Agent GORDON RUSSELL CHARTERED ARCHITECT, MOUNT PLEASANT, LLANNON, LLANELLI, CARMS, SA148JW

Case Officer Gary Glenister

Ward Llannon

Date of validation 20/08/2015

CONSULTATION

Llannon Community Council – Has not commented to date.

Local Member - County Councillor E Dole has not commented to date. Councillor K Thomas is a member of the Planning Committee and therefore has made no prior comment.

Neighbours/Public – 2No. site notices have been posted and no replies have been received as a result.

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

The following previous applications have been received on the application site:-

D5/6727 New bungalow Outline planning refused 2 December 1982

D5/4148 Erection of two bungalows Outline Planning refused 19 July 1979

APPRAISAL

The application is being reported to Planning Committee as the applicant is a County Councillor.

Page 62 THE SITE

The site is part of a small cluster of dwellings in an isolated location off the C2130 road near Llwynteg. Llwynteg itself is a loose collection of houses and small holdings to the East of Llannon which does not have a defined settlement boundary.

The site has a well established chalet type dwelling which has an extant residential use, along with a domestic garden and out building.

The site has a bungalow to either side and a house opposite across the single track access lane.

THE PROPOSAL

The application seeks full planning permission for a replacement dwelling on the site of the existing.

The replacement dwelling is of a single storey appearance however includes loft accommodation. In terms of design, the proposal is for a modest bungalow with front gable feature. The loft accommodation is served by a rear dormer and front velux windows.

In terms of materials, the bungalow is proposed to be rendered with brick detailing under a slate grey concrete slate roof.

The application includes a bat survey as required as demolition is proposed.

PLANNING POLICIES

In the context of the current development control policy framework the site is outside the settlement development limits of Llannon as defined in the Carmarthenshire Local Development Plan (LDP) adopted 10 December 2014.

Policy GP1 Sustainability and High Quality Design states:-

Development proposals will be permitted where they accord with the following: a) It conforms with and enhances the character and appearance of the site, building or area in terms of siting, appearance, scale, height, massing, elevation treatment, and detailing; b) It incorporates existing landscape or other features, takes account of site contours and changes in levels and prominent skylines or ridges; c) Utilises materials appropriate to the area within which it is located; d) It would not have a significant impact on the amenity of adjacent land uses, properties, residents or the community; e) Includes an integrated mixture of uses appropriate to the scale of the development;

Page 63 f) It retains, and where appropriate incorporates important local features (including buildings, amenity areas, spaces, trees, woodlands and hedgerows) and ensures the use of good quality hard and soft landscaping and embraces opportunities to enhance biodiversity and ecological connectivity; g) It achieves and creates attractive, safe places and public spaces, which ensures security through the ‘designing-out-crime’ principles of Secured by Design (including providing natural surveillance, visibility, well lit environments and areas of public movement); h) An appropriate access exists or can be provided which does not give rise to any parking or highway safety concerns on the site or within the locality; i) It protects and enhances the landscape, townscape, historic and cultural heritage of the County and there are no adverse effects on the setting or integrity of the historic environment; j) It ensures or provides for, the satisfactory generation, treatment and disposal of both surface and foul water; k) It has regard to the generation, treatment and disposal of waste. l) It has regard for the safe, effective and efficient use of the transportation network; m) It provides an integrated network which promotes the interests of pedestrians, cyclists and public transport which ensures ease of access for all; n) It includes, where applicable, provision for the appropriate management and eradication of invasive species.

Proposals will also be considered in light of the policies and provisions of this Plan and National Policy (PPW: Edition 7 and TAN12: Design (2014)).

Policy H4 Replacement Dwellings states:-

Proposals for the replacement of an existing dwelling outside the defined Development Limits of a defined settlement (Policy SP3) will be permitted where: a) The replacement dwelling is located on the footprint of the existing dwelling, unless an alternative location within the existing curtilage brings significant environmental, landscape or visual improvements; b) The existing building is not a temporary structure, nor the subject of a temporary consent; c) The design and materials of the replacement dwelling are appropriate to the character and appearance of the area; d) The scale of the proposed dwelling is not disproportionate in size to the existing dwelling;

Page 64 e) There are no adverse effects on access, parking or utility services, or on local amenity; f) There are no adverse effects on nature conservation interests, the setting or integrity of the historic environment and the landscape/ townscape; g) The existing dwelling is demolished immediately prior to, or upon, its replacement.

Good design is encouraged at all levels and national policy contained in Planning Policy Wales Edition 7 – July 2014 provides the following guidance.

4.11.9 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. However, they should not attempt to impose a particular architectural taste or style arbitrarily and should avoid inhibiting opportunities for innovative design solutions.

Page 65 Paragraph 2.2 of Technical Advice Note 12 Design (2014) states:

Paragraph 2.6 & 2.7 of Technical Advice Note 12 Design (2014) states:

CONCLUSION

After careful consideration of the site and surrounding environs, on balance, it is considered that the existing chalet type dwelling is a long established residential unit which is not of any particular historic or architectural interest. The replacement dwelling is on the footprint of the existing and is of a modest scale which is considered to comply with the above policies.

There is no net increase in dwellings so no affordable housing contribution is required.

The Bat Survey revealed bat activity in the area however does not reveal any bat use of the building itself.

The proposal is not likely to have a detrimental impact on the amenities of third parties and is therefore in accordance with the above policies.

RECOMMENDATION – APPROVAL

CONDITIONS

1 The development hereby permitted shall be commenced before the expiration of five years from the date of this permission.

2 No development hereby approved shall commence until details and/or samples of external roof and wall materials have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.

Page 66 3 The access, visibility splays and turning area required, shall be wholly provided prior to any part of the development being brought into use, and thereafter shall be retained unobstructed in perpetuity. In particular, no part of the access, visibility splays, or turning area, is to be obstructed by non-motorised vehicles

4 Any works affecting the buildings/vegetation clearance should be done outside the nesting season, which is generally recognised to be from March to August inclusive, unless it can be demonstrated that nesting birds are absent.

REASONS

1 Required to be imposed pursuant to Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

2 In the interests of visual amenity.

3 In the interests of highway safety.

4 In the interests of biodiversity.

REASONS FOR GRANTING PLANNING PERMISSION

• The proposal complies with Policy H4 as it is an appropriate modest scale replacement dwelling that is not likely to have an unacceptable impact on biodiversity or the amenity of third parties.

NOTE(S)

1 The development hereby permitted shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the following schedule of plans dated 7 July 2015:-

• 1:1250 scale Location Plan; • 1:500 scale Block Plan. Drawing No. 547/01; • 1:100 & 1:200 scale Existing Elevations & Layout Plan. Drawing No. 547/02; • 1:100 scale Proposed Floor Plans. Drawing No. 547/03; • 1:100 scale Proposed Elevations and Typical Section. Drawing No. 547/04.

2 Please note that this permission is specific to the plans and particulars approved as part of the application. Any departure from the approved plans will constitute unauthorised development and may be liable to enforcement action. You (or any subsequent developer) should advise the Council of any actual or proposed variations from the approved plans immediately so that you can be advised how to best resolve the matter.

Page 67 In addition, any conditions which the Council has imposed on this permission will be listed above and should be read carefully. It is your (or any subsequent developers’) responsibility to ensure that the terms of all conditions are met in full at the appropriate time (as outlined in the specific condition).

The commencement of development without firstly meeting in full the terms of any conditions which require the submission of details prior to commencement of development will constitute unauthorised development. This will necessitate the submission of a further application to retain the unauthorised development and may render you liable to formal enforcement action.

Failure on the part of the developer to observe the requirements of any conditions could result in the Council pursuing formal enforcement action in the form of a Breach of Condition Notice.

3 Where any species listed under Schedules 2 or 4 of The Conservation (Natural Habitats, etc) Regulations 1994 is present on the site in respect of which this permission is hereby granted, no works of site clearance, demolition or construction shall take place in pursuance of this permission unless a licence to disturb any such species has been granted in accordance with the aforementioned Regulation and a copy thereof has been produced to the Local Planning Authority.

The applicant should be aware of their legal duties regarding certain protected species. All British bat species are European Protected Species by virtue of their listing under Annex IV of EC Directive 92/43/EEC (‘The Habitats Directive’). This Directive has been transposed into British Law under the Conservation (Natural Habitats &c.) Regulations (1994). Bats are also fully protected under Schedule 5 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act (1981) (as amended*). Under the Conservation Regulations (1994) it is an offence deliberately to capture or kill a wild animal of a European protected species; deliberately to disturb any such animal; or to damage or destroy a breeding site or resting place of such an animal. For bats this includes roosts that are not currently being used.

If bats are encountered on site works should stop immediately and Natural Resources Wales should be contacted (Natural Resources Wales, - General Enquiries: [email protected] or 0300 065 3000 Mon-Fri, 8am - 6pm) - an EPS development licence may then need to be applied for. Licences are not automatically granted by virtue of a valid planning consent and it may be possible that the necessary licence application may be refused.

Nesting Birds

In addition the applicant should be made aware of the possible presence of nesting birds using the buildings and the protection afforded to them. Under the Wildlife and Countryside Act (1981) (as amended) it is an offence to kill or injure any wild bird or damage or destroy the nest of any wild bird whilst that nest is being built or is in use. The breeding bird season is generally taken to be mid-March to mid-August. As such no work should be carried out during the breeding season, unless it can be demonstrated that nesting birds are absent.

Page 68 4 All surface water from the development herewith approved shall be trapped and disposed of so as to ensure that it does not flow on to any part of the public highway.

5 No surface water from the development herewith approved shall be disposed of, or connected into, existing highway surface water drains.

6 It is the responsibility of the developer to contact the Streetworks Manager of the Local Highway Authority to apply for a Streetworks Licence before undertaking any works on an existing Public Highway.

Page 69

APPLICATIONS RECOMMENDED FOR REFUSAL

Page 70

Application No S/30698

Application Type Full Planning

Proposal & REPLACEMENT BARN FOR BUSINESS USE AND ONE Location HOLIDAY LET AT BARN AT CAPEL IFAN FARM, HEOL CAPEL IFAN, PONTYBEREM, LLANELLI, SA15 5HF

Applicant(s) GWENDA OWEN, CAPEL IFAN, HEOL CAPEL IFAN, PONTYBEREM, LLANELLI, SA15 5HF

Case Officer Gary Glenister

Ward Pontyberem

Date of validation 21/08/2014

CONSULTATIONS

Head of Transport – Has no objection subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions.

Pontyberem Community Council – No observations received to date.

Local Member - County Councillor J S Williams has requested that the proposal be determined at Planning Committee.

Natural Resources Wales – Has no observations however draws reference to standard guidance notes.

Neighbours/Public – The application has been advertised by posting of two site notices, with no replies received to date.

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

There is no relevant planning history in respect of the barns.

S/26736 Barn conversion into business use and two holiday flats Full planning permission 31 July 2012

APPRAISAL

This application has been submitted following an investigation/action undertaken by the Authority’s planning enforcement officers.

Page 71 This application is being reported to Planning Committee as the applicant’s husband is a Member of Planning Committee. Members will recall the application was first reported to Committee on 9 th October 2014 and deferred for site visit which took place on the 18 th November 2014. The application was further reported to Committee in 10 th February 2015 to ratify the conditions. However, the applicant requested amendments prior to the decision being dispatched and the remaining walls of the building were subsequently removed circ. May 2015 so it is not possible to implement the conversion.

The building is in the process of being re-built hence the nature of the application and design has changed and is therefore being re-reported as a new build development. It should also be noted that the application needs to be reassessed in light of the Local Development Plan policies adopted in December 2014.

THE SITE

The site was formerly a double barn immediately adjacent to Capel Ifan Road. The barns formed part of the original farm complex for Capel Ifan Farm. The farm was recorded as belonging to the Dun Lee family in 1613 and Rudd family later in the 17 th Century, so the barns had some historic interest. They were not however listed as they had been modified over time.

The barn was formerly in two parts, the greater was a traditional stone built construction, however the second was a mix of stone and more modern brick and block materials. Planning permission was granted for the conversion of the two barns for commercial purposes in 2012. However, the applicant removed part of the building and a new application for part new build was submitted in 2014. It was considered that the amended proposal was not in accordance with Policy however Committee approved the amended scheme contrary to officer recommendation after conducting a site visit. Prior to the permission being released, the applicant sought to amend the proposal as a working amendment and subsequently the original structure has been entirely removed. The barn is currently in the process of being re-built.

This application was submitted as a result of an enforcement investigation into the substantial demolition of the original building and non-compliance with the original permission. Given the fact that the remaining walls of the building have now been demolished and the entire building is not being replaced, the proposal has changed from being a conversion of an existing barn to a new building development for business and holiday purposes.

The site is in an open countryside location outside limits to the South West of Pontyberem.

THE PROPOSAL

The application seeks retrospective permission to rebuild the barn for business use and for one holiday unit.

The scheme has been materially amended since the last report to Committee in that a side extension measuring 6.23m by 1.5m for a reception area has been added and a first floor proposed over the business unit in addition to the formation of the two storey holiday unit.

Page 72 A revised supplementary statement to the original Structural Report has been submitted which seeks to justify the replacement of the barn with a new building. The Structural Engineer in his statement dated 19 th June 2015, states the following:-

“Our original report recorded that these random rubble stone walls contained outward leans and were highly voided. These leans seem to have increased while the continued disintegration of the rubble core and jointing, following the exposure of the walls to the elements over the last couple of years, has reduced further the structural integrity of the masonry.

The revised proposals for the building involve the formation of additional openings within the side walls including the formation of a large new opening at the proposed reception area. The formation of these new openings will leave relatively small lengths of walling and piers between these openings. Considering the present condition of these walls, the physical act of forming these new openings is likely to lead to considerable disturbances to the lengths of masonry to either side of these openings.

The further deterioration of the limewash jointing and timber lintels in these remaining wall areas together with the need to form these additional opening, leads us to have both long term stability concerns for these walls and potential health and safety issues when the works are undertaken. We would therefore advise and recommend that these remaining stone walls are completely taken down and rebuild in dense concrete blockwork on new foundations. If required, selected stones from the demolished walls could be salvaged and used as an external lining to these new walls.”

A Bat report has been submitted which revealed passing bat activity at a distance; however there were no observed bat visits to the buildings themselves. The conclusion of the study was that there no bat or barn owl interest.

PLANNING POLICIES

In the context of the current development control policy framework the site is outside the settlement development limits of Pontyberem as defined in the Carmarthenshire Local Development Plan (LDP) Adopted 10 December 2014.

Policy SP1 Sustainable Places and Spaces states:-

“Proposals for development will be supported where they reflect sustainable development and design principles by: a) Distributing development to sustainable locations in accordance with the settlement framework, supporting the roles and functions of the identified settlements; b) Promoting, where appropriate, the efficient use of land including previously developed sites; c) Integrating with the local community, taking account of character and amenity as well as cultural and linguistic considerations;

Page 73 d) Respecting, reflecting and, wherever possible, enhancing local character and distinctiveness; e) Creating safe, attractive and accessible environments which contribute to people’s health and wellbeing and adhere to urban design best practice; f) Promoting active transport infrastructure and safe and convenient sustainable access particularly through walking and cycling; g) Utilising sustainable construction methods where feasible; h) Improving social and economic wellbeing; i) Protect and enhance the area’s biodiversity value and where appropriate, seek to integrate nature conservation into new development.”

Policy GP1 Sustainability and High Quality Design states:-

“Development proposals will be permitted where they accord with the following:- a) It conforms with and enhances the character and appearance of the site, building or area in terms of siting, appearance, scale, height, massing, elevation treatment, and detailing; b) It incorporates existing landscape or other features, takes account of site contours and changes in levels and prominent skylines or ridges; c) Utilises materials appropriate to the area within which it is located; d) It would not have a significant impact on the amenity of adjacent land uses, properties, residents or the community; e) Includes an integrated mixture of uses appropriate to the scale of the development; f) It retains, and where appropriate incorporates important local features (including buildings, amenity areas, spaces, trees, woodlands and hedgerows) and ensures the use of good quality hard and soft landscaping and embraces opportunities to enhance biodiversity and ecological connectivity; g) It achieves and creates attractive, safe places and public spaces, which ensures security through the ‘designing-out-crime’ principles of Secured by Design (including providing natural surveillance, visibility, well lit environments and areas of public movement); h) An appropriate access exists or can be provided which does not give rise to any parking or highway safety concerns on the site or within the locality; i) It protects and enhances the landscape, townscape, historic and cultural heritage of the County and there are no adverse effects on the setting or integrity of the historic environment;

Page 74 j) It ensures or provides for, the satisfactory generation, treatment and disposal of both surface and foul water; k) It has regard to the generation, treatment and disposal of waste. l) It has regard for the safe, effective and efficient use of the transportation network; m) It provides an integrated network which promotes the interests of pedestrians, cyclists and public transport which ensures ease of access for all; n) It includes, where applicable, provision for the appropriate management and eradication of invasive species.

Proposals will also be considered in light of the policies and provisions of this Plan and National Policy (PPW: Edition 7 and TAN12: Design (2014).”

Policy EMP2 New Employment Proposals states:-

“Proposals for employment developments which are within, adjacent or directly related to the Development Limits of all defined settlements (Policy SP3) will be permitted provided that:

(a) A sequential search has been undertaken identifying that there is no allocation or existing employment site available that can reasonably accommodate the use, followed by there being no suitable land or building (for conversion or re-use) available within the Development Limits, then adjacent to limits, and finally on a site directly related to a recognised settlement;

(b) The development proposals are of an appropriate scale and form, and are not detrimental to the respective character and appearance of the townscape/ landscape;

(c) The development proposals are of an appropriate scale and form compatible with its location and with neighbouring uses.”

Policy TSM4 Visitor Accommodation states:-

“Proposals for new build serviced or self catering holiday accommodation will be permitted within the development limits of defined settlements (Policy SP3) where it accords with the relevant criterion under Policy SP15.

Outside the development limits of defined settlements (Policy SP3) proposals for permanent serviced or self catering visitor accommodation will be permitted where it consists of the re-use and adaptation (including conversion) of existing buildings and complies with criteria d) and e) set out in Policy H5.”

Good design is encouraged at all levels and national policy contained in Planning Policy Wales Edition 7 – July 2014 provides the following guidance.

Page 75 development, including its construction, operation and management, and its relationship to its surroundings.”

Paragraph 4.11.2 states: “Good design can protect and enhance environmental quality, consider the impact of climate change on generations to come, help to attract business and investment, promote social inclusion and improve the quality of life. Meeting the objectives of good design should be the aim of all those involved in the development process and applied to all development proposals, at all scales, from the construction or alteration of individual buildings to larger development proposals. These objectives can be categorised into five key aspects of good design .”

Paragraph 2.2 of Technical Advice Note 12 Design (2014) states:-

Paragraphs 2.6 & 2.7 of Technical Advice Note 12 Design (2014) state:-

Page 76 that these are achieved, whilst responding to local context, through the lifetime of the development (from procurement to construction through to completion and eventual use). This analysis and the vision for a scheme should be presented in the design and access statement where one is required.

Paragraphs 3.1.1 and 3.1.2 of TAN 6 Planning for Sustainable Rural Communities (July 2010) state:-

3.1.1 Strong rural economies are essential to support sustainable and vibrant rural communities. A strong rural economy can also help to promote social inclusion and provide the financial resources necessary to support local services and maintain attractive and diverse natural environments and landscapes.

3.1.2 Planning authorities should support the diversification of the rural economy as a way to provide local employment opportunities, increase local economic prosperity and minimise the need to travel for employment7. The development plan should facilitate diversification of the rural economy by accommodating the needs of both traditional rural industries and new enterprises, whilst minimising impacts on the local community and the environment.

CONCLUSION

After careful examination of the site and its surrounding environs in the context of this application, together with the representations received to date, it is considered that the barn was a mix of traditional stone construction and newer additions. The original application was approved on the basis that it was the re-use of the rural building which was said to be structurally sound and capable of conversion. The policies on conversion would support the mix of commercial uses as originally approved, however the barn has been demolished so the scheme needs to be considered as a new build employment development in the open countryside and considered accordingly in this context.

It should also be noted that the adoption of the LDP in December 2014 has changed the policy context and therefore should be considered in accordance with the new policies as set out above.

Under policy EMP2 there is a requirement for a sequential approach to be undertaken which first considers premises within settlements then considers sites immediately adjacent to or directly related to settlements. In this case, there are empty commercial premises in Pontyberem which could be used for business purposes and these would be more sustainable being better related to the population who would use the beauty salon without the need to use a car. The site is not directly related to either Pontyberem or Ponthenri as it is situated in open country between the two settlements. The proposal therefore fails to comply with Policy EMP2.

Policy TSM4 on holiday accommodation is clear that proposals within settlement limits will be approved, however outside limits accommodation will only be permitted where the scheme is for the re-use of rural buildings using the same considerations as a residential conversion (i.e. that the building is structurally sound, substantially intact and is of sufficient size to accommodate the proposed use without extensive alteration, extension or reconstruction and the building demonstrates and retains sufficient quality of architectural features and traditional materials with no significant loss of the character and integrity of the original structure.) The original approved scheme would comply with this policy as it

Page 77 included the re-use of the barn, however the scheme as amended proposes the entire rebuilding of the barn and is therefore not in accordance with Policy TSM4 or the relevant criteria in Policy H5.

Whilst the principle of rural enterprise is supported by local and national policy in order to create jobs and diversify the rural economy, the policies are predicated on the re-use and adaptation of rural buildings. As an exception, new development in rural areas is only allowed when a sequential approach is taken and it can be demonstrated that there are no premises available within settlements as first and any new build is immediately adjacent or directly related to sustainable settlements. In this case a sequential approach has not been taken and the business and holiday accommodation is new development in the open countryside between the settlements of Pontyberem and Pontiets and is not therefore immediately adjacent or directly related. The proposal is not therefore considered to be in accordance with the above policies.

RECOMMENDATION – REFUSAL

REASONS

1 The proposal is contrary to Policy EMP2 “New Employment Proposals” of the Carmarthenshire Local Development Plan:-

Policy EMP2 - New Employment Proposals

‘Proposals for employment developments which are within, adjacent or directly related to the Development Limits of all defined settlements (Policy SP3) will be permitted provided that:

a) A sequential search has been undertaken identifying that there is no allocation or existing employment site available that can reasonably accommodate the use, followed by there being no suitable land or building (for conversion or re-use) available within the Development Limits, then adjacent to limits, and finally on a site directly related to a recognised settlement;

b) The development proposals are of an appropriate scale and form, and are not detrimental to the respective character and appearance of the townscape/ landscape;

c) The development proposals are of an appropriate scale and form compatible with its location and with neighbouring uses.’

In that the scheme is an unjustified new employment proposal in the open countryside which is not within, adjacent or directly related to a settlement. No justification has been submitted to demonstrate that a sequential approach has been undertaken which first considered sites in a nearby settlement or re-use of an existing building as originally approved.

Page 78 2 The proposal is contrary to Policy TSM4 “Visitor Accommodation” of the Carmarthenshire Local Development Plan:-

Policy TSM4 - Visitor Accommodation

‘Proposals for new build serviced or self catering holiday accommodation will be permitted within the development limits of defined settlements (Policy SP3) where it accords with the relevant criterion under Policy SP15.

In that the scheme includes a new build holiday unit outside the defined settlement development limits of a recognised settlement and not the re-use or adaptation of an existing building.

Page 79 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 80 Agenda Item 3.2

ADRODDIAD PENNAETH CYNLLUNIO, CYFARWYDDIAETH ADFYWIO A HAMDDEN

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF PLANNING, DIRECTORATE OF REGENERATION AND LEISURE

AR GYFER PWYLLGOR CYNLLUNIO CYNGOR SIR CAERFYRDDIN/

TO CARMARTHENSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL’S PLANNING COMMITTEE

AR 8 HYDREF 2015 ON 8 OCTOBER 2015

I’W BENDERFYNU/ FOR DECISION

Page 81

Page 82

COMMITTEE: PLANNING COMMITTEE

DATE: 8 OCTOBER 2015

REPORT OF: HEAD OF PLANNING

I N D E X - A R E A W E S T

REF. APPLICATIONS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL

W/29758 Proposed demolition of old pottery, provision of public car park and 14 residential units together with associated parking spaces at Gaisford House and Old Pottery, King Street, Laugharne, Carmarthen, SA33 4RY

W/30795 Installation of a maximum hub height of 30.5m and a maximum tip height of 48m wind turbine with control box and all associated works at Trefforis Fawr, Ferryside, Carmarthenshire, SA17 5YG

W/31810 Change of use of existing buildings to animal feed facility with associated external works at Cwm Eynon Farm, Four Roads, Carmarthenshire, SA17 4SD

W/32043 Proposed restoration of collapsed northern garden boundary wall. Proposed demolition of adjacent pottery building and erection of residential units with associated junctions with listed building at Pelican House at the Old Pottery, King Street, Laugharne, Carmarthen, SA33 4RY

Page 83

REF. APPLICATIONS RECOMMENDED FOR REFUSAL

W/32578 Replacement of existing dwelling with new dwelling built in close proximity to original farm house at Esgairhir Uchaf, Carmarthen, SA33 6AD

Page 84

REF. ADDITIONAL ITEM FOR DECISION

W/31160 One Planet Development Consisting Of Four Zero Carbon Dwellings At Land At Rhiw Las, Abbey Road, Whitland, SA34 0LH

Page 85

APPLICATIONS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL

Page 86

Application No W/29758

Application Type Full Planning

Proposal & PROPOSED DEMOLITION OF OLD POTTERY, PROVISION Location OF PUBLIC CAR PARK AND 14 RESIDENTIAL UNITS TOGETHER WITH ASSOCIATED PARKING SPACES AT GAISFORD HOUSE AND OLD POTTERY, KING STREET, LAUGHARNE, CARMARTHEN, SA33 4RY

Applicant(s) MR DAVID JENKINS

Agent HAROLD METCALFE PARTNERSHIP - MR ALAN JONES

Case Officer Stuart Willis

Electoral Ward Laugharne Township

Date of validation 07/03/2014

CONSULTATIONS

Head of Transport – Initially requested amendments and further information. Following the submission of these, approval with conditions has been recommended.

Laugharne Township Council – Has stated they essentially support the overall scheme. However some concern was expressed regarding the density of the development and whether fewer dwellings could be built on the site, thus providing more open space and public car parking.

Local Member - County Councillor J Tremlett has not commented on the application

Natural Resources Wales – Initially requested amendments and further information . Following the submission of these, approval with conditions has been recommended including those relating to a buffer strip, disposal of surface and foul water and contamination

Head of Public Protection – Has responded making reference to areas where separate legislation and requirements apply. They also recommend a condition relating to potential contaminated land.

Page 87 Land Drainage Officer – Concur with the comments of Natural Resources Wales and request a condition with any permission relating to a scheme for the management of surface water.

Welsh Water / Dwr Cymru – Initially objected to the proposal on the ground that it would overload the Waste Water Treatment Works and that there were no planned upgrades to the system. However improvements are now planned and the scheme was subsequently amended so that a private waste water treatment plant will be provided and later removed as soon as the Laugharne Waste Water Treatment Works has been upgraded in the current AMP 6 investment programme and connection will be to the foul main. They indicate that these improvements will be completed by March 2019. They have recommended a number of conditions relating to foul and surface water drainage

Dyfed Archaeological Trust – Has requested that a condition be imposed on any permission regarding a written scheme of investigation and implementation of a programme of archaeological work

Housing and Social Care – Has confirmed that from the viability details submitted there is no requirement for on affordable housing at the site

Neighbours/Public - The application has been publicised by the posting of a Site Notice near to the site and in the Local Press. To date 8 responses have been received in this application.

The following issues were raised:

• Over intensive development of the site • Roof line should be continuous from Pelican to new building • Road traffic hazard from vehicles entering the development leading to further blockage at King Street • Entrance position not appropriate • Insufficient visibility • Lack of information regarding the management of the car park element eg short/long term, fees, maintenance, security • Question over need for the public parking spaces • Flooding from rain water, surface water and query over how this will be dealt with • Lack of information regarding foul drainage • Damage to property and landscape features from erosion • Inaccurate information on the application form • Design concerns – design and scale not appropriate • New building would dominate King Street • Over bearing on adjacent Post Office • Design out of character with the Conservation Area • Excessive height of King Street building • Proposed building exceeds height of adjacent buildings • Building will become most dominant on King Street • Impact on the historic environment

Page 88 • Design should reflect the existing building • Loss of privacy to buildings opposite • Overlooking and loss of privacy from rear balcony of proposed King Street building in to garden and windows • Impact on security • Impact on listed buildings adjacent and in Laugharne • Loss of stone walls • Existing building is important • No evidence to support infill of the site • No need for additional housing as other applications/sites in Laugharne • Contaminated land due to former use and dumping of material • Pollution including in to the stream from rain water and from vehicles and materials used • Noise and light pollution on residents and tourists • Lack of lighting plan with the application • Lack of details of ticket machines • Impacts on habitats and wildlife • Development is backland/tandem development • Contrary to LDP policy • Loss of commercial use and business opportunities/employment • Plan are confusing • Lack of information on adjacent property on the plans • New plans are more in keeping but still impact on listed building it would be attached to • New development should be subservient to the street scene • Issues relating to land ownership including in relation to notice served and how works would take place • Side windows not confirmed as being obscure glazing for rear buildings • Further detail needed regarding boundary walls • French doors not in keeping with the character of the area • Ecological impacts from loss of trees and lack of screening • Concern over use of store building adjacent to the Pelican in terms of pollution, vermin and noise • Noise from metal staircase and impact on amenity • Balustrade details not in keeping and too modern • Lack of amenity space and storage for apartment building • Lack of discussion with neighbouring properties • Impact on access to properties during construction • Disruption during construction • Impact on earnings of businesses while works go on • Party wall issues

Page 89 RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

W/32042 Demolish remaining part collapsed garden outbuildings, together with recently built block work building. Part demolish and part restore partly collapsed southern boundary wall to Gaisford House garden Listed Building Consent Granted

W/29759 Proposed demolition of old pottery, provision of public car park and 14 residential units together with associated parking spaces Conservation Area Consent Granted

W/21747 Proposed demolition of existing building and erection of 5 one-bedroom flats and 2 one-bedroom maisonettes with associated access Conservation Area Consent Granted 22 December 2010

W/20937 Proposed demolition of existing building. The erection of 5 no. One-bed flats and two no. One bed maisonettes with associated access Full planning permission 22 December 2010 S106 signed Affordable dwelling /future occupancy

W/18391 Residential development - 3 flats and 4 maisonettes & private pottery with 1 flat Full planning refused 7 April 2008

W/01661 Renewal of d4/25504 for siting of 4 no dwellings Outline planning refused 28 May 1998

D4/25504 Siting of 4no dwellings Outline planning permission 13 June 1995

D4/21026 Construction of permanent car park Withdrawn 4 November 1993

D4/19719 Siting of four bungalows Outline planning refused 27 November 1990

Page 90

D4/11711 Advertisement sign Advertisement granted 18 October 1984

D4/11108 Change of Use of existing old sorting office to take away fish and chip bar Full planning permission 24 November 1983

THE SITE

The application site consists of existing buildings and an area of land located within the Conservation Area of Laugharne and off the western side of King Street, which forms the main route through the settlement. The site is bounded to the west by the River Corran which flows from north to south. To the south, the site abuts an existing dwelling (The Pelican) which is a Listed Building and its garden. To the north is the Post Office at the front of the site while the rear part of the site adjoins the garden area of another residential property known as Osborne House.

Part of the existing site is occupied by a former commercial pottery and glass producer which incorporated a small retail outlet and offices. The front element of the building is a brick construction with a gabled frontage, unlike the existing streetscape. The rear part of the building includes a long projecting building which was used for the production of the pottery and glass. In total the building extends approximately 27.5m from the road frontage at King Street at a height of approximately 8.6m.

To the immediate rear of the building, the land is built up partly by waste from the pottery (approximately 2m in some places) and then slopes steeply down to the River Corran at the rear. The pottery was historically a commercial bus garage and the appearance of the existing building reflects this.

The application site also includes a vehicular access between the former pottery and the Post Office and wraps around the rear of the Post Office building as well as a large proportion of the garden area of Gaisford House, which is a Listed Building.

The existing streetscape consists of a mixture of mainly 2 and 3 storey structures (Post Office is single storey) consisting of residential, retail and commercial premises of traditional construction and appearance in a variety of finishes and roof levels.

In relation the site history there has been previous applications for redevelopment of the former pottery building. A previous application on the site was refused in 2008 for the construction of flats, parking provisions and the construction of a domestic pottery building with flat above. This application was refused for a number of reasons, which included unsympathetic design, flooding issues and highway access issues. In 2010 Full Planning Permission and Conservation Area Consent was given for proposed demolition of existing pottery building. The erection of 5 no. one-bed flats and two no. one bed maisonettes with associated access. The planning permission has not expired and therefore could still be implemented. This application did not include the area behind the Post Office or the land within the curtilage of Gaisford House.

Page 91

The approved application consisted of the demolition of the existing commercial building and the construction of a new residential development at the site. The proposal included a three storey frontage building which was designed to integrate with the neighbouring properties. This building included 3 flats; the ground floor unit was to be a one bedroom and the upper two floors included 2 no flats with 2 bedrooms each. The frontage block along King Street (3 flats) was penetrated at the ground floor level by a vehicular and pedestrian access which was located in the same position as the existing original doors to the coach garage and allowed access to the rear of the site. The ground floor flat was accessed through the under passage of the front building, and the upper two flats accessed via a balcony at the rear of the building. On both sides of the balcony there was a screen proposed to limit any potential overlooking of adjacent gardens. The proposal also included a second residential block which contained 2 no one bed flats on two floors. This building was separated from the frontage building by 3 car parking spaces. The proposal showed provision for 10 car parking spaces to the rear.

The application site is located within the Conservation Area of Laugharne and part of the site is within the grounds of a Listed Building. The adjacent properties to the north and south are also listed buildings as are many along King Street. There has also been a Conservation Area Consent submitted for the demolition of the old pottery building along with 2 Listed Building Consents for works associated with the proposed development. One of the Listed Building Consents and the Conservation Area Consent have been approved. The other Listed Building Consent is also presented to the Planning Committee today.

The Old Pottery building is situated on King Street. Adjacent to the building is the Grade II listed Pelican which is dated to the late 18th / early 19 th Century.

The Pelican is three storeys in height with basement and has a slate roof and brick chimney stack. Recessed small pane sash windows with central Palladian semi circular headed sash with key stones. Bracketed hoods to entrance with 9 panel door with fanlights. There is a plaque to the 2 nd floor of the building which reads ‘’The two....pine ends of this building belong to W and M Davies. Built by him in 1866’.

The Pelican is not owned by the applicant.

THE PROPOSAL

The application requests full planning permission for the proposed demolition of the old pottery, as well as the provision of public car park and construction of 13 residential units together with associated parking spaces. Originally the proposed was for 14 units however amendments to the scheme have reduced this to 13. The plans still refer to unit 14 however unit 11 is no longer included.

A new building is proposed off King Street to accommodate some of the residential units. The building would accommodate a total of 4 units (units 5-8). At ground floor the building would accommodate a 2 bedroom unit with a further 3 no 2 bed units at first and second floor level. A communal garden is proposed to the rear of the building.

Page 92

The design of this building originally showed the whole of the building covering 3 full storeys. The scale and design of the building has been amended several times during the application. The final design shows the frontage building in 2 sections. Adjacent to the 3 storey Pelican property to the south the building would be 3 storey and in line with the height of the existing building. The wider northern part of the building adjacent to the single storey Post Office is stepped down being 2 storey with accommodation in the roof space. There is a pitched roof dormer window on this lower part of the building. At the ground floor level of this part of the building is a pedestrian and separate vehicular access to the rear of the site. The building is shown to have a natural slate roof with brick chimneys with softwood windows, doors and dentils. The walls are to be stucco render.

The upper units are accessed via an external staircase and balcony at the rear of the building. The staircase would be steel with glazed panels. At the boundary with the adjacent residential property (Pelican) a 2m high stucco render wall is proposed for screening at the top of the staircase. A wall is also proposed along the boundary at ground floor level. The rear elevation of the lower part of the building has 2 pitched roof dormers. A small store area is also proposed along the boundary with the Pelican.

At the rear of the section of curtilage of Gaisford House being retained are 2 rows of terrace properties forming a small street/lane running north to south. All properties are 2 storey. The eastern row of properties has 4 units (1-4). These units again have slate, stucco render and timber external finishes and the design of them has been amended during the application. They have a consistent appearance in terms of fenestration and doorway detailing. One unit has a gable feature and bay window at the rear. The units form a terrace with the properties partly staggered. The 2 central units have 3 bedrooms while the 2 end units have 2 bedrooms each. There is a patio and garden area to the rear adjoining the boundary with the area retained for Gaisford House.

There is a further row of 5 units (9-14 with no unit 11) to the west of units 1-4. These consist of 4 flats and 1 house (at the northern end of the row) which have the appearance of being 3 houses. Again there is consistency to the design of this row of properties but a style that differs from those opposite. Each of the 4 flats has 1 bedroom with the house being a 2 bedroom unit. Once more external materials proposed are timber, slate and stucco render with the terrace being staggered.

A new access is shown approximately where the access doors to the pottery building are currently and vehicular access adjacent, and close to where shown on the previously approved scheme. The access is in the form of an archway leading through the new proposed building fronting King Street. The access leads to the rear of the site where there is parking provision for both the proposed dwellings and a public parking area. There is a total of 19 parking spaces proposed for the residential units and a further 42 proposed for the public car park. Parking spaces are distributed across the site. There is a cluster of spaces behind a pedestrian access to Gaisford House at the rear of the Post Office. A line of spaces runs along the southern boundary of the site and along the western boundary outside a buffer zone along the watercourse. There are spaces between the 2 rows of terrace properties

Page 93 as well. There are then some spaces to the rear of units 9-14 and along the northern boundary.

Further works to the highways are proposed with the relocation of the existing cross point/build out on King Street. The application shows this being moved approximately 12m to the north.

A mixture of boundary treatments are shown across the site. Where part of a listed wall is to be removed a new stone wall is shown alongside unit 1. Render walls are proposed in part, in particular along the boundary with the Pelican. For the boundaries of the properties adjacent to the car parking spaces there are render walls with fencing above and where there are internal boundaries between properties a fence is shown. In terms of the outside spaces a mix of tarmac areas and gravel area is proposed. Areas of planting and retention of landscape features is shown around the car park area of the site.

The application originally showed all 14 properties being connected to the mains sewer system from the outset. Following comments by Welsh Water the scheme was amended and now proposes a temporary private treatment plant for 6 units. The provision for 6 of the 13 units is based on there being extant planning permission for 7 new units already. This is to be removed once improvements to the mains sewer system are made. For surface water the application indicates that this will be disposed of via attenuation before entering the watercourse at the western boundary.

The application was accompanied by several supporting documents. During the application a Temporary Private Treatment Works Report plus an Access Appraisal was submitted and revised during the application following amendments to the scheme. A Flood Consequence Assessment was submitted as the site is partly within a Flood Zone. A Tree Report was submitted and during the application a number of revisions of a landscape scheme have been provided. Due to the presence of the watercourse along the western boudanry of the river a 3m buffer zone has been provided following comments from and discussions with Natural Resources Wales. Details relating to the Code for Sustainable Homes was submitted however this is no longer a requirement. Following clarification of the nature of works required in the construction of the development in terms of attachment to the adjacent ones a bat survey was submitted. Viability details were also provided during the application in relation to requests made for contributions towards community benefits.

PLANNING POLICY

The following Local Development Plan policies are considered relevant:

Policy SP1 Sustainable Places and Spaces This policy states that proposals for development will be supported where they reflect sustainable development and design subject to a number of criteria. These include distributing development to sustainable locations in accordance with the settlement framework, promoting active transport infrastructure and safe and convenient sustainable access particularly through walking and cycling and

Page 94 Respecting, reflecting and, wherever possible, enhancing local character and distinctiveness

Policy SP9 Transportation . This policy states that provision is made to contribute to the delivery of an efficient, effective, safe and sustainable integrated transport system in a number of ways including the following, reducing the need to travel, particularly by private motor car; supporting and where applicable enhancing alternatives to the motor car, such as public transport (including park and ride facilities and encourage the adoption of travel plans), and active transport through cycling and walking; re-enforcing the function and role of settlements in accordance with the settlement framework; promoting the efficient use of the transport network;

Policy GP1 Sustainability and High Quality Design. This states that development proposals will be permitted where they accord with a number of criteria including the following, it conforms with and enhances the character and appearance of the site, building or area in terms of siting, appearance, scale, height, massing, elevation treatment, and detailing, utilises materials appropriate to the area within which it is located; it retains, and where appropriate incorporates important local features (including buildings, amenity areas, spaces, trees, woodlands and hedgerows) and ensures the use of good quality hard and soft landscaping and embraces opportunities to enhance biodiversity and ecological connectivity; an appropriate access exists or can be provided which does not give rise to any parking or highway safety concerns on the site or within the locality;

Policy TR3 Highways in Developments - Design Considerations This policy states that the design and layout of all development proposals will, where appropriate, be required to include an integrated network of convenient and safe pedestrian and cycle routes (within and from the site) which promotes the interests of pedestrians, cyclists and public transport; suitable provision for access by public transport; appropriate parking and where applicable, servicing space in accordance with required standards; infrastructure and spaces allowing safe and easy access for those with mobility difficulties; required access standards reflective of the relevant Class of road and speed restrictions including visibility splays and design features and calming measures necessary to ensure highway safety and the ease of movement is maintained, and where required enhanced; provision for Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems to allow for the disposal of surface water runoff from the highway.

It goes on to state that proposals which do not generate unacceptable levels of traffic on the surrounding road network and would not be detrimental to highway safety or cause significant harm to the amenity of residents will be permitted. Proposals which will not result in offsite congestion in terms of parking or service provision or where the capacity of the network is sufficient to serve the development will be permitted. Developers may be required to facilitate appropriate works as part of the granting of any permission.

Page 95

Policy EQ1 Protection of Buildings, Landscapes and Features of Historic Importance The policy states that proposals for development affecting landscapes, townscapes buildings and sites or features of historic or archaeological interest which by virtue of their historic importance, character or significance within a group of features make an important contribution to the local character and the interests of the area will only be permitted where it preserves or enhances the built and historic environment. This includes listed buildings, conservation areas and archaeology.

Policy EQ4 Biodiversity The policy states that proposals for development which have an adverse impact on priority species, habitats and features of recognised principal importance to the conservation of biodiversity and nature conservation, (namely those protected by Section 42 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act 2006 and UK and Local BAP habitats and species and other than sites and species protected under European or UK legislation) will not be permitted, except where it can be demonstrated that the impacts can be satisfactorily mitigated, acceptably minimised or appropriately managed to include net enhancements; there are exceptional circumstances where the reasons for the development or land use change clearly outweighs the need to safeguard the biodiversity and nature conservation interests of the site and where alternative habitat provision can be made in order to maintain and enhance local biodiversity.

Policy EQ5 Corridors, Networks and Features of Distinctiveness The policy states that proposals for development which would not adversely affect those features which contribute local distinctiveness/qualities of the County, and to the management and/or development of ecological networks (wildlife corridor networks), accessible green corridors and their continuity and integrity will be permitted. Proposals which include provision for the retention and appropriate management of such features will be supported (provided they conform to the policies and proposals of this Plan).

SP13 Protection and Enhancement of the Built and Historic Environment The policy indicates that development proposals should preserve or enhance the built and historic environment of the County, its cultural, townscape and landscape assets (outlined below), and, where appropriate, their setting. Proposals relating to the following will be considered in accordance with national guidance and legislation. a) Sites and features of recognised Historical and Cultural Importance; b) Listed buildings and their setting; c) Conservation Areas and their setting; d) Scheduled Ancient Monuments and other sites of recognised archaeological importance.

The policy goes on to state that proposals will be expected to promote high quality design that reinforces local character and respects and enhances the local setting and the cultural and historic qualities of the plan area.

Page 96 SP14 Protection and Enhancement of the Natural Environment The policy states that development should reflect the need to protect, and wherever possible enhance the County’s natural environment. All development proposals should be considered in accordance with national guidance/legislation and the policies and proposals of this Plan, with due consideration given to areas of nature conservation value, the countryside, landscapes and coastal areas, and lists the various relevant designations and policies.

SP17 Infrastructure The policy states that development will be directed to locations where adequate and appropriate infrastructure is available or can be readily provided. The LDP therefore supports the economic provision of infrastructure by allocating sites in identified settlements and in accordance with the Settlement Framework. Renewable energy generation and associated utility connections will be encouraged, in appropriate locations, subject to other Plan policies. Proposals for ancillary developments to the utilities infrastructure will be permitted where they have regard to their setting, incorporate landscaping and do not conflict with the areas built, historic, cultural and nature conservation and landscape qualities. (Policy SP13 and SP14) Planning Obligations relating to developer contributions towards necessary infrastructure improvements may be sought subject to policy GP3.

Policy GP2 Development Limits The policy states that development Limits are defined for those settlements identified as Growth Areas, Service Centres, Local Service Centres and identified Sustainable Communities within the settlement framework. It goes on to say proposals within defined Development Limits will be permitted, subject to policies and proposals of this Plan, national policies and other material planning considerations.

Policy GP3 Planning Obligations This states the Council will, where necessary seek developers to enter into Planning Obligations (Section 106 Agreements), or to contribute via the Community Infrastructure Levy to secure contributions to fund improvements to infrastructure, community facilities and other services to meet requirements arising from new developments. Where applicable, contributions will also be sought towards the future and ongoing maintenance of such provision either in the form of initial support or in perpetuity. In implementing this policy schemes will be assessed on a case-by-case basis.

Policy GP4 Infrastructure and New Development This states that proposals for development will be permitted where the infrastructure is adequate to meet the needs of the development. Proposals where new or improved infrastructure is required but does not form part of an infrastructure provider’s improvement programme may be permitted where it can be satisfactorily demonstrated that this infrastructure will exist, or where the required work is funded by (or an appropriate contribution is provided by) the developer. Planning obligations and conditions will be used (where appropriate) to ensure that new or improved facilities are provided to serve the new development.

Page 97 Policy H2 Housing within Development Limits In relation to development in this location the policy states that proposals for housing developments on unallocated sites within the development limits of a defined settlement (Policy SP3) will, where they are not subject to the provisions of Part B of the policy be permitted, provided they are in accordance with the principles of the Plan’s strategy and its policies and proposals.

Policy AH1 Affordable Housing For developments of this scale the policy states that a contribution to affordable housing will be required on all housing allocations and windfall sites. The Council will seek a level of affordable housing contribution of 30% in the higher viable areas, 20% in the middle viable areas, and 10% within the Ammanford / Cross Hands sub- market areas. Where viability at the target levels cannot be achieved, variation may be agreed on a case-by-case basis.

On Site Contributions Affordable housing will be required to be provided on proposals of 5 or more dwellings in all settlements. Where adjacent and related residential proposals result in combined numbers meeting or exceeding the above threshold, the Council will seek an element of affordable housing based on the affordable housing target percentages set out above. Proposals will be required to ensure that the dwelling remains affordable for all subsequent occupants in perpetuity.

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

Turning to the representations received to date, the following issues have been raised.

Design, Scale and Layout A number of the concerns related to the design and scale of the proposed development and features within it. One of the concerns raised was that the proposal represented over development of the site and that it was a form of backland/tandem development. The original scheme proposed 14 units which has now been reduced to 13 units. In relation to the car parking spaces these have also been reduced from 51 public space and 27 private spaces to 42 public spaces and 19 private ones. This was in response to concerns raised over the original layout. The scheme has been amended a number of times since submission and there were concerns with previous versions of the scheme including that it was overdevelopment. The revised layout has reduced the overall scale and footprint of the buildings and also broken up the parking provision. The layout shows a new building at the King Street boundary in place of an existing one, although slightly wider. Comments regarding the scale and design of this are given below. To the rear there are 2 rows of properties. These form a small street and along with the public spaces are located in what is a substantial and largely unused curtilage of Gaisford House and the premises and associated land with a former commercial property. External materials are also to be varied with tarmac and gravel to break up the appearance of the site.

There has been a previous planning permission given for the redevelopment of the former pottery which remains valid. This included a 3 storey building at the King Street frontage with a further building to the rear. This application includes the further

Page 98 land at Gaisford House and hence additional development has been proposed. The properties at the rear of the site are 2 storey and therefore of a smaller scale than many of the properties along King Street.

Concerns have been raised over the design and scale of the development in terms of the built form as well as the overall layout. The proposed building on King Street in particular has raised concerns. It is noted that the majority of the objections received were made prior to the re-design of this building. Initially the building was to be 3 storey across the whole of its frontage. It was felt that this was not appropriate and it would have dominated this part of King Street as the largest structure. It would have also been overbearing on the single storey Post Office adjacent to the north. The original design also showed the height of this building being greater than the adjacent 3 storey building (Pelican). Again this was not considered appropriate. The overall scale and massing of the building was not in keeping with the character of the area. However the design has been revised with some important changes. The building would now be viewed as 2 distinct elements from King Street. Adjacent to the 3 storey dwelling the building would have 3 storeys. It has been reduced in height so that it now has a continuous ridge height from that property instead of being higher than it. The majority of the building has been stepped down so that it is now 2 storey with some accommodation in the roof space. This staggers the height of the building down to the single storey Post Office. At ground floor level this part of the buildings contains the pedestrian and vehicular archway access points, reducing the overall massing. The roof space is broken up at this lower level with a pitched roof dormer. There are many examples of dormer windows on King Street frontages of various designs.

It is considered that the changes to the King Street elevation represent a significant improvement from the initial scheme and now propose a building which while large would not dominate or detract from the character of the area. The staggering of the roofline also greatly reduces any overbearance on the Post Office building and gives a more logical flow to the ridge lines. Comments were made that the design should reflect the existing building. While the existing building shows the variation that can occur within the centre of Laugharne it is possibly more out of keeping with the character of the area than the proposed one. The overall design, external materials, features and detailing of the proposed building more closely matching the majority of the buildings nearby than the existing ones.

To the rear the building has also been amended. There is a rear amenity area proposed for the occupants of the frontage building and store room/building at ground floor level. An external staircase and balcony is proposed to access these units. The application has also been amended to include a wall at the top of the balcony as a screen.

The rear properties form a small street and each row has a distinct identity again reflecting the development of Laugharne over time and how this leads to areas of different development in close proximity to each other. Again there have been amendments to the design of the properties, as well as the removal of one of them from the scheme completely. Each of the properties here has their own private amenity space which is considered to be sufficient. A garden area is also retained for the existing dwelling of Gaisford House. This is obviously significantly smaller than

Page 99 the existing curtilage however much of the curtilage is not currently used as garden space and has been left overgrown.

Details of materials have been provided however a condition is recommended regarding all external materials being provided prior to commencement. There are some elements such as boundary treatments and the balcony/staircase may need to be amended from the details shown on the current plans but it is felt this can be covered by conditions.

The site is located within a Conservation Area and there are a number of listed buildings near the site included that adjacent to the south, north and Gaisford House itself. The impacts on the area have been raised by objectors. The Conservation Officer has raised concerns regarding the proposed development of a car park and residential buildings and its impact on the settings of the listed building or the character or appearance of the Laugharne Conservation Area. They feel that the development would introduce an alien feature which would be extremely harmful and from conservation perspective. The merits of any particular design will be a matter of judgement. Comments have been made on many elements of the design however it is felt that the scheme as amended has evolved in to a development which is on balance acceptable.

The concerns raised are acknowledged and the development would clearly have an impact on the Conservation Area and the Listed Buildings. However there have been significant improvements to the design and layout of the scheme. Much of the development would not be visible or only partly visible from wider views. The most prominent part of the scheme would be the building on King Street which has been revised to improve the design. The rear part of the site has been amended to try and break up the development with some features being retained and additional planting being proposed. Listed Building Consents and Conservation Area Consent for the relevant elements of the proposal have been approved with the support of the Conservation Officer. This includes the removal of the stone wall referred to in some objections. The development of the rear garden of a property along King Street is not typical and this site with the former pottery building being demolished provides possibly the only opportunity where subject development would be feasible. The building being removed is not considered to be of a significance to warrant retention. Laugharne is a historic settlement which has many areas of individuality and locations off the main street where small streets of unique character have developed. There is limited opportunity for any new development near the centre of Laugharne. It is felt that overall this site is on balance an appropriate development which would have many beneficial elements.

Privacy, Amenity and Overlooking Another general area of concern was in relation to impacts on privacy, amenity and overlooking from the development. These concerns took on many forms including overlooking at properties across the street and to the adjacent properties as well as noise and general disturbance from the occupants of the dwellings and users of the proposed car park.

In terms of properties across the street from the frontage building it is not felt that this building would have any additional impacts of a scale to warrant refusal. There are

Page 100 already a number of buildings on King Street with 3 storey accommodation including the building adjacent to the proposed site. The separation from the front of the proposed building to the front of those opposite is typical of any settlement.

Overlooking from the staircase and balcony area at the rear of the King Street building and from windows on the rear and gable elevations was raised. The gable end windows can be conditioned to be fitted with obscure glazing to prevent overlooking. At the rear of the King Street property again it is typical for rows of properties to have windows on these elevations where there will be some views in to the adjacent property. For the balcony and staircase at the rear the plans have been amended to show a new boundary wall. This would be of sufficient height to screen views much of the views from the balcony and while going up the stairs. There will still be some views from this area however it is not felt these impacts warrant refusal of the application. It should be noted that an external staircase and balcony was proposed and approved under the previous planning permission at the site. This permission could still be implemented. In relation to impacts on amenity it is also important to consider the existing premises. The existing premises had a commercial use. Therefore some commercial uses could operate from the site without requiring planning permission and this would be the fallback position. The existing building is also orientated to have its longest elevation along the boundary with the Pelican at full 2 storey height and has first floor widows directly on the boundary facing the Pelican. This has an impact in terms of amenity as would the noise and activities that commercial uses could generate. It is felt that with appropriate boundary treatments that amenity impacts could be managed.

The use of the site as a car park will again have its impacts. Again though the previous planning permission, the possible commercial uses of the building and creation of new boundary treatments all need to be balanced against these impacts.

Impacts on noise and disturbance would also be partly covered by other legislation. In terms of construction impacts a condition is recommended that limits the timings of building operations as part of the development. Light pollution was raised and a condition is recommended requiring these details to be agreed. This would partly relate to amenity impacts but also in terms of the visual impacts and design of the site. Impacts having a negative impact on tourist was raised however it is not felt that there would be any significant impacts over and above those relating to nearby residents. There will be some impacts from users of the car park however again it is not felt this is sufficient to warrant refusal of the application overall.

Highways Considerations The highways implications of the development were referred to in several objections. Issues included comments relating to the visibility that could be achieved, the location of the access the impact on parking and traffic generation as well as the need for the additional parking provision.

The application was accompanied by documents relating to the proposed access arrangements. Once again during the application some details were amended. Currently there is an existing access for the pottery building itself and a separate access for Gaisford House. The proposed development shows a vehicular access through an archway in the new building similar to that previously approved. The

Page 101 location has been slightly altered as there is additional land in the current application site. There is also the inclusion of the car park element in this application which was not in the original one. A speed assessment was also provided as part of the access appraisal. The access will provide a carriageway that will be 5.5m wide. This is sufficient to allow two-way traffic movement.

As described previously in this report the proposal includes the relocation of a crossing point further north. There will clearly be an increase in traffic from the proposed development however it is felt that with the proposed alterations the scheme would be acceptable. Due to the location of the site it is considered sufficient parking provision is made for the residential properties.

The Head of Transport has not raised any objections to the revised details and requests the imposition of conditions on any approval. These include requirements for the provision of visibility splays, provision of footways and the submission of a traffic management plan (for the new crossing). The works such as the cross point will require separate consent under a Section 278 Agreement.

The need for the car park element was questioned. There are currently parking problems in Laugharne which is acknowledged in some of the comments received. The town does experience problems with on street parking, particularly during busy periods. The planning application looks at the impact and material considerations of the development in question. Overall it is felt that the impacts are not of a scale to warrant refusal of the application. In terms of the future management and maintenance and also ancillary equipment conditions can be added to ensure whoever is responsible for the car park area complies with appropriate requirements. Additional parking in the centre of town may also encourage tourists to experience more of the town rather than just the areas near the castle where the main car parks are at present at the Grist and the Castle itself.

Foul/Surface Water and Flooding Objections raised concern over the level of information relating to foul and surface water drainage and also over the possible impacts the development would have on each. In relation to foul water the application originally intended to connect all dwellings to the public sewer system. Welsh Water objected stating the development would overload the Waste Water Treatment Works and that there were no improvements are planned within Dwr Cymru Welsh Water's Capital Investment Programme. Subsequently the application was amended so that 7 units would be connect to the public sewer system (the same number as the previously approved scheme) and the remaining 6 units would have a private treatment plant initially. These 6 units would then be connected to the public system once improvements had been made to it. As part of this change a Treatment Works Report was submitted. Welsh Water and Natural Resources Wales were reconsulted and neither raised objection to the amended method. Welsh Water has confirmed that there are now planned improvements for this area. These are due to be completed by April 2019 and they request conditions requiring the removal of any temporary disposal method and connection to the main system at that time.

Page 102 In terms of surface water it is proposed to use soakaways and attenuation tanks Natural Resources Wales raise no objection and request a condition be imposed requiring full details of the system to be submitted prior to the commencement of the development. The Authority’s Land Drainage Officer also raised no objection and requested a similar condition.

Issues relating to flooding from the development were also raised, partly in connection with foul and surface water disposal. A small part of the western boundary of the site is located within zone C2 in relation to flooding. The residential dwellings are shown to be located outside of the area identified at risk of flooding. Natural Resources Wales have no raised any objection but have recommended conditions in relation to this and other matters.

Pollution Pollution of a number of types has been raised by objectors. Some of these such as noise and light have already been addressed above. Others related to ground/water pollution and contamination. Again no consultees have raised any objection to the proposal. A number of conditions have been imposed in light of the nature of the development and the previous uses of the site.

Ecology Objections were received relating to impacts on habitats, the watercourse and species. Ecological impacts were considered in the ecology report submitted with the application. Further details relating to bats were submitted during the application. The conclusions of these have been examined by the Authority’s Planning ecologist and Natural Resources Wales. Neither has raised any objection but have recommended conditions relating to matters such as a buffer zone along the watercourse. In relation to impacts on landscape features a tree report has been submitted and the landscape scheme revised a number of times. Some further details are required which can be covered by the conditions however the Landscape Officer has no objection to the proposal.

Other Matters Dyfed Archaeological Trust have responded in relation to the development in terms of potential impacts on historic assets. They have not raised any objection and have requested a condition be imposed on any planning permission. This relates to a programme of archaeological works being submitted prior to commencement of the development.

Due to the scale of the development community benefits were sought in line with LDP policy. The applicant subsequent submitted information relating to the viability of the scheme. This was assessed and it was concluded that the scheme would not be viable with the usual level of contributions. Therefore in this instance it was not considered appropriate to insist on community benefits being provided.

The need for housing was questioned by objectors. There are allocated sites within the LDP for Laugharne. At present and in recent times there has been limited development, particularly near the centre of the settlement as the existing arrangement leaves little scope for development. While land is allocated this does not prevent other developments coming forward where suitable. In this instance it is

Page 103 felt that the development is acceptable. The loss of the commercial/business space with the demolition of the existing building was put forward by objectors. The existing premises will be lost however there are other commercial buildings in the centre of Laugharne, even if of a different nature. The former pottery site is the exception and certain commercial activities in that location would have impacts of their own as referred to above.

Some other matters had been raised which are not considered to be material considerations. These relate to Party Wall issues and the lack of discussion by the applicant with nearby properties. The impact on access to the adjacent buildings and the impact on the earnings of nearby business were raised however it is not felt that any issues relating to these are of a significance to warrant refusal of the application. In terms of land ownership once clarification was given as to the physical connection between the existing and proposed buildings an amended certificate of ownership was submitted and notice served on other parties. Confusing plans and lack of detail of the adjacent properties were put forward as issues by objectors. It was also stated that there were errors in the application. Amendments to the scheme have provided greater clarity and any errors on the application form are not considered to affected the assessment of the application based on the submission as a whole. It was felt that the application was contrary to policy however the assessment of the development above indicates that overall on balance the recommendation is for approval. The issue of security was raised however it is not felt that the development raises any issues of this kind of a significance to warrant refusal of the application.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion and having regard to prevailing planning policies and material considerations, it is considered the development complies with the relevant policies of the Carmarthenshire Local Development Plan or national guidance. It is therefore recommended for approval.

RECOMMENDATION – APPROVAL

CONDITIONS

1. The development hereby permitted shall be commenced before the expiration of five years from the date of this permission.

2. No development shall commence until a phasing plan for the development has been submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The plan shall be implemented as agreed.

3. The site layout, junction design and car parking layout for any individual phase shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the submitted plans (c/3900/8b)(80/0080/421/01)(0249/005/a) contained with the Access Appraisal received on 13 th August 2015 prior the beneficial use of the of any relevant phase.

4. The vehicular access into the site shall at all times be left open, unimpeded by gates or any other barrier.

Page 104

5. Prior to any use of the access road by vehicular traffic, a visibility splay of 2.4 metres x 41 metres southwards and 2.4 x 36 northwards shall be formed and thereafter retained in perpetuity, either side of the centre line of the estate road in relation to the nearer edge of carriageway. There shall at no time be any growth or obstruction to visibility over 0.9 metres within this splay

6. Prior to the occupation of any of the dwellings herewith approved, the required access roads and footpaths from the existing public highway shall be laid out and constructed strictly in accordance with the plans herewith approved, to at least the base course levels, and with the visibility splays provided.

7. The parking spaces and layout shown on the plans herewith approved shall be provided prior to any use of any individual phase of the development herewith approved. Thereafter, they shall be retained, unobstructed, for the purpose of parking only.

8. No development shall commence until a traffic management scheme shall be submitted for the written approval of the highways department. This scheme shall detail the relocation of the existing crossing/pinch point. Thereafter, and prior to the beneficial occupation of any individual phase of the development, the approved scheme shall be implemented in full

9. No development shall take place until the applicant, or their agents or successors in title, has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a written scheme of investigation which has been submitted by the applicant and approved in writing by the local planning authority

10. No development shall take place until a scheme for the provision and management of a 3 metre wide buffer zone alongside the River Coran is submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved scheme and any subsequent amendments shall be agreed in writing with the local planning authority. The buffer zone scheme shall be free from built development including lighting, domestic gardens and formal landscaping; and could form a vital part of green infrastructure provision. The scheme shall include:

• plans showing the extent and layout of the buffer zone • details of any proposed planting scheme (for example, native species, local provenance) • details demonstrating how the buffer zone will be protected during development and managed/maintained over the longer term including details of any vegetation clearance and fencing

11. Prior to the commencement of development approved by this planning permission (or such other date or stage in development as may be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority), the following components of a scheme to deal with the risks associated with contamination of the site shall

Page 105 each be submitted to and approved, in writing, by the Local Planning Authority:

1. A preliminary risk assessment which has identified:

- all previous uses - potential contaminants associated with those uses - a conceptual model of the site indicating sources, pathways and receptors - potentially unacceptable risks arising from contamination at the site.

2. A site investigation scheme, based on (1) to provide information for a detailed assessment of the risk to all receptors that may be affected, including those off site. 3. The site investigation results and the detailed risk assessment (2) and, based on these, an options appraisal and remediation strategy giving full details of the remediation measures required and how they are to be undertaken. 4. A verification plan providing details of the data that will be collected in order to demonstrate that the works set out in (3) are complete and identifying any requirements for longer-term monitoring of pollutant linkages, maintenance and arrangements for contingency action.

Any changes to these components require the express consent of the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall be implemented as approved.

12 Prior to commencement of development, a verification report demonstrating completion of the works set out in the approved remediation strategy and the effectiveness of the remediation shall be submitted to and approved, in writing, by the Local Planning Authority. The report shall include results of sampling and monitoring carried out in accordance with the approved verification plan to demonstrate that the site remediation criteria have been met. It shall also include any plan (a “long-term monitoring and maintenance plan”) for longer-term monitoring of pollutant linkages, maintenance and arrangements for contingency action, as identified in the verification plan, and for the reporting of this to the Local Planning Authority.

13 Reports on monitoring, maintenance and any contingency action carried out in accordance with a long-term monitoring and maintenance plan shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority as set out in that plan. On completion of the monitoring programme a final report demonstrating that all long- term site remediation criteria have been met and documenting the decision to cease monitoring shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

14 If, during development, contamination not previously identified is found to be present at the site then no further development (unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority) shall be carried out until the developer has submitted, and obtained written approval from the Local

Page 106 Planning Authority for, an amendment to the remediation strategy detailing how this unsuspected contamination shall be dealt with.

15 There shall be no alterations to land level, other than those approved as part of this planning permission at the site without the prior written consent of the Local planning Authority.

16 No development shall commence until details of the boundary treatments of any individual phase of the development hereby approved have been submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved boundary treatments for any individual phase shall be erected prior to the beneficial use of that phase and shall be retained in perpetuity.

17 Prior to the beneficial use of any phase of the development hereby approved details of signage informing users of the car park of potential flood risk shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The agreed scheme shall be implemented as agreed.

18 The development hereby permitted shall not be commenced until such time as a scheme to install oil/petrol interceptors has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall be implemented as approved.

19 No phase of the development approved by this permission shall be commenced until a scheme for the provision of surface water drainage works including future maintenance and management of the scheme for that phase has been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall be implemented as agreed.

20 No development approved by this permission shall be commenced until a construction management plan (CMP) detailing all necessary pollution prevention measures for the construction phase of any individual phase of tthe development is submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The details of the CMP shall be implemented as approved and must be efficiently communicated to all contractors and sub-contractors (for example, via toolbox talks) and any deficiencies rectified immediately.

21 Foul water from units 1, 9, 10, 12, 13 and 14 forming part of the development shall be drained to the temporary onsite waste water treatment plant until March 2019. Thereafter the foul water shall be drained to the main foul sewer and the point of connection to the main foul sewer shall first be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. These works shall be completed within one calendar year of the commissioning of improved works. The remaining units shall be connected to the main sewer at all times.

22 No development shall commence on phases including units 1, 9, 10, 12, 13 or 14 until details of a management agreement to be put in place with regard to the operation and maintenance of the private works is submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall be implemented as agreed.

Page 107

23 Prior to the commencement of any works associated with any individual phase of the development [including site vegetation clearance, demolition of existing structures, ground works, heavy machinery entering site or the on-site storage of materials] the following shall be undertaken by a competent arboriculturist to the current BS5837 and submitted and agreed in writing by the local planning authority:

- Constraints Plan; - Arboricultural Impact Assessment [AIA] - Arboricultural Method Statement [AMS] - if identified as a requirement through the AIA - The requirements scheduled above shall be undertaken for all trees; groups of trees or woodland; shrub masses; hedges; and hedgerows identified for retention or translocation within or on the site boundary; and which overhang the site boundary within a distance of up to 12 times their estimated stem diameter.

The AMS shall be fully implemented as approved and all works covered by the AMS inspected on site by a representative of the local planning authority.

24 Prior to the commencement of any works associated with any individual phase of the development [including site vegetation clearance, demolition of existing structures, excavation, access of heavy machinery, or storage of materials on the site] a Tree Protection Plan [TPP] relating to all trees, hedges and other vegetation to be retained on or adjoining the site shall be submitted and agreed in writing by the local planning authority. The TPP shall conform to BS5837 and shall be undertaken by a competent arboriculturist.

The approved TPP shall be fully implemented, inspected on site by a representative of the local planning authority, and approved in writing, prior to the commencement of any works associated with the development. Thereafter, the implemented TPP shall be maintained in its entirety throughout the duration of all development works and until all equipment, machinery and surplus materials have been removed from the site.

25 The approved Detailed Landscape Design Scheme, as defined in the following submitted documents 1:250 scale Levels and Landscaping – Site Plan C/3900/22A Rev A, 1:250 scale Landscaping Site Plan C/3900/23 and Specification Report shall be fully implemented prior to occupation or commencement of permitted use of any phase of the development unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority.

Any new landscape elements constructed, planted or seeded; or existing landscape elements retained; in accordance with the approved Detailed Landscape Design Scheme which, within a period of 5 years after implementation are removed; die; or become in the opinion of the local planning authority, seriously diseased; damaged or otherwise defective, shall be replaced in the next planting or seeding season with replacement elements

Page 108 of similar size and specification, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority.

26 No individual phase of the development shall take place until an appropriate and comprehensive Landscape Maintenance and Management Statement, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.

The Landscape Maintenance and Management Statement, shall be fully implemented as approved, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority.

27 No development shall commence on any individual phase until samples and/or details of all external materials, including ground surfaces are submitted to and agreed in writing for that phase. The materials shall be implemented as agreed.

28 No development shall commence on any individual phase until a detailed lighting plan is submitted to and agreed in writing for that phase. The materials shall be implemented as agreed.

29 The first floor flank windows in units 1, 4, 12 and 13 (north and south) and second floor northern elevation window on unit 8 shall be fitted with obscure glazing and be top opening only prior to the beneficial occupation of that dwelling and shall be retained in perpetuity.

30 Any soil imported or any soil arising from elsewhere on the development site a copy of the certificate of analysis, details of the source of the topsoil and an interpretation of the analytical results by a suitably qualified individual shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Authority prior to importation.

31 Where new windows and doors are proposed scaled drawings (Scale 1:10) showing elevation and through section, construction, materials and finishes, shall be submitted for the approval of the Local Planning Authority prior to their manufacture. The works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details and retained in perpetuity.

32 Where new railings are proposed to the rear of the Units 5-8 scaled drawings (Scale 1:10) of the proposed handrails and steps showing section and elevation, construction, materials and finish shall be submitted for the approval of the Local Planning Authority, prior to the commencement of the works. The scheme shall be implanted as agreed and retained in perpetuity.

33 No development shall commence until a Construction Management Plan is submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The plan shall be implemented as agreed.

Page 109 REASONS

1 Required to be imposed pursuant to Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

2. To ensure appropriate phasing of the development.

3-8 In the interest of highways safety.

9 To protect historic environment interests whilst enabling development.

10 Development that encroaches on a watercourse has a potentially severe impact on their ecological value.

11 Controlled waters at this site are of high environmental sensitivity as the site borders the River Coran and contamination is known/strongly suspected at the site due to its previous uses as pottery with on site disposal of waste.

12 To demonstrate that the remediation criteria relating to controlled waters have been met, and (if necessary) to secure longer-term monitoring of groundwater quality. This will ensure that there are no longer remaining unacceptable risks to controlled waters following remediation of the site.

13 To ensure that longer term remediation criteria relating to controlled waters have been met. This will ensure that there are no longer remaining unacceptable risks to controlled waters following remediation of the site.

14 Given the size/complexity of the site it is considered possible that there may be unidentified areas of contamination at the site that could pose a risk to controlled waters if they are not remediated.

15,17 and 19 To prevent increased risk of flooding.

16 To prevent increased risk of flooding and in the interest of visual amenity.

18 To protect the water environment.

20 Prevent pollution of controlled waters and the wider environment .

21 To prevent overloading of the Waste Water Treatment Works and pollution of the environment.

22 To ensure appropriate operation of the private drainage system

23-24 To ensure that the development, respects and reflects, and protects and enhances, the landscape; local character and distinctiveness; and the biodiversity value of the area and, integrates nature conservation and retains, incorporates, and makes provision for the appropriate management of, existing landscape and important local features which contribute to local qualities and distinctiveness

Page 110

25-26 To ensure that the development effectively delivers the relevant policy objectives of the approved Detailed Landscape Design Scheme.

27 In the interest of visual amenity and to ensure appropriate materials for the location

28 In the interest of visual amenity and to ensure appropriate protection to ecological considerations

29 To reduce impacts on amenity

30 To reduce risks of and from land contamination

31-32 In the interest of visual amenity

33 To protect amenity during construction.

REASONS FOR GRANTING PLANNING PERMISSION

It is considered that the proposed development complies with Policy H2, GP4, GP2, SP17, SP14, SP13, EQ5, EQ4, EQ1, TR3, GP1, SP9 and SP1 of the adopted Local Development Plan in that the development is within the settlement limits, a Conservation Area and adjacent to Listed Buildings. The site is in a sustainable location and would provide additional parking. The design, layout and scale of the development are, whilst impacting on the character of the area are considered acceptable on balance and there are not considered to be significant detrimental impacts in terms of highway, ecological, amenity, landscape or utility concerns subject to the conditions recommended.

NOTES

1 The permission hereby granted relates to the:

1:100 scale Proposed Elevations C/3900/16 Rev F received on 11 th September 2015 1:250 scale Site Plan : Levels and Sections C/3900/21 1:250 scale General Arrangement – Site Plan C/3900/2F Rev F 1:250 scale Levels and Landscaping – Site Plan C/3900/22A Rev A 1:100 scale Proposed Rear Elevation (including P.O and Gaisford House C/3900 11E Rev E 1:100 scale Proposed Ground Floor (unit 5) C/3900/8E Rev E 1:100 scale Proposed Ground Sections C/3900/17A Rev A 1:250 scale Landscaping Site Plan C/3900/23

Page 111 1:100 scale Proposed Rear Elevations (to include staircase) and Side Elevation (from Pelican) C/3900/20A Rev A Specification Report

received on 9 th September 2015

• Access Appraisal

received on 13 th August 2015

• Treatment Works Report

received on 2 nd February 2015

• 1:100 scale Proposed South and North Elevations Units 1-4 C/3900/7B • 1:100 scale Proposed First Floor Plan and Elevations Units 9-14 C/3900/13D • 1:100 scale Proposed First and Second Floor Plans Units 5-8 C/3900/9B • 1:100 scale Proposed First Floor Plans Units 1-4 C/3900/4C • 1:100 scale Proposed Ground Floor and Front Elevations Units 9-14 C/3900/12E • 1:100 scale Proposed Ground Floor Units 1-4 C/3900/3C • 1:100 scale Proposed Front Elevation West Units 1-4 C/39005B • 1:100 scale Proposed Read Elevation East Units 1-4 C/3900/6B • 1:100 scale Proposed King Street Elevation Units 5-8 C/3900/10I

received on 21 st January 2015

• 1:1250 and 1:500 scale Location and Block Plan • Flood Consequence Assessment • Tree Report

received 28 th February 2015

• 1:250 scale Topographical Survey • Design and Access Statement

received on 4 th February 2015

Please note that this consent is specific to the plans and particulars approved as part of the application. Any departure from the approved plans will constitute unauthorised development and may be liable to enforcement action. You (or any subsequent developer) should advise the Council of any actual or proposed variations from the approved plans immediately so that you can be advised how to best resolve the matter.

Page 112 In addition, any Conditions which the Council has imposed on this consent will be listed above and should be read carefully. It is your (or any subsequent developers') responsibility to ensure that the terms of all Conditions are met in full at the appropriate time (as outlined in the specific condition).

Failure on the part of the developer to observe the requirements of any other Conditions could result in the Council pursuing formal enforcement action in the form of a Breach of Condition Notice

Comments and guidance received from consultees relating to this application, including any other permissions or consents required, is available on the Authority’s website ( www.carmarthenshire.gov.uk )

Page 113

Application No W/30795

Application Type Full Planning

Proposal & INSTALLATION OF A MAXIMUM HUB HEIGHT OF 30.5M Location AND A MAXIMUM TIP HEIGHT OF 48M WIND TURBINE WITH CONTROL BOX AND ALL ASSOCIATED WORKS AT TREFFORIS FAWR, FERRYSIDE, CARMARTHENSHIRE, SA17 5YG

Applicant(s) PHILIP DAVIES, TREFFORIS FAWR, FERRYSIDE, CARMS, SA17 5YG

Agent ROGER PARRY & PARTNERS LLP - RICHARD CORBETT , THE ESTATES OFFICE, 20 SALOP ROAD, OSWESTRY, SHROPSHIRE, SY11 2NU

Case Officer Gary Glenister

Ward St Ishmael

Date of validation 08/09/2014

CONSULTATION

Head of Transport – Seeks highway improvements in the form of passing places as set out in conditions .

Head of Public Protection – Sought and received further information on noise levels .

St Ishmael Community Council – No observations received to date.

Local Members - County Councillor M Stephens has not commented to date.

(Adjoining) Llansteffan & Llanybri Community Council – Has no objections however any further proposals would have a detrimental impact.

Natural Resources Wales – Has no objection to the proposed development however seeks a condition stating that there shall be at least 50m from the tip of the turbine to any nearby hedgerow and pollution prevention measures shall be submitted.

Page 114

Dyfed Archaeology – Sought the submission of a rapid historical appraisal which was subsequently submitted.

Ministry of Defence – Has no objection.

Civil Aviation Authority – Has no observations however recommends that the MoD be consulted.

Dwr Cymru / Welsh Water – States that the proposal would not affect its telecom assets.

Spectrum (On behalf of OfCom) – Has no objection in respect of communications.

Neighbours/Public - The application has been publicised by the posting of five site notices with 5No responses received to date (including Kidwelly Civic Society) raising the following issues:-

• Visual Impact • Height • Prominent in special landscape area. • Visible from Llansteffan • Historic landscape • Noise • Health • Precedent • Wildlife. o Bats o Swallows

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

There is no relevant planning history on the application site.

APPRAISAL

THE SITE

The turbine is proposed to be sited on 200acre dairy agricultural holding to the East of Ferryside. The site is agricultural land approximately 380m to the north east of a farm complex known as Trefforis Fawr. The site is improved grassland and does not therefore have any significant biodiversity value.

The site is on the coastal plateau to the North of Broadway at a distance of 1.15km and further afield Llansaint is 1.75km to the South and Ferryside is 1.9km to the West albeit at a lower level down on the estuary so the turbine would be obscured by the topography. The site has a scattering of individual properties surrounding it, the closest of which is 410m to the north which is considered to be a reasonable distance.

Page 115 The site would be visible from the C2119 Portway (Kidwelly to Ferryside road) albeit at a distance of 830m at its closest. The nearest county highway is the C2074 (Broadway to Llandyfaelog) at a distance of approximately 450m at its closest.

THE PROPOSAL

Planning permission is sought for an Endurance X35Q 180 kW wind turbine 400m to the North East of the farm complex.

The application seeks full detailed permission for a 30.5m hub and 48m tip. An inverter house of 4m by 4m by 2.4m is also proposed which links to the grid via an existing three phase connection at the holding.

The turbine is proposed as part of a diversification programme for the farm which is said to use a significant amount of energy to run its dairy business. The applicants have submitted a table showing the energy requirements of the holding to show how the capacity of the turbine would ensure that the holding would achieve a carbon neutral situation as set out below. The turbine would therefore significantly enhance the viability of the holding and achieve carbon neutrality. It is anticipated that after 7-9yrs the capital costs would be covered so the turbine would aid farm diversification by producing an income.

Electricity Usage/Energy Output Statement

Predicted Annual Output of Wind Turbine 400,000 kWh Other Usage kWh Farm house and parlour use 90,000 Litres Change from oil to electric 1 6,000 66,000 Carbon Tonnes kg Total emissions 858.814 858,000 Kg/kWh Offset by producing renewable energy 2 0.43 kWh kWh needed to become carbon neutral 368,940 Farm business annual energy requirements 524,940

Note 1: The current energy usage on the farm of heating oil is very high and it is the intention to use the turbine to generate electricity to replace the use of oil which is currently at 6,000 litres/annum – 1 litre = 11kW of electricity to replace 66,000kW which would give an overall usage of 156,000kW.

Note 2: (0.43kg of CO2 offset for every kWh of renewable electricity produced on a wind speed of 5.75m/s)

The application has been accompanied by the following information:-

Design and Access / Planning Statement, this summarises the statutory prescribed topic areas such as access, movement, community safety and character in the local

Page 116 context and summarising the background information. The statement also includes the following.

Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment – this has been carried out in accordance with current good practice and guidance using the LANDMAP methodology. The report concludes that the proposal would have a moderate to minor impact overall, therefore is considered that it can be accommodated within the landscape setting.

Ecological Assessment – The application has been accompanied by an ecological assessment. The report concludes that the proposal does not present a significant ecological risk to habitats or species in the area as it is improved grassland in excess of 50m from any hedgerow.

Noise Assessment – the application included noise information and further clarification was sought and received. Subject to appropriate conditions the proposal is not considered likely to have an adverse impact on third parties.

Shadow Flicker Assessment - states that this is not likely to be an issue given the relative positioning and distance of the turbine in relation to surrounding non economically tied dwellings.

Archaeology and Cultural Heritage – the historic environment has been assessed and a historic appraisal submitted which opines that the proposal is not likely to affect historical or cultural interests. Dyfed archaeology requested further information which was subsequently provided.

Telecommunications – the potential for interference has been assessed and no problems are anticipated.

PLANNING POLICIES

In the context of the current development control policy framework the site is located outside the defined development limits Broadway as contained in the adopted Carmarthenshire Local Development Plan (LDP adopted December 2014).

Policy SP11 Renewable Energy & Energy Efficiency states:-

‘Development proposals which incorporate energy efficiency measures and renewable energy production technologies will be supported in areas where the environmental and cumulative impacts can be addressed satisfactorily. Such developments will not cause demonstrable harm to residential amenity and will be acceptable within the landscape. Each proposal will be assessed on a case by case basis.

Large scale wind farms will only be permitted within Strategic Search Areas.’

Policy RE2 Local, Community and Small Wind Farms states:-

‘Local, Community and Small wind farms or individual turbines will be permitted provided the following criteria can be met in full:

Page 117

a) The development will not have an unacceptable impact on visual amenity or landscape character through: the number, scale, size, design and siting of turbines and associated infrastructure;

b) The development will not have an unacceptable cumulative impact in relation to existing wind turbines and other renewable energy installations and those which have permission;

c) The siting, design, layout and materials used should be sympathetic to the characteristics of the land-form, contours and existing features of the landscape;

d) The development would not cause demonstrable harm to statutorily protected species, and habitats and species identified in the Local Biodiversity Action Plan;

e) Turbines and their associated structures will not be sited in, or impact upon archaeological resources, the setting and integrity of Conservation Areas, Listed Buildings or other areas of historical value;

f) Proposals will not cause an unreasonable risk or nuisance to, and impact upon the amenities of, nearby residents or other members of the public;

g) No loss of public accessibility to the area, and existing bridleways and footpaths will be safeguarded from development with no permanent loss to their length and quality;

h) Turbines and associated infrastructure will, at the end of the operational life of the facility, be removed and an appropriate land restoration and aftercare scheme agreed;

i) The development will not result in significant harm to the safety or amenity of sensitive receptors and will not have an unacceptable impact on roads, rail or aviation safety;

j) The development will not result in unacceptable electromagnetic interference to communications installations; radar or air traffic control systems; emergency services communications; or other telecommunication systems.’

National Policy is provided by Planning Policy Wales Edition 7 July 2014 as follows:

12.8 Renewable and Low Carbon Energy

12.8.1 The UK is subject to the requirements of the EU Renewable Energy Directive. These include a UK target of 15% of energy from renewables by 2020. The UK Renewable Energy Roadmap sets the path for the delivery of these targets, promoting renewable energy to reduce global warming and to secure future energy supplies. The Welsh Government is committed to playing its part by delivering an energy programme which contributes to

Page 118 reducing carbon emissions as part of our approach to tackling climate change (see 4.5) whilst enhancing the economic, social and environmental wellbeing of the people and communities of Wales in order to achieve a better quality of life for our own and future generations. This is outlined in the Welsh Government’s Energy Policy Statement Energy Wales: A Low Carbon Transition (2012).

12.8.2 Planning policy at all levels should facilitate delivery of both the ambition set out in Energy Wales: A Low Carbon Transition and UK and European targets on renewable energy. The Renewable Energy Directive contains specific obligations to provide guidance to facilitate effective consideration of renewable energy sources, high-efficiency technologies and district heating and cooling in the context of development of industrial or residential areas, and (from 1 January 2012) to ensure that new public buildings, and existing public buildings that are subject to major renovation fulfil an exemplary role in the context of the Directive. The issues at the heart of these duties are an established focus of planning policy in Wales, and in this context both local planning authorities and developers should have regard in particular to the guidance contained in Technical Advice Note 8: Planning for Renewable Energy and Planning for Renewable Energy – A Toolkit for Planners. The Welsh Government will however consider the preparation of further targeted guidance where appropriate.

12.8.6 The Welsh Government’s aim is to secure an appropriate mix of energy provision for Wales which maximises benefits to our economy and communities, whilst minimising potential environmental and social impacts. This forms part of the Welsh Government’s aim to secure the strongest economic development policies to underpin growth and prosperity in Wales recognising the importance of clean energy and the efficient use of natural resources, both as an economic driver and a commitment to sustainable development.

12.8.9 Local planning authorities should facilitate the development of all forms of renewable and low carbon energy to move towards a low carbon economy (see 4.4.3) to help to tackle the causes of climate change (see 4.7.3). Specifically, they should make positive provision by:

– considering the contribution that their area can make towards developing and facilitating renewable and low carbon energy, and ensuring that development plan policies enable this contribution to be delivered;

– ensuring that development management decisions are consistent with national and international climate change obligations, including contributions to renewable energy targets and aspirations;

– recognising the environmental, economic and social opportunities that the use of renewable energy resources can make to planning for sustainability (see Chapter 4); and

Page 119 – ensuring that all new publicly financed or supported buildings set exemplary standards for energy conservation and renewable energy production.

12.8.10 At the same time, local planning authorities should:

– ensure that international and national statutory obligations to protect designated areas, species and habitats and the historic environment are observed;

– ensure that mitigation measures are required for potential detrimental effects on local communities whilst ensuring that the potential impact on economic viability is given full consideration; and

– encourage the optimisation of renewable and low carbon energy in new development to facilitate the move towards zero carbon buildings (see 4.11 and 4.12).

12.10.1 In determining applications for renewable and low carbon energy development and associated infrastructure local planning authorities should take into account:

– the contribution a proposal will play in meeting identified national, UK and European targets and potential for renewable energy, including the contribution to cutting greenhouse gas emissions;

– the wider environmental, social and economic benefits and opportunities from renewable and low carbon energy development;

– the impact on the natural heritage (see 5.5), the Coast (see 5.6) and the Historic Environment (see 6.5);

– the need to minimise impacts on local communities to safeguard quality of life for existing and future generations;

– ways to avoid, mitigate or compensate identified adverse impacts;

– the impacts of climate change on the location, design, build and operation of renewable and low carbon energy development. In doing so consider whether measures to adapt to climate change impacts give rise to additional impacts (see 4.5);

– grid connection issues where renewable (electricity) energy developments are proposed; and

– the capacity of and effects on the transportation network relating to the construction and operation of the proposal.

Consideration is also given to Planning Policy Wales - Technical Advice Note (TAN) 8 - Planning for Renewable Energy. Para 2.12 states –

Page 120 “The Assembly Government expects local planning authorities to encourage, via their development plan policies and when considering individual planning applications, smaller community based wind farm schemes (generally less than 5MW). This could be done through a set of local criteria that would determine the acceptability of such schemes and define in more detail what is meant by "smaller" and "community based". Local planning authorities should give careful consideration to these issues and provide criteria that are appropriate to local circumstances.”

Technical Advice Note (TAN) 6 Planning for Sustainable Rural Communities is also pertinent to the consideration of this proposal as on-farm renewable energy production is seen as a form of farm diversification that is positively encouraged in the right location. Not only does it potentially provide an alternative income source to sustain a rural enterprise, but also affords that enterprise energy security against rising energy costs.

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

The visual impact of the proposal has to be carefully considered in each case and the individual merits have to be taken into account. The applicants have submitted a landscape and visual impact assessment along with images showing the proposal in context, with both photos and wireframes so that the impact can be assessed. The application has been reviewed by the County Landscape Officer who has no objection and makes the following comments.

In terms of physical landscape impacts, it is considered that the scale of the turbine model is such that, potential impacts to existing landscape elements and features would not be expected to challenge the relevant policy objectives of the Carmarthenshire County Council LDP [December 2014] to justifiably represent a reason for refusal of the application.

Regarding landscape character impacts, it is advised that the proposed scheme will have a residual impact upon the landscape character of the immediate area. However, the location and scale of the turbine model and its relation to topography, other OCP (Operational, Consented or in Planning system) development, and the predicted magnitude of effect in relation to the sensitivity of the receiving landscape, are such that the significance of impacts to landscape character, or areas designated for their landscape value, are not considered to represent a justifiable reason for refusal of the application against the relevant policy objectives of the LDP.

Impacts to residential visual amenity for surrounding dwellings have been assessed and it is considered that the proposed scheme may form new, manmade moving elements within some views from residential dwellings however visual amenity would not challenge the relevant policy objectives of the Carmarthenshire County Council LDP.

In terms of impacts to visual amenity from areas accessible to the public, the proposed scheme may form new, manmade moving elements within some views from publicly accessible areas. However, the location of the scheme, scale of the turbine model and its relation to the topography; other OCP development; and the proximity to roads and footpaths, and other areas accessible to the public, is such

Page 121 that the proposal is not considered to be of a significance to challenge the relevant policy objectives of the LDP.

The landscape officer however recommends conditions requiring the submission of a Landscape Compensation Scheme and a Physical Landscape Impact Mitigation Scheme.

Residents are concerned that the height is prominent in special landscape area. However, it should be noted that the site is outside the defined special landscape area in the adopted Local Development Plan. The boundaries have been recently examined and the site is not therefore considered to be worthy of designation. The height is typical of a farm scale turbine and is not considered to be excessive within the landscape.

The impact from the Llansteffan side of the Towy estuary has been carefully assessed and the case officer has visited the objector’s property. The ZTV indicates that the turbine would be visible, however the wireframe indicates that from that distance it would be absorbed into the landscape. The escarpment forming the transition between the river plain and the higher plateau being the primary visual feature and the village of Ferryside attracting the eye on the lower slopes of the escarpment. Given the fact that it is set back away from the edge of the plateau, the turbine is seen within the context of intervening landscape features and would be small within the overall landscape so it is not likely to be a dominant feature which would cause unacceptable harm to the residents on the Llansteffan side of the Towy.

The turbine is visible from historic Llansaint however it is at a reasonable distance so is not considered likely to be an unacceptable impact. A historic appraisal has been submitted and this shows that it is likely to have a low impact on historic interests at worse. There are no direct impacts on historic interests.

Noise has been assessed and there was initial concern as a candidate turbine was submitted rather than a specific model. The noise as originally submitted was marginal at the neighbouring properties, however the new model turbine is said to be quieter so the standard conditions would be met. However on the basis of the actual model proposed there is not likely to be an unacceptable impact on third parties. If noise conditions are not met, the site would be subject to assessment as set out in conditions.

Concern is expressed over potential impact on health and well being risks. Most concern is from the noise associated with turbines, in particular low frequency infrasound. TAN 8 advises on the issue of low frequency noise and states that there is no evidence that ground transmitted low frequency noise from wind turbines is at a sufficient level to be harmful to human health.

There is concern over ecology with the potential impact on swallows and bats in particular. An ecological assessment has been submitted with the application which reveals that the site has no ecological implications. Natural Resources Wales has also assessed the proposal and has not objected to the proposal subject to a condition to ensure the tip is not within 50m of a hedgerow, therefore ecology is not considered to be harmed by the proposal.

Page 122

There is concern over precedent if turbines are permitted which could open the door to further turbine developments. However it should be noted that the reverse is true in the case of turbines as the grant of permission would make it more difficult to develop further turbines as the cumulative impact would have to be taken into account. Each case is looked at on its merits, and is looked at carefully both individually and in combination with others approved or developed, therefore precedent is not a material consideration.

CONCLUSION

In accordance with the requirements of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999, the application has been screened to establish whether an Environmental Impact is required. Given the scale and nature of the proposal, the development is not considered to give rise to any significant adverse environmental impacts upon the surrounding area. On this basis, the requirements of an Environmental Impact Assessment are not considered to be applicable to the application. In arriving at this decision the authority have taken into account the selection criteria as set out in Schedule 3 of the above Regs.

After careful consideration of the site and surrounding environs in light of the application and supporting information, it is considered that the proposal is for a 48m (tip) Endurance 180kW turbine which whilst modest compared to the commercial wind farms seen within the strategic areas, would be a significant development within the context of the site. The scale height and impact of each turbine has a different potential impact depending on the specific location and therefore each case has to be considered on its merits.

In terms of direct impacts the proposal is not likely to be detrimental in terms of noise, health and residential amenity given the scale and the distance from residential properties.

The proposal needs to be assessed within the context of the open countryside and the landscape within which it is proposed. The site at Trefforis Fawr is not on a significant landscape feature as it is within the rolling countryside. It is considered that the proposal would not have a significant direct impact on the site or the surrounding landscape in terms of physical harm even though it is visible within the immediate context. The landscape officer has assessed the proposal and has no objection.

In terms of cumulative impact, the proposal would be seen in the context of Penlan Isaf (36m tip 50kW) and Tymawr (25m 11kW) which are approximately 2.38km to the South East and 1.9km to the South South East respectively, and there is also a pending appeal for a 36m 50kW turbine at West Down 1.4km to the South however it is considered that there would not be an unacceptable impact overall in conjunction with the other turbines.

It is therefore concluded that whilst there would be a localised impact on the immediate surroundings, it is considered that given the separation distance, the

Page 123 proposal is not likely to have an unacceptable adverse impact on residential amenity or the character and appearance of the open countryside overall, therefore the proposal is in accordance with the above policies.

RECOMMENDATION – APPROVAL

CONDITIONS

1 The development hereby permitted shall be commenced before the expiration of five years from the date of this permission.

2 Prior to commencement of development, the initial 10m linear length of the U2214, measured from its junction with the C2074, shall be widened to provide a carriageway width of 5.5 metres. This work shall be completed to the written approval of the Local Planning Authority and to the specification of the Local Highways Authority.

3 Prior to commencement of development, a passing bay, giving a carriageway width of 5.5 metres over a 10 metres linear length of the road, shall be provided within the U2214 county access road to the site and thereafter shall be retained, unobstructed, in perpetuity.

4 Prior to any use of the U2214 by construction vehicular traffic, a visibility splay of 2.4 metres x 35 metres shall be formed and thereafter retained in perpetuity, to the north side of the centre line of the U2214 county road in relation to the nearer edge of the C2074 carriageway.

5 During the construction phases, no works or construction shall take place other than within the hours of 08:00 – 18:00 Monday – Friday, Saturday 08:00 – 14:00 and not at all on Sundays, Bank or Public Holidays

6 The rating level of noise emission from the wind turbines (including the application of any tonal penalty) should not exceed a sound pressure level of 35 dBLAeq,T within the amenity space of any lawfully existing dwelling, at wind speeds up to and including 8m/s at rotor centre height. Measurements should be made at least 3.5m away from the building facade or any reflecting surface except the ground.

The measurement time period shall be based on BWEA blade length calculation (3.4.1):

t = 4*D seconds

Where:- t - measurement period in seconds (Subject to a minimum period of 10 seconds)

D – rotor diameter in meters

Page 124

7 In the event that the operational turbine subsequently develops an audible tone, then a penalty shall be added to the measured sound levels in accordance with ETSU-R-97. This section applies where no tone has been identified at the assessment stage and no penalty applied.

8 Within 28 days from the receipt of written request from the Local Planning Authority, the operator of the development shall, at its own expense, employ an independent consultant approved by the Local Planning Authority to assess the level of noise imissions from the wind turbines at the complainant’s property following the procedures described in ETSU-R-97 “The Assessment and Rating of Noise from Wind Farms”. The scheme for assessing the level of noise shall be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to being implemented.

9 During the course of the investigation, should the wind turbine be identified as operating above the parameters specified in condition 1, 2 and 3 the wind turbine will be modified, limited or shut down. These measures shall be applied until such time as maintenance or repair is undertaken sufficient to reduce the absolute noise level of operating turbines to within the parameters specified in condition 1, 2 and 3.

10 If the wind turbine hereby permitted cease to operate for a continuous period of 6 months, unless otherwise approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, a scheme for the decommissioning and removal of the wind turbine and any other ancillary equipment and structures relating solely to the wind turbine shall be submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority within 3 months of the end of the cessation period. The scheme shall include details for the restoration of the site. The scheme shall be implemented within 3 months of the date of its approval by the Local Planning Authority.

11 Turbines shall not display any sign, symbol or logo on any external surface, unless previously agreed in writing with the local planning authority, except as required for health and safety purposes.

12 No development approved by this permission shall be commenced until a Method Statement detailing all necessary pollution prevention measures for the construction phase of the development is submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved statement shall be adhered to throughout the construction period.

13 No development shall take place until written proposals for a Landscape Compensation Scheme have been submitted to, and approved in writing, by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall include a timescale for implementation. The scheme shall be implemented in full accordance with the approved details, unless agreed otherwise, in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Page 125 14 Development shall be fully implemented in accordance with the approved Landscape Compensation Scheme, unless agreed otherwise, in writing, by the Local Planning Authority.

15 Any new landscape elements planted or seeded; or existing landscape elements retained; in accordance with the approved Landscape Compensation Scheme which, within a period of 5 years after implementation, die or become, in the opinion of the Local Planning Authority, seriously diseased, damaged or otherwise defective shall be replaced in the next planting or seeding season with replacement elements of similar size and specification, unless the local planning authority gives written consent to any variations.

16 No development shall take place until a comprehensive Physical Landscape Impact Mitigation Scheme [PLIMS] has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

17 Development shall be fully implemented in accordance with the approved Physical Landscape Impact Mitigation Scheme [PLIMS] and to the approved implementation and long term management programmes, unless agreed otherwise, in writing, by the Local Planning Authority.

18 Any new landscape elements planted or seeded; or existing landscape elements retained; in accordance with the approved PLIMS which, within a period of 5 years after implementation, die or become, in the opinion of the local planning authority, seriously diseased, damaged or otherwise defective shall be replaced in the next planting or seeding season with replacement elements of similar size and specification, unless the Local Planning Authority gives written consent to any variations.

19 Prior to commencement of the operation of the wind turbine a bat assessment methodology and bat curtailment plan and shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for agreement and include the following:

a) An assessment of any impacts on bats following best practice guidelines and associated survey data.

b) The times of the day when curtailment will restrict operations as required.

c) The times of the year when curtailment will restrict operations as required.

d) Technical specifications of equipment to evidence suitability for curtailment purposes as necessary.

e) Mechanisms that will be undertaken to evidence and audit implementation of assessments and curtailment plans.

Page 126 The development shall then proceed in strict accordance with the approved details.

20 No spoil should be spread within 5 m of any tree or hedgerow, this should be a condition of any consent.

21 Any vegetation clearance should be done outside the nesting season, which is generally recognised to be from March to August inclusive, unless it can be demonstrated that nesting birds are absent. It should be noted that birds may still be nesting outside this season, therefore care should be taken to ensure that no nesting birds are affected.

REASONS

1 Required to be imposed pursuant to Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

2-4 In the interests of highway safety.

5-9 To prevent disturbance and loss of amenity to occupiers of nearby buildings.

10 To ensure derelict or obsolete structures do not adversely affect the environment.

11 To prevent unacceptable landscape and visual impacts.

12 To avoid the pollution of ground waters.

13-18 In order to mitigate physical and landscape impacts.

19-21 In the interests of biodiversity.

REASONS FOR GRANTING PLANNING PERMISSION

• The proposal complies with Policies RE2 & SP11 in that it is an appropriate form of renewable proposal which is not likely to cause unacceptable harm to the amenities of third parties or the character and appearance of the open countryside.

NOTE(S)

1 The development hereby permitted shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the following schedule of plans:-

• 1:20000 Scale Location Plan dated 28 th July 2014.

Page 127 • 1:500 Scale Block Plan dated 22 nd July 2014. • 1:2500 Scale Access and Grid Connection (within Design and Access Statement) dated 22 nd July 2014. • 1:250 Elevation Plan dated 12 th March 2015. • Unscaled Control Cabinet dated 12 th March 2015.

2 Please note that this consent is specific to the plans and particulars approved as part of the application. Any departure from the approved plans will constitute unauthorised development and may be liable to enforcement action. You (or any subsequent developer) should advise the Council of any actual or proposed variations from the approved plans immediately so that you can be advised how to best resolve the matter.

Failure on the part of the developer to observe the requirements of any other Conditions could result in the Council pursuing formal enforcement action in the form of a Breach of Condition Notice.

Page 128 If bats are encountered on site works should stop immediately and NRW should be contacted (Natural Resources Wales, - General Enquiries: [email protected] or 0300 065 3000 Mon-Fri, 8am - 6pm) - an EPS development licence may then need to be applied for. Licences are not automatically granted by virtue of a valid planning consent and it may be possible that the necessary licence application may be refused.

Nesting Birds

4 All construction works associated with the installation of the turbine, shall comply with the guidance found in BS 5228-1:2009 Code of Practice for Noise and Vibration Control on Construction and Open Site: Noise and BS 5228- 2:2009 Code of Practice for Noise and Vibration Control on Construction and Open Site

5 Any amendment or alteration of an existing public highway in connection with a new development shall be undertaken under a Section 278 Agreement of the Highways Act 1980. It is the responsibility of the developer to request the Local Highway Authority to proceed with this agreement and the developer is advised that the total costs of entering into such an agreement, as well as the costs of undertaking any physical works on site, shall be met by him. This is required to undertake the works required by Condition Nos 2 & 3.

7 Condition No.4 requires the lowering or translocation of some 30m length of hedgerow.

8 Proposed location for passing bay in condition No.3 is 238750 / 209488.

9 Advisory Note - Landscape Compensation Scheme

The Landscape Compensation Scheme shall deliver measures to reinforce, reinstate, enhance or protect elements which contribute to the character of the existing landscape of the wider landholding associated with the application; measures could include, as appropriate: -

Page 129

• Reinforcement, or enhancement of existing field hedge boundaries. • Management proposals for the protection of elements of existing landscape character. • Creation of new landscape elements which reinforce the existing landscape character.

Details of any existing agri-environment schemes [such as Glastir] or other current landscape based projects which demonstrate appropriate objectives should be included as part of the Landscape Compensation Scheme; the existing measures may be sufficient to deliver an appropriate scheme.

Advice on the requirements and appropriate contents of the Landscape and Biodiversity Compensation Scheme should be requested from CCC Rural Conservation Manager [Rosie Carmichael tel: 01267 228727; email: [email protected] ]

10 Advisory Note - Physical Landscape Mitigation Scheme [PLIMS]

The PLIMS shall include the following as appropriate to the specific direct physical effects of the proposed development:-

(i) Details and description of all protection measures which will be employed to adequately protect the existing landscape elements which are to be retained, including trees to the current BS 5837.

(ii) Details of the locations and extent of all necessary tree surgery/ trimming operations to existing landscape elements to be retained. All tree works to be undertaken to the current BS 3998.

(iii) Method statements for construction phase management of, and final proposals for, all excavated material; and reinstatement proposals for all ground disturbed through the construction phase.

(iv) Method statements for the translocation of any existing landscape elements.

(v) Details of landscape proposals to provide mitigation for landscape elements which are to be removed; the proposals should provide sufficient detail to enable full assessment of the scheme, these should include, as appropriate:-

Details of ground preparation, provision of topsoil and subsoil, and cultivation.

Details of all proposed planting:- species, and varieties; plant locations and densities/ spacings; and percentages and groupings of species within plant mixes.

Page 130 Description of the planting stock size, form, plant/pot size, root condition etc, as relevant to the planting stock.

Details of all planting operations including dimensions of planting pits or trenches, including backfill.

Details of methods of protection, support and weed control.

(vi) An implementation programme providing a timescale for all operations.

(vii) Long term management and maintenance schedules for all landscape areas including: -

Identification of the long term maintenance responsibilities.

Maintenance objectives, schedules and proposals for replacement of any removed, dead, diseased, damaged or otherwise defective plant material, for the lifetime of the development.

Details required as part of the PLIMS would be expected to have a significant overlap with issues relating to, and requirements for, habitat and biodiversity protection and mitigation.

Page 131

Application No W/31810

Application Type Full Planning

Proposal & CHANGE OF USE OF EXISTING BUILDINGS TO ANIMAL Location FEED FACILITY WITH ASSOCIATED EXTERNAL WORKS AT CWM EYNON FARM, FOUR ROADS, CARMARTHENSHIRE, SA17 4SD

Applicant(s) MR & MRS E JONES

Agent DPP - MICHELLE OWEN

Case Officer Gary Glenister

Electoral Ward Llangyndeyrn

Date of validation 01/04/2015

CONSULTATIONS

Head of Transport – Has no objection subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions.

Head of Public Protection – Has no objection subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions.

Llangyndeyrn Community Council – Has no objection in principle, however has grave concerns with regard to highway access which is considered unsuitable to accommodate 29 tonne vehicles. An alternative access within the applicant’s land needs to be considered which would be further away from residential properties.

Local Member - County Councillor W T Evans has requested that the proposal be determined at Planning Committee.

Natural Resources Wales – Has no observations however draws reference to standard guidance notes on its website.

Neighbours/Public – The application was initially advertised by the posting of 4No. site notices. On submission of a new transport assessment further consultation was carried out with a total of 38 No. replies received to date. The following matters have been raised:-

Page 132

• Highway safety; • Width of highway; • HGV lorries (inappropriate for village context); • Visibility; • Speed limit inaccurate; • Rat running; • Cyclists, riders, walkers; • Sub standard bridge; • Original transport assessment misleading; • Bus shelter on cross road (school pick up); • Conflict with existing Chapel/residential parking; • Adverse weather (ice & proximity of development); • Weight restriction necessary; • Alternative access; • Residential amenity; • Noise (road traffic & forklifts reversing); • Disruption; • Smell; • Air pollution; • Dust (health); • Scale of development/location; • Potential for other B8 uses without further change of use; • Use should be in Kidwelly or M4/A48 corridor; • Operating hours; • Biohazard; • Access road runs between neighbouring house & garden; • Damage to property; • Biodiversity (loss of hedgerow, birds, butterflies & bees); • Historic hedgerow; • Historic Baptist pool; • Property prices.

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

The following previous applications have been received on the application site:-

W/12396 Construction of new vehicular access to Cwmeinon Farm. Full planning refused 19 October 2006

W/11717 Construction of a solid manure storage building Full planning refused 19 October 2006

D4/23836 Extension to existing agricultural building Full planning permission 15 October 1993

D4/16621 Construction of a new farmhouse Reserved Matters granted 13 October 1988

Page 133

D4/15150 Siting of new farm house Outline planning permission 19 November 1987

D4/15140 Erection of pre-cast concrete double span Portal frame agricultural building Full planning permission 02 December 1987

APPRAISAL

THE SITE

The site is an existing agricultural complex with the curtilage of the site situated approximately 120m South East of the rear boundaries of properties in Four Roads. The site is prominent within the landscape due to the fact that the existing buildings are of a substantial scale and height, being some 5,585sqm. The buildings were granted permission in 1987 and extended in 1993 for agricultural purposes. Further extensions and a new access road were proposed in 2006 however they were refused.

Historically, the site has been subject to enforcement action related to the unauthorised commercial activities of the former owner. The site was used for storage of car tyres pending processing, however the current owners have cleared the site of detritus and it is currently vacant.

Access to the site is via a narrow 4m single track road which extends from the cross roads in the centre of Four Roads. The highway access route has residential properties and a chapel in close proximity to the cross roads. Visibility is currently poor given the fact that the road goes over a brow between the village and the site. The road passes over a bridge so there is a pinch point approximately 30m from the site entrance.

THE PROPOSAL

The application seeks full planning permission for a change of use of the existing agricultural buildings to form a commercial animal feed storage and distribution centre.

The applicant proposes to receive animal feed by 29 tonne articulated lorries and for it to be stored on site, mixed to order and delivered to farmsteads using 29 tonne lorries or smaller 19 tonne vehicles. There is a small degree of direct sale and customer pick up anticipated.

No new buildings are proposed however there would be external parking within the curtilage of the site.

The application includes a transport statement which sets out the predicated traffic generation. It is estimated that given the size of the agricultural building and the fact that there is no farm house on site, it could generate 30 vehicle movements a day for agricultural purposes.

Page 134

It is anticipated that business will grow on site from an initial 5,000 tonnes of feed in Year 1 to 20,000 tonnes by Year 5. This has been clarified to show that 75% of trade will be between October and April. The applicant anticipates that by Year 5, at full capacity, the traffic would be as follows:-

Operator’s HGV Movements - 30 per day (15 arrivals/15 departures) (of these, 14 movements will be articulated lorries & 16 movements by smaller 8- wheel lorries)

Third Party HGV Movements - 4 per day (2 arrivals/2 departures)

Staff - 6 movements (3 arrivals/3 departures)

A highway improvement is proposed with the widening of the single track road at the brow to form a 42m long by 6m wide passing place by the removal of the hedgebank and formation of a second 6m wide passing place to the North West of the existing bridge. This would allow vehicles to pass where width and visibility is currently poor and hence avoid conflicting vehicle movements.

The application includes a hedgerow translocation scheme and flood consequence assessment.

PLANNING POLICIES

In the context of the current development control policy framework the site is outside the settlement development limits of Four Roads as defined in the Carmarthenshire Local Development Plan (LDP) Adopted 10 December 2014.

Policy SP1 Sustainable Places and Spaces states:-

‘Proposals for development will be supported where they reflect sustainable development and design principles by: a) Distributing development to sustainable locations in accordance with the settlement framework, supporting the roles and functions of the identified settlements; b) Promoting, where appropriate, the efficient use of land including previously developed sites; c) Integrating with the local community, taking account of character and amenity as well as cultural and linguistic considerations; d) Respecting, reflecting and, wherever possible, enhancing local character and distinctiveness; e) Creating safe, attractive and accessible environments which contribute to people’s health and wellbeing and adhere to urban design best practice;

Page 135 f) Promoting active transport infrastructure and safe and convenient sustainable access particularly through walking and cycling;

g) Utilising sustainable construction methods where feasible;

h) Improving social and economic wellbeing;

i) Protect and enhance the area’s biodiversity value and where appropriate, seek to integrate nature conservation into new development.’

Policy GP1 Sustainability and High Quality Design states:-

‘Development proposals will be permitted where they accord with the following:-

a) It conforms with and enhances the character and appearance of the site, building or area in terms of siting, appearance, scale, height, massing, elevation treatment, and detailing;

b) It incorporates existing landscape or other features, takes account of site contours and changes in levels and prominent skylines or ridges;

c) Utilises materials appropriate to the area within which it is located;

d) It would not have a significant impact on the amenity of adjacent land uses, properties, residents or the community;

e) Includes an integrated mixture of uses appropriate to the scale of the development;

f) It retains, and where appropriate incorporates important local features (including buildings, amenity areas, spaces, trees, woodlands and hedgerows) and ensures the use of good quality hard and soft landscaping and embraces opportunities to enhance biodiversity and ecological connectivity;

g) It achieves and creates attractive, safe places and public spaces, which ensures security through the ‘designing-out-crime’ principles of Secured by Design (including providing natural surveillance, visibility, well lit environments and areas of public movement);

h) An appropriate access exists or can be provided which does not give rise to any parking or highway safety concerns on the site or within the locality;

i) It protects and enhances the landscape, townscape, historic and cultural heritage of the County and there are no adverse effects on the setting or integrity of the historic environment;

j) It ensures or provides for, the satisfactory generation, treatment and disposal of both surface and foul water;

k) It has regard to the generation, treatment and disposal of waste.

Page 136 l) It has regard for the safe, effective and efficient use of the transportation network; m) It provides an integrated network which promotes the interests of pedestrians, cyclists and public transport which ensures ease of access for all; n) It includes, where applicable, provision for the appropriate management and eradication of invasive species.

Proposals will also be considered in light of the policies and provisions of this Plan and National Policy (PPW: Edition 7 and TAN12: Design (2014)).’

Policy EMP2 New Employment Proposals states:

‘Proposals for employment developments which are within, adjacent or directly related to the Development Limits of all defined settlements (Policy SP3) will be permitted provided that:- a) A sequential search has been undertaken identifying that there is no allocation or existing employment site available that can reasonably accommodate the use, followed by there being no suitable land or building (for conversion or re- use) available within the Development Limits, then adjacent to limits, and finally on a site directly related to a recognised settlement; b) The development proposals are of an appropriate scale and form, and are not detrimental to the respective character and appearance of the townscape/ landscape; c) The development proposals are of an appropriate scale and form compatible with its location and with neighbouring uses.’

Policy SP9 Transportation states:

‘Provision is made to contribute to the delivery of an efficient, effective, safe and sustainable integrated transport system through: a) Reducing the need to travel, particularly by private motor car; b) Addressing social inclusion through increased accessibility to employment, services and facilities; c) Supporting and where applicable enhancing alternatives to the motor car, such as public transport (including park and ride facilities and encourage the adoption of travel plans), and active transport through cycling and walking; d) Re-enforcing the function and role of settlements in accordance with the settlement framework; e) Promoting the efficient use of the transport network;

Page 137

f) The use of locational considerations for significant trip generating proposals, with design and access solutions within developments to promote accessibility by non car modes of transport.

Transport routes, improvements and associated infrastructural facilities which deliver the objectives and priorities of the Regional Transport Plan for South West Wales will be supported. Furthermore, maintaining and enhancing good traffic flows and the attractiveness and viability of more sustainable transport modes which support the strategy and its sustainable objectives will also be supported. Development proposals which do not prejudice the efficient implementation of any identified improvement or scheme will be permitted.

The following improvements to the highway infrastructure will be safeguarded and the routes identified on the proposals map:-

1) Cross Hands Economic Link Road 2) Carmarthen West Link Road

The following Welsh Government improvements to the highway infrastructure will be safeguarded:-

3) A483 Llandeilo and Ffairfach Improvement – Phase 3 4) A40 Llanddewi Velfrey to Penblewin (Formerly St Clears to Haverfordwest) – Phase 3.’

Policy TR2 Location of Development – Transport Considerations states:

‘Proposals which have a potential for significant trip generation will be permitted where:

a) It is located in a manner consistent with the plans strategic objectives, its settlement framework and its policies and proposals;

b) It is accessible to non car modes of transport including public transport, cycling and walking;

c) Provision is made for the non-car modes of transport and for those with mobility difficulties in the design of the proposal and the provision of on-site facilities;

Travel Plans have been considered and where appropriate incorporated.’

Policy TR3 Highways in Developments - Design Considerations states:

‘The design and layout of all development proposals will, where appropriate, be required to include:

Page 138 a) An integrated network of convenient and safe pedestrian and cycle routes (within and from the site) which promotes the interests of pedestrians, cyclists and public transport; b) Suitable provision for access by public transport; c) Appropriate parking and where applicable, servicing space in accordance with required standards; d) Infrastructure and spaces allowing safe and easy access for those with mobility difficulties; e) Required access standards reflective of the relevant Class of road and speed restrictions including visibility splays and design features and calming measures necessary to ensure highway safety and the ease of movement is maintained, and where required enhanced; f) Provision for Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems to allow for the disposal of surface water run off from the highway.

Proposals which do not generate unacceptable levels of traffic on the surrounding road network and would not be detrimental to highway safety or cause significant harm to the amenity of residents will be permitted.

Proposals which will not result in offsite congestion in terms of parking or service provision or where the capacity of the network is sufficient to serve the development will be permitted. Developers may be required to facilitate appropriate works as part of the granting of any permission.’

Section 7.3 of Planning Policy Wales Edition 7 – July 2014 and paragraph 3.2.1 - 3.2.4 of Technical Advice Note 6 encourage the re-use of rural buildings as follows.

7.3 Promoting diversification in the rural economy.

7.3.1 Many commercial and light manufacturing activities can be located in rural areas without causing unacceptable disturbance or other adverse effects. Small- scale enterprises have a vital role in promoting healthy economic activity in rural areas, which can contribute to both local and national competitiveness. New businesses in rural areas are essential to sustain and improve rural communities, but developments which only offer short-term economic gain may not be appropriate. Local authorities should encourage the growth of self employment and micro businesses in rural areas by adopting a supportive and flexible approach to home working. Information communications technology, in particular broadband, is vital to communities and business in rural areas. Improvements to information communications infrastructure networks should be supported throughout rural Wales.

7.3.2 While some employment can be created in rural locations by the re-use of existing buildings, new development will be required in many areas. New development sites are likely to be small and, with the exception of farm

Page 139 diversification and agricultural development to which separate criteria apply, should generally be located within or adjacent to defined settlement boundaries, preferably where public transport provision is established. However, some industries may have specific land requirements which cannot be accommodated within settlements. The absence of allocated employment sites should not prevent authorities from accommodating appropriate small-scale rural enterprises in or adjoining small rural settlements. The expansion of existing businesses located in the open countryside should be supported provided there are no unacceptable impacts on local amenity.

Technical Advice Note 6

3.2.1 When assessing planning applications for the re-use or adaptation of a rural building, the primary consideration should be whether the nature and extent of the new use proposed for the building is acceptable in planning terms. It should not normally be necessary to consider whether a building is no longer needed for its present agricultural or other purposes (although in the case of a tenanted agricultural building, the value in planning terms of the existing use should be taken into consideration). In circumstances where planning authorities have reasonable cause to believe that an applicant has attempted to abuse the system by constructing a new farm building with the benefit of permitted development rights, with the intention of early conversion to another use, it will be appropriate to investigate the history of the building to establish whether it was ever used for the purpose for which it was claimed to have been built.

3.2.3 Conversion proposals should respect the landscape and local building styles and materials. If a planning application is submitted for the re-use of a building which the planning authority considers has a significant adverse effect on the landscape in terms of visual amenity, it may be appropriate in connection with any proposed structural changes to impose conditions to secure an improvement in the external appearance of the building.

3.2.4 Planning authorities should consider setting out in development plans their approach to proposals for the re-use of complexes of buildings with a large aggregate floor area, and of individual buildings which are especially large. The economic and social needs of the area and environmental considerations may be particularly relevant to such proposals.

Good design is encouraged at all levels and national policy contained in Planning Policy Wales Edition 7 – July 2014 provides the following guidance.

Page 140 development process and applied to all development proposals, at all scales, from the construction or alteration of individual buildings to larger development proposals. These objectives can be categorised into five key aspects of good design”.

Paragraph 2.2 of Technical Advice Note 12 Design (2014) states:

Paragraph 2.6 & 2.7 of Technical Advice Note 12 Design (2014) states:

Page 141

Paragraphs 3.1.1 and 3.1.2 of TAN 6 Planning for Sustainable Rural Communities (July 2010) states:-

3.1.2 Planning authorities should support the diversification of the rural economy as a way to provide local employment opportunities, increase local economic prosperity and minimise the need to travel for employment. The development plan should facilitate diversification of the rural economy by accommodating the needs of both traditional rural industries and new enterprises, whilst minimising impacts on the local community and the environment.

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

One of the main issues raised is highway safety given the use of HGV lorries to deliver raw materials to the site and the final mixed feed from the site to farms. Concern is raised especially given the width of the local highway network leading to the site from the cross roads. The site has been assessed by the head of transport and improvements have been put forward for consideration. As a result, the head of transport has no objection to a scheme which includes a maximum of 10 HGV lorry movements per day.

There is concern that a business which relies heavily on HGV lorries is inappropriate for village context. It should however be noted that the existing agricultural use could generate a degree of HGV lorry movement and as a fall back, the land owner’s business which is currently located near Kidwelly, if relocated to the site could generate a significant number of movements by livestock wagons. It is noted that the access is onto a C Class road which forms part of a network serving agricultural holdings and individual properties within the area between Mynyddygarreg, Carway and Pontiets. It would not be uncommon for these properties to be served by commercial vehicles, so with the improvements proposed, the principle of HGV usage is acceptable and it comes down to the intensity of use and the quantum of traffic generated.

As stated above the application has been assessed by the head of transport and visibility is considered to be adequate at the cross roads. There is currently a visibility issue with a blind brow between the cross roads and the site entrance, however the road widening to provide a passing place addresses this by allowing two way traffic over the brow. This is considered to be a highway safety gain.

The speed limit as stated in the transport statement is inaccurate as it has been assumed that the limit through the village is 30mph rather than 40mph. It is noted that the limit changes from 40mph to 60mph just before the brow as you are leaving the village.

Page 142 Rat running both existing and proposed is a potential conflict. The road is said to act as a rat run from Heol Nazareth at present, so the highway improvements would help make the route safer. However there is fear that the proposal would lead to commercial vehicles using satellite navigation and negotiating the road towards Pontiets which is not proposed to be improved. The company has control over its own vehicles/contractors, however third party account holders taking delivery of their produce direct is more difficult to control. It has been suggested that there should be a weight restriction on this road however as there are other holdings being served, this would impose wider restrictions which may be detrimental to the local economy.

The existing road is narrow so there is existing conflict between vehicles, cyclists, riders, walkers. The proposal including the passing places would therefore improve the highway safety in this regard compared to the existing. However there are still pinch points within which the HGV lorries would conflict with other road users.

There is concern that the bridge at the Baptist pool may be substandard and that weight restrictions should apply. If this is considered necessary, the highways department have the power to impose such restrictions, however as stated above, this may have implications for other holdings to the detriment of the local economy.

The original transport assessment was not clear on several matters and the figures have been clarified. The overall numbers however have increased compared to the original submission as set out above.

The bus shelter on the cross road used for school pick up is existing and not affected by the proposal.

It is noted that there is a Chapel and residential properties which would use the access road for visitor and delivery etc parking. If there is a funeral, wedding or other event during the week, the road could potentially become too narrow for commercial vehicles from the proposal, so there could be conflict with the existing. It is also noted that where existing parking is off street, it is in close proximity to the cross roads so care would have to be taken at present, however there is fear that the intensification of the road would lead to increased danger.

It is noted that properties are in close proximity to the road, however gritting and ensuring the road is safe during periods of adverse weather is a matter for the highway section.

After discussion, an alternative route on land within the applicant’s ownership and control has been explored, however this has been discounted by the applicant on the grounds that given the higher speed limits the required visibility splay could not be achieved within the applicant’s control. Also, a 400m road at 6m width is said to have a greater environmental impact beyond that of the passing places as submitted. It should however be noted that an application for a new road as suggested was refused in 2006 (W/12396) for the fact that it would have an urbanising impact and not for technical or highway safety reasons. If Committee is minded to approve the change of use but not the means of access this alternative can be re-examined with the applicants and highways as a traffic order would be necessary to reduce the speed limit in the village to 30mph and provide traffic

Page 143 calming which would reduce visibility requirements. A scheme of landscaping may be sufficient to mitigate the urbanising impact and overcome the reason for refusal. Given the restrictions on the access, and therefore operations of the business, the cost of providing the new road to allow more vehicle movements may be a viable option.

Linked to highway considerations is concern over residential amenity resulting from the traffic generated by the proposal. It is noted that there are properties surrounding the cross roads and in close proximity to the highway. There is concern over the proposal causing disturbance which would adversely affect residential amenity and living conditions of residents. It is agreed that the traffic would have an impact on amenity; however a judgement needs to be made as to whether that impact is likely to be unacceptable.

There are two areas of concern from third parties in respect of noise; firstly road traffic secondly forklifts reversing. Noise implications have been assessed by the Head of Public Protection and subject to conditions precluding activity within sleeping hours, evenings, Saturday afternoons, Sundays and public holidays, there is no objection.

Traffic serving the site is likely to cause a degree of disruption given the narrow road and it is likely that vehicles will have to give way to HGV on occasion. The degree of disruption however depends on the intensity of the use and quantum of traffic generated.

There is concern over the smell generated from storing animal feed and from the traffic generated. In terms of the feed, the site has substantial buildings and it is recommended that any permission would preclude external storage. It is not therefore considered that the proposal would have an unacceptable impact in terms of smell.

Linked to dust and smell, air pollution has been assessed by the Council’s Public Health Section and there are no objections to the proposal.

The scale of the buildings is substantial at over 5000sqm which leads to the conclusion that the scale of the proposed business will also be substantial. The submission sets out the projected scale of operation which is anticipated to start off modestly with 5,000 tonnes per annum but increase through the first five year business plan to 20,000 tonnes. The location of the proposal has been challenged given its proximity to a small village and it is suggested that an industrial estate along the M4/A48 corridor would be better suited. It is agreed that the use would be more sustainable on an industrial estate; however the proposal under consideration is for the re-use of a substantial existing agricultural building in a rural area, so the merits of the proposal need to be considered. Storage and distribution of animal feed is an acceptable rural use so it again falls to local considerations and the quantum involved which needs to be assessed.

The proposal would be a B8 storage and distribution use. Unrestricted this would include any form of storage and distribution with potentially greater impact, therefore it is recommended that if approved, it should be restricted to the storage and

Page 144 distribution of animal feed only so any future proposal to change the end use would require express permission.

Restricted operating hours have been recommended by public protection to ensure there is no activity on the site within sleeping hours, evening, Saturday afternoons and Sundays/public holidays.

There is a concern over Biohazards given the fact that Lorries from the site would visit farms and potentially bring disease back on their wheels and infect the area surrounding the site. No details of wheel wash facilties etc. are shown on the plans.

It is noted that the C Class Road accessing the site runs between a neighbouring house & garden. This is an existing danger for the residents, however as submitted, the proposal is likely to intensify the amount of traffic and also increase the number of HGV using the road. As stated elsewhere in this report, the head of transport has recommended that HGV movements are restricted so that there is no intensification of likely traffic and therefore whilst the residents will have to take care crossing between house and garden, the danger is not likely to be greater than the existing agricultural use.

Damage to property is a private matter between the applicant and any surrounding owner who may suffer damage in the future and not a material planning consideration.

In respect of the hedgerow, no biodiversity issues have been highlighted by Natural Resources Wales. The hedgerow may be shown on historic maps however it’s typical of many in the County and is not of any particular merit to warrant retention.

The use is not likely to have an impact on the historic Baptist pool as it lies outside the application site. Pollution of water courses would be subject to other legislation enforced by Natural Resources Wales. In terms of the proposal adversely affecting the use of the Baptism pool, Baptism services are likely to be on Sundays when the site would be closed. The highway improvements are likely to have a positive impact for pedestrians walking to the pool as it would reduce the amount of highway which is single track and potentially dangerous. The proposal is not therefore likely to have an adverse impact.

The impact on property prices is not a material planning consideration.

CONCLUSION

After careful examination of the site and its surrounding environs in the context of this application, together with the representations received to date, it is considered that the site has a substantial existing agricultural building and this could be used for intensive farming without any permission. The proposed use is for animal feed storage, mixing and distribution to serve the agricultural community.

The re-use of the barns is supported by local and national policy however this needs to be considered in light of local considerations. The access is currently substandard with a narrow lane will a blind brow between the site and the cross roads. However

Page 145 this is proposed to be improved with a passing place at the brow of the hill and second passing place between the pinch point and site access. The Head of Transport therefore has no objection subject to conditions including a limit of 10 HGV movements per day.

In terms of the impact on residential amenity, it is noted that there are dwellings close to the highway around the cross roads, however at 10 HGV vehicle movements per day as conditioned by the Head of Transport, it is not considered likely to be unacceptable. The applicant however seeks up to 34 HGV vehicle movements per day, so a judgement needs to be made as to whether this would have an unacceptable impact on residential amenity.

Under policy EMP2 there is a requirement for a sequential approach to be undertaken which first considers re-use of premises within settlements then considers re-use of buildings sites immediately adjacent to or directly related to settlements. In this case, the scale of the proposed operation is not easily accommodated within settlement limits, however involves the re-use of a large agricultural building which is related to a settlement. The site is well related to a settlement and sits in a rural area between Llanelli and Carmarthen with good access to both the A484 and B4309 via the C2057. The proposal therefore complies with Policy EMP2.

The principle of re-using the barn for a rural enterprise is supported by local and national policy in order to create jobs and diversify the rural economy. However this needs to be balanced by the concerns of the local community in respect of highways and amenity. The proposal as submitted is likely to have an impact on the amenities of third parties given the proximity of dwellings to the access route. However, given the fall back of a potential intensive agricultural use on the site, the principle of HGV movements is not considered to be unacceptable.

The recommendation is finely balanced, however given the highways condition limiting numbers of HGV vehicle movements, the proposal is not considered likely to have an unacceptable adverse impact on third parties, and therefore is considered to be in accordance with the above policies.

RECOMMENDATION – APPROVAL

CONDITIONS

1 The development hereby permitted shall be commenced before the expiration of five years from the date of this permission.

2 Any access gates shall be set back a minimum distance of 20 metres from the highway boundary, and shall open inwards into the site only.

3 The private access shall be hard surfaced for a minimum distance of 20 metres behind the edge of carriageway, in materials which shall be subject to the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority. The hard surfacing shall be fully carried out prior to any part of the development approved herewith being brought into use.

Page 146 4 Prior to any use of the private road by vehicular traffic, a visibility splay of 2.4 metres x 59 metres shall be formed and thereafter retained in perpetuity, either side of the centre line of the private road in relation to the nearer edge of carriageway.

5 The access, visibility splays and turning area required, shall be wholly provided prior to commencement of any other part of the development, and thereafter shall be retained unobstructed in perpetuity. In particular, no part of the access, visibility splays, or turning area, is to be obstructed by non- motorised vehicles.

6 2no passing bays, giving a carriageway width of 6.0 metres and a linear length suitable to accommodate 2no. HGV as shown in the submitted drawings (0752 001 d), shall be provided along the C2204 road to the site. This shall be implemented prior to any part of the development being brought into use, and thereafter shall be retained, unobstructed, in perpetuity.

7 The site shall be limited to a maximum of 10no. HGV movements a day.

8 Prior to the commencement of the development the written approval of the Planning Authority shall be obtained for a HGV routing system between the site and the highway network.

9 Access to the site shall be a right in and left out arrangement only.

10 No goods shall be loaded or deposited and no vehicles shall arrive, depart, and be loaded or unloaded, within the application site before 07:00 or after 19:00 hours Mondays to Fridays; before 07:00 or after 13:00 hours on Saturdays or at any time on Sundays, Public or Bank holidays

11 There shall at no time be external sales, mixing, processing or storage on the site.

12 The site shall be used for B8 Storage and Distribution of animal feed only and for no other purpose.

13 Hedgerow translocation shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the submitted mitigation plan dated 13 March 2015.

REASONS

1 Required to be imposed pursuant to Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

2-9 In the interests of highway safety

10+12 To protect the residential amenity of third parties.

13 In the interests of biodiversity.

Page 147 NOTE(S)

1 The development hereby permitted shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the following schedule of plans dated 24 th March 2015:-

• 1:2500 scale Location Plan. Drawing No. SK15C; • 1:1000 scale Existing Block Plan. Drawing No. SK01D; • 1:500 scale Block Plan. Drawing No. SK02D; • 1:1000 scale Proposed Site Plan. Drawing No. SK16D; • 1:500 & 1:100 scale Proposed Ground Floor Plan. Drawing No. SK09D; • 1:250 & 1:2000 scale Proposed Part Ground Floor Plan. Drawing No. SK10B; • 1:250 & 1:2000 scale Proposed Part Ground Floor Plan. Drawing No. SK11B; • 1:200 scale Proposed Front and Rear Elevations. Drawing No. SK12B; • 1:200 & 1:500 scale Proposed Side Elevations. Drawing No. SK13B; • 1:200 & 1:500 scale Proposed Side Elevations. Drawing No. SK14B.

In addition, any conditions which the Council has imposed on this permission will be listed above and should be read carefully. It is your (or any subsequent developers’) responsibility to ensure that the terms of all conditions are met in full at the appropriate time (as outlined in the specific condition).

Failure on the part of the developer to observe the requirements of any conditions could result in the Council pursuing formal enforcement action in the form of a Breach of Condition Notice.

Page 148 The applicant should be aware of their legal duties regarding certain protected species. All British bat species are European Protected Species by virtue of their listing under Annex IV of EC Directive 92/43/EEC (‘The Habitats Directive’). This Directive has been transposed into British Law under the Conservation (Natural Habitats &c.) Regulations (1994). Bats are also fully protected under Schedule 5 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act (1981) (as amended*). Under the Conservation Regulations (1994) it is an offence deliberately to capture or kill a wild animal of a European protected species; deliberately to disturb any such animal; or to damage or destroy a breeding site or resting place of such an animal. For bats this includes roosts that are not currently being used.

If bats are encountered on site works should stop immediately and NRW should be contacted (Natural Resources Wales, - General Enquiries: [email protected] or 0300 065 3000 Mon-Fri, 8am - 6pm) - an EPS development licence may then need to be applied for. Licences are not automatically granted by virtue of a valid planning consent and it may be possible that the necessary licence application may be refused.

Nesting Birds

4 All surface water from the development herewith approved shall be trapped and disposed of so as to ensure that it does not flow on to any part of the public highway.

5 No surface water from the development herewith approved shall be disposed of, or connected into, existing highway surface water drains.

Page 149

Application No W/32043

Application Type Listed Building

Proposal & PROPOSED RESTORATION OF COLLAPSED NORTHERN Location GARDEN BOUNDARY WALL. PROPOSED DEMOLITION OF ADJACENT POTTERYBUILDING AND ERECTION OF RESIDENTIAL UNITS WITH ASSOCIATED JUNCTIONS WITH LISTED BUILDING AT PELICAN HOUSE AT THE OLD POTTERY, KING STREET, LAUGHARNE, CARMARTHEN, SA33 4RY

Applicant(s) MR DAVID JENKINS

Agent HAROLD METCALFE PARTNERSHIP - MR ALAN JONES

Case Officer Stuart Willis

Electoral Ward Laugharne Township

Date of validation 27/05/2015

CONSULTATIONS

Local Member - County Councillor J Tremlett has not commented on the application

Neighbours/Public - The application has been publicised by the posting of a Site Notice near to the site and in the Local Press. To date 5 responses have been received in this application.

• Opposition to buildings in gardens of listed buildings, • Alterations to design required, • Does not protect the listed buildings, • Impact on conservation area • Stone wall should be preserved • Devaluation of property and damage during construction

Page 150 • Over intensive development of the site • Roof line should be continuous from Pelican to new building • Road traffic hazard from vehicles entering the development leading to further blockage at King Street • Entrance position not appropriate • Insufficient visibility • Lack of information regarding the management of the car park element eg short/long term, fees, maintenance, security • Question over need for the public parking spaces • Flooding from rain water, surface water and query over how this will be dealt with • Lack of information regarding foul drainage • Damage to property and landscape features from erosion • Inaccurate information on the application form • Design concerns – design and scale not appropriate • New building would dominate King Street • Over bearing on adjacent Post Office • Design out of character with the Conservation Area • Excessive height of King Street building • Proposed building exceeds height of adjacent buildings • Building will become most dominant on King Street • Impact on the historic environment • Design should reflect the existing building • Loss of privacy to buildings opposite • Overlooking and loss of privacy from rear balcony of proposed King Street building in to garden and windows • Impact on security • Impact on listed buildings adjacent and in Laugharne • Loss of stone walls • Existing building is important • No evidence to support infill of the site • No need for additional housing as other applications/sites in Laugharne • Contaminated land due to former use and dumping of material • Pollution including in to the stream from rain water and from vehicles and materials used • Noise and light pollution on residents and tourists • Lack of lighting plan with the application • Lack of details of ticket machines • Impacts on habitats and wildlife • Development is backland/tandem development • Contrary to LDP policy • Loss of commercial use and business opportunities/employment • Plan are confusing • Lack of information on adjacent property on the plans • New plans are more in keeping but still impact on listed building it would be attached to • New development should be subservient to the street scene

Page 151 • Issues relating to land ownership including in relation to notice served and how works would take place • Side windows not confirmed as being obscure glazing for rear buildings • Further detail needed regarding boundary walls • French doors not in keeping with the character of the area • Ecological impacts from loss of trees and lack of screening • Concern over use of store building adjacent to the Pelican in terms of pollution, vermin and noise • Noise from metal staircase and impact on amenity • Balustrade details not in keeping and too modern • Lack of amenity space and storage for apartment building • Lack of discussion with neighbouring properties • Impact on access to properties during construction • Disruption during construction • Impact on earnings of businesses while works go on • Party wall issues • Land ownership

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

W/29759 Proposed demolition of old pottery, provision of public car park and 14 residential units together with associated parking spaces Conservation Area Consent Granted

W/29758 Proposed demolition of old pottery, provision of public car park and 14 residential units together with associated parking spaces Full Planning Permission – pending

W/21747 Proposed demolition of existing building and erection of 5 one-bedroom flats and 2 one-bedroom maisonettes with associated access Conservation Area Consent Granted 22 December 2010

Page 152 W/18391 Residential development - 3 flats and 4 maisonettes & private pottery with 1 flat Full planning refused 7 April 2008

W/01661 Renewal of d4/25504 for siting of 4 no dwellings Outline planning refused 28 May 1998

D4/25504 Siting of 4no dwellings Outline planning permission 13 June 1995

D4/21026 Construction of permanent car park Withdrawn 4 November 1993

D4/19719 Siting of four bungalows Outline planning refused 27 November 1990

D4/11711 Advertisement sign Advertisement granted 18 October 1984

D4/11108 Change of Use of existing old sorting office to take away fish and chip bar Full planning permission 24 November 1983

THE SITE

Page 153

The application site is located within the Conservation Area of Laugharne and part of the site is within the grounds of a Listed Building. The adjacent properties to the north and south are also listed buildings as are many along King Street. There has also been a Conservation Area Consent submitted for the demolition of the old pottery building along with a further Listed Building Consent and a full planning application for works associated with the proposed development. These have recently been approved. One of the Listed Building Consents and the Conservation Area Consent have been approved. The Full Planning application is also presented to the Planning Committee today.

The Old Pottery building is situated on King Street. Adjacent to the building is the Grade II listed Pelican which is dated to the late 18th / early 19 th Century.

Page 154

The Pelican is not owned by the applicant.

THE PROPOSAL

The applicant proposes to demolish the Old Pottery building and construct a new building in its location abutting the Grade II listed Pelican. Other proposed works would also include the reconstruction and restoration of a boundary wall.

In addition, the applicant proposes to construct residential units and a large car park within the curtilage of the Old Pottery and Gainsford House. These proposals require planning permission and not subject to listed building consent.

STATUTORY DUTIES, GOVERNMENT POLICIES & ADVICE, COUNTY COUNCIL POLICIES

Section 16 (2) and 66 (1) of the Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 places a statutory duty on local planning authorities to have special regard to the desirability of preserving a listed building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses.

Section 72 (2) of the Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 places a statutory duty on local planning authorities to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of a conservation area.

Paragraph 6.1.1 of the Welsh Assembly Government’s policy document ‘Planning Policy Wales’ (July 2014) sets out the Government’s objective of ensuring that the character of the historic building is safeguarded from alterations, extensions or demolition that would compromise a building special architectural and historic interest.

Paragraph 69 of Welsh Office Circular 61/96 states that applicants will need to show why works which affect the character are desirable or necessary. They must provide the local planning authority with full information, to enable them to assess the likely impact of their proposals on the special architectural or historic interest of the building and on its setting.

Paragraph 94 of Welsh Office Circular 61/96 states that. In judging the effect of any alteration it is essential to have assessed the elements that make up the special interest of the building.

Page 155 Paragraph 95 of Welsh Office Circular 61/96 states that many listed buildings can sustain a degree of sensitive alteration or extension to accommodate continuing or new uses.

Paragraph 2 of Annex to Welsh Office Circular 61/96 states that the foremost principle which should guide works to historic buildings is conserve as found, and that successful conservation lies in the maintenance and like for like repair of the fabric.

Paragraph 6 Of Appendix D to Welsh Office Circular 61/96 states that alterations should be based on a proper understanding of the structure.

Appendix to Annex D of Welsh Office Circular 61/96 (b) 4 states that the pattern and coursing of different roofing materials are a distinguishing feature of different building types and areas of the country.

SP13 of the Local Development Plan of the Built and Historic Environment states proposals should preserve or enhance the built and historic environment of the County, it’s cultural, townscape and landscape assets and where appropriate, their setting. Proposals relating to the following will be considered in accordance with national guidance and legislation.

• Sites and features of recognised Historical and Cultural Importance; • Listed Buildings and their setting; • Scheduled Ancient Monuments and other sites of recognised archaeological importance

Proposals will be expected to promote high quality design and that reinforces local character and respects and enhances the local setting and the cultural and historic qualities of the plan area.

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

Turning to the representations received to date, a number of issues raised are not considered relevant to the consideration of the Listed Building Consent. These matters are addressed in the full planning application.

The design of the proposal are the main area where consideration is relevant under the Listed Building Consent. The Conservation Officer has responded recommending refusal and makes the following assessment.

Page 156 “The Old Pottery has been vacant for a period of time and its condition and appearance in the opinion of the Authority’s Building Conservation Officer is having a harmful affect on the character and setting of listed buildings and the Laugharne Conservation Area. Therefore, the proposed demolition of the Old Pottery is fully supported.

To leave a gap site at this location would cause undesirable harm and this is why the Local Planning Authority supported an application for planning permission for the construction of a residential building which approved on the 22 nd December 2010. The permission also covered some parking and additional residential units within the curtilage of the Old Pottery.

There appears to have no listed building consent application submitted at this time but the Authority’s Building Conservation Section were supportive of the proposals.

The Officer is of the opinion that the construction of the building in conjunction with planning permission would require listed building consent for the following reasons. The building would be attached to the Pelican and the roof covering would be integrated with its roof covering. Therefore, the works are classed as an alteration which would affect the character of the building which Section 7 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 requires listed building consent.

In considering the proposals Section 16 (2) and 66 (1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 places a statutory duty on local planning authorities to have special regard to the desirability of preserving the character of the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest it possesses. In addition, Welsh Government Circular 61/96, Welsh Government and the Local Planning Authority’s own policies relating to the historic built environment would apply.

With regards to the conservation area Section 72 (2) of the Act places a statutory duty on local planning authorities to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the area.

The proposed construction would slightly compromise the character and setting of the Pelican and the Manse which were listed as a pair of late 18 th /early 19 th Century Georgian 3 storey buildings.

However, the significant benefits of the proposals (described earlier) means that the proposals are to be supported by the Officer.

The design of the building and the material and its construction, which is modern are sympathetic to the buildings character and the character and setting of the Laugharne Conservation Area.

Other proposals which are of benefit include the restoration of the boundary walls which are to be undertaken to match the existing.

Page 157

The proposed development to the rear of the Old Pottery site and Gainsford House of residential units and a car park which is subject to planning permission would not preserve the stetting of listed buildings or the character of appearance of the Laugharne Conservation Area and would cause undesirable harm. Therefore, would be contrary to the relevant statutory and non-statutory frameworks for the historic built environment and the Officer is objecting to the proposals.”

The proposed demolition of the Old Pottery is welcomed by the Officer. However, leaving a gap site in this area would be undesirable. As a consequence the Local Planning Authority supported a pervious application for planning permission for the demolition of the building and construction of a residential building in its place. Despite no listed building consent being obtained for the proposed development the Authority’s Building Conservation Section were supportive of the proposals.

In light of the statutory and non-statutory frameworks for the historic built environment the Officer is of the opinion that the proposed construction of a residential building would slightly compromise the character and setting of the Pelican and the Manse. However, the significant benefit of the proposals means that the proposals are to be supported by the Officer.

The design of the building and the material and its construction, which is modern are sympathetic to the buildings character and setting of the conservation area.

Other proposals (restoration of walls) would benefit in improving the condition of these elements.

The proposed development to the rear of the Old Pottery and Gainsford House would from a conservation perspective be contrary to the relevant statutory and non- statutory frameworks for the historic built environment. Therefore, the Officer objects to the proposals.”

CONCLUSION

In conclusion and having regard to prevailing planning policies, legislation and material considerations, it is considered the development is acceptable. It is therefore recommended for approval.

RECOMMENDATION – APPROVAL

CONDITIONS

1. The works hereby granted consent shall be commenced before the expiration of five years from the date of this permission.

2. The works hereby granted consent shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the following schedule of plans, documentation and subject the Conditions below:

• 1:100 scale Proposed First Floor Units 5-8 C/3900/9B Revision B

Page 158 • 1:100 scale Proposed King Street Elevation Units 5-8 Drawing No C/3900/10J1 Rev J • 1:1250 and 1:500 scale Block and Location Plans

received 26 th May 2015

• 1:100 scale Proposed Elevations C/3900/16 Rev F

received on 11 th September 2015

• 1:100 scale Proposed Rear Elevations (to include staircase) and Side Elevation (from Pelican) C/3900/20A Rev A • 1:100 scale Proposed Ground Floor (unit 5) C/3900/8E Rev E

received on 9 th September 2015

3. Where new windows and doors are proposed scaled drawings (Scale 1:10) showing elevation and through section, construction, materials and finishes, shall be submitted for the approval of the Local Planning Authority prior to their manufacture. The proposed glazing bars shall be a maximum width of 18mm. The works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details and retained in perpetuity.

4. Where new railings are proposed to the rear of the Units 5-8 scaled drawings (Scale 1:10) of the proposed handrails and steps showing section and elevation, construction, materials and finish shall be submitted for the approval of the Local Planning Authority, prior to the commencement of the works. The scheme shall be implanted as agreed and retained in perpetuity.

5. Once the site has been cleared and all the existing stone boundary walls are exposed. Full details in the form of a condition report with photographs shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for an assessment. The report shall highlight the associated problems, extent of the problems and indicate the works proposed to restore the wall. No works shall commence of the restoration of the wall until written confirmation has been given by the Authority that the restoration works are acceptable.

6. The roof covering on Units 5-8 shall match the existing natural slate used on the Pelican and the Manse, King Street in colour, texture, size and method of coursing.

7. Full details of the colour palette for Units 5-8 shall be submitted for the approval of the Local Planning Authority. The details shall be implemented as agreed.

8. All Rainwater Goods shall be installed as painted cast iron.

Page 159 REASONS

1. To comply with Section 18 of The Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990.

2. To ensure that only the approved works are carried out.

3-8. To have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building in respect of Section 16 (2) of The Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990.

REASONS FOR GRANTING LISTED BUILDING CONSENT

In having special regard to the desirability of preserving the building and its setting, and any features of special historic interest which it possess and to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving and enhancing the character or appearance of the conservation as required under Section 16 (2) & 66 (1) & 72 (2) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, the Authority finds that the residential building would have a slight harmful impact on the existing character and setting of the Pelican and the Manse. However, the significant benefits of the proposals outweigh the harm caused.

NOTES

This decision relates only to the demolition of the Old Pottery and the Construction of Units 5-8 and the restoration of the curtilage boundary wall.

Failure on the part of the developer to observe the requirements of any other Conditions could result in the Council pursuing formal enforcement action in the form of a Breach of Condition Notice

Page 160 Comments and guidance received from consultees relating to this application, including any other permissions or consents required, is available on the Authority’s website ( www.carmarthenshire.gov.uk )

Page 161

APPLICATIONS RECOMMENDED FOR REFUSAL

Page 162

Application No W/32578

Application Type Full Planning

Proposal & REPLACEMENT OF EXISTING DWELLING WITH NEW Location DWELLING BUILT IN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO ORIGINAL FARM HOUSE AT ESGAIRHIR UCHAF, CARMARTHEN, SA33 6AD

Applicant(s) MR WALTERS

Agent MARK BAGGOTT LTD - MARK BAGGOTT

Case Officer Stuart Willis

Electoral Ward Cynwyl Elfed

Date of validation 26/08/2015

CONSULTATIONS

Newchurch and Merthyr Community Council – Has not commented to date

Local Member - County Councillor H I Jones has requested the application be presented to the Planning Committee for the following reasons:

I cannot see anything wrong with the design submitted it is in keeping with nearly all new farmhouses around of today , they also need the room area inside as they are 3 in the family, so I would like this application to be put in front of full planning committee

Neighbours/Public - The application has been publicised by the posting of a Site Notice with no responses having been received as a result

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

W/11074 Cattle Shed Full planning permission 19 October 2005

TMT/03603 Milking parlour & dairy Full planning permission 2 May 2003

TMT/03036 Milking parlour extension to cubicle shed Agricultural Determination Pp required 25 February 2003

Page 163

W/00672 Construction of covered silage clamp, concrete apron and effluent tank Full planning permission 17 April 1997

W/00431 Construction of steel framed cubicle building with slatted floor and slurry store below Full planning permission 24 January 1997

APPRAISAL

THE SITE

The application site consists of a 2 storey L shaped dwelling with attached outbuilding. The current dwelling is located on the farm yard of a holding known as Esgairhir Uchaf. The site is located at an elevated position with agricultural buildings located in close proximity. The proposed site is some 40m to the west of the existing one. This is located at a lower ground level from the existing dwelling and the agricultural buildings. The site is located in the open countryside some 3km north of Trevaughan to the north of Carmarthen. The site is accessed off a private lane leading east from the C2043 from Trevaughan to Cynwyl Elfed. The existing dwelling is currently vacant.

The land also slopes steeply from the existing dwelling down to the location of the proposed one. The site is outside the development limits. There is no other nearby dwellings or buildings outside of the yard.

The existing dwelling measures 7.1m in height. The existing dwelling has a ground floor external footprint of approximately 109sqm and total area of approximately 218sqm. The existing dwelling has a roof pitch of 40 degrees.

THE PROPOSAL

The application seeks full planning permission for the demolition of the existing dwelling and construction of a replacement dwelling.

The proposed dwelling would not be located on the footprint of the existing one. The proposed dwelling would be located approximately 40m from the current dwelling at a lower land level.

The proposed dwelling would have an external footprint of approximately 182sqm and total floor area of approximately 309sqm. The dwelling would be 9.2m to ridge. The dwelling would have 4 bedrooms. The proposed dwelling would 2 storey for the most part with a single storey element at ground floor. The dwelling would have roof pitches of 35 degrees.

The proposed dwelling would be rough cast rendered and pointed stone work walls and synthetic slate roof with pvc windows.

The dwelling would have a protruding 2 storey gable section on the front elevation.

A Bat Survey was submitted for the buildings which would be demolished. This found no evidence of bats using the building.

Page 164 A DAS has been submitted with the application. Comments were made at the time of submission regarding the scale and design of the dwelling and discussions held regarding the location of proposed dwelling as well. Following these discussions the applicant indicated they would be willing to enter in to a legal agreement to prevent the dwelling being sold separately from the holding and they also indicated they would be willing to have a rural enterprise condition imposed on any permission. In relation to design no changes were made despite the concerns raised.

In relation to the initial concerns regarding the location of the new dwelling being divorced from the farm yard and location of the existing dwelling the application made the following comments:

“Whilst the dwelling could have been replaced on the same footprint it would maintain the draw backs and detriment to the amenities of the occupants, but would also not make opportunity of significant benefits to farm management. This would include creating improvements to the existing yard and turning area through the new space created.”

In relation to the design concern the following comments were made “The surrounding area comprises a mix of different scaled dwellings, with the nearest examples being to the west of the site where the farm access meets Henfwlch Road. Either side of that access there are a number of dwellings but no single defined scale. One evident feature however is that those dwellings appear to be on large plots, set back from the road and are clearly generous in their accommodation. The proposed dwelling therefore will be similar in its height, width and length reinforcing the character of its immediate surroundings.”

And

“the decision has been made to opt for modern take on a traditional design, akin to that of a farmhouse, symmetrical, using a central gable that brings its inspiration from a traditional central porch, pitched roof design and stone aspects to the front elevation. The synthetic slate chosen for the roof is also reflective of traditional designs.”

PLANNING POLICIES

Policy H4 Replacement Dwellings

This policy allows proposals for the replacement of an existing dwelling outside the defined Development Limits of a defined settlement (Policy SP3) will be permitted where they meet certain criterion: a) The replacement dwelling is located on the footprint of the existing dwelling, unless an alternative location within the existing curtilage brings significant environmental, landscape or visual improvements; b) The existing building is not a temporary structure, nor the subject of a temporary consent; c) The design and materials of the replacement dwelling are appropriate to the character and appearance of the area; d) The scale of the proposed dwelling is not disproportionate in size to the existing dwelling; e) There are no adverse effects on access, parking or utility services, or on local amenity;

Page 165 f) There are no adverse effects on nature conservation interests, the setting or integrity of the historic environment and the landscape/ townscape; g) The existing dwelling is demolished immediately prior to, or upon, its replacement.

Policy GP1 Sustainability and High Quality Design.

This states that development proposals will be permitted where they accord with a number of criteria including the following, it conforms with and enhances the character and appearance of the site, building or area in terms of siting, appearance, scale, height, massing, elevation treatment, and detailing, utilises materials appropriate to the area within which it is located; it retains, and where appropriate incorporates important local features (including buildings, amenity areas, spaces, trees, woodlands and hedgerows) and ensures the use of good quality hard and soft landscaping and embraces opportunities to enhance biodiversity and ecological connectivity; an appropriate access exists or can be provided which does not give rise to any parking or highway safety concerns on the site or within the locality

Policy EQ4 Biodiversity

The policy states that proposals for development which have an adverse impact on priority species, habitats and features of recognised principal importance to the conservation of biodiversity and nature conservation, (namely those protected by Section 42 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act 2006 and UK and Local BAP habitats and species and other than sites and species protected under European or UK legislation) will not be permitted, except where it can be demonstrated that the impacts can be satisfactorily mitigated, acceptably minimised or appropriately managed to include net enhancements; there are exceptional circumstances where the reasons for the development or land use change clearly outweighs the need to safeguard the biodiversity and nature conservation interests of the site and where alternative habitat provision can be made in order to maintain and enhance local biodiversity.

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

There have been no adverse representations received to date. The application is presented to the Planning Committee at the request of the Local Member. He felt that the design was acceptable and the family of 3 needed sufficient space.

In relation to the relevant LDP policy for replacement dwellings this has as its first criteria that any replacement dwelling is “located on the footprint of the existing dwelling, unless an alternative location within the existing curtilage brings significant environmental, landscape or visual improvements”. The proposal does not propose to relocate on the same footprint nor does it propose to be located within the same curtilage. The location is approximately 40m from the existing one.

The existing dwelling is located on one side of the farmyard with the agricultural building around the remainder of the yard. There is a track leading up to the site where the existing buildings are seen as a single cluster. The proposal is to relocate the dwelling some 40m from the existing one. The proposed location is at a far lower level than the existing dwelling and the other building. Therefore the proposed dwelling would appear isolated and separate from the farm. Policy H4 says that the replacement dwelling should be located on the footprint of the existing dwelling, unless an alternative location within the

Page 166 existing curtilage brings significant environmental, landscape or visual improvements . The proposed location is not on the same within the curtilage of the dwelling.

The application makes reference to there being benefits of the new location and why they feel replacing on the same footprint would not be suitable. The application states that the new location would reduce the farms impact on the general amenities of the occupants of the dwelling. They state that “whilst may not be overly detrimental to the on shift farm worker, would be less acceptable to the farm workers other family who also need to occupy the dwelling”. With any farm workers dwelling there would be an expectation that the dwelling would be closely related to the farm buildings and main operations of the farm. This is seen as part and parcel of such a dwelling/occupation and is not considered to be sufficient justification for moving a dwelling some 40m from its current location. it would appear more logical to locate a dwelling, which described as being needed to aid the operations of the farm, near to the actual agricultural buildings and the majority of the farming activities.

Reference is made to changing farm practices and that modern practices mean larger and noisy machinery. This is again given as justification for relocating the new dwelling away from the main farm yard. They refer to the movement of the dwelling being to allow more efficient working, management and expansion of the farm complex. There are no pending applications for expansion of the farm and from discussions with the applicant no such proposals in the short term. While the new location may give more space on the existing farm yard it is felt that insufficient information has been provided to demonstrate this could not be achieved in another way which allowed the dwelling to remain on the yard.

It is stated that the new location would give more opportunities for bats to use the proposed dwelling. The bat survey of the site did not find evidence of bats in the existing dwelling. The applicant feels this is due to the proximity to the farm buildings. there is no requirement for mitigation for bats as there were none found at the building to be demolished. the new location may give some limited benefits in relation to this but again it is not felt this justifies relocating the dwelling some 40m away.

The fact that the new location is at a lower land level was another reason put forward by the applicants to support their choice of a new separate location. They feel this would reduce the impacts on the landscape. However moving it and creating a new area of development would do the opposite to this. The new location would be seen as isolated and separate from the rest of the farm holding. The applicant makes the point that whether the site is visible or not design is important. The location of the dwelling is also of importance regardless of visibility. The new location is at a far lower level where there are no existing buildings at the proposed site. It is separated visually as well with the existing site being at higher land level and viewed against the farm buildings. The new location would add to the built form as the farm yard and buildings still remain at the other location. Replacing the dwelling on the same site would mean they whole of the buildings are seen as one single cluster.

Following the concerns being raised the applicant indicated that they would be willing to enter in to a legal agreement to prevent the separation of the dwelling from the holding. They also indicated they would be willing to have a rural enterprise condition, limiting the occupancy of the dwelling, imposed on any approval. In light of this it was indicated that the proposed location could be supported on this basis although contrary to the policy.

Page 167 The design of the proposed dwelling is another area where it is felt that changes are required. It was highlighted that the design/scale concerns of the proposal still remained however. The replacement dwelling policy goes on to state that:

“The design and materials of the replacement dwelling are appropriate to the character and appearance of the area”; And “The scale of the proposed dwelling is not disproportionate in size to the existing dwelling”;

The Design and Access Statement submitted with the application highlights the importance of design stating “The appearance of the dwelling is of importance despite being largely obscured from most public views”. Therefore regardless of the prominence of the dwelling the design and scale are importance considerations. Again from the outset these concerns were raised and presented to the applicant however no amendments were forthcoming.

The planning statement refers to a central porch being typical for farmhouses. The plans do not show a porch but a 2 storey forward protruding central gable. It is not considered that this feature is typical of or appropriate to a rural farmhouse or in keeping with the design of the existing dwelling. The use of the quoins and the stonework only used on the 2 storey gable with render on the remainder of the front elevation are also not considered to be typical of farmhouses and do not feature on the existing dwelling.

In relation to the scale of the proposed dwelling the supporting information refers to it being large but does not quantify the difference. The existing dwelling appears to have a footprint of approximately 109sqm whereas the footprint of the proposed dwelling is approximately 182sqm. The overall floor area is approximately 70% large than the existing dwelling. This would be a considerable difference. The height of the proposed dwelling is also approximately 2m higher than the existing one.

Suggestions have been made in terms of removing the 2 storey front gable and replacing it was a single storey porch. It has also been suggested that in order to reduce the ridge height and/or overall massing of the dwelling that a rear gable section be considered creating an L shape which is the layout of the existing dwelling. However no such changes have been made. The character of the wider area is varied however there are no examples of properties located on holdings or farmhouse type dwellings which are similar to the proposed dwelling. Other than former council properties on the C road any other 2 storey dwellings are generally of a traditional design.

CONCLUSION

After careful consideration of the site and its surrounding environs in the context of this application, together with the representations received to date it is considered that on balance the proposal is not acceptable and does not accord with policy.

In light of the above, this application is put forward with a recommendation for refusal.

RECOMMENDATION – REFUSAL

Page 168 REASONS

1 The proposal is contrary to Policy H4 of the Carmarthenshire Local Development Plan :-

Policy H4 Replacement Dwellings

Proposals for the replacement of an existing dwelling outside the defined Development Limits of a defined settlement (Policy SP3) will be permitted where:

a) The replacement dwelling is located on the footprint of the existing dwelling, unless an alternative location within the existing curtilage brings significant environmental, landscape or visual improvements; b) The existing building is not a temporary structure, nor the subject of a temporary consent; c) The design and materials of the replacement dwelling are appropriate to the character and appearance of the area; d) The scale of the proposed dwelling is not disproportionate in size to the existing dwelling; e) There are no adverse effects on access, parking or utility services, or on local amenity; f) There are no adverse effects on nature conservation interests, the setting or integrity of the historic environment and the landscape/ townscape; g) The existing dwelling is demolished immediately prior to, or upon, its replacement.

In that:

• The scale and massing of the proposed dwelling is disproportionate in size to the existing dwelling. The proposed dwelling would have a significantly greater floor area and massing than the existing dwelling. There is also an increase in ridge height which again adds to the scale of the dwelling. The increase floor area combined with the increase in ridge height is not considered to be proportionate to the existing dwelling. The additional height, scale and massing of the proposed dwelling would exacerbate the additional visual impact of the proposed dwelling and create a more imposing dwelling than the existing one resulting in a prominent intrusion of built form. The impacts of this would be worsened by the separation of the proposed dwelling from the existing farm yard.

• The design of the replacement dwelling is not considered appropriate to the character and appearance of the area. The scale, massing and features of the design of the proposed dwelling would have suburban connotations at odds with the countryside context in which the site lies.

Page 169

2 The proposal is contrary to Policy GDC1 of the Carmarthenshire Unitary Development Plan :-

Policy GP1 Sustainability and High Quality Design

Development proposals will be permitted where they accord with the following:

a) It conforms with and enhances the character and appearance of the site, building or area in terms of siting, appearance, scale, height, massing, elevation treatment, and detailing; b) It incorporates existing landscape or other features, takes account of site contours and changes in levels and prominent skylines or ridges; c) Utilises materials appropriate to the area within which it is located; d) It would not have a significant impact on the amenity of adjacent land uses, properties, residents or the community; e) Includes an integrated mixture of uses appropriate to the scale of the development; f) It retains, and where appropriate incorporates important local features (including buildings, amenity areas, spaces, trees, woodlands and hedgerows) and ensures the use of good quality hard and soft landscaping and embraces opportunities to enhance biodiversity and ecological connectivity; g) It achieves and creates attractive, safe places and public spaces, which ensures security through the ‘designing-out-crime’ principles of Secured by Design (including providing natural surveillance, visibility, well lit environments and areas of public movement); h) An appropriate access exists or can be provided which does not give rise to any parking or highway safety concerns on the site or within the locality; i) It protects and enhances the landscape, townscape, historic and cultural heritage of the County and there are no adverse effects on the setting or integrity of the historic environment; j) It ensures or provides for, the satisfactory generation, treatment and disposal of both surface and foul water; k) It has regard to the generation, treatment and disposal of waste. l) It has regard for the safe, effective and efficient use of the transportation network; m) It provides an integrated network which promotes the interests of pedestrians, cyclists and public transport which ensures ease of access for all; n) It includes, where applicable, provision for the appropriate management and eradication of invasive species.

Proposals will also be considered in light of the policies and provisions of this Plan and National Policy (PPW: Edition 7 and TAN12: Design (2014)).

Page 170 In that:

• The proposed dwelling would not conform with or enhance the character and appearance of the area in terms of siting, appearance, height and detailing. The scale and massing of the proposed dwelling is disproportionate in size to the existing dwelling. The proposed dwelling and garage would have a significantly greater floor area than the existing dwelling. There is also an increase in ridge height. The increase floor area combined with the increase in ridge height is not considered to be proportionate to the existing dwelling. The additional height, scale and massing of the proposed dwelling would exacerbate the additional visual impact of the proposed dwelling and create a more imposing dwelling than the existing one resulting in a prominent intrusion of built form. The impacts of this would be worsened by the separation of the proposed dwelling from the existing farm yard. • The proposal would not be of a suitable design appropriate to its location, and not appropriate to the character of the area in which it is located. The scale, massing and features of the design of the proposed dwelling would have suburban connotations at odds with the countryside context in which the site lies.

Page 171

ADDITIONAL ITEM FOR DECISION

Page 172

Application No W/31160

Application Type Full Planning

Proposal & ONE PLANET DEVELOPMENT CONSISTING OF FOUR ZERO Location CARBON DWELLINGS AT LAND AT RHIW LAS, ABBEY ROAD, WHITLAND, SA34 0LH

Applicant(s) RHIW LAS LIMITED - DR ERICA THOMPSON, RHIW LAS, ABBEY ROAD, WHITLAND, SA34 0LH

Case Officer Richard Jones

Ward Llanboidy

Date of validation 07/11/2014

Members resolved to refuse the application following a discussion at the Planning Committee of 22 nd September 2015 against officer recommendation. Therefore the application is being reported back to the Planning Committee for members to confirm the reasons for refusal.

REASONS

1 The proposed development is contrary to Policy GP1 of the Carmarthenshire Local Development Plan (December, 2014).

Policy GP1 Sustainability and High Quality Design

Development proposals will be permitted where they accord with the following:

Page 173 hedgerows) and ensures the use of good quality hard and soft landscaping and embraces opportunities to enhance biodiversity and ecological connectivity; g) It achieves and creates attractive, safe places and public spaces, which ensures security through the ‘designing-out-crime’ principles of Secured by Design (including providing natural surveillance, visibility, well lit environments and areas of public movement); h) An appropriate access exists or can be provided which does not give rise to any parking or highway safety concerns on the site or within the locality; i) It protects and enhances the landscape, townscape, historic and cultural heritage of the County and there are no adverse effects on the setting or integrity of the historic environment; j) It ensures or provides for, the satisfactory generation, treatment and disposal of both surface and foul water; k) It has regard to the generation, treatment and disposal of waste. l) It has regard for the safe, effective and efficient use of the transportation network; m) It provides an integrated network which promotes the interests of pedestrians, cyclists and public transport which ensures ease of access for all; n) It includes, where applicable, provision for the appropriate management and eradication of invasive species.

• In that that the proposed development is sited in an unsustainable location which is inadequately served by an integrated transport network which promotes the interests of pedestrians, cyclists and public transport.

2 The proposed development is contrary to Policy TR2 of the Carmarthenshire Local Development Plan (December, 2014).

Policy TR2 Location of Development – Transport Considerations Proposals which have a potential for significant trip generation will be permitted where:

a) It is located in a manner consistent with the plans strategic objectives, its settlement framework and its policies and proposals; b) It is accessible to non car modes of transport including public transport, cycling and walking; c) Provision is made for the non-car modes of transport and for those with mobility difficulties in the design of the proposal and the provision of on site facilities; d) Travel Plans have been considered and where appropriate incorporated.

• In that the proposed development by virtue of isolated location, absence of pedestrian footways along the local road network and proximity to public transport routes represents an unacceptable and unsustainable development which is inaccessible to non car modes of transport i.e. walking and public transport.

Page 174

3 The proposed development is contrary to Policy TR3 of the Carmarthenshire Local Development Plan (December, 2014).

Policy TR3 Highways in Development – Design Considerations

The design and layout of all development proposals will, where appropriate, be required to include:

a) An integrated network of convenient and safe pedestrian and cycle routes (within and from the site) which promotes the interests of pedestrians, cyclists and public transport; b) Suitable provision for access by public transport; c) Appropriate parking and where applicable, servicing space in accordance with required standards; d) Infrastructure and spaces allowing safe and easy access for those with mobility difficulties; e) Required access standards reflective of the relevant Class of road and speed restrictions including visibility splays and design features and calming measures necessary to ensure highway safety and the ease of movement is maintained, and where required enhanced; f) Provision for Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems to allow for the disposal of surface water run off from the highway.

• In that the proposed development by virtue of its isolated location and absence of safe pedestrian routes along the local road network fails to provide suitable provision for access by public transport.

RECOMMENDATION – REFUSAL

Page 175 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 176 Agenda Item 4

PLANNING COMMITTEE TH 8 OCTOBER 2015

Pre-application Fees

Recommendations / key decisions required: To consider and agree an option for introducing charges for pre-application advice prior to the potential submission of applications for planning approval. Reasons: Nationally set fees are to be introduced, having been the subject of a Welsh Government consultation earlier in 2015, and more recently as part of an additional ongoing consultation that frames a charging schedule. However in order to benefit from increased income to the authority, it is proposed that the charges be introduced immediately. PEB : Relevant scrutiny committee to be consulted

YES Scrutiny committee and date: Community Scrutiny – November 2015 EXECUTIVE BOARD / COUNCIL / COMMITTEE: Scrutiny Committee recommendations / comments: Include here or refer to Consultations section

Exec Board Decision Required YES Council Decision Required NA

EXECUTIVE BOARD MEMBER PORTFOLIO HOLDER:- Councillor M Gravell

Directorate Environment Designations: Tel Nos. 01267 224647 Name of Head of Service: E Mail Addresses: Report Author: E Bowen Interim Director of Environment EBowen@carmarthenshire .gov.uk

Page 177

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY PLANNING COMMITTEE TH 8 OCTOBER 2015

Pre-application Fees

One of the central themes of the Welsh Government’s reform on the planning system in Wales is to “frontload” the Development Management process, and the Planning Act introduces new pre-application processes that will be key to the delivery of effective frontloading. Section 18 of the Bill introduces a new statutory requirement for Local Planning Authorities (LPAs) to provide pre-application services to applicants.

The statutory service would apply to development proposals that would need an application for planning permission in order to be implemented, and would require LPAs to provide a written response to pre-application enquiries, when submitted on a standardised form with the correct fee, within a given timeframe. The proposed timescale for a response to be provided from the LPA to the applicant is 21 days from the receipt of a valid pre-application enquiry. For more complex cases, provision is made to allow an extension of time when this is agreed in writing by the LPA and applicant.

Only enquiries submitted on the pre-application enquiry form will be able to access this statutory pre-application service. The minimum requirements to be included in the written response are set out in the consultation paper; and a proposed schedule of charges appears in the document.

Any additional written advice or meetings from LPAs to applicants regarding their pre- application enquiry will not form part of the statutory service. However, LPAs will be encouraged to provide a pre-application service over and above the statutory minimum, and it is recognised that this may be subject to a discretionary charge under section 93 of the Local Government Act 2003. Clarity around what this may encompass will, hopefully, emerge from the consultation process.

The authority have been considering introducing such charges, following the trend set by a number of planning authorities; indeed, there could be a perception that the Authority is currently acting in isolation of authorities in the region in this regard. However, as the proposal appeared in the Bill, the decision to introduce charges in Carmarthenshire has been deferred until the nationally proposed charges were known. Some authorities have set the fee above the proposed in the consultation paper and may well be required to reduce them should the proposals as consulted on be implemented. One example is the City and County of Swansea, who do not charge for householder development (proposed to be £25 in the

Page 178

consultation document), but levy a £750 charge for major developments, with the proposal for a national charge for major schemes being £300. This compares with £600 levied by Neath and Port Talbot and a sliding scale for major applications within the Brecon Beacons National Park ranging from £1200 to £3000.

LPAs will also be required to provide a pre-application service for a new category of applications, Developments of National Significance (DNS), a national fee of £1,000 is proposed. LPAs will have 28 days to provide a response with provision made to allow an extension of time when this is agreed in writing by the LPA and applicant.

A nationally set scheme of charges is seen as a rational approach to ensure consistency, coupled with a nationally set standard of service.

The authority already offer a pre application service however given the trend to charge and the proposed national fees, it is timely for Carmarthenshire to introduce charges, options include:

Option 1: Await the outcome of the consultation (closes September 11 th ) and implement charges when they are set by Welsh Government. No date set however it will require secondary legislation.

Option 2; Introduce the charges as proposed in the consultation document; with the risk that these could be increased or reduced, the latter is unlikely, however the issue can be overcome by placing a caveat on any proposal that they will reflect the nationally set levels once these have become law.

Option 3: as with 2 however add other charges on issues not covered by the nationally listed developments, such as work on Tree Preservation Orders, and review existing charges such for High Hedge disputes.

The proposed fees will not apply to Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects, as the legislation relating to NSIPs (Planning Act 2008) applies to England and Wales and work is presently being considered on two schemes in Carmarthenshire and. Both relate to the Brechfa West wind farm and discussions are ongoing on a Planning Performance Agreement to resource the consideration of these matters.

DETAILED REPORT ATTACHED ? NO

Page 179

IMPLICATIONS

I confirm that other than those implications which have been agreed with the appropriate Directors / Heads of Service and are referred to in detail below, there are no other implications associated with this report :

Signed: E Bowen Director of Environment

Policy, Crime Legal Finance ICT Risk Staffing Physical & Disorder Management Implications Assets and Issues Equalities

NONE YES YES NONE NONE YES NONE

2. Legal The Planning Act 2015 received Royal Assent in July; Section 18 of the Act introduces a new statutory requirement for LPAs to provide pre-application services to applicants.

Under section 93 of the Local Government Act 2003 Local Authorities may charge for discretionary services.

3. Finance While a pre-application service is already provided it is difficult to assess take up once a fee is in place; any income received will fund graduate posts and the position will be reviewed in two years.

Page 180

7. Staffing Implications Two graduate planning trainees are in the process of being recruited for a temporary period of two years, to ensure the statutory deadlines quoted are met.

CONSULTATIONS

I confirm that the appropriate consultations have taken in place and the outcomes are as detailed below

Signed: E Bowen Interim Director of Environment

(Please specify the outcomes of consultations undertaken where they arise against the following headings) 1. Scrutiny Committee – N/A

2.Local Member(s) - N/A

3.Community / Town Council – N/A

4.Relevant Partners - N/A

5.Staff Side Representatives and other Organisations – N/A

Section 100D Local Government Act, 1972 – Access to Information List of Background Papers used in the preparation of this report:

THERE ARE NONE

Title of Document File Ref No. Locations that the papers are available for public inspection

Page 181 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 182 PLANNING COMMITTEE Agenda Item 5.1

THURSDAY , 10 September 2015

PRESENT: Councillor A Lenny (Chair)

Councillors: J.M. Charles, A.P. Cooper, I.W. Davies, J.A. Davies, P.M. Edwards (In place of T. Davies), D.C. Evans, W.T. Evans, J.K. Howell, I.J. Jackson, J.D. James (In place of MK Thomas), DJR Llewellyn (In place of W.J.Lemon), K Madge, J Owen, DWH Richards (In place of H.I. Jones), T Theophilus and J.S. Williams

The following Officers were in attendance: K. Byrne, Assistant Solicitor R. Davies, Development Management Officer (South) J. Edwards, Acting Head of Planning K. James, Assistant Engineer Planning Liaison R. Jones, Development Management Officer (West)

Chamber , County Hall, Carmarthen - 10.00 - 10.45 am

1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors T. Davies, A.W. Jones, H.I. Jones, W.J. Lemon and M.K. Thomas.

2. DECLARATIONS OF PERSONAL INTERESTS

There were no declarations of interest.

3. AREA SOUTH -DETERMINATION OF PLANNING APPLICATIONS

RESOLVED that the following planning applications be granted subject to the conditions detailed within the Report / Addendum of the Head of Planning and/or reported at the meeting:- S/32238 Demolition of old school house and siting of 4 no semi - detached dwelling houses at Old School, 7 Banc Pendre, Kidwelly, SA17 4TA;

NOTE: Subject to Section 106 agreement [affordable housing] S/32399 Increase height of north east timber boundary fence from 2m to 3m, 18m long at 7 clos y capel, bryn, llanelli, SA14 9AQ

4. AREA WEST

Page 183

RESOLVED that consideration of the following planning application be deferred to enable the Committee to undertake a site visit:- W/31160 One Planet Development Consisting Of Four Zero Carbon Dwellings At Land At Rhiw Las, Abbey Road, Whitland, SA34 0LH REASON: To enable the Committee to view the site

5. TO SIGN AS A CORRECT RECORD THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON THE 13TH AUGUST 2015

UNANIMOUSLY RESOLVED that the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on the 13th August, 2015 be signed as a correct record.

______CHAIR DATE

Page 184

PLANNING COMMITTEE Agenda Item 5.2

Tuesday, 22 September 2015

PRESENT: Councillor A. Lenny (Chair)

Councillors: J.M. Charles, A.P. Cooper, D.B. Davies, I.W. Davies, J.A. Davies, P.M. Edwards (In place of T. Davies), W.T. Evans, I.J. Jackson, H.I. Jones, D.J.R. Llewellyn (In place of W.J. Lemon), K. Madge, T. Theophilus, M.K. Thomas and J.S. Williams

Councillor H.A.L. Evans addressed the Committee in respect of planning application W/30721

The following Officers were in attendance: J. Edwards, Development Management Manager K. James, Assistant Engineer Planning Liaison R. Jones, Development Management Officer (West) S. Murphy, Senior Solicitor L. Quelch, Head of Planning K. Thomas, Democratic Services Officer

Chamber, County Hall, Carmarthen - 11.30 am - 2.40 pm

1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors D.C. Evans, T. Davies, A.W. Jones and W.J. Lemon

2. DECLARATIONS OF PERSONAL INTERESTS

There were no declarations of personal interest.

3. W/31160 - ONE PLANET DEVELOPMENT CONSISTING OF FOUR ZERO CARBON DWELLINGS AT LAND AT RHIW LAS, ABBEY ROAD, WHITLAND, SA34 0LH

The Development Management Officer referred to the private site visit undertaken by the Committee earlier that day, (Minute 4 of the Planning Committee held on the 10th September refers) the purpose of which had been to enable the Committee to view the application site in light of the objections received to the proposed development.

The Development Management Officer advised the Committee that the application, which sought full planning consent for a One Planet development comprising 4 zero carbon dwellings on 21.5 acres of mixed woodland and pasture at Rhiw Las, Whitland, had been assessed against the policies detailed within Planning Policy Wales and Technical Advice Note 6 relating to Planning for Sustainable Rural Communities and One Planet Developments in the open countryside. The One Planet Development Practice guidance that accompanied those policies detailed a set of essential characteristics requiring that all such developments in the open countryside must:- • Have a light touch in the environment – positively enhancing the

Page 185

environment wherever possible through activities on the site; • Be land based – the development must provide the minimum needs of residents in terms of food, income, energy and waste assimilation in no more than 5 years; • Have a low ecological footprint – the development must have an initial ecological footprint of 2.4 global hectares per person or less, with a clear potential to move to 1.88 global hectares per person over time – these were the ecological footprint benchmarked for OPD’s over time; • Have very low carbon buildings in both construction and use; • Be defined and controlled by a binding management plan which was reviewed every five years • Be bound by a clear statement that the development would be the sole residence for the proposed occupants.

In addition, One Planet Developments must produce a Management Plan integral to which was a requirement for the production of an annual evidenced based monitoring report detailing progress made against the plan. That plan would need to outline an exit strategy in the event the development failed to achieve one or more of the essential characteristics of One Planet Development over a period of two years, without having instituted clear and effective measures to address the identified problems. With regard to that requirement, the developer had indicated within the Management Plan that residential dwellings and associated buildings would be removed as part of the exit strategy and the land returned to agricultural use.

The Development Management Officer thereupon referred to the Head of Planning’s written report (and addendum circulated at the meeting) which provided a summary of the consultation responses and objections received, an appraisal of the site, a description of the proposal and information on the national planning policies that were relevant to the assessment of the application. He advised that the Head of Planning was recommending approval of the application subject to the conditions detailed within her written report and to the applicant entering into a Section 106 Agreement binding the occupiers of the proposed dwellings to the land.

Representations were received objecting to the proposed development re-iterating the points detailed within the Head of Planning’s written report and included the following:- • The development would be detrimental to visual amenity of the residential dwelling overlooking the proposed development, with the residents being able to view activities at the site. It was considered the proposed screening works would not address that detriment; • There were technical and Health and Safety issues directly affecting the proposals and, in view thereof, it was considered planning should not be granted; • Concerns had been raised by local residents regarding road conditions and hazards along the unclassified Abbey Road, via which access would be achieved to the site which, had not been addressed by the Design Access Statement. The vehicle access to the site and the requirement for a visibility splay were of particular concern in that the applicant did not own the land necessary to provide the required visibility splay and had not detailed how it could be provided;

Page 186

• The proposed development included provision for education and training which would result in further traffic on Abbey Road, in addition to the traffic generated by the development. Concern was expressed at the potential health and safety implications the increased traffic could have on pedestrians and cyclists using the road which was flanked by high hedges, had no street lighting or pavements and few passing places. The Committee was questioned on whether it would approve similar applications for four dwellings in such a remote location with a dangerous access road; • The consumption calculation data accompanying the application was questioned with regard to whether the amount of power to be generated by the photovoltaic cells would be sufficient to meet the needs of the occupiers of the four dwellings, especially, as the data made no reference to the type of domestic appliances to be used in the properties, the provision of external lighting or power to the workshops. • The proposal showed the development would be self sufficient in water production yet, the consumption data indicated the households would be spending £2k per annum on water; • The Llanboidy Community Council had commissioned Hayston Planning and Development to examine the proposal which had identified 4 main areas of concern. Firstly, the inadequacy of the highway network being unsuitable for walkers or cyclists. Secondly, the provision of four dwellings, associated agri industries and suggested future wind turbine were contrary to Policy SP14 – protection and enhancement of the local environment. Thirdly, to approve 4 dwellings in this area, with no affordable housing contribution was inconsistent with policies AH1, AH3 and the SPG on affordable housing. Fourthly, the site of the proposed development was not capable of supporting 4 dwellings; • Concern was expressed at the accuracy of the number of forecasted traffic movements, identified within the Management Plan, which would occur along Abbey Road and the impact that would have on current traffic volumes by local residents, a nearby haulage firm and increased farm traffic in the summer months • TAN 6 recommended that such developments should take place near existing villages and towns; • The proposal was considered to be contrary to the following policies within the LDP – SP14, A3, GP2,TR2,TR3 and CP1. • Scepticism was expressed on the sustainability of the proposed development for 4 dwellings on 21acres of land having regard to the current economic difficulties being faced by established farmers, operating on much larger acreages.

The Applicant, in response to the objections advised the Committee that:- 1. The nearby residential dwelling that overlooked the site was situated several hundred yards away from the development. The developers were keen to reduce any impact upon neighbours and would be undertaking appropriate screening works. They would also be endeavouring to keep any noise impact to a minimum; 2. The developers had approximately 200m of road frontage along which an alternative visibility splay could be provided. It was not considered the development would impact on cyclists/pedestrians as they currently regularly used the road; 3. The education and training days would be by invitation only and would not involve large numbers of visitors, as detailed in the management plan;

Page 187

4. The figures detailed in the report on the ecological footprint of the development were estimates. However, they would be subject to the production of an evidenced based annual monitoring report and that should the development fail to achieve the figures, it ran the risk of having to initiate the exit strategy and leave the site. 5. Regarding the alleged discrepancy between the electricity generated by the photovoltaic cells and the consumption levels that was attributable to the intermittent nature of solar energy, where more energy was produced in the summer than winter months, with larger panels being required for production in the summer; 6. With regard to the developments viability, the Committee was assured that the Management Plan had been produced in good faith and independently assessed. The success of the business would also be judged against the annual monitoring report

The Development Management Officer and the Development Management Manager responded to the issues raised

The Committee, in considering the application expressed concerns on its sustainability, location outside any recognised development limits and inadequacy of the local highway network. The Committee was advised that the question of the location outside development limits was endorsed within Welsh Government’s TAN 6 advice, and that this would carry limited weight as a reason for refusal.

RESOLVED, that planning application W/31160 be refused, and that the Head of Planning submit suggested refusal reasons for endorsement to a future meeting of the Committee.

4. AREA WEST- DETERMINATION OF PLANNING APPLICATIONS

4.1 RESOLVED that the following planning applications be granted subject to the conditions detailed within the Report/Addendum of the Head of Planning and/or reported at the meeting:- W/30721 The installation of a 1 no. 50kw wind turbine at land adjoining, Blaen-y-Cwm, Newcastle Emlyn, SA38 9JD

A representation was received in support of the above application stating that the applicant’s home was the nearest dwelling to the proposed turbine, the concerns of local objectors had been addressed and that the turbine would make the applicant’s small holding more sustainable W/32309 Wind Turbine with a hub height of 37m and a blade tip height of 48.5m – Resubmission of W/29119 (Appeal dismissed 29.09.14) at land at Nantgerdinen, Cynwyl Elfed, Carmarthen, SA33 6UT

4.2 RESOLVED, that the following planning application be deferred to enable a site visit to be undertaken:-

Page 188

W/32479 Retention of replacement agricultural outbuildings for use as a commercial cattery (resubmission of W/31985 – refused 24/06/2015) at Broadway, Llangain, Carmarthen, SA33 5AN.

REASON: To enable the Committe to view the site

______CHAIR DATE

Page 189

This page is intentionally left blank

Page 190