CITY AND COUNTY OF

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 30th 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 2nd August 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. Tree Preservation Order No 555

6. Appeals Information Report.

7. Enforcement Information Report.

8. Exclusion of the Public.

The Proper Officer has determined in preparing item that paragraph 18 should apply. His view on the public interest test was that the authority’s statutory powers could be rendered ineffective or less effective were there to be advance knowledge of it’s intention/ the proper exercise of the Council’s statutory power could be prejudiced by public discussion or speculation on the matter to the detriment of the authority and the inhabitants of the area. On that basis he felt that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information. Members are asked to consider this factor when determining the public interest test, which they must decide when considering excluding the public from this part of the meeting. Members are asked to consider this factor when determining the public interest test, which they must decide when considering excluding the public.

9. Enforcement Progress Report.

Patrick Arran Head of Legal, Democratic Services & Procurement 23rd August 2011 Contact: Democratic Services 01792 636820

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

Item No. 2

Disclosures of Personal Interest from Members

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Item No. 3

CITY AND COUNTY OF SWANSEA

MINUTES OF THE AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE

HELD AT THE CIVIC CENTRE, SWANSEA ON TUESDAY 2ND AUGUST 2011 AT 2.00 P.M.

PRESENT: Councillor D P Tucker (Chairman) presided

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

N S Bradley D I E Jones J Newbury A C S Colburn J W Jones C L Philpott A M Day S M Jones T H Rees W Evans R D Lewis J C Richards E W Fitzgerald K E Marsh G Seabourne M E Gibbs P M Meara C M R W D Thomas N A Holley W K Morgan

23. APOLOGIES

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors V A Bates- Hughes, B J Hynes, J B Kelleher, E T Kirchner, M H Jones and R J Stanton.

24. DECLARATIONS 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 D P Tucker - personal and prejudicial - Item 3 (2011/0056) - applicant is a business associate - left the meeting during consideration of this item.

Councillor J Newbury - personal - Item 9 (2011/0173) - I know the applicant well and I socialise with him on occasions. Item 5 (2007/2097) - I am a member of RFC and know a number of the applicants involved in the application - personal.

25. MINUTES

RESOLVED that the Minutes of the Area 2 Development Control Committee held on 5th July 2011 be agreed as a correct record pending the following amendments:

• List Councillor J C Richards in Members who provided apologies as opposed to Councillor C R Richards listed.

• Application 2011/0418 - delete reference to applicant as Mr McWilliams and replace with Mr D Thomas.

Minutes of the Area 2 Development Control Committee (02.08.11)

26. ITEMS FOR DEFERRAL/WITHDRAWAL

There were none.

27. ITEMS DEFERRED FOR SITE VISITS

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

(Item 4) Application No 2010/0092

Detached dwelling with integral garage at Plot 1, Plenty Farm, , Swansea.

Reason

To view the site within the context of the mix of housing styles already in the village.

(Item 10) Application No. 2011/0235

Detached dwelling (outline) at land adjacent to Ty Croeso, Salt House Point, Crofty, Swansea.

Reason

To assess the site without the context of sounding area and settlement boundaries.

(Item 11) Application No. 2011/0309

Change of use of retail unit (Class A1) to hot food takeaway (Class A3) at Unit 1, 908 Carmarthen Road, Fforestfach, Swansea.

Reason

To assess potential traffic and car parking problems.

(Item 12) Application No. 2011/0364

Four detached dwellings with detached garages (outline) at Morfryn, St Anne’s Close, Langland, Swansea.

Minutes of the Area 2 Development Control Committee (02.08.11)

Reason

To view the site and location and character of surrounding area.

(Item 13) Application No. 2011/0570

Variation of Condition 6 of planning permission 77/0743 granted 25th August 1977 to allow twelve months occupancy at 4, Langcliffe Park, , Swansea.

Reason

To view the site and location and assess the property with regard to the size of rear garden and internal facilities.

(Item 14) Application No. 2011/0745

Change of use from retail shop (Class A1) to coffee shop (Class A3) at 29b, Road, , Swansea.

Reason

To assess the site and shop location within the context of surrounding retail area.

28. 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 1) Application No. 2011/0083

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

Minutes of the Area 2 Development Control Committee (02.08.11)

(NOTE:

• Amendment to Condition No. 2:

“Details and 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”.

• A visual presentation was provided for Members.)

(Item 2) Application No. 2010/0271

Detached dwelling (outline) at 158, Gorseinon Road, , Swansea.

(Item 6) Application No. 2009/0159

Retention and completion of detached two storey building to incorporate a ground floor fast food outlet and first floor living accommodation at Gower Holiday Village, Monksland Road, Scurlage, Swansea.

(#) (Item 7) Application No. 2010/0521

One block of three terraced properties at land at Pencaerfenni Court, Crofty, Swansea.

(NOTE:

• Amendment to Condition No. 3 as follows:

“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 proved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The 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 drainage to the system, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Minutes of the Area 2 Development Control Committee (02.08.11)

The drainage scheme shall be retained and maintained as approved unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority”.)

(Item 8) Application No. 2010/1182

Replacement dwelling with detached garage at Old Vicarage, Vicarage Lane, Llangennith, Swansea.

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

(Item 3) Application No. 2011/0056

Retention of a caravan for an agricultural worker and retention of associated residential curtilage at Dunraven Farm, , Swansea.

(NOTE:

• Mr D Cowley (applicant) and Mr H Jenkins (agent) addressed the Committee.

• A visual presentation was provided to Members.

• Recommendation of refusal was not accepted and the report was referred with the recommendation of approval contrary to officer recommendation for the following reason:

Reason

There are personal circumstances in this case which justify a temporary consent until a better permanent solution can be agreed.

• The Committee also requested that any decision is subject to the following:

(i) The planning condition requiring appropriate means of enclosure for the caravan;

Minutes of the Area 2 Development Control Committee (02.08.11)

(ii) A five year temporary planning permission;

(iii) A Section 106 or planning condition restricting occupation of the caravan to the farm and applicant only and not to be sold, let or sublet to any other person.)

(Item 5) Application No. 2011/0538

Detached dwelling at land adjacent to Crossways, Burry Green, Reynoldston, Swansea.

(NOTE:

• Mr G King (agent) addressed the Committee.

• A visual presentation was provided to Members.

• A late letter from the Gower Society was reported.

• The recommendation of refusal was not accepted and the report was referred with a recommendation of approval contrary to officer recommendation for the following reason:

Reason

The development is considered to represent an acceptable form of infill development within the settlement.

• The Committee also requested that officers seek to improve the design of the new house and report any amendments directly to Planning Committee for consideration.)

(Item 9) Application No. 2011/0173

Replacement dwelling house with detached garage block, conversion and extension of existing barn to residential accommodation (details of appearance, access, landscaping, layout and scale pursuant to Condition 1 of planning permission 2010/0689 granted 21st June 2010) at Cwm Isaf, Cae Mansel Road, Three Crosses, Swansea.

Minutes of the Area 2 Development Control Committee (02.08.11)

(NOTE:

• The report referred with recommendation of approval in accordance with the conditions proposed.)

29. LAND AT CAE DUKE, LOUGHOR ROAD, KINGSBRIDGE, SWANSEA

The Planning Control Manager reported that in accordance with Minute No. 45 of the Area 2 Development Control Committee held on 2nd September 2008, Committee had resolved that given the size and scale of the development, they wished to attend a site visit prior to considering the application.

RESOLVED that a site visit be scheduled to take place prior to the next scheduled Area 2 Development Control Committee on 30th August 2011 and Members be informed of the date and time in due course.

The meeting ended at 4.03 p.m.

CHAIRMAN

S: Area 2 Development Control Committee - 2 August 2011 (JEP/KL)

CITY AND COUNTY OF SWANSEA 1. BISHOPSTON DINAS A SIR ABERTAWE 5. 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. 12. DATE: 30TH AUGUST 2011 13. 14. KINGSBRIDGE 29 18. 20. 9 27 23. NEWTON 35 18 24. 14 25. 27. PENLLERGAER 11 28. 5 29. PENYRHEOL 25 32. SKETTY 35. 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 2007/2097 Land at Cae Duke Loughor Road Loughor Swansea REFUSE 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 (Amended plans and elevations for indoor sports barn)

2 2010/0092 Plot 1, Plenty Farm Llangennith Swansea REFUSE Detached dwelling with integral garage

3 2011/0309 Unit 1, 908 Carmarthen Road Fforestfach Swansea REFUSE Change of use of retail unit (Class A1) to hot food takeaway (Class A3)

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

5 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

6 2011/0745 29B Gower Road, Sketty, Swansea, SA2 9BX REFUSE Change of use from retail shop (Class A1) to coffee shop (Class A3)

7 2010/1387 Land to the rear of 2 Gowerton Road, Penclawdd, APPROVE Swansea SA4 3XA Three detached dwellings with integral garages

8 2011/0092 Cross Marble and Stone Ltd Gorseinon Road Gorseinon REFUSE Swansea SA4 9GE Construction of 4.No retail units

9 2011/0825 Oaklea Llangennith Swansea SA3 1HU APPROVE Two storey rear extension, single storey side extension and glazed link extension.

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE- 30TH AUGUST 2011

ITEM APP. NO. SITE LOCATION OFFICER REC.

10 2011/0243 21 East Cliff Pennard Swansea SA3 2AS APPROVE Conversion of existing garage to living accommodation (variation of condition 1 of planning permission 2005/0146 granted on 19th July 2005), increase in height of front gable with timber cladding and two storey rear extension to existing garage, part single storey part two storey glazed link extension between house and garage, raised decked areas to front elevation, new chimney and single storey side extension with balcony to main dwelling

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE- 30TH AUGUST 2011 AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 30TH AUGUST 2011

ITEM 1 APPLICATION NO. 2007/2097 WARD: Kingsbridge Upper Loughor

Location: Land at Cae Duke, Loughor Road, Loughor, Swansea Proposal: 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 Applicant: Barratt South & Loughor RFC

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

This application was subject to a SITE VISIT on 23rd August 2011

RELEVANT PLANNING POLICIES

National Planning Guidance

Planning Policy Wales (as revised Edition 4 February 2011)

Technical Advice Note (Wales) 1: ‘Joint Housing Land Availability Studies’, (2006).

Technical Advice Note (Wales) 2: ‘Planning and Affordable Housing’, (2006)

Technical Advice Note 5: Nature Conservation and Planning, (2009)

Technical Advice Note (Wales) 12: ‘Design’, (2009)

Technical Advice Note (Wales) 15: ‘Development and Flood Risk’, (2004)

Technical Advice Note (Wales) 16: ’Sport and Recreation’, 1998, Consultation July 2006

Technical Advice Note (Wales) 18: ‘Transport’, (2007)

Technical Advice Note (Wales) 22: ‘Planning for Sustainable Buildings’ June 2010 and TAN clarification letter November 2010.

City & County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan

Policy EV1 General requirements to ensure new development displays a standard of design and layout sympathetic to the character and amenity of the site, its immediate surroundings and the broader area, and which have proper regard the amenities of the surrounding areas in particular in terms of visual impact, loss of light or privacy, shared activity, traffic and parking implications.

Policy EV2 General requirements to ensure the siting of new development gives preference to the use of previously developed land over Greenfield sites and must have regard to the physical character and topography of the site and its surroundings. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 30TH AUGUST 2011

ITEM 1 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2007/2097

Policy EV3 Proposals for new development shall provide access and facilities for all, provide satisfactory parking levels, contribute to a high quality public realm, and be accessible to pedestrians, cyclists and users of public transport.

Policy EV4 Criteria for assessing development and ancillary features in the public realm.

Policy EV12 The character of lanes and paths that contribute to the amenity, natural, and historic qualities of an area will be protected.

Policy EV21 In the countryside non residential development will only be permitted where it can be demonstrated that it meets certain criteria relevant to the rural economy, etc.

Policy EV22 The countryside throughout the County will be conserved and enhanced for its own 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.

Policy EV23 Green wedge is identified at Llan Valley (including land between Loughor and Kingsbridge). Within this area 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.

Appropriate development within this area listed in policy criteria and includes (ii) ‘essential’ facilities for outdoor sport and recreation or cemetery use”.

Policy EV24 Development proposals which would be likely to have a significant adverse effect on the green space system or which do not provide for appropriate compensatory or mitigation measures will not be permitted.

Policy EV30 Protection and improved management of woodlands, trees and hedgerows which are important for their visual amenity, historic environment, natural heritage and/or recreation value will be encouraged.

Policy EV33 Planning permission will only be granted where development can be served by a public mains sewer or, where this system is inadequate, satisfactory improvements can be provided prior to the development becoming operational.

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 quantity of controlled waters.

Policy EV35 Development that would have an adverse impact on the water environment will only be permitted where it can be demonstrated that appropriate alleviating measures can be implemented. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 30TH AUGUST 2011

ITEM 1 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2007/2097

Policy EV38 Where there is a risk from contamination or landfill gas development will not be permitted unless it is demonstrated that measures can be taken to overcome any danger to life, health, property, controlled waters, or the natural and historic environment. Policy EV39 Development which would create or might be affected by unstable or potentially unstable land will not be permitted where there would be a risk to life, health, property or the natural heritage on the site or in its vicinity unless the Council is satisfied that proposals to make the land capable of supporting the development are adequate.

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

Policy EC13 Development that would result in the loss of the best and most versatile agricultural land will not normally be permitted. This land may only be developed where there is an overriding need and: (i) Previously developed land is unavailable, and either (ii) Lower land is unavailable, or (iii) Lower grade land is of a higher environmental value.

Policy HC1 Housing sites for 10+ dwellings specifically allocated for development in the plan includes land south of the Cae duke Colliery site for housing (ref. HC1 (104))

Policy HC3 In areas where a demonstrable lack of affordable housing exists, the Council will seek to negotiate the inclusion of an appropriate element of affordable housing on sites which are suitable in locational/accessibility terms and where this is not ruled out by exceptional development costs.

Policy HC17 In considering proposals for development the Council will, where appropriate, enter into negotiations with developers to deliver planning obligations under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

Policy HC18 The development of new leisure facilities will be permitted at suitable locations within the urban area subject to meeting criteria.

Policy HC24 All new housing development will be required, where the level and nature of open space provision is inadequate to meet the needs of the future occupiers of the development proposed together with the needs of the existing population in the locality.

Policy AS1 New developments should be located in areas that are currently highly accessible by a range of transport modes or in areas where a good level of such provision can realistically be achieved.

Policy AS2 Criteria for the design and layout of new developments.

Policy AS3 Criteria for development affecting a public right of way. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 30TH AUGUST 2011

ITEM 1 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2007/2097

Policy AS4 The creation or improvement of public access routes, including the Public Right of Way (PROW) network will be encouraged.

Policy AS5 Development proposals will be required to consider the access requirements for pedestrians and cyclists.

Policy AS6 Parking provision to serve development will be assessed against adopted maximum parking standards to ensure that proposed schemes provide appropriate levels of parking for private cars and service vehicles.

Policy AS7 Proposals that deliver high quality, integrated and accessible bus services will be supported.

Policy AS10 New developments will be required to incorporate appropriate traffic management measures to mitigate against significant adverse impacts that would otherwise be caused by traffic movements.

SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING GUIDANCE:

Interim Housing Land Policy Statement (IHLPS) - Adopted by Council 30th June, 2005 – Identifies part of the site for housing development.

Planning Obligations SPG – Adopted by Council December 2009.

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

91/0078 Residential and recreation development (outline). Refused September 1991.

92/0293 Residential development (outline). Approved January 1994 subject to a Section 106 Planning Agreement.

96/1195 Land filling, reprofiling and drainage works to form rugby and cricket fields, erection of changing room building, groundsman store, vehicular access, off site sewers, land reprofiling and landscaping. Subject to Section 106 Agreement.

97/0061 Variation of Condition 1 of Planning permission LV92/0293 approved January 1994 to extend period by 12months for the submission or reserved matters. Approved March 1997.

97/1280 Erection of 88 No. dwelling houses with garages and associated works. Appeal dismissed July 2000.

98/0032 Erection of 88 No. dwelling houses. Approval of details of siting, design, external appearance and means of access pursuant to planning permission LV/92/0293. Approved February 1998.

98/1329 Erection of 33 No. dwelling houses. Withdrawn.

99/0340 Residential development, new playing fields, children’s play area and provision of screen planting (Outline). Withdrawn. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 30TH AUGUST 2011

ITEM 1 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2007/2097

RESPONSE TO CONSULTATIONS

ORIGINAL SCHEME

The original submission comprised a layout of 212 dwellings, an indoor sports barn, outdoor sports pitches, new vehicular access off Loughor Road and associated parking, open space and landscaping.

The application was advertised on site and in the local press as a Departure from the Development Plan, which comprised the West Structure Plan Review No. 2 and the Southern Local Plan, and neighbouring properties were consulted individually.

4 PETITIONS OF OBJECTION (115 signatures; 73 signatures; 70 signatures; and 31 signatures respectively), and 450 (390 identical) LETTERS OF OBJECTION were received, and considered as follows:-

4 No. PETITIONS, which are summarised as follows:-

1. Residents are gravely concerned as to the impact of this development will make on our environment and .

2. Increase in traffic from the 212 dwellings and sports barn and sports fields which would increase traffic frequency onto already very busy road. At peak times Loughor Road is especially busy with commuters travelling in both directions towards and Swansea , the two primary schools and countless coaches entering the campus. Also concerns regarding construction traffic.

3. Road safety – the increased traffic will undoubtedly be inevitable with potential for congestion as well as serious accidents on Loughor Road as there are no road calming measures. Concern for safety of junction onto Loughor Road.

4. The location of the entrance road will be straight through a piece of land identified as public open space and will pose road safety concerns, as well as light pollution and lack of privacy for existing residents living opposite the site.

5. Community issues include concern regarding the likely 12% increase in population of Kingsbridge or 17% increase in population of Loughor would be damaging to either community. Impact on facilities and schools.

6. Environment concerns including the loss of green wedge land and public open space to development and the risk of very high density development that will cause social and environmental problems. Also concerns at the loss of ancient species rich hedgerows and possible protected species present on the land. Concern that these may have been eradicated prior to planning permission being sought. Concerns over increased possibility of localised flooding

450 No. LETTERS OF OBJECTION, summarised as follows.

1. Concern raised regarding the development plan allocation of this site for residential development, with reference to the consultation process through the IHLP and UDP process. In particular concern over the lack of consultation. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 30TH AUGUST 2011

ITEM 1 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2007/2097

2. The proposal fails to comply with policies EQ6, EQ8, and EQ9 of the extant Southern Lliw Valley Local Plan and Policy H4 of the Structure Plan Review No. 2.

3. The developer has taken the maximum number of dwellings taken from the UDP allocation and applied this figure into two thirds of the allocated UDP site. The resultant density is out of character with this semi rural area.

4. The overall area to be developed including the sports barn and sports fields extends outside the allocated UDP area for development into an area of protected green wedge.

5. This development proposal is not appropriate to the character of the area and will move the development boundary of the Gorseinon area further south.

6. The proposed sports barn will be an unsympathetic industrial building set in a green wedge.

7. Policy EV23 of the Draft UDP clearly states that appropriate development in the Green Wedge can be ‘essential facilities for outdoor sports and recreation’. The sports barn is not an outdoor facility.

8. The site is semi rural and the layout and density of development constitutes over- development including encroachment and urbanisation of a green wedge area.

9. The development will join together the communities of Kingsbridge and Loughor and result in the loss of natural green space.

10. The development will lead to the coalescence of the existing settlements in direct conflict with the stated objectives of the UDP ‘to prevent coalescence of settlements and protect the interplay of town and country’.

11. Concern that the original assessment of the development potential of this land in the IHLPS states that the land to the east would be retained as public open space.

12. Concern that there are minimal employment opportunities in the area following significant job losses at Valeo and Brynffordd Steel works in recent years.

13. The development will lead to a 12% increase in the population of Kingsbridge which will have a damaging effect on the community.

14. Concern that the number and density of residential units has increased significantly since the original assessment of 60 units in 2004.

15. The development is contrary to the findings of the sustainable Development Commission Report (April 2007) plus the Council’s own Sustainable Development Policy (2006).

16. Concern over the description of the site as Greenfield/brownfield mix, as one report states it is Greenfield situated in a green wedge area. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 30TH AUGUST 2011

ITEM 1 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2007/2097

17. Concern over the pre application works on site which included large scale felling of trees without a forestry licence.

18. Reference to planning history of site included previous refusal for residential development.

19. Infrastructure of Gorseinon cannot support such a large development.

20. This type of development should be sited closer to the M4 corridor.

21. The proposal includes houses to be built on an area of open space subject to a S106 agreement . This breaches the S106 agreement.

22. Concern that the density of residential development is higher than the Planning policy guidance of 30 houses per hectare. This level of density is far too high for this semi rural site.

23. The high level of density has little regard to the future standard of living of residents.

24. Properties are squeezed onto small plots with some large retaining walls up to 4m high in rear gardens.

25. The layout of the development will have a significant effect on the existing community as there is no link between the estates of Highfield and Cae Duke.

26. The design of the residential development is poor. Proposals include a high concentration of smaller housing with higher densities in some parts. Should be a better mix and uniform density over the development.

27. Concerns that there are three storey houses – rooms in the attic which can overlook existing properties. Should only be 2 storey housing.

28. The layout of the proposed housing bears no relation to the scale and density of existing housing in the area and will impact on the existing community.

29. The interface with existing housing on the northern boundary is unsympathetic including a high retaining wall multiple small properties and car parks to the immediate south of existing 4 bedroom properties.

30. The developer is proposing a 4m high retaining wall along the northern boundary with existing housing, and not the 3 in 1 slope previously promised at pre application stage.

31. Concern that the retaining wall and associated works will lead to ground instability, property blight, safety and maintenance problems for existing residents, and damage to fences and gardens.

32. Separation distances between properties are inadequate and will lead to a loss of amenity.

33. Concerns regarding overlooking between properties, as well as loss of privacy, increased noise and increased disturbance. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 30TH AUGUST 2011

ITEM 1 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2007/2097

34. Landscaping proposals for the site are substandard and only include a scattering of individual plantings.

35. Concern over risk of flooding of gardens from retaining walls.

36. The proposed development fails to provide adequate recycling provision for future occupants.

37. Concern that the residential development will lead to more trips elsewhere with resultant impact of more travel journeys on environment and carbon footprint issues.

38. Local industry will not be able to absorb workforce from additional dwellings.

39. Strongly oppose any element of social housing.

40. The proposed sports barn will include development outside the area set out in the UDP.

41. The local community do not require a sports complex in this location. There are extensive facilities already at Elba and Penyrheol which are not fully utilised, aswell as playing fields at a number of locations. There is also a proposal in the draft UDP for a community sports provision at Melin Mynach, Gorseinon.

42. As a community we are already well served by playing fields.

43. Before any new sports facilities are built in this Green Wedge area it is essential that existing facilities are utilised.

44. Concern that the facilities will not actually be of benefit to the local community but are required by the Rugby Club themselves who will then sell off their existing site at Belgrave Road.

45. Competitive games will be played on the pitches thus they would not be ‘training pitches’.

46. The proposed rugby pitches and club will be a magnet for vandals and unacceptable behaviour similar to that experienced at Elba where the police have not controlled the problem.

47. Concern regarding the light pollution from the sports pitches and noise pollution when matches are played.

48. The proposed sports facilities will be open all day and at weekends with no break for residents from the noise and disruption.

49. The Rugby Club failed to cooperate with the construction of playing fields as part of the S106 agreement for the existing Cae Duke site. The previous developers Persimmon claim that they were unable to comply with the S106 agreement as they could not gain access to the intended site for playing fields immediately to the south of the existing Cae Duke development, owned by Loughor Rugby Club and David Thomas. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 30TH AUGUST 2011

ITEM 1 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2007/2097

50. Access to the new development is on Loughor Road which is very congested already with over 20 coaches a day with buses to the Gorseinon College twice a day at peak times. There will be a massive increase in traffic during and after this development.

51. The development will lead to an unacceptable increase in traffic on surrounding roads. Loughor Road cannot cope with the traffic from the additional 212 houses and sports facilities with over 200 car parking facilities.

52. The access to the site will cross the only open space between Kingsbridge and Parc William. This rural area should be protected in line with S106 agreement in place on this land. Character of the area will be lost.

53. Concerns regarding the impact of the development on highway safety of local roads.

54. Journey times out of Kingsbridge and neighbouring wards will increase substantially.

55. Public transport provision in Gorseinon is poor and the existing service is unlikely to absorb many of the journeys from the proposed development to places of work.

56. The southernmost part of the development is more than 400m from the nearest public transport route which will be unsustainable.

57. Road traffic accidents are likely to increase.

58. Concern that there is only one access to the site despite the need identified in the IHLPS for two accesses to this site.

59. No access link from south.

60. Significant inconsistency in the assessment of the site access point required and concern that this will be further exacerbated by changing house densities.

61. The methodology used in the Transport Assessment to estimate the number of additional trips that will be generated is flawed.

62. The developer has made no attempt to quantify the traffic impact of the sports barn.

63. Concern over the number of HGV traffic movements during the construction of the site which will include the importation of soil aswell as construction traffic, and impact on amenity of local residents.

64. The location of the proposed development and the levels of traffic are a barrier to walking and cycling.

65. The highway junction on Loughor Road is not at a satisfactory distance from the junctions of nearest estates at Cae Duke and Highfield, and will lead to need for more traffic calming or speed cameras that will slow traffic and create more congestion.

66. No strategic assessment has been undertaken of the impact of all the UDP sites regarding impact on the highway infrastructure. Traffic Assessment has looked at this site in isolation. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 30TH AUGUST 2011

ITEM 1 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2007/2097

67. Concerns regarding whether the development provides acceptable standards of access and car parking for residential units, cycle provision and trade deliveries.

68. Request for TPO for trees on site. Many mature trees affected by development including oak trees and tree lined hedgerows.

69. Concern that the developer protects fragile habitats and protected species on site. This includes the retention or provision of wildlife corridors through the development and design for badger protection.

70. Impact of the overall development on the natural habitat and indigenous species in this rural area.

71. Concern that the development will lead to badger migration away from setts near the site.

72. Concern regarding surface water drainage off site and impact on ecology and run off into rivers and estuary.

73. Has the developer considered the deep mine workings in this area. Reference to UDP policies EV38 and 39.

74. Impact of development on bat population and other indigenous plants and animals.

75. Concern regarding the possible siting of an electricity sub station close to existing housing.

76. Concern regarding contaminants in ground from previous coal workings use.

77. Ground stability concerns relating to former colliery site.

78. Noise and air pollution concerns from development and construction traffic, and effect on local resident’s health.

79. Concern that there will be significant reduction in ground retention capacity following construction of roads and houses and sports barn in contravention of UDP policy EV35.

80. Parts of Lower Loughor already have significant drainage problems and concern regarding the capacity of the existing drainage systems.

81. Concern that public services and schools in the area are already overstretched and will not be able to cater for large scale increase in new people in the area.

82. There will be a significant negative impact on local schools.

83. The proposed development is in breach of TAN15:Development and Flood Risk. As the new development has not considered the use of a Sustainable drainage system (SUDs). AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 30TH AUGUST 2011

ITEM 1 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2007/2097

84. Concern that the development will not only require major infrastructure improvements to water and sewerage systems but also improvements to gas, electricity and telecommunications provision.

85. Reinforcement of utilities in the area to provide for new development will only increase inconvenience and disruption to existing residents.

86. The proposed development does not include any shops, doctors’ surgeries, banks or other facilities within 1.3 miles.

87. The proposed development does not comply with the criteria laid out in the policies of the Draft UDP for accessibility, re sustainable transport and suitable facilities for cyclists, re cycling trips, as well as Planning Policy Wales guidance re sustainable development.

88. Given the present economic uncertainty in the housing market the question must be whether there is any need for further development as it is no means certain that the proposed houses would find a market.

Llwchwr –

10th October 2007, summarised as follows:- Letter refers to recent Town Council meeting where concerns of residents were discussed and main points listed in letter, including issues relating to the validity of the information submitted in support of the application, the siting, scale and density of the residential development, the estimated 24% increase in traffic, highway safety concerns on Loughor Road, population increase in Kingsbridge, siting of sports complex in green wedge, access road being sited on open space, light and noise pollution and disturbance issues, siting of 4m retaining wall near to existing properties, lighting of right of way to rear of existing properties, fears of vandalism and unsociable behaviour, etc.

The Council also made the following additional points summarised as follows:-

1. The site boundary does not match the UDP allocation and does not include land to the north west but extends into part of the green space between Highfield and Cae Duke to the north east. 2. Application site is two thirds of the size of the UDP allocation but 212 houses will result in higher density than envisaged in the UDP. 3. Concerns that the rest of the UDP site could be developed at a later date with final number of houses being far in excess of that proposed by the planning authority in the UDP. 4. Planning Authority should ensure that the housing should be of the highest quality and a reasonable density to achieve a high quality of life for those living there and that it should not have an adverse impact on the surrounding area. 5. Concern that parking provision per property is inadequate which will result in on street car parking. 6. Concern regarding the conclusions of the Transport Assessment. Council considers 25% increase in traffic movements could not be described as small. Location is not considered to provide a choice of transport modes as there is no regular bus route in the vicinity of the site and the existing traffic on Loughor Road makes cycling hazardous due to a high volume of traffic combined with parking problems. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 30TH AUGUST 2011

ITEM 1 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2007/2097

7. Concerns regarding the validity of the calculations in the Schools places appraisal. 8. The sports facility is located outside the settlement boundary and within the green wedge which has not been provided for in the UDP.

Further letter 7th November 2007 summarised as follows:- The development at Cae Duke was the subject of a planning consent granted by Lliw Valley Borough council and was the subject of a S106 Planning agreement. The sports facilities were not undertaken and about a year ago the original developer Persimmon bought out the S106 agreement to the City and County of Swansea. The Town Council requests information and consultation on this matter.

Glamorgan Gwent Archaeological Trust –

5th October 2007 summarised as follows:- We have read the desk based assessment and note that a number of archaeological features have been identified in and adjoining the application area. Concern that because of the identification of a significant Roman industrial site immediately to the north of the site that the planning should be deferred until an archaeological evaluation of part of the site fronting Loughor Road was made of the site in line with the advice in Planning Policy Wales 2002, Section 6.5.1 and Welsh Office Circular 60/96 Section 13.

4th October 2007 – further response that GGAT to EIA screening request that they do not consider EIA required based on information submitted.

Further GGAT responses 8th November - following submission of the specification and subsequent monitoring of the Archaeological Evaluation by the Trust. GGAT advised that the specification submitted has been produced in accordance with recommendations and meets the requirements for the site and current standards and guidance therefore is considered ‘fit for purpose’. However asked that the application be deferred until the archaeological evaluation has been undertaken and the final report submitted.

20th November 2007 - Advised that GGAT had monitored the archaeological evaluation by Cambria Archaeology, inspection on 19th November, and reported back to the Local Planning Authority, summarised as follows:-

The archaeological work is being carried out in accordance with the agreed specification and to national standards. GGAT look forward to receiving the report at which time detailed advice will be given to the LPA. However so far there is no indication that the features being investigated are of sufficient national importance for the application to be refused on archaeological grounds.

Countryside Council for Wales –

6th November 2007 summarised as follows:–

Re Surface Water Drainage into Carmarthen Bay and Estuaries Special Area of Conservation. CCW highlight that the site is within 0.7Km from CBEEMs, and advise that the surface water from the site is hydrologically linked to the SAC via the River Lliw, which is a tributary of the Burry Inlet. CCW also refer to the need to carry out a Habitat Regulations Assessment as required by the Habitat Regulations. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 30TH AUGUST 2011

ITEM 1 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2007/2097

In addition advise that the planned sports pitches should also be considered regarding the run off into the SAC, as they will presumably receive some form of chemical fertiliser enrichment:-

Objection to the development, and recommends refusal of the application unless the following conditions are imposed:-

1. An agreed form of interceptor is in place prior to construction beginning to ensure that the contaminants do not enter the SAC. 2. The potential for SUDs to be fully investigated. 3. Ensure that the surface water runoff rates remain at the sites ‘greenfield’ outflows. Requests EAW advice before any permission is granted.

However CCW highlight that the LPA is the competent authority under the Habitat Regulations, and it is the LPA duty to demonstrate that the development will not have a significant effect on the SAC. Advise that without the above conditions the development may need a full Appropriate assessment under the Habitat Regulations.

RE Site Species Interests recommend:-

1. Retention of as many mature trees and scrub as possible, providing foraging habitat for bats. 2. The construction of a badger proof fence at the western boundary to ensure that badgers are affected as little as possible.

Environment Agency –

16th October 2007 summarised as follows– Request that the application be deferred to ensure that an appropriate assessment under the Habitat Regulations is undertaken of the site and that outstanding concerns regarding surface water drainage from the site are addressed prior to determination. In particular concerns include the drainage of the site into the River Lliw and the subsequently to Carmarthen Bay and Estuaries SAC.

In addition, the Agency does not consider that the information provided by Integral Geotechnique to be sufficient to fully address the risks to controlled waters, and do not agree with the conclusions of the qualitative groundwater risk assessment. Recommend that the developers address these concerns in line with advice listed in letter copied to applicant.

Dwr Cymru Welsh Water –

23rd October 2007, summarised as follows:-

No objection subject to standard conditions and informatives, including the following:-

SEWERAGE - requirement that 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 ha been approved by the LPA in liaison with Dwr Cymru Welsh Water’s Network Development Consultant. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 30TH AUGUST 2011

ITEM 1 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2007/2097

SEWAGE TREATMENT – No problems are envisaged with the Waste Water Treatment Works for the treatment of domestic discharges from this site.

WATER SUPPLY – The existing water network has insufficient capacity to provide guaranteed mains water supplies to this proposed development. Extensive off site watermains will need to be laid to the curtilage of the site for which financial contributions are required under Sections 40-41 of the Water Industry Act 1991.

The Coal Authority – No adverse comments but state that within, or within 20m of the boundary of the property there are 2 mine entries, as identified on plan attached to response.

Sports Council for Wales – Original response:- No adverse comments.

Housing Observations- Summarised as follows:-

At this initial stage the Housing Department would be looking for a provision of Affordable Housing on the site, around the figure of 30% (10% Social Rent, 20% Intermediate – low cost home ownership). All affordable housing units to be developed at DQR standards and pepper potted throughout the development. The Department of Housing would wish to encourage the development of 2 and 3 bedroomed bungalows (Please be advised that these are initial indications for your reference).

Environmental Heath Observations – No objection subject to conditions requiring applicant to undertake all remediation work to mitigate those potential hazards identified in site investigation into potential land contamination, as identified in submitted report. A condition to be applied requiring the following:-

‘At the end of the development phase the applicant shall undertake a final validation report to the Local Planning Authority that details those measures undertaken to safeguard the potential receptors identified in the Site Investigation Report 9833/AF/07 (integral Geotechnique, on behalf of Barratt Homes) section 4.6 Preliminary Conceptual Model.’

FIRST AMENDED PLANS

The first amended plans were submitted in March 2008 and included a revision of the housing layout to 224 dwellings, with associated changes to the internal road layout and house types. In addition the design of the sports barn was revised.

The application was advertised on site and in the local press and neighbouring properties and previous objectors were individually consulted. 1 PETITION OF OBJECTION (70 signatures) was re-submitted, and 112 LETTERS OF OBJECTION have been received, which reiterate previous concerns and make the following additional points:-

1 No. PETITION OF OBJECTION, summarised as follows:-

1. Original objection still stands, and as the number of dwellings has now been increased, our concerns are now even greater for the community (Refers to concerns relating to increase in traffic and impact on the environment). AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 30TH AUGUST 2011

ITEM 1 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2007/2097

112 No. LETTERS OF OBJECTION, summarised as follows:-

1. Viewed amended plans and wish previous objections to be carried forward to amended plans.

2. Amended site layout is worse from the original with more impact on existing residents and neighbouring properties, and will further exacerbate the concerns previously highlighted.

3. The site is semi rural and the layout and density of housing constitutes over development.

4. The developer should consider decreasing number of houses not increasing them.

5. Increase in number of houses from 212 to 224 (5.66% increase) will result in increased traffic and greater impact. Need a solution for existing traffic problems.

6. Traffic generated by the proposed sports will compound the traffic input from the residential.

7. Impact of construction traffic has not been established.

8. Overall traffic generated from these developments will lead to a reduction in air quality and road safety in the area, and impact on neighbouring roads including Loughor Road and Waun Road.

9. CD submitted showing volume of traffic at peak times on a random day.

10. The location of the proposed development and the levels of traffic in Loughor Road are a barrier to walking and cycling.

11. The distance between the proposed access road and existing junctions is not adequate and will cause road accidents.

12. No strategic assessment of traffic from all draft UDP housing sites feeding onto Loughor Road has been undertaken.

13. Photographs submitted of typical day congestion on existing roads.

14. Concern that slow worms which may be protected species have been surveyed on site.

15. Concern that building plots 139 and 140 will not get building insurance and should be removed from layout due to location of air shaft.

16. The creation of a footpath behind the gardens of Highfield will lead to unwanted people loitering and the possibility of anti-social behaviour.

17. The people in Elba estate have had increased nuisance and crimes committed since the opening of the sports facility near their homes in Gowerton. I don’t wish to be a statistic. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 30TH AUGUST 2011

ITEM 1 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2007/2097

18. Concern that the amended plans include a pedestrian link between the new housing and Ffordd Cae Duke. The hammer head in the existing estate could become a car park with cars blocking existing houses and making it difficult for emergency vehicles.

19. Request for Committee Site visit to see the traffic problems in the area at present at school start/finish times.

20. The amended layout will have a negative impact on the badger population in sett adjacent to the proposed development and other wildlife.

21. Plots 215-219 and 220-224 breach the extant S106 agreement regarding the open space on site.

22. Concern regarding the quantity and quality of proposed housing and proximity of certain housing units to existing properties and concerns regarding maintenance of boundaries.

23. Outstanding concerns regarding high retaining wall.

24. An updated Design and Access statement indicates a footpath and cycle way on the southern boundary of the site that does not exist.

25. Landscaping plan does not contain wildlife corridors. Limited planting within the site. Need for badger fencing.

26. The DAS statement makes several claims that are inaccurate.

27. Challenge the Rugby Club claims that the sports facilities will be available for community use.

28. Additional houses compound concerns regarding the negative impact on local schools.

29. Should this application be approved, we believe that pre construction surveys should be carried out on all properties in Loughor Road.

30. Concern that the development will not have a future road link into Highfield.

31. Concerns that the development is high density with no play area on site.

Llwchwr Town Council – 11th March 2008, summarised as follows:-

The Council has previously indicated its concerns regarding this proposal and the amendments do not address any of those concerns. I would be obliged if the views of the Council could be taken into consideration when the application is determined.

Glamorgan Gwent Archaeological Trust – 17th March 2008 made the following observations, summarised as follows:- AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 30TH AUGUST 2011

ITEM 1 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2007/2097

Trust had received a copy of the Archaeological Evaluation Report undertaken by Archaeoleg Cambria Archaeology. The report gives a clear account of the evaluation work undertaken. Whilst the features encountered did not provide any dateable material, it is likely that they reflect an enclosure ditch, possibly of Roman date as it mirrors the projected alignment of the Roman Road. The features were also rock cut and only sealed by @0.2m of topsoil. Therefore it is likely that further features may be revealed during the construction works, which may prove to be Roman and possibly associated with the Roman features recorded on land immediately to the north of this site. The site also notes the presence of prehistoric material from the site.

The Trust recommends that a condition requiring the applicant to submit a detailed programme of investigation for the archaeological resource is attached to any consent granted by your Members. We envisage that this programme of work would take the form of an intensive watching brief during the initial topsoil stripping/groundworks required for the development, with detailed contingency arrangements including the provision of sufficient time and resources to ensure that archaeological features that are located are properly excavated, recorded and a report containing the results and analysis of the work is produced. Recommend that the condition should be worded in a manner similar to the model given in Welsh Office Circular 60/96, section 23.

Countryside Council for Wales – 2nd April, 2008 – Concerns remain that application should be deferred pending the receipt of requested information.

Environment Agency - 2nd April, 2008 – Concerns remain that application should be deferred pending the receipt of requested information.

Dwr Cymru Welsh Water – 4th April 2008 – Same response as previously above. No objections subject to the above conditions and informatives.

Education Observations – 2nd April 2008 – observations summarised as follows:-

If the proposed development has been confirmed as being within the Pontybrenin/Penyrheol catchment area, the following schools would be attended:Pontybrenin Primary, YGG Pontybrenin Primary, Penyrheol Comprehensive. Whilst though there appears to be surplus capacity at the above schools there are other factors that need to be considered further here. For example, some of the surplus capacity at the Welsh Primary school is within temporary accommodation no longer considered fit for purpose; A large part of the surplus capacity at the Comprehensive School is within sub standard accommodation; Some of the capacity at the English medium primary is within accommodation not deemed appropriate for classrooms. Of further concern is the likely impact of further vehicles to the both primary schools and the pressure to address the need for improvements to existing vehicular drop off areas outside or within the curtilage of the site for the both schools which share the same site boundary. This should be tested using the emerging 106 Supplementary Planning Guidance particularly with representatives from Highways and Regeneration. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 30TH AUGUST 2011

ITEM 1 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2007/2097

Culture & Tourism Observations – 28th April 2008, summarised as follows based on the information submitted by Loughor Rugby Club:-

In summary, notwithstanding the location, the proposal has some merit in terms of sports delivery and community benefit. However there are concerns from Culture & Tourism professionals as to the feasibility of a local voluntary organisation having the expertise, capacity and finance to manage what is evidently a fully operational public leisure facility, without the back up of appropriate plans, procedures and financial forecasts. In the opinion of Officers from Culture & Tourism it may be more appropriate for the club to consider a more modest proposal which focuses on what the club is experienced in – that is managing and running a rugby club.

SECOND AMENDED PLANS

A second amended scheme was received in August 2008 and included a revision of the housing layout to 240 dwellings, including changes to the internal road layout and house types.

The application was advertised on site and neighbouring properties and previous objectors were consulted individually. 1 PETITION OF OBJECTION (70 signatures) was re-submitted, and 117 LETTERS OF OBJECTION were received, which reiterate previous concerns and make the following additional points:-

1 No. PETITION OF OBJECTION, summarised as follows:-

1. Requests that the original objection letter signed by residents of Loughor Road is considered.

2. As the number of dwellings has increased from 212 to 240 reiterate concerns regarding pollution, traffic congestion, and detriment to our local area and facilities.

3. Traffic has been extremely bad of late approaching Kingsbridge with congestion through and beyond Garden Village and the congestion through Gorseinon backing onto the M4. This will surely be exaggerated with an increase in population in the area.

106 No. LETTERS OF OBJECTION, summarised as follows

1. The increase in number of houses from 212 to 240 will further exacerbate the issues previously highlighted in public consultation and objections remain.

2. Objections to the sports barn, sports fields and associated development and resultant traffic generation, nuisance and noise as well as light pollution from floodlighting.

3. Issues raised in objection to the overall development include the location of these developments; justification for the additional housing within the Loughor-Gorseinon area; justification for the additional sports facilities in the green wedge; transportation issues; surface water drainage concerns; construction activity disturbance; ground contamination and ground stability concerns; impact on wildlife; pressure on utilities; concerns regarding the single site access; impact of housing density; loss of amenity to local residents. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 30TH AUGUST 2011

ITEM 1 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2007/2097

4. Increase in number of houses to 240 will increase traffic on already busy road of Loughor Road. This will be further compounded and exacerbated by traffic from the sports facilities.

5. The area to be developed extends outside the area set out in the draft UDP.

6. The site access passes through area earmarked as EV24 protected open space in the UDP.

7. The development includes houses built on area earmarked as EV24 protected open space in the UDP.

8. Overall density is now 44 dwellings per hectare an increase in 39 units from original submission.

9. The developer has squeezed properties onto the site with little regard for the standard living of the future occupants, and associated problems of unstable community and anti social behaviour and crime.

10. Development will result in increase in population of Kingsbridge by nearly 14% which would be damaging to existing community.

11. Concerns that footpath link may increase crime in area.

12. Once again the interface with housing on northern boundary is unsympathetic – the previous submission was more suitable. Should be only three bedroom family properties on northern boundary and maximum two storey at this location.

13. 4 metre wall is considered unacceptable – solution would be to terrace the gardens on this boundary.

14. Concerns that proximity of new housing will have a significant, detrimental effect on the quality of life of existing residents in terms of noise and disturbance.

15. Concerns that there is not sufficient parking in the development.

16. Concern that there is no badger fencing on the developer’s submission.

17. Bat survey information is not adequate.

18. Development does not justify the removal of two protected trees.

19. Concern that the landscaping plans are not available.

20. Street scene is out of keeping with housing developments elsewhere in Kingsbridge.

21. No evidence of any Japanese Knotweed treatment being undertaken on site.

22. Sports Complex will be a private access controlled fenced development and should be judged as a business venture and not an altruistic undertaking.

23. The sports proposal in no way reflects the needs of the local community. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 30TH AUGUST 2011

ITEM 1 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2007/2097

24. The proposed development fails to comply with WAG policies in PPW (2002) planning for sustainability. Concerns listed.

25. Concerns that the quality of life for residents and environment and wildlife issues are not being considered.

26. This is an example of a developer preferring quantity to quality.

27. Concerns regarding visual impact on the current landscape.

28. An element of social housing within the development will adversely affect the value of neighbouring housing.

29. Concerns that the Roman Road that passes through this area is protected.

30. Concern that the development will lead to further development in the future.

31. Difficult to understand the pressure for further significant housing developments in the area. New development usually magnifies socio-economic problems and request for alternative new village developments such as Tir Coed Village.

32. The traffic at the junction of Loughor Road and West St., Gorseinon becomes very congested during the rush hour and at school leaving times.

33. Concern that the proposals will create a wedge between the new properties and the existing dwellings on Highfield, and the area will become a no mans land unless actively managed.

34. Lack of measures to control traffic approaching access to development shows a lack of understanding of current issues with existing traffic.

35. Development in reality removes distinction between the settlements of Loughor and Kingsbridge.

36. The green area adjacent to Loughor Road will become an attraction for those bordering on anti-social behaviour.

37. Concerns that previous development at Cae Duke resulted in a drop in water pressure in the area. If this proposal goes ahead with 240 houses with an average of 2 people per house (equalling 480 residents) plus the proposed sports pitches and barn will be chaos for everyone in the area.

38. Why think of developing this green field site when there are plenty of brownfield sites in Gorseinon?

39. Suggestion to move Loughor Rugby Club or Gorseinon College to one of the brownfield sites in the area.

40. Culverting and surface water drainage issues would exacerbate problems already experienced in Waun Road. Current ditches will not cope with run off.

41. Concern with smells from Sewerage works. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 30TH AUGUST 2011

ITEM 1 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2007/2097

42. Already flooding issues in rear gardens of Highfield.

43. The developer proposes ‘wildlife corridors’ but there are none running through the development only on the periphery where hedges are left.

44. Concern that there is no playground of any sort which will result in car parking areas being used as playgrounds. Parks are some distance away.

45. It should be noted that Barratt reported a 10% fall in house sales and admitted that overall sales this year would not reach the expected 5%-10% growth rate (Guardian 27.09.07). Reference to present economic uncertainty.

46. Letter received listing ideas for improving access and car parking to local schools, and improve local highway safety on surrounding roads in this area.

47. Concern that points of objection are read out at Committee.

Llwchwr Town Council – 14th August 2008 – Objection summarised as follows:-

The Council has expressed serious concerns about the original application. The number of properties has been systematically increased exacerbating the concerns of the Council. Having regard to the intensification of the development the Council would like to formally object to the amended application. The reasons for the objection are the intensification which has exacerbated the concerns set out in my letter of the 10th October 2007, a copy of which is attached for information. I would be obliged if the views of the Council could be taken into consideration when the application is determined.

Countryside Council for Wales –– 4th September 2008

As previously stated CCW confirmed that they have a number of concerns involving surface water drainage regarding the site’s hydrological links to Carmarthen Bay and Estuaries Special Area of Conservation (SAC). As CCW have not received any further information, CCW therefore issues a holding objection pending the information requested in previous letter of 7 November 2007.

Foul drainage CCW also concerned about the increase in foul water generated by this development especially as existing infrastructure has struggled to cope in the past resulting in foul water entering the SAC either within Swansea or local authority region. CCW look to Environment Agency Wales (EAW) for guidance ad suggests the application is not granted until the EAW is satisfied with the proposed plans.

20th October, 2008 – Object on the basis that there is not enough information for CCW to assess possible effects on the interests of the surrounding area, specifically the Carmarthen Bay and Estuaries Special Area of Conservation (SAC).

Concerns remain that application should be deferred following meeting with EAW and DCWW regarding surface water run off and new concerns regarding foul drainage capacity discussed at this meeting. CCW outstanding concerns relate to: AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 30TH AUGUST 2011

ITEM 1 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2007/2097

1. Measures to ensure satisfactory surface water run off rates from this development. 2. The capacity of the sewerage system in Carmarthenshire and Swansea area and the cumulative effects of a number of proposed large housing developments in these areas 3. Storm water discharge frequency into the Burry Inlet (which forms part of the CBEEM SAC, Special Area of Protection (SPA), and Ramsar site.

Further information is required on the issues of water quantity and quality arising from surface water run off and foul drainage for which the LPA may gather further data and recommend an EIA is requested to tightly scope these issues. This additional information will enable the Authority to address the requirement of Regulation 48 (Habitat & Regulations 1994) in determining the likely significant effect of the development on CBEEMs SAC. Should this development be likely to have a significant effect an Appropriate Assessment will be required.

Environment Agency - 28th August 2008 – Same response as previously and recommend that determination of application re deferred.

Further response 3rd September, 2008:- The Agency indicate that they have concerns regarding the disposal of foul water from this development because: “Our records indicate that there may be a problem with the public sewerage system serving this area. A development of this size would result in a considerable increase in flows, increasing pressure on a system which may already be overloaded. As such your Authority is advised to consult Dwr Cymru/Welsh Water to confirm that there is adequate capacity in the system to accommodate the increased flows this development will generate, without causing pollution. The Agency makes reference to the concerns they raised in the letter of 16th October, 2007,and re-state that: 1) they have concerns regarding drainage from the site and the potential impacts this may have on the nearby Carmarthen Bay and Estuaries SAC 2) the desk study prepared by Integral Geotechnique is insufficient to determine the risk to controlled waters; and 3) they do not agree with the conclusions of the qualitative groundwater risk assessment included within the report. At this time, the EA continue to request that the application be deferred until further information is submitted, which adequately address these concerns.

Further response dated 10th October, 2008 :- EA write in following a meeting between representatives of the LPA, CCW, DCWW, and the EA held on September 24th, 2008. That meeting discusses concerns raised by the EA and CCW regarding drainage from the site and specifically the foul water the development would generate as it is believed the Gowerton WwTW is at capacity. The concerns centre on the impact further discharges may have in terms of water quality and nutrient loadings to the Carmarthen Bay and Estuaries SAC.

The letter makes reference to the issues facing certain developments being dealt with by Carmarthen County Council and notes the fact that developments there are not permitted to connect to the public sewerage system until the works specified under AMP4 have been completed. Furthermore in CCC the EA have recommended that an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is undertaken, limited in its scope to the subject of foul and surface water disposal and the impacts this could have on the Marine SAC, and this used to support Appropriate Assessments.. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 30TH AUGUST 2011

ITEM 1 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2007/2097

EA then note that the Gowerton WwTW is not part of AMP4 and that no improvements are likely in the near future.

The EA conclude that a development of this size could therefore have the potential to have a significant effect on controlled waters and the marine SAC features.

At this time, the EA continue to request that the application be deferred, and advise the LPA to give consideration to requesting an EIA for this development and subsequently an Appropriate Assessment.

Dwr Cymru Welsh Water – 15th August 2008 - Same response as previously above. No objections subject to the above conditions and informatives.

Further response dated 17th November 2008 –

DCWW confirmed that: “….there are no capacity issues in accepting the foul only flows from this site.” However they require that the drainage system will separate foul water and surface water discharges from the site and this will be a condition of the planning permission, and requested that conditions are attached which:-

1) specify the point of connection to the public combined sewer; 2) prohibit the discharging of surface water from the site into the public sewerage system either directly or indirectly; 3) prohibit the discharging of land drainage run-off into the public sewerage system either directly or indirectly; so as to prevent the hydraulic overloading of the public combined system and …. Ensure no detriment to the environment. 4) require the developer to prepare a scheme for the comprehensive and integrated drainage of the site showing how foul water, surface water, and land drainage will be dealt with, for the approval of the LPA in consultation with DCWW prior to the commencement of the development; 5) protect the alignment of public sewer which crosses the site.

THIRD AMENDED PLANS

A third amended scheme was received in April 2009 and included a revision of the housing layout to 209 dwellings, with changes to the internal road layout and house types.

The application was advertised on site and neighbouring properties were consulted individually. 1 PETITION OF OBJECTION (70 signatures) was re-submitted, and 103 LETTERS OF OBJECTION were received, which reiterate previous concerns and make additional points as follows:-

1 No. PETITION OF OBJECTION, summarised as follows:-

1. Request that the original objection letter signed by residents of Loughor Road is still to be considered against the amended plans. (Refers to concerns relating to increase in traffic and impact on the environment).

2. Also concerns for the impact of our community have in no way changed in view of the amended plans. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 30TH AUGUST 2011

ITEM 1 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2007/2097

106 No. LETTERS OF OBJECTION, summarised as follows:-

1. Many letters reiterate previous concerns.

2. Concern regarding disregard for rural aspect of area that such a large development would cause.

3. Pleasant green area and associated wildlife would be completely obliterated.

4. The area between Ffordd Cae Duke and Highfield is a designated area and should not be developed.

5. Concern regarding the impact that the construction of a sports barn, rugby pitches and floodlights would have on the surrounding residents is colossal.

6. There are large brown field areas which could benefit from development of this nature without putting it in the middle of a pleasant green area.

7. There is the issue of schools being able to cope with an increased number of children, and the associate problems of parking on Loughor Road and Glyn Rhosyn.

8. The initial planning application for Cae Duke was allowed in order to clear up and improve the visual impact of the area, however to allow this new development into greenfields is a retrograde step and will ruin the aspect of this area.

9. Trust common sense will prevail over greedy developers who ‘dangle carrots’ in order to achieve their goals.

10. The credit crunch is ongoing and houses aren’t being sold never mind building new ones.

11. Concern that there aren’t enough doctor surgeries and schools to cope with current overpopulated village of Gorseinon.

12. The new access on to Loughor Road and traffic from 209 houses and a sports centre will cause significant traffic volumes.

13. Concern that locals don’t want the sports barn proposals and increased traffic coming into the area. A new road should be made to take traffic away from Loughor.

14. Traffic problems, school places, light pollution, and many other problems have previously been highlighted.

15. Sporting sites are available elsewhere in the locality.

16. Concern that there is not sufficient capacity in the supply of water to accommodate the proposed development, because there are problems with water supply to existing housing.

17. There is no documentation in the submitted plans that to confirm there is sufficient capacity in the sewage system to cater for the proposed developments. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 30TH AUGUST 2011

ITEM 1 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2007/2097

18. There is documentary evidence in the plans to show that any surface water from the development s can be dealt with adequately.

19. The sports barn building is not in keeping with any other buildings within the area and would overlook nearby housing as it is equal in height to three storey house and would also be an eyesore.

20. Concerns regarding the light pollution from the floodlights on the sports fields, which would affect a nearby home, and the noise pollution from people using the car park , sports barn and fields where at present there is no noise to the rear of the Highfield Estate.

21. Local Planning Authority should take a wider view of the impact on this area before adding to volume of traffic and congestion in this area.

22. Continued concerns regarding impact of traffic volume and effect on pedestrians and safer routes to school.

23. Current plans for the residential and sports barn developments will still be a strain on the current infrastructure of Loughor Road, Kingsbridge, and Garden Village.

24. There are no local shops in the area that indicates people will have to drive to a shop resulting in further traffic congestion, increased air/environmental pollution. There is no frequent and reliable public transport along Loughor Road. There is no cycling access in the area.

25. Very few employment opportunities in the area.

26. Continued concerns regarding the coalescence of Loughor and Kingsbridge, and the access to the new housing and Sports Centre cutting through an area intended to be kept as Public Open Space.

27. Concerns re point of access and another mini roundabout on Loughor Road.

28. Previously highlighted in CCS074 that upgrading of the pumping station for sewerage, would be required together with existing culverting and surface water drainage issues.

29. Continued concerns re height of the 3 to 4 metre high retaining wall, and public safety and maintenance issues in the long term.

30. The amended plans show numerous car parks and this has the potential for increased anti-social behaviour.

31. Concerns that a wildlife survey has been undertaken.

32. TPO orders are for the trees to be protected not felled.

33. Objection on environmental grounds regards drainage in the Kingsbridge area, flooding and ponding in Loughor Road, AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 30TH AUGUST 2011

ITEM 1 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2007/2097

Llwchwr Town Council – 3rd July 2009 – summarised as follows:-

The Council has previously indicated its concerns regarding the original proposal and the subsequent amendments which did not address any of those concerns. The current amended application does not address any of the Council’s original concerns which still apply – enclosed previous letter dated 10th October 2007. The current plans give rise to even further concerns so far as the Council is concerned. These concerns relate to the proposed treatment of surface water disposal. The proposal is to install holding tanks and reed beds as a means of filtering surface water before it enters the drainage system. The Council is concerned as to whether this proposal is required; whether it will work; and additionally whether the proposed holding tanks and reed beds constitute a proper use of the green wedge. I would be obliged if the views of the Council could be taken into consideration when the application is determined.

Glamorgan Gwent Archaeological Trust – 17th June 2009 – observations summarised as follows:-

You will recall that following an archaeological evaluation of the application area by Cambria Archaeology in 2007 we held no objection to the positive determination of this application provided a condition requiring the applicant submit a detailed programme of investigation for the archaeological resource and implement an intensive archaeological watching brief were attached to any consent granted. There has been no significant change in circumstance or understanding of the archaeological resource since then and as such we recommend that a condition be attached to any consent granted by your Members to ensure that the necessary archaeological works are undertaken.

We recommend that a condition requiring the applicant submit a detailed programme of investigation for the archaeological resource should be attached to any consent that is granted by your Members. We envisage that this programme of work would take the form of an intensive watching brief during the initial topsoil stripping/ground work required for the development, with detailed contingency arrangements including the provision of sufficient time and resources to ensure that archaeological features that are located are properly excavated, recorded and a report containing the results and analysis of the work is produced. We recommend that the condition should be worded in a manner similar to the model given in Welsh Office Circular 60/96, Section 23:

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

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

Countryside Council for Wales – E-mail response dated 12th May 2009 Reiterate previous concerns AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 30TH AUGUST 2011

ITEM 1 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2007/2097

12th October 2009:- Refer to Appropriate Assessment received on 3rd September 2009. Refer to previous correspondence of 17 October 2008 and e-mail of 12th May 2009, CCW are unable to give a final view on this AA without the advice of both Welsh Water and Environment Agency on its content for the following reasons. These are summarised as:-

Surface Water – Note and welcome that surface and foul water will be separated so as to remove surface water from the sewerage system and that conditions will be imposed so as to result in no increase in storm water flow to Gowerton STW. Refer to additional work put forward by STRI on the proposed Wetland Treatment System (19 March 2009) appears to be a useful way forward on this element of the scheme, CCW are uncertain what consents may be required for final discharge to the watercourse and advise that this will have to be to the satisfaction of the EA. CCW note EAW response of 27 May 2009n requiring information on full surface water drainage system prior to determination. With regard to these outstanding details, CCW refer to para 8.1 of the AA to specifically mention that the CMP and a full design and management statement for the Wetland Treatment Areas will be required by condition prior to commencement of development.

Foul water – As per guidance in other recent planning cases in the Gowerton catchment there should be no increase in nutrient loading (phosphates and nitrates) to the designated site of this development. Refer to Metoc report May 2009 which indicates that the estuary is predominantly phosphorous limited. Note the condition required in para. 9.1. Advise that the views of EAW and DCWW are required on this condition within the AA, prior to determination to consider what information is required to demonstrate that this is achievable for this development. Appendix attached with further comments on AA.

(n.b. LPA is advised by CCW that an AA must conclude by ascertaining that the development will not “adversely affect the integrity” of the European site.)

Environment Agency –

27th May, 2009 :- Summarised as follows:-

EA refer to the extensive consultation taking place between CCS, CCC, CCW, EAW and DCWW in relation to developing a Memorandum of Understanding for the Swansea area (similar to the principle adopted in Carmarthenshire. We understand however, that Gowerton Sewage Treatment Works has sufficient capacity to handle some increase in dry weather flow, but that any increase in storm, or even wet weather flows could increase the probability of a storm discharge, which in turn could result in the pollution of controlled waters.

Therefore we would ask that ideally, prior to determination of the application, a full surface water drainage scheme be submitted for approval, which details, along with diagrams, how it is intended to manage surface water discharge and assurances provided that any discharge will not place additional stress on the STW.

In relation to foul water disposal, due to the issue of nutrients in the Burry Inlet, we would strongly recommend that you consult CCW to clarify whether any additional nutrients entering the SAC in the discharge from the works is likely to be incompatible with the Habitats Regulations and the favourable conservation status, Carmarthen Bay and Estuaries SAC. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 30TH AUGUST 2011

ITEM 1 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2007/2097

It would therefore be beneficial for some dialogue to be provided, on how it is proposed to exclude, or prevent storm water from entering the foul sewer, or how this development would decrease peak/storm sewage loads on Gowerton STW.

At this time EA revised their substantive request as follows: “While the final decision upon determining the application falls with your Authority, we would again ask that due to the current perceived problems regarding water quality within the Burry Inlet, that the application continue to be DEFERRED until the requested information has been provided. If however your Authority are unable to obtain this information prior to determination, an appropriate condition should be included on any permission granted. We would ask to be advised if this is the intended route as soon as possible in order to provide suggested conditions on this and other matters relating to the development.”

Further EA Correspondence 2nd June 2009:- summarised as follows:

Refer to amended plans relating to siting and layout and refer to previous response of 27th May 2009.

Further EA Correspondence 1st December 2009:- summarised as follows:

Apologise for delayed response on AA and advise that EAW are in general satisfied with the outcome but consider that the proposed development will only be acceptable if section 8 (Proposed Environmental Protection Measures) and Section 9 (Nutrient Levels) are conditioned within any planning consent. EAW support any initiative to introduce a means of sustainable drainage systems into a development of this nature and would recommend that an appropriate condition be utilised in this case. Note CCW’s concerns and reiterate that LPA ensure that both the construction management plan and a full design and management protocol for the Wetland treatment areas be conditioned in any planning consent.

Further EA Correspondence 26th November 2010:- summarised as follows

The Environment Agency Wales wrote to agent acting on behalf of the Loughor Rugby Club (letter dated 26/11/10) that whilst they have no objection in principle to the methodology and calculations (foul water) presented to an EA representative for the sports element of the proposals, EAW are of the opinion that these details need to be finally agreed by the LPA in consultation with DCWW. In addition EAW highlight that the issue of the surface water needs to be discussed and also any implications for system design and various relevant consents.

Dwr Cymru Welsh Water - 14th October 2009 :- Summarised as follows:-

DCWW have no additional comments to make regarding the AA, however reiterate initial planning response of 25th September 2008. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 30TH AUGUST 2011

ITEM 1 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2007/2097

1st December 2009 :– Summarised as follows:-

DCWW reiterate that environmental protection measures, the control of nutrient levels, the construction management plan and the management protocol for the wetland treatment areas must be a condition of any planning consent.

The Coal Authority – 23rd June 2009 – Summarised as follows:-

No objection but draws attention to their records that the site has been subject to recorded coal mining activities at 110m to 260m depth last worked in 1941. There is a recorded mine entry within or within 20m of the boundary of the site. Understood to be filled in. Recommend that any developer attains a mining report from the Coal Authority., and carries out a full site investigation. Where development is proposed the developers and LA should consider removing the remnant shallow coal. Drilling into coal seams and abandoned coal workings has serious health safety implications.

Tree Preservation Officer – Tree Preservation Orders have been made to Hedgerow and Trees on western side of site.

Environmental Heath Observations – 15th June 2009 - No further pollutions observations to amended layout.

FURTHER AMENDED PLANS

Further amended plans were received for the design and siting of the sports barn in April 2011, and as a result further amended plans for the overall planning layout of the whole site were also submitted in June 2011. These plans retained the last revision for the housing layout (submitted May 2009) but included the re-siting of the sports barn.

The proposal therefore still comprises a layout of 209 dwellings, an indoor sports barn, outdoor sports pitches, new vehicular access off Loughor Road and associated parking, open space and landscaping.

Since the original application was submitted in 2007, the City and County of Swansea has adopted the Unitary Development Plan in November 2008, and the application has been advertised on site and in the local press as a Departure from the Unitary Development Plan and neighbouring properties and previous objectors were re-consulted individually.

53 LETTERS OF OBJECTION have been received, which reiterate previous concerns and make additional points, summarised as follows:-

1. Many previous objectors reiterated concerns regarding the principle of allowing further development in this area.

2. The site extends into UDP allocation for Green Wedge.

3. The term ‘Cae Duke Colliery’ is a misnomer as the development encroaches into farmland and greenfields, and will affect natural wildlife.

4. This land was previously considered unacceptable for encroachment. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 30TH AUGUST 2011

ITEM 1 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2007/2097

5. Restrictions imposed on previous applications 92/0293 and related S106 agreements should be adhered to.

6. Barratts have experienced a drop in housing sales.

7. No justification for further residential development in this area, given limited employment opportunities.

8. Proposed developments are detrimental to the area and will turn rural area into urban sprawl.

9. Concerns that the area between Llewitha and Loughor is being saturated with development.

10. Area is overpopulated with not enough schools, doctor surgeries, dentists, and facilities.

11. Concern over coalescence of development between Kingsbridge and Loughor.

12. Objection to the design and layout of current amendment.

13. Concern that Council aren’t building on brownfield sites, such as neighbouring Council scheme at Coed D’Arcy.

14. Before any further facilities are constructed, it is essential that the existing sports facilities at Penyrheol and Gowerton are fully utilised.

15. Concerns that this and other applications in the area have taken into account the concerns of the residents of Gorseinon or Loughor and the has no concern for the social consequences of the development.

16. Concern that the sports barn is not an essential facility as required by exception in Policy EV23 of UDP, and is clearly not an outdoor sport.

17. Loughor Rugby Club have quite enough land for matches and training, and concern that they will sell off their land if planning permission.

18. Development of 209 houses and Sports Centre will lead to a significant and unacceptable increase in traffic on Loughor Road, which is already very busy and congested.

19. Site access cuts through open space allocated in UDP.

20. Concerns that the development will impact on accessibility of residents living in the area.

21. Associated concerns regarding health and safety of pedestrians in the area due to increased

22. Concerns that the current highway in this part of Loughor Road is very dangerous and there is a need for traffic calming in the area similar to the system by Lower Loughor School. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 30TH AUGUST 2011

ITEM 1 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2007/2097

23. The traffic from this development will exacerbate the existing situation which is already exacerbated by college traffic.

24. No proper account has been taken by planners of highway problems in the area.

25. Concerns regarding the reference to ‘Access left for future development’ on the plans.

26. The bypass was constructed to alleviate traffic problems but with the construction of Highfield, Heritage Park and other new housing in the area, and the new access to the colleague off Loughor Road, traffic levels are already high and further traffic will compound this problem.

27. Construction traffic and noise disturbance will further impact on residents.

28. Concerns that Public Right of Way at Old Roman Road are protected.

29. Concerns with impact on infrastructure.

30. There are already problems with water supply and sewerage infrastructure in the area.

31. Concerns that development will lead to further flooding in the area.

32. Difficult to envisage how sole attenuation tank will deal with ground drainage.

33. Concern that Gorseinon College will use the new sports facilities, but will this be viable given they have merged with Swansea college?

34. Noted that there will be a licensed Sports Bar which aggravates concerns regarding anti-social behaviour and noise in nights/early mornings.

35. Concern that local environmental factors have not been taken into account. 36. Development will affect foraging area of badgers.

37. Concern at loss of old oak trees along with green field which is unacceptable.

38. The developers propose leaving a number of hedges as ‘wildlife corridors’ but these lead nowhere and concerns they will not be able to sustain wildlife.

Llwchwr Town Council – 13th July 2011 - The Council proposes to OBJECT to the application for the following reasons:

(a) The proposal would result in a loss of green wedge; and (b) There was no evidence to suggest that there was sufficient need for the Sports Barn to justify the loss of the green wedge land.

Glamorgan Gwent Archaeological Trust – 18th July 2011 – Observations summarised as follows:- AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 30TH AUGUST 2011

ITEM 1 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2007/2097

You will recall that following an archaeological evaluation of the application area by Cambria Archaeology in 2007 we held no objection to the positive determination of this application provided a condition requiring the applicant submit a detailed programme of investigation for the archaeological resource and implement an intensive archaeological watching brief were attached to any consent granted. There has been no significant change in circumstance or understanding of the archaeological resource since then and as such we recommend that a condition be attached to any consent granted by your Members to ensure that the necessary archaeological works are undertaken.

We recommend that a condition requiring the applicant submit a detailed programme of investigation for the archaeological resource should be attached to any consent that is granted by your Members. We envisage that this programme of work would take the form of an intensive watching brief during the initial topsoil stripping/ground work required for the development, with detailed contingency arrangements including the provision of sufficient time and resources to ensure that archaeological features that are located are properly excavated, recorded and a report containing the results and analysis of the work is produced. We recommend that the condition should be worded in a manner similar to the model given in Welsh Office Circular 60/96, Section 23:

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

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

Countryside Council for Wales – 3rd August 2011 – summarised as follows:-

CCW maintains its objection to the proposal, because there is not information for us to assess possible effects on the interests listed below.

No specific comments on the amended plans for the sports barn amendment however CCW wish to reiterate the advice given in previous correspondence. With regard to CBEEMS and covered in letter of 26 March 2010, CCW states that “it should be confirmed and quantified with Welsh water and environment Agency what compensatory surface water removal needs to be shown for your register for Cae Duke”. Advise that this information is still required.

CCW also query the number of 220 units using 11 equivalent housing units for the sports barn.

In relation to surface water run off CCW also refer to earlier advice of the Environment Agency regarding a full surface water management plan for the development site as a whole.

CCW advise that this outstanding information is presented for your Authority to consider it further in completion of the revised Habitat Regulations Assessment of this proposal. CCW will give further views when provided with the information requested. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 30TH AUGUST 2011

ITEM 1 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2007/2097

Environment Agency Wales – 20th July 2011 – Summarised as follows:-

No comments on design and siting of the sports barn, and note that the housing scheme is the same as received in March 2009. However reiterate previous advice that ‘the current Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), which we referred to in our earlier response, is currently being reviewed. This agreement was drawn up to allow development affected by the Burry Inlet issue to move forward without impacting further on the environment. Our reference to this document still remains and should be directed to whichever version is accepted and approved by the partners at the time this application goes before Planning Committee.

As advised in our response dated 27 May 2009, a full surface water management plan for the development site as a whole should be submitted for review and approval. Full details on how compensatory surface water removal from the catchment is to be achieved should also be submitted for review and approval. Ideally, this information should be provided prior to determination.’

Dwr Cymru Welsh Water – 29th July 2011 - E-mail response summarised as follows:-

DCWW have clarified following a meeting with the developers that a proposal they have put forward for removing surface water from Waun Road is maintenance and will restore the correct operation of the original separate foul and SW systems, and will not provide new permanent water reduction as required by the MOU. The scheme proposed hence does not meet the MOU requirements to facilitate foul discharges from the development.

As discussed in the Technical Group, improvement schemes carried out by local bodies as part of ‘normal operation’ would not be included in the register or allowed to be offset by developers. This is a maintenance scheme and hence the ‘normal operation’ for the owner of the asset.

Sports Council for included Wales –

11th July 2011 – Sport Wales supports the proposal in principle since it involves new sports facilities. Was interested to know however if these facilities are being provided as part of any sports facility or open space strategy seeking to identify and meet local needs.

South Wales Police – 21st July 2011 – summarised as follows:_ Made the following observations, summarised as follows:--

(a).Residential Development.

(i).Estate Layout. The layout of the estate gives me cause for concern. It is not ideal with a number of rear parking courtyards and rear parking bays. I am concerned that crime will occur in these areas which will result in these areas being abandoned and not used for their intended use i.e.vehicle parking. These areas also make the rear of homes adjacent to these bays vulnerable.The pathway that runs from between properties 144 and 145 to between properties110 and 165 should be designed out as it will become a ratrun. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 30TH AUGUST 2011

ITEM 1 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2007/2097

(ii).Lighting. Lighting on the estate must meet the British Standard 5489.

(iii).Boundary identification. There should be a change of surface, i.e. colour or texture, or a boundary at the front of the properties e.g. a low front wall, to identify public areas from private or semi private areas e.g. the footpaths from the driveways.

(iv).Side and rear boundaries. Robust fencing or walls at least 1.8 metres high must protect the rear and side of properties. Gates must also be robustly constructed, be the same height as the fencing (minimum height 1.8m) and be lockable. Gates /fencing/walls must be designed to be difficult to climb over.

Gates must be as near to the front building line of the properties as possible. There must be nothing adjacent to walls or fencing to assist criminals in climbing over them.

Unlawful access to the rear of all properties must be prevented. Rear gardens must be secure. Throughout this development there is rear parking and this makes the rear of homes vulnerable.

(v).Vehicle Parking. Throughout the estate there are parking courts at the rear of properties e.g. at the rear of plots 38-39, 81-82, 86-89 114-115, 169-172 etc. and parking bays at the rear of numerous properties e.g. plots 57,58,64,65,72-75,191,192 etc.

These parking areas are vulnerable to crime and anti social behaviour and should be designed out. In addition there are instances where the visitor parking is parked at the front of properties. This will result in these visitor parking bays being used by residents rather than visitors e.g. plots 83-85.

There are examples where the vehicle parking bays are set too far back and are therefore not overlooked e.g. between plots 160 and 161. Such bays should be brought forward to enable them to be overlooked by adjacent properties. Where there is side parking windows must overlook the said bays.

Parking should be within curtilage and overlooked by rooms in the properties that are usually occupied i.e. living rooms. Vehicles, wherever possible, should be parked behind locked gates.

Parking bays must be well illuminated and there must be no obstruction and clear lines of sight from rooms overlooking the bays.

(vi). Garden Sheds. Garden sheds should be sited away from the rear and side walls to prevent assisting people to climb over the perimeter security.

(vii).Bin Stores. Bins should be kept in secure areas e.g. rear gardens. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 30TH AUGUST 2011

ITEM 1 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2007/2097

(xv).Landscaping and Planting. There must be clear lines of sight across the development. Trees must be bare stemmed up to 2 metres from the ground and must not interfere with lighting. They must not be located to provide an assist for criminals to climb over walls.

Plants or bushes should be of types that only grow to a maximum height of 1 metre.

(B).Sports Complex.

(i).CCTV. Consideration should be given for the main entrance into this area, the parking area and the whole outside of the unit to be protected by cctv.

Images recorded must be admissible as evidence in a court of law and the Data Protection Act must be complied with.

(ii).Lighting. The whole outside of the unit and the vehicle parking area must be lit with the lighting controlled by time switch or photo electric cell and ideally up to the British Standard 5489.

The lighting must be of a type that compliments and enhances cctv e.g. metal halide.

(iii).The Building. Walls constructed ,for example of alloy sheeting with a sandwich of soft insulating material can be vulnerable to attack by chain saw etc. If such materials are to be used in respect of this development, the first 2 metres of height should be brickwork or materials of a similar strength.

Deep recesses or alcoves should be designed out.

(viii).Bin stores. Bin Stores must be secure areas and preferably located away from the main building to prevent arson attack.

INTERNAL DEPARTMENTS

Parks Officers’ Observations – 11th July 2011 – summarised as follows:-

The proposed play provision (LAP) is within approximately 1100 metres of an existing play facility at ‘Kiddies Corner’ on Loughor Road beside the entrance to Pontybrenin School which would be about 20 minutes walk from the new development. This site has the potential for expansion and upgrading and would serve both the existing community and the additional community at Cae Duke. It is the view of CCS (Parks officers) that in the present economic climate the provision of an additional play facility where one already exists in close proximity would be an increased burden through maintenance costs on existing budgets, and therefore propose that a commuted sum be used to upgrade and extend the play provision at the ‘Kiddies Corner’ facility. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 30TH AUGUST 2011

ITEM 1 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2007/2097

Open space and boundary planting issues - In addition Parks officers require further details of layout and planting specification of open space at the entrance. Parks officers have requested details of the species of the un-named street trees on plan and whether they will be Council or private responsibility. Also the ownership, long term responsibility and proximity of the hedge row and oak trees that extend around much of the site but particularly along the backs of the houses on the left hand border.)

Grounds maintenance implications - Dependant on confirmation of responsibilities, there are concerns with the layout of some areas where grass embankments fronting car parks which could affect future maintenance.

Reed Beds – Confirmation of future ownership and future maintenance responsibilities required.

Nature Conservation Officer’s Observations – 14th July 2011 – summarised as follows:-

The original ecological survey for the site is now nearly four years old, during this time it is possible that the ecology of the site has changed, and will need to be updated; this should include a re-assessment of badger use of the area and an assessment of any protected reptiles present (if found a mitigation statement will be needed). The survey update will need to be completed should it be intended that permission is given.

As identified previously the development has a potential to damage the features of the Burry Inlet SAC, a satisfactory habitats regulations assessment will need to be completed prior to any permission being given.

11th August 2011 - I have looked through the updated ecological report for Cae Duke; the site has developed ecologically since the first report. The main change is the discovery of a potential new badger sett, this needs to be investigated fully and a new report submitted, this work may already be in hand. The report also contains a number of recommendations in section 5, these should be followed they include recommendations for the protection of badgers, bat foraging, the protection of breeding birds and the protection of the hedges on the site. The agreed protection of the hedge and badger sett on the western side of the site also stand.

Housing Enabling Officer’s Observations – 14th July 2011 - Our position has not changed from our previous request that there is a 30% Affordable Housing provision on site. Housing has repeatedly requested to have discussions with the Developer over the provision of affordable housing as the percentage, unit size, location and tenure of AH have not been agreed. We have not had any direct correspondence from the Developer (planning consultant) since 2008.

The plots identified in the current Planning layout as DQR compliant are not acceptable to Housing as they are clustered into one area and the offer amounts to only 10% of the development; however the mix of 2/3/4 bed DQR compliant houses would be considered acceptable. It is worth noting that it is unknown to Housing if these units are tenure neutral or if the developer is proposing them to be Social rented, Intermediate rented or LCHO; or indeed why a reduced level of AH units have been offered. Housing has also requested any Affordable Housing units are pepper-potted throughout the development. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 30TH AUGUST 2011

ITEM 1 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2007/2097

In light of the above, I would state that the identified plots and number of units for Affordable Housing are not acceptable to the Housing Service. As with all negotiations Housing are happy to discuss with the Developer the level, location and type of AH, and would welcome any dialogue on this site.

Education Observations – 19th July 2011 – Education have revised their response in line with current situation as follows:-

Review of the Affect of Cae Duke on Catchment Schools of Proposed Development:

Observations as follows:-

The catchment area for this development is Penyrheol and the catchment schools are:

English Medium Primary Pontybrenin English Medium Secondary Penyrheol Welsh Medium Primary YGG Pontybrenin Welsh Medium Secondary YG Gwyr

The development will generate the following pupils with the associated cost:

Primary: 64.79 (£672,000) Secondary: 45.98 (£728, 691)

Rationale Although on paper YGG Pontybrenin currently has some surplus capacity, rising pupil numbers in the Early Years mean that this surplus is projected to be filled by September 2013. Demand for places has increased and in 10/11 the Welsh Government approved an increase in the Admission Number from 47 to 58. However, demand for places continues to increase beyond the increased admission number, with 72 applications being received for places in September 2011. Projections demonstrate a steady rise year on year and by September 2017 it is projected that the school will be over capacity by 50 pupils.

For the purposes of Section 106 and removal of accommodation planned for future disposal, namely, the demountable and the existing Foundation Phase/Early Years block; a revised capacity of 260 is generated; making the school effectively even more over subscribed.

Furthermore, careful consideration by Highways needs to be given to the impact of this proposed development on the surrounding roads to both of these schools, and Education would want consideration for additional funding to create an appropriate drop off/pick up turning circle to be created at the rear of the Primary Schools site which is shared. There is evidence to demonstrate the requirement for this through photographic verification, highways reports and resident petitions. The cost to create this facility would be in excess of £150k (dependant on spec).

Attached as supporting evidence: • Pupil projection numbers • Aerial photographs of YGG Pontybrenin and Pontybrenin Primary AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 30TH AUGUST 2011

ITEM 1 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2007/2097

Further evidence can be provided on the following: • Photographs of traffic congestion • Speed surveys

Conclusion The priorities identified around this development are:

1. Replacement Accommodation for the Pontybrenin English Medium and Welsh Medium Primary Schools in the sum of £672,000 to be index linked 2. Access Improvement works to serve both Pontybrenin Primary and YGG Pontybrenin.

In summary, the request for a developer’s contribution to Education is: £672,000. Whilst the development will generate 45.98 Secondary pupils; there will be no request for a contribution towards Secondary provision at this time as there is sufficient capacity within the catchment school.

Culture & Leisure Observations – 21st July 2011 – Culture & Leisure has revised its Observations in line with current situation as follows:-

The overall content of the proposal from Loughor RFC to develop training facilities at the Cae Duke site, particularly in terms of the factual evidence concerning sports participation in the area, concurs with the detailed information held by the Authority’s Sports Development Unit. Indeed much of the original document was put together following consultation with various Sports Development Officers and with public information produced by the unit.

There is also a strong and reasonable case in terms of the potential usage of such a building in terms of existing “catchment area” club capacity and the lack of a similar indoor ATP facility within the City & County of Swansea. Information gathered by the Sports Development Unit over the last number of years suggests that such a facility, if made available to the wider community, would be popular, well used and of benefit to the development of rugby and football in particular, both in terms of numbers and quality of delivery.

It would be fair to assume that, if fully utilised, the facility could be financially sustainable, but this is subject to appropriate management and planning. From a purely sports development point of view the facility has the potential to become a major asset to in Swansea and, with appropriate management and operational procedures in place, a benefit to both community and performance sport.

These outcomes support the broad aims of both the national sports and physical activity strategy “Creating an Active And Healthy Swansea”, and Sport Wales’ Vision For Sport” to achieve significant increases in the proportion of the population who are sufficiently active to contribute to a health gain for the nation. The City and County of Swansea has been developing an authority wide response to the national strategy which has adopted these national objectives and targets. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 30TH AUGUST 2011

ITEM 1 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2007/2097

Creating an Active and Healthy Swansea action plan targets a wide variety of approaches and joined up commitment across many agencies will be required. Local Authority provision alone will not lead to success and further joint working with the voluntary and commercial sectors will be required. This proposal could be an example of how this policy is implemented.

The action plan has outlined that an alternative management and enterprise approach to developing physical activity opportunities needs to be considered. The approach may require facility development in partnership with employers, out of town shopping centres, sports clubs, primary/secondary schools, commercial and other external partners.

From a sports development perspective confirmation is sought on how the Club can ensure the accessibility and availability of the facility to the wider community on a long term basis to make best use of the potentially excellent opportunities. The Culture and Tourism service would be keen to see information such as a Business Plan, Normal Operating Procedures and Sports Development Plan, in order to confirm these opportunities have been considered and addressed.

The project could also impact on existing Culture & Tourism provision within the area – the club needs to demonstrate that it can provide a sustainable leisure service alongside for example the existing well established Penyrheol Community Leisure Centre. The challenge is that both can co-exist in the same area.

Although the Sports Development Service has no professional remit to comment on traffic and access infrastructure, it should be noted that the provision of such a facility would give rise to issues effecting local residents. Experience of other similar facilities shows that demands on access creates “bottleneck” situations at peak times, particularly around changeover periods when two or three groups of users are creating traffic movement in both directions at the same time. This demand could also rise significantly when more than event or fixture runs concurrently.

In summary, notwithstanding the location which ideally would be placed more central to the region and therefore improve access for all, the proposal has some considerable merit in terms of sports delivery and community benefit. and in principle would be welcomed as an asset to the city’s sporting infrastructure.

Highways Observations – 11/07/11

Introduction This application has been under consideration since 2007. The background traffic data used to consider the acceptability of the scheme has been reviewed and shown to be still applicable. The predicted base traffic for 2012 was 595 two way movements in the vicinity of the site, whereas traffic counts in February 2010 indicated 427 movements. The predicted traffic growth therefore is robust.

The following report has been updated to reflect recent issues.

1. Background 1.1 This proposal is to erect 209 houses together with a sports barn and playing fields on land to the rear of the existing Cae Duke estate off Loughor Road, Loughor. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 30TH AUGUST 2011

ITEM 1 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2007/2097

1.2 The site is to be accessed through the undeveloped land separating Ffordd Cae Duke and Highfield. A new priority junction is proposed. 1.3 A Transport Assessment has been submitted in support of the application that assesses the traffic and transport implications of the proposal.

2. Traffic Movements

2.1 The original figures quoted in the Transport Assessment were based on figures obtained from national data and it was identified that local traffic movements associated with Ffordd Cae Duke were higher than the national average, therefore adjustments were made by the applicant to reflect the local traffic trends. A revised assessment was therefore submitted based on local data. For robustness, the predicted traffic from 250 dwellings has been assessed. 2.2 The traffic generated by the development is estimated to be 335 two-way movements in the am and also in the pm peak hours. This has been distributed at the junction in accordance with observed traffic movements which indicate more movements to and from Swansea than in the lower Loughor direction. 2.3 The new access junction has been assessed on its ability to accommodate the existing traffic movements with those of the application site added in accordance with accepted methodology. Results indicate that the junction will operate within its capacity and no adverse queuing will occur. 3. Site Access and Layout 3.1 The access junction geometry is acceptable and accords with national guidance. Visibility is acceptable and the road width is the standard 5.5m wide carriageway with two 2m wide footways. 3.2 The main access road leads through the residential element to the sports barn and playing fields beyond. Residences fronting the main access are limited with the remainder of the site being served by a loop and cul-de-sac roads. 3.3 Traffic surveys carried out subsequently, have highlighted issues with speeding vehicles past the site. The recorded 85%’ile speeds are 35.8 mph which is in excess of the 30 mph speed limit. Consideration therefore needs to be given to the affect of additional traffic and turning movements brought about by the development and the need to reduce traffic speeds past the site in the interest of highway safety. To that end, I consider that the construction of a mini roundabout at the access junction would have a positive affect on reducing speeds past the site and assist further with traffic movements into and out from the site. Whilst no formal testing has been undertaken on a mini roundabout option, it is unlikely that any capacity issues would arise. 3.4 All of the proposed roads within the site are a standard 5.5m wide. Traffic calming is also proposed on the main roads through the estate in order to meet the requirement to keep speeds down to 20mph or less.

4 Car Parking 4.1 Car parking for the residential development is indicated to be in accordance with adopted guidelines and therefore acceptable. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 30TH AUGUST 2011

ITEM 1 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2007/2097

4.2 With regard to parking for the sports facility, the applicant has indicated 176 spaces on the plan and there is room for more. Changing facilities are being provided for 76 users and our parking guidelines requires 1 space for every 2 users, therefore 38 spaces are required for this. The remainder (141 spaces) would be for staff and spectators however it is almost impossible to predict exactly how many spectators would require parking. My suggestion therefore would be to include a condition requiring the applicant to monitor parking at the site for the first 12 months of operation and increase parking provision if shown to be necessary. 5. Transportation Aspects. 5.1 The site is currently poorly served by public transport. The nearest service is limited to 3 buses a day off-peak, which access Highfield adjacent to the site. The transport assessment has highlighted the lack of a service and recommends that consideration be given to increasing provision through extending an existing service. Alternatively, a new service could be considered provided that sufficient demand would make its provision viable. In considering these options, it is unlikely that any viable service could be provided in the short term as extending an existing service would affect its viability and a new service would unlikely be viable to serve this and the adjacent Cae Duke site in isolation. 5.2 Pedestrian facilities are generally acceptable, with footways present on the approach from Loughor Road and within the site. A bridleway emerges onto Waun Road opposite the south west corner of the site and it would be prudent to provide a connection to this in order to increase accessibility and permeability of the site in accordance with Assembly guidance. Details will need to be agreed so that safety can be properly assessed and ensured. 5.3 There is currently an assessment of local issues under the Safer Routes in Communities scheme where issues relating to congestion outside the Pontybrenin Primary Schools and road safety enhancements in the locality have identified the need for a package of measures to address these issues. Any new significant development in the locality should therefore contribute towards these schemes to mitigate against the affect of the additional traffic movements generated by the development. To that end a suitable condition needs to be imposed requiring an appropriate financial contribution. The total estimated cost of the works is £280,000.

6. Conclusions 6.1 The traffic associated with up to 250 dwellings and the sports facility has been formally assessed and the results indicate that the surrounding highway network can satisfactorily accommodate the volume of additional movements. Safety issues in the area have been identified that need to be addressed and to that end conditions are recommended to be attached to any consent. 7. Recommendation. 71 I recommend that no highway objections are raised subject to the following;

i. Prior to any works commencing on site, a contribution shall be made towards a scheme for local highway safety enhancements. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 30TH AUGUST 2011

ITEM 1 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2007/2097

ii. Prior to any works commencing on site and not withstanding the submitted drawings, a mini roundabout shall be constructed at the site access junction in accordance with details to be submitted and approved. iii. A pedestrian/cycle path shall be constructed linking the application site to the Bridleway (LC38) in accordance with details to be submitted and agreed. iv. During the first 12 Months of operation, the applicant shall monitor sports facility parking provision and any shortfall shall be catered for within the sports complex car park, all in accordance with details to be submitted and approved. v. The applicant shall submit a Travel Plan for approval within 12 months of consent and the Travel Plan shall be implemented prior to the beneficial use of the development commencing.

Note 1: The Travel Plan shall include details of car reduction initiatives and methods of monitoring, review and adjustment where necessary. Advice on Travel Plans can be obtained from Jayne Cornelius, SWWITCH Travel Plan Co-ordinator Tel 07796 275711.

Note 2: The Developer must contact the Network Manager City and County of Swansea, Highways Division, Players Industrial Estate, , Swansea, SA6 5BJ. Tel 01792 841601 before carrying out any work.

ADDITIONAL SUPPORTING INFORMATION SUBMITTED BY APPLICANTS

The following documents were submitted with the original application in September 2007:-

• Planning Statement • Transport assessment • Landscape Strategy Statement • Ecological assessment • Archaeological Desk Based assessment • An appraisal of the requirement for additional school places. • Loughor Rugby Football Club (LRC) Facility Management Plan • LRC Drainage Statement

Further supporting documents were submitted as follows:-

• Archaeological Field Evaluation, November 2007 • LRC Case for Sports Barn and Playing Fields, 29th January 2008 • LRC Design and Access Statement, 3rd March 2008 • Landscape Appraisal of Green space, 3rd March 2008 • LRC Landscape Statement & Maintenance, 20th March 2008 • Visual Influence Report on Sports Barn, 3rd June 2008 • Revised Design and Access statement for residential development, 5th August 2008 AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 30TH AUGUST 2011

ITEM 1 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2007/2097

In addition, a further letter of support submitted:-

• Letter dated 17th March 2008 from The Sports Turf Research Institute (STRI) providing a statement of commitment from Barratt Homes recognising the environmental and ecological issues associated with the development proposal, and measures that will be undertaken to protect the Burry Inlet and Loughor Estuary SSSI that forms part of the Carmarthen Bay Special Area of Conservation. To protect the SAC a scheme will be implemented to trap or filter any polluted runoff from the site ensuring that it will be of acceptable quality before discharge. The chosen scheme will require approval from the Environment Agency and the Countryside Council for Wales. • Subsequent submission in March 2009 of ‘Rationale behind proposed environmental protection measures’ produced by Richard Stuttard of STRI’.

The above information has been submitted to the relevant Council Departments and Statutory Agencies for their consideration and observations.

In addition, copies of correspondence between the applicant and the agencies has been forwarded to the LPA for their information.

Further drainage information in respect of proposals for betterment were sent to the LPA in March. Details of a scheme for compensatory surface water removal was submitted July 2011 and sent to DCWW. Their response is indicated above.

In addition a further Ecological assessment was submitted on 4th August 2011, and has been considered by the Department’s ecologist as referred to in my report.

Copies of these documents are available with the application file, and the contents have been considered in the consideration of this application.

APPRAISAL

1.0 INTRODUCTION

This application is reported to Committee for decision at the request of Councillor William Evans. It also represents a Departure from the City and County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan.

2.0 THE SITE

The application site is located to the South of Loughor Road, on the fringes of the existing urban area, between Kingsbridge and Lower Loughor, and is sited approximately 1.4km to the south of the nearest urban centre of Gorseinon District Centre. The site boundaries are defined by the highway of Loughor Road and the residential estate of Heritage Park to the north, the residential estate of Highfield to the east, with field hedgerow boundaries to agricultural fields to the south and west, and part of the site meets Waun road to the west.

The irregular shaped site comprises approximately 12.26 hectares of land, currently characterised by a mixture of improved and semi-improved pasture land used for grazing horses and cattle, with areas of gorse, scrub woodland, and mature hedgerows and trees. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 30TH AUGUST 2011

ITEM 1 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2007/2097

The northern section of the site adjacent to the residential estate at Heritage Park includes part of the former colliery training site at Cae Duke which has regenerated with vegetation over the years, but was cleared of this vegetation prior to the original submission of this application in September 2007. The land slopes southerly towards the low lying agricultural land that abuts the Swansea to Llanelli link road.

3.0 THE PROPOSAL

Revised plans have been submitted which seek full planning permission for the erection of 209 dwellings, an indoor sports barn and two outdoor sports pitches with 12 no. floodlights and associated parking, with new vehicular access off Loughor Road, and associated open space and landscaping works, described in more detail as follows:-

• New access off Loughor Road to the proposed residential and sports development, with the access point sited on land between Heritage Park and Highfield, opposite 118 Loughor Road.

• 209 no. dwellings sited on land to the south and east of Heritage Park, including a mixture of dwelling house types of varying design and external appearance, including the following dwellings mix:- o 90 no. four bedroom dwellings: o 72 no. three bedroom dwellings; o 42 no. two bedroom dwellings; o 5 no. first floor apartments. o (10% identified as DQR compliant)

Car parking is provided in the layout in various ways including car parking courts, car spaces or garages (previously submitted schemes included layouts for 212, 224 and 240 dwellings respectively).

• A sports barn sited in the south east corner of the application site, measuring approximately 53m wide by 77m long (previously 53m wide by 87m long) under a shallow pitched roof running north/south with an eaves height of 7.2m and a maximum ridge height of 11m. The land level of the sports barn is set down approximately 7m below the nearest land level of the proposed residential estate to the north.

• The revised plans for the sports barn indicate facilities will include the following facilities:-

Ground floor :- • indoor sports hall (approx. 55m x 51m); • multi purpose area (approx. 44.5m x 20.8m); • fitness club (approx. 18.5m x 8m); • changing rooms, showers, physio and office.

First floor :- • Public entrance at first floor with reception desk; • 2 back offices; • Café (approx. 20.5m x 8m).

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 30TH AUGUST 2011

ITEM 1 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2007/2097

• 2 sports fields, each measuring approx. 114m X 68.5m, sited to the west of the sports barn, and lit by 12 no. floodlights measuring approximately 15.7m high.

• An ancillary car park for the sports barn and playing fields comprising a maximum of 198 spaces (including 10 disabled) situated to the immediate east and north of the sports barn.

• An Area of Open Space (approx 0.8ha) situated on the Loughor Road frontage.

• A Local Area of Play (LAP) which measures approximately 23.5m by 11.8m is sited adjacent to the south western part of the residential area, and immediately north of the sports playing fields. This facility is intended to be equipped with play facilities and will provide a small area of unsupervised open space specifically designated for young children for play facilities close to where they live.

• All natural features within the site including a number of hedgerows plus trees covered by Tree Preservation Orders are proposed for removal, however the hedges forming the east and west boundaries are to be retained.

• A Reed Bed Drainage System (part of land and surface water drainage system) sited on land to the south of the playing fields.

4.0 STATUTORY CONSULTATION

The application was originally submitted in September 2007 and was advertised as a Departure from the Development Plan for this area which at that time comprised the West Glamorgan Structure Plan Review No. 2 and Southern Lliw Valley Local Plan. As referred to in more detail below, whilst part of the site had been identified as suitable for residential development in the IHLPS Review No. 1 (2005), this did not include the extent of development submitted in this application which includes a Sports Barn and extends into an area of open countryside protected as Green Wedge.

In November 2008 the City and County of Swansea adopted the Unitary Development Plan for Swansea which is now the Development Plan for the area. Whilst part of the proposed residential area has been allocated for residential development under UDP Policy HC1 (104), the application is still a Departure from the Development Plan, because the sports barn and sports fields encroach into an area of open countryside designated as protected Green Wedge. In addition, the new access road and part of the residential development extend into an area designated in the UDP as open space adjacent to Loughor Road.

The LPA has consulted their Statutory Advisors and other external liaison contacts, including Countryside Council for Wales, Environment Agency Wales, Glamorgan Gwent Archaeological Trust, Dwr Cymru Welsh Water, , relevant internal Council Departments, as well as neighbours and previous objectors, and their responses to the various amendments to this application are summarised above, and considered in further detail in my report. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 30TH AUGUST 2011

ITEM 1 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2007/2097

5.0 MAIN ISSUES

Due to the complexity and size of this application and the number of critical issues involved, the application is considered under three main sections, namely Burry Inlet drainage and water quality issues; planning policy context; and detailed design layout and S106 issues.

The first and fundamental issue for consideration is the effect of the proposed development on the Burry Inlet Drainage having regard to the European Directives for this area in respect of water quality issues. In this respect, the Local Planning Authority has been advised by its statutory advisors, the Countryside Council for Wales and Environment Agency Wales to consider the impact of the development on the protected features in Burry Inlet which forms part of the Carmarthen Bay and Estuaries European Marine site (CBEEMS) which is a Special Area of Conservation, Special Protected Area, and Ramsar site and therefore a European protected site.

The second fundamental consideration has been given to the principle of this development having regard to the prevailing policies of the City and County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan and overarching national planning policy guidance, and the related planning history of this site. Consideration will be given to the development of policy in this area, and an assessment of the current need and justification for the whole development, as well as the separate elements including the sports facilities which are sited in an open countryside and green wedge location.

Finally consideration will be given to the details of design and layout having regard to the impact of the overall and various elements of the proposed development on the character, appearance, archaeology, and environment of the surrounding area; the residential amenities of neighbouring properties; highway safety at this location; and the impact on local infrastructure and facilities. There are considered to be no additional issues arising from the provisions of the Human Rights Act.

5.1 Burry Inlet Drainage And Water Quality Issues

As Members will be aware this application was due to be reported to the Area Development Control Committee in September 2008, but has been held in abeyance since then due to outstanding concerns from the Council’s statutory advisors, the Countryside Council for Wales and the Environment Agency Wales regarding proposed development that drains into the Burry Inlet and Loughor estuary, which forms part of the protected European site the Carmarthen Bay and Estuaries European Marine site (CBEEMS), which comprises the Carmarthen Bay and Estuaries Special Area of Conservation (SAC), Burry Inlet Special Protected Area (SPA) and RAMSAR, and Carmarthen Bay SPA.

5.1.1 Background The Local Planning Authority has been advised by CCW to adopt a precautionary approach and ensure that no new development in this drainage catchment area adversely affects the protected features of the above European site. This stance has been supported by the Welsh Assembly Government since a significant die- back of cockles in previous years alerted CCW to the potential of infraction proceedings from Europe if ‘European Protected Species’ including birds and fish were placed at subsequent risk because of the loss of an important food source. In addition it was recognised that there were water quality issues in the estuary. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 30TH AUGUST 2011

ITEM 1 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2007/2097

Since that time there have been many meetings between WAG, the three main agencies involved, including CCW, EAW, Dwr Cymru Welsh Water, CCS and Carmarthenshire County Council to agree procedures for facilitating development affected by the Burry Inlet issue without impacting further on the environment. In this latter respect, it has been clarified in meetings with the Agencies over the past three years that the LPAs of Swansea and Carmarthen must ensure that no new development in the Burry Inlet Drainage Catchment Area adversely affects the water quality of the estuary.

5.1.2 Duty as Competent Authority The Local Planning Authority, is the ‘competent authority’ for the purposes of The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (formerly Regulation 6 of the Habitat Regulations 1994). Consequently , LPAs are under a duty , in the exercise of any of their functions, to have regard to the requirements of the Habitats Directive so far as they may be affected by the exercise of those functions under the Regulations. The requirements of the Habitats Directive include a requirement to establish a system of strict protection for European Protected Species.

The LPA is therefore legally responsible for undertaking a Habitat Regulations Assessment of all applications that fall within the above drainage catchment area. This assessment must ensure that each project or plan, either alone or in combination with other projects, does not have a significant effect on the protected features of the European Marine site.

As part of this responsibility, in March 2010, the City and County of Swansea entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with CCW, EAW, DCWW and CCC to agree procedures for facilitating development affected by the Burry Inlet issue without impacting further on the environment. This MOU is currently being updated, and based on the most recent findings of studies by DCWW, one of its main aims is that new development does not result in further sewerage overloading, particularly in certain drainage networks such as Gowerton WwTW. The aim is to reduce the number of spills into the estuary during periods of heavy rainfall and thus ensure there is no further harm to water quality in the estuary.

Both EAW and DCWW have recently reiterated in meetings that this is a critical issue because of possible infraction proceedings from Europe under the overarching Water Framework Directive.

In addition in the past twelve months CCS has set up a Working Group with technical advisors from the above three Agencies, CCC and CCS to establish agreement on the practical solutions for facilitating development in the area without harming the water environment of CBEEMs.

5.1.3 Practical Solutions In practice this has resulted in agreement between the above Agencies and two Councils that new development for houses (or equivalent) will only be allowed in this drainage catchment area where it meets the following requirements:-

a) there is no new surface or land drainage flows to the combined system, and b) any additional foul flows being adequately compensated for by a reduction in existing surface water flows into the local sewerage network. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 30TH AUGUST 2011

ITEM 1 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2007/2097

In addition the Technical Group has recently agreed the parameters for the drainage calculations to be used in new development, so that there is an agreed methodology for calculating surface water.

The Technical Group has also agreed how much surface water reduction is required to facilitate new foul water connections to the foul drainage network as follows:-

• In development under 10 dwellings (or equivalent) a betterment factor of X2 shall be required in compensatory surface water savings, whilst • In larger schemes (above 10 dwellings or equivalent) DCWW has agreed to discuss the potential for bespoke schemes. These proposals have to provide new permanent surface water reduction as required by the MOU, to offset the impact of the new foul water connections.

5.1.4 Drainage issues at Cae Duke During the past four years the developers have been advised that full drainage details for the development are required and foul drainage has to be separated from surface water and land drainage. This development drains into Gowerton WwTW which is currently reported to be near or at capacity.

In response to the above concerns highlighted in 2008, and the advice and outstanding objections from CCW and EAW (as referred to above in Part C), the developers were advised to provide further information and fully address the risks to controlled waters from the development.

Subsequently, the applicants contracted the Sports Turf research Institute (STRI) to review the environmental impact of the proposed residential and rugby pitch development, and to seek a solution to ensure that the quality of the Burry Inlet estuary is not compromised.

5.1.5 Surface Water and Land Drainage Proposals

The environmental measures proposed by STRI in March 2009 comprised a Wetland Treatment System which in summary naturally cleanses any surface water or land drainage released from the site. This scheme recognised the environmental and ecological issues associated with the development proposal, and clarified that measures will be undertaken to protect the Carmarthen Bay and Estuaries Marine site. In particular any development will include a scheme to trap or filter any polluted land drainage runoff from the site ensuring that it will be of acceptable quality before discharge. The chosen scheme will require approval from the Environment Agency and the Countryside Council for Wales. Subject to satisfactory details the above environmental measures would previously have been considered acceptable subject to appropriate conditions and informatives applied to any permission.

However, whilst the Agencies have accepted that this type of scheme is acceptable in principle, given to the current concerns regarding the integrity of the European site they have consistently requested that full surface water details should ideally be submitted and agreed prior to determination. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 30TH AUGUST 2011

ITEM 1 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2007/2097

In 2009 the EAW advised that they understood that Gowerton Sewage Treatment Works had sufficient capacity to handle some increase in dry weather flow, but that any increase in storm, or even wet weather flows could increase the probability of a storm discharge, which in turn could result in the pollution of controlled waters. Therefore the Agency requested a full surface water drainage scheme be submitted for approval, which details along with diagrams, how it is intended to manage surface water discharge and assurances provided that any discharge will not place additional stress on the STW.

5.1.6 Foul Water Drainage In relation to foul water disposal, due to the issue of nutrients in the Burry Inlet, the EA recommended that the LPA consult CCW to clarify whether any additional nutrients entering the SAC in the discharge from the works is likely to be incompatible with the Habitats Regulations and the favourable conservation status, Carmarthen Bay and Estuaries SAC. It was considered therefore to be beneficial for some dialogue to be provided, on how it is proposed to exclude, or prevent storm water from entering the foul sewer, or how this development would decrease peak/storm sewage loads on Gowerton STW.

At this time EA revised their substantive request as follows: “While the final decision upon determining the application falls with your Authority, we would again ask that due to the current perceived problems regarding water quality within the Burry Inlet, that the application continue to be DEFERRED until the requested information has been provided. If however your Authority are unable to obtain this information prior to determination, an appropriate condition should be included on any permission granted. We would ask to be advised if this is the intended route as soon as possible in order to provide suggested conditions on this and other matters relating to the development.”

The applicants and their agents have been made aware of this requirement but no further detailed information has been submitted.

5.1.7 Compensatory Surface Water Removal proposals In addition the EA have also requested full details on how compensatory surface water removal from the catchment at this site is to be achieved and advised that this information should be provided prior to determination. In the last two years CCW and Dwr Cymru Welsh Water have also requested this drainage information.

The agents have recently proposed a scheme for removing surface water from a public mains in Waun Road, and presented this to the DCWW for their consideration. However, DCWW have advised CCS that following a meeting with the developers this July that the proposal is maintenance and will only restore the correct operation of the original separate foul and SW systems, and will not provide new permanent water reduction as required by the MOU. The scheme proposed hence does not meet the MOU requirements to facilitate foul discharges from the development. This is considered by DCWW to be a maintenance scheme and hence the ‘normal operation’ for the owner of the asset.

Moreover, the Local Planning Authority has to keep a designated register recording all compensatory surface water recovered from development schemes, and as presented to date no proposal for compensatory surface water removal has been presented in any quantifiable form which can be recorded. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 30TH AUGUST 2011

ITEM 1 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2007/2097

In conclusion, a viable solution for compensatory surface water removal has to be agreed to offset the development before the Statutory Agencies will agree that this development will not further overload the existing drainage network to Gowerton WwTW, and consequently not result in adverse harm to the water quality of the Burry Inlet and protected European Marine Site.

Whilst discussions are ongoing on this matter, the drainage solutions for this site have not been resolved to date.

5.1.8 Conclusions In response to the latest consultation the LPA has been advised again by its statutory advisors, the CCW and EAW that this application should not be determined until this fundamental environmental issue is resolved, and satisfactory drainage details have been agreed. The applicants and their agents are aware of this situation.

However, as the applicants and agents have requested that this application be reported to Committee this August, the LPA has carried out Habitat Regulations Assessment on the basis of the information known to date. The Test of Likely Significant Effect concludes that there is currently insufficient information to conclude that the proposed development will not result in adverse harm to the protected features of the European Marine Site.

On this basis the application currently fails the requirements of the above overriding European legislation, and the applicants have failed to provide evidence that the proposal would not on its own or in combination with other developments in the catchment have a significant adverse effect upon the integrity of the Carmarthen Bay and Estuaries European Marine Site (CBEEMS) contrary to Policies EV33, EV34 and EV35 of the Swansea Unitary Development Plan (2008).

In the event, however that this application were not to be refused, the Local Planning Authority would have to defer its determination to resolve the above issues. The LPA cannot override the legal requirements of ‘The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010’, and a full appropriate assessment will have to be satisfactorily completed before any planning approval could be granted granted.

5.2 Planning Policy Context

Under the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended), planning decisions must be made in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The Development Plan for this area is the City and County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan (UDP), which was adopted on the 10th November 2008.

The UDP comprises two parts, Part 1 and Part 2. Part 1 sets out the broad vision and aspirations for development and conservation together with the overall strategy for pursuing them. Part 2 translates these goals and objectives into more detailed policies and development proposals. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 30TH AUGUST 2011

ITEM 1 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2007/2097

The UDP policies relevant to this application are Part 1 Policies SP1, SP2, SP3, SP7, SP8, SP11, and SP14, and Part 2 Policies EV1, EV2, EV3, EV4, EV6, EV12, EV19, EV21, EV22, EV23, EV24, EV30, EV33, EV34, EV35, EV38, EV39, EV40, EC13, HC1, HC3, HC17, HC18, HC24, AS1, AS2, AS3, AS3, AS4, AS5, AS6, AS7, and AS10. These policies are summarised further in Part A above.

National Planning Policy is contained in the Wales Spatial Plan, which provides an overall strategic framework, together with Planning Policy Wales (PPW) originally published by the Welsh Assembly Government in 2002, with the most recent (4th) edition published in February 2011. PPW is supplemented by Technical Advice Notes (TANs), which provide more in depth guidance on specific issues. In this case, the guidance in the following TANs is considered applicable:-

TAN 1: ‘Joint Housing Land Availability Studies’, (2006). TAN 2: ‘Planning and Affordable Housing’, (2006) TAN 5: ‘Nature Conservation and Planning’, (2009) TAN 12: ‘Design’, (2009) TAN 15: ‘Development and Flood Risk’, (2004) TAN 16: ’Sport and Recreation’, 1998, Consultation July 2006 TAN 18: ‘Transport’, (2007). TAN 22: ‘Planning for Sustainable Buildings’ June 2010 and TAN clarification letter November 2010.

5.2.1 Previous Local Plan Policy Context In response to concerns raised in public representation, the following section clarifies which elements of the scheme were considered in the preparation of the UDP and previous IHLPS, and how these evolved from the original planning permission and legal agreement at the former Cae Duke colliery site.

Outline planning permission was granted in 1994 for the original residential development at Cae Duke (now built out as the residential estate at Heritage Park), and this was subject to a legal agreement requiring inter alia the following:-

1) a small area for playing fields immediately to the south of the houses with access off the estate road from Heritage Park. 2) the retention of an area of open space to the east and south east of the development for recreation or agricultural use (this land lies between the current residential estates of Heritage Park and Highfield) 3) the creation of a woodland boundary between the above protected open space and the eastern boundary of the new housing development at Heritage Park.

These elements of the legal agreement were required to be completed before completion of 75% of the houses in the Heritage Park development. However, whilst planning permission was granted in 1997 for the playing fields, this was not implemented. In addition the woodland has not been planted, and the open space is still used for the grazing of animals but is partly proposed for development under the current application. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 30TH AUGUST 2011

ITEM 1 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2007/2097

Reserved matters details for 88 houses at Heritage Park were granted approval in February 1998 (ref. 98/0032), however a subsequent appeal by the developer to complete the residential development without complying with the legal agreement was dismissed by the Planning Inspector in 2000 on the grounds that the legal agreement “reflected a wholly appropriate approach to the proper planning of the area and was necessary to secure the comprehensive restoration of the colliery site”.

However, a unilateral undertaking was entered into by the owner of the land to pay monies towards other recreational facilities in the area in lieu of provision of the playing fields.

It is noted, however, that the legal agreement in respect of the open space and woodland in the north eastern section of the current application site is still in effect, and the relevant clauses of that legal agreement would still have to be revoked if planning permission were given for the current proposed development.

5.2.2 Interim Housing Policy Statement (IHLPS) and Unitary Development Plan (UDP) residential allocations at this site The residential element of the current application was identified as part of a possible housing allocation in the Consultation Draft Unitary Development Plan (UDP) (2003). Also in 2003 the Swansea Joint Housing LAS identified a shortfall in the five-year supply of housing land within the area. In order to avoid a situation of planning by appeal, the Council proposed an interim release of housing land pending adoption of the UDP for the City and County. This was by way of non- statutory Supplementary Planning Guidance in the form of an Interim Housing Land Policy Statement (IHLPS).

The land at Cae Duke was one of the sites proposed to be released through the IHLPS. Its suitability was considered at an independent Examination in Public (EiP) in Dec 2004. The EiP Panel’s recommendations to include the site within the IHLPS are included in the Appendix to my report. They identified a number of issues which will need to be taken into consideration in determining the application, which include infrastructure constraints, community and environmental impacts, former ground workings, increased risk of water run-off, lack of affordable housing, provision for the elderly, etc. The EiP Panel specifically noted that:-

“The playing fields once provided to the south would act as a buffer…..the development of the site would facilitate the provision of additional facilities in the form of playing fields and open space on the green wedge...”

The IHLPS was adopted in May 2005. It agreed to the release of the land at Cae Duke, in principle, for housing. It also included a statement that “the proposal would include the provision of sports pitches to form a defensible boundary to the south”. No built development however was envisaged within this area. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 30TH AUGUST 2011

ITEM 1 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2007/2097

To clarify the extent of permitted development, the then 2005 Deposit UDP specifically excluded the playing fields and open space from the allocation. This allocation remained unchanged in both the PIMS version of the UDP (2006) and the adopted UDP (November 2008) with the open space to the North East of the current application site identified as part of the greenspace system (Policy EV24), and the proposed sports barn and associated playing field area are sited within the open countryside designated as protected ‘Green Wedge’ (Policies EV22 and EV23).

5.2.3 Analysis of current scheme against current UDP policy allocation Due to the large scale of this submission and the different issues relevant to each element, the following policy considerations are divided into a separate assessment of the residential and access proposals, and the sports barn and playing fields proposals, as follows:-

Proposed residential scheme and access The scheme as submitted does not accord with the area allocated for residential development in the UDP. It excludes part of the overall UDP allocation comprising an area to the North West, although provision appears to have been made in the layout for future access to this land. Furthermore a number of dwellings/curtilages extend into the designated urban greenspace area and the protected open space/ woodland area in the extant legal agreement, which is located in the North Eastern section of the current application site fronting onto Loughor Road.

The proposed access to the site also cuts across this protected land which the Council argued against at the IHLPS EiP. It should be noted that the principle of release of the land though the IHLPS was based on the site being accessed through the first 88 dwelling phase of the Cae Duke development. (Heritage Park).

The maximum number of additional dwellings that could be built on the UDP allocated site was limited to 212 on the basis that up to 300 dwellings (including the 88 already built at Heritage park) could be served off the existing access provided an internal loop road was created.

Moreover, the proposed access would split in half the open space fronting Loughor Road which represents an important visual distinction between the settlements of Kingsbridge and Loughor. However, it is acknowledged that up to 300 dwellings could technically be served off this new access thus extending the outward growth of the settlement.

Proposed sports barn and playing fields Whilst the principle of (private) playing fields to the south of the residential development within the green wedge was accepted through the IHLPS, the fields have been sited further west than previously considered, breaching a field boundary to the North West and extending to within close proximity of Public Footpath Llwchwr 37 which runs along the southern boundary. Due to the repositioning of the fields considerable cut and fill is required to create a level surface, resulting in conspicuous changes in levels between the site and the footpath and potential detrimental effect on the environment (UDP Policy EV2). AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 30TH AUGUST 2011

ITEM 1 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2007/2097

Part of the reason for these works is to accommodate the sports barn within the South East corner of the site. The use of the green wedge at this location for the provision of two playing fields was considered acceptable during the IHLPS EiP on the basis that they would provide a softening visual buffer between the urban area and the open countryside. Furthermore, they were only to have incidental use as second/third team pitches. It was accepted that some informal parking and small scale changing rooms would need to be provided. This is fairly typical around the urban fringe and does not usually cause any material visual or residential amenity problems.

The same however cannot be said of the proposed large scale sports barn (now submitted as approximately 53m wide by 77m in length by 11m high), which has the proportions and appearance of a factory unit with associated hard surface parking facilities for around 198 cars parking.

The nature and scale of sports facilities now proposed, which includes the above sports barn and 12 no. x 15.7m high floodlights around the two pitches, would significantly urbanise this area of open countryside and green wedge to such an extent that it would no longer be recognisable as countryside, contrary to UDP Policies EV1, EV2, EV23, and EV40.

Justification for sports barn and associated floodlit sports fields Having regard to the information and details submitted, it is not considered that there is any justification in national or local planning policy terms for the proposed sports barn to be sited at this location, and no substantive justification has been submitted to date to override this policy.

The proposed sports barn is a major leisure use and locations for its siting should follow the sequential approach set out in Planning Policy Wales, and Policies EV2 and HC18 of the UDP. It should also make provision for multi-sports activities to maximise community benefit (TAN16 refers).

However, the Head of Culture and Tourism has been consulted on this application and his most recent response is copied in full above. In summary, he has highlighted that there is a strong and reasonable case in terms of the potential usage of such a building in terms of existing “catchment area” club capacity and the lack of a similar indoor ATP facility within the City & County of Swansea. Information gathered by the Sports Development Unit over the last number of years suggests that such a facility, if made available to the wider community, would be popular, well used and of benefit to the development of rugby and football in particular, both in terms of numbers and quality of delivery.

From a purely sports development point of view therefore the facility is considered to have the potential to become a major asset to in Swansea and, with appropriate management and operational procedures in place, a benefit to both community and performance sport. This would be in line with the national sports and physical activity strategy “Creating an Active And Healthy Swansea”, and Sport Wales’ Vision For Sport” to achieve significant increases in the proportion of the population who are sufficiently active to contribute to a health gain for the nation. The City and County of Swansea has been developing an authority wide response to the national strategy which has adopted these national objectives and targets. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 30TH AUGUST 2011

ITEM 1 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2007/2097

However, there is a need for the developer to provide more substantiating information on management arrangements, the traffic and infrastructure requirements, and the need for the floodlighting proposals at this scale. From a sports development perspective confirmation is sought on how the Club can ensure the accessibility and availability of the facility to the wider community on a long term basis to make best use of the potentially excellent opportunities. The Culture and Tourism service would be keen to see information such as a Business Plan, Normal Operating Procedures and Sports Development Plan, in order to confirm these opportunities have been considered and addressed. The club also needs to demonstrate that it can provide a sustainable leisure service alongside for example the existing well established Penyrheol Community Leisure Centre. The challenge is that both can co-exist in the same area.

Whilst the Sports Council for Wales supports the proposal in principle as it involves new sports facilities, they have also asked whether these facilities are being provided as part of any sports facility or open space strategy seeking to identify and meet local needs.

In summary, the case for allowing a sports development of this scale and proposed use at this location may help meet the strategic need for future sports facilities in Swansea, but further information is required from the club in order to fully support this proposal and to address concerns regarding the justification, purpose and management of the proposed sports centre, and its viability as a large community leisure/sport facility.

In this respect, it is considered that a more co-ordinated and inclusive approach to the siting and scale of new sports provision between all relevant parties (e.g. the applicants, the local community and the council’s leisure and education services) is required in planning for the future needs of the wider area as part of the national and local policies for the Swansea area.

If, as it needs to be viable the facility is intended to meet more than just the limited needs of a local rugby club then a thorough sequential testing needs to be undertaken to ensure it is sited in the best and most sustainable location in the area.

In conclusion, and having regard to all the observations received in consultation, it is not considered that the principle of a large scale leisure development of this nature at this location in the open countryside beyond the settlement boundary has been justified.

5.2.4 Policy Conclusions Planning Policy Wales (Edition 4 February 2011) clearly states in para. 4.7.14 that ‘when considering applications for planning permission in Green Belts or Green Wedges, a presumption against inappropriate development will apply. Local planning authorities should attach great substantial weight to any harmful impact which a development would have on a Green Belt or green wedge.’ In this particular case, it is not considered that the proposed Sports barn and floodlit playing fields ‘maintain the openness’ of this part of the Green Wedge, and as such fail the criteria stipulated AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 30TH AUGUST 2011

ITEM 1 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2007/2097

In this particular case it is considered that based on the information submitted to date, there is no justification in policy terms for this large urbanising development comprising sports centre and its associated floodlit playing fields being located within an area of open countryside designated as ‘Green wedge’ when there are possible alternative sites within the Swansea area.

On this basis, it is considered that the scheme as it stands extends into the open countryside beyond what could reasonably be described as rounding off contrary to Polices EV22 and EV23 of the City & County Unitary Development Plan.

The proposed sports pitches and sports barn would have unacceptable visual and environmental impacts for which there is no justification, contrary to Policies EV1, EV2, EV22 and EV23 of the City & County Unitary Development Plan.

In addition the proposed sports barn is considered to fail the sequential test for leisure development contrary to Policies EV2, EV40 and HC18 of the City & County Unitary Development Plan.

5.3 Detailed Design, Layout and S106 Considerations

Having established that the proposed development currently fails to meet the requirements of the Habitat Regulations and is contrary to adopted UDP policy, consideration has to be given to other material considerations, to address what details would be considered acceptable either in entirety or in isolation.

This is in response to the requests of the respective developers of the two main elements of this application who have requested throughout the past four years to continue negotiating on the design and layout of their schemes, and time to prepare further justification for their schemes, primarily in the event that the application is refused and the decision is subsequently appealed.

The Planning Inspectorate encourages developers and Local Planning Authorities to negotiate areas of common ground prior to Appeal, to narrow down the essential issues to be considered at Appeal.

This negotiation has resulted in the subsequent submission of further amended plans, and as listed in Part E of my report both parties have submitted further supporting reports, including a range of supporting information in support of the two main elements of the schemes.

In particular, the residential layout has been revised several times and this has included changes to individual house types, as well as additional plans showing cross sections and other details of the site. In addition, amended plans for the design, siting, and materials of the sports barn have been received seeking to reduce the overall visual impact of this proposal. Furthermore the extent of the application site was enlarged in 2008 to include an area for the proposed land drainage including a reed bed system to the south of the site. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 30TH AUGUST 2011

ITEM 1 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2007/2097

Therefore and notwithstanding the above overriding drainage and policy objections, the details of the respective schemes for the residential and sports development, including associated access and landscaping, have therefore been considered in detail below under the following headings:-.

5.3.1 Design, 5.3.2 Highways, 5.3.3 Landscaping/Open space/and Play facilities, 5.3.4 Public Safety, 5.3.5 Earth Science, 5.3.6 Ecology, 5.3.7 Archaeology, 5.3.8 Housing Considerations 5.3.9 Education, 5.3.10 S106, and 5.3.11 Public Responses to Consultation.

5.3.1 Design

Application site characteristics The proposed application site is located 1.4 kilometres to the south of the nearest urban centre with a 100m frontage onto the B4620 (Loughor Road). There are expansive views to the south over the shallow Afon Lliw valley to the land rising up to Craig Cefngolau. The site is highly prominent from the south and forms a green edge to the settlement when viewed from the A484. To the north is Loughor Road which has a variety of traditional building forms including wide fronted rendered units directly opposite the site entrance. The north boundary wraps round behind a modern housing development which is highly prominent given the skyline location. To the east is an older residential estate. To the south is open countryside and to the west is the remainder of the HC1(104) housing allocation in the form of a scrub woodland and rough pastureland. The site comprises a series of grazed paddocks and regenerated former colliery site land, which has recently been cleared of vegetation. There are a number of historic field boundaries around and crossing the site which contain mature trees and hedges.

Design and layout of the residential scheme. Full planning permission is now sought for the construction of 209 dwellings which will comprise a mixture of house types of varying design and external appearance, with car parking provided in the layout in various ways including car parking courts, car spaces or garages.

Layout The layout of the site is broadly supported. This comprises streets defined by building frontages, buildings that turn corners and have a positive outward looking relationship along the south boundary. A key feature of the layout is a series of focal paved spaces which includes a formal space at the heart of the site and a number of other informal spaces at junctions.

The street layout provides a direct and legible link to the Sports barn. The streets within the site run along the contours as much as possible to form traffic calmed loops which removes the need for turning heads. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 30TH AUGUST 2011

ITEM 1 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2007/2097

The fact that there is a level difference of around 14m from the north down to the south of the site will create an interesting townscape. Added to this, the vistas along the streets which follow the contours are deliberately closed by focal buildings finished in reconstituted stone, whilst the views south down the sloping streets to the sports barn site and countryside beyond are deliberately left open to emphasise the settlement edge location which gives the site a sense of place.

The dwellings have a direct relationship to the streets with small front garden areas. This gives a strong sense of enclosure reminiscent of traditional settlements, whilst maximising the natural surveillance of the public realm. Overall the layout it is considered that it would be easy to find your way around, would have a distinctive sense of place and would be an attractive place to live.

Integration of parking The aim is to accommodate cars without allowing them to dominate the living environment. To this end a variety of parking solutions are proposed which varies depending on the context:

• The majority of parking provision is on plot to the side of dwellings (many dwellings benefit from garages) where it is convenient for users but not visually prominent. • In key locations within the layout where continuous frontages are required to define the focal spaces, the parking is located in rear courtyards. These are made safe by multiple dwellings providing direct natural surveillance and vehicular entrances under buildings which discourages casual intrusion. • The balance of parking provision is made up in a few locations with parking to the front of dwellings where it forms part of the public realm

Residential amenity Given the slope across the site, some of the lower units would have 1.5m retaining walls at the end of the gardens. The impact of these walls have been mitigated by increasing the length of the lower gardens to 12.5m rather than the standard length of 10m and also by banking ends of the gardens to mask the lower sections of the retaining walls. Units at the higher level have level terrace areas immediately behind the dwellings, then the gardens slope down slightly to help minimise the height of retaining walls needed.

The proposed houses along the northern boundary are 4-5m lower than the existing dwellings in the Heritage Park development. Therefore only the roofs of the proposed development will be visible from the back of the existing properties that back onto the site. This means that there are no issues of overbearing, overlooking or overshadowing.

House types All the proposed dwellings are two storey with modest traditional elevations. This responds well to the traditional character of Gorseinon. A range of dwelling sizes are proposed from 2 beds up to 4 beds which forms the basis for interesting street scenes and helps establish a balanced community. The proposed materials include brick, render and reconstituted stone walls with tiled and reconstituted slate roofs – all of which respond to the character of the area and would create an interesting street scene. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 30TH AUGUST 2011

ITEM 1 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2007/2097

Accessibility The site has a separate vehicular access to Heritage Park because of ransom issues caused by the adopted highway in Heritage Park ending short of the boundary of that site. The two sites therefore are two separate cul de sac only joined by a steep set of pedestrian steps because of the 4m difference in levels at the site boundary.

Accessibility between the two developments is therefore considered substandard and severely compromised for pedestrians, cyclists and motorists. Overall this is a significant design failing.

Landscaping The proposals include the removal of hedges within the site and felling of the protected trees (TPOs). To compensate, the retained hedges on the eastern and western boundaries are proposed to be managed and strengthened to form features and wildlife corridors. In addition three heavy standard trees are proposed in the focal areas to replace the TPOs, this is in addition to the general tree planting and shrubs that characterise housing developments.

The layout allows for a significant area of informal open space onto Loughor Road. The site access passes through this area and the dwellings provide a visual backdrop plus natural surveillance. The boundary of the residential element includes a 275m2 local play area which is in an accessible location adjacent to the rugby pitches and overlooked by the proposed dwellings. The design of this space and the play provision could be finalised by condition. The future maintenance of the play provision is also unresolved.

It is noted that there are inconsistencies between residential landscape proposals/ sports barn landscape proposals and the planting shown on the overall site plan. If the application is approved then a final definitive landscape plan is required for the residential part of the development.

Sustainability As this application was submitted prior to September 2009, it predates the mandatory sustainability standards.

Conclusions of Design of Residential scheme Overall the design of the residential part of the application is broadly considered acceptable. It has potential to establish a sense of place and community.

However, accessibility between the development and the adjacent Heritage Park development is considered substandard and severely compromised for pedestrians, cyclists and motorists. It only partially therefore accords with TAN12 (Design) and Unitary Development Plan Policies EV1, EV2, EV3 and EV4 in terms of design and accessibility.

Design and layout of Sports Barn and playing fields The sports barn and external pitches are set some 7m lower than the adjacent residential development. A cut and fill operation is proposed to create a large scale level plateau in an area where the topography is naturally falling and as a result there is a significant new artificial slope on the southern boundary. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 30TH AUGUST 2011

ITEM 1 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2007/2097

The sports barn has been redesigned to reduce the length of the building; this has been achieved by moving the ancillary changing rooms from the main mass to a side element on the west elevation. This redesign has resulted in the entrance being moved from the NE corner to an area set back from the NW corner. The elevations have also been simplified and improved.

The revised sports barn now comprises a main rectangular footprint approximately 53m wide by 77m long (previously 53m wide by 87m long) under a shallow pitched roof running north/south with a eaves height of 7.2m and a ridge height of 11m. This main volume encloses the indoor pitch, an additional multipurpose area and gym. To the west of this main mass is a subservient side element which projects by 11m and is 46m long; this volume accommodates ancillary changing rooms, toilet areas and the two storey fully glazed entrance area which relates to the car parking at the higher level of the residential development. The significant size of the proposed building is determined by the facilities inside (rugby pitch, multi use sports area, gym and changing facilities).

There is no updated Design and Access Statement to explain the revised design. The 10m reduction in length proposed does enlarge the planting area between the building and the southern boundary which could help soften the development. However the revised landscape proposals for this area have not been updated from the previous longer building and therefore there is currently no increase in the planting area.

The north elevation of the sports barn faces the proposed housing (some 28m away) and the sections show that the floor slab of this building is approximately 7m below the floor slabs of the housing to the north. Therefore these houses will look onto the upper 4m of the gable of the building. This elevation of the main hall is windowless.

The extent of car parking stretching west to abut the play area is proposed to be softened by a geo membrane (starting at the end of the single row of spaces opposite unit 69) which allows vehicles to manoeuvre and grass to grow through. Given the redesign of the building, the entrance is now closer to the grassed ‘overflow’ parking area and the larger parking area (including disabled parking spaces) are now more distant. Therefore the parking layout is not well related to the building entrance and this could also have negative implications for the play area which is just 2m from the west end of the parking area. Furthermore the revised entrance is no longer legible for visitors and cannot be seen when approaching through the proposed residential development.

Even with the reduced dimensions and revised elevations, the proposed sports barn is still significantly out of scale with the countryside and adjacent proposed housing development.

The two rugby pitches are proposed to be illuminated by 12 floodlights.

Visual impact The original 2007 designs for the sports barn where accompanied by a Visual Influence Report which examined the visual impact of the earlier design when viewed from near, medium and far public locations such as roads, streets, footpaths, playing fields etc. This indicated that: AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 30TH AUGUST 2011

ITEM 1 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2007/2097

o views to the building from the east would be limited due to topography and intervening vegetation; o views from the north would be limited to the immediate environs of the proposed housing development; o views from the west are limited due to the lack of public view points; o The main range of views are from the south and south west from location such as the footpath immediately adjacent to the site, the A484 and from public areas on the rising ground on the opposite side of the Afon Lliw valley. In these views the proposed housing development on the allocated site will cascade down from the skyline down to the proposed large scale sports barn.

There is no updated visual information to support the revised (2011) designs.

Overall Design Conclusions Despite the above policy concerns it is not considered that there is sufficient justification to recommend refusal of the proposed access cutting through the area of open space off Loughor Road, given that the landscaping proposals for this area will ensure that it is kept free of development apart from the highway and a few houses, and as such to a large extent the area will retain a visual break between the estates of Heritage Park and Highfield, and enhance the visual amenity of the surrounding communities.

Moreover, despite the increase in density the residential scheme is supported in design terms, and has potential to establish a sense of place and community.

However, accessibility between the development and the adjacent Heritage Park is considered substandard and severely compromised for pedestrians, cyclists and motorists, which is a significant design failing.

Moreover, this development forms only part of a single application with the Sports Barn which despite the reduction in size of the building, will still be seen as a large incongruous building in the countryside outside of the settlement boundary. Although there are a number of allocated residential sites in this area, they all relate closely to the existing settlement pattern and collectively create a distinct edge abutting the countryside. In contrast the proposed sports barn would create a significant urbanising feature projecting into the open countryside which diminishes the quality of the landscape contrary to the adopted countryside protection and green wedge policies.

In addition there are outstanding concerns regarding the visual impact of the proposed sports fields due to the prevailing topography and amount of land re- profiling required to facilitate this development at this location. The resultant land form will not only appear unnatural in this landscape but would require the removal of an important hedge line and mature trees that are currently an important natural feature in this prominent section of the site.

In addition, the development will result in harm to the character of this area due to light spill from the floodlights and the night time visual impact on the countryside and protected green wedge. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 30TH AUGUST 2011

ITEM 1 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2007/2097

In conclusion there are not considered to be any overriding reasons to depart from the prevailing policies of the City and County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan, which seek to protect the character and openness of this open countryside and protected green wedge area from unjustified urbanising development.

5.3.2 Highway Considerations

The observations of the Head of Transportation and Engineering are set out in full in the response to consultations section of this report, but which concludes that the traffic associated with up to 250 dwellings and the sports facility has been formally assessed and the results indicate that the surrounding highway network can satisfactorily accommodate the volume of additional movements. Safety issues in the area have been identified that need to be addressed and to that end conditions are recommended to be attached to any consent.

He recommends that no highway objections are raised subject to the following:-

1. Prior to any works commencing on site, a contribution shall be made towards a scheme for local highway safety enhancements.

2. Prior to any works commencing on site and not withstanding the submitted drawings, a mini roundabout shall be constructed at the site access junction in accordance with details to be submitted and approved.

3. A pedestrian/cycle path shall be constructed linking the application site to the Bridleway (LC38) in accordance with details to be submitted and agreed.

4. During the first 12 Months of operation, the applicant shall monitor sports facility parking provision and any shortfall shall be catered for within the sports complex car park in accordance with details to be submitted and approved.

5. The applicant shall submit a Travel Plan for approval within 12 months of consent and the Travel Plan shall be implemented prior to the beneficial use of the development commencing

5.3.3 Landscaping, Open Space and Play Facilities

The provision of open space and play facilities within the site have been considered by Parks officers, and concerns have been raised with regard to the provision and maintenance of facilities. Parks officers have advised that the proposed play provision (LAP) is within approximately 1100 metres of an existing play facility at ‘Kiddies Corner’ on Loughor Road beside the entrance to Pontybrenin School which would be about 20 minutes walk from the new development, and they have indicated a preference for the expansion and upgrading of that facility, which would serve both the existing community and the additional community at Cae Duke.

It is the view of the Parks officers that in the present economic climate the provision of an additional play facility where one already exists in close proximity would be an increased burden through maintenance costs on existing budgets, and therefore propose that a commuted sum be used to upgrade and extend the play provision at the ‘Kiddies Corner’ facility. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 30TH AUGUST 2011

ITEM 1 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2007/2097

This would be the subject of further discussion and negotiation in the event that planning permission were granted. However, on balance consideration would also have to be given the benefits of providing the play area (LAP) provision, which as detailed above is considered an important element in the design of facilities for young children in this proposed development.

With regard to open space and boundary planting issues, Parks officers require further details of layout and planting specification of open space at the entrance required, and details of the species of the un-named street trees on plan and whether they will be Council or private responsibility. Also if planning permission were granted, further consideration would have to be given to the ownership, long term responsibility, and proximity of the hedge row and oak trees that extend around much of the site but particularly along the backs of the houses on the western boundary.

Grounds maintenance staff have also raised concerns regarding the layout of some areas where grass embankments fronting car parks which could affect future maintenance. This will obviously be implications dependant on confirmation of future responsibilities for maintenance on this site.

Finally, with regard to the proposed reed beds drainage system, Parks officers have highlighted similar concerns with regard to future ownership and maintenance responsibilities of this drainage area. In conclusion many of these concerns relate to future maintenance and management responsibilities which are dependent on whether the implementation of landscaping and future upkeep is retained as a private responsibility or later transferred to the Council. These matters would have to be resolved if planning permission were granted.

5.3.4 Public Safety Issues

Residential area

South Wales police have been consulted on this application and have raised some concerns regarding the layout of the estate regarding the number of rear parking courtyards and rear parking bays, and the potential for crime in these areas which may result in these areas being abandoned and not used for their intended use i.e.vehicle parking. The concerns are that these areas also make the rear of homes adjacent to these bays vulnerable. However it is considered that the proposed housing layout provides satisfactory public surveillance of these areas, which will ensure that there is limited opportunity for crime on this private residential area.

Also concerns have been raised regarding the pathway that runs from between properties 144 and 145 to between properties110 and 165 which may become a ratrun. However, it should be emphasised that this link is for pedestrians only and could be bollarded off to prevent vehicle access.

Other issues raised regarding standards of lighting, boundary identification, enclosing of boundaries, garden sheds and bin stores, as well as landscaping and planting can be controlled by condition, if planning permission were granted for the residential development of this site. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 30TH AUGUST 2011

ITEM 1 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2007/2097

Sports Complex

The Police have highlighted various concerns, and the need to provide adequate surveillance of the main entrance into this area, the parking area and the whole outside of the unit by CCTV and lighting of the facility, and the materials used for the building and siting of bin stores is noted but can be controlled by condition if planning permission were granted.

5.3.5 Earth Science Issues

Due to the location, topography, and historical industrial use of part of this site, careful consideration has been given to the potential for any earth science constraints or environmental impact concerns relating to the development. In this respect consultation has been carried out and advice received from the Council’s statutory consultees, including the Environment Agency Wales, Dwr Cymru/Welsh Water, the Countryside Council for Wales, and the Coal Authority. .

Very careful consideration has been given by the above statutory consultees and internal specialist officers to the geo technical reports and other additional information submitted by the applicant’s advisors. Related concerns raised in public consultation relate to the mining history of the site, the stability of the ground, the Japanese Knotweed infestation, and the details of possible contaminated land and mitigation of pollution.

The Coal Authority has advised on the known mining records for this mining site. Japanese knotweed removal can be controlled by condition if planning permission were granted. The information submitted in respect of land contamination on site includes a geo technical report, and this has been considered by Pollution officers within the Council who have confirmed that the findings are acceptable but request conditions and informatives to ensure that the mitigation measures identified in the report are carried out. These details would also have to be agreed by the Environment Agency if planning permission were to be granted, but they have previously advised that the details should be submitted prior to determination.

5.3.6 Ecology Considerations

Turning to the ecological implications of the scheme, the original submission for the proposed residential and sports development included an ecological assessment of the site, which included a Phase 1 Habitat survey vegetation, breeding birds’ survey and information on badger activity on site. This has recently been updated to take into account the current situation and check for protected species, including badgers and retiles such as slow worms referred to in public representation, and this new information has been considered by the Department’s ecologist. In addition the surveys have considered bat survey information. In addition, the developer has confirmed that the development will include the provision of a badger fence along the western boundary of the fence and details of its siting and construction will be in line with the advice of Department’s ecologist.

However, there are outstanding officer concerns that the following points would need to form part of any approval for the proposed development:- AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 30TH AUGUST 2011

ITEM 1 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2007/2097

• The revised plan shows a buffer in between the western houses and the western hedge. It is important that this is maintained as such.

• The hedge to the west of the development must be maintained as a functional ecological unit i.e. it must be maintained as it is and a buffer of a minimum of 15 feet must be kept in between the house curtilages and the base of the hedge bank.

• A badger proof boundary should be constructed in between the houses on the western side of the development and the western hedge (this could be an integral part of the garden fence of these properties).

• There will be an ecological loss as a result of the development (both housing and sports facilities); this must be mitigated for by the inclusion of as much new areas of ecological value as possible.

• The main change in the recent ecological survey is the discovery of a potential new badger sett, and this needs to be investigated fully and a new report submitted, this work may already be in hand. The report also contains a number of recommendations in section 5, these should be followed they include recommendations for the protection of badgers, bat foraging, the protection of breeding birds and the protection of the hedges on the site. The agreed protection of the hedge and badger sett on the western side of the site also stands.

The wider ecological issues regarding the European sites have been covered in detail in the first section dealing with the Burry Inlet Drainage and Water Quality issues. Whilst it is accepted that the developer acknowledges the need to protect the wider environment of this area, as referred to above, further drainage information is required to complete the required Habitat Regulations Assessment if approval is granted for these developments. As identified previously the development has a potential to damage the features of the European Marine site, a satisfactory habitats regulations assessment in accordance with The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 will need to be completed prior to any permission being given.

In 2007 the Local Planning Authority carried out a screening test of the proposed development as required by the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations (1999), and concluded on the basis of the information known at that time that there was not likely to be any significant effect as result of these development proposals. However, the Environment Agency has since advised that in the event that planning permission is likely to be granted the need for an Environment Impact Assessment should be revisited, albeit limiting its scope to the subject of foul and surface water disposal and the impacts these may have on the Marine Sac. This information would inform the Habitat Regulations Assessment.

On the basis of the above considerations, it is therefore considered that there are still outstanding ecological and environmental issues in relation to the application. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 30TH AUGUST 2011

ITEM 1 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2007/2097

5.3.7 Archaeological Issues

In response to advice from the Council’s advisor, the Glamorgan Gwent Archaeological Trust, the applicants have commissioned an archaeological survey of the most northerly section of the site adjacent to Loughor Road. The results of the archaeological evaluation have been assessed by the Trust as being satisfactory subject to condition requiring an intensive watching brief during the groundworks for the development, with detailed contingency arrangements including the provision of sufficient time and resources to ensure that archaeological features that are located are properly excavated, recorded and a report containing the results and analysis of the work is produced. The condition suggested should be worded in a manner similar to the model given in Welsh Office Circular 60/96, section 23.

5.3.8 Housing Considerations

The Housing Enabling officer has requested a provision of Affordable Housing on the site, around the figure of 30% (10% Social Rent, 20% Intermediate – low cost home ownership). All affordable housing units to be developed at Design Quality Requirements (DQR) standards and pepper potted throughout the development. Initially they requested that the developer should be encouraged to provide the development of 2 and 3 bedroomed bungalows.

Subsequently in response to the amended layouts, Housing has reiterated their concerns that the level, mix and siting of affordable units does not meet their requirements. Their position has not changed from previous requests that there is a 30% Affordable Housing provision on site. Housing has repeatedly requested to have discussions with the Developer over the provision of affordable housing as the percentage, unit size, location and tenure of Affordable Housing have not been agreed, and tthey indicate that there has not been any direct discussion with the developer on this matter since 2008.

The 21 affordable units identified in the current Planning layout as DQR compliant all appear to be concentrated in the south-eastern part of the site (plots 72-80, 83- 89 and 184-188) and this would amount to only 10% of the development; however the mix of 2/3/4 bed DQR compliant houses would be considered acceptable to Housing. It is unknown however whether these units are tenure neutral or if the developer is proposing them to be Social rented, Intermediate rented or low cost home ownership; or indeed why a reduced level of Affordable Housing units have been offered.

It is considered that the proposed concentration of affordable housing goes against best practice guidance and is likely to lead to the creation of a divided community. In line with the Council’s Housing Enabling Officer’s advice it is desirable for the affordable housing to be distributed throughout the site (in clusters that should be agreed with the Housing Section) and should be delivered in small phased groups as development of the site progresses. As it stands, therefore, the scheme is unacceptable in terms of the number, distribution, and specified types of affordable housing. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 30TH AUGUST 2011

ITEM 1 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2007/2097

If the application is not refused, then it is suggested that this should be subject to agreement on the revised location of affordable housing within the site. The applicant’s agent has recently indicated that further affordable housing (not DQR compliant) may be provided across the site, subject to negotiation.

5.3.9 Education Considerations

The observations of the Head of Education are set out in full in the response to consultations section of this report, and are an assessment of the effect of the development at Cae Duke on Catchment Schools at this current point in time.

The catchment area for this development is Penyrheol and the catchment schools are: English Medium Primary Pontybrenin English Medium Secondary Penyrheol Welsh Medium Primary YGG Pontybrenin Welsh Medium Secondary YG Gwyr

In conclusion the priorities identified by Education are that this development requires:-

1. Replacement Accommodation for the Pontybrenin English Medium and Welsh Medium Primary Schools in the sum of £672,000 to be index linked . 2. Access Improvement works to serve both Pontybrenin Primary and YGG Pontybrenin.

Whilst the development will generate 45.98 Secondary pupils; the Head of Education has confirmed that there will be no request for a contribution towards Secondary provision at this time as there is sufficient capacity within the catchment school.

5.3.10 S106 Requirements

As there have been overriding policy reasons for refusal, the Local Planning Authority has not entered into discussions with the applicants or their agents regarding heads of terms for S106 contributions. However, as indicated above responses have been received from Highways, Housing and Education regarding their current requirements for this development. Therefore if planning permission were granted for this development, the Local Planning Authority would have to enter into negotiations with the various Departments, Councillors and developers on appropriate planning obligations for this site in line with Policy HC17 of the Swansea UDP and Supplementary Planning guidance on Planning obligations adopted by the Council.

In addition as referred to above the developer would have to apply to revoke the relevant clauses of the extant S106 that runs with the land.

5.3.11 Public Response to Consultations

As referred to above there have been five statutory public consultations on this application with all parties including the public, which have raised a large number of issues listed above, by members of the public and Llwchwr Community Council. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 30TH AUGUST 2011

ITEM 1 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2007/2097

These issues include inter alia, highway and access issues, the principle and design and layout of the residential development, the impact on local infrastructure, resources and facilities, the visual and environmental impacts, the loss of green wedge, fields, hedgerows and trees and affect on wildlife, etc. All of which have been considered in the main body of the report.

6.0 CONCLUSIONS

Having regard to all the above considerations, there are elements of the residential part of the overall scheme that have the potential to establish a sense of place and community as advocated by TAN12: Design, and satisfy local ecological, access, highway and landscaping requirements. In particular, it is considered that some of the detailed issues raised in public representation and considered by specialist teams and officers could be controlled by condition and or S106 obligations. Whilst the density proposed and access arrangements are not identical to that considered under the UDP preparation and allocation for this site, it is considered on balance that the current residential layout would protect the amenity of neighbours and subject to conditions could mitigate against adverse local ecological impacts.

Accessibility between the new residential development and the adjacent Heritage Park development is however considered substandard for pedestrians, cyclists and motorist and therefore in that respect falls short of the guidance in TAN12 (Design) and Unitary Development Plan Policies EV1, EV2, EV3 and EV4 in terms of sustainable access.

Moreover, and despite the improved proposals to the previous residential layouts and density concerns, it is considered that the proposed residential development will fail to meet a satisfactory level, mix and spread of affordable housing across this site, contrary to Policies EV1 and HC3 of the City & County of Swansea Unitary Development.

In addition, and despite the redesign of the proposed sports barn, it is considered that this structure would represent a large incongruous element in the designated Green Wedge area, and together with the floodlit full scale sports pitches and car parking areas, and the remodelling required to form them is considered to have an unacceptable visual and environmental impact on this protected open countryside location. As such it is considered that this part of the proposed development represents an unjustified and unacceptable urban encroachment into the protected Green Wedge, contrary to Policies EV1, EV2, EV21, EV22, and EV23 of the City & County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan.

Moreover, the proposed sports barn is considered to fail the sequential test for leisure development, and as such fails to comply with Policies EV2, EV40 and HC18 of the City & County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan. This element of the proposal also fails to reflect the aspirations of the IHLPS Supplementary Planning Guidance.

On this basis therefore, it is considered that there are no reasons to justify overriding the above prevailing policies, and allow this Departure from the City & County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan. It is not considered that there are material considerations which outweigh these policy objections.

In addition this application currently fails to meet the legal requirements of ‘The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010’, because the Habitats Regulation Assessment has concluded that there is insufficient drainage information and no compensatory surface water drainage proposals. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 30TH AUGUST 2011

ITEM 1 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2007/2097

As such it cannot be concluded by the Local Planning Authority that there will be no adverse harm to the water quality of the Loughor Estuary and consequent harm to the protected features of the Carmarthen Bay and Estuaries Marine Site.

In conclusion, having regard to the above considerations, including the Human Rights Act, it is considered that the application fails for the following reasons:-

1. The applicants have failed to provide evidence to demonstrate that the proposal would not on its own or in combination with other developments in the catchment have a significant adverse effect upon the integrity of the Carmarthen Bay and Estuaries European Marine Site (CBEEMS) contrary to Policies EV33, EV34 and EV35 of the Swansea Unitary Development Plan (2008).

2. The proposed sports barn and related development of sports fields and floodlighting, by virtue of their size, scale, design and siting in an area of open countryside designated as ‘Green Wedge’, would represent an unjustified and unacceptable urban encroachment into an area of open countryside and protected Green Wedge, beyond what could reasonably be described as rounding off of the urban area of Loughor, that would fail to maintain the rural character and openness of this protected area, resulting in unacceptable visual and environmental harm to this protected area, contrary to Policies EV1, EV2, EV22 and EV23 of the City & County Unitary Development Plan. 3. The applicants have failed to provide evidence that the proposed sports barn meets the sequential test for leisure development and as such fails this essential policy requirement contrary to Policies EV2, EV40 and HC18 of the City & County Unitary Development Plan. 4. The proposed residential development by virtue of its siting, design and layout and poor access linkages with the Heritage Park fails to provide for sustainable access between the two adjacent residential areas and does not provide a satisfactory level, mix and spread of affordable housing across this site, and as such fails to meet the requirements of Policies EV1, EV2, EV3, EV4 and HC3 of the City & County of Swansea Unitary Development.

RECOMMENDATION

REFUSE, for the following reasons:

1. The applicants have failed to provide evidence that the proposal would not on its own or in combination with other developments in the catchment have a significant adverse effect upon the integrity of the Carmarthen Bay and Estuaries European Marine Site (CBEEMS) contrary to Policies EV33, EV34 and EV35 of the Swansea Unitary Development Plan (2008).

2. The proposed sports barn and related development of sports fields and floodlighting, by virtue of their size, scale, design and siting in an area of open countryside designated as ‘Green Wedge’, would represent an unjustified and unacceptable urban encroachment into an area of open countryside and protected Green Wedge, beyond what could reasonably be described as rounding off of the urban area of Loughor, that would fail to maintain the rural character and openness of this protected area, resulting in unacceptable visual and environmental harm to this protected area, contrary to Policies EV1, EV2, EV22 and EV23 of the City & County Unitary Development Plan. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 30TH AUGUST 2011

ITEM 1 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2007/2097

3. The applicants have failed to provide evidence that the proposed sports barn meets the sequential test for leisure development and as such fails this essential policy requirement contrary to Policies EV2, EV40 and HC18 of the City & County Unitary Development Plan.

4. The proposed residential development by virtue of its siting, design and layout and poor access linkages with the Heritage Park fails to provide for sustainable access between the two adjacent residential areas and does not provide a satisfactory level, mix and spread of affordable housing across this site, and as such fails to meet the requirements of Policies EV1, EV2, EV3, EV4 and HC3 of the City & County of Swansea Unitary Development.

INFORMATIVES

1 The development plan covering the City and County of Swansea is the City and County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan. The following policies were relevant to the consideration of the application: Policies EV1, EV2, EV3, EV4, EV6, EV12, EV19, EV21, EV22, EV23, EV24, EV30, EV33, EV34, EV35, EV38, EV39, EV40, EC13, HC1, HC3, HC17, HC18, HC24, AS1, AS2, AS3, AS3, AS4, AS5, AS6, AS7, and AS10.

PLANS

Existing topography plan received 13th September 2007. Amended plans: 107 Rev C- street scenes, 111 Rev C- site sections, 820 Rev A- (radleigh), 821 Rev C-(caldey), 822 Rev B- (caldey), 823 Rev B-(kingsbridge), 824 Rev A- (kingsbridge), 825 Rev B-(enford), 826 Rev B-(type C:recon stone), 828 Rev A- (type B:brick), 830 Rev B- (type B:recon stone), 832 Rev A- (maidstone), 833 Rev B-(A:brick), 834 Rev B-(A:recon stone), 835 Rev A- (richmond), 840 Rev B- (richmond), 844 Rev B- (ash),845 Rev B-(sycamore), 846 Rev B-(willow), 847 Rev B-(oak), 848 - (type D:brick), 849 Rev A-(type D:recon stone), 850 Rev A-(single garage-detached sheet 1), 851 Rev A- (single garage single assessment- sheet 2), 852 Rev A-(double garage-single attachment sheet 3), 853 Rev A-(double garages-detached sheet 4), 854 Rev A- (garages triple-sheet 5), 855 Rev A-(twin garages-double attachment-sheet 6), 856 Rev A- single garage-double attachment-sheet 7), 858- (enclosures sheet 1), 859 Rev A-(enclosures sheet 2), 860- (enclosures sheet 3), 861-(enclosures sheet 4), 862 Rev A- (Washington- floor plans), 863 Rev A-(Washington-elevations), 866 Rev A-(radleigh), 867-(thornton), 868 Rev A- (thornton), 869 Rev A- (thornton- side elevation), 870 Rev A- (sycamore), 871 (A:recon stone - plot 117 only) received 20th February 2009. Amended plan: 2008./11 Rev B- existing features received 10th March 2009. Amended plan: 0729801/PL/GA/001 Rev D- landscape strategy plan received 16th March 2009. HG.07.45 A01-OS extract & site layout, HG.07.45 A02-ground floor, HG.07.45 A03-1st floor, HG.07.45 A04- elevations sections and additional plan HG.07.45 A05-section through the site received 21st April 2011. Amended plans: 101 Rev F- location plan, 103 Rev D- external works sheet one, 104 Rev D- external works sheet 2, 105 Rev D- material layout, 106 Rev D- storey heights, 110 Rev C- indicative levels/retention layout, 900 Rev E- planning layout, 2008./12 Rev D- landscape proposals received 22nd June 2011.

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 30TH AUGUST 2011

APPENDIX A

BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON INTERIM HOUSING POLICY LAND POLICY STATEMENT

Appendix 1: Extract from IHLP Report of Panel (March 2005) pp30-32

ccs 074 Land at Cae Duke, Loughor (Matter 3.7)

Policy background 4.67 The site is identified in the adopted development plan as green wedge. Part of the site is identified in the Consultation Draft UDP for housing under Policy HC1 (84) with the playing fields identified as part of the green wedge.

Area and capacity 4.68 The site area is 14.39 hectares. The estimated site capacity and number of completions by 2009 is 60 - 140 units.

Contextual aspects 4.69 We heard that there was an employment allocation for part of the land in the Southern Lliw Valley Local Plan 1986. A section of the site has been the subject of a reclamation scheme, although there has been no land reclamation to date. The playing fields once provided to the south would act as a buffer and there is a legal agreement requiring land to the east to be retained as public open space. It seems to us that there is some merit in regarding the potential development site as rounding off to a defensible boundary. The development of the site would facilitate the provision of additional facilities in the form of playing fields and open space on the green wedge as designated in the Consultation Draft UDP.

4.70 The site area is about 14 hectares but the net housing area is 6.6 hectares. That allows for public open space (playing fields etc). The proposed density of development could be increased to provide 140 units to 230 units but we agree that 140 units is more realistic. But as there is encouragement to build at higher densities, we would not rule out a higher figure. It was indicated that the development could start by mid 2006 and should be able to deliver up to 150 units by 2009. However, 130 units are more likely. We note that the landowners and developers are already working together for the prospective development of the site. The developer would also be prepared to provide affordable housing at this site and it would seem that this would be required for the elderly.

Highway infrastructure constraints 4.71 The Council has accepted the principle of one access to the site. A capacity access assessment for the proposed junction, based on 230 units, has indicated that there would be no unacceptable problems, at the junction or on the major road. This was operating at 25% capacity at evening peak and was assessed until 2020.

4.72 The public transport serving the area was reported as being poor. The development would support public transport in the vicinity.

4.73 It was reported that there were particular problems on Loughor Road during the school peak periods. Further concern was expressed that the cumulative impact of all the future developments on traffic conditions should be assessed. It was estimated that 230 units would generate 45 cars in the peak period. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 30TH AUGUST 2011

The Council indicated that, for a development of over 200 units, a formal transport assessment was required to take account of the wider road network. Clearly, implementing any recommendations arising from that assessment would be beneficial to the locality.

Infrastructure constraints 4.74 There were no problems with water supply, sewage, and electricity etc; however, a contribution may be needed to improve the foul water pumping station.

Community impacts 4.75 We note that the difficulties from a former Section 106 agreement have been clarified and a sum of money is available to the Council for the provision of recreational open space locally. While recreation space for children could be provided on the site there would not be any specific facilities for the non-sporting teenagers.

4.76 Concern was expressed over school capacity, to support the cumulative impact of developments. It was indicated that the developers could contribute towards increasing school capacity.

4.77 We heard that there was not a problem with the availability of doctors but there was no information on dentists. However, it was suggested to us that there was likely to be a Welsh language impact, which could affect the local community, although we are aware that this might be difficult to assess.

Impacts on the environment 4.78 It was indicated that an ecological survey was required to be undertaken and this would establish if there were any protected species on the site. The environmental (planning) assessment would be linked to the submission of a planning application.

Conclusion 4.79 We recognize that there is local concern over the “amount” of development proposed for this site, both in terms of the site itself and the amount of traffic that would be generated. In our view the shortage of housing land is a powerful driver for maximizing land use, especially in a location not very far from a district centre. We consider that the site is located in a sustainable location viz. a viz. local facilities. Our view is that the number of completions by 2009 could be between 60 - 140 units. There is also an opportunity to realize recreational use on some of the land. There are also clear boundaries to the development.

4.80 We consider that the development potential of the site outweighs the other factors, especially the effects of increased traffic on local roads and that the site should be retained in the Draft IHLPS subject to further work on mitigating measures and a scheme for recreational use being undertaken at the application stage.

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 30TH AUGUST 2011

ITEM 2 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 FOR A SITE VISIT at the Area 2 Development Control Committee on 2nd August 2011 to view the site within the context of the mix of housing styles already in the village. My recommendation of refusal 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 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 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 EV1 New development shall accord with a defined set of criteria of good design. (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)

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 – 30TH AUGUST 2011

ITEM 2 (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.

The Society still retains its grave concerns regarding this development and wishes its comments to be taken into account when a decision is reached. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 30TH AUGUST 2011

ITEM 2 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/0092

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 ’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. 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. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 30TH AUGUST 2011

ITEM 2 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/0092

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.

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. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 30TH AUGUST 2011

ITEM 2 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/0092

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.

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. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 30TH AUGUST 2011

ITEM 2 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/0092

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.

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, EV9, EV16, EV26, EV33, EV34, EV35

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 30TH AUGUST 2011

ITEM 2 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/0092

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 – 30TH AUGUST 2011

ITEM 3 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

This application was DEFERRED FOR A SITE VISIT at the Area 2 Development Control Committee on 2nd August 2011 to assess potential traffic and car parking problems and issues. My report has been updated to include reference to late correspondence received form the agents as well as a further letter of objection which is summarised below. 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 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. SIX LETTERS OF OBJECTION received which can be summarised as follows: AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 30TH AUGUST 2011

ITEM 3 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0309

• 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. • 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. • An enquiry made to the planning department in 2009 seeking advice on whether planning permission would be grated for an A3 use, was addressed by advising that planning approval would never be given. • The enquirer was advised that a number of similar queries had been received and everyone has been advised that an A3 use would not be granted at this location. • As a direct result of this information alternative premises (nearby, less than 50m away) were sought and significant expense incurred setting up the business. • In January 2011, following hearsay in the area, further contact was made to the planning department enquiring whether an application has been submitted for an A3 use at the application site and advice at the time was that no application has been lodged. • In March 2011 it became apparent that an application has been lodged and that a tenancy agreement reached with Finnigans fish and chop pending planning permission • It has been suggested that planners have advised the developers that planning permission will be grated this time round. • Approval for this application will potentially destroy the neighbouring identical business only opened a matter of months ago. • The planning department has taken a highly irresponsible approach and legal advise will be sought. • Should planning permission be given a compensation claim for loss of earnings will be considered • How can the council justify approving this application so close to another identical land use. • The changes in attitude of the authority is staggering given that so many interested parties have been turned away. • Speaking to neighbouring residents it is clear that nuisance is already being caused by youths congregating outside the existing units. • The argument that the unit is vacant does not provide reasonable foundation for the change of use to be allowed. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 30TH AUGUST 2011

ITEM 3 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0309

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 litter 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 . 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.

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. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 30TH AUGUST 2011

ITEM 3 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0309

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.

• 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.

APPLICANTS LATE LETTER 1. Concerned that the report does not present the whole picture and full evidence presented in support of the application, and makes inter alia the following points; 2. that the past take-up of car parking spaces on this site has been distorted by the previous illegal use of the facilities - something which has now ceased and will be regulated going forward by the site owners; 3. that the capacity of the car park will be enhanced going forward through the regulation of its use to prevent staff car parking (a position agreed by all tenants on site); AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 30TH AUGUST 2011

ITEM 3 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0309

4. there is little recognition that an objective assessment of the level of car parking provided and required establishes that the proposals are adequate; 5. there are no specific facts or details recorded regarding the various other quoted and considered comparable application and appeal cases referred to in justification of your position (noting that we had previously established that none were directly compatible to this particular case given that off-road car parking is possible in our case); 6. there is no recognition or mention of the potential betterment capably brought about by the proposals through relocation of the traffic calming measures within the site - which would overcome some of the existing perceived concerns regarding access; 7. there is no mention of the „baseline‟ position regarding operation/opening of the retail units i.e. that the planning permission permits unrestricted use (given that there are no planning conditions regulating this) and any comparison to the proposed A3 use should be made on this basis; 8. the additional potential future residential property perceived to be potentially impacted by any A3 use is located on the opposite side of a busy road and junction to the appeal proposal (i.e. not next door); 9. there is no reference to any explicit record of complaints made about the use of existing premises on the site; 10. considerable emphasis appears to be placed in justifying the stance taken to resist the proposals on the basis that this location does not comprise a defined retail centre. We consider this to be unreasonable and irrelevant; 11. The location comprises a location where residents in the area seek and look to for their day-to-day needs. The introduction of additional and complimentary uses in this location is therefore considered highly logical and acceptable accordingly; 12. Concludes by making the point that the report appears to be ‘marginal’ and should consider the above points and the benefits brought about by investment , job creation, and introduction of vitality and vibrancy to the site (in lieu of long standing vacant site) and ‘on balance’ application should be recommended for approval.

The response to the above is detailed below in corresponding point format:

1. The report is considered to adequately address all relevant material considerations. 2. The historical illegal use of the parking facilities on site has in no way distorted the observations of the Head of Transportation and Engineering 3. The new undertaking by the site owners to ban all staff working in all units from parking within the site could lead to indiscriminate parking on the adjacent highways. Furthermore, if banning staff from parking within the site is necessary to satisfy the parking guidelines, how will this be policed/enforced? Current parking guidelines include for staff and customers. 4. The Head of Transportation and Engineering is satisfied with the highway safety assessment contained within the report. 5. The planning history of four nearby properties is particularly relevant. Appeals against refusals for hot-food takeaway uses have been dismissed at 850 Carmarthen Road (91/0986 refers), 862/864 Carmarthen Road (93/0364 refers) and 838 Carmarthen Road (98/1559 refers) In all decisions the inspector endorsed the Councils concern that a takeaway use would add considerably to the pressure on the limited parking provision available and would result in additional vehicular manoeuvres which would be detrimental to the safe and free flow of traffic along this heavily used road. Furthermore, more recent applications for Class A3 outlets were refused on grounds of residential amenity as well as highway safety albeit not challenged at appeal. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 30TH AUGUST 2011

ITEM 3 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0309

These include: 852 Carmarthen Road (2008/0401 refers), 836 Carmarthen Road (2005/0006 refers) and 1325 Carmarthen Road (2003/0123 refers) 6. The Head of Transportation and Engineering is satisfied with the highway safety assessment contained within the report. 7. The granting of unrestricted planning permission for use within Classes A1 and A2 is acknowledged. It is accepted that the hours of operation are not controlled, via planning conditions, but this was not considered a necessary precaution when approving a development for uses within Class A1 and A2 and is not considered to undermine the authority’s position in dealing with this current application. 8. The potential for an additional residential unit adjacent to the site is considered relevant; the impact of the proposal upon residential amenity extends beyond properties immediately adjoining the site as suggested by the applicants. A number of dwellings adjacent to the site will be affected by the proposal. 9. Enforcement complaints together with complainants details are confidential and as such are not listed explicitly within the report 10. The fact that the property is not situated within a defined district centre is considered relevant and the weight given to the residential amenities reasonably expected to be enjoyed by the residents within the area is considered entirely reasonable. 11. Local residents are very well served by local conveniences and whilst limited additional complimentary uses may potentially be supported, for the reasons set out in the report, the proposed land use is not considered complimentary to the surroundings. 12. Investment and job creation opportunities do not outweigh the overriding concerns relating to residential amenity and highway safety set out in the officer’s report, and it is accepted that the recommendation is made on balance.

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. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 30TH AUGUST 2011

ITEM 3 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0309

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. 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. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 30TH AUGUST 2011

ITEM 3 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0309

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. 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. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 30TH AUGUST 2011

ITEM 3 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0309

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.

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. Additionally, concern is expressed that the advice from the planning department has been inconsistent, and that there is a perception that this application is receiving favourable treatment over others. It is important to note that there is no record of any other application or formal enquiries for the change of use of the application unit (or adjoining units) for use within Class A3. Notwithstanding this, the officer recommendation is one of refusal and as such it is difficult to sustain an argument that any form of preferential treatment is being bestowed on the current applicants. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 30TH AUGUST 2011

ITEM 3 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0309

Whilst the presence of similar land uses in the vicinity are acknowledged within the report, the potential for direct competition is not material to the consideration of this application. Further concern is expressed over advice allegedly provided in January 2011 that no application had been lodged, advice that subsequently changed by March 2011, this information is however entirely correct. There was no application registered with the authority in January 2011, and this current application was registered on the 2nd March 2011 and to this end any advice provided was correct.

Overall therefore the proposal is considered an inappropriate form of development that will harm the residential amenities currently enjoyed in the area and will adversely 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 reasons:

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.

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 – 30TH AUGUST 2011

ITEM 4 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

This application was DEFERRED FOR A SITE VISIT at the Area 2 Development Control Committee on the 2nd August 2011 in order to view the site and location and character of surrounding area. My Officer 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 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 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 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 – 30TH AUGUST 2011

ITEM 4 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0364

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

Policy 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. THIRTEEN 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 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. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 30TH AUGUST 2011

ITEM 4 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0364

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.

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. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 30TH AUGUST 2011

ITEM 4 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0364

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.

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. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 30TH AUGUST 2011

ITEM 4 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0364

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.

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 and skyline at this location are prevalent. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 30TH AUGUST 2011

ITEM 4 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0364

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.

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.

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. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 30TH AUGUST 2011

ITEM 4 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0364

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. Therefore there are no highway objections to the proposal subject to conditions being imposed.

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, thirteen 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. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 30TH AUGUST 2011

ITEM 4 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0364

In addition to this concern has been raised regarding the potential residential use of the proposed garages. Sufficient parking spaces are provided for each dwelling and subject to the garages remaining ancillary to the main dwellings there would be no objection to the proposed conversion in planning terms.

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:

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 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.

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.

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 30TH AUGUST 2011

ITEM 4 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0364

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.

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.

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 30TH AUGUST 2011

ITEM 4 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0364

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.

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.

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 30TH AUGUST 2011

ITEM 4 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0364

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, EV33, EV35, HC2, HC3.

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

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

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 – 30TH AUGUST 2011

ITEM 5 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

This application was DEFERRED FOR A SITE VISIT at the Area 2 Development Control Committee on 2nd August 2011 to view the site and location and assess the property with regard to the size of rear garden and internal facilities.

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 – 30TH AUGUST 2011

ITEM 5 (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 – Support the City & County of Swansea policy.

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 Colburn in order to consider the wider implications of the development.

The site is within an area to the south of Plunch Lane, 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 – 30TH AUGUST 2011

ITEM 5 (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 – 30TH AUGUST 2011

ITEM 5 (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 reasons:

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 – 30TH AUGUST 2011

ITEM 6 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

This application was DEFERRED FOR A SITE VISIT at the Area 2 Development Control Committee on 2nd August 2011 to assess the site and shop location within the context of surrounding retail area.

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)

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 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 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)

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 30TH AUGUST 2011

ITEM 6 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0745

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

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 assess 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 as well as highway safety, having regard to the City and County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan.

Policy ECNR of the Unitary Development Plan 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: AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 30TH AUGUST 2011

ITEM 6 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0745

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). 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. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 30TH AUGUST 2011

ITEM 6 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0745

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. 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.

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 30TH AUGUST 2011

ITEM 6 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0745

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.

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 EC5, ECNR, EV3 and AS6 of the Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008.

PLANS

Site location plan, design and access statement received 23rd May 2011

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 30TH AUGUST 2011

ITEM 7 APPLICATION NO. 2010/1387 WARD: Penclawdd Area 2

Location: Land to the rear of 2 Gowerton Road, Penclawdd, Swansea SA4 3XA Proposal: Three detached dwellings with integral garages Applicant: Mr James Mainwaring

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

POLICIES

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

Policy 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)

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 30TH AUGUST 2011

ITEM 7 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/1387

SITE HISTORY

App No. Proposal 91/0994 PUBLIC FOOTPATH, CYCLEWAY AND ASSOCIATED LANDSCAPING WORKS Decision: *HGDP - GRANT DEEMED PERMISSION Decision Date: 10/09/1991

90/1610/03 ERECTION OF DETACHED DWELLING HOUSE Decision: *HGPC - GRANT PERMISSION CONDITIONAL Decision Date: 26/02/1991

RESPONSE TO CONSULTATIONS

Neighbours: Seven neighbouring dwellings were individually consulted and 6 LETTERS OF OBJECTION and a 19 LETTER PETITION were received which are summarised below:

1. Loss of light due to height of dwellings. 2. Overlooking. 3. Drainage issues. 4. Sewerage system cannot take the proposal. 5. Loss of house values and loss of view. 6. Overdevelopment. 7. Noise and light pollution. 8. Highway concerns. 9. Proposal contrary to Policies EV17 and EV18. 10. Safety and access concerns. 11. Fire risk. 12. Size and scale of the proposal will have an unacceptable impact upon the landscape. 13. Not in keeping with the character of the area. 14. Impact upon wildlife migration. 15. Mature trees on adjacent land could impact and or be impacted by the proximity of the proposed development. 16. Work hours associated with the proposal. 17. Unacceptable urbanisation. 18. Estate like design in area that is characterised by properties of individual design. 19. Lack of parking. 20. Height of dwellings to large.

Highways: This proposal is for the erection of 3 new dwellings on land to the rear of 2 Gowerton Road, Penclawdd. Access is proposed in the form of a shared private drive and is indicated to conform with requirements for width, visibility and turning facilities. Each of the new dwellings will have on site parking and all vehicles will be able to enter and leave the site in a forward gear.

I recommend no highway objection subject to the shared private drive being completed prior to occupation of any dwelling within the site. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 30TH AUGUST 2011

ITEM 7 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/1387

Llanrhidian Higher Community Council: Representations from the residents adjoining the proposed development were considered, including letters of objection and a petition. The Council agreed unanimously to support the residents objections and to raise its own concerning:

(i) Drainage onto Community Council property. The Community Council owns the football field at Dan Y Lan, adjacent to the proposed development. The field already suffers problems with drainage, especially after the construction of new housing behind the field. The Council would wish that any new development would include adequate drainage and sewerage provision. (ii) Fencing around the football field. The Community Council has fenced off part of the football field to prevent the ingress of footballs into the surrounding residential properties. This can provide a source of great frustration to all parties as residents object to the ingress of footballs (and the players following/searching for them) and the football club objects to the loss of footballs at approx £50 a time. The Council has no plans to extend its fencing to the land proposed for development. (iii) The Council has concerns over the increased danger to traffic and pedestrians that it feels would occur due to a large number of entrances in a small area of road. Access to the main road from any of the side roads can already be hazardous, especially to delivery vehicles or visitors with no experience of the roads.

Robert Hart, Assistant to Edwina Hart AM Gower: Mrs Hart has been approached by residents in the vicinity of the above development proposal who are concerned about its impact. I have visited the site on Mrs Hart’s behalf and I would like to make the following observations:

• The proposed dwellings would be of a height which would be overbearing on a number of properties in Llynfa Road and would greatly compromise the privacy of the gardens in particular of Llynfa Road residents. • The construction of three detached properties on the plot indicated would result in a cramped and overdeveloped site which would adversely affect the visual amenity of the area.

Countryside Council for Wales: CCW objects to the proposal, because there is not enough information for us to assess possible effects on the interest listed below:

Carmarthen Bay and Estuaries Special Area of Conservation (SAC), Burry Inlet Special Protection Area (SPA) and Burry Inlet Ramsar.

Environment Agency: No objection subject to a condition relating to the utilisation of SUDs and a scheme for the separation of foul and surface water.

Dwr Cymru/Welsh Water: No objection subject to attached informatives.

Following the Objection from CCW, additional information was requested regarding drainage and the applicant agreed to remove the surface water drainage from the foul sewer and explore the use of Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 30TH AUGUST 2011

ITEM 7 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/1387

A Habitats Regulation Assessment was also completed and submitted to CCW, who in light of this additional information have formally withdrawn their OBJECTION.

APPRAISAL

This application is reported to Committee for decision at the request of Councillor Paul Tucker, in order to assess the impact of the proposal on the neighbouring residents following the number of objection letters and letter of observation received from Robert Hart assistant to Edwina Hart AM Gower.

Description

Full planning permission is sought for three detached dwellings with integral garages at land to the rear of 2 Gowerton Road, Penclawdd, Swansea. The site is situated within the rear amenity space of this property and falls within the established residential area of Penclawdd. The area is characterised by a mixture of detached and semi-detached properties.

Issues

The main issues for consideration during the determination of applications such as this relate to the principle of development, the impact of the proposal upon the visual amenities of the area, the impact upon the residential amenities of the neighbouring occupiers, drainage issues and highway safety having regard for the provisions of the Swansea Unitary Development Plan.

Principle of Development

The site currently forms part of the residential curtilage of No 2 Gowerton Road. The land is within the established residential area of Penclawdd as identified on the Swansea Unitary Development Plan Proposals Map. As such Policy EV17 of the UDP in principle allows for appropriate residential infill development subject to compliance with the policy’s criteria.

Development will also 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 in land use terms the site 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.

Therefore, in land use terms on the basis of the information provided subject to careful siting, design and external appearance the land could accommodate residential development without prejudicing the residential amenities of the neighbouring properties. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 30TH AUGUST 2011

ITEM 7 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/1387

Visual Amenities

The site is considered to be of a sufficient size to accommodate the proposed dwellings and will have a similar density to other dwellings within immediate vicinity.

As stated previously the area is characterised by a mixture of dwellings situated within varying plot sizes, fronting the highway. The proposal will involve the introduction of three dwellings which are situated behind the building line in a similar position to the dwellings situated along Llynfa Road. The levels of the site are relatively flat and the access will be gained via Gowerton Road. There is no prevailing characteristic or dominant house type to suggest a specific architectural response on this site, however the design of the dwellings are considered to complement the suburban character and appearance of the area. Furthermore whilst it is acknowledged that the dwellings are tall in height, they are sited in excess of 35m from the main highway and as such the dwellings will prove neither unacceptably dominant or prominent when viewed from the street-scene and will it is considered fit sensitively into the area. As such the proposal is considered to respect the visual amenities of the area in compliance with Policies EV1, EV2 and EV17 of the Swansea UDP. Materials are proposed to include red brick, however a condition requiring the submission of materials is considered appropriate in order for the Local Planning Authority to maintain control.

Residential Amenity

Turning to residential amenities, 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 will ensure the proposal will not give rise to unacceptable overbearing or overshadowing 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 will be protected. The front windows of the proposed dwellings will create no overlooking issues as they will overlook land already within the public domain. Ground floor overlooking can be overcome by agreeing a suitable level of boundary treatment between the proposed plots via condition. In terms of the rear facing windows, all windows at 1st floor level are approximately 10m from the boundaries of the neighbouring properties which is considered acceptable and satisfies normal standards. In terms of the flank facing windows, the staircase windows are not habitable rooms and as such will not result in a loss of privacy to the proposed dwellings or neighbouring properties. The development will therefore comply with Policies EV1 and EV17 of the Swansea UDP it is considered.

Highways

Having consulted the Head of Transportation and Engineering it is acknowledged that access will be directly from Gowerton Road. Access is proposed in the form of a shared private drive and is indicated to conform with requirements for width, visibility and turning facilities. Each of the new dwellings will have on site parking and all vehicles will be able to enter and leave the site in a forward gear.

There are no highway objections subject to the shared private drive being completed prior to occupation of any dwelling within the site. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 30TH AUGUST 2011

ITEM 7 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/1387

Drainage

In terms of drainage the applicant has indicated that surface water from the existing dwelling can be diverted to a soakaway, thus removing capacity from 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.

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 Llanant 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.

Response to Consultation

Notwithstanding the above 8 individual letters of objection were received and a petition of19 objectors which raised concerns in relation to visual and residential amenity, highway safety, parking, drainage and sewerage, wildlife, policy context, overdevelopment. The issues pertaining to which have been addressed above.

Concern was raised with regard the loss of house prices, the loss of a view and the potential fire risk due to previous fires in the area however these are not material planning considerations and were not therefore taken into consideration during the determination of this application. The hours of work are controlled under separate legislation and as such were not taken into consideration during the determination of this application.

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 and has an acceptable impact upon the residential amenities of the neighbouring properties, highway safety and drainage. Therefore it is considered that the development complies with the principles of Policies EV1, EV2, EV3, EV33, EV34, EV35 and EV17 of the Swansea UDP and approval is recommended. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 30TH AUGUST 2011

ITEM 7 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/1387

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

3 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 dwelling, confirming that it is adequate in size, is not located within 10m of any watercourse/ditch and has 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.

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 interest of sustainability. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 30TH AUGUST 2011

ITEM 7 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/1387

6 Notwithstanding the plans and particulars permitted details of the external finishes for the proposed dwellings shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before development commences and the development shall be completed in accordance with the approved details. Reason: In the interest of visual amenity.

7 No dwelling shall be occupied until the shared driveway serving the development has been completed in accordance with details to be submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interest of highway safety.

8 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.

INFORMATIVES

1 The development plan covering the City and County of Swansea is the City and County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan. The following policies were relevant to the consideration of the application: (Policies EV1, EV2, EV3, EV17, 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.

3 Foul water and surface water discharges shall be drained separately from the site. No surface water shall be allowed to connect, either directly or indirectly, to the public sewerage system unless otherwise approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Land drainage run-off shall not be permitted to discharge, either directly or indirectly, into the public sewerage system. If a connection is required to the public sewerage system, the developer is advised to contact Dwr Cymru Welsh Water's Network Development Consultants on 01443 331155.

PLANS

Design and Access Statement, site plan and block plan, 101 plot 1 floor plans and elevations, 102 plot 2 floor plans and elevations, 103 plot 3 floor plans and elevations, drg no. 100 additional drainage plan received 9th June 2011

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 30TH AUGUST 2011

ITEM 8 APPLICATION NO. 2011/0092 WARD: Gorseinon Area 2

Location: Cross Marble and Stone Ltd Gorseinon Road Gorseinon Swansea SA4 9GE Proposal: Construction of 4.No retail units Applicant: Mr David Jeffreys

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

POLICIES

Policy Policy Description Policy SP6 New retail development outside District Centres will not generally be supported.

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 EC4 All new retail development will be assessed against need and other specific criteria. (City & County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008)

Policy EC8 The development of new retail warehouses will be directed to suitable locations firstly within and then on the edge of existing centres. Where such sites are not available, suitable locations at established retail parks will be considered. (City & County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008)

Policy EC9 Retail development at out of centre locations will be restricted. (City & County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008)

Policy AS1 Accessibility - Criteria for assessing location of new development. (City & County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008)

Policy AS2 Accessibility - Criteria for assessing design and layout of new development. (City & County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008)

Policy AS5 Accessibility - Assessment of pedestrian and cyclist access in new development. (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)

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 30TH AUGUST 2011

ITEM 8 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0092

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)

SITE HISTORY

App No. Proposal LV/88/0648/03 ALTERATION TO FRONT ELEVATION IN CARPORT Decision: *HGPC - GRANT PERMISSION CONDITIONAL Decision Date: 05/01/1989

LV/91/0551/11 CHANGE OF USE TO INCLUDE RETAIL AND FURNITURE CARPETS FURNITURE Decision: *HGPC - GRANT PERMISSION CONDITIONAL Decision Date: 02/01/1992

LV/94/0290/03 RECLADDING OF EXISTING RETAIL SHOP Decision: *HGPCU - GRANT PERMISSION UNCONDITIONAL Decision Date: 22/09/1994

LV/87/0049/01 DEMOLITION OF J B FURS BUILDINGS AND ERECTION OF NEW RETAIL WAREHOUSING Decision: Withdraw Decision Date: 01/01/2001

RESPONSE TO CONSULTATIONS

Application advertised on site and in local press as a development not in accordance with the provisions of the development plan. No response.

Environment Agency Wales – OBJECT to the proposal in the absence of a detailed drainage scheme. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 30TH AUGUST 2011

ITEM 8 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0092

Countryside Council for Wales - NO OBJECTION

Dwr Cymru Welsh Water – NO OBJECTION subject to standard conditions.

Health and Safety Executive – The development location is within the Consultation Distance of the Notified Hazardous Installation of 3M UK Ltd. and Brisco Williams Ltd. However HSE does not advise on safety grounds against the granting of planning permission in this case.

Gorseinon Community Council – No response.

Highway Observations – This proposal is for the demolition of the industrial unit and redevelopment to 4 retail units totalling 1,240 Sq M Gross at J47 Retail Park, which is located at the junction of Hospital Road with Gorseinon Road, Gorseinon.

There are two accesses to the site currently, one on Gorseinon Road, approximately 50m from the mini roundabout junction and another at the roundabout itself. This is the main road from Penllergaer and Junction 47 of the M4 down into Gorseinon and beyond and therefore carries a relatively high volume of traffic. The current retail development on the adjacent site whose access is over 100m away from the mini roundabout does on occasion present difficulties for customers entering and leaving the premises due to the high volumes of traffic. I am concerned that a retail development at this location, with the standard of access indicated will result in a level of additional turning movements that cannot be satisfactorily accommodated without detriment to the safe and free flow of traffic at that location.

I recommend that the application is refused on the grounds that the applicant has failed to demonstrate that the traffic movements and parking demand generated by the development can satisfactorily accommodated without detriment to the safe and free flow of vehicles and pedestrians in the vicinity.

APPRAISAL

The application is reported to committee for determination at the request of Councillor Wendy Fitzgerald to consider the application in light of the adjacent J47 Retail Park.

Full planning permission is sought for the erection of four attached retail units on the site formerly occupied by Cross Marble and Stone Ltd. on the northern side of Gorseinon Road within the Garngoch Industrial Estate. The existing building is located some 550- 600m outside the Gorseinon Shopping Centre within the Gorseinon Road/Garngoch Industrial Estate employment area. The use of the former building is defined as a retail warehouse i.e. a large single storey retail outlet, normally of 10,000 sq.ft (930m²) gross or more, specialising in the sale of bulky household goods (furniture, carpets and electrical goods) and offering free adjacent ground level car parking.

The site lies within an established industrial area which is bisected by the A4240 which is a busy arterial route linking the urban areas of Gorseinon and Penllergaer and leading to Junction 47 of the M4. Neighbouring outlets bordering the site include a parade of three retail outlets including Farm foods, Pound Stretcher and Pets Ahead constructed under planning permission reference (2003/2327 dated 6th May 2004), now known as J47 Retail Park. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 30TH AUGUST 2011

ITEM 8 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0092

Kicks Fitness Centre is immediately east with the 3M complex some 130m further east. D.W.W Fencing and Gowerton Concrete Building Merchants to the north and Bako Wales further to the west.

The previous retail warehouse amounting to some 1275m² of floorspace has already been demolished and the proposal seeks consent for the construction of four smaller attached units amounting to 1263m² of retail floorspace, on roughly the same footprint as the previous building.

The units are identical in design to the three existing neighbourng units, single storey and sub-divided internally creating four separate retail units with the floorspace distributed fairly evenly. Although external finishes are not specified, in order to match the adjoining shops a combination of ‘buff’ colour facing brick and coloured steel cladding to the elevations and a colour coated profiled galvanized steel cladding to the roof would be sought. The front (south) elevation would feature four separate steel-framed entrance canopies with provision above each canopy for high level signage. The overall scale, siting design and external appearance of the proposed building is considered visually acceptable and is considered to relate satisfactorily to the surrounding area.

There are two accesses to the site currently, one on Gorseinon Road, approximately 50m from the mini roundabout junction and another at the roundabout itself. This is the main road from Penllergaer and Junction 47 of the M4 down into Gorseinon and beyond and therefore carries a relatively high volume of traffic. The current retail development on the adjacent site whose access is over 100m away from the mini roundabout does on occasion present difficulties for customers entering and leaving the premises due to the high volumes of traffic. The Head of Transportation and Engineering is concerned that a retail development at this location, with the standard of access indicated will result in a level of additional turning movements that cannot be satisfactorily accommodated without detriment to the safe and free flow of traffic at that location.

The Head of Transportation and Engineering recommends that the application is refused on the grounds that the applicant has failed to demonstrate that the traffic movements and parking demand generated by the development can be satisfactorily accommodated without detriment to the safe and free flow of vehicles and pedestrians in the vicinity.

Further issues to be considered concern the suitability of this site for the proposed retail uses, having regard to prevailing Development Plan Polices. These are directed towards maintaining and strengthening the established shopping structure in the area, and consolidating the convenience goods shopping centre at Gorseinon District Centre, whilst allowing consideration of small scale shopping development where necessary to meet local community needs. Retail developments on established industrial land are generally resisted, with specific exceptions where other development plan objectives are not prejudiced.

One of the Assembly Government’s objectives for retailing and town centres is to promote town, district, local and village centres as the most appropriate locations for retailing. Planning Policy Wales states that when determining an application for retail use Local Planning Authorities should take into account, amongst other things; the need for the development, the sequential approach to site selection and the impact upon existing centres. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 30TH AUGUST 2011

ITEM 8 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0092

The sequential approach means that the first preference should be for town centre locations followed by edge-of-centre, then district and local centres and, then only, out-of- centre sites accessible by a choice of means of transport. The onus of proof that options have been assessed using the sequential approach rests with the developer.

Strategic Policy SP6 of Part 1 of the Swansea Unitary Development Plan states that new retail development that is best located within the City Centre District or Local Centres will not generally be supported at out-of-town centre sites. Additional edge of centre shopping should be restricted to that which would not prejudice established shopping centres. Policies EC4 and EC9 of the Swansea Unitary Development Plan Part 2 presume against the establishment or expansion of retail outlets outside defined shopping centres, thereby supporting the aim of improving and strengthening the role of established centres which is supported by recent National Guidance. The proposal is clearly contrary to Policies EC4 and EC9 as it would result in the introduction of four retail units in an out of centre location which would be best located within a town centre and as such the proposal would not contribute to the aims of either National Guidance or established Development Plan Policy which seek to support and improve existing shopping centres.

The applicant has not attempted to demonstrate a local need for the retail development at this particular location and the application site is located in an industrial estate outside the defined residential settlement limits of Gorseinon and Penllergaer and is likely to cater primarily for car-borne shoppers. Furthermore, in respect of this out-of-centre location, no evidence has been submitted by the applicant to demonstrate that a sequential test for retail development has been applied in this case. Government planning policy guidance recommends that a sequential approach should be followed when considering out-of- centre retail development, to demonstrate that firstly there are no central locations and secondly edge-of-centre sites which are preferable, being more suitable viable and available than the proposed out-of-centre site.

The Town and Country Planning Act (as amended) requires that applications should be determined in accordance with development plan policy unless there are material considerations, which outweigh that policy. The proposed new retail units would provide a visual enhancement to the area and the site has an established use as a retail warehouse. However, it is not considered that this justifies departing from the adopted retail polices aimed at retaining and consolidating the established shopping structure of the area. Moreover to approve the application would establish an undesirable precedent for the consideration of similar applications for retail development, particularly within the Garngoch Industrial Estate which would undermine the vitality, attractiveness and viability of the nearby existing shopping centre. The applicant has been advised that more favourable consideration would be given to the development of the site for a retail warehouse development restricted to the sale of bulky household goods/DIY which would not compete directly with the range of convenience and comparison goods available in the nearby Gorseinon Centre. However, he wished the application to be considered on the basis of unrestricted retail sales. Refusal is recommended therefore on the grounds that the proposal conflicts with established Policies aimed at strengthening the role of the Gorseinon District Shopping Centre.

Notwithstanding all of the above 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). AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 30TH AUGUST 2011

ITEM 8 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0092

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.

Environment Agency Wales has raised concern in relation to the potential impact of this proposal on water quality, and has requested a detailed drainage scheme be submitted prior to the determination of the application. In this particular case, given the overriding planning objections to the scheme detailed above, it has not been considered reasonable to request the submission of a full site drainage plan and full surface water management plan, however, this does not negate the need for such information in the event that planning permission were to be given.

Whilst some drainage information has been submitted, the TLSE has been undertaken and concludes that this is insufficient to enable the Authority to conclude that the development will not have a significant effect on its own or in combination with other developments in the catchment area.

RECOMMENDATION

REFUSE, for the following reasons:

1 The proposed development would result in the establishment of a significant retail development within a primarily industrial area outside of the established Gorseinon District Shopping Centre and would be contrary to strategic policy SP6 and Policies EC4 and EC9 of the Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008 which aim to improve and strengthen the role of this established centre.

2 The approval and formation of this retail development within the Garngoch Industrial Estate would establish an undesirable precedent for the consideration of applications for development of a similar nature, the cumulative effect of which would result in the sporadic development of retail units outside the district shopping centres, for which there is no proven local need and which would undermine the future vitality and attractiveness of those centres contrary to the aims of Policies SP6, EC4 and EC9 of the Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008.

3 The applicant has failed to demonstrate that the traffic movements and parking demand generated by the development can be satisfactorily accommodated without detriment to the safe and free flow of vehicles and pedestrians in the vicinity, contrary to Policies EV1 and AS6 of the Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008.

4 The applicant has failed to provide evidence that the proposal would not on its own or in combination with other developments in the catchment have a significant adverse effect upon the integrity of the Carmarthen Bay and Estuaries European Marine Site (CBEEMS) contrary to Policies EV33, EV34 and EV35 of the Swansea Unitary Development Plan (2008). AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 30TH AUGUST 2011

ITEM 8 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0092

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 SP6, EV1, EV2, EC4, EC8, EC9, AS1, AS2, AS5, AS6, EV33, EV34, EV35 of the Swansea Unitary Development Plan.

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 would be likely to have a significant effect on 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.

PLANS

Drawing No 01 Existing layout, 02 Existing section, front and rear elevations and location plan, 03 Proposed l floor plan and section, 04 Proposed elevations, 05 Site/Block plan, Design and Access Statement : Received 13th April 2011

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 30TH AUGUST 2011

ITEM 9 APPLICATION NO. 2011/0825 WARD: Gower Area 2

Location: Oaklea Llangennith Swansea SA3 1HU Proposal: Two storey rear extension, single storey side extension and glazed link extension. Applicant: Mrs Rachel Searle

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

POLICIES

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

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

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)

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

SITE HISTORY

App No. Proposal 2011/0281 Two storey rear extension with balcony and single storey side extension Decision: Refuse Decision Date: 27/04/2011

97/1498 TWO STOREY REAR EXTENSION, SINGLE STOREY REAR EXTENSION AND ERECTION OF ATTACHED SIDE GARAGE Decision: *HGPC - GRANT PERMISSION CONDITIONAL Decision Date: 12/12/1997

RESPONSE TO CONSULTATIONS

The proposal was advertised by way of press and site notice. TWO LETTERS OF OBJECTION have been received their content is summarised below. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 30TH AUGUST 2011

ITEM 9 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0825

1. It cannot be guaranteed that the foundations of my property are of the standards expected of planning conditions today, and I am concerned that any development which would impinge upon the structure of my house would be potentially hazardous. 2. Having viewed the plans, it is obvious that the proposal is to directly link part of the development to the pine end of my house. I am very concerned with this, not just because of the potential structural problems which may arise as a result of this (as outlined in point 1 above), but also that my property would become a mid-terrace and no longer be a semi-detached house. This also gives rise to concerns of damp. This will inevitably also have an effect upon the value of my home. 3. The plans are incorrect and the measurements differ between plan Nos. 08 and 011 4. The plans also show, on the floor plan of their property, a shed which will be converted into the single storey extension. This, would be increased in height at the front elevation and visible from the street view in the conservation area. 5. The double-storey proposal would also directly affect the light and view I currently have and enjoy at the rear of my house. I have a partial sea view (which was a selling point for me when I bought it and would be a selling point should I wish to do so at some time in the future – see attached simulation and photographs). This extension would remove that view from me and would result in a large part of my garden losing direct sunlight and be in permanently shadow of this proposed wall - as shown by the simulation photographs enclosed. 6. The proposed changes to the proposal moving the proposed wall off the boundary would still cause severe loss of light in my kitchen. I have a single small window and partially glazed door which would no longer receive direct sunlight. These are the only windows on the ground floor of this projection of the house (see photographs enclosed). This area of the house is used constantly by all members of my family, to sit in, prepare food, etc. to have this two storey wall in front of us would be overbearing and dismal. 7. I have also observed that the proposed plans show that the footprint of the two-storey extension appears to be virtually as large as the existing house. 8. The position of the balcony would result in a loss of privacy for the only section of my remaining garden in which I could enjoy direct sunlight. 9. Precedence to refuse a balcony in these circumstances has already been refused to a property in the immediate vicinity for the same reasons of privacy? 10. It is also easy to see, from the plans, that an alternative is available to my neighbour. The extension could be proposed to occupy the other side of their garden, which abuts a lane. I can only assume that they have chosen not to use this area because they would not be able to make best advantage of the available sunlight, something that will no longer exist for me and my family. 11. The property subject to the application; “Oaklea,” is a detached cottage originating from circa 1780. My home was once the “Welcome to Town” public house and formerly the home of the Gower folk singer Phil Tanner. So my home has social history within the area and it is especially upsetting to think this historical area should be compromised in this way. 12. The design is more in keeping with an urban or city environment and not at all in keeping with a small village in an area of outstanding beauty. 13. There is a lack of sympathy for the buildings in the area the designs do not add to or enhance the existing cottage or respect the rest of the properties within the community and conservation area. The proposals are discordant and out of character with the village , Gower AONB and conservation area. 14. The plans also show, on the floor plan of their property, a shed which will be converted into the single storey extension. This, would be increased in height at the front elevation and visible from the street view in the conservation area. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 30TH AUGUST 2011

ITEM 9 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0825

Llangennith, Llanmadoc and Cheriton Community Council – No Objection

Highways & Transport - Two parking spaces can be accommodated within the site which is sufficient for the size of dwelling. I recommend no highway objection.

APPRAISAL

This application is reported to Committee for decision at the request of Councillor Richard Lewis in order to assess the impact of the scale of the extension on the neighbour.

Full planning permission is sought for the construction of a two storey rear extension with balcony, a single storey side extension and glazed link at Oaklea Cottage, Llangennith. The application site is bounded to the north by the dwelling known as ‘The Welcome’, to the south by an access track serving fields to the rear. On the opposite side of the track is No.1 Wellpark, with Oak Cottage abutting the application site to the rear.

The application site forms part of a group of dwellings that were constructed from the late 18th Century and to the south of the application site separated by an agricultural access track are a row of dwellings forming the part of the street known as Wellpark. Wellpark comprises a run of 5 No. dwellings of basic design and little architectural merit. The application dwelling lies in a relatively large plot within the Llangennith Conservation Area and Gower AONB where Development Plan Policy and National Guidance requires a high standard of design that conserves or enhances the character and appearance of these areas irrespective of how prominent a proposed form of development may be. The property also lies opposite St Cennydd’s Church, a Grade II Listed Building, dating from the 12th Century. However, the siting of the extension largely at the rear means that the setting of the Listed Building would not be adversely affected.

The application site currently comprises a cottage of traditional design which has remained largely unaltered with the exception of a lean to rear extension and an increase in window size to the front elevation. The application site received the grant of planning permission on 12th December 1997 Ref: 97/1498, for a two storey rear extension of a traditional design that allowed for a rearward projection of approximately 4.0 metres at eaves height and 6.5 metres at the ridge.

The proposed side extension would have a front wall approximately 2.0m in width that would abut the application property and the neighbouring dwelling known as ‘The Welcome’. To the rear of this wall the proposed side extension would run in a rearward direction for a distance of approximately 5.5 metres to form a utility room. The side extension would be approximately 1.3 metres wide at its narrowest point widening to the rear to approximately 2.4 metres in width and would be approximately 0.7 metres off the pine end off ‘The Welcome’ at its closest point. This part of the proposed scheme would incorporate a flat roof with a height of approximately 2.7 meters.

The two storey rear addition would have a maximum height of approximately 5.5 metres. A glazed link with a rearward projection of approximately 1.0 metres will run from the eaves backwards towards the proposed accommodation. The glazed link will be located fairly centrally in the rear elevation of the host building and would be stepped in from both side elevations by approximately 3.6 metres. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 30TH AUGUST 2011

ITEM 9 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0825

The proposed two storey living accommodation would have a footprint of approximately 37.5 square metres and would have a low solid to void ratio on the south and east facing elevations with the north east facing elevation comprising a solid wall of 4.5 metres in height and approximately 8.0 metres in length constructed approximately 3.2 metres off the common boundary with the adjoining property.

At first floor level the proposed extension would have a wrap around balcony located on the south east corner which would be set back from the end of the wall by approximately 1.6 metres. The rear elevation would have four sets of French doors, two located at ground floor level and two located at first floor level, with a similar arrangement to the side elevation.

The scheme currently before the Local Planning Authority is submitted in attempt to overcome the reasons for refusal issued in respect of Ref:2011/0281 determined by the Area 2 Development Control Committee on 19th April 2011.

In terms of the impact upon visual amenity, the proposed contemporary two storey rear extension will be separated from the main dwelling by virtue of the glazed link. The contemporary design of the rear block and the glazed link serve to break up the overall massing such that the building is considered proportionate in scale with the host dwelling, the plot and the wider area. The design concept sees a limited number of north facing windows, with the main expanse of glazing orientated south and east into the garden serving to maximise solar gain.

The principle differences from the scheme previously refused consent are that the north east facing wall has been significantly reduced in scale and moved approximately 1.8 metres further off the common boundary with ‘The Welcome’. This reduction in the size and scale of the predominantly masonry elevation serves to significantly reduce the bulk and massing of the development achieving a more sympathetic design outcome. The high-level windows set on the north facing elevation serve to provide some additional natural light but also serve to further break up the overall height of this elevation whilst achieving the required height to accommodate the fall of the roof. In visual amenity terms it is considered that the revised scheme, constructed in high quality materials would makes a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.

The link abutting the traditional host dwelling maintains the existing eaves level which is considered to be an acceptable design solution and as such is considered to respect the character of the existing dwelling which is of a traditional two-storey appearance. In terms of the detail, windows and doors are proposed to be of timber construction with the roof being finished to standing seam zinc. There are no details provided in respect of the front wall serving the side extension and it is recommended that should consent be granted that a condition is placed requiring detailed information be provided prior to commencement of development. The remaining proposed materials match the existing with render walls. Overall it is considered that the traditional character of the extant dwelling is preserved and when considered with the contemporary extension and the range of property types within the Conservation Area the proposal would not give rise to any adverse visual impacts.

The contemporary extension will be partially visible from the positions on the highway fronting the property and will be viewed in conjunction with the gable end of the host dwelling. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 30TH AUGUST 2011

ITEM 9 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0825

It is considered that these partial views of the traditional and contemporary elements may serve to create a point of interest, thereby enhancing this part of the Conservation Area, without detracting or diminishing the outlook from the Listed Building opposite. The design and form of the contemporary element reflects modern living, namely space and light in a form that is sensitive to the Conservation Area character. As such the proposal is considered to be respectful of Policies EV1, HC7, EV9, and EV26 of the City and County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan.

Turning to impact upon residential amenity, given the siting and location of the property and the change in levels in respect of its neighbours it is considered that the reduction of the area and movement off the common boundary of the proposed wall forming the north elevation of the proposed rear extension would no longer give rise to the same degree of impact that would have arisen from the previous proposal. Whilst it is acknowledged that there may be a degree of overshadowing in respect of the rear amenity area located directly outside the kitchen of ‘The Welcome’ this would be, given the separation distances and change in levels, fairly limited in area and not of sufficient harm to warrant a recommendation of refusal on this basis alone.

The proposed high level windows on top of the north facing elevation would be located a minimum of 1.8 metres above the internal floor level and as such it is not considered that they would of themselves give rise to any increase in overlooking in respect of the rear amenity area associated with ‘The Welcome’. The proposed first floor rear facing windows and balcony are orientated toward the rear of the plot and given the separation distances involved, the presence of an out building serving ‘ The Welcome’ at an elevated position and the fact that the balcony has been stepped off the north facing elevation by approximately 1.6 metres it is not considered that any increase in overlooking that may arise in respect of the private amenity of ‘The Welcome’ would be at distance and oblique in nature and as such on balance acceptable.

The balcony and first floor windows located on the south facing elevation would be orientated toward No.1 Wellpark however in addition to the balcony being located approximately 3.5 metres off the southern boundary, the application site and No.1 Wellpark are separated by an agricultural access track of approximately 6.0 metres in width with significant boundary treatment to either side. It is not therefore considered that the proposed scheme would give rise to an unacceptable increase in overlooking of No.1 Wellpark.

The property to the rear is, similarly, not harmfully impacted in terms of overlooking by virtue of the significant separation distance.

In respect of the concerns raised by third parties those that are considered to be material planning considerations have been considered in the main body of the report above. Should the proposal receive the grant of planning permission it is recommended that an informative be placed in respect of the Party Wall Act. In respect of loss of view the determination of the proposal has had regard to Planning Policy Wales, which states that the planning system operates in the public interest, and the findings of courts are that whilst the preservation of a public view may be an important material consideration, the protection of a private one seldom is. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 30TH AUGUST 2011

ITEM 9 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0825

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

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 Details of the external finish of the single storey side extension 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 Details of the colour and finish of the raised zinc roof shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing before the development is commenced. The scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details. Reason: In the interests of visual amenity.

INFORMATIVES

1 The development plan covering the City and County of Swansea is the City and County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan. The following policies were relevant to the consideration of the application: EV1, HC7, EV9, EV26.

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). AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 30TH AUGUST 2011

ITEM 9 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0825

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

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

5 PARTY WALL ETC ACT 1996 The developer is advised that the provisions of the Party Wall etc. Act 1996 may be applicable to the proposal and is advised to seek appropriate advice prior to any work commencing on site.

PLANS

Site location plan, existing block plan, existing ground floor plan, existing first floor plan, existing roof plan, existing elevations, proposed floor plans, 3D visualisation, proposed block plan, proposed elevations received 23rd June 2011

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 30TH AUGUST 2011

ITEM 10 APPLICATION NO. 2011/0243 WARD: Pennard Area 2

Location: 21 East Cliff Pennard Swansea SA3 2AS Proposal: Conversion of existing garage to living accommodation (variation of condition 1 of planning permission 2005/0146 granted on 19th July 2005), increase in height of front gable with timber cladding and two storey rear extension to existing garage, part single storey part two storey glazed link extension between house and garage, raised decked areas to front elevation, new chimney and single storey side extension with balcony to main dwelling Applicant: Mr & Mrs Ian and Catrin Pearce

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

POLICIES

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

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

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

SITE HISTORY

App No. Proposal A00/0835 Erection of a detached dwelling house with garage Decision: Appeal Dismissed Decision Date: 08/02/2001

90/0532/01 ERECT A BUNGALOW Decision: *HRP - REFUSE PERMISSION Decision Date: 31/07/1990

2005/0146 Retention of dormer bungalow and detached garage (amendment to planning permission 2002/1382 granted on 1st November 2002, and 2003/0275, granted 11th April, 2003). Decision: Grant Permission Conditional Decision Date: 19/07/2005 AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 30TH AUGUST 2011

ITEM 10 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0243

2003/0944 Construction of a detached ancillary building to be used as bed and breakfast accommodation with ancillary use of room in existing dwelling for breakfast purposes. Decision: Appeal Dismissed Decision Date: 06/01/2004

2002/1382 Demolition and reconstruction of one dormer bungalow and detached garage Decision: Grant Permission Conditional Decision Date: 01/11/2002

2003/0275 Construction of detached garage (Amendment to planning permission 2002/1382 granted on 1st November 2002) Decision: Grant Permission Conditional Decision Date: 11/04/2003

RESPONSE TO CONSULTATIONS

ORIGINAL PROPOSAL – The application was advertised on site and neighbours were consulted:-

4 LETTERS OF OBJECTION have been received, the comments of which are outlined below:

1. The property is the most prominent on this cliff road due to its location and low boundary wall, clearly visible from quite a distance. This dominant location means that it is imperative that any development approved is appropriate for this rural location, because it sets a clear and very visible standard for future developments on this narrow cliff road.

2. The current application is the fifth for the site in less than 10 years. The original application was for the demolition and re-construction of one dormer bungalow and garage. The definition of a garage is a crucial factor. If a garage is ‘a building for storing or repair of vehicles, esp. cars’ then why should it include accommodation? If a building includes accommodation then surely that building is no longer a garage but a dwelling? The building erected on site following the last application was very thinly disguised as a garage by incorporating a garage door into the structure. The current application removes any pretence of this additional structure being a garage.

3. This massive development is wholly inappropriate for an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and should not be approved. The application is detrimental to the overall character of the immediate vicinity and is out of proportion to neighbouring properties in the lane and on Eastcliff. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 30TH AUGUST 2011

ITEM 10 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0243

4. A neighbouring property had a year or so earlier been refused permission to extend their property with a garage next to the house with the first floor of the property extending above the garage to gain living accommodation. It was refused as it was considered to have a too imposing frontage and a compromise had to be made with a garage set back from the front of the neighbour’s house with no living accommodation above. It seemed at the time of granting the 2005 application for a large imposing house and garage was most incorrect given that the neighbour’s was much less imposing and had been refused.

5. A pergola in the garden and raise decking areas would even further take away from the present rural aspect of the neighbourhood.

6. The plan for East Cliff is that all further development should be strongly resisted. The application amounts to a request to put two dwellings on a plot that previously only had one dwelling. This constitutes considerable further development.

Pennard Community Council – The proposed development contravenes EV17 which resists further development along East Cliff.

The proposed development contravenes the original application conditions which stated that the garage was not to be used for domestic purposes.

The visual impact of the proposed development will be such that it will be easily visible from Oxwich Point. This is worsened by the fact that the house is located on a corner plot nearer the cliffs than many of the houses on the road.

The proposed development constitutes over development of the plot and a major increase in the footprint of the building. This house replaced what was a small cottage and was in itself a development with a major impact. This will have a further detrimental impact.

The design will be out of keeping with the other buildings on the cliff.

There was supposed to be screening around the building but this has proved to be ineffective.

Gower Society – The Gower Society has inspected the above application, visited the site and has the following observations to make:

1. The site is in a prominent and conspicuous location in the AONB and is highly visible from the coastal path. 2. This house is already intrusive into the landscape; any further development will compound this, as well as having an overbearing impact on neighbouring properties. 3. We were extremely unhappy with the construction of the original garage (2005/0146) and what we suspected to be its actual purpose. 4. This development on this property fails miserably to satisfy the Draft Design Guide; it is unsympathetic to its location, to the AONB and to its neighbours. 5. To allow this further development would be detrimental to the AONB and locality.

2 LETTERS OF SUPPORT have been received, the comments of which are outlined below: AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 30TH AUGUST 2011

ITEM 10 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0243

1. The proposed development is considered to add character to the existing buildings and also enhances the view of the property from the Cliffs.

2. The reason for the application is because of the weather conditions which prevail in the area.

3. The proposal to increase the roofline of the garage is a necessary consequence of linking the garage with the house. The combined roof level will still not be any greater than its neighbouring property to the north. In addition, it is considered that the use of glass is an imaginative and attractive solution to the problem.

4. It is not considered that the proposed development amounts to ‘intensification’ as stated in Policy EV17.

Highway Observations - Adequate room for parking will remain within the site. I recommend no highway objection subject to the proposed annexe remaining an integral part of the main property in perpetuity and not being let or sold as a separate unit of accommodation.

AMENDED PROPOSAL –

3 LETTERS OF OBJECTION have been received, the comments of which are outlined below:

1. The changes to the application plans appear to make this building more rather than less intrusive and out of keeping with the rest of East Cliff.

2. In an area in which the plan says ‘Further development is to be strongly resisted’ essentially the application asks to convert a single dwelling into two dwellings, this, therefore, cannot be construed as anything other than further development. The reason the plan does not allow further development on East Cliff is a good one as this is an area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. There is a Site of Specific Interest within a few yards.

3. The application site is particularly prominent and can be seen quite clearly from , several miles away. It is considered that if approved it will set a very clear and visible standard for future development of this narrow cliff road.

4. There are a number of applications and retrospective applications for this site which covers a period of less than 10 years. There is a strong case to argue that this site has already been developed excessively in a short space of time. It is imperative that the amended application is viewed as part of the total development on this plot during the last few years. It is urged that the current application is compared against the aerial view of the site (which formed part of application 2005.1046) and it is considered whether ‘The proposed dwelling, by virtue of its location, prominent siting, excessive scale and design would appear as a dominant and incongruous feature within this part of East Cliff, detrimental to the character and natural beauty of the Gower AONB at this sensitive location contrary to Policies EV1, EV22, EV17 and EV26 of the Unitary Development Plan.’ AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 30TH AUGUST 2011

ITEM 10 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0243

5. The current application is presenting you with an ‘existing property’ which is not a valid starting point, because 2 of the conditions attached to the previous application (2005/0146) were not adhered to: Condition 1 of the approval stating that ‘The garage shall be retained for the parking of vehicles and for purposes incidental to the use of the dwelling and hall not be used or converted to domestic living accommodation, unless prior consent of the Local Planning Authority has been obtained’. This has clearly already been breached since the house was marketed in the press in 2008 as ‘a detached family residence benefitting from a separate guest/granny annex’. Condition 4 of the approval stated that ‘The existing trees and hedgerow along the South East and West boundaries shall be retained and maintained as a screen boundary’. The photos included with the current application clearly show there is no screen of trees or hedgerow on the west boundary. In fact, since the last development, 21 East Cliff is visible from as far away as Penmaen.

6. The present property is still not in line with the planning permission which was granted previously in that it will still be an enormous mansion on an elevated position in a rural location.

7. The newly increased width of the property, associated with the amendment, will now stretch from one side of the land to the other – the full width, apart from the hedge next to the road.

8. Having the two storey connector from the ‘garage’ to the main house makes the property look particularly imposing – the fact that it is in glass is not considered to make a difference.

9. It is considered that the width of the single storey extension, next to the road, should be disallowed.

Pennard Community Council –

1. Initial planning permission prior to 15.02.2011 had precluded the use of the garage as living accommodation – this seems to be ignoring this condition. 2. Overdevelopment of the site and this seems to exceed the permitted development allowances in square meterage. 3. Visually this will become a visually intrusive package from all aspects within this area.

Gower Society – The previous comments still apply.

14 LETTERS OF SUPPORT have been received, the comments of which are outlined below:

1. The reason for the application is because of the weather conditions which often prevail in the area.

2. The proposal to increase the roofline of the garage is a necessary consequence of linking the garage with the house. The combined roof level will still not be any greater than its neighbouring property to the north. In addition, it is considered that the use of glass is an imaginative and attractive solution to the problem.

3. It is not considered that the proposed development amounts to ‘intensification’ as stated in Policy EV17. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 30TH AUGUST 2011

ITEM 10 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0243

4. It is considered that the appearance of the property would be enhanced, giving the appearance of one coherent property rather than the two separate buildings at present.

5. The proposed works would provide an economic boost for many local tradesmen and suppliers during these times of austerity.

6. It is considered that great consideration has been given to the designs and materials used to ensure the final project will enhance the building and the area in which it is located within.

7. It is considered that none of the adjacent or nearby neighbouring properties would be affected by the relatively minor works proposed.

8. It is considered that the new plans would only serve to enhance the appearance of the house and the visual impression on the cliff.

9. It is strongly considered that our generation be allowed to leave its mark with new materials and new construction methods that this application is intending to use.

Highway observations – No additional comments to make.

APPRAISAL

This application is reported to Committee for decision at the request of Councillor Margaret Smith to consider the planning history of the site and the impact of the proposal on this sensitive location.

The application seeks planning permission for the conversion of the existing garage to living accommodation, increase in height of front gable with timber cladding and two storey rear extension to existing garage, part single storey part two storey glazed link extension between house and garage, raised decked areas to front elevation, new chimney and single storey side extension with balcony to main dwelling. The application site is located along East Cliff which is the road running parallel to the coastline at Pennard.

An application for the demolition and reconstruction of one dormer bungalow and detached garage was approved in November 2002. Following this an amendment to this application was approved (2003/0275), which related to alterations to the garage approved under the previous application. Subsequently an appeal was dismissed in respect of the construction of a detached ancillary building to be used as bed and breakfast accommodation with ancillary use of room in existing dwelling for breakfast purposes. The last application (2005/0146) for the site related to amendments to the 2002/1382 application for the retention of dormer bungalow and detached garage. This consent was approved with conditions, one of which related to the restriction of the garage use to be retained for the parking of vehicles and for purposes incidental to the use of the dwelling and not be used as or converted to domestic living accommodation. Part of this current application seeks to vary this condition. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 30TH AUGUST 2011

ITEM 10 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0243

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 the impact on the residential amenity of the occupiers of the neighbouring properties having regard to Policies EV1, HC7 and EV26 of the Unitary Development Plan and the Design Guide for Householder Development. There are in this case considered to be no additional overriding issues for consideration having regard to the provisions of the Human Rights Act.

The application has been amended due to concerns raised by officers primarily in relation to the domestic appearance of the building, the height of the building with glazed link and the balcony attached to the front of the garage structure. Concern was also raised with regard to the front pergola. The main changes to the current application include the reduction in height of the garage building and glazed link, changes to the appearance of the garage and removal of the front balcony and pergola. A single storey side extension with balcony above is also now proposed to be erected to the south of the dwelling; this was not, however, as a result of recommendations made by officers.

The alterations to the garage structure are considered to be in keeping with the host dwelling and the surrounding area. The structure will still be set down from the main ridgeline of the dwelling and as such will be considered to be seen as a subordinate extension of the main dwelling. The two storey rear extension to the garage is not considered to have a significant detrimental impact given that it will face towards Bosco Lane. The front elevation is considered to be the most prominent elevation with views possible from along the western element of Eastcliff. In terms of the use of timber cladding to the garage structure, this is also considered to be acceptable, being in keeping with the rural nature of the surrounding area. The increase in height of the front gable is also not considered to raise concern given that the proposed alterations are sympathetically designed and are considered to blend in with the character of the host dwelling. The use of timber cladding to the lower half of the garage structure ensures that the building incorporates a utilitarian appearance rather than a domestic appearance. The glazed link is considered to be a sympathetic solution in terms of providing a link between the host dwelling and the garage structure whilst maintaining the dominance of the main dwelling. The raised deck area is low lying and as such whilst located to the front of the dwelling is not considered to have an unacceptable visual impact. Similarly, the chimney is not considered to have an unacceptable impact given its minimal height and sympathetic materials utilised. As such the alterations considered above are not considered to have a detrimental visual impact on the Gower AONB.

In terms of the extension to the side of the existing dwelling, this is considered to be acceptable given its modest scale.

With regard to the use of materials, whilst a large proportion of the garage structure is now proposed to be clad in timber this is not considered to raise significant concern given that this form of material is considered to blend in with the surrounding rural environment.

The location of the proposals are considered to ensure that there will be no undue overbearance or overshadowing, with no neighbouring properties being located within close proximity of the host property. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 30TH AUGUST 2011

ITEM 10 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0243

In terms of overlooking, there is considered to be no detrimental viewing from the north facing side of the extension with the rooflight within this elevation being located at relatively high levels and the large element of glazing within this side serving the games room being indicated on the plans as being glazed with obscure glass. An appropriate condition will be attached ensuring this obscure glazing is fitted. In terms of the viewing from the balcony area to the south side of the existing dwelling, there are no properties within immediate distance of this balcony area and as such there is not considered to be detrimental viewing from this viewing platform.

The Head of Transportation and Engineering Services has stated that adequate room for parking will remain within the site. Therefore, there is no highway objection subject to the proposed annexe remaining an integral part of the main property in perpetuity and not being let or sold as a separate unit of accommodation.

With regard to the concerns raised in relation to visual impact and impact on residential amenities, these have been covered within the context of the report and do not require further consideration in this instance. Whilst it is considered that the site is located within a prominent position it is also considered that given the sympathetic scale and design of the proposal, it will not have an adverse impact on the character and appearance of the surrounding area. Similarly in terms of the creation of a precedent, given the proposal is sympathetically designed it is not considered to create a detrimental precedent. Whilst accommodation is proposed to be incorporated into the garage structure and this does result in a variation of a previous condition attached to the 2005/0146 application, it is not considered to have adverse implications given that the accommodation is to be used in conjunction with the dwelling house. Therefore whilst the garage use may not be the primary use for this element of the property it is not considered that this is necessarily a negative aspect of the proposals.

Whilst the concerns about a neighbour’s proposal is noted, this is not considered to set a precedent as it has a different context to the current proposal. With regard to the concerns raised in relation to the pergola and the raised decked area, the pergola has been removed from the scheme and the raised decked area is not considered to raise concerns given that it is located at a low level. With regard to Policy EV17 of the Unitary Development Plan, this is considered to relate to proposals for new residential development rather than householder development and as such is not considered relevant in this instance. In terms of overdevelopment of the site, the plot in question is considered able to adequately accommodate a development of this size. The width of the dwelling in conjunction with the proposed extensions is not considered to be visually unacceptable. The use of glass in the glazed link is considered to be complimentary rather obtrusive given its transparent nature.

In conclusion, therefore, the proposals are considered to be appropriate forms of development that would not have any significant adverse visual impact upon the character and appearance of the host dwelling or the streetscene or impact upon the residential amenities of neighbouring occupiers, and, therefore, complies with Policies EV1, EV26 and HC7 of the City and County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan and the Design Guide for Householder Development. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 30TH AUGUST 2011

ITEM 10 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0243

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 The windows serving the games room in the north-facing side elevation, as indicated on Plan No: 1018/S202A 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.

3 The extended garage building 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 and/or independent unit on the site.

INFORMATIVES

1 The development plan covering the City and County of Swansea is the City and County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan. The following policies were relevant to the consideration of the application: (Policies EV1, EV26 and HC7 of the Unitary Development Plan)

2 Bats may be present in this building. 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).

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 30TH AUGUST 2011

ITEM 10 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0243

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

Site location plan, 1018/E001B existing site plan, 1018/E100A existing ground floor plan, 1018/E101 existing first floor plan, 1018/E102 existing roof plan, 1018/E200 existing front elevation, 1018/E201 existing rear elevation, 1018/E202A existing garage side elevations, 1018/E203 existing side elevation, 1018/E300 existing section A, 1018/D01 demolition site plan received 16th February 2011. Amended 1018/S001A proposed site plan, 1018/S102A proposed roof plan, 1018/S100A proposed ground floor plan, 1018/S101A proposed first floor plan, 1018/S200A proposed west elevation, 1018/S201A proposed entrance elevation, 1018/S202A proposed side (north) elevation, 1018/S300A proposed section AA, 1018/S301A proposed section BB, 1018/S302A proposed section CC received 14th June 2011. Additional 1018/S250A Coastline study, 1018/S251A Front entrance study received 14th June 2011. Additional 1018/S203 proposed south elevation received 25th July 2011.

Item No. 5

Report of the Head of Economic Regeneration & Planning

To The Area 2 Development Control Committee

30th August 2011

Provisional Tree Preservation Order No. 555

To consider the confirmation, as a full Order, of the provisional Tree Preservation Order for 26 Rhyd Yr Helyg, Sketty, Swansea.

Recommendation: That the Tree Preservation Order (as amended) for 26 Rhyd Yr Helyg, Sketty, Swansea, be confirmed.

For Decision

1.0 Introduction

1.1 The provisional Order was served on February 1st 2011.

2.0 Objections and Representations

2.1 No objections were received but an adjacent neighbour expressed concern as to the health of one of the trees, namely the Horse Chestnut, indicated as T1 within the Provisional Order and Schedule, that it may have disease and requested a tree specialist to look at it to ensure it is safe/worth saving.

3.0 Appraisal

3.1 The two trees included within the Order are T 1 Horse Chestnut and T2 Oak and are located close to the proposed access point, within the front garden of the property known as 26 Rhyd Yr Helyg, Sketty, Swansea.

3.2 A new second access within the front boundary has been constructed and any future work to form an internal driveway is likely to have implications to the trees and to protect them, a Provisional Tree Preservation Order was placed, which would require that any subsequent work is carried out with the consent of the Council.

3.3 Following neighbours concerns regarding the health/condition of the Horse Chestnut, a further inspection was carried out by the Council’s Assistant Manager, Tree Services Unit, who confirmed that the tree was affected with Phytophthora, (a microscopic fungal disease), which may cause the tree to go into rapid decline, and advised that due to its condition, the tree be removed from the Order.

3.4 It is therefore considered that the Horse Chestnut tree (T1), be removed from the Order to reflect the above and that the amended Order in respect of the protection to the Oak (indicated as T2 in the Order) should be confirmed.

4.0 Recommendation

4.1 It is recommended that the Tree Preservation Order for 26 Rhyd Yr Helyg, Sketty, Swansea, be confirmed, with the amendments as shown on the plan and schedule to the Order.

FOR DECISION

ITEM 6 Electoral Division:

All in Area 2

Report of the Head of Economic Regeneration & Planning

Area 2 Planning Committee

Tuesday 30th August 2011

Appeals Information Report

1. This report provides Members with information on Planning Appeals as they relate to wards within the Area 2 Planning Committee.

BACKGROUND PAPERS: Local Government Act 1972, as amended by the Local Authorities (Access to Information) Act, 1985.

None.

Contact Officer: Ian Davies Extension No: 5720 Date of Production: 18.08.11 Document Name: Appeal Progress Report – A2

Appeals Received Report

Appeals Received Between 01-Apr-2011 And 30-Jun-2011

Reference P.I. Ref Area Ward Location Development ENF11/0011 C11/2154439 Area 2 Cockett 44 New Road Cockett The erection of decking in the Swansea SA2 0GA front garden

2011/0141 A11/2155248 Area 2 Sketty 1 Hendrefoilan Avenue Single storey side extension Sketty with accommodation in roof Swansea space and front dormer SA2 7LY

2011/0421 A11/2155567 Area 2 Pennard Land between 22 & 24 Detached dwelling (amendment Eastcliff Pennard Swansea to planning permission SA3 2AS 2009/1501granted on 10th August 2010)

2010/1695 A11/2154280 Area 2 Newton 52 Caswell Road Caswell Detached dwelling with garage Swansea (outline)

2010/0149 A11/2154783 Area 2 Penclawdd Land at Y Berllan, New Detached dormer bungalow and Road, Llanmorlais, detached garage Swansea, SA4 3RY

2011/0109 A11/2153218 Area 2 Penllergaer 93 Elm Crescent, Two storey side extension and Penllergaer, Swansea, SA4 rear conservatory 9ZS

2011/0060 H11/2153177 Area 2 Oystermouth Clifton House 101A Newton Retention of one non illuminated Road Mumbles Swansea high level sign SA3 4BN

2011/0166 A11/2153072 Area 2 Mayals Land adjacent to 7 Brynau Detached dwelling (outline) Drive Mayals Swansea SA3 5EE

2011/0061 A11/2152828 Area 2 Cockett 12 Martell Street Rear conservatory Fforestfach Swansea SA5 8HX

2011/0112 A11/2152833 Area 2 Gower Land adjacent to Long Retention of use of land as Meadow, Kennexstone, residential curtilage, detached Llangennith, Swansea, SA3 outbuilding and patio area 1HS

2010/1561 A11/2151184 Area 2 Newton 6 Bryncerdin Road Side and rear dormers Newton Swansea SA3 4UB

2010/0694 A11/2151068 Area 2 Gower Land to the rear of Cherry New detached dwelling Tree Cottage, , Swansea SA3 1NN

2010/1109 A11/2151339 Area 2 Mayals Land adjacent to 7 Brynau Detached dwelling (outline) Drive (Plot A) Mayals Swansea SA3 5EE

Total Received : 13

2 APPEAL DECISIONS RECEIVED 1ST APRIL 2011 – 30TH JUNE 2011

1.

REFERENCE : 2009/1232 & 2009/1523 WARD : Lower Loughor

LOCATION : 47 Castle Street, Loughor

DEVELOPMENT :

(i) Construction of 4 no. detached dwellings and new access (ii) Demolition of existing dwelling, garage and boundary wall (application for Conservation Area Consent)

DECISION LEVEL: Committee RECOMMENDATION: Approve

LPA DECISION: Refuse APPEAL DECISION: Dismissed

------

2.

REFERENCE : 2010/0480 WARD : Cockett

LOCATION : Land at rear of 300 Swansea Road Waunarlwydd.

DEVELOPMENT : Detached dwelling with two detached garages

DECISION LEVEL : Delegated RECOMMENDATION : Refuse

LPA DECISION : Refuse APPEAL DECISION : Dismissed

------

3.

REFERENCE : 2010/1135 WARD : Cockett

LOCATION : Land at rear of 28-30 Brithwen Road, Waunarlwydd

DEVELOPMENT : Detached bungalow and detached garage (outline)

DECISION LEVEL : Delegated RECOMMENDATION : Refuse

LPA DECISION : Refuse APPEAL DECISION : Dismissed

------

3 4.

REFERENCE : 2010/1176 WARD : Oystermouth

LOCATION : 44 Overland Road, Mumbles

DEVELOPMENT : Front raised deck area

DECISION LEVEL: Delegated RECOMMENDATION: Refuse

LPA DECISION: Refuse APPEAL DECISION: Allowed

------5.

REFERENCE : 2010/1333 WARD : Sketty

LOCATION : 49 Cherry Grove, Sketty

DEVELOPMENT : Retention and completion of rear terraced area

DECISION LEVEL : Delegated RECOMMENDATION : Refuse

LPA DECISION : Refuse APPEAL DECISION : Dismissed

------6.

REFERENCE : 2010/1517 WARD : Cockett

LOCATION : 992 Carmarthen Road Fforestfach

DEVELOPMENT : Retention of increased ridge height and alterations to rear dormer

DECISION LEVEL : Committee RECOMMENDATION : Refuse

LPA DECISION : Refuse APPEAL DECISION : DIsmissed ------

4 7.

REFERENCE : 2010/1561 WARD : Newton

LOCATION : 6 Bryncerdin Road, Newton

DEVELOPMENT : Side and rear dormers

DECISION LEVEL : Delegated RECOMMENDATION : Refuse

LPA DECISION : Refuse APPEAL DECISION : Dismissed

------8.

REFERENCE : 2010/1633 WARD : Lower Loughor

LOCATION : 1 Castle Street, Loughor

DEVELOPMENT :

Retention of one internally illuminated double sided freestanding display unit

DECISION LEVEL : Delegated RECOMMENDATION : Refuse

LPA DECISION : Refuse APPEAL DECISION : Dismissed ------9.

REFERENCE : 2010/1750 WARD : Penllergaer

LOCATION : Lidl Gorseinon Road Penllegaer

DEVELOPMENT : One non illuminated freestanding hoarding sign

DECISION LEVEL : Delegated RECOMMENDATION : Refuse

LPA DECISION : Refuse APPEAL DECISION : Allowed ------

5 10.

REFERENCE : 2010/1862 WARD : Sketty

LOCATION :

Land to the rear of No's 31-35 Glynderwen Crescent Sketty

DEVELOPMENT :

Construction of seven dwellings (comprising of five detached dwellings and one pair of semi-detached dwellings) with associated landscaping, car parking and access works

DECISION LEVEL : Delegated RECOMMENDATION : Refuse

LPA DECISION : Refuse APPEAL DECISION : Dismissed ------10.

REFERENCE : 2010/1862 WARD : Sketty

LOCATION : Land to the rear of No's 31-35 Glynderwen Crescent, Sketty

DEVELOPMENT :

Construction of seven dwellings (comprising of five detached dwellings and one pair of semi-detached dwellings) with associated landscaping, car parking and access works

DECISION LEVEL : Delegated RECOMMENDATION : Refuse

LPA DECISION : Refuse APPEAL DECISION : Dismissed ------

6 11.

REFERENCE : ENF10/0034 WARD : Cockett

LOCATION : 992 Carmarthen Road, Fforestfach

DEVELOPMENT : Rear dormer extension and raising of ridge of roof

DECISION LEVEL : Delegated

LPA DECISION :

Enforcement action to secure removal of rear dormer and lowering of ridge height of roof

APPEAL DECISION : Dismissed & Enforcement Notice upheld ------

7 ITEM 7

Electoral Division:

All in Area 2

Report of the Head of Economic Regeneration & Planning

Area 2 Planning Committee

Tuesday 30th August 2011

Enforcement Progress Report

1. This report provides Members with information on the number of complaints received and resolved by the Planning Enforcement Team, together with information on Enforcement Notices served, Enforcement Appeals received and Enforcement Notices complied with as it relates to the Area 2 Planning Committee

BACKGROUND PAPERS: Local Government Act 1972, as amended by the Local Authorities (Access to Information) Act, 1985.

None.

Contact Officer: Ian Davies Extension No: 5720 Date of Production: 19.08.11 Document Name: Enf Progress Report – A2

NUMBER OF COMPLAINTS RECEIVED AND RESOLVED 1st April – 30th June 2011

Total number of complaints received all Areas = 255

Number of complaints received in Area 2 = 147

Number of complaints resolved in Area 2 = 76

Summary of Complaints received and resolved 1st January 2011 to 31st March 2011

WARD COMPLAINTS COMPLAINTS COMPLAINTS COMPLAINTS OUTSTANDING 31st RECEIVED RESOLVED OUTSTANDING 30TH MARCH 2011 JUNE 2011 Bishopston 15 5 1 19 Cockett 20 13 8 25 11 5 4 12 Fairwood 8 5 6 7 Gorseinon 10 1 5 6 Gower 70 36 16 90 Gowerton 8 7 4 11 Killay North 3 1 3 1 Killay South 1 2 0 3 Kingsbridge 1 0 1 0 Lower Loughor 0 1 1 0 Mayals 3 2 1 4 Newton 10 16 5 21 Oystermouth 20 15 6 29 Penclawdd 19 4 1 22 Penllergaer 5 2 1 6 Pennard 18 14 4 28 Penyrheol 4 0 0 4 Sketty 17 7 6 18 Upper Loughor 3 3 0 6 West Cross 11 8 3 16

TOTAL 257 147 76 328

2 ENFORCEMENT NOTICES SERVED IN QUARTER

Enf Ref. Ward Location Nature Of Breach Requirements Current Status ENF11/0011 Cockett 44 New Road, Erection of decking in front Remove the Appeal Cockett garden decking and all submitted resulting against materials from enforcement site notice ENF11/0013 Gower Windmill Farm, Erection of marquee Remove the Appeal Oldwalls, marquee and submitted Llanrhidian all associated against material from enforcement site notice ENF11/008 West Cross Beaufort Arms, 1 Erection of marquee Remove the Notice in effect Castle Road, marquee Mumbles ENF11/0015 Newton 49 Southward Demolition of front boundary Re-instate the Appeal Lane, Newton wall without conservation area wall submitted consent against enforcement notice ENF11/0016 Newton 47 Southward Creation of means of access Cease the use Appeal Lane, Newton and associated engineering of the access submitted works and re-instate against the land and enforcement re-construct notice the front wall ENF11/0003 Gorseinon Land adj 58 Cecil Land affecting amenity of Clear the land Notice in effect Road, Gorseinon area of waste materials

3

ENFORCEMENT APPEALS CURRENTLY BEING CONSIDERED IN RELATION TO NOTICES SERVED BEFORE 1ST APRIL 2011

Enf Ref. Ward Location Nature Of Breach Requirements Current Status ENF09/0022 Gower (Land at Fields Change of use of the land Cease the use Notices 2038 and 2839 & from agriculture to land used of the land for appealed. 1229 and 0726 for agriculture and camping. camping Appeal held in Nicholaston Farm, abeyance to Nicholaston allow consideration of planning applications. ENF10/0050 Fairwood Land at Use of land for the siting of Cease the use, Public Inquiry Werganrows Farm, caravans for residential use remove the to be held Fairwood with associated domestic caravans, 13.09.11 structures associated domestic structures and resulting material from site ENF10/0062 Pennard Land adj to The Detached outbuilding Demolish the Appeal held in Garden, Sandy outbuilding abeyance Lane, Pennard ENF10/0069 Gower Field 3876, Port Erection of an agricultural Demolish the Appeal held in Eynon, building building abeyance to allow consideration of amended application for barn (2011/0603).

4 ENFORCEMENT NOTICES RESOLVED

Enf Ref. Ward Location Nature Of Breach Requirements Current Status ENF06/008 Sketty 85 Tycoch Road, Rear first floor extension Remove the first Notice Sketty floor extension complied with. No further action ENF10/0060 Upper 74a Waun Road, Erection of dwellinghouse Erect a privacy Notice Loughor Loughor and detached outbuilding screen on complied with. (non-compliance with balcony, smooth No further approved plans) render the action external surface of all boundary walls and detached outbuilding

5 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