Area 2 Development Control Committee

CITY AND COUNTY OF SWANSEA

NOTICE OF MEETING

You are invited to attend a Meeting of the

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE

At: Council Chamber, Civic Centre, SWANSEA

On: Tuesday 2nd August 2011

Time: 2.00p.m. Members are asked to contact John Lock (Planning Control Manager) on 635731 or Phil Baxter on 635733 should they wish to have submitted plans and other images of any of the applications on this agenda to be available for display at the Committee meeting.

AGENDA

1. Apologies for Absence.

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

3. To approve as a correct record the Minutes of the meeting of the Area 2 Development Control Committee held on 5th July 2011.

FOR DECISION

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

5. Land at Cae Duke, Loughor Road, Loughor.

Roderic Jones Acting Head of Legal, Democratic Services & Procurement 26th July 2011 Contact: Democratic Services 01792 636820

ACCESS TO INFORMATION LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1972 (SECTION 100) (AS AMENDED) (NOTE: The documents and files used in the preparation of this Schedule of Planning Applications are identified in the ‘Background Information’ Section of each report. The Application files will be available in the committee room for half an hour before the start of the meeting, to enable Members to inspect the contents)

Item No. 2

Disclosures of Personal Interest from Members

To receive Disclosures of Personal Interest from Members in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Conduct adopted by the City and County of Swansea. You must disclose orally to the meeting the existence and nature of that interest.

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

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

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

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

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

5. If you are relying on a grant of a dispensation by the Standards Committee, you must, before the matter is under consideration: (i) disclose orally both the interest concerned and the existence of the dispensation; and (ii) before or immediately after the close of the meeting give written notification to the Authority containing -

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

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

CITY AND COUNTY OF SWANSEA

MINUTES OF THE AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE

HELD ON TUESDAY 5TH JULY 2011 AT THE CIVIC CENTRE, SWANSEA AT 2.00 P.M.

PRESENT: Councillor D P Tucker (Chairman) presided

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

A C S Colburn S M Jones J Newbury W Evans E T Kirchner B G Owen E W Fitzgerald K E Marsh G Seabourne M E Gibbs P M Matthews C Thomas D I E Jones W K Morgan C M R W D Thomas M H Jones

15. APOLOGIES

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors A M Day, B J Hynes, J W Jones, P M Meara, T H Rees, C R Richards and M Smith.

16. DECLARATION OF INTEREST

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

Councillor A C S Colburn - personal - Item 4 (2011/0194) - I live in the area of the application site.

Councillor C M R W D Thomas - personal - Item 6/2010/0603) - long term friendship and was employed by the applicant for many years.

17. MINUTES

RESOLVED that the Minutes of the Area 2 Development Control Committee held on 7th June, 2011 be agreed as a correct record.

18. ITEMS FOR DEFERRAL/WITHDRAWAL

None.

Minutes of the Area 2 Development Control Committee (05.07.11) Cont’d

19. ITEMS DEFERRED FOR SITE VISITS

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

(Item 7) Application No 2011/0083

Demolition of existing garage/workshop and construction of new dwelling at 45 Castle Road, Mumbles, Swansea.

Reason

To consider the impact of the development upon the surrounding area.

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

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

RESOLVED that:

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

(#) (Item 2) Application No. 2010/1169

Construction of detached building for the processing of metals and end of life vehicles (Class B2) and installation of weighbridge, sleeper wall and formation of associated yard area at Plot 1 Felinfach, Swansea West Industrial Park, Fforestfach, Swansea.

(NOTE: A visual presentation was given to Members.

Mr. Banks (agent) addressed the Committee.)

(Item 5) Application No. 2011/0194

Construction of land to the east of Cae Mansel Road and south of Cae Mansel Lane, Gowerton, Swansea.

Minutes of the Area 2 Development Control Committee (05.07.11) Cont’d

(2) the undermentioned planning applications BE REFERRED to PLANNING COMMITTEE with a recommendation of APPROVAL subject to the conditions outlined in the report:

(Item 8) Application No. 2011/0350

Detached single storey veterinary surgery with associated car parking (renewal of planning permission 2005/1091 granted 23rd March, 2006) at Llys Nini Animal Centre, Penllergaer, Swansea.

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

(#) (Item 1) Application No. 2011/0401

Retention of detached dwelling and garage at 33 Station Road, Grovesend, Swansea.

(NOTE: A visual presentation was given to Members.

Mr. Davies (agent) addressed the Committee.)

(#) (Item 3) Application No. 2010/1850

Detached dwelling house 3 (details of siting, design and external appearance and landscaping pursuant to outline planning permission 2007/2053 granted 11th December, 2007 at The Croft, 43 Langland Road, Mumbles, Swansea.

(NOTE: A visual presentation was given to Members.

Late letter from applicant’s agent reported.

Mr. Donald and Mr Osbourne (objectors) and Mr. Kosaner (agent) addressed the Committee.

Application refused contrary to officer recommendation for the following reasons:

The proposed development would give rise to unacceptable overbearing and overlooking impacts detrimental to the residential amenities of neighbouring occupiers contrary to Policies EV1 and HC2 of the City and County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008.)

Minutes of the Area 2 Development Control Committee (05.07.11) Cont’d

(#) (Item 4) Application 2011/0418

Two storey rear extension, single storey rear extension, first floor front extension and balustrade and single storey side extension at 40 Caswell Road, Caswell, Swansea.

(NOTE: A visual presentation was given to Members.

Mr. Thomas (objector and Mr McWilliams (applicant) addressed the Committee.

Application refused contrary to officer recommendation for the following reasons:

The proposal would result in an over intensive form of development that would give rise to unacceptable overbearing and overshadowing impacts detrimental to the residential amenities of neighbouring occupiers contrary to Policies EV1 and HC7 of the City and County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008.)

(#) (Item 6) Application No. 2010/0603

Construction of new holiday let incorporating part of existing stone structure, change of use of the land from agriculture to residential curtilage and new access track at Kilvrough Park Farm, Parkmill, Swansea.

(NOTE: A visual presentation was given to Members.

Mr. Campbell (agent) addressed the Committee

21. LAND OFF FAIRWOOD ROAD, DUNVANT, SWANSEA - VARIATION OF CONDITION 01 - PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 2007/1487

The Planning Control Manager reported on the application from the developer relating to the Section 106 agreement linked to the above development.

The options and issues relating to the matter were outlined.

RESOLVED that planning permission is granted subject to conditions as recommended to the Area 2 Development Control Committee on 16th March, 2010 (See Appendix 1 to the report) and to the applicant entering into a Section 106 Obligation in respect of affordable housing as follows:

Minutes of the Area 2 Development Control Committee (05.07.11) Cont’d

The total number of affordable housing units within the development shall be agreed at the reserved matters stage up to a maximum of 30% provision in accordance with the Council’s Planning Obligation Supplementary Planning Guidance published March, 2010.

22. PROVISIONAL TREE PRESERVATION ORDER SS4 - LAND SOUTH OF GLEBE ROAD, LOUGHOR, SWANSEA

The Planning Control Manager reported on the consideration to confirm as a full order the provisional TPO at the above location.

RESOLVED that the TPO for land south of Glebe Road, Loughor be confirmed.

The meeting ended at 4.08 p.m.

CHAIRMAN

S: Area 2 Development Control Committee - 5 June 2011 (GB/GDL)

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

13 32

20 10 36 28 1 23 24

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

CONTENTS

ITEM APP. NO. SITE LOCATION OFFICER REC.

1 2011/0083 45 Castle Road Mumbles Swansea SA3 5TA APPROVE Demolition of existing garage/workshop and construction of new dwelling

2 2010/0271 158 Gorseinon Road Penllergaer Swansea SA4 9AA APPROVE Detached dwelling (outline)

3 2011/0056 Dunraven Farm Reynoldston Swansea SA3 1HR REFUSE Retention of a caravan for an agricultural worker, and retention of associated residential curtilage

4 2010/0092 Plot 1, Plenty Farm Llangennith Swansea REFUSE Detached dwelling with integral garage

5 2011/0538 Land adjacent to Crossways Burry Green Reynoldston REFUSE Swansea Detached dwelling

6 2009/0159 Gower Holiday Village Monksland Road Scurlage APPROVE Swansea SA3 1AY Retention and completion of detached two storey building to incorporate a ground floor fast food outlet and first floor living accommodation

7 2010/0521 Land at Pencaerfenni Court Crofty Swansea APPROVE One block of three terraced properties

8 2010/1182 Old Vicarage, Vicarage Lane Llangennith Swansea SA3 APPROVE 1JA Replacement dwelling with detached garage

9 2011/0173 Cwm Mawr Isaf, Cae Mansel Road, Three Crosses, APPROVE Swansea, SA4 3HT Replacement dwelling house with detached garage block, conversion and extension of existing barn to residential accommodation (details of appearance, access, landscaping, layout & scale pursuant to condition one of planning permission 2010/0689 granted 21st June 2010)

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE- 2ND AUGUST 2011

ITEM APP. NO. SITE LOCATION OFFICER REC.

10 2011/0235 Land adjacent to Ty Croeso Salthouse Point Crofty APPROVE Swansea SA4 3RP Detached dwelling (outline)

11 2011/0309 Unit 1, 908 Carmarthen Road Fforestfach Swansea REFUSE Change of use of retail unit (Class A1) to hot food takeaway (Class A3)

12 2011/0364 Morfryn, St Annes Close, Langland, Swansea SA3 4NX APPROVE Four detached dwellings with detached garages (outline)

13 2011/0570 4 Langcliffe Park Mumbles Swansea SA3 4JF REFUSE Variation of condition 6 of planning permission 77/0743 granted 25th August 1977 to allow 12 months occupancy

14 2011/0745 29B Gower Road, Sketty, Swansea, SA2 9BX REFUSE Change of use from retail shop (Class A1) to coffee shop (Class A3)

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE- 2ND AUGUST 2011 AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 2ND AUGUST 2011

ITEM 1 APPLICATION NO. 2011/0083 WARD: Oystermouth Area 2

Location: 45 Castle Road Mumbles Swansea SA3 5TA Proposal: Demolition of existing garage/workshop and construction of new dwelling Applicant: Mr Garfield Morgan

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

The application was DEFERRED FOR A SITE VISIT at the Area 2 Development Control Committee on 5th July 2011 to assess the impact of the development on the character of the area. My recommendation of approval remains unchanged.

POLICIES

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

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

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

SITE HISTORY

App No. Proposal 2004/2446 Change of use of building from light industry (Class B1) to residential (Class C3) Decision: Withdrawn Decision Date: 05/09/2005

2010/0556 Demolition of existing garage/workshop and construction of new dwelling Decision: Refuse Decision Date: 20/07/2010

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 2ND AUGUST 2011

ITEM 1 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0083

2008/1523 Conversion and extension of existing workshop and adjacent garage to a single dwelling Decision: Grant Permission Conditional Decision Date: 14/10/2008

2006/2337 Conversion and extension of existing workshop to a single dwelling Decision: Refuse Decision Date: 01/03/2007

RESPONSE TO CONSULTATIONS

ORIGINAL SCHEME

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

1. Mr G Morgan is aware of land ownership and right of ways. 2. This part of Castle Road is very narrow and additional traffic would harm road safety. 3. The dwelling would be out of keeping with the character of the area. 4. The sewage pipes protrude across our garden and although have been there for a long time, will be difference when used as a family home not a business. 5. The four windows facing our garden we hope will be opaque as shown.

Mumbles Community Council – Objects as follows:

Close proximity to school. Difficult for pedestrians and children. Narrow roadway. Effect of proposal on the character and appearance of the surrounding area.

AMENDED SCHEME (where the first floor rear windows are moved to the side elevation)

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

1. The bulk is the same as previous. 2. A window has been moved to the rear making five facing our property. 3. The dwelling would affect the character and appearance of the surrounding area. 4. Mr Morgan has marked the pedestrian route over land that belongs to myself and my neighbour.

Mumbles Community Council – No further comments to add

Highways Observations - This is a resubmission of a scheme that was previously refused and dismissed at appeal. The Inspector dismissed the application on Planning grounds but considered the highway safety aspects to be acceptable. This application is presumable submitted to overcoming the Planning reasons for the previous refusal. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 2ND AUGUST 2011

ITEM 1 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0083

In terms of highway safety, the proposal is to set back the building frontage which will enable safer pedestrian movement past the site. Adequate parking is proposed and as this has already been considered by the appeal Inspector as having no unacceptable harm to local highway safety conditions.

The current proposal differs in that 2 pillars are shown to be retained on the edge of the carriageway and I am concerned that these may pose an obstruction prone to damage. An alternative would be to install bollards as previously approved which are more in keeping with established road side furniture which would provide for safer entry and exit from the site and help to direct drivers appropriately.

I recommend that no highway objections are raised subject to the indicated pillars being replaced with bollards in accordance with details to be submitted and approved.

APPRAISAL

This application is reported to Committee for decision at the request of Councillor Tony Colburn because of concerns with overintensification of the site, overbearing impact upon neighbours and highway safety.

Full planning permission is sought for the demolition of three existing dilapidated workshop buildings and their replacement with a two storey detached dwelling house at 45 Castle Road, Mumbles.

The detached dwelling would measure 16.7m in width, and between 7.4m and 11.8m in depth. The dwelling would consist of three sections ranging in height from 3.6m to 7.3m. The external materials would consist of brick and render, slate/composite roof with the windows hardwood or aluminium. In addition, the main part of the dwelling would be set back from its original position on the highway by between 1.5m and 2.4m.

The site is located within the established urban area of Mumbles. The surrounding area is largely residential such that the principle of residential use at this location is consistent with the prevailing land uses of the area. The footprint of the development is based upon the footprint of the existing building on site and is therefore considered to make efficient use of previously developed land. There is still however a need to consider the impact upon the character and appearance of the area, the residential amenities of adjoining and future occupiers and highway safety.

In terms of the planning history of this site, planning permission was previously refused on this site in March 2007 and subsequently dismissed at appeal in December 2007. The development was for the conversion and extension of the existing building but did not include the adjoining garages. Part of one of the refusal reasons on the application (ref:2006/2337) related to the principle a dwelling fronting Castle Road at this location being at odds with the established pattern of development in the area, generally characterized by dwellings fronting Castle Street with outbuildings at the rear fronting Castle Road. However, the inspector, when dismissing the appeal did not sight this as a reason for doing so. Instead she dismissed the scheme on visual grounds stating that “the contemporary design of the proposal would introduce overtly suburban detailing that would be visually dominant and out of context with the character and appearance of the street scene.” AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 2ND AUGUST 2011

ITEM 1 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0083

This view she compared to the existing buildings along the street as being “traditional and unassuming in appearance and form and have a low key impact on the street scene”.

Planning permission was granted in October 2008 for the conversion and extension of the existing workshop and adjacent garage to a single dwelling. The planning permission granted in October 2008 (ref:2008/1523) was a balanced recommendation, in view of the fact that the footprint of the development was based upon the footprint of the existing buildings on site, utilising the existing structures and involving new development of a scale which was comparable to the existing buildings. As such, the proposal was considered to retain the ‘traditional and unassuming’ appearance by virtue of the limited external alterations being proposed and in this respect it was not considered that the proposal would detract from the character and appearance of the area.

Planning permission for a new dwelling was refused at the site in July 2010 (2010/0556 refers), and dismissed at Appeal by the Inspector as “being of a different scale and character to the adjacent garages and introduce a form that and use of materials that would appear incongruous”. The siting scale and design of this dwelling was substantially different to the current scheme. The current scheme however has attempted to replicate the form and scale of the existing buildings on site to overcome the Inspectors concerns.

The residential properties which back on to the application site have exceptionally long back gardens and given that the scale and massing of the proposal would be largely similar to the existing building on the site, albeit parts of the build are closer to the boundaries and parts are higher, it is not considered that the development would have any harmful physically overbearing or overshadowing impact that could be construed as detrimental to residential amenity.

Although the proposed dwelling would be a new build in lieu of the conversion of the outbuildings, the general layout and design does reflect in many ways the previous approval. The dwelling would take the form of three parts, the accommodation over two/three floors, and due to the topography of the site and some excavation works, this includes a lower ground floor basement room and conservatory. The originally submitted scheme proposed two windows in the first floor rear elevation which would have resulted in direct overlooking of the rear garden areas of the properties to the south, due to the restricted site depth. However, these windows have now been moved into the eastern elevation to prevent any direct overlooking or loss of privacy. The remaining windows shown in the rear elevation do not serve habitable rooms and are proposed to be obscure glazed to prevent any loss of privacy. A condition is however, proposed to ensure they are also unopenable apart from a fan light to allow some ventilation. The conservatory doors on the lower ground floor facing the sunken courtyard would be screened by the proposed 2m high wall on the southern elevation and as such, no overlooking would be caused.

The need to provide amenity space for occupiers of dwellings is a general requirement of all residential development proposals. Whilst the application proposes only limited amenity space in the form of an external courtyard, there is sufficient space for outside seating and/or drying space as well as sufficient space within the parking area for refuse storage. Overall the amenity space is sufficient for the style of living that the development seeks to promote, particularly given that the proposal makes more efficient use of previously developed land through new build of a similar scale to that in situ. It is not considered that the limited amenity space could amount to a reason for refusal. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 2ND AUGUST 2011

ITEM 1 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0083

As far as the current proposal is concerned the building frontage would be set back to enable safer pedestrian movement past the site. The Head of Transportation and Engineering raises no overall highway objection, however, he is concerned that the proposed pillars may pose an obstruction prone to damage. He proposes that an alternative would be to install bollards as previously approved (2008/1523 refers) which are more in keeping with established road side furniture which would provide for safer entry and exit from the site and help to direct drivers appropriately. It is recommended that an appropriately worded condition be imposed to require the applicant to submit details of bollards instead of the pillars prior to the beneficial use of the property commencing. The applicant is aware of this and has agreed to the imposition of such a condition.

Various comments made by the objectors have been addressed in the main body of the report. The land referred to as forming part of the proposed public route is not included in the red or blue line area of the application and as such is outside the control of the applicant. The application does not propose anything to this land and its use would continue as it does currently.

In conclusion therefore and having regard to all material considerations, on balance, the proposal is considered an acceptable form of development at his location that would not unduly impact upon the visual amenities of the area, highway safety or residential amenity, thus complying with the provisions of Policies EV1, EV2 and HC2 of the Unitary Development Plan 2008.

RECOMMENDATION

APPROVE, subject to the following conditions:

1 The development shall be commenced not later than the expiration of 5 years from the date of this planning permission and shall be completed in accordance with the said application plans and conditions prior to any part thereof being brought into beneficial use, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To comply with the provisions of Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1990 and to ensure that the development is completed in accordance with the plans approved by the City and County of Swansea, and so avoid any detriment to amenity or public safety by works remaining uncompleted.

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

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

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 2ND AUGUST 2011

ITEM 1 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0083

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

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

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

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

8 Notwithstanding the details on the approved plans, the proposed pillars shall be replaced by bollards, the siting and design of which shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and constructed prior to the beneficial use of the dwelling commencing. Reason: In the interests of highway safety and the freeflow of traffic

9 The windows in the rear elevation shall be obscure glazed, and unopenable except for a fan light and shall be retained as such unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To safeguard the privacy of the occupiers of neighbouring residential properties.

INFORMATIVES

1 The development plan covering the City and County of Swansea is the City and County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan. The following policies were relevant to the consideration of the application: EV1, EV2, HC2. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 2ND AUGUST 2011

ITEM 1 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0083

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

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

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

PLANS

Design and Access Statement, 1 site plan and existing block plan, 2 proposed block plan, 3 ground floor layout, 4 original first floor layout, 6 existing and proposed west elevation, 10a current pedestrian flow, 10b proposed pedestrian flow, 11a turning circles, 11b tuning circles, 12a line of sight car reversing, 12b line of sight car driving forward, 14 overlooking sight lines received 25th January 2011. Amended plans: 5 existing and proposed north elevation, 7 existing and proposed south elevation,8 existing and proposed east elevation, 9 west and south elevations - proposed sections,13a proposed floor plans, 13b proposed first floor and roof plan received 19th April 2011.

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 2ND AUGUST 2011

ITEM 2 APPLICATION NO. 2010/0271 WARD: Penllergaer Area 2

Location: 158 Gorseinon Road Penllergaer Swansea SA4 9AA Proposal: Detached dwelling (outline) Applicant: Mrs Jayne Gibbard

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

The application was DEFERRED FOR A SITE VISIT at the Area 2 Development Control Committee on 7th June 2011 to assess the impact of the development on the character of the area. My recommendation of approval remains unchanged.

POLICIES

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

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

Policy EV34 Development proposals that may impact upon the water environment will only be permitted where it can be demonstrated that they would not pose a significant risk to the quality and or quantity of controlled waters. (City & County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008)

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 2ND AUGUST 2011

ITEM 2 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/0271

Policy EV33 Planning permission will normally only be granted where development can be served by the public mains sewer or, where this system is inadequate, satisfactory improvements can be provided prior to the development becoming operational. (City & County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008)

SITE HISTORY

App No. Proposal LV/78/0561/03 NEW GARAGE EXTENSION Decision: *HGPC - GRANT PERMISSION CONDITIONAL Decision Date: 21/11/1978

LV/80/0328/01 DWELLING HOUSE Decision: *HRP - REFUSE PERMISSION Decision Date: 19/08/1980

RESPONSE TO CONSULTATIONS

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

1. A building of more than one storey would physically overbear our garden. 2. It would affect the pleasure currently enjoyed in our garden as it is a peaceful area. 3. Any windows would overlook our garden, the back of our house and our conservatory. 4. There are bats roosting in the area of the garage. 5. An application was refused in 1980 on the current site. 6. The lane is not intended to be used for vehicular access. 7. The applicant is not entitled to use the pathway as an alternative access to the bottom of his garden.

Dwr Cymru Welsh Water – No objection subject to conditions.

Environment Agency – No objection subject to conditions

Highways Observations - This proposal is for a new dwelling to the rear of 158 Gorseinon Road. An existing access from Gellihyll Road is to be utilised for the new dwelling with the existing dwelling being served from its existing access off Gorseinon Road. The removal of the existing garage and outbuildings will enable adequate parking and turning facilities to be accommodated and I am satisfied that sufficient facilities will be available for both the existing and proposed property. The access track off the end of Gellihyll Road is unsurfaced and provides a pedestrian route out onto Gorseinon Road. I am satisfied that accessing one additional dwelling from this route will not compromise safety and is little different from the current situation as the access is already in existence and can be used by the existing dwelling. It would be beneficial if the access track were surfaced from the end of Gellihyll to the site access point. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 2ND AUGUST 2011

ITEM 2 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/0271

I recommend no highway objection subject to the access route being surfaced in accordance with details to be submitted and approved prior to occupation of any new dwelling.

APPRAISAL

This application is reported to Committee for decision at the request of Councillor Wendy Fitzgerald in order for Committee to consider the impact of the proposed access.

Outline planning permission is sought for a dwelling house to the rear of 158 Gorseinon Road, Penllergaer. The land forms part of the rear garden of no.158 and is currently occupied by large outbuildings. The application is for outline consent with access and layout details submitted. A layout plan has been submitted to demonstrate that a dwelling can be accommodated on the site together with its proposed access point. The plot measures approximately 30m in depth by 16m in width and the current garage access off Gellihyll Road would be used to serve the new property.

The main issues to be considered is the principle of development on this site having regards to the character and appearance of the area and its impact upon the residential amenities of neighbouring properties and highway safety having regard to the prevailing Development Plan policies.

Policy EV1 refers to new developments according with criteria of good design whereby Policy EV2 refers to preference being given to the use of previously developed land. Policy HC2 refers to development within the urban areas being supported subject to criteria. Policies EV33, 34 and 35 generally relate to the impact upon drainage conditions in the area.

The site is considered to be of a sufficient size to accommodate the dwelling house without appearing as a cramped or overintensive form of development. Subject to sensitive design, it would not unduly impact upon the residential amenities of neighbouring properties through loss of light, privacy or overbearing physical impact. The site lies to the north west of no.156 Gorseinon Road, so there would be no significant loss of light and the plot is located at the far end of their ample rear garden, negating any overbearing physical impact. The siting also demonstrates that a new dwelling at this location would be able to satisfy the recognised distance between dwellings. The site would be to the south west of no.1 Gellihyll Road, and a distance of approximately 23m would remain between facing elevations. The distances involved would dictate also that any overshadowing to their side garden area would not be so unacceptable to warrant a recommendation of refusal on this issue alone.

With regards to highway safety issues, the Head of Transportation and Engineering raises no highway objection subject to the access being surfaced in accordance with details to be approved. An appropriate condition is therefore recommended.

The site is located within the drainage catchment area that drains to the Loughor Estuary and Burry Inlet which forms part of the Carmarthen Bay and Estuaries European Marine Site (CBEEMS). The City and County of Swansea, as the competent authority, is required to carry out a Test of Likely Significant Effect (Habitat Regulation Assessment) of the proposal under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 2ND AUGUST 2011

ITEM 2 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/0271

The TLSE is intended to assess the likely effect of the drainage proposals of this development on the integrity of the CBEEMS both alone and in combination with other developments in the same catchment area.

The TLSE has been undertaken and concludes that subject to the drainage conditions recommended, the development will not have a significant effect on its own or in combination with other developments in the catchment area for the reasons set out in the TLSE. These relate to the compensatory hydraulic capacity which has been created in the catchment area and which is recorded in the Register of approvals kept by the Council in accordance with the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), signed by the City and County of Swansea (CCS), Carmarthenshire County Council (CCC), Countryside Council for Wales (CCW), Environment Agency Wales (EAW), and Dwr Cymru Welsh Water (DCWW) on the 1st March, 2010. Also the phosphate stripping carried out at the Llannant WWTW which has created a capacity for 1000 new dwellings within that part of the catchment area in Swansea. A full Appropriate Assessment under the Habitat Regulations is not therefore necessary and the application can be approved subject to the drainage conditions indicated. This would satisfy the requirements of the Habitat Regulations.

Other material issues Turning to the comments raised by the objector concerning impact upon residential amenities, these have been addressed above. The Council’s Ecologist has visited the site to assess any bat use and is satisfied that a protected species survey does not need to be carried out and that an informative advising the applicant of their responsibilities under the Habitats Regulations will suffice.

Conclusion In conclusion therefore, and having regard to all material considerations, including the Human Rights Act, the proposed dwelling is considered an acceptable form of development at this location and would not unduly impact upon the visual amenities, residential amenities or highway safety of the area nor result in unacceptable impact upon the drainage conditions in the wider area, satisfying the Habitat Regulations and as such complies with the requirements of Policies EV1, EV2, HC2, EV33, EV34 and EV35 of the Unitary Development Plan 2008. Approval is therefore recommended.

RECOMMENDATION

APPROVE, subject to the following conditions:

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

2 Detailed plans and drawings with respect to the matters reserved in condition (01) shall be submitted for approval by the Local Planning Authority not later than the expiration of three years from the date of this permission. Reason: To ensure that the development is carried out in an orderly and satisfactory manner. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 2ND AUGUST 2011

ITEM 2 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/0271

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

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

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

6 No development shall commence until the developer has prepared a scheme for the comprehensive and integrated drainage of the site showing how foul water, surface water and land drainage will be dealt with and this has been approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. This scheme shall include details of a sustainable drainage system (SUDS) for surface water drainage and details of any connections to a surface water drainage network, and the agreed scheme shall be implemented prior to the construction of any impermeable surfaces draining to the system, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The drainage scheme shall be retained and maintained as approved unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure that a satisfactory comprehensive means of drainage is achieved and that no adverse impact occurs to the environment or the existing public sewerage system and to minimise surface water run-off.

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

8 The development hereby approved shall not be occupied until the access track from the end of Gellihyll Road to the site access point has been surfaced in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of highway safety.

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 2ND AUGUST 2011

ITEM 2 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/0271

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

INFORMATIVES

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

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

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

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

6 All appropriate pollution control measures must be adopted on site during the construction phase. It is the responsibility of the developer to ensure no contaminated water or material be allowed to enter and pollute surface or groundwater. Pollution prevention guidance notes are available from www.netregs.gov.uk/netregs/links/107968.aspx

7 The applicant should be aware that if any controlled waste is to be used on the site, for example as infill, then they will need to obtain the appropriate authorisation from Environment Agency Wales. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 2ND AUGUST 2011

ITEM 2 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/0271

8 If any controlled waste is to be removed off site, then the applicant must ensure a registered waste carrier is used to convey the waste material off site to a suitably authorised facility. The Duty of Care regulations for dealing with waste materials are applicable for any off-site movements of wastes. The developer as waste producer therefore has a duty of care to ensure all materials removed go to an appropriate licensed disposal site and all relevant documentation is completed and kept in line with regulations.

PLANS

Site location plan, block plan, design and access statement received 17th February 2010

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 2ND AUGUST 2011

ITEM 3 APPLICATION NO. 2011/0056 WARD: Gower Area 2

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

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

This application was DEFERRED FOR A SITE VISIT at the Area 2 Development Control Committee on 7th June 2011 to assess the impact of the development upon its surroundings. My report has been updated to include two late letters of support from the applicant’s agent. My recommendation of refusal remains unchanged.

POLICIES

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

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

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

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

SITE HISTORY

None AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 2ND AUGUST 2011

ITEM 3 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0056

RESPONSE TO CONSULTATIONS

The application was advertised on site and in the local press as a Departure from the Development Plan. THREE LETTERS OF SUPPORT and a PETITION OF SUPPORT with 421 signatures have been received which are summarised as follows:

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

Llangennith, Llanmadoc and Cheriton Community Council - No objection

The Gower Society – Comments as follows:

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

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

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

CONCLUSION STATEMENT FROM THE APPLICANT’S AGRICULTURAL CONSULTANT

“The current trend in our agricultural communities is towards larger farms and smaller farms such as Dunraven would normally be purchased by neighbouring farmers and would effectively disappear as holdings in their own right. An effort is being made at Dunraven to reverse this trend by ensuring that two generations of the same family to have a part to play in their own farm. I feel sure that Swansea County Council have concerns about the changing nature of this agricultural community of the Gower Peninsular in that the inherent farmers are fast disappearing at the expense of people from outside the area. A vibrant rural community is essential to life in Gower and essential in order that the people who know land management best continue to be entrusted with the work of maintaining the beauty of the peninsular. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 2ND AUGUST 2011

ITEM 3 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0056

The family have long been established at Dunraven and recent Assembly guidelines encourage the youngsters of today to stay within their communities – what better way to satisfy this than to allow this application.”

Summary of letters of support from Applicant’s agent

Letter 1 (received after the original officer’s report for Committee Agenda for 19th April 2011 had been written)

1. The grounds of Appeal against the enforcement notice fully deal with the reasons for refusal and Policies EV1, EV2, EV20, EV22 and EV26 have been fully dealt with. 2. You are in receipt of a petition of over 400 signatures in full support of the granting of planning permission. 3. There is no low cost housing available in Gower contrary to Planning Policy Wales and the only option is to provide caravan accommodation for agricultural workers. 4. If the only reason for refusal is EV(?) the applicant would, if necessary on obtaining consent convert the same into a rural chalet which we presume you would find acceptable. 5. The UDP states that where there is a contradiction between policies, decisions should be taken in the light of all material consideration including local priorities and needs. 6. There are issues in this case that must be addressed under the Human Rights Act and consider that the human rights of Mr and Mrs Cowley and Mr Matthew’s will be infringed if planning permission is refused.

Letter 2 (received as a late letter of correspondence after the Committee Agenda for 7th June 2011 had been compiled). The letter was split into three sections – each section is summarised separately below:

First Section

1 The report is one sided and quotes at length from the UDP why the application should be refused. Material consideration to the contrary must be considered. 2 All considerations material to the decision to be made must be brought to the attention of the committee and should be in clear terms and cover the relevant law and policy. 3 The report is misleading. 4 The requirements of PPW 2010 should be acted upon and they may be material to decision on planning applications and will be taken into account by the Welsh ministers and Planning Inspectors in the determination of Appeals.

Second Section - Agent’s own summary of this section of letter indicated below in full. (The full letter will be available to Members at the Committee meeting if required)

1 My grounds of support have been ignored and not referred to in the officer report. 2 Material considerations that could allow the consent have been ignored and not placed before the Committee. 3 Requirements of Planning Policy Wales have been ignored. 4 Local Housing Associations like Gwalia and Family Housing have nothing available for housing in Gower. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 2ND AUGUST 2011

ITEM 3 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0056

5 Recent planning consents granted are for market houses in excess of £300,000. 6 Infill houses are always for market housing. 7 It is considered that the Human Rights Act could apply to this application. 8 The applicant’s meet the financial and functional tests of Tan 6 as supported by their accountant and agricultural expert. 9 Lord Scarman’s dictum has been ignored by the LPA, as has the health of the applicants. 10 Planning Policy Wales 9.2.20 considers that residential mobile homes can make a contribution to overall housing provision and have a part to play in providing low cost accommodation for small housing.

Section 3 – Response to report of Council’s Independent Consultant:

1. I would question the basis upon which the advisor makes the statement on page 5 last paragraph. I do not believe he has specific local knowledge. 2. The advisor appears to have misread bullet point 3 of 4.3.1 in that it indicates that dwellings should be allowed if there is a need for 0.5 of a full time worker. This is not a case of all points having to be satisfied as some are mutually exclusive. 3. The advisor should not dismiss animal welfare so lightly and are reminded that one person cannot be expected to give 24 hour supervision. 4. Store cattle are not included as the labour requirement for the suckler cows is deemed as including the calf which is sold at the age of 10 months. 5. A profit can be shown for Dunraven Farm for the last three years and a statement confirming profit should be sufficient as an applicant’s personal finances should not have to be public knowledge to apply for planning permission. Greater weight should be given to para.4.10.2 which indicates that it is the financial viability over the next 5 years which should show specific figures.

APPRAISAL

This application is reported to Committee for decision at the request of Councillor Richard Lewis in order for Committee to consider the impact of the development on its surroundings.

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

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

The Policies most pertinent to the consideration of this application are Polices EV1, EV2, EV20, EV22 and EV26 of the Unitary Development Plan 2008 in conjunction with the requirements of TAN 6. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 2ND AUGUST 2011

ITEM 3 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0056

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

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

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

Policy EV22 states that the countryside throughout the County will be conserved and enhanced for the sake of its natural heritage, natural resources, historic and cultural, environment and agricultural and recreational value through:

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

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

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

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

(a) there is a clearly established existing functional need; (b) the need relates to a full-time worker, or one who is primarily employed in agriculture, and does not relate to a part-time requirement; (c) the unit and the agricultural activity concerned have been established for least three years, have been profitable for at least one of them, are currently financially sound, and have a clear prospect of remaining so; AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 2ND AUGUST 2011

ITEM 3 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0056

(d) the functional need could not be fulfilled by another dwelling already on the unit, or any other existing accommodation in the area which is suitable and available for occupation by the workers concerned; and (e) other normal planning requirements, for example, on siting and access, are satisfied.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4.4.1(c): The enterprise has been established for over three years, but no evidence is submitted on past accounts to prove the rest of the test. The budgets are not allocated to a particular year, assume the expansion for which there is no evidence and do not add any weight to the evidence required for the test. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 2ND AUGUST 2011

ITEM 3 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0056

TAN 6 requires evidence of 3 years past accounts and 5 years budgets for the future. These are not provided. This test is failed.

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

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

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

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

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

In our opinion, the application fails the tests. There is no proven need for the retention of the caravan and therefore no proven need to retain any curtilage to it.”

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

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

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

The Head of Transportation and Engineering raises no highway objection to the scheme as there are considered to be no highway safety or parking implications with this proposal. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 2ND AUGUST 2011

ITEM 3 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0056

The statement from the applicant’s agent has been summarised above. Some sections have been omitted from this summary as they are considered inflammatory and personal and as such not relevant to the consideration of this application.

His other comments are noted and it is appreciated that he is naturally supportive of the applicants but the Department would comment on many of the points raised.

1. The report has fully considered the merits of the scheme in relation to the relevant Local and National Policies which advise very strict controls on new housing development in AONBs in line with the Government’s aims “ to protect the countryside for the sake of its intrinsic character and beauty, the diversity of its landscapes, heritage and wildlife, the wealth of its natural resources and so may be enjoyed by all”.

2. The applicant’s agent has raised the issue regarding the need for affordable housing in Gower, which is a material planning consideration in areas where there is a demonstrable need for affordable housing. The Council produced a local housing market assessment 2007 (updated 2009) whose findings indicate that there is a housing need for approximately 10 units per annum in the wider Gower / Penclawdd market area. However it is the intention of the Council to examine the potential to break this need down further, split across the subareas/villages/communities of Gower in regards of the type, size and location of units which are needed and where such sites should be supported. This further study would help inform future development plan policy and development control decisions. Subsequently, at present there is insufficient evidence that a specific need exists in Burry Green or nearby villages to support development.

3. Notwithstanding the above and the agent’s vociferous comments, the fact that the functional and financial tests have not been met is a major factor in the recommended of the refusal of this application. If these tests had been met, then the recommendation may have been different. The points he has made in all other respects cannot outweigh these facts and as such, the proposal is considered to conflict with the requirements for an additional agricultural workers dwelling on established farms in TAN 6 2010. Also, no pre-application advice was sought by the applicant or agent regarding this development, and no consideration given to alternative ways of accommodating the family members on site such as extending the existing house or siting a caravan in the established garden as ancillary accommodation. In addition, it has been suggested to the applicant’s agent that if they are of the opinion that the son needs to live on site, there are several outbuildings close to the existing dwelling that may be capable of conversion as stated in Policy EV20 (ii).

4. The applicant’s agent argues that the report is misleading and that the caravan cannot be seen from public vantage points, but the Department would contend that it can be seen from the main highway. The argument that a development cannot be seen in the countryside is not however, a viable argument as many schemes could be screened from view but this is not a reason alone for allowing inappropriate development in the countryside, which is not justified in line with established national and local plan policies. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 2ND AUGUST 2011

ITEM 3 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0056

5. The applicant’s agent refers to Lord Scarman’s ruling that “personal circumstances were not to be ignored in the administration of planning control.” The personal circumstances of the applicant have not been ignored as their reasons for the application have been referred to in this report. Whilst the applicant’s agent is correct in referring to PPW 9.2.20 stating that residential mobile homes can make contribution to low cost housing provision, it also continues to say that “Local Planning Authorities should consult the park homes industry about the provision of appropriate sites”. It is not therefore considered to refer to individual caravans being allowed indiscriminately on any parcel of land anywhere.

6. The applicant’s agent also uses examples he believes proves his case that the personal circumstances of the applicant’s are paramount. The Local Planning Authority would agree that in some circumstances, the applicant’s personal circumstances are a material planning consideration but would not agree that they would be the only consideration that would have to be taken into account, overriding any other Policies pertinent to the consideration of any application.

7. The applicant’s agent complains that the Officer’s report is one sided but the Local Planning Authority would contend that as the applicant’ agents letter only refers to the personal circumstances of the applicant, he has failed to consider any other issue and as such has a one sided view.

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

RECOMMENDATION

REFUSE, for the following reasons:

1 The applicant has failed to demonstrate an agricultural or overriding economic or social need for this residential development in the open countryside in accordance with Policy EV20 of the City and County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008 and Welsh Assembly Technical Advice Note 6. The development therefore constitutes unjustified urbanising development in the open countryside detrimental to the character and appearance and openness of the area contrary to Policies EV1, EV2, EV20, EV22 and EV26 of the Unitary Development Plan 2008.

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

INFORMATIVES

1 The development plan covering the City and County of Swansea is the City and County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan. The following policies were relevant to the consideration of the application: EV1, EV2, EV20, EV22, EV26 AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 2ND AUGUST 2011

ITEM 3 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0056

PLANS

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

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 2ND AUGUST 2011

ITEM 4 APPLICATION NO. 2010/0092 WARD: Gower Area 2

Location: Plot 1, Plenty Farm Llangennith Swansea Proposal: Detached dwelling with integral garage Applicant: Mr Gareth Howells

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

This application was DEFERRED at the Area 2 Development Control Committee on 4th May 2010 to enable to attempt to negotiate an amended design. The applicant has confirmed that he does not want to change the design of the proposed dwelling and wishes his application to be considered as originally submitted. My recommendation of refusal therefore remains unchanged.

POLICIES

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

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

Policy EV16 Within the small villages identified on the Proposals Map, small-scale development will be approved only where it is appropriate to the location in terms of the defined criteria. (City & County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008) AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 2ND AUGUST 2011

ITEM 4 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/0092

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

SITE HISTORY

App No. Proposal 2007/0331 Detached dwelling with detached garage Decision: Grant Permission Conditional Decision Date: 24/04/2007

2004/0119 Erection of two dwellings Decision: Grant Permission Conditional Decision Date: 14/09/2004

2005/0529 Detached dwelling with detached garage (amendment to planning permission 2004/0119 granted on 14th August 2004) Decision: Refuse Decision Date: 28/06/2005

RESPONSE TO CONSULTATIONS

The application was advertised on site and in the press as a development within the Llangennith Conservation Area and which may affect the setting of a Listed Building. No response. ONE LETTER OF OBJECTION has been received, which is summarised as follows:

1. I do not object to the principle of a house on Plot 1 nor object to the design but question whether or not it is appropriate in a Conservation Area. 2. I do not agree with its positioning squashed into the corner of the plot and this will have a detrimental effect on the garden of my property and the house to the north west. 3. I would suggest a better siting would be more centrally located as per the original consent. 4. I am concerned as when I attempted to change the design on Plot 2, I was advised that the scheme as originally designed should not be changed dramatically and the distances to the boundary adhered to. 5. I thought that Members would agree that consistency in design and planning issues would be vitally important to creating a cohesive and thoughtful environment, especially within a Conservation Area.

The Gower Society – Comments as follows:

1. This application shows a design which appears to be inappropriate for its location. 2. Plenty Farm has suffered from over-development of its site. 3. The original design was preferable to this latest design. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 2ND AUGUST 2011

ITEM 4 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/0092

The Society still retains its grave concerns regarding this development and wishes its comments to be taken into account when a decision is reached.

Llangennith, Llanmadoc and Cheriton Community Council – The Community Council objects on the grounds that the proposed dwelling is too large for the size of plot and the design is out of keeping with the surrounding area (especially the listed part of Plenty Farm).

Highways Observations - The amended plot layout and revised access position is acceptable. I recommend no highway objections.

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

APPLICANT STATEMENT (summarised)

1. The house on plot 1 is not a traditional double fronted cottage but an executive style double fronted house. 2. How does the cottage on plot 2 relate to Plenty farm? Plenty Farm itself, whether Listed or not, has evolved with modern accommodation units, a restaurant and a car park replacing the former corrugated clad outbuildings and farmyard. 3. The house previously approved on plot 1 hardly meets criteria for high design standards and the architect on this project has been the winner of the Lord Mayor’s Design Awards on 2 occasions. 4. There is no real traditional or local design distinctiveness in this part of the conservation area. 5. Does our proposal create any real differences in terms of it being unacceptably overbearing. It can always be sited a further from the boundary fence but will a few feet make any difference? 6. The main issues with regards to siting were to reduce the impact of the development on Rosedene who stood to lose much if its current outlook and the visual impact upon Cock Street will be reduced. These considerations should balance the concerns of additional overbearance. The revised design also takes away the detached garage on the boundary line. 7. The footprint of the previously approved scheme was larger. 8. Plot 2 has a larger footprint. 9. There are many diverse designs in this part of the conservation area so what character? 10. The report implies that the previously approved scheme was sensitively designed and the occupiers of those most affected thought the new scheme better thought out and better suited to the plot.

APPRAISAL

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

Full planning permission is sought for the erection of a detached dwelling with an integral garage on plot 1, on land adjoining Plenty Farm, Llangennith within the Llangennith Conservation Area. Outline planning permission was previously granted for two single dwellings with a detached garage on Plots 1 and 2 under application ref. 2004/0119. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 2ND AUGUST 2011

ITEM 4 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/0092

Details of siting, design, and external appearance for the dwellings were previously considered and granted planning permission at this outline stage. Members will recall that Plot 2 has already been approved and built under planning permission 2007/0331 granted in April 2007, albeit amended from that originally considered.

As outline permission has been granted for a house on this land, although now lapsed, it is considered that the principle of development has been established.

The main issues for consideration are the impact of the proposal on the setting of the Grade II Listed “Plenty Farm”, the impact on the character and appearance of the Llangennith Conservation Area and this part of the Gower Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, it’s impact on the residential amenities of the occupiers of neighbouring dwellings, and on highway safety, having regard to the prevailing policies of the Development Plan, and recent national planning policy guidance provided by Planning Policy Wales 2011. It is not considered that the Human Rights Act raises any additional material considerations in this case.

Plot 1 currently comprises an area of rough land located between Plenty Farm and the dwelling to the east known as Rosedene. As previously considered the site has a highway frontage of approximately 35 metres and has a maximum depth of approximately 40m along the eastern boundary whilst having a maximum depth of approximately 18m along its western boundary with Plenty Farm.

The proposed dwelling would be set into the north western corner of the site, set back between 17-20m from the front boundary, approximately 2m from the western boundary with Rosedene, 2m from the common boundary with the new dwelling on Plot 2 and approximately 20m from the boundary with Plenty Farm. The two storey design comprises of a series of distinct components resulting in an irregular angular footprint. External features include a front dormer window to the southern elevation and a first floor balcony to the eastern elevation. The integral garage would be located within the southern elevation. The maximum width and depth of the dwelling would be approximately 12m, with varied eaves height and a maximum overall height of 7.4m. The proposed materials would comprise of rendered walls, slate roof and timber effect or white Upvc windows and doors.

The proposed access into the site would be inserted alongside the common boundary with Rosedene, essentially handed from that previously approved, and to this the Head of Transportation and Engineering raises no highway objection.

The original design comprised a traditionally designed double fronted cottage sited centrally within the plot with a detached garage to the west of the front elevation. This design was akin to that proposed on the adjacent Plot 2 and together these designs were considered to be acceptable and not adversely impact upon the Llangennith Conservation Area or the setting of the Listed Building at Plenty Farm.

Within the Gower AONB the primary objective of this designation is the preservation of the natural beauty of this area. The Council wishes to foster high standards of design in all new development, and this is reinforced by Planning Policy Wales 2011, which states that within AONBs, the primary objective of this designation is the preservation of the natural beauty of this area, and development control decisions affecting the AONB should respect this by considering the importance of traditional and local distinctiveness. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 2ND AUGUST 2011

ITEM 4 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/0092

The principal relevant development plan policies are Policies EV1 and EV16 of the Unitary Development Plan 2008. Policy EV9 requires development proposals within Conservation Areas to preserve and enhance the character and appearance of the Conservation Area in terms of their design, scale, massing, materials and relationship to existing buildings and spaces. Policy EV16 lists similar criteria for new development within small Gower villages, and Policy EV1 seeks to preserve the setting of Listed Buildings.

In addition, Policy EV1 require that the design and layout of new development proposals should respect and be sympathetic to the character and amenity of the site and its immediate surroundings, and protect the amenity currently enjoyed by neighbouring residents. As such proposals need to be carefully assimilated into the existing environment through the use of appropriate scale and detailing of buildings and use of good quality materials, and ensure that there is no unacceptable visual impact, loss of light or privacy, increased activity and traffic movements or car parking problems.

In terms of residential amenity, the siting of the dwelling in close proximity to the boundary with Plot 2 would result in some overshadowing of their rear amenity space, albeit to the western most section. However, the plot in question is elevated above plot 2 and it is considered that as it’s siting within 2m of the common boundary, it would appear unacceptably overbearing when viewed from Plot 2. With regards to direct overlooking, a first floor bedroom window would directly look into the rear garden area of Plot 2, but this could be obscure glazed to protect their privacy. The balcony on the south-eastern elevation, which would also cause unacceptable loss of privacy, could also have a screen inserted along its northern boundary to prevent direct overlooking to these occupiers.

The distance to the boundary with Plenty Farm would be approximately 20m and as such it is not considered that the proposed balcony would result in unacceptable loss of privacy to the occupiers. There are two first floor windows that would directly overlook the amenity space of Rosedene, but as one would serve an en-suite bathroom and one would be a secondary bedroom window, these again could be obscure glazed to prevent loss of privacy. It is considered also the height of the dwelling and its siting in relation to Rosedene would dictate that it would not give rise to unacceptable physical overbearance.

The revised design and layout of the proposed dwelling would not increase the overall footprint significantly of that previously approved due to its eclectic design and the removal of the detached garage, but whilst the original two storey house was considered acceptable in the context of the neighbouring cottage and listed farmhouse, the current application proposes an unacceptable design which will introduce a large suburban style house that dominates the site, and will seriously detract from the character and appearance of the surrounding more modest buildings. This design and layout is considered alien in the immediate context of this site, and would seriously depart from the established character, form, and density of development in this sensitive setting to the detriment of the character of the Llangennith Conservation area. It is not considered that this scheme has been sensitively designed to take account of the prominent location of this site and the resultant visual impact on the immediate environs and the surrounding context of the Llangennith Conservation Area. In addition, the dwelling would be elevated above the highway by approximately 1.75m and as a result, the new development would be a visually prominent building in this landscape, unsympathetic to the character and appearance of this part of the Llangennith Conservation Area, which is to a large extent typified by more modest cottage style properties. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 2ND AUGUST 2011

ITEM 4 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/0092

On this basis, the proposed development of this land at Plot 1 would result in a visually dominant and obtrusive form of infill development, which would not positively enhance the character and appearance of Llangennith Conservation Area, thus detracting from the natural beauty of this part of the Gower AONB, contrary to Policies EV1, EV9, EV16 and EV26.

Part 6 of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 requires the competent authority, in this case the City and County of Swansea to undertake a Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) of all projects which alone or in combination with other projects could have a significant effect on the features of a protected European Site, in this case the Carmarthen Bay and Estuaries Marine Site (CBEEMS), before granting planning permission for any such project. This application comprises development which drains into the catchment area of the CBEEMS and which may, in combination with other projects, have a significant effect on this European Site. However, the information required to enable an Appropriate Assessment to be undertaken has not been sought as planning permission is not being granted by the Council in this case, and it is not considered necessary to do so in these circumstances.

Should it be proposed to approve this application, an Appropriate Assessment will need to be undertaken.

Turning to the comments made by the objectors, they have been addressed above in the main body of the report.

In conclusion, having regard to the above considerations including the Human Rights Act, it is considered that the proposed amendments to the previously approved house at Plot 2 are not acceptable, and would result in a visually obtrusive and insensitive ‘suburban style’ of house development that has not been designed carefully to either preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the Llangennith Conservation Area, and the natural beauty of this part of the Gower AONB, and would result in unacceptable harm to the amenities currently enjoyed by neighbouring residents. As such the proposal is not considered a satisfactory form of infill development in this Gower Village, and is therefore contrary to Policies EV1, EV9, EV16 and EV26 of the Unitary Development Plan 2008 and refusal is recommended.

RECOMMENDATION

REFUSE, for the following reasons:

1 The proposed dwelling house, by virtue of its prominent siting and inappropriate design would fail to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the Llangennith Conservation Area, to the detriment of the natural beauty of this part of the Gower AONB contrary to Policies EV1, EV9, EV16 and EV26 of the Unitary Development Plan 2008.

2 The proposed dwelling by virtue of its scale and siting so close to the boundary with Plot 2 would result in a harmful physical overbearing impact that would be detrimental to the amenities currently enjoyed by the occupiers of this property contrary to Policies EV1 and EV16 of the Unitary Development Plan 2008.

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 2ND AUGUST 2011

ITEM 4 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/0092

INFORMATIVES

2 Part 6 of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 requires the competent authority, in this case the City and County of Swansea to undertake a Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) of all projects which alone or in combination with other projects could have a significant effect on the features of a protected European Site, in this case the Carmarthen Bay and Estuaries Marine Site (CBEEMS), before granting planning permission for any such project. This application comprises development which drains into the catchment area of the CBEEMS and which may, in combination with other projects, have a significant effect on this European Site. However, the information required to enable an Appropriate Assessment to be undertaken has not been sought as planning permission is not being granted by the Council in this case, and it is not considered necessary to do so in these circumstances.

Should it be proposed to approve this application, an Appropriate Assessment will need to be undertaken.

PLANS

Design and access statement, site location plan, DWG No DD.00- site layout plan as approved, DD.01- site layout plan (as proposed), DD.02- ground floor plan and first floor plan 1:100, DD.03- proposed north & north east elevation and west elevation, DD.04- east & north east elevation and, DD.05- proposed ground floor plan 1:50, DD.06- proposed first floor plan 1:50 received 20th January 2010

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 2ND AUGUST 2011

ITEM 5 APPLICATION NO. 2011/0538 WARD: Gower Area 2

Location: Land adjacent to Crossways Burry Green Reynoldston Swansea Proposal: Detached dwelling Applicant: Rev Paul Kirby

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

This application was DEFERRED FOR A SITE VISIT at the Area 2 Development Control Committee meeting on 7th June 2011 in order to assess whether the development is in the open countryside or within the village. An additional Supporting Statement has been submitted in order to try and justify the new dwelling and amended plans have been submitted in order to try and address the Local Planning Authorities concerns in relation to visual impact. My report has been updated accordingly and whilst it is acknowledged that the proposal has partly addressed Officer concerns in relation to visual impact this does not overcome all the reasons for refusal.

POLICIES

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

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 2ND AUGUST 2011

ITEM 5 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0538

Policy EV36 New development, where considered appropriate, within flood risk areas will only be permitted where developers can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Council that its location is justified and the consequences associated with flooding are acceptable. (City & County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008)

SITE HISTORY

App No. Proposal 2003/0180 Single storey rear extension Decision: Grant Permission Conditional Decision Date: 26/03/2003

90/1286/01 RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. Decision: *HRP - REFUSE PERMISSION Decision Date: 13/11/1990

RESPONSE TO CONSULTATIONS

Neighbours: The application was advertised on site in the form of a Site Notice and in the press as a Departure from the provisions of the Development Plan. No letters of response were received.

Highways: This proposal is for a new dwelling on land adjacent to Crossways Burry Green. Access will conform to accepted standards for accesses in Gower and adequate on site parking and turning facilities are also being provided. I recommend no highway objection subject to the construction of a vehicular crossing of the verge to Highway Authority Specification.

Note: The Developer must contact the Team Leader - Highways Management, City and County of Swansea (Highways), Penllergaer Offices c/o Civic Centre, Swansea, SA1 3SN (Tel 01792 636091) before carrying out any work.

Gower Society: The Gower Society has inspected the above application, visited the site and has the following observations to make: AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 2ND AUGUST 2011

ITEM 5 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0538

1. We think that the proposed design is not entirely compatible with this location and could be improved, possibly in accord with the Draft Design Guide. 2. The site is in the process of being cleared and we think it essential to retain the perimeter trees. 3. Whilst not a Conservation Area, the location demands great care in order to fit in with the Manse, Chapel, Sidney Heath’s old house, the architect-designed bus shelter that Sidney Heath paid for and the ‘improved’ council houses opposite. 4. This proposal could result in over-massing, it is out of-keeping with the adjacent bungalows.

We ask that you take the above points into consideration when arriving at your decision.

Community Council: The Community Council has no objection to a house per se but does object to the building proposed. This is on the grounds that the building is not modest (the description says 3 but it has 4 bedrooms) and it is out of keeping with the street-scene. It fears this higher building may lead to an increase in building height. Also the glass frontage could be a hazard for drivers if the sun is reflected in it.

ADDITIONAL LETTER OF SUPPORT STATEMENT FROM APPLICANT WHICH IS SUMMARISED BELOW:

1. Applicant has been visiting Gower for the past 26 years and preaches regularly at the local chapel. 2. He has been involved in the mid week activities there during the Summer Holidays and has been approached by the wider Gower Pastorate to assist training in various essential matters such as Caring for the Bereaved and General Pastoral Care and Support in the Community. 3. When he moves to Gower he will involve himself in many areas of community activity and will also assist with the wider Anglican Churches in the area as they are currently cutting back on salaried clergy. 4. The proposal is in fill within the heart of the village, it is only regarded as ‘countryside’ by the planners because their criteria to be listed as a small village requires a threshold of 25 dwellings. As the recent Gower Design Study by Consultants lists Burry Green as having 23 dwellings, this means that with the addition of the proposed dwelling there is a deficit of 1 dwelling. For the planners this appears to be sufficient to justify refusal on grounds of development in the countryside overriding any other consideration. 5. Concerning “need”, on site the planning assistant referred to there being no economic justification on agricultural or forestry grounds. This is to miss the point of Welsh Assembly Government Advice contained in TAN 6 on Rural Planning Policy which states in para 9.2.22 that “many parts of the countryside have isolated groups of dwellings and that sensitive filling in of small gaps, or minor extensions to such groups, in particular for affordable housing to meet local needs may be acceptable but much depends upon the character of the surroundings, the pattern of development in the area and the accessibility to main towns”. Why therefore did the planners choose to ignore this and emphasise instead the WAG statement concerning only the need to protect the character and appearance of the countryside generally and to reduce the need to travel by car? AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 2ND AUGUST 2011

ITEM 5 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0538

6. On these two latter points it is instructive to note a letter to the applicant from the Environment Department dated 3rd March 2011, concerning screening of the application in accordance with Regulation 7 of the Environmental Impact Assessment stating “it is not considered that the development would be likely to have significant effects on the environment by virtue of factors such as its nature, size or location”. So how can they now say in their report that the development would significantly detract from the character and appearance of the surrounding vicinity and cause unacceptable harm to the landscape and countryside? The proposed cottage is a small one and fits comfortably within the site and village setting. 7. Concerning the matter of reducing the need to travel by car, the nearby chapel is only a short walk for the Rev Kirby. Moreover in his appeal letter (no. 11985150) concerning the matter of an individual dwelling at nearby Llanmadoc the Planning Inspector stated regarding the bus service to and from Swansea, which passes through Burry Green, “I conclude that the proposed development would be adequately served by public transport and would not therefore conflict with national policy guidance in Planning Policy Wales”. 8. The planning officer’s report states that each application should be determined on the basis of their own individual merits. This patently has not happened in this particular case. The site is an infill one, formerly a garden, within a small village and not in the open countryside; its design is in the Gower vernacular, and the plot has been transferred to the applicant, at an affordable price. As TAN 6 guidance on Rural Planning Policy states in its opening lines, para 2.1.1, “the planning system has a key role to play in supporting the delivery of sustainable rural communities, It can help to ensure that appropriate development takes place in the right place, at the right time by making sufficient land available to provide homes and employment opportunities for local people, helping to sustain rural services. The overall goal is to support living and working rural communities in order that they are economically, socially, and environmentally sustainable”. On all three counts the application deserves to succeed.

APPRAISAL

This application is reported to Committee for decision at the request of Councillor Richard Lewis in order for Committee to assess whether it is appropriate infill and within the village.

Description

Full planning permission is sought for a detached dwelling at land adjacent to Crossways, Burry Green, Reynoldston. Burry Green is a small, compact village centred around the junction of Burry Lane and the main Swansea to Llangennith Road. The village consists of some 23 properties and has a chapel but no community facilities. The village is made up of a wide variety of dwellings of differing architectural styles and designs. The existing dwelling at Crossways is a small non-descript bungalow and the proposed plot will be sited in the adjacent paddock area.

Principle of Development

In formulating the Swansea Unitary Development Plan the Local Planning Authority identified a number of Small Villages which allowed for appropriate small scale development. These villages were selected following an assessment of their size, facilities and accessibility. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 2ND AUGUST 2011

ITEM 5 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0538

Size and facilities were a key criteria with a minimum requirement of 25 dwellings and at least one village “facility” (church, shop, pub, hall, post office etc). Whilst the Agent contends that in line with Planning Policy Wales (PPW 2011) the proposal is a sensitive infill of a small gap in an otherwise built up frontage, PPW also states that “In order to safeguard the character and appearance of the countryside, to reduce the need to travel by car and to economise on the provision of services, new houses in the countryside, away from existing settlements recognised in development plans or from other areas allocated for development, must be strictly controlled”. Despite claims to the contrary Burry Green is not identified as a named settlement in the Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008 and as such Policy EV16 (which allows for appropriate infill within the Countryside) would not apply in this instance. As such the site is considered to fall within the countryside and therefore residential development such as this will be assessed in terms of development in the Countryside where Policy EV20 would primarily apply.

Given the plot lies within the countryside and Gower AONB Policies EV22 and EV26 of the UDP dictate that within this area the County will be conserved and enhanced for the sake of its natural heritage, natural resources, historic and cultural, environment and agricultural and recreational value through the control of development. Within this area Policy EV20 of the UDP allows for new dwellings providing the dwelling is required to accommodate a full time worker employed in agriculture, forestry or an appropriate use to serve the rural economy who needs to live on the premises rather than a nearby settlement and there is no alternative existing dwelling available in nearby settlements. In light of the above and having regard for Policy EV20 in particular, in this case no evidence has been submitted that the proposal is required for an agricultural or forestry workers dwelling and no overriding economic or use to serve the rural economy. Whilst the informal service the applicant provides to the local community it commendable there is no justification therefore for the introduction of a new dwelling within the countryside and the proposal would result in an undesirable visual intrusion into the countryside and Gower AONB. The proposal therefore fails to provide an essential agricultural or overriding economic or rural need for a dwelling at this countryside location, and there are no other material considerations that outweigh the provisions of the Unitary Development Plan.

Visual Amenity

Notwithstanding the fundamental overriding objections to the proposal in terms of principle and land use, it is considered that the revised design of the proposal would be more acceptable at this location and subject to a condition ensuring the use of traditional materials the proposal could have an acceptable visual impact upon the area having regard to Policies EV1, EV2, EV22 and EV26.

Residential Amenity

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

Highways

Having consulted the Head of Transportation and Engineering, there are no highway safety objections to the proposal. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 2ND AUGUST 2011

ITEM 5 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0538

Burry Inlet

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

However, as the application is being recommended for refusal on overriding planning grounds, a full Habitats Regulation Assessment has not been carried out. However, a Test of Likely Significant Effect under the Habitat Regulations has been undertaken where it was concluded that subject to the refusal of the application, there will be no adverse effect on the integrity of this European site as there would be no increased flows entering the drainage network.

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

Response to Consultations

Notwithstanding the above, two letters of response were received which raised concerns in relation to the design and the impact upon character of area, the issues pertaining to which have been addressed above.

Concern has been raised in regard to the loss of the protected trees, however these are not protected and therefore the LPA have no control over their potential removal.

The Supporting Information submitted as part of this application makes reference to examples of other infill development in the Countryside which has been granted permission through the years. Each application should be determined on the basis of their own individual merits and as such these were not taken into consideration during the determination of this application.

The applicant contends that the Planning Department have ignored elements of TAN6 and Planning Policy Wales, however the Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008 was formulated having regard to these documents. Whilst it is acknowledged that both PPW and TAN 6 have been revised since the adoption of the Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008, there has been no material change in planning circumstances which would warrant the approval of this application.

The applicant contends that the Councils conclusion with regard their Environmental Impact Assessment is contrary to the planning decision. However the Directive's main aim is to ensure that the authority giving the primary consent (the 'competent authority') for a particular project makes its decision in the knowledge of any likely significant effects on the environment. The Directive therefore sets out a procedure that must be followed for certain types of project before they can be given 'development consent'. This procedure - known as Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) - is a means of drawing together, in a systematic way, an assessment of a project's likely significant environmental effects. This helps to ensure that the importance of the predicted effects, and the scope for reducing them, are properly understood by the public and the relevant competent authority before it makes its decision. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 2ND AUGUST 2011

ITEM 5 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0538

The Gower AONB is classed as a ‘sensitive area’ as defined in Regulations 2(1) of the regulations and the development proposed falls within the description in Column 1, paragraph 10(b) of the table in Schedule 2 to the 1999 regulations as ‘urban development’. Having taken into account the criteria in Schedule 3 of the above Regulations, it was not considered that the development would be likely to have significant effects on the environment by virtue of factors such as its nature, size, or location and therefore given the proposal is for only one dwelling it was concluded that a full Environmental Impact Assessment was not required in this instance.

Conclusion

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

RECOMMENDATION

REFUSE, for the following reason:

1 Burry Green is not identified as a 'village' within the Swansea UDP whereby new residential development is permitted and therefore the proposal represents an unjustified form of development in the countryside and Gower AONB for which no overriding need has been demonstrated. The proposal would therefore have an unacceptable visual impact upon the character and appearance of the area contrary to Policies EV1, EV2, EV20, EV26 and EV22 of the City and County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan (2008).

INFORMATIVES

2 Part 6 of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 requires the competent authority, in this case and the City & County of Swansea to undertake a Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) of all projects which alone or in combination with other projects could have a significant effect on the features of a protected European Site, in this case the Carmarthen Bay and Estuaries Marine Site (CBEEMS), before granting planning permission for any such project. This application comprises development which drains into the catchment area of the CBEEMS and which may, in combination with other projects, have a significant effect on this European Site. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 2ND AUGUST 2011

ITEM 5 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0538

2 ctd However, the information required to enable an Appropriate Assessment to be undertaken has not been sought as planning permission is not being granted by the Council in this case, and it is not considered necessary to do so in these circumstances.

Should it be proposed to approve this application an Appropriate Assessment will need to be undertaken.

PLANS extract from Gower design guide, report of the Planning for Sustainable Buildings, received 12th April 2011. amended plans 1045-P01A- block plan & site location plan, 1045-P02A-site plan as existing, 1045-P03A- site plan as proposed, 1045-P04A- site sections as existing & proposed, 1045-P05A- floor plans and sections as proposed, 1045- P06A- elevations as proposed received 28th June 2011

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 2ND AUGUST 2011

ITEM 6 APPLICATION NO. 2009/0159 WARD: Gower Area 2

Location: Gower Holiday Village Monksland Road Scurlage Swansea SA3 1AY Proposal: Retention and completion of detached two storey building to incorporate a ground floor fast food outlet and first floor living accommodation Applicant: Mr James Wilson

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

This application was DEFERRED FOR A SITE VISIT at the Area 2 Development Control Committee on the 8th December 2009 given the volume of objections and to consider the impact of the size and scale of the development on the surrounding area. Alterations have had to be made to the plans to reflect what has been built and my recommendation of APPROVAL still stands.

POLICIES

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

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

SITE HISTORY

App No. Proposal 2001/1759 Change of use of kiosk from storage to hot food takeaway (Class A3) Decision: Appeal Allowed Decision Date: 19/11/2002

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 2ND AUGUST 2011

ITEM 6 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/0159

2004/0899 Demolition of existing detached single storey building adjacent to site entrance, and construction of a two storey building to incorporate a ground floor fast food outlet and first floor living accommodation Decision: Withdrawn Decision Date: 28/02/2005

2005/0406 Demolition of existing detached single storey building adjacent to site entrance, and construction of a two storey building to incorporate a ground floor fast food outlet and office, and first floor living accommodation Decision: Appeal Allowed Decision Date: 26/03/2007

RESPONSE TO CONSULTATIONS

ORIGINAL PLANS

Neighbours: The application was advertised on site in the form of a site notice and 30 neighbouring dwellings were individually consulted. Three letters of objection were received which are summarised below:

1. Building is out of proportion and keeping with the other buildings in the area. 2. The building is too large and is an eye sore. 3. No need for a further chip shop in the area. 4. Building is poorly built and not sympathetic. 5. Fast food outlets are a disaster area in terms of rubbish generated. 6. Waste is environmentally intrusive. 7. Take away litter is often just disguarded. 8. Building is much larger than it should be. 9. Parking. 10. Smells will permeate from the building. 11. Building is not an asset to the village.

Gower Society: Following observations to make:

1. We are confused as to why this application has taken so long to be published in the Weekly List as it was dated 19th January 2009. 2. We note that all of the drawings show dates from the original application 2005/0406 and that there are no revision numbers. 3. The only change, identified from the actual drawings with this application, is the white plastic windows. These are as installed. 4. We note the extreme height, scaled at 7.5m high, compared to adjacent properties; this makes the structure incongruous and totally out of character with its surroundings and the AONB. 5. We note the restricted width of access in front of the development as 5m; this appears much narrower than when the original shop was present. This requires checking. 6. We note the distance on the plans from the face of the sub station to the front face of the development as being 11.3m. This should be checked on site. 7. The fact that the original drawings are not available with this application 2005/0406 is unacceptable because it makes comparisons difficult to make. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 2ND AUGUST 2011

ITEM 6 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/0159

We have already seen the roof material / colour changed due to the developers disregard for the current planning permission and we are vehemently against any other transgression. As such we strongly object to this application.

Port Eynon Community Council: Following observations:

1. The Council were strongly of the opinion that this application should be refused. 2. The Council notes that the development indicated on the submitted amendment plans differs in size, dimensions and locations from that shown on the previously approved plans. 3. The Council notes that the development indicated on the submitted amendment plans differs in size, dimensions and locations from that which has been constructed on site. 4. The Council notes that the amendment plans indicate a change in construction materials for the roof and the windows. The roof materials are considered acceptable, however the change to white UPVC windows is not in accordance with the specific conditions under which planning approval was granted or with the general policy for introduction of timber or timber coloured UPVC windows.

In addition the Council wishes to advise that it has been brought to members attention that the residential accommodation which is part of this development has recently been let to a person or persons who are in full time employment not associated with the fast food outlet and this is in breach of the specific development condition which permitted residential accommodation to be constructed.

Highways Observations - Consent was granted for this proposal on Appeal. The current application is submitted to seek consent for a change of window type and therefore has no bearing on the layout of the proposal.

I recommend that no highway objections are raised.

Due to the fact the plans did not accurately reflect what had been constructed on site, amended plans were requested.

AMENDED PLANS

Neighbours: The amended plans were advertised on site in the form of a Site Notice, 30 neighbouring properties were individually consulted and all previous objectors were consulted. No letters of objection were received.

Gower Society: Following comments:

1. The minor amendments are noted. 2. Proposed retention of the uPVC windows/doors is also noted. 3. This building is already unsympathetic in the AONB, the society wishes its comments of 9th June 2009 to remain on file.

APPRAISAL

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

ITEM 6 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/0159

Description

Retrospective planning permission is sought for the retention and completion of a detached two storey building to incorporate a ground floor fast food outlet and 1st floor living accommodation at Gower Holiday Village, Monksland Road, Scurlage.

The application property is situated between the Countryman and the village shop within a small established commercial area to the south of the main highway, in front of and adjacent to the Gower Holiday Village. The main residential area of Scurlage is located on the northern side of the settlement, with the nearest houses situated along Monksland Road, which faces the application site on the opposite side of the main highway beyond a wide grass verge and a service road. A separate area of non-residential development including the surgery and chemist shop is situated on the far western extremity of the village.

Site History

Members may recall that the conversion of the existing single storey unit to a take-away was allowed at Appeal in 2002 (Refs: 2001/1759 and APP/B6855/A/02/1097044). This established that a change of use of the then existing building from Class A1 to Class A3 use was acceptable at this location. A subsequent application was submitted for the demolition of the existing building and replacement with a two-storey building to incorporate a ground floor fast food outlet and associated office, with a three bedroom residential apartment at first floor level which was also allowed at appeal in 2007 subject to conditions (Refs: 2005/0406 and APP/B6855/A/06/1200492).

Whilst carrying out the approved scheme under Ref: 2005/0406 the development was not carried out in accordance with the approved plans and as such this proposal is submitted in order to regularise the works.

Main Issues

Given the principle of development has been established with the previous approval for a two-storey building incorporating a 3 bedroom flat, office and fast food outlet the main issues for consideration during the determination of this application relates to the impact of the amendments upon the character and appearance of the building, the streetscene and the wider Gower AONB, the residential amenities of the neighbouring properties and highway safety. It is not considered that the Human Rights Act raises any additional issues.

Visual Amenity

In terms of physical size and footprint, on the basis of the information provided the building has not increased in size from what was originally approved and as such the building is considered to be of a size and scale which relates to its immediate context and the character and appearance of the surrounding street-scene. Whilst it is acknowledged the building has not been constructed in accordance with the detailed design and the materials indicated on the approved plans, the building when viewed in relation to its immediate context which includes the adjacent low rise shop buildings and the large public house, is considered acceptable in visual terms. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 2ND AUGUST 2011

ITEM 6 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/0159

The building is simple in appearance and whilst of no particular architectural merit, complements the character and appearance of the adjacent buildings and is in scale and character with its surroundings and as such causes no demonstrable visual harm to the natural beauty of the Gower AONB. Therefore it is considered the development complies with policies EV1, EV2, EV16 and EV26 of the Swansea Unitary Development Plan in this respect.

Residential Amenities

Given that the building size has not altered from the previous approval and the proposed use has been clearly established under the previous approvals, the only remaining issues concerning residential amenity relate to the amended pattern of fenestration. It is not considered that the proposed amendments have raised any overlooking issues over and above what was previously approved and as such are considered acceptable. As such the development is considered to comply with Policies EV1 and EV16 of the Swansea Unitary Development Plan in this respect.

Highway Safety

Given consent was granted for this proposal on Appeal and the current application is submitted to seek consent for a change of window type and therefore has no bearing on the layout of the proposal, there are no highway concerns. The access works conditioned under the previous approval have been carried out to the satisfaction of the Highways Officer and as such the proposal is considered to comply with Policy EV3 of the Swansea UDP.

Pollution Control

The Appeal Inspector placed two conditions on the previous approval, one in relation to opening hours and the other relating to the filtration and fume extraction equipment. The opening hours condition is recommended to be attached to any approval and whilst details of the filtration and fume extraction equipment were not submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval, having consulted the Council’s Pollution Control Division the installed equipment is considered acceptable and therefore there is no longer a need for a condition relating to this.

Response to Consultations

Notwithstanding the above 7 letters of OBJECTION were received, raising concerns in relation to the justification and need for a chip shop, the impact of the proposal upon access, highway safety, parking and the visual impact of the proposal upon the amenities of the area and in particular the Gower AONB. The issues pertaining to which have been addressed above.

Concern has been raised regarding the applicant constructing the building not in accordance with the approved plans, however this application has been submitted in order to regularise the works which have been carried out on site and there was no condition on the Appeal Inspector’s decision notice, requiring the submission of materials indicated in objection letters. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 2ND AUGUST 2011

ITEM 6 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/0159

In addition to this, concern has been raised regarding the occupation of the upstairs flat. Again there was no condition on the Appeal Decision restricting the use of the upstairs flat and therefore this is not a material planning consideration.

Conclusion

In conclusion it is not considered that the changes to the previously approved scheme which include amendments to the pattern of fenestration and external design have a detrimental impact upon the visual amenities of the immediate context, the street-scene or the wider Gower AONB over and above what was previously approved. Furthermore the amendments have no bearing upon highway safety or residential amenity over and above what was previously approved and as such it is considered that the application complies with the principles of Policies EV1, EV2, EV3, EV16 and EV26 of the Swansea Unitary Development Plan and approval is therefore recommended.

RECOMMENDATION:

APPROVE, subject to the following conditions:

1 The use of the ground floor of the premises hereby permitted shall not be open to customers outside the following times: 10:00 to 23:00hrs. Reason: In the interest of residential amenity.

2 Notwithstanding the plans hereby approved, within 3 months of the date of this planning permission a plan detailing the chimney that has been constructed on site shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and once approved shall thereafter be retained as such. Reason: In the interests of visual amenity.

INFORMATIVES

PLANS

Site location plan, block plan, drg no.1- site survey, no.6- section AA as proposed received 15th April 2009 and Drg. No 2 Rev A and Drg. No 3 Rev A dated 10th September 2009.

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 2ND AUGUST 2011

ITEM 7 APPLICATION NO. 2010/0521 WARD: Penclawdd Area 2

Location: Land at Pencaerfenni Court Crofty Swansea Proposal: One block of three terraced properties Applicant: Mr Bernard Paul Thomas

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

POLICIES

Policy Policy Description Policy EV34 Development proposals that may impact upon the water environment will only be permitted where it can be demonstrated that they would not pose a significant risk to the quality and or quantity of controlled waters. (City & County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008)

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

Policy EV17 Within the boundaries of the large villages as identified on the Proposals Map, development will be limited to existing commitments, small infill plots and, in locations outside the AONB, small scale rounding off, subject to the other defined criteria. (City & County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008)

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 2ND AUGUST 2011

ITEM 7 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/0521

SITE HISTORY

App No. Proposal 92/0074 CHANGE OF USE OF 9NO CHALETS TO PERMANENT RESIDENTIAL ACCOMMODATION PLUS NEW ACCESS ROAD Decision: *HGPC - GRANT PERMISSION CONDITIONAL Decision Date: 11/08/1992

2005/1861 One block of four terraced properties and one pair of semi-detached properties and associated car parking Decision: Grant Permission Conditional Decision Date: 21/03/2006

2008/0102 Detached stable block Decision: Refuse Decision Date: 21/02/2008

RESPONSE TO CONSULTATIONS

ORIGINAL SCHEME (for a block of four terraced properties)

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

1. Our garden and windows will be overlooked. 2. Our view will be greatly affected and will detract from the rural location. 3. The development will cause us some loss of light. 4. The development may damage the existing sycamore tree that sits in the garden of no.6. 5. We ask that the dwellings are re-positioned to protect our current level of privacy and that the plans are amended to construct three instead of four. 6. The site is already overdeveloped. 7. The trees are overgrown and if any more properties are built on this land the trees will become an eyesore. 8. The heights of the properties are not in keeping with a site of bungalows. 9. Pencaerfenni Court will be developed into a residential development. 10. The precedent will be set for the demolition of further chalets. 11. The noise and pollution of cars coming back and forth will be significantly increased. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 2ND AUGUST 2011

ITEM 7 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/0521

12. The application does not include any arrangements for the storage or collection of waste.

AMENDED SCHEME (for a block of three terraced properties)

The application was again advertised on site and thirty six individual properties were consulted. THREE LETTERS OF OBJECTION (two from the same property) have been received, which re-iterate previous concerns and add the following comments:

1. The development cannot fit into the site without taking down a lot of beautiful tall trees. 2. We are in a flood zone area and our pumping station could not cope with further surface water from the site. 3. We also have problems with sewage in the area and the village cannot cope with any more. 4. We have witnessed bats flying in our garden and have been advised that they do live and nest in the trees where the proposed development would be sited.

Highway Observations - Adequate parking facilities are available within the site complex. I recommend no highway objection.

Countryside Council for Wales – Standard holding objection on the basis that there was not enough information for them to assess possible effects on Carmarthen Bay and Estuaries Special Area of Conservation (SAC), the Burry Inlet Special Protection Area (SPA) and/or Burry Inlet Ramsar Site.

Countryside Council for Wales – Further letter received withdrawing their objection

Environment Agency – No objection to the drainage proposals for the development in principle

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

APPRAISAL

This application is reported to Committee for decision at the request of Councillor Paul Tucker in order to consider concerns about residential amenity.

Full planning permission is sought for the construction of a block of three terraced properties at Pencaerfenni Court, Penclawdd. The dwellings will be sited partly on an area where an existing single storey bungalow is in situ at present.

Each dwelling would measure 8.4m in depth, 5.5m in width with an eaves height of 5m and an overall height of approximately 8.6m. The scale and design of the dwellings would match those recently built at the site - 2005/1861 refers. Each dwelling would have an open car parking area to the front and a rear amenity space which exceeds the recognised 10m distance in all cases.

The main issues to be considered therefore are the impact of the proposal on the visual and residential amenity of the area having regard to the prevailing Development Plan Policies. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 2ND AUGUST 2011

ITEM 7 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/0521

Policy EV1 states that proposals should accord with criteria of good design; Policy EV2 refers to the use of previously developed land over a greenfield site, Policy EV17 allows for the development of appropriate plots within large villages. Policy HC2 states that proposals for housing within the urban area will be supported subject to criteria.

In terms of visual amenity, as the scale and design of the proposed dwellings would match those that are already on site, it is considered that they would blend in with and relate well with the areas overall character and appearance. The staggered siting of the dwellings within the complex and the amount of circulation space around them within the existing development would ensure that they would not appear as a cramped form of development at this location.

The scheme has been amended to ensure that each dwelling would have an ample amount of residential amenity space and this distance would be over 10m for each dwelling. Whilst the concerns of the occupiers of the properties in Pencaerfenni Lane are noted, these distances will also dictate that the properties would not appear unacceptably overbearing or result in unacceptable significant overlooking and loss of privacy for the occupiers of these properties.

The Head of Transportation and Engineering raises no highway objection as it is considered that adequate parking facilities are available within the site complex.

The site is located within the drainage catchment area that drains to the Loughor Estuary and Burry Inlet which forms part of the Carmarthen Bay and Estuaries European Marine Site (CBEEMS). The City and County of Swansea, as the competent authority, is required to carry out a Test of Likely Significant Effect (Habitat Regulation Assessment) of the proposal under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010. The TLSE is intended to assess the likely effect of the drainage proposals of this development on the integrity of the CBEEMS both alone and in combination with other developments in the same catchment area.

The concerns of the objectors are noted but the collection of residential waste is not a material planning consideration and is controlled under other legislation. The concerns concerning residential amenity has been addressed above and the concern over the retention of trees is addressed within the proposed landscaping condition. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 2ND AUGUST 2011

ITEM 7 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/0521

However, the applicant has verbally confirmed that many of the trees will be retained where possible. The Council’s Ecologist has been consulted on the scheme and is satisfied that only an informative informing the applicant about the possibility of the presence of bats and nesting birds is required in this instance. The concern about the problems with sewerage in the area is also noted but Welsh Water have not raised any concerns of this nature and have not objected to the scheme.

In conclusion therefore and having regard to all material considerations including the Human Rights Act, the proposal for three dwellings at this location is an acceptable form of development that complies with the essential requirements of Policies EV1, EV2, EV17 and HC2. Approval is therefore recommended.

RECOMMENDATION

APPROVE, subject to the following conditions:

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

3 No development shall commence until the developer has prepared a scheme for the comprehensive and integrated drainage of the site showing how foul water, surface water and land drainage will be dealt with and this has been approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. This scheme shall include details of a sustainable drainage system (SUDS) for surface water drainage, including details of the soakaway proposals for the proposed dwellings, confirming that the soakaways are adequate in size, are not located within 10m of any watercourse/ditch and have sufficient permeability in accordance with BS 6297; and the agreed scheme shall be implemented prior to the construction of any impermeable surfaces draining to the system, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The drainage scheme shall be retained and maintained as approved unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure that a satisfactory comprehensive means of drainage is achieved and that no adverse impact occurs to the environment or the existing public sewerage system and to minimise surface water run-off.

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 2ND AUGUST 2011

ITEM 7 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/0521

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

5 No development shall commence until further details of the sustainable drainage (SUDS) measures such as permeable paving for the driveway access and car parking area, and rainwater harvesting shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved details shall be implemented and retained, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority Reason: In the interests of sustainability.

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

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

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

INFORMATIVES

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

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 2ND AUGUST 2011

ITEM 7 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/0521

3 All appropriate pollution control measures must be adopted on site during the construction phase. It is the responsibility of the developer to ensure no contaminated water or material be allowed to enter and pollute surface or groundwater. Pollution prevention guidance notes are available from www.netregs.gov.uk/netregs/links/107968.aspx

The applicant should be aware that if any controlled waste is to be used on the site, for example as infill, then they will need to obtain the appropriate authorisation from Environment Agency Wales.

If any controlled waste is to be removed off site, then the applicant must ensure a registered waste carrier is used to convey the waste material off site to a suitably authorised facility. The Duty of Care regulations for dealing with waste materials are applicable for any off-site movements of wastes. The developer as waste producer therefore has a duty of care to ensure all materials removed go to an appropriate licensed disposal site and all relevant documentation is completed and kept in line with regulations.

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

PLANS

Design and access statement received 15th April 2010 Amended plans: 10- site location plan, block plan & sections, 11 Block C proposed ground floor plan & elevations, 12 Block C proposed first & second floor plans received 1st April 2011

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 2ND AUGUST 2011

ITEM 8 APPLICATION NO. 2010/1182 WARD: Gower Area 2

Location: Old Vicarage, Vicarage Lane Llangennith Swansea SA3 1JA Proposal: Replacement dwelling with detached garage Applicant: Mr S. Howells

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

POLICIES

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

Policy EV19 Replacement dwellings in the countryside, including residential chalets, will only be permitted where the residential use has not been abandoned, the proposed new dwelling is similar in terms of siting, scale, design and character and compliments the character of the surrounding area. (City & County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008)

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 2ND AUGUST 2011

ITEM 8 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/1182

SITE HISTORY

None

RESPONSE TO CONSULTATIONS

ORIGINAL SCHEME

The application was advertised on site and three individual properties were consulted. No response.

Llangennith, Llanmadoc and Cheriton Community Council – The Council is aware of the water problems around the existing property and therefore has no objection to this proposal.

The Gower Society – Comments as follows:

1. The demolition of yet another Gower traditional house is disappointing, not sustainable and against current Welsh Assembly ruling. 2. We note that the frontal appearance of the new dwelling will be similar to the existing but somewhat taller than the existing. 3. We ask the question where would all of the demolition material be taken? 4. The applicants claim that the proposal is sustainable and that eh property is on a bus route. We do not agree.

Highways Observation - The rebuilding of this property includes the relocation of the access. A new access is to be located to the north of the site where parking will be provided on a double width drive and double garage, therefore more than adequate parking facilities will be provided. The side walls of the access are to be splayed as per the standard for accesses in Gower.

I recommend no highway objection.

AMENDED PLANS (house reduced in depth and height and the design of the garage amended)

The application was again advertised on site and 3 individual properties consulted. No response.

Llangennith, Llanmadoc and Cheriton Community Council – No objection.

Countryside Council for Wales – No objection as the scheme is on a like for like basis and as no surface water will enter the main sewer.

Environment Agency – No objection subject to the imposition of standard conditions and informatives.

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

Highway Observations - No further comments to make. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 2ND AUGUST 2011

ITEM 8 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/1182

APPRAISAL

This application is reported to Committee for decision at the request of Councillor Richard Lewis to ensure that this decision is consistent with other similar applications.

Full planning permission is sought for a replacement detached dwelling and detached garage at The Old Vicarage, Vicarage Lane, Llangennith. The reason for the demolition is explained by the applicant’s agent:

“Whilst it could be extended to provide for the needs of the family, the reason for the demolition is due to the fact that the ground regularly floods during periods of heavy rain leaving the property in a damp and inadequate condition. The reasons for the dampness is due to the fact that the existing ground level of the house is the same level as the invert level of the stream which runs adjacent to the house. ……….Consideration was initially given to increasing the floor level but existing ceiling heights precluded this. Consideration was also given to renewing the floor and installing a tanking system to resist water ingress but due to the nature of the existing walls, it could not be guaranteed to be effective. The only solution was to demolish the existing dwelling and rebuild with a new floor level 1000mm above the invert of the stream”.

The proposed new dwelling would be 11.4m in width, with the main body of the dwelling having a depth of 6.3m. It would have an eaves height of 5.3m and an overall height of 8.3m. The dwelling would have a one and a half/two storey rear wing of 5.7m in depth and would be set down 1.3m from the main ridge. The design would be akin to that of a double fronted cottage with a front central porch. The proposed materials are painted smooth painted render walls, natural slate roof and painted timber windows.

The original house measures 11m in width, 5.7m in depth, has an eaves height of 4.7m and an overall height of 7.3m. It is considered therefore that in terms of increase in scale, apart from the rear wing, the proposed dwelling would not be significantly larger than the original.

The proposal also includes the demolition of an existing detached garage in the south west of the site and rebuilding it with an integral workshop in the north of the site. The proposed garage would be set back 3.5m from the front highway, have a depth of 10.3m, a width of 5.9m and an overall pitched roof height of 4.8m.The garage would be set down into the site and would project approximately 3m above the existing ground level.

The main issues to be considered with regard to this application are the visual impact of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the dwelling and the surrounding area within the Gower AONB and sensitive countryside location and the impact on the residential amenity of the occupiers of the neighbouring properties having regard to Policies EV1, EV2, EV19, EV22, EV26, EV34 and EV35 of the Unitary Development Plan. There are in this case considered to be no additional overriding issues for consideration having regard to the provisions of the Human Rights Act.

As the siting of the dwelling is similar to the existing and the scale of the dwelling is not substantially over and above that of the existing dwelling, it is not considered that it would result in any overbearing physical impact. The siting of the dwelling in relation to neighbouring properties would also dictate that there would be no loss of privacy or unacceptable direct overlooking. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 2ND AUGUST 2011

ITEM 8 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/1182

The design of the dwelling has been discussed with officers and the amended plan submitted reflect the discussions that have taken place. It is considered that the siting, scale and design of the dwelling would sit well within the site and would not appear as an overdevelopment or incongruous feature within the street scene. The agent has attempted to reflect the design of the original dwelling, although a more modern version, and as such respects the character and appearance of this part of the Gower AONB. As such the proposal is considered to comply with the essential criteria of Policy EV19 of the Unitary Development Plan.

The Bat Survey carried out at the property indicates some minor bat use at the site, thus a licence to disturb will be required from the National assembly. An appropriately worded condition to advise the applicant is therefore recommended. The submitted scheme, however, includes the installation of a bat box on the south eastern elevation of the main body of the dwelling to which the Council’s ecologist has raised no objection.

The proposed scheme would involve the removal of part of the existing low wall and hedging to gain access to the new garage. Whilst this removal would affect the character of the lane to a degree, it would not do so to an extent that would recommend a refusal on this matter alone. The Head of Transportation and Engineering raises no highway objection as the access will be splayed as normally required within Gower. This vision splay would not be excessively wide however, and would be finished with a low (900mm) natural stone wall which would be in keeping with the character and appearance of the area.

The site is located within the drainage catchment area that drains to the Loughor Estuary and Burry Inlet which forms part of the Carmarthen Bay and Estuaries European Marine Site (CBEEMS). The City and County of Swansea, as the competent authority, is required to carry out a Test of Likely Significant Effect (Habitat Regulation Assessment) of the proposal under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010. The TLSE is intended to assess the likely effect of the drainage proposals of this development on the integrity of the CBEEMS both alone and in combination with other developments in the same catchment area.

The comments raised by the Gower Society are noted and in terms of the demolition of the house this matter is covered above. The removal of the debris from site is not something that is a material planning consideration but is covered by other legislation. The standard EA informatives however, relate to this issue. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 2ND AUGUST 2011

ITEM 8 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/1182

In conclusion therefore, and having regard to all material considerations, including the Human Rights Act, the replacement dwelling is considered, on balance, an acceptable form of development at this location which complies with the requirements of Policies EV1, EV2, EV19, EV22, EV26, EV34 and EV35 of the Unitary Development Plan 2008 and approval is recommended.

RECOMMENDATION

APPROVE, subject to the following conditions:

2 No works of site clearance, demolition or construction shall take place in pursuance of this permission unless a license to disturb any species listed under Schedule 2 and 4 of the Conservation of Habitat and Species Regulations 2010 has been granted in accordance with the aforementioned Regulations and a copy thereof has been submitted to and confirmed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of protecting species under Schedules 2 and 4 of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010.

3 No development shall commence until the developer has prepared a scheme for the comprehensive and integrated drainage of the site showing how foul water, surface water and land drainage will be dealt with and this has been approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. This scheme shall include details of a sustainable drainage system (SUDS) for surface water drainage and details of any connections to a surface water drainage network, and the agreed scheme shall be implemented prior to the construction of any impermeable surfaces draining to the system, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The drainage scheme shall be retained and maintained as approved unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure that a satisfactory comprehensive means of drainage is achieved and that no adverse impact occurs to the environment or the existing public sewerage system and to minimise surface water run-off

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 2ND AUGUST 2011

ITEM 8 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/1182

6 The garage shall be used for the parking of vehicles or for purposes incidential to the enjoyment of the dwelling house and shall not be used as or converted to residential living accommodation. Reason: It is not considered that the property is suitable for the creation of a separate unit of accommodation.

7 Plans and details of the front wall with samples of the stone to be used shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of its construction. Once approved, it shall be completed in accordance with the approved scheme and retained as such unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of visual amenity of the AONB

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

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

10 A development free buffer strip of a minimum of 3m shall be maintained in perpetuity between the development and the top of the bank of any watercourse/surface feature identified within, or along the boundary of the application site. This buffer strip must be protected from all development including gardens, decking, footpath, benches etc. Reason: To protect the integrity of the riparian corridor and its associated wildlife.

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 2ND AUGUST 2011

ITEM 8 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/1182

INFORMATIVES

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

8 All appropriate pollution control measures must be adopted on site during the construction phase. It is the responsibility of the developer to ensure no contaminated water or material be allowed to enter and pollute surface or groundwater. Pollution prevention guidance notes are available from www.netregs.gov.uk/netregs/links/107968.aspx

The applicant should be aware that if any controlled waste is to be used on the site, for example as infill, then they will need to obtain the appropriate authorisation from Environment Agency Wales. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 2ND AUGUST 2011

ITEM 8 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/1182

8 ctd If any controlled waste is to be removed off site, then the applicant must ensure a registered waste carrier is used to convey the waste material off site to a suitably authorised facility. The Duty of Care regulations for dealing with waste materials are applicable for any off-site movements of wastes. The developer as waste producer therefore has a duty of care to ensure all materials removed go to an appropriate licensed disposal site and all relevant documentation is completed and kept in line with regulations.

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

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

11 The development plan covering the City and County of Swansea is the City and County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan. The following policies were relevant to the consideration of the application: EV1, EV19, EV22, EV26, EV34, EV35,EV36

PLANS

BBA/465/04 site plan and block plan, Design and Access Statement, Bat Survey, BBA/465/05 existing elevations received 11th August 2010, BBA/465/01B site layout,BBA/465/02B proposed floor plans and elevations, BBA/465/03A proposed street scene and garage plans received 22nd March 2011.

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 2ND AUGUST 2011

ITEM 9 APPLICATION NO. 2011/0173 WARD: Fairwood Area 2

Location: Cwm Mawr Isaf, Cae Mansel Road, Three Crosses, Swansea, SA4 3HT Proposal: Replacement dwelling house with detached garage block, conversion and extension of existing barn to residential accommodation (details of appearance, access, landscaping, layout & scale pursuant to condition one of planning permission 2010/0689 granted 21st June 2010) Applicant: Mr Steve Hammett

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

POLICIES

Policy Policy Description Policy EV19 Replacement dwellings in the countryside, including residential chalets, will only be permitted where the residential use has not been abandoned, the proposed new dwelling is similar in terms of siting, scale, design and character and compliments the character of the surrounding area. (City & County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008)

Policy EV23 Within green wedges development will only be permitted if it maintains the openness and character of the green wedge and does not contribute to the coalescence of settlements or adversely affect the setting of the urban area. (City & County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008)

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

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 2ND AUGUST 2011

ITEM 9 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0173

SITE HISTORY

App No. Proposal 2010/0689 Variation of conditions 3 and 4 of planning permission 2008/0913 granted 12th June 2008 to extend the time for the reserved matters to be submitted and the start date of the development until 7th November 2012 Decision: Approve Conditional (S73) Decision Date: 21/06/2010

2005/0207 Demolition of existing dwelling and erection of one detached dwelling with coach house (outline) Decision: Appeal Allowed Decision Date: 07/11/2005

2003/0776 Two storey side extension incorporating balconies on ground and first floor levels, extension to basement area and provision of new gable roof on existing front elevation Decision: Withdrawn Decision Date: 26/02/2004

2008/0913 Variation of condition 3 of appeal decision 2005/0207 granted 7th November 2005 to extend the time for the reserved matters to be submitted from 3 years to 5 years Decision: Grant Permission Conditional Decision Date: 12/06/2008

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 2ND AUGUST 2011

ITEM 9 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0173

2007/0279 Demolition of existing dwelling and construction of one detached dwelling with coach house (approval of reserved matters pursuant to condition 01 of planning permission 2005/0207 granted on 7th November 2005) Decision: Refuse Decision Date: 12/04/2007

RESPONSE TO CONSULTATIONS

Neighbours: The application was advertised on site by of a site notice and in the press as a departure from the provisions of the Swansea UDP.

Highways: Access and on-site parking facilities are acceptable. I recommend that no highway objections are raised.

Gower Society: Following observations:

1. We refer to a previous application that we understand was refused in 2007. 2. The demolishing of a traditional functional Gower farmhouse is hardly a sustainable action but this appears to be the current trend in and adjacent to the AONB. 3. The proposed house is extremely large (to say the least!) and we query any possible commercial or business use? The ground floor plans appear to indicate this. 4. The barn conversion design is acceptable (if it appears to comply with the draft Design Guide) but it is to be for holiday use or full time occupancy? If so it does not accord with the current UDP. We also query the state of the existing barn and whether it warrants a conversion. 5. The garage appears to us to be far too tall and not in accord with Gower vernacular. If allowed it should have a condition preventing future conversion to domestic use.

In the circumstances we believe that the obliteration of a traditional farm for such a large development is not in accord with the UDP and we have no alternative but to object to this application.

Environment Agency: There is no information included on the application form regarding the proposed means of foul water drainage from the site. Although the site is located in an area served by the main public sewer, information available to us indicates that the nearest connection point may be some distance away. It is probable that private system such as a septic tank or package treatment plant will be required. Section 1.2.7 of the Design and Access Statement suggests the use of a package treatment system which would be acceptable, provided that the applicant has undertaken a satisfactory non-mains drainage assessment (Welsh Office Circular 10/99).

Following the concerns raised by the Environment Agency, additional information was submitted and the EA was re-consulted and they subsequently concluded that given the main sewer was located so far away a Non-Mains Drainage Assessment was not required. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 2ND AUGUST 2011

ITEM 9 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0173

FOLLOWING CONCERNS EXPRESSED REGARDING THE DESIGN AND SCALE OF THE PROPOSED DWELLING, AMENDED PLANS WERE SUBSEQUENTLY SUBMITTED IN ORDER TO TRY AND ADDRESS THE CONCERNS EXPRESSED BY THE LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITY. THE APPLICATION WAS READVERTISED ON SITE AND PREVIOUS OBJECTORS RE-CONSULTED. THE FOLLOWING RESPONSES WERE RECEIVED:

Gower Society: Objects to the proposal.

APPRAISAL

Description

This application is brought to Committee as a departure from the Development Plan.

Planning permission is sought for a replacement dwelling house with detached garage block and conversion and extension of existing barn to residential accommodation (details of appearance, access, landscaping, layout and scale pursuant to condition one of planning permission Ref:2010/0689 granted 21st June 2010). Whilst it is acknowledged that the existing dwelling is of local historical importance the principle of its demolition has been previously allowed following the original Appeal decision.

The site has expansive views to the south east over the rural landscape and whilst the site is not within the Gower AONB, it is considered to be a Gower fringe location. The existing house is visible from a number of public vantage points, namely the public footpath along the southern boundary and the public lane to the north east. However it is not visible from the lane between Gowerton and Three Crosses by virtue of the topography.

The site comprises a number of outbuildings and only the former barn has any vernacular character.

Site History

Outline planning permission was previously refused for the demolition of the farmhouse and its ancillary buildings and to redevelop the site with a new detached dwelling and coach house but allowed at appeal (2005/0207). Applications (Ref: 2008/0913 and 2010/0689) were submitted to extend the time period for the submission of reserved matters. Therefore the principle of the re-development of the site has been established and this application is in relation to the reserved matters.

It should also be noted that planning permission was refused under Ref: 2007/0279 for the Demolition of existing dwelling and construction of one detached dwelling with coach house (approval of reserved matters pursuant to condition 01 of planning permission 2005/0207 granted on 7th November 2005) for the following reasons:

1. The proposed dwelling is not of the highest quality in terms of design and external appearance and does not relate satisfactorily to the existing property in terms of scale and massing. The proposed therefore constitutes an inappropriate form of residential development in the countryside which conflicts with the provisions of Policy C1 of the West Glamorgan Structure Plan Review No. 2 and Policies V2, CL1, BE1 and BE2 of the Swansea Local Plan Review No. 1. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 2ND AUGUST 2011

ITEM 9 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0173

2. The scale, massing, design and materials of the proposed development are out of keeping with and detrimental to the rural landscape and the character and appearance of the surrounding open countryside. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policies C1 and C5 of the West Glamorgan Structure Plan Review No2 and Policies V2, BE1 and CL1 of the Swansea Local Plan Review No1.

3. The proposed Coach House by virtue of its size, design and the nature of the internal accommodation proposed constitutes an unjustified new dwelling in the open countryside outside the Gower Village of Three Crosses where no agricultural need or overriding economic or social justification has been demonstrated. The proposed development would also result in unacceptable development along this rural lane and will represent an unacceptable sporadic form of urbanising development that detracts significantly from the character and appearance of the open countryside location, contrary to Policies C1 and C5 of the West Glamorgan Structure Plan Review No. 2 and Policies V1, V8, CL1, and BE1 of the Swansea Local Plan Review No. 1.

4. Approval of this application would set an undesirable precedent for the consideration of other proposals of a similar nature, the cumulative effect of which would be the incremental erosion of the natural beauty and character of the Open Countryside.

Main Issues

Given that the principle of a replacement dwelling and new coach house has been established following consent under Ref: 2005/0207 the main issues for consideration relate to the scale, design and appearance of the proposal having regard to Policy EV19, in particular, the visual impact of the proposal upon the character and appearance of the area and the wider AONB, the impact upon the residential amenities of the neighbouring properties, the impact upon the ecology of the site, drainage and highway safety, having regard to the provisions of the Swansea UDP.

Policy Context

Policies EV1 and EV2 of the UDP require a development to relate satisfactorily to its local context and existing development patterns, integrate effectively with adjacent spaces and public realm, protect the amenities of the surrounding area including residential amenity, take into account and where possible retain landscape features, trees and hedgerows and have regard to visual and residential amenity and highway safety. Policy EV22 of the UDP seeks to conserve and enhance the countryside for the sake of its natural heritage, natural resources, historic and cultural environment and agricultural and recreational value whereby, in line with National policy guidance. In addition the application site falls within the designated Green Wedge between Three Crosses and Gowerton, where Policy EV23 defines the criteria for appropriate development, including criteria (iii) regarding limited extension, alteration or replacement dwellings.

Policy EV19 of the UDP relates to replacement dwellings in the countryside and permits such development where: AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 2ND AUGUST 2011

ITEM 9 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0173

(i) The residential use has not been abandoned, (ii) The proposed new dwelling is similar in terms of its siting, scale, design and character with the dwelling it is to replace, and (iii) The development complements the character of the surrounding area.

The intention of this policy is to avoid the replacement of rural dwellings with inappropriate new development that detracts from the character of the countryside.

Whilst these policies are relevant during the determination of this application, it is also important to note that Planning Policy Wales (PPW 2.9.12) states that Local planning authorities should encourage high quality design of buildings and spaces in their policies and guidance. They should not attempt to impose a particular architectural taste or style arbitrarily and should avoid inhibiting opportunities for innovative design solutions.

Principle of Development

Whilst Policy EV19 allows for Replacement Dwellings, careful consideration must be given to the criteria of the Policy. In this instance the residential use has clearly not been abandoned and as such Criterion (i) is satisfied. However the proposed dwelling is not similar in terms of its footprint, scale and height and therefore is not considered to comply with Criterion (ii).

The application has therefore been advertised as a Departure from the provisions of the Development Plan.

Visual Amenity

The proposed siting of the new house overlaps with the footprint of the existing house so this scheme is considered to maintain the landscape character of a house in this location. However the orientation is altered, taking advantage of the site sloping in a northerly direction. The new house is proposed to be orientated at 90 degrees to the existing house. The reason for this change in orientation is explained in the Design and Access Statement (DAS) to relate better to the courtyard space and given the lack of any other built context, this new orientation is considered to respect the character and appearance of the area and will not give rise to an unacceptable visual impact.

Through the course of pre-application and post submission negotiations, the floor space of the proposed house has been significantly reduced in order to bear a closer relationship with the existing dwelling and to comply with the spirit of Policy EV19. The existing house has a two storey frontage which is over 15m in length. The proposed replacement dwelling has a main two storey frontage of comparable width, plus a 3.4m subservient single storey side element which helps to break down the overall scale and massing of the proposal.

The proposed footprint is considerably deeper than the existing house, and to achieve a vernacular scale, the mass of the new proposal is broken down in a traditional manner with a double pitch roof. The rear mass is 13.5m wide making it subservient to the front mass and this is further articulated in the traditional manner by a rear projection in a deliberately off centre location. Furthermore it should be noted that this rear mass is three storey with an additional lower floor taking advantage of the falling ground. The relationship between the front and rear masses is given a contemporary twist by pulling the two masses apart and inserting an inset glazed flat roof area. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 2ND AUGUST 2011

ITEM 9 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0173

It is acknowledged that the proposed house comprises a considerably larger floor space than the existing one. However the series of traditional references with linked elements and subservient elements as outlined above have been used to good effect to break down the scale in order to successfully integrate the house into the landscape.

It should be noted that there are no stated slab levels or comparison with the existing ridge level, therefore levels must be agreed by condition before construction starts.

The contemporary vernacular style which makes reference to traditional rural buildings is a legitimate architectural approach which is encouraged in the emerging Gower Design Guide. This approach incorporates:

1. traditional forms; 2. contemporary use of traditional materials, 3. traditional solid to void ratios (openings are often large scale with significant solid areas between) 4. crisp minimal detailing – this is fundamental to the ‘vernacular’ character and to ensure a quality scheme.

The general approach of rendered ground floor, vertical timber cladding at first floor and zinc roof are all considered appropriate to the rural context. Render is a common local finish, timber is appropriate in the rural location and the zinc roof is a contemporary reference to traditional slate roofs.

The applicant has provided large scale 1:10 details which confirm the design quality of the scheme in including:

Virtually flush eaves with metal gutters to give a crisp simple edge to the roof Slender 100mm verge fascia in metal to again give a crisp simple edge to the roof gables Aluminium windows frames recessed by 100mm in the openings to reflect traditional vernacular in a contemporary manner

Given the level of detail provided, there is no need for a condition requiring large scale details, however it will be important to ensure that the scheme is built in accordance with these details.

The elevations indicate photo voltaic panels to generate electricity on the south west roof slope (the front elevation). The side elevations appear to indicate that the panels will be flush with the zinc roof which is necessary to ensure a high quality uncluttered roof slope. However there is a need for further detail in this regard (such as the flashings around the panels) and this should be conditioned accordingly.

Turning to the conversion and extension of the existing barn to residential accommodation, the principle of a new coach house providing ancillary accommodation to the main dwelling was clearly established at outline stage (Ref: 2005/0207). Whilst this proposal does not involve a new build coach house it is commendable that the application seeks to retain the structure of the existing barn and redeveloping it in a contemporary/traditional manner. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 2ND AUGUST 2011

ITEM 9 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0173

The proposed barn conversion retains existing walls and maintains a high solid to void ratio in the side elevations (north and south) with central large scale openings. Whilst the openings in the end (east and west) elevations are new, they are suitably traditional in character. The proposal is to add a traditional pitched roof which is finished in slate. The use of suitable stone to match the existing stonework is critical to the success of the conversion and as such will be controlled via condition.

The structural glass sun lounge and glazed frontage add positive contemporary elements which complement the existing building, allowing light to flow throughout the building. No details of the window frame and door materials are, however these can be controlled via condition.

With regard the proposed garage, the garage will replace a dilapidated single storey building and will form an almost ‘L’ shape with the converted outbuilding which forms a court yard opposite the new dwelling. The garage will not be prominent from wider vantage points and is proposed to be constructed from slate, render and timber cladding which will complement the character and appearance of the proposed dwelling and converted outbuilding and wider area. As such the proposed garage is an acceptable form of development in visual terms.

Sustainability

The DAS indicates that the scheme will have ‘strong environmental credentials’. Given the nature of this proposal, it is considered that this scheme should be an exemplar sustainable building. The intention to exceed the minimum Sustainable Building Standards set out in PPW and achieve Code for Sustainable Homes level 4 which is welcomed. This follows the approach adopted for other replacement dwellings such as Bryn House and Stormy Castle and is also required in the emerging Gower Design Guide for new dwellings which are contrary to the provisions of Policy EV19 of the Swansea UDP.

Residential Amenity

Turning to residential amenity it is considered that given the separation distances involved between the proposed development and the neighbouring properties that the proposal would not give rise to unacceptable overbearing or overshadowing issues. Furthermore it is not considered the proposal would result in unacceptable overlooking and as such the proposed dwelling is considered to respect the residential amenities of the neighbouring occupiers.

Highway Safety

Having consulted the Head of Transportation and Engineering it has been acknowledged that the access and parking proposals are acceptable and therefore there are no objections to this amended scheme.

Ecology

Having consulted the Council’s Ecologist the applicant has constructed a bat roost in an outbuilding which has been completed as mitigation for the demolition of the dwelling. In addition to this another roost will be provided in the gable of the single storey element of the new dwelling. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 2ND AUGUST 2011

ITEM 9 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0173

As the house has been identified as a bat roost, the project will be subject to a WAG protected species license and obtaining this should form a condition of any permission given. The submitted mitigation plan that is contained within the submitted bat report should be used to form the basis for the license application.

Drainage

In terms of drainage the plans indicate that surface water from the proposed developments will be diverted to a soakaway and the foul sewer to septic tank, therefore there will be no increase in water draining to the main sewer. The site is located within the drainage catchment area that drains to the Loughor Estuary and Burry Inlet which forms part of the Carmarthen Bay and Estuaries European Marine Site (CBEEMS). The City and County of Swansea, as the competent authority, is required to carry out a Test of Likely Significant Effect (Habitat Regulation Assessment) of the proposal under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010. The TLSE is intended to assess the likely effect of the drainage proposals of this development on the integrity of the CBEEMS both alone and in combination with other developments in the same catchment area.

Response to Consultations

Notwithstanding the above, one letter of objection was received which raised concerns in relation to the principle of demolition, size of the dwelling, barn conversion, size of the garage, site history, the issues pertaining to which have been addressed above.

Concern was also raised with regard the potential use of the building for commercial purposes. The plans indicate an office and meeting room which take up a small part of the house and as such will not require planning permission provided they are used ancillary to the enjoyment of the main dwelling house.

Conclusion

For the reasons set out above, it is considered that the development accords with Policies EV1, EV2, EV3, EV22, EV23, EV33, EV34 and EV35 of the UDP and will complement the character and appearance of the area. As such, it is also considered to accord with Planning Policy Wales and TAN 12 (Design) which supports high quality innovative and contemporary design when the vision and design concept are strong and well founded in a sound appreciation of the site and its context, and the final design and execution of the project are secured though appropriate detailed plans, specifications and conditions. The further detailed information requested and submitted achieves this in the main, with only relatively minor matters now conditioned. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 2ND AUGUST 2011

ITEM 9 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0173

In overall design terms the current application is considered high quality design and will establish a benchmark for quality traditional design utilising contemporary materials and will demonstrate how well considered design can respond positively to the sensitive landscape of the countryside. The scheme clearly does not comply with criteria (ii) of the replacement dwelling policy EV19 as it is not similar in terms of its scale, design and character with the dwelling it replaces.

However it is considered to accord with Policies EV1, EV2 and EV22 of the UDP as well as National Planning Policy Guidance and Technical Advice.

In conclusion, the scheme is considered to be of a high quality and will achieve a high sustainability Code Level 4 which justifies a departure as exception to the provisions of Policy EV19. Approval is recommended.

RECOMMENDATION

The application be referred to PLANNING COMMITTEE with a recommendation that it be APPROVED, subject to the following conditions:

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

2 Notwithstanding the details on the submitted plans, samples of all external finishes including the windows, and fascias of the converted outbuilding shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority details in writing before the development is commenced. The scheme shall be implemented and retained in accordance with the approved details. Reason: In the interests of visual amenity.

3 The converted outbuilding hereby permitted shall only be used in connection with and ancillary to the occupation of the existing dwelling and shall not at any time be severed and occupied as an independent unit. Reason: In order to safeguard the residential amenities of the area and in order to prevent the establishment of an unrelated independent unit on the site.

4 Where any species listed under Schedule 2 and 4 of the Conservation (Natural Habitats) Regulations 1994 is present on the site (or other identified part) 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 license to disturb any such species has been granted in accordance with the aforementioned Regulations and a copy thereof has been produced to the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interest of protecting species listed under Schedule 2 and 4 of the Conservation (Natural Habitats) Regulation 1994.

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 2ND AUGUST 2011

ITEM 9 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0173

5 No development shall commence until, details of the levels of the building(s), road(s) and footpath(s) in relation to the adjoining land and highway(s) together with any changes proposed in the levels of the site shall be submitted to and agreed by the Local Planning Authority in writing. Reason: To ensure that the work is carried out at suitable levels in relation to the highway and adjoining land having regard to drainage, gradient of access, and the amenities of adjoining occupiers.

6 No development shall begin until details of a 'Design Stage' assessment and related certification have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out entirely in accordance with the approved assessment and certification unless the Local Planning Authority shall otherwise consent in writing. Reason: In the interest of sustainability.

7 The dwelling shall not be occupied until a Code for Sustainable Homes 'Post Construction Stage' assessment has been carried out in relation to it, a Final Code Certificate has been issued for it certifying that Code Level 4 and 3 credits under Ene1 (November 2010) have been achieved unless otherwise approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and the Certificate has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interest of sustainability.

8 The dwelling hereby permitted shall be constructed to achieve a minimum Code for Sustainable Homes Level 4 and achieve 3 credits under category Ene1 (November 2010) in accordance with the requirements of Code for Sustainable Homes: Technical Guide April 2009 unless otherwise approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interest of sustainability.

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

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

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 2ND AUGUST 2011

ITEM 9 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0173

11 No development shall commence until the developer has prepared a scheme for the comprehensive and integrated drainage of the site showing how foul water, surface water and land drainage will be dealt with and this has been approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. This scheme shall include details of the following:- a) details of the proposed septic tank for foul water disposal and long term management and maintenance arrangements for the treatment plant; b) details of a sustainable drainage system (SUDS) for surface water drainage, including details of the soakaway proposals for the proposed replacement dwelling and three holiday units, confirming that these are adequate in size, and have sufficient permeability in accordance with BS 6297, and are not located within 10m of any watercourse/ditch nor within 50m or upslope of any well, spring or borehole used for private water supply; and the agreed scheme shall be implemented prior to the construction of any impermeable surfaces draining to the system, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The agreed drainage scheme shall be retained and maintained as approved unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure that a satisfactory comprehensive means of drainage is achieved and that no adverse impact occurs to the environment or the existing public sewerage system and to minimise surface water run-off.

12 Notwithstanding the details on the submitted plans, details of the photo voltaic panels and flashings around the panels to a scale of 1:10 shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before works on the panels are commenced. The scheme shall be implemented and retained in accordance with the approved details. Reason: In the interests of visual amenity.

INFORMATIVES 1 The development plan covering the City and County of Swansea is the City and County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan. The following policies were relevant to the consideration of the application: (EV1, EV2, EV3, EV22, EV19, EV23, EV33, EV34, EV35)

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

PLANS HG.09/59 001 site survey, HG.09/59 003 site location plan, HG.09/59 B/004- proposed views, G/001- proposed layout, G/002-proposed elevations, bat & owl survey, design & access statement received 2nd February 2011. Amended plans: HG.09/59 Rev A- floor layouts- proposed (first), HG.09/59 002 Rev A - proposed block plan, HG.09/59 002 Rev A- proposed block plan, HG.09/59 B/001 Rev A- existing layout, HG.09/59 B/002 Rev A- proposed layout, HG.09/59 B/003 Rev A- proposed elevations, HG.09/59 010 Rev A-floor layouts proposed (basement), HG.09/59 011 Rev A- floor layouts-proposed (ground floor), HG.09/59 013 Rev A-floor layouts-proposed (roof), HG.09/59 014 Rev B- elevations- proposed 1of 2, HG.09/59015 Rev A-elevations-proposed 2 of 2, Additional plans: HG.09/59 020 Rev A- typical details -proposed 1 of 2, HG.09/59 021 Rev A typical timber clad details-proposed 2 o2 received 9th June 2011

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 2ND AUGUST 2011

ITEM 10 APPLICATION NO. 2011/0235 WARD: Penclawdd Area 2

Location: Land adjacent to Ty Croeso Salthouse Point Crofty Swansea SA4 3RP Proposal: Detached dwelling (outline) Applicant: Mr W Jones

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

POLICIES

Policy Policy Description Policy EV1 New development shall accord with a defined set of criteria of good design. (City & County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008). Policy EV2 The siting of new development shall give preference to the use of previously developed land and have regard to the physical character and topography of the site and its surroundings. (City & County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008). Policy EV3 Proposals for new development and alterations to and change of use of existing buildings will be required to meet defined standards of access. (City & County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008) Policy EV17 Within the boundaries of the large villages as identified on the Proposals Map, development will be limited to existing commitments, small infill plots and, in locations outside the AONB, small scale rounding off, subject to the other defined criteria. (City & County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008) Policy EV33 Planning permission will normally only be granted where development can be served by the public mains sewer or, where this system is inadequate, satisfactory improvements can be provided prior to the development becoming operational. (City & County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008) Policy EV34 Development proposals that may impact upon the water environment will only be permitted where it can be demonstrated that they would not pose a significant risk to the quality and or quantity of controlled waters. (City & County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008) Policy EV35 Development that would have an adverse impact on the water environment due to: i) Additional surface water run off leading to a significant risk of flooding on site or an increase in flood risk elsewhere; and/or, ii) A reduction in the quality of surface water run-off. Will only be permitted where it can be demonstrated that appropriate alleviating measures can be implemented. (City & County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008)

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 2ND AUGUST 2011

ITEM 10 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0235

SITE HISTORY

App No. Proposal 2007/2036 Detached garage Decision: Grant Permission Conditional Decision Date: 31/10/2007

2001/0900 Erection of a detached dwelling house Decision: Grant Permission Conditional Decision Date: 03/04/2002

2004/0090 Construction of a detached dwelling house (amendment to planning permission 2002/2239 granted on 4th March 2003) Decision: Grant Permission Conditional Decision Date: 25/05/2004

2008/1609 Detached garage (amendment to planning permission 2007/2036 granted 31st October 2007) Decision: Grant Permission Conditional Decision Date: 05/09/2008

2002/2239 Construction of a detached dwelling house Decision: Grant Permission Conditional Decision Date: 04/03/2003

94/0353 ERECTION OF ONE DETACHED DWELLING Decision: *HGPC - GRANT PERMISSION CONDITIONAL Decision Date: 03/06/1994

97/0326 Erection of a detached dwelling (outline) Decision: Appeal Dismissed Decision Date: 03/08/1999

98/0839 Erection of two dwelling houses (outline) Decision: Appeal Dismissed Decision Date: 03/08/1999

RESPONSE TO CONSULTATIONS

Neighbours: The application was advertised on site by a Site Notice and five neighbouring dwellings were individually consulted. Eight letters of objection were received which are summarised below:

1. Covenants for properties in the area were intended for 1 only. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 2ND AUGUST 2011

ITEM 10 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0235

2. Appeal to Welsh Assembly in 1999 reiterates that plot for one dwelling upholding the one property per parcel land status (Application 98/0839), therefore there is a legal precedent regarding further applications of this nature which I expect the Planning Department in Swansea to uphold. 3. Proposed property and garage is ahead of the building line. 4. Fire safety issue, both from an entrance and egress perspective. 5. Highway safety. 6. Traffic. 7. Land levels have been re-profiled involving tons of materials being brought into the site. 8. Increase in vehicles would disturb our property and effect our level of residential amenity. 9. Mr Jones has provided reassurances to residents that he would never seek to develop the land. 10. Errors in the Design and Access Statement. 11. Enforcement issues in relation to the build up of the land. 12. Proposal will prove detrimental to the skyline and to his neighbours enjoyment of such a beautiful area. 13. Proposal would result in the outward sprawl of Crofty. 14. Precedent for further sprawl in Crofty. 15. Unacceptable visual impact. 16. Garage/store room is larger than some of the bungalows in the area. 17. Loss of light and overbearing impact. 18. Loss of view. 19. Noise disturbance. 20. Applicant has failed to complete bund in accordance with the Section 106 agreement. 21. Traffic congestion. 22. Astounded that a two-storey dwelling has been allowed retrospectively in the site.

The Welsh Water/Dwr Cymru plans indicate that the proposed dwelling would be in excess of 100m from the nearest foul sewer and following further consideration with the EA, they have confirmed that a non-mains drainage assessment is not required.

Highways: This application is for the erection of a new dwelling to the rear of Ty Croeso, Pencaerfenni Park, Crofty. Access is intended to be in the form of a shared private drive, although the access statement describes a drive of substandard width. The site is large enough to accommodate parking for each plot and provided that the access width is increased to 4.5m for its shared length, the proposal is acceptable from a highway safety and parking viewpoint.

I recommend no highway objection subject to the access drive being widened to a minimum of 4.5m for its shared length. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 2ND AUGUST 2011

ITEM 10 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0235

APPRAISAL

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

Description

This application seeks outline planning permission for a detached dwelling at land adjacent to Ty Croeso, Salthouse Point, Crofty, Swansea. Only details relating to access are being considered at outline stage. The land is situated within the settlement of Penclawdd/Crofty and the site has a long and varied planning history.

Planning History

The site has a long and varied site history and the original planning consent being granted under (Ref: 87/1377) for the erection of 15 units. Originally this consent incorporated the erection of four detached bungalows at the end of the cul-de-sac to which this previous application relates. This application was granted subject to the signing of a Section 52 agreement, which required the owner to reinforce the existing hedgerow along the south west boundary of the part of the site edged in blue on the plan ‘A’ annexed hereto and to plant along the newly formed mound to the South West of the existing lane to the Sewage Works.

A subsequent application was submitted (Ref: 93/1326) for the erection of one dwelling house to the rear of plot 2, which was subsequently refused for the following reasons:

1. The proposed development would represent un-coordinated outward sprawl of the village of Crofty, contrary to Local Plan Policy GV4 and Structure Plan Policy C1 which seek to resist development outside the settlement boundary.

2. The proposed development, by virtue of its exposed prominent siting, would be seriously detrimental to the character and visual amenity of this sensitive coastal location adjoining the Bury Inlet and Loughor Estuary SSSI.

3. The proposal, if approved, would set an undesirable precedent for the consideration of future development proposals of a similar character in this area that would have an unacceptable cumulative impact on the landscape.

A further application was submitted (Ref: 94/0353) for the erection of one detached dwelling in order to try and overcome the previous reasons for refusal. This application was entirely within the settlement boundary of Crofty and subsequently approved.

Planning permission was sought for the erection of two dwellings (Ref: 98/0839) and refused for the following reasons:

1. The proposed development fails to provide for an adequate buffer zone between dwelling B and land to the north allocated for industrial development in the Swansea Local Plan Review No1 (Draft). As such it fails to protect the residential amenity of future residents and would put an unreasonable constraint upon potential future industrial users of the land to the north. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 2ND AUGUST 2011

ITEM 10 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0235

2. The development of the site for two dwellings within area allocated for development in Policy V7 of the Swansea Local Plan Review No 1 (Draft) whilst providing for an adequate buffer zone to the allocated industrial land to the north would result in a cramped form of development out of keeping with the general low density pattern of development at Salthouse Point and detrimental to the residential amenity of the occupants of the existing properties.

3. The proposal does not represent an acceptable form of rounding off of the Salthouse Point development. It captures additional residential curtilage beyond that previously approved and generally extends residential development into the surrounding open countryside contrary to Policy GV2 and GV4 of the Swansea Local Plan and Policies V1 and V7 of the Swansea Local Plan Review No1 (Draft).

The application was subsequently appealed to the Welsh Office and dismissed as it was considered that there was a sound and clear policy objection to any further encroachment of housing development beyond the recently adopted settlement limits and that new dwellings here would encroach onto land which intended to be kept open and undeveloped and would thus materially detract from its rural character and appearance contrary to SLP Policy V7 (ii) and the design objectives of the 1989 permission.

On the second issue the Inspector concluded that any form of backland development can give rise to overlooking, loss of privacy and noise disturbance from vehicular traffic using private access drives which pass close to neighbouring properties. However, the access drive proposed is capable of being moved closer to the north eastern site boundary and provided that it is only required to serve a single household, it need not be designed to take two way traffic. Even allowing for the siting shown to be treated as illustrative the Inspector concluded that the southernmost dwelling would be too close to The Haven and it would appear overbearing and oppressive. Moreover the erection of two dwellings in this awkwardly shaped plot would fail to preserve the spacious appearance and character of the group as a whole and appear unduly cramped. He therefore concluded that Appeal scheme B would unduly detract from the amenity of those living nearby due to noise disturbance and loss of privacy.

On the third issue relating to the close proximity to the Crofty Industrial Estate the Inspector concluded that prospective purchasers would be aware of local conditions, and therefore could be argued that some disturbance is to be expected where housing adjoins an established general industrial estate.

In April 2002, planning consent was granted under Ref: 2001/0900 for the erection of a detached dwelling. The proposal included the landscaping and enhancement works to the west of the site in accordance with the Section 52 Agreement. In addition to this planning consent was granted in March 2003 (Ref: 2002/2239) and May 2004 (Ref: 2004/0090) for redesigned dwellings, with the latter being of a more traditional Gower Style vernacular which has been constructed on site. The current proposal will follow this traditional design.

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 2ND AUGUST 2011

ITEM 10 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0235

Main Issues

The main issues for consideration during the determination of this application relate to the principle of development having regard for the site history, the impact of the proposal upon the visual amenities of the area, residential amenity, highway safety and drainage, and the provisions of the Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008. There are considered to be no issues arising from the content of the Human Rights Act.

Principle of Development

The site currently forms part of the residential curtilage of Ty Croeso and the land to the rear which is outside the recognised curtilage. In 2008 the Swansea Unitary Development Plan was formerly adopted and this crucially incorporated all the land to the rear of Ty Croeso within the village envelope, within the fringe settlement of Crofty. There has therefore been a material change in planning circumstances since the previous refusals and as such when considering applications such as this Policy EV17 (Large Village Policy) is the most relevant policy. Policy EV17 ensures development is contained within the settlement boundaries as defined on the proposals map and limits development within the area to small infill plots, existing commitments and in locations outside the Gower AONB to small scale rounding off. Development which involves:

(i) The ‘capturing of surrounding countryside’ through an extension of the built up area and residential curtilages, (ii) The extension of a settlement in the form of ribbon development, Or (iii) The coalescence of villages, will not be permitted

Development will be required to be appropriate to its location and will only be approved where it meets the criteria set out in Policies EV1 and EV2. These policies seek to ensure that new developments not only follows set objectives of good design and quality but ensure that it is appropriate to its local context and does not have an adverse impact on the landscape and heritage of the area.

Given the land falls within the settlement of Crofty, the Large Villages Policy (EV17), in land use terms on the basis of the information provided it would appear that the land is acceptable in principle for infill residential development subject to compliance with the Section 52 Legal Agreement which runs with the land. It is essential that any scheme should seek to respect this agreement and the character and appearance of the area in terms of siting, scale, design and materials.

Visual Amenity

In visual amenity terms the proposed development will relate most closely to the adjacent Ty Croeso, which is a stone double fronted two storey dwelling with detached garage. The scale parameters indicate that the proposal will have a similar size and scale to the existing dwelling and given this application is in outline form only with details relating to appearance, layout and design reserved for future consideration it is considered that the plot is capable of accommodating a dwelling of this size without giving rise to an unacceptable impact upon visual amenities, in compliance with Policies EV1, EV2 and EV17 of the Swansea UDP. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 2ND AUGUST 2011

ITEM 10 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0235

In order to ensure that the scheme takes into account the legal agreement at reserved matters stage, a fully comprehensive landscaping scheme is considered necessary to be submitted to accompany the application and this will be controlled via condition.

Residential Amenity

In terms of residential amenity, the indicative siting of the proposed dwelling indicates that the a dwelling could easily be accommodated on site without giving rise to an unacceptable impact upon the residential amenities of the neighbouring properties by virtue of overlooking, overbearing and overshadowing. Whilst it is acknowledged the site is within close proximity to the Sewerage Station and the Industrial park, like the previous Inspector’s decision it is not considered that these are factors which could warrant the refusal of this application.

Highway Safety

This application is for the erection of a new dwelling to the rear of Ty Croeso, Pencaerfenni Park, Crofty. Access is intended to be in the form of a shared private drive, although the access statement describes a drive of substandard width. The site is large enough to accommodate parking for each plot and provided that the access width is increased to 4.5m for its shared length, the proposal is acceptable from a highway safety and parking viewpoint.

I recommend no highway objection subject to the access drive being widened to a minimum of 4.5m for its shared length.

Drainage

In terms of drainage the site is large enough to accommodate soakaways and the existing dwelling drains surface water to soakaway, with foul draining to a septic tank. The dwelling is situated in excess of 100m from the main sewer and therefore a non-mains drainage assessment is not considered necessary. Conditions will be attached to any approval requiring the use of soakaways and additional information required for the foul sewer in order to ensure there will be no increase in water draining to the main sewer. The site is located within the drainage catchment area that drains to the Loughor Estuary and Burry Inlet which forms part of the Carmarthen Bay and Estuaries European Marine Site (CBEEMS). The City and County of Swansea, as the competent authority, is required to carry out a Test of Likely Significant Effect (Habitat Regulation Assessment) of the proposal under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010. The TLSE is intended to assess the likely effect of the drainage proposals of this development on the integrity of the CBEEMS both alone and in combination with other developments in the same catchment area.

ITEM 10 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0235

Response to Consultations

Notwithstanding the above 8 letters of objection were received which raised concerns relating to the pattern of development, the principle of development, the site history, highways, covenants, traffic, residential amenity, visual impact, size and scale of the proposed development. The issues pertaining to which have been addressed above.

Concern has been raised with regard to the loss of a view, fire safety and covenants. However these are not material planning considerations. In addition to this precedent has been sited as a concern in allowing this development. However each application is determined on the basis its merits and relevant policies. As such this was not taken into consideration during the determination of this application.

The level of information contained in the Design and Access Statement has been brought into question, however it is considered sufficient in order to determine the application.

It is clear following the site visit that part of the site’s land levels have been raised, the matter has been referred to our Enforcement Team for investigation.

Conclusion

In conclusion it is considered that subject to the proposal having regard to the Section 52 Legal Agreement, in land use terms given the revised settlement boundaries adopted in the Swansea Unitary Development Plan proposals map the principle of residential development is acceptable and subject to further consideration being given at reserved matters stage the proposal could have an acceptable impact upon the visual and residential amenities of the area in compliance with Policies EV1, EV2, EV3 and EV17. Approval is recommended.

RECOMMENDATION:

APPROVE, subject to the following conditions:

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

2 The development shall be commenced not later than 5 years from the date of this permission and shall be completed and brought into beneficial use in accordance with the said application, plans and conditions and a programme of phasing to be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of work. Reason: To comply with the provisions of Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1990 and to ensure that the development is completed in accordance with the plans and scheme of phasing approved by the City and County of Swansea, and so avoid any detriment to amenity or public safety by works remaining uncompleted. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 2ND AUGUST 2011

ITEM 10 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0235

3 Detailed plans and drawings with respect to the matters reserved in condition (01) shall be submitted for approval by the Local Planning Authority not later than the expiration of three years from the date of this permission. Reason: To comply with the provisions of Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1990 and to ensure that the development is determined within a reasonable period.

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

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

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

7 No development shall commence until the developer has prepared a scheme for the comprehensive and integrated drainage of the site showing how foul water, surface water and land drainage will be dealt with and this has been approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. This scheme shall include details of the following:- a) details of the foul water disposal, and long term management and maintenance arrangements for the treatment plant; b) details of a sustainable drainage system (SUDS) for surface water drainage, including details of the soakaway proposals for the proposed replacement dwelling and three holiday units, confirming that these are adequate in size, and have sufficient permeability in accordance with BS 6297, and are not located within 10m of any watercourse/ditch nor within 50m or upslope of any well, spring or borehole used for private water supply; and the agreed scheme shall be implemented prior to the construction of any impermeable surfaces draining to the system, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The agreed drainage scheme shall be retained and maintained as approved unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 2ND AUGUST 2011

ITEM 10 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0235

7 ctd Reason: To ensure that a satisfactory comprehensive means of drainage is achieved and that no adverse impact occurs to the environment or the existing public sewerage system and to minimise surface water run-off.

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

9 No development shall commence until further details of the sustainable drainage (SUDS) measures such as permeable paving for the driveway access and car parking area, and rainwater harvesting shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved details shall be implemented and retained, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interest of sustainability.

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

INFORMATIVES

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

3 The applicant should be advised that in addition to planning permission and building regulations approval, a permit is required for discharges of sewage with a volume of 5m3/day or more to a river, stream, estuary or the sea (package treatment plant only) and for discharges of 2m3/day or more to soakaway or drainage field. Permits can take up to four months to determine and there is no guarantee that consent will be granted. They are advised to contact our National Permitting Team on 08708506506 at the earliest opportunity to discuss the requirements and to avoid any unnecessary delays. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 2ND AUGUST 2011

ITEM 10 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0235

3 ctd For discharges of less than 5m3/day to water and 2m3/day to ground, the applicant may be able to register as exempt from the requirements for a permit under the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2010. This provided that the installation meets certain criteria.

Further guidance is available on the website at http://www.environment- agency.gov.uk/business/topics/water/117485.aspx or by contacting our National Permitting Team.

Please note the following: - There must be no connection to a watercourse or land drainage system from a septic tank. - No part of the private system to be located within 10m of any ditch or watercourse. - No siting of the private system within 50m or upslope of any well, spring or borehole used for private water supply.

If planning permission is secured, then appropriate pollution control measures must be adopted on site during the construction phase to ensure the protection of controlled waters (surface and groundwaters). It is the responsibility of the developer to ensure no contaminated water or material is allowed to enter and pollute surface or groundwaters. Pollution prevention guidance notes (PPGs) are available from www.netregs.gov.uk/netregs/links/107968.aspx.

If any controlled waste is to be removed off-site, then a registered waste carrier must be used to convey the waste material off-site to a suitably authorised facility. The Duty of Care regulations for dealing with waste materials are applicable for any off-site movements of wastes. The developer as waste producer therefore has a duty of care to ensure all materials removed go to an appropriate licensed disposal site and all relevant documentation is completed and kept in line with regulations.

PLANS

Design and access statement, site location plan, block plan, flooding information, domestic rainwater harvesting information, maple timber frame information, low energy house loft insulation information, low energy house rigid urethane insulation information received 21st February 2011

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 2ND AUGUST 2011

ITEM 11 APPLICATION NO. 2011/0309 WARD: Cockett Area 2

Location: Unit 1, 908 Carmarthen Road Fforestfach Swansea Proposal: Change of use of retail unit (Class A1) to hot food takeaway (Class A3) Applicant: Douglas Gregg (Swansea) LLP

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

POLICIES

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

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

SITE HISTORY

App No. Proposal 2007/2716 Redevelopment of site to include 4 linked units comprising 2 retail/financial and professional services (Class A1 and Class A2), 1 retail unit (Class A1) and financial and professional service unit (Class A2) Decision: Grant Permission Conditional Decision Date: 21/07/2008

2007/1929 Retention of use as a carpet store (Class A1) (application for a Certificate of Lawful Use) Decision: Is Lawful Decision Date: 24/09/2007

RESPONSE TO CONSULTATIONS

The application was advertised on site and nine individual neighbouring properties consulted. FIVE LETTERS OF OBJECTION received which can be summarised as follows:

• The original planning permission included one Class A3 outlet, this element of the proposal was considered to compromise neighbouring residential amenity and so was omitted from the scheme. Permission was then granted for A1 and A2 uses. • Highways objected to an A3 use due to the high volume of traffic plus service vehicles, this objection was then dropped when the A3 element was removed form the scheme. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 2ND AUGUST 2011

ITEM 11 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0309

• The applicants state it would be beneficial to residents to have a fast food outlet at unit 1 to provide a service to local residents; however local residents are very well served by take away facilities along Carmarthen Road, Ravenhill Road, Middle Road and Caereithin Cross. • Unit 4 is already open form 8am – 11pm seven days a week as a Subway, and although this considered a sandwich shop and can trade as A1, it is seriously detracting form the character of the locality and visual amenity. • The extra volume o traffic near No. 19 Ravenhill Road would be unbearable. • Fforestfach is now an Air Quality Management Area; residents can not cope with any more high levels of nitrogen dioxide caused by yet more vehicles. Less parking and traffic movement is required not more. • It is not the fault of local residents that the applicant is failing to let the units. • It has been clear since 2007 that A3 use would not be acceptable at the location and a decision made to proceed with the development with only A1 and A2 uses.

PETITION OF OBJECTION containing 12 signatures raising the following points:

• The frontage of the site is some 2m narrower than originally indicated owing to land ownership issues, thus making the access and parking arrangements even more congested than originally considered a cause for concern. • Since the opening of the Subway unit, there has been an increase in letter and vehicle activity in the area. Another food outlet can only make the matter worse. • The fifteen parking spaces have already shown to be inadequate for the number of staff and visitors using the site, with the addition of another food outlet opening for 7 days a week and no on-street parking provision outside the site, overspill parking will likely occur on the neighbouring church land, causing difficulty to worshippers. • The original planning permission was granted on the basis that class A3 use was excluded, and on that basis, on site parking was considered sufficient.

Highway Observations - This proposal is for the change of use of premises from A1 retail to A3 takeaway use at Unit 1, 908 Carmarthen Road, Fforestfach. The unit is located within a recently constructed parade of shops (4 no) at the former Bob Hughes Carpets site at Fforestfach cross.

Consent for the shops was granted in 2008 and was submitted to include a range of A1, A2 and A3 uses. Following initial consideration, the applicant was advised that A3 use on the site was not considered acceptable and subsequently that element was excluded from the application.

The site is located at Fforestfach Cross which is heavily trafficked and is on a primary route linking J47 of the M4 to Swansea City Centre. Access is in the form of left-in and left-out onto Carmarthen Road near the traffic lights and a full movement priority junction onto Ravenhill Road across the end of the bus lay-by, again near to the traffic signals. Speed retarding humps are installed within the car park to discourage its use as a 'rat run' for traffic wishing to avoid any delay at the traffic lights and this forces slow entry from Carmarthen Road and through the car park. There are 15 parking spaces marked out within the site and all service vehicles have to park on the access way when servicing the units. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 2ND AUGUST 2011

ITEM 11 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0309

When considering the original proposal for the shop units, comparison against adopted parking guidelines recommended a range of parking provision up to a maximum of 19 spaces. Up to 14 spaces may be required for the remaining 3 units of A1/A2 use leaving 5 spaces for staff and customers of this proposal. Whilst parking guidelines recommend that staff parking needs to be accommodated for takeaway use it is inevitable that customer parking will be sought within the car park as no suitable on street facilities are available in the immediate vicinity of the site. Figures quoted in parking guidelines are maximum figures and consideration must always be made to reducing parking provision to encourage alternative modes of transport, however, regard must also be given to providing realistic levels of parking if problems are to be avoided. It is unlikely that for this type of use, customers would visit by public transport and other than some local walk-in trade; many customers are likely to arrive by car. Recognition of the level of demand for parking in the area together with the history of resisting A3 takeaway use along this part of Carmarthen Road and subsequent dismissal of such applications at appeal lead to my continued concern with the placing of an A3 use within this parade of shops with restricted parking, access and circulation facilities. A3 takeaway use is recognised as attracting the need for short term customer parking demand and on balance I consider that this proposal should not be supported.

Refusal is recommended on the grounds that the proposed use is likely to attract a level of traffic and parking demand that cannot be satisfactorily accommodated and will lead to congestion and obstruction to the detriment of the safe and free flow of vehicles and pedestrians in the vicinity.

APPLICANTS SUPPORTING STATEMENT

• We have recently made an application for a change of use from class A1 use to a hot food A3 use. We understand from officers that this change of use is unlikely to be supported, due to past refusals of similar type planning applications in the near vicinity; needless to say we are very disappointed.

• I appreciate it has not bearing to the case in point, but Actoris as lead developers through subsidiary companies have invested in the region of £10 million into Swansea during the course of the last three years in the middle of the recession. Two of these developments have been on Brownfield sites leading to the creation of over 100 jobs.

• With regard the Carmarthen Road development we listened to initial concerns raised by officers regarding the potential for A3 use on the site and agreed to drop this use form the original application, on the ground that we would initially test A1 retail uses. We have had some success in agreeing two pre-lets, with Subway and Ladbrokes, but have since received little to no interest despite comprehensive marketing efforts. The two remaining units have been marketed for over two years and have failed to get any interest other than from A3 occupiers.

• When making our initial application we had a string belief that we could have pushed for an A3 use, but decided to be pragmatic rather than appeal in light of officers concerns. Our development meets the criteria for parking levels and planning policy for a mixture of uses and we cannot see why our site is being compared, to other far less suitable sites in the area which have issues with access and paring. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 2ND AUGUST 2011

ITEM 11 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0309

• In terms of potential occupier, we have carefully selected a very successful high quality South Wales based operator who are trying to expand into Swansea.

• We hope in light of these comments that you will reconsider the council’s viewpoint on the application before making a recommendation. We as developers want to work with the local authority for the god of Swansea and a refusal on an application of this merit would certainly leave us with a bitter taste in our mouths. Evidently a needless and costly appeal will further hamper our efforts to further invest in Swansea.

APPRAISAL

This application is reported to committee for decision at the request of Councillor Veronyca Bates-Hughes who is aware of officers concerns in relation to Class A3 uses in the vicinity of the application site, but wishes the matter to be discussed at Committee.

Full planning permission is sought for the change of use of unit 1, 908 Carmarthen Road from retail (Class A1) to hot food take-away (Class A3). The application site is the former Bob Hughes Carpets site situated at the busy traffic light controlled junction known as Fforestfach cross. The redevelopment of the site with a new building comprising four separate units has been completed (2007/2716 refers) with two of the four units occupied (unit 3 occupied by Ladbrokes and Unit 4 occupied by Subway). Units 1 and 2 are currently vacant and have been since construction.

The redevelopment of the site saw the demolition of an out of date and tired looking building and its replacement with a modern structure, of simple architectural design, but nevertheless a more attractive redevelopment of this visually prominent corner location at a very busy junction.

Although the area surrounding the traffic lights is host to a concentration of commercial uses, this is not a recognised district centre and is an informal cluster of principally retail uses focussed around the junction. On this basis a consistent approach has been maintained by the Local Planning Authority in carefully controlling land use in the vicinity, and a particularly cautious approach has been applied to applications seeking Class A3 consent. The authority has consistently resisted the introduction of any such uses within the vicinity, decisions which have been supported at appeal. The principal reasons for refusal have been due to concerns over residential amenity and highway safety standards.

In this instance the proposal involves a change of use of unit 1 from its permitted Class A1 retail use to a Class A3 use as a fish and chip shop operating 7 days a week from 11.30am – 10pm. The main issues for consideration in this instance relate to the impact of the proposal upon the character and residential amenities of the area and the impact upon highway safety standards having regard to prevailing development plan policies. There are in this instance no additional issues for consideration under the provisions of the Human Rights Act.

Policy EV1 of the Swansea Unitary Development Plan states that new development shall not result in significant detrimental impact on local amenity in terms of visual impact, loss of light or privacy, disturbance and traffic movements. Policy EV40 states that development proposals will not be permitted that would cause or result in significant harm to health, local amenity, natural heritage, the historic environment or landscape character because of significant levels of air, noise or light pollution. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 2ND AUGUST 2011

ITEM 11 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0309

The amplification to this policy goes on to say that pollution may cause significant damage to human health, quality of life and residential amenity. The aim of the policy is it ensure that developments that would result in significantly high levels of noise light or air pollution are appropriately located away from residential areas and that the adverse effects of pollution are an important consideration when determining planning applications.

The applicants advisors in their covering letter for the application quote planning policy Wales Edition 3 (July 2010) which states: “PPW promotes a complementary mix of uses within centres in order to sustain and enhance the vitality, attractiveness and viability of the centre, as well as contributing to a reduction of travel demand” and further quotes “,mixed use development, for example by combining retailing with entertainment, restaurants and housing, should be encouraged so as to promote lively centres as well as to reduce the need to travel to visit a range of facilities”. The application site is NOT however located within a defined recognised centre and as such the above quotations are not considered relevant in this case.

Similarly reference is made to Policy ECNR of the Swansea Unitary Development Plan which again refers to defined shopping centres.

Policy EC6 states that the provision of appropriate small-scale local shopping and neighbourhood facilities will be encouraged within local shopping centres and in areas of acknowledged deficiency in order to meet local need. This is not however identified as an area currently experiencing deficiency in local shopping needs. There are a number of hot food outlets located within walking distance of the site, suggesting that the area is well served by hot-food outlets.

The application site is situated in close proximity to neighbouring residential properties and whilst a concentration of primarily retail activity is acknowledged as being focussed around this busy junction, this is nevertheless considered to be little more than neighbourhood facility and the site and surroundings are not therefore afforded the same considerations as a defined centre. Planning Policy Wales chapter 3.1.1 states “The planning system is intended to help protect the amenity and environment of towns, cities and the countryside in the public interest while encouraging and promoting high quality, sustainable development.” and further states (Para 3.1.3 ) “Factors to be taken into account in making planning decisions (material considerations) must be planning matters; that is, they must be relevant to the regulation of the development and use of land in the public interest, towards the goal of sustainability. Importantly Para 3.1.4 goes on to recognise what may be regarded as material considerations in relation to any particular application, and they include the impact on the neighbourhood and on the environment.

It is important to note in this case that the primary commercial activity is retail and as such activity ceases in the evening resulting in reduced footfall, vehicle movements and general comings and goings. It is considered that the nature of commercial activity present within this cluster of shops contributes towards the established character of the area which is principally residential supported by the nearby retail activity.

It is further considered that very clear distinctions can be made between the prevailing commercial uses and the proposed use as a hot food take-away within Class A3. It is considered that the proposed Class A3 use would result in a considerable intensification in the use of the premises particularly in the late evening hours generating noise and disturbance from additional vehicular and pedestrian activity. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 2ND AUGUST 2011

ITEM 11 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0309

It is noteworthy that Unit 4 is currently operating as a Subway franchise and whilst classed as an A1 use operates as a quasi A3 in terms of nature of use and activity generated. It is therefore noteworthy that the closest residing residents complain of noise and general disturbance and a further A3 use would only compound any impacts that are already experienced by local residents in this area. Furthermore approval of this application would set an undesirable precedent for the future consideration of similar applications in the vicinity (particularly the adjoining vacant unit no.2) such intensification would amount to a material change in the character of the area. This is compounded by the applicants’ statement which states “The two remaining units have been marketed for over two years and have failed to get any interest other than from A3 occupiers”.

Whilst the installation of modern filtration systems have the potential to eliminate smells bad enough to create a statutory nuisance they are unlikely to completely eliminate odours from escaping into the atmosphere and having regard to the close proximity of the residential properties would result in some smell nuisance. Furthermore not all customers buy their food to take home for consumption but chose to eat their food within or outside the premises. Even though conditions can be imposed controlling the consumption of food on the premises, no control can be exercised over activity outside the premises. It is inevitable that the nature of the use proposed will attract a level of activity which would cause general disturbance problems, the likes of which are not currently experienced and would detract from the visual amenities of the area, and would significantly harm the residential amenities reasonably expected to be enjoyed by nearby neighbouring residents. Whilst a degree of impact upon the neighbouring amenities’ is an inevitable consequence of being situated near a parade of shops, it is nevertheless considered that to introduce a use class, associated with late evening noise and activity as well as an odour and litter source is entirely unacceptable in this predominantly residential area. In view of the aforementioned, it is considered that the proposal would introduce an intrusive land use within this residential area which will be detrimental to the residential amenity of the occupants of the surrounding residential properties contrary to Polices EV1, and EV40 of the Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008.

The applicants supporting statement refers to failure of take-up for the retail units, however current market force is not considered sufficient justification to outweigh the residential amenity concerns set out in detail above. Similarly, the developers previous investment in Swansea is immaterial to the consideration of this application and should form no basis for decision making. Additionally, the submission refers to the unit being the southernmost in the block and therefore the furthest away from existing neighbouring properties. It is noteworthy however that planning permission has been repeatedly granted since 2004 for the residential development of the land immediately opposite Unit 1 (2004/2061 and 2007/2237 refer), the principle of residential development is therefore firmly established on this land.

Turning to highway safety matters, the site is located at Fforestfach Cross which is heavily trafficked and is on a primary route linking J47 of the M4 to Swansea City Centre. Access is in the form of left-in and left-out onto Carmarthen Road near the traffic lights and a full movement priority junction onto Ravenhill Road across the end of the bus lay-by, again near to the traffic signals. Speed retarding humps are installed within the car park to discourage its use as a 'rat run' for traffic wishing to avoid any delay at the traffic lights and this forces slow entry from Carmarthen Road and through the car park. There are 15 parking spaces marked out within the site and all service vehicles have to park on the access way when servicing the units. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 2ND AUGUST 2011

ITEM 11 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0309

When considering the original proposal for the shop units, comparison against adopted parking guidelines recommended a range of parking provision up to a maximum of 19 spaces. Up to 14 spaces may be required for the remaining 3 units of A1/A2 use leaving 5 spaces for staff and customers of this proposal. Whilst parking guidelines recommend that staff parking needs to be accommodated for takeaway use it is inevitable that customer parking will be sought within the car park as no suitable on street facilities are available in the immediate vicinity of the site. Figures quoted in parking guidelines are maximum figures and consideration must always be made to reducing parking provision to encourage alternative modes of transport, however, regard must also be given to providing realistic levels of parking if problems are to be avoided. It is unlikely that for this type of use, customers would visit by public transport and other than some local walk-in trade; many customers are likely to arrive by car. Recognition of the level of demand for parking in the area together with the history of resisting A3 takeaway use along this part of Carmarthen Road and subsequent dismissal of such applications at appeal lead to continued concern with the placing of an A3 use within this parade of shops with restricted parking, access and circulation facilities. A3 takeaway use is recognised as attracting the need for short term customer parking demand and on balance the Head of Transportation and Engineering considers that this proposal should not be supported.

The Head of Transportation and Engineering therefore recommends refusal on the grounds that the proposed use is likely to attract a level of traffic and parking demand that cannot be satisfactorily accommodated and will lead to congestion and obstruction to the detriment of the safe and free flow of vehicles and pedestrians in the vicinity.

With regard to the objection letters received, the point raised refer principally to issues of residential amenity associated with noise, litter, smell and general disturbance which is addressed in detail above. Further points relate in detail to parking and highway safety which is again addressed above.

Overall therefore the proposal is considered an inappropriate form of development that will harm the residential amenities currently enjoyed in the area and will impact upon highway safety standards contrary to the provisions of Policies EV1 and EV40 of the Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008. Refusal is recommended.

RECOMMENDATION

REFUSE, for the following reason:

1 The proposed development would introduce an intrusive land use into an established residential area and by virtue of an increase in noise, smells and general disturbance associated with vehicular and pedestrian movements, particularly during unsociable hours, would be seriously detrimental to the residential amenities of neighbouring occupiers contrary to Policies EV1 and EV40 of the City & County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008.

2 The proposed use is likely to attract a level of traffic and parking demand that cannot be satisfactorily accommodated and will lead to congestion and obstruction to the detriment of the safe and free flow of vehicles and pedestrians in the vicinity, contrary to Policy EV1 of the City & County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008.

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 2ND AUGUST 2011

ITEM 11 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0309

INFORMATIVES

1 The development plan covering the City and County of Swansea is the City and County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan. The following policies were relevant to the consideration of the application: Policies EV1, and EV40 of the Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008.

PLANS

Access statement, site location plan received 2nd March 2011

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 2ND AUGUST 2011

ITEM 12 APPLICATION NO. 2011/0364 WARD: Oystermouth Area 2

Location: Morfryn, St Annes Close, Langland, Swansea SA3 4NX Proposal: Four detached dwellings with detached garages (outline) Applicant: Executor of Mrs P E Godfrey

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

POLICIES

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

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 2ND AUGUST 2011

ITEM 12 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0364

Policy HC3 Provision of affordable housing in areas where a demonstrable lack of affordable housing exists. (City & County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008)

SITE HISTORY

None

RESPONSE TO CONSULTATIONS

Neighbours: The application was advertised on site in the form of a Site Notice and nine neighbouring dwellings were individually consulted. Twelve letters of objection were received which are summarised below:

1. Precedent for further infill development. 2. Similar applications are refused due to overintensification. 3. Highway safety concerns. 4. Certain dwellings not consulted. 5. Due to close proximity to AONB, SSSI and Langland Bay Conservation Area application should be advertised in the press. 6. Density of the proposal, not compatible with the wider area. 7. Concern that the garages could be used for residential purposes. 8. Proposals to alter the existing highway will create increased traffic movement onto and over the highway. 9. Increased noise and disturbance from additional traffic. 10. Proposed site is very prominent and completely out of character with adjacent properties of much lower density. 11. Loss of view. 12. Loss of vegetation and habitats. 13. Increased surface water runoff and resultant flooding. 14. Out of character with the area. 15. Dwelling is a good example of 1920’s architecture which should not be demolished. 16. Proposal out of keeping with the building line. 17. Loss of privacy. 18. Overbearing. 19. Removal of trees and grass verge will affect the established character of the Close. 20. An increase in dwellings will result in refuse problems. 21. Existing foliage must be retained. 22. Urbanising affect which is visible from the AONB. 23. If consent granted this could result in a further application for more dwellings. 24. Pre-app suggests proposal acceptable despite the felling of two established trees and destroying a grass verge. 25. Sewage/drainage issues. 26. Pollution to water quality in the bay. 27. Area is characterised by mainly attached garages and not detached. 28. Scale of the proposal is not acceptable.

Highways: This proposal is to redevelop Morfryn off St Anne's Close, Langland. The existing property is to be demolished and replaced with 4 detached properties with garages all served off a shared private drive. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 2ND AUGUST 2011

ITEM 12 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0364

St. Anne's Close is adopted part way where access to the application site and 2 other properties exists. From that point, the lane is not adopted and goes on to serve approximately another 4 properties. St. Anne's Close has a carriageway of 4.2m and a footway on the south side of 1.4m wide. On the north side, there is a verge and footway measuring approximately 4m wide. The applicant is indicating road widening by reducing the verge on the north side so that a standard road width of 5.5m can be provided. This will leave a footway in excess of 2m width which is more than enough for the likely level of use. In order to accommodate the widening, there will be a need to re-site the lighting column on the north side verge and remove 2 trees also sited in that verge. Any services within the verge will also need to be re-sited into the remaining footway and therefore it is likely that a complete replacement of the footway will be necessary.

The access into the site has restricted visibility where it meets St. Anne's Close and this will need to be improved through trimming back and possibly removal of some of the hedgerow. Excessively long visibility is not necessary as traffic movements are limited to the number of dwellings served and speeds likely to be low due to the nature of the lane. Removal of approximately 10m of the adjacent overgrowth would provide sufficient visibility in this instance.

The standard of access proposed within the development site accords with adopted guidelines for shared private drives and is therefore acceptable. Each plot will be provided with a double garage and drive accommodating 4 parking spaces for each dwelling.

The replacement of the existing dwelling with 4 new dwellings will increase traffic movements, however this is unlikely to be of a high volume and the proposal does include improvements to St. Anne's Close which will be of safety benefit to all users, both existing and proposed.

I recommend no highway objection subject to the following;

1. Prior to the commencement of building works, St. Anne's Close shall be widened as indicated on the submitted plans and in accordance with detailed engineering drawings to be submitted and approved. All at the expense of the developer.

Note: This is necessary to accommodate construction traffic

2. Visibility at the access point into the site shall be improved to the right for exiting drivers in accordance with details to be submitted and approved. Such improvements to be completed prior to beneficial occupation of any dwelling within the site.

Note: This will likely affect approximately 10m of the adjacent hedgerow.

3. A 'Give Way' road marking shall be installed and thereafter maintained at the junction of the site access road with St. Anne's Close.

Note: Works on the adopted highway are illegal unless authorised by Agreement with the Highways Authority. The Developer must contact the Team Leader - Highways Management, City and County of Swansea (Highways), Penllergaer Offices c/o Civic Centre, Swansea, SA1 3SN (Tel 01792 636091) before carrying out any work. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 2ND AUGUST 2011

ITEM 12 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0364

Mumbles Community Council: Overintensification, concern regarding Cherry Trees with road widening, all trees on site subject to root disturbance, removal of healthy trees, sewage problem also a concern.

APPRAISAL

This application is reported to Committee for decision at the request of Councillor Anthony Colburn in order to assess the impact of the development on the surrounding area.

Description

Outline planning permission is sought for four detached dwellings with detached garages at Morfryn, St Annes Close. Details relating to layout and access are to be considered at this stage with all other details reserved for future consideration. The site is situated within the established residential area of Langland. The existing property is a large detached dwelling situated within grounds of approximately 4700m2. The dwelling is not listed and is not situated within a Conservation Area and as such there is no objection to its demolition. The area is characterised by a mixture of detached two storey and single storey dwellings situated within differing plot shapes and sizes.

Issues

The main issues for consideration during the determination of this application relates to the principle of residential development at this location, the visual impact of the proposal upon the area, the impact of the proposal upon the residential amenities of the neighbouring occupiers, highway safety, ecology of the site and drainage issues, having regard for National and Local Planning Policies. It is not considered that the provisions of the Human Rights Act raise any additional issues.

Principle of Development

The site currently forms part of the residential curtilage of Morfryn which is within the established residential area of Langland as identified on the Swansea Unitary Development Plan Southern Proposals Map. As such Policy HC2 of the UDP in principle allows for appropriate residential infill development subject to compliance with a number of criteria.

Development will be required to be appropriate to its location and will only be approved where it meets the criteria set out in Policies EV1 and EV2. These policies seek to ensure that new developments not only follow set objectives of good design and quality but ensure that it is appropriate to its local context and does not have an adverse impact on the landscape and heritage of the area.

Given that the land falls within the settlement in land use terms it is acceptable in principle for infill residential development. However it is essential that any scheme should seek to respect the character and appearance of the area in terms of siting, scale, design and materials. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 2ND AUGUST 2011

ITEM 12 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0364

Affordable Housing

The site is located within the Swansea West Strategic Housing Policy Zone and as such Policy HC3 of the Swansea UDP requires housing development on sites for 10 or more dwellings or sites in excess of 0.4ha to include negotiations for the inclusion of affordable housing. The site is larger than 0.4ha and having consulted the Councils Housing Officer it is considered that given the development is for a small number of units (4), it would be appropriate to negotiate a financial contribution of £200K (£50K per unit) to meet an identified need on an alternative site. The applicant has agreed to this commuted sum and should this application be successful it would form part of a Section 106 Legal Obligation.

Visual Amenities

The proposal will involve the demolition of the large detached dwelling and its replacement with four large detached dwellings. The site is considered to be of a sufficient size to accommodate the proposed dwellings and each plot will have a similar density to other dwellings within the immediate vicinity.

As stated previously the area is characterised by a mixture of large detached single storey and two-storey detached dwellings situated within large plots, fronting the highway. It is not considered that the re-development of this area behind the established building line is unacceptable in visual terms given the fact that the proposed cul-de-sac will have a similar layout to the adjacent Beaufort Close and the dwellings situated at No 2 St Annes Close and No’s 10, 12 and 14 Beaufort Avenue which are situated behind the established building line and are of a similar pattern of development to the proposal. Whilst these properties are undoubtedly older, the proposed pattern of development is also typical of more recent development at the adjacent Channel View site and the recent approval of a dwelling to the rear of 36 and 38 Higher Lane (Ref: 2006/1580).

The levels of the site fall in a westerly direction and the existing and proposed levels indicate that the land levels of Plots 1 and 2 will be lowered slightly, the level of Plot 3 raised by approximately 1.1m and Plot 4 by approximately 1.6m. The scale parameters indicate that the proposed dwellings will have a maximum ridge height of some 8.9m and the sections indicate that Plot 1 would be sited some 0.41m below the ridge height of existing property, Plot 2 - 0.21m higher than the existing dwelling, Plot 3 - 1.41m lower and Plot 4 - 1.89m lower, however the cumulative impact of four dwellings opposed to one would have a greater visual impact upon the wider landscape. Given that layout and access are only to be considered at this stage the heights and levels of the proposed dwellings can be controlled by condition and the visual impact of the proposal can be further assessed at reserved matters stage.

The site is located outside both the SSSI, Gower AONB and Conservation Area, however views from and to the site are visible from wider vantage points within the Gower AONB, SSSI and Conservation Area. However, the proposed dwellings would be viewed against the background of the cliff face and the rising land levels and as such are considered in keeping with the character and appearance of the area where existing dwellings in Langland which pepper the landscape are prevalent. As such it is not considered that the proposed development would have a significantly harmful impact upon the wider AONB or Conservation Area such that a recommendation of refusal could be justified. The proposal is situated a sufficient distance away from the SSSI and as such is considered to have an acceptable impact upon it. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 2ND AUGUST 2011

ITEM 12 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0364

There is no prevailing characteristic or dominant house type to suggest a specific architectural response on this site, however given its backland location regard must be had for the residential amenities of the neighbouring occupiers and the detailed design of the dwellings can be further explored at reserved matters stage.

With regard the proposed garages, these will bear the closest relationship to the proposed dwellings and they appear proportionate to the size and scale of the proposed dwellings and as such are considered acceptable in principle. Again detailed issues relating to the garages can be explored further at reserved matters stage.

Whilst it is acknowledged that the widening of the road will remove two trees, the proposal involves the planting of 10 trees within the site and a fully comprehensive landscaping scheme will be conditioned prior to the commencement of work to ensure the visual amenities of the area will be protected.

As such the proposal is considered to respect the visual amenities of the area in compliance with Policies EV1, EV2 and HC2 of the Swansea UDP.

Residential Amenity

Turning to residential amenities, subject to conditions relating to the levels of the site, it is considered that the siting of the dwellings in relation to the boundaries of the neighbouring properties and the distance from the neighbouring dwellings themselves would not give rise to unacceptable overbearing or overshadowing impacts which could warrant the refusal of this application. The dwellings are sited a sufficient distance from the boundaries of the neighbouring dwellings to ensure the residential amenities of the neighbours could be protected and issues relating to overlooking would be addressed at reserved matters stage. The development will therefore comply with Policies EV1 and HC2 of the Swansea Unitary Development Plan, it is considered.

Highways

St. Anne's Close is adopted part way where access to the application site and 2 other properties exists. From that point, the lane is not adopted and goes on to serve approximately another 4 properties. St. Anne's Close has a carriageway of 4.2m and a footway on the south side of 1.4m wide. On the north side, there is a verge and footway measuring approximately 4m wide. The applicant is indicating road widening by reducing the verge on the north side so that a standard road width of 5.5m can be provided. This will leave a footway in excess of 2m width which is more than enough for the likely level of use. In order to accommodate the widening, there will be a need to resite the lighting column on the north side verge and remove 2 trees also sited in that verge. Any services within the verge will also need to be resited into the remaining footway and therefore it is likely that a complete replacement of the footway will be necessary.

ITEM 12 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0364

Drainage

The proposed dwellings will drain their foul water to main sewer with their surface water draining to soakaways. DWR CYMRU/WELSH WATER have raised no objections to the proposal and subject to the implementation of Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems and grey water harvesting incorporated into the detailed design of the dwellings, the proposal will raise no unacceptable drainage issues and as such is considered to comply with Policies EV33 and EV35 of the Swansea UDP.

Ecology

A protected species survey has been submitted and following consideration of the report with the Councils Ecologist it is noted that no evidence of bat use of the building was found by the surveyors, so an informative statement will be sufficient for the determination of this application. The hedges surrounding the property were used by a number of bats both as a commuting route and a foraging area; the hedges should therefore be retained. Any light spill on to the hedges as a result of any development should be prevented. The surveyor has suggested in their recommendations that bat friendly features should be built into any new dwellings on the site and that bat friendly materials are used during construction.

Response to Consultations

Notwithstanding the above, twelve individual letters of objection were received raising concerns relating to the loss of privacy, overbearing impacts, density of development, drainage, principle of demolition and proposed development, intensification, highway safety, traffic, visual impact upon Gower AONB, Conservation Area and SSSI, impact upon character of the area, loss of trees, impact upon habitats and drainage. The issues pertaining to which have been addressed above.

Concern has been raised regarding precedent, loss of view and refuse problems, however these are not material planning considerations and as such were not taken into consideration during the determination of this application.

In addition to this concern has been raised regarding the potential residential use of the proposed garage. Sufficient parking spaces are provided for each dwelling and subject to the garage remaining ancillary to the main dwelling there would be no objection to the proposed conversion in planning terms. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 2ND AUGUST 2011

ITEM 12 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0364

Concern has been raised in relation to the consultation process, however the planning department is satisfied that the correct procedures have been followed in that all adjoining neighbouring dwellings were individually consulted and the application has been advertised on site in the form of a Site Notice.

Conclusion

In conclusion it is considered that subject to conditions the proposed development is compatible with the character, appearance and layout of the surrounding area, the residential amenities of the neighbouring properties, highway safety, the ecology of the site and drainage. Therefore it is considered that the development complies with the principles of Policies EV1, EV2, EV3, EV33, EV35, HC2 and HC3 of the Swansea UDP and Approval is recommended.

RECOMMENDATION

APPROVE subject to the applicant entering into a Section 106 Obligation in respect of a contribution of £200,000 towards off site affordable housing provision and to the following conditions:

2 Detailed plans and drawings with respect to the matters reserved in condition (01) shall be submitted for approval by the Local Planning Authority not later than the expiration of three years from the date of this permission. Reason: To comply with the provisions of Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1990 and to ensure that the development is determined within a reasonable period.

4 Development shall not commence until details of foul, surface and land drainage works have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall not be brought into beneficial use until the works have been completed in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To ensure a satisfactory means of drainage.

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 2ND AUGUST 2011

ITEM 12 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0364

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

6 A landscaping scheme for the site shall be submitted as part of the reserved matters, and the scheme as approved shall be carried out within 12 months from the completion or occupation of the development, whichever is sooner. Any trees, shrubs or plant material which are part of the scheme, which die, become seriously damaged or diseased within two years of planting shall be replaced by trees or shrubs of a similar size and species to those originally required to be planted. Reason: In the interests of the visual amenity of the site as a whole, and to accord with Section 197 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

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

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

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

10 Prior to the occupation of the dwelling(s) hereby permitted, a Code for Sustainable Homes "Final certificate" shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority certifying that a minimum Code for Sustainable Homes (Level 3) and a minimum of 1 credit under "Ene1 – Dwelling Emission Rate", has been achieved in accordance with the requirements of the Code for Sustainable Homes; Technical Advice Guide (November 2010 - Version 3). Reason: In the interests of sustainability. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 2ND AUGUST 2011

ITEM 12 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0364

11 No development shall commence until St. Anne's Close is widened as indicated on the submitted plans and in accordance with detailed engineering drawings to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interest of highway safety.

12 No development shall commence until visibility at the access point into the site is improved to the right for exiting drivers in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interest of highway safety.

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

14 All external lighting associated with the development shall be in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interest of protected species and the ecology of the site.

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

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

INFORMATIVES

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

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 2ND AUGUST 2011

ITEM 12 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0364

5 Please note: In line with the Bat Survey bat friendly features should be incorporated into the detailed design of the dwellings at reserved matters stage and furthermore bat friendly materials are used during construction.

PLANS

Design and Access Statement, 10.14/09 site plan, 10.14/10 existing and proposed block plans, 10/14/.12 proposed site layout plan, 10.14.11 existing topographical survey, 10.14.15 proposed highway improvement works, 10.14.13 existing and proposed section A-A, 10.14.14 existing and proposed section B-B received 14th March 2011

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 2ND AUGUST 2011

ITEM 13 APPLICATION NO. 2011/0570 WARD: Oystermouth Area 2

Location: 4 Langcliffe Park Mumbles Swansea SA3 4JF Proposal: Variation of condition 6 of planning permission 77/0743 granted 25th August 1977 to allow 12 months occupancy Applicant: Mr & Mrs Tyrone O'Sullivan

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

POLICIES

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

Policy HC10 Proposals for the residential use of holiday chalets and static caravans will only be permitted where the premises and curtilage are suitable in terms of size, structure, amenity, garden area, parking provision and access. (City & County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008)

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

SITE HISTORY

App No. Proposal 2002/2028 Removal of condition 06 of planning permission 77/0743 granted on 25th August 1977 to allow for 12 months occupation Decision: Refuse Decision Date: 21/01/2003

2005/1389 Rear conservatory Decision: Grant Permission Conditional Decision Date: 18/10/2005

2005/2058 Front conservatory Decision: Refuse Decision Date: 08/11/2005

2001/1924 Variation of condition 6 of planning permission 77/0743 granted on 25 August 1977 to change the non-occupancy period from 1st December to 31st January to 1st February to 31st March in any year Decision: Approve Conditional (S73) Decision Date: 08/01/2002

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 2ND AUGUST 2011

ITEM 13 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0570

2005/2648 Front conservatory Decision: Grant Permission Conditional Decision Date: 11/04/2006

RESPONSE TO CONSULTATIONS

The application was advertised on site and two neighbouring property consulted. No response.

Mumbles Community Council – No response.

Highways Observations - I recommend no highway objection to full time holiday use. *

APPRAISAL

This application is reported to committee for determination at the request of Councillor Tony Colbourne so that it can be discussed by a wider audience.

The site is within an area to the south of Plunch Lane, Limeslade Bay where there is a concentration of holiday chalet and caravan development including Langcliffe Park, which is a cul-de-sac consisting of 42 holiday chalets. The chalets are subject to a 10 month restricted occupancy condition under reference 77/0743, which precludes all year round occupation.

The cul-de-sac of Langcliffe Park is of restricted width and runs to the south of Plunch Lane and the overall cramped layout, design and restricted highway conditions makes the chalet inappropriate for continuous residential use and the purpose of the condition, in prohibiting the chalets’ occupation for human habitation during December and January, is clearly to promote holiday use and to discourage permanent occupation.

The application is submitted in accordance with Section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to remove the restricted occupancy condition to allow the use of the chalet as a permanent residential dwelling. The restricted occupancy condition applies to all the holiday chalets in this part of Gower, built in the 1960’s and 1970’s, in the main as replacements for holiday caravans and wooden huts, in accordance with the provision of the 1960’s Swansea Development Plan, which was then operative.

The main issues to be considered are whether the chalet is suitable for all year round occupation having regard to the character, layout and design of the chalet and the effect of year round permanent residential occupation on the surrounding chalet development.

The current policy framework is provided by Policy HC10 of the Swansea Unitary Development Plan which states that proposals for the residential use of chalets and static caravans will only be permitted where the premises and curtilage are suitable in terms of size, structures, amenity, garden area, parking provision and access. Additionally, the amplification states that holiday chalets and static caravans make an important contribution to the tourism industry of Swansea and Gower and the Council will resist their loss. The Planning Committee of the former Swansea City Council adopted a Report in March 1994 reviewing the policy with regard to the holiday chalet occupation in Limeslade in the light of several Welsh Office Planning Appeal decisions. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 2ND AUGUST 2011

ITEM 13 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0570

The Planning Committee resolved to continue to implement the restrictive occupancy condition for all the holiday chalets in Limeslade, except 1 and 3 Berma Close, which were of a different character to the remainder of the chalets in Limeslade.

Government advice in respect of seasonal occupation of caravans and holiday chalets is contained in Welsh Office Circular 35/95 (the use of conditions in planning permissions) which advises that occasionally “it may be acceptable to limit the use of land for a particular purpose to certain seasons of the year”, and quotes the example of a caravan site. It also advocates that a similar approach may be taken where it is necessary to prevent the permanent residential use of holiday chalets which by the character of their construction or design are unsuitable for continuous occupation. The Council have consistently contended that the chalets within Limeslade in general are unsuitable for continuous occupation and the non-occupancy condition has been strictly enforced and generally upheld at Appeal. Previous applications to remove the restricted occupancy condition on many chalets have been refused as well as being consistently dismissed at Appeal. Policy HC10 of the Swansea Unitary Development Plan and the Limeslade Bay Holiday Chalet Accommodation Policy Report emphasise that this is an area where the Council will continue to resist proposals for permanent residential occupation and to enforce the relevant non-occupancy condition.

The overall layout and design of the chalets within Langcliffe Park are consistent with their use for holiday purposes, characterised by a narrow access road with a lack of parking provision, very small chalets and a cramped layout. This particular chalet has been extended previously in the form of a rear conservatory extension; however the remaining rear garden area is comparable to all the other chalets within the close. On the basis of the size of the extended chalet the useable garden area to the rear is considered to fall well below the standard of amenity space that is expected for permanent occupation. The chalets are in close proximity to each other and consequently the degree of privacy available is substantially below that normally acceptable for a bungalow used for permanent occupation which is aggravated by the very limited amenity space available. The level of residential amenity considered reasonable and acceptable for holiday accommodation is distinctly different to that of a permanent dwelling. On this basis it is not considered that the application chalet is considered appropriate for permanent residential use given the lack of amenity space. Overall therefore the chalet is lacking in amenity space, which taken together with the over-crowded and sub-standard layout of Langcliffe Park, make the property unsuitable for permanent use.

While Langcliffe Park is a sub-standard highway A Welsh Office Inspectors report on a similar historic application concluded that there were insufficient grounds for a highway objection as there was unlikely to be any significant increase in traffic due to the change from holiday use to permanent occupation. On that basis, there are no technical grounds for a highway objection.

Whilst the restricted occupancy condition does not guarantee that the chalet is used for holiday purposes only, it does discourage occupation by one household as a main residence and encourages its occupation for the originally intended purpose of holiday accommodation. The approval of the application would also set a precedent for the permanent occupation of chalets of a similar character in the area which the Local Planning Authority would find difficult to resist, and lead to the creation of an extensive area of permanent housing with a very poor environment well below acceptable recognised standards. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 2ND AUGUST 2011

ITEM 13 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0570

The Council have granted only one planning permission for the permanent occupation of a chalet at No. 9 Sarlou Close (2008/0343 refers), this chalet is arguably the only chalet within Sarlou Close, where the chalet is as originally built with no additions and also benefits from a larger than usual curtilage and therefore a reasonable level of useable private amenity space, such that it could reasonably be argued that the residential amenities of the occupiers would not be compromised by permanent occupation. Notwithstanding this historic decision it has nevertheless remained to be considered that the overall cramped layout and design of the chalets, dictate that they are inappropriate for continuous residential use and the creation of an extensive area of permanent housing. Since the approval of year round occupancy at No. 9 Sarlou Close, several further attempts have been made to obtain permanent occupancy and have been refused for the same reasons as set out above, and have been subsequently dismissed at appeal.

The provisions of the Human Rights Act have been considered, in particular, Articles 1 and 8 which refer to the home, personal possession and the protection of family life. The policy of restricting occupancy of the chalets in Limeslade however is long established and well known and justified on sound nationally recognised town planning grounds outlined above. It is not therefore considered that the provisions of the Act raise issues of overriding importance. Refusal is therefore recommended.

RECOMMENDATION:

REFUSE, for the following reason;

1 The overall cramped layout and design of the chalet within Langcliffe Park is consistent with the use for holiday purposes, and is inappropriate for continuous residential use due to sub-standard levels of amenity space. The proposal would therefore be detrimental to the residential amenities of the occupiers of the chalet contrary to the provisions of Policies EV1 and HC10 of the Swansea Unitary Development Plan and the Council's adopted Supplementary Guidance for Chalet Development in Limeslade.

2 The removal of condition 06 would establish an undesirable precedent for the conversion of chalets of a similar character in the Limeslade area which could lead to the loss of valuable tourist accommodation and the creation of an extensive area of permanent housing which fails to provide for adequate general standards of amenity. As such the proposal is contrary to Policy HC10 of the Swansea Unitary Development Plan and the Council's adopted Supplementary Planning Guidance for holiday chalet development in Limeslade.

INFORMATIVES

1 The development plan covering the City and County of Swansea is the City and County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan. The following policies were relevant to the consideration of the application: Policies EV1, HC10 and AS6 of the Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008.

PLANS

Site location plan, floor plan, design and access statement received 4th May 2011

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 2ND AUGUST 2011

ITEM 14 APPLICATION NO. 2011/0745 WARD: Sketty Area 2

Location: 29B Gower Road, Sketty, Swansea, SA2 9BX Proposal: Change of use from retail shop (Class A1) to coffee shop (Class A3) Applicant: Mr Gary Cairns

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

POLICIES

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

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

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

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

SITE HISTORY

App No. Proposal 2004/1867 Change of use from shop (Class A1) to an amusement arcade Decision: Refuse Decision Date: 26/10/2004

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 2ND AUGUST 2011

ITEM 14 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0745

RESPONSE TO CONSULTATIONS

The application was advertised on site and the manager of the neighbouring residential complex comprising of flats for the elderly known as Maxime Court notified. No response.

Highways observations - This proposal is for a change of use of a retail shop to A3 Café use. The site is located at the bus and service vehicle bay on Gower Road Sketty. Currently there are issues relating to inappropriate parking taking place in the lay-by at this location where bus and service vehicle access is being affected resulting in buses and service vehicles occasionally having to park on the through lane and causing obstruction.

The provision of an A3 use within these premises could encourage further inappropriate parking in the immediate vicinity thus exacerbating current conditions. I have considered whether a recommendation removing takeaway sales from the proposed A3 use would address the concerns, however this aspect is difficult to satisfactorily enforce and is only suitable where the occasional instance of inappropriate on-street parking would not have a serious highway safety implication. In this instance, I consider that even minimal transgression could have unacceptable consequences particularly as such problems are already occurring in that vicinity.

On balance therefore, I recommend refusal of the application on the basis that provision of an A3 use is likely to encourage inappropriate parking thereby exacerbating existing parking conditions to the detriment of the safe and free flow of vehicles and pedestrians.

APPRAISAL

This application is reported to committee for determination at the request of Councillor Tony Colburn in order to address the impact of the development on the surrounding area..

Full planning permission is sought for the change of use of the ground floor from retail (Class A1) to coffee shop (Class A3) at No 29B Gower Road, Sketty. The building is located on the southern side of Gower Road within the Sketty District Shopping Centre as defined by Policy EC5 of the Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008. The application is a mid-link property most recently used as a flooring and bed shop, although currently vacant.

The main issue for consideration relates to the appropriateness of the use at this location and its visual impact and effect on neighbouring properties, having regard to policy ECNR of the City and County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan.

Policy ECNR requires development to have regard to the acceptability of proposals for non-retail uses at ground floor level within shopping centres having regard to the following criteria:

The relationship of the proposal to other existing or approved non-retail uses within the centre - the property is surrounded by a range of premises undertaking non retail activity (including an estate agent, betting shop, bank, & letting agent). When considering this portion of the Southern side of Gower Road as a whole (No.’s23-45) approval of this application would result in some 80% of the frontage being non-retail (the majority of which within Class A2). AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 2ND AUGUST 2011

ITEM 14 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0745

It is therefore considered that the introduction of a further non-retail use into this primary area would result in a serious dilution of the retail frontage at this location to the detriment of the viability, vitality and attractiveness of the district centre.

The affect upon the primary retail function of the centre, either individually or in combination with other non-retail uses – given the predominance of non retail uses already at this location as detailed above it is considered that the further loss of a retail unit at this location would result in a dilution of the retail offer to such a degree that it would undermine the primary retail function of the centre and be detrimental to its vitality and viability. The application property is currently vacant at ground floor level. The previous occupant provided a flooring and bedding shop and the information submitted on the application indicates that trading ceased some 18 months ago. Therefore given the limited time that the unit has remained vacant (at the time of application) it is considered premature to argue that an alternative non-retail use could arguably be more beneficial than the continued vacancy of the unit. It is considered that the unit is well-placed within the heart of the centre for future successful retail use.

The nature of the shop front and window display that would be introduced – the scheme as submitted does not propose alterations to the existing frontage and the existing substantial shop-front would be retained. To this end the proposal would not harm the active frontage of this part of the district centre.

Whether and for what length of time the premises has been genuinely marketed for retail use – The property has been vacant for some 18 months, the manner in which it has been marketed is not known. Notwithstanding this, the period of vacancy is not considered sufficiently lengthy to justify considering a non-retail use.

The likelihood of the unit remaining vacant for a significant period of time – Vacancy rates within the District Centre fluctuate, although there has been a recent influx of new business into the centre which suggests vacant units would not remain so for a protracted period. Furthermore this is a well placed unit with a large shopfront display window, as such it is considered that the change of use to a non-retail function without sufficient justification would be premature and result in a damaging proliferation of non-retail uses to the detriment of the District Centre.

The location of the site relative to the established primary shopping area - see above.

The overall impact upon the vitality, viability and attractiveness of the centre – Whilst it may be argued that a use (even if non-retail) may serve to increase the footfall through this part of the District Centre, this is not of itself considered to outweigh the requirement that applications of this nature actively contribute to the vitality, viability and attractiveness of the centre. Notwithstanding a possible increase in footfall the overall contribution to the district centre is considered to be a negative one.

Residential Amenity It is noteworthy that the premises is closely neighboured by a residential complex comprising of flats for the elderly known as Maxime Court. Although located within the district centre, and therefore some noise and disturbance is an inevitable consequence of district centre living, the proximity of the flats (54 in total) is a material consideration for the determination of this application. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 2ND AUGUST 2011

ITEM 14 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0745

The Head of Environmental Management and Protection has however offered no objection to the proposal therefore a refusal reason on the basis of impact upon residential amenity is considered difficult to sustain. Furthermore, If planning permission were minded to be granted, the use of the premises within class A3 could be controlled via an appropriately worded condition thus avoiding inappropriate late night use in future, which could arguably harm the amenities of the nearby residents. However in this instance the damaging effects of the proposal upon the vitality, viability and attractiveness of the centre are considered sufficiently harmful to justify refusal of the application.

Highway Safety

The site is located at the bus and service vehicle bay on Gower Road Sketty. Currently there are issues relating to inappropriate parking taking place in the lay-by at this location where bus and service vehicle access is being affected resulting in buses and service vehicles occasionally having to park on the through lane and causing obstruction.

The provision of an A3 use within these premises could encourage further inappropriate parking in the immediate vicinity thus exacerbating current conditions. Consideration has been given to whether a recommendation removing takeaway sales from the proposed A3 use would address the concerns, however this aspect is difficult to satisfactorily enforce and is only suitable where the occasional instance of inappropriate on-street parking would not have a serious highway safety implication. In this instance, it is considered that even minimal transgression could have unacceptable consequences particularly as such problems are already occurring in that vicinity. On balance therefore, refusal of the application is recommended on the basis that provision of an A3 use is likely to encourage inappropriate parking thereby exacerbating existing parking conditions to the detriment of the safe and free flow of vehicles and pedestrians contrary to Policies EV1, EV3 and AS6 of the Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008.

In conclusion, and having regard to all material considerations including the Human Rights Act, it is considered the proposal represents an unacceptable form of development that fails to comply with the provisions of the City and County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008. Refusal is therefore recommended.

RECOMMENDATION

REFUSE, for the following reasons:

1 The introduction of a further non-retail use within this existing run of predominantly non-retail properties would result in an unacceptable dilution of the retail frontage and undermine the retail function of the District Centre detrimental to its vitality, viability and attractiveness, contrary to Policy ECNR of the City and County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008.

2 Approval of this application would be likely to encourage inappropriate parking thereby exacerbating existing parking conditions to the detriment of the safe and free flow of vehicles and pedestrians contrary to Policies EV1, EV3 and AS6 of the City and County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008.

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 2ND AUGUST 2011

ITEM 14 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0745

INFORMATIVES

5 The development plan covering the City and County of Swansea is the City and County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan. The following policies were relevant to the consideration of the application: Policies EC5, ECNR, EV3 and AS6 of the Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008.

PLANS

Site location plan, design and access statement received 23rd May 2011

ITEM NO: ___5__

Electoral Division: Llwchwr

Report of the Head of Economic Regeneration & Planning

To The Area 2 Development Control Committee

2nd August 2011

Land at Cae Duke, Loughor Road, Loughor, Swansea

Construction of 209 dwellings, indoor sports barn, two outdoor sports pitches, new vehicular access off Loughor Road and associated parking, open space and landscaping works

Application Reference : 2007/2097

1.0 Background

1.1 This application is currently being considered, and at the request of the applicants will be reported to the earliest available Area 2 Development Control Committee in August.

1.2 However, Members are advised that in accordance with Minute 45 of the Area 2 Development Control Committee on the 2nd September 2008, Committee had resolved that given the size and scale of the development they wished to attend a Committee Site Visit prior to considering the application.

2.0 Recommendation

2.1 That a Committee Site visit should be held by the Area 2 DC Committee on the 9th August, 2011, before being reported to Committee for consideration.

BACKGROUND PAPERS: Local Government Act 1972, as amended by the Local Authorities (Access to Information) Act, 1985. Contact Officer: John Lock Extension No: 5731 Date of 25th July 2011 Document Cae Duke Production: Name:

CITY AND COUNTY OF SWANSEA

MINUTES OF THE AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE

HELD ON TUESDAY 2nd SEPTEMBER 2008 AT THE CIVIC CENTRE, AT 2.00 P.M.

PRESENT: Councillor R D Lewis (Chairman) presided

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

V A Bates-Hughes J B Kelleher T H Rees A C S Colburn K E Marsh G Seabourne A M Day P Matthews R J Stanton W Evans P M Meara P B Smith E W Fitzgerald J T Miles N J Tregoning R Francis-Davies W K Morgan D P Tucker D I E Jones C L Philpott S M Waller A Jopling

39. APOLOGIES

Apologies for absence were received form Councillors J E Burtonshaw, P R Hood-Williams, D H James, J W Jones, M H Jones, R H Kinzett, E T Kirchner and J Newbury.

40. DECLARATION OF INTEREST

In accordance with the provisions of the Code of Conduct the following interests were declared:

Councillor P Tucker - planning application 2008/0131 and 2008/0794 - personal and business.

Councillor R Francis-Davies - planning application No. 2008/0131 - personal - applicant is former councillor.

Councillor D I E Jones - planning applications No. 2008/0131 - personal - applicant is former councillor.

Councillor G Seabourne - planning application No. 2008/0131 - personal - applicant is former councillor.

Councillor J Miles - planning application No. 2008/0131 - personal - applicant is former councillor.

Councillor P B Smith - planning application No. 2008/0131 - personal - applicant is former Councillor Minutes of the Area 2 Development Control Committee (02.09.08) Cont’d

Councillor A C S Colburn - planning application No. 2008/0131 - personal - applicant is former Councillor.

Councillor T H Rees - planning application No. 2008/0131 - personal - applicant is former councillor.

Councillor K Morgan - planning application No. 2008/0131 - personal - applicant is former councillor.

Councillor K Marsh - planning application No. 2008/0131 - personal - applicant is former councillor.

Councillor J Kelleher - planning application No. 2008/0131 - personal - applicant is former councillor.

Councillor S Waller - planning application No. 2008/0131 - personal - applicant is former councillor.

Councillor P Meara - planning application No. 2008/0131 - personal - applicant is former councillor.

Councillor J Stanton - planning application No. 2008/0131 - personal - applicant is former councillor

Councillor R Lewis - planning application No. 2008.0131 - personal - applicant is former councillor.

Councillor R Lewis - planning application No. 2008/0951 - personal and prejudicial and left.

41. MINUTES

RESOLVED that the Minutes of the Area 2 Development Control Committee held on 5th August, 2008 and 12th August 2008 be agreed as correct records subject to the following amendments:

5th August, 2008

Councillors W Evans, M Jones and C Philpott be added to the list of members present.

12th August, 2008

Councillors E W Fitzgerald and P Matthews be added to the list of members present. Minutes of the Area 2 Development Control Committee (02.09.08) Cont’d

42. ITEM FOR DEFERRAL

(a) NOTED that the undermentioned planning application BE DEFERRED for further consideration.

(Item 16) Application No. 2007/0450

Removal of condition 19 attached to planning permission 2005/0599 dated 27 June, 2006 to provide a pedestrian/cycleway link at the southern end of the site onto the A48 on land east of Pontarddulais Road, Penllergaer.

(b) RESOLVED that the undermentioned planning application BE DEFERRED for further negotiations with the applicant regarding the siting of the proposed building:

(Item 1) Application No. 2008/0338

Construction of agricultural building (prior approval of the Local Authority Planning Authority) field No. 0062, Burry Green, Reynoldston.

(c) RESOLVED that the undermentioned planning application BE DEFERRED to allow submission of revised/additional details following a request from the applicant's agents;

(Item 2) Application No. 2008/0951

Replacement building to provide cellar, ground floor workshop/store and reception area with first floor self contained apartment at Bank Farm, Horton.

43. ITEMS DEFERRED FOR SITE VISITS

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

(Item 6) Application No. 2008/0131

Two detached dwellings with garages (outline) on land at Sunnyside Farm, Chapel Road, Three Crosses.

Minutes of the Area 2 Development Control Committee (02.09.08) Cont’d

(NOTE: The reason given for this site visit was to consider the sensitivity of the site impact upon the village.)

(Item 8) Application No. 2008/0794

Retention of detached dwelling of New Henllys Farm, Llandewi.

(NOTE: The reason given for this site visit was to consider issues on site.)

(Item 11) Application No. 2008/1405

Two storey side extension and side conservatory at Little Cilibion Cottage, Cilibion.

(NOTE: The reason given for this site visit was to consider the impact upon the area.)

(Item 14) Application No. 2008/1534

Single storey front extension and retention of boundary wall at 1 Blackthorn Place, Sketty.

(NOTE: The reason given for this site visit was to consider the impact upon the street scene and the visual amenities of the area.)

(Item 15) Application No. 2008/1537

Two storey side extension, single storey rear extension and two roof lights, front porch, solar panel to front elevation, demolition and repositioning of part of front garden wall and retention of satellite dish and associated receivers (amendment to planning permission 2007/1219 granted 28th September 2007) at St. George Terrace, Robins Lane, Reynoldston.

(NOTE: The reason given for this site visit was to consider the impact of the proposal.)

Minutes of the Area 2 Development Control Committee (02.09.08) Cont’d

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

The Head of Planning Services submitted a schedule of outline applications, reserved matters and planning applications. Amendments to this schedule were reported and are indicated below by (#).

RESOLVED that:

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

(Item 3) Application No. 2003/0951

Construction of 4 detached dwellings with detached garage and 4 semi-detached dwellings, new access road and associated landscaping (amended site location plan received) on land at South Gower Sports Club, Scurlage.

(Item 4) Application No. 2008/1410

Two storey rear extension and detached garage at 677 Gower Road, Upper Killay.

(Item 5) Application No. 2007/2231

Construction of 1 no. 2 bedroom flat, 2 no. 2 bed maisonettes and integral garage at 80 Cwmbach Road, Cockett.

(Item 7) Application No. 2008/0324

Retention of five bedroom guesthouse (Class C1) with restaurant (Class A3) single storey rear extension fire escape on rear elevation single storey front extension to incorporate new entranceway single storey side extensions fenestration alterations, new access and egress and associated car parking area and landscaping works at Maes y Haf, Parkmill.

Minutes of the Area 2 Development Control Committee (02.09.08) Cont’d

# (Item 10) Application No. 2008/1319

Detached dwelling plot 13 (amendment to planning permission 2007/0360 granted on 18th June 2007) on land at Clos Ty Mawr, Penllergaer.

(NOTE: A late objection from Penllergaer Community Council was reported.)

Amended Condition

01. The development shall be completed in accordance with the said application plans and conditions prior to any part thereof being brought into beneficial use, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Additional Conditions

02. Before the development hereby approved is occupied the means of enclosing the boundaries of the site shall be completed in accordance with details to be submitted to and approve in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

03. Before the development hereby approved is occupied a scheme for the landscaping of the site shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The landscaping scheme shall be carried out within 12 months from the completion of the development. Any trees or shrubs planted in accordance with this condition which are removed, die, because seriously diseased within two years of planting by trees or shrubs of similar size and species to those originally required to be planted.

04. No development or other operations shall take place except in accordance with the guide on “The Protection of Trees on Development Sites” attached to this planning permission. No trees, shrubs or hedges shall be felled or cut back in any way except where expressly authorised by the landscaping scheme as approved by the Local Planning Authority

Minutes of the Area 2 Development Control Committee (02.09.08) Cont’d

until two years after the completion of the development. Any trees shrubs or hedges removed without such authorisation, or dying, or being seriously damaged or diseased before the end of that period shall be replaced by plants of a size and species as may be agreed with the Local Planning Authority.

05. Prior to the beneficial occupation of the development a pedestrian link shall be constructed connecting the application site to the new traffic signal control junction on the adjacent A483 in accordance with details which shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reasons

02 In the interests of visual amenity and general amenity.

03 To ensure that the site is satisfactorily landscaped having regard to its location and the nature of the proposed development and to accord with Section 197 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1990.

04 To secure the protection of trees, shrubs and hedges growing on the site whilst the development is being carried out.

05 To ensure that the proposed dwelling is constructed in the interests of road safety.

# (Item 13) Application No. 2008/1456

Single storey rear extension and two storey side rear/extension at 639 Gower Road, Upper Killay.

(NOTE: A late no objection from Highways was reported.)

(3) the undermentioned planning applications BE REFUSED for the reasons in the report and/or indicated below: Minutes of the Area 2 Development Control Committee (02.09.08) Cont’d

# (Item 9) Application No. 2008/1266

Front dormer and extension to existing rear dormer at 30A Bishopston Road, Bishopston.

Amended Reason

01 The proposed front dormer incorporates a scale, design and siting and the proposed alterations to the rear dormer incorporates a detailed design which are out of the keeping with and would be detrimental to the character and appearance of the dwelling to which it relates the locality, the Bishopston Conservation Area and Gower AONB. The proposal is therefore, contrary to policies H11, BE1 and BE17 of the Swansea Local Plan Review No. 1and the Design Guide for Householder Developer.

(Item 12) Application No. 2008/1420

Single storey rear extension with roof terrace above front rear and side dormer at 393, Gower Road, Killay.

45. PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 2007/2097 - CONSTRUCTION OF 240 DWELLINGS, INDOOR SPORTS BARN, TWO OUTDOOR SPORTS PITCHES, NEW VEHICULAR ACCESS OFF LOUGHOR ROAD AND ASSOCIATED PARKING OPEN SPACE AND LANDSCAPING WORKS

The Head of Planning Services submitted a report which sought Members’ views as to whether they wished to undertake a committee site visit prior to considering this application. RESOLVED that a site visit be undertaken.

46. PROVISIONAL TREE PRESERVATION ORDER NO. 536 - LAND AT CAE DUKE, LOUGHOR

The Head of Planning Services submitted a report which sought the confirmation as a full order of the provisional Tree Preservation Order on trees as indicated on the plan on land at Cae Duke, Loughor, Swansea Minutes of the Area 2 Development Control Committee (02.09.08) Cont’d

One objection to the Tree Preservation Order had been received.

RESOLVED that the Tree Preservation Order for “Land at Cae Duke, Loughor “ be confirmed without amendment.

The meeting ended at 3.12 p.m.

CHAIRMAN

S: Area 2 Development Control Committee 2 September, 2008 (JT/GDL) 4 September, 2008

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE (37)

Councillors

Swansea Administration Councillors: A Mike Day Paul M Meara E Wendy Fitzgerald W Keith Morgan Nicola A Holley John Newbury Jeff W Jones Cheryl L Philpott Mary H Jones Darren Price Susan M Jones T Huw Rees James B Kelleher R June Stanton Richard D Lewis Nick J Tregoning Keith E Marsh Vice Chair D Paul Tucker Chair

Labour Councillors: Nicholas S Bradley Robert J ( Bob) Lloyd June E Burtonshaw Penny M Matthews Mark C Child Byron G Owen William Evans Grenville Phillips Barbara J Hynes J Christine Richards David IE Jones Ceinwen Thomas Erika T Kirchner Des W W Thomas

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

Communities of Swansea Councillor: Mair E Gibbs Glyn Seabourne

Copies Needed - 100